[Senate Hearing 113-675]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-675
REVISITING THE RESTORE ACT:
PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES IN GULF RESTORATION POST-DEEPWATER HORIZON
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 29, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-549 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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 20402-001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK BEGICH, Alaska DAN COATS, Indiana
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN E. WALSH, Montana
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
David Schwietert, Republican Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES,
AND COAST GUARD
MARK BEGICH, Alaska, Chairman MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Ranking
BILL NELSON, Florida Member
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DAN COATS, Indiana
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey TED CRUZ, Texas
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 29, 2014.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Statement of Senator Boxer....................................... 7
Statement of Senator Rubio....................................... 10
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 12
Prepared statement of introduction for Trudy Fisher.......... 13
Witnesses
Hon. Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator from Louisiana.................. 2
Hon. David Vitter, U.S. Senator from Louisiana................... 5
Hon. Bruce H. Andrews, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, U.S.
Department of Commerce......................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Justin R. Ehrenwerth, Executive Director, Gulf Coast Ecosystem
Restoration Council............................................ 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Trudy D. Fisher, Executive Director, Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality.......................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Mimi A. Drew, Former Secretary, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection; and Florida Governor Rick Scott's
Designee to the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council....... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Hon. Grover C. Robinson IV, Commissioner, District 4, Escambia
County; President, Florida Association of Counties; and
Chairman, Florida Gulf Coast Consortium........................ 40
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Thomas E. Kelsch, Senior Vice President, Gulf Environmental
Benefit Fund, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation............ 45
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Appendix
Letter dated August 11, 2014 to Hon. Mark Begich, Hon. Marco
Rubio and Hon. Bill Nelson from Robert B. Gagosian, President
and CEO, Consortium for Ocean Leadership and William Monty
Graham, Board Chairperson, Gulf of Mexico University Research
Collaborative.................................................. 55
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Bruce H. Andrews
by:
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 56
Hon. Marco Rubio............................................. 57
Response to written questions submitted to Justin R. Ehrenwerth
by:
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 57
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 57
Hon. Marco Rubio............................................. 58
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to:
Mimi A. Drew................................................. 59
Thomas E. Kelsch............................................. 60
(II)
REVISITING THE RESTORE ACT:
PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES IN GULF
RESTORATION POST-DEEPWATER HORIZON
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2014
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 10:30 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson,
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Good morning, everybody.
It is hard to believe that it has been 4 years since a
disaster of major proportions.
And the visitation that has occurred prior to the starting
of this hearing--most everybody knows everybody, all those that
are participating today in the audience. And I want to thank
you for what you have done over the years in being concerned. I
want to thank all of the agencies at all levels of government.
Senator Rubio, I am holding my opening statement in
abeyance as a courtesy, if it is OK with you, to our guests.
Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter have asked to speak to the
Committee today, and of course, they are one of the states that
was most impacted by the spill and now the long-term effects
that we are seeing on a daily basis.
I remember I went to visit with two professors at Louisiana
State University who had done--this is about a year after the
spill--research with a little fish that lives in the bays and
bayous that roots around in the sediment. It is called a
killifish. And even after only a year, they were seeing
dramatic changes in the killifish and their offspring as a
result of bays where there was a lot of oil and then the
contrary, in the bays that did not have much oil.
And of course, most of those bays are in the state of
Louisiana where most of the oil went, although the oil went as
far east as some of the tar balls coming up on Panama City
Beach in our state, a good bit of oil that went up on Pensacola
Beach. And they are still finding oil today that is buried way
down deep in the sand on Pensacola Beach. So it has affected a
lot of states.
And of course, you all know the tremendous economic
devastation that occurred because in a state like Senator
Rubio's and mine, that has such a tremendous part of its
economy having to do with tourism, the tourists did not come
because they thought there was oil on the beach when in fact
there was not. And not just in northwest Florida on the sugary
white beaches, but the tourists did not come all the way down
the peninsula of Florida simply because of what they feared.
So we want to welcome everybody here on a most timely
hearing, and I want to recognize first the senior Senator from
Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, who if I can say--and I will take
the personal privilege to say--was the spark plug. I mean, she
did not let up back a few years ago when we passed the RESTORE
Act. Senator Landrieu?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY LANDRIEU,
U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Landrieu. Thank you so much, Senator Nelson and
Senator Rubio, for conducting this really important oversight
meeting--and Senator Boxer as well--on the RESTORE Act, a very
significant piece of legislation that was passed 2 years ago
and needs to be more fully implemented.
But let me begin by saying that the state that Senator
Vitter and I represent has been struggling for decades for
justice and fairness for our coast. It has been my number one
issue since being elected to the Senate to advocate on behalf
of coastal restoration because without it, our state has a
very, very limited and dim economic future.
The coast of Louisiana is the largest section of land in
America that is being eroded. It has the greatest pressures of
any coastal area in the country. We lose--I have lost thousands
of miles literally of land in the last 50 years. It is the
state's and should be our state's number one priority. It is
both an environmental priority and an economic priority, and it
is absolutely essential that we are successful.
So several years ago, I led the effort to secure the only
known or identifiable source of revenue that could come back to
the state to help us restore our coast, which is part of the $9
billion a year that the state generates for the Federal
Treasury from oil and gas resources off of our shore. As you
know, we are one of four states that produce offshore oil and
gas. We have generated over $216 billion for the Federal
Treasury. If Louisiana and the producing Gulf Coast States
could get a portion of that revenue, we could begin to address
our own coastal restoration challenges, which are our
challenges, but this is really America's energy coast. It is
America's wetlands. It is not just Louisiana, as we contribute
hugely to the economic strength of this entire Nation, which is
why we believe it should be a shared responsibility and
partnership.
So I led that effort successfully. We are now receiving
some revenue to come in. But when this accident happened 4
years ago and 11 men lost their lives and a huge platform in
the Gulf, the Macondo platform, blew up with BP and other
operators, I knew that there would be a large penalty to be
paid. And of course, it was Senator Boxer's legislation, the
Clean Water Act, that assesses a strong penalty for violators
that pollute our rivers, our streams, and our oceans.
Well, this was one of the largest, most egregious pollution
events in the history of our country when over 5 million
barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf. Now, we have drilled
40,000 wells in the Gulf, Mr. Chairman, over a long period of
time, and happily and thankfully most of those have gone
without incident. We have very strong environmental rules and
regulations. But there were many defective processes that went
on. The blowout preventer failed and 5 million gallons of oil
spilled, of course, along your shore, which does not do
production, but you have risk, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana.
We believe the bulk of the damage, of course, environmentally
was done to the Louisiana coast, but there was damage done
throughout the coast and significant economic damage to our
state and to yours as well.
So that is why I led the effort to--and with Senator
Vitter's good support and help, we built a broad coalition,
including yourself, of stakeholders, both the stakeholders here
in Washington, Congress, and at the State level and community
and civic leaders to pass the RESTORE Act. As you know, it
became law 2 years ago. Democrats, Republican leaders here in
Congress and across the country came together to support it.
The RESTORE Act was meant to implement quickly for the Gulf
Coast to jump start restoration efforts. While we depend on
revenue sharing as a long-term permanent fix, this could have
jump started our efforts. And the penalty, once it is
determined by the court, is going to be somewhere between $5
billion and $20 billion. I felt like it was the most fair thing
to direct 80 percent of that penalty back to the Gulf where the
accident happened, which is what the RESTORE Act did and
passed.
But it has been more than 2 years since we came together to
pass that Act, and both the Department of Commerce, as Chair of
the Council, and Department of the Treasury have failed in my
view to implement the law the way it was supposed to. These
deadlines have come and gone. The Treasury deadline has been
passed. The Commerce deadline has been passed. And as I said,
since the first deadline passed, Louisiana has lost an
additional 35 square miles of wetlands, roughly the size of
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, with which you and Senator Rubio are
very, very familiar. These deadlines were not arbitrary. They
were meant to be adhered to. The Gulf Coast Restoration Trust
Fund contains more than $600 million. It is not the full
amount, which the courts will ultimately decide, but an early
deposit was made of $600 million. That money needs to be
distributed.
During the last announcement on August 28, Secretary
Pritzker set a goal to have the ecosystem projects selected
within 12 months. August 28, 2014 is fast approaching. Yet, the
Department of Commerce is off track to achieve that goal. I
urge Deputy Secretary Andrews to explain in great detail what
has changed, why these deadlines are being missed. Between all
the previous reports and plans and the public process
associated with them, this should not have been difficult.
And I want to present to this committee for the record--
this is Louisiana's plan. We have had a coastal restoration
plan for over 30 years, not 30 months, 30 years. This plan is
ready to go. It is vetted by environmentalists, by business
leaders, by our recreational and commercial fishermen. This
plan has been signed off on not by one Governor but by six.
Republicans, Democrats, Members of Congress stand behind,
unified this plan. Louisiana is ready to go. We do not want to
delay or wait any longer. If other states do not have their
plans together along the Gulf Coast, well, they may have to
miss the deadline, but Louisiana does not.
So I urge the Department of Commerce to read our plan and
to start funding some of these important projects that were
anticipated as we passed the RESTORE Act.
I know I have gone over my time, but let me just have 1
minute to close.
Moving forward, we must also be sure that the ecosystem
projects ultimately selected are steps toward the
comprehensive, large-scale restoration without regard to
geographic state boundaries. That was what was intended by
Congress particularly for Pot 2. It is particularly important
that the Council adhere to the statutory ecosystem restoration
priorities and not add criteria to this. These responsibilities
fall on the Department of Commerce. They will be testifying
next, and your committee will oversee their work.
In closing, the Department of Commerce and the Department
of the Treasury must make RESTORE a priority. They must stop
failing to meet their deadlines. I am prepared to work with
them in any way that I can. Implementation delays should not
have happened, and they cannot continue. Once the
administration gives the green light to restoring our working
coast, the promise of the RESTORE Act will be realized, the
promise of billions of dollars to Louisiana and our sister
states who share much of the risk--we acknowledge that. We want
them to be made as whole as possible.
But Louisiana's plan is ready to go. There is no doubt that
the Gulf Coast will have a brighter future because of the
RESTORE Act, and with revenue sharing coming online starting
this year and accelerating and increasing over time, we finally
now have the money to fund a plan. We have the will. We have
the plan. We need the partnership from the Federal Government
to fund our projects, to save our coast, to secure our coast
for its future and the economic future of the United States.
Thank you.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, and without objection, your plan
will be entered in the Committee's record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana. 2012.
Louisiana's Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast.
Published by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of
Louisiana, 450 Laurel Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70801 to ``promulgate the
comprehensive master plan, to report to the Louisiana Legislature and
inform Louisiana Citizens under authority of R.S. 49:214.5.3.'' 190
pages.
Here is a link to the plan: http://issuu.com/coastalmasterplan/
docs/coastal_
master_plan-v2?e=3722998/2447530
Check www.coastalmasterplan.la.gov for updates. Contact the Coastal
Protection & Restoration Authority at P.O. Box 44027, Baton Rouge, LA
70804; or [email protected].
Senator Nelson. Senator Vitter?
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Senators and colleagues, very
much for this hearing, even more importantly for all of your
leadership when we passed the RESTORE Act because the three of
you were extremely supportive and involved.
And of course, it was a big win. The Deepwater Horizon
disaster was the biggest environmental disaster in our Nation's
history, a huge impact to the Gulf Coast in particular. So the
RESTORE Act was a big win, dedicating 80 percent of the Clean
Water Act's civil penalties paid by the responsible parties to
restoration and rebuilding.
Understanding the critical need for that--of course, I was
an original cosponsor and worked diligently to get the RESTORE
Act passed through our Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee. I thank the Chairman for her leadership. We passed
it there unanimously in November 2011--unanimous and passionate
support. And then we passed it through the Senate in March of
2012.
Then as a leading Republican conferee on the highway bill,
I continued to make the enactment, the full, final passage and
enactment of the RESTORE Act an absolutely top priority by
insisting that it be included in the final version of that
highway bill.
As you know, no one felt the effects of the Deepwater
Horizon disaster more than the citizens of Louisiana. Our
coastline experienced over 671 miles of oiled shoreline. That
is one and a half times the miles of oiling than experienced by
all other states combined, and besides having that over 60
percent of shoreline oiled, Louisiana also had about 90 percent
of the total oiled marsh and that happens to be the most
sensitive habitat to oiling. So that is a significant impact.
As a result of the spill, our economy, of course, took a
huge hit as well. Our seafood and recreational industries in
particular were devastated. Fortunately the RESTORE Act will
provide the critical funds needed to help ease that real
damage.
Given the importance of the RESTORE Act, I have kept a very
close watch since its passage on the manner of implementation
and have expressed several concerns along the way, which I will
also do today.
I have requested multiple briefings with Treasury regarding
pending regulations, as well as a meeting with the Secretary of
Commerce, Penny Pritzker, to discuss my particular concerns
regarding the Council's process in determining how funds will
be distributed under certain provisions.
We have made progress, but I also want to express some of
those concerns today, four in particular.
Number one, the allocation of funds under Bucket 2 of the
RESTORE Act. I understand the Council has just announced the
process for evaluating and submitting restoration projects
under this component and that the Council members may begin
submitting projects as early as next month with project
evaluation and selection activities taking place later this
fall. Given that these projects will be funded with available
funds from the Transocean settlement and we do not yet know how
much in civil penalties BP will be required to pay, I want to
stress the importance of refraining from nickel and diming
these funds. We want to move quickly. We want to start.
Everybody agrees with that. But we do not want that to turn
into ultra-small projects because of limited resources now. The
funding priority list to be developed by the Council should
primarily contain projects that contribute to the large-scale,
comprehensive Gulf restoration envisioned under Bucket 2.
Point number two. I want to emphasize that the four
priority criteria for Bucket 2 listed in the actual statutory
language should take precedence over the objectives contained
in the comprehensive plan developed by the Council. The Council
should also give priority to projects that address multiple
criteria as opposed to only one.
Point number three. And this also has to do with Bucket 2.
Under the plain language of the RESTORE Act regarding Bucket 2,
funds distributed under Bucket 2, should only be used for
projects that would restore and protect the environment. In
Treasury's proposed rule, however, Treasury has unilaterally
decided to include economic projects as eligible under Bucket
2, and that is contrary to the clear statutory language. I
would urge you all to just literally look at the statutory
language here and the proposed regs. They do not line up. And
that is serious. So in order to avoid unnecessary litigation
that would delay the distribution of much needed funds,
Treasury should resolve this issue before issuing the final
regs.
Point number four. And this has to do with Bucket 3. Bucket
3 will be divided among the states according to a formula to be
established by the Council by regulation based on the weighted
average of three criteria. And they are developing that
formula. In continuing with this process, I want to encourage
the Council to ensure that all of the Council members are fully
engaged in the process and that they give input and also that
the Chair should vote independently and in line with the intent
and language of the statute, not just for whatever the majority
of the states may work out on their own. I think that is very
important.
So those are the four main continuing concerns I wanted to
express.
Of course, Louisiana has a very strong interest in making
sure that the implementation process is conducted in a fair and
transparent model. I know we all support that.
Despite my pending concerns, I would like to commend all
those involved for their hard work and dedication to ensuring
the successful implementation of all parts of the RESTORE Act.
Thank you.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator Vitter.
We understand that in the Treasury's first draft, indeed,
that language is there. It is this Senator's understanding that
they are taking that out, and pursuant to the clear legislative
intent, that seems to be a step in the right direction.
Now, in the interest of time, I am going to forego an
opening statement and will enter it into the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida
It is hard to believe that it has been four years since the worst
man-made environmental disaster in our Nation's history--the explosion
of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform, which resulted in the death of
11 men and over 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled in the Gulf of
Mexico.
One of the highlights of a gridlocked Congress was the RESTORE Act
in 2012. Without the Senator from Louisiana and California in
particular, we might not have gotten across the finish line.
The law directs the bulk, 80 percent, of any Clean Water Act civil
penalties paid as a result of the 2010 oil spill back to the Gulf Coast
States.
Last year, both BP and Transocean settled their criminal cases for
violations of the Clean Water Act with the U.S. Department of Justice.
As a result, over two and half billion dollars will go toward Gulf
restoration projects through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
who is represented at the hearing today.
While we wait for a resolution of the remaining clean water act
fines, it's important that our Federal agencies, states, and counties
are getting prepared if and when there is a resolution to the ongoing
litigation in New Orleans.
My top priorities for restoring the gulf are to ensure that we have
sufficient science guiding ecosystem restoration and that restoration
projects are funded on a much timelier basis than in the last 4 years.
Simply put, the Gulf can't wait.
To me, a restored gulf is one in which clean water is free from
harmful algae blooms and free from tar mats, is home to healthy oyster
reefs and fish habitat and sea grass beds, where charters ferry
tourists from hotels to pristine beaches and then on out to the best
fishing spots around.
In order to get there, some more things need to start happening.
With regard to RESTORE Act implementation, I am pleased the Council
announced on Friday a path forward for funding ecosystem restoration
projects from the available funds from the Transocean settlement.
However, there is much work to be done to get to a funded project
list. I'm interested in learning how the Commerce Department, the
Council members, and other stakeholders view a restored gulf and how
you are working together to ensure this process runs more efficiently.
Since last year's hearing, I know that that National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation has obligated over $260 million to ecosystem
restoration in the Gulf--including funding fisheries assessments in
Florida, which is welcome news to our fisherman.
One of the lessons we learned--and we learned it too late--is that
we do not have sufficient understanding of the gulf ecosystem. Even
now, we do not have a clear picture on the biological status of two-
thirds of the federally managed fish stocks that call the gulf home, so
it is important that some of these fines go toward dedicated, long-term
science about the gulf ecosystem, which is what we envisioned for the
NOAA Science Program.
I'd like to thank today's witnesses and others who have been
working to design plans and projects that will lead to a healthy and
restored Gulf of Mexico. I greatly appreciate the amount of time and
energy you have spent trying to get it right.
Thank you again to our witnesses and especially to Senator
Landrieu, who deserves the highest praises for her work to get this
legislation passed. I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Senator Nelson. Senator Boxer, with Senator Rubio's
concurrence, is here and has to go to another meeting. I want
to recognize her as a member of this committee and again as one
of the leaders in helping see that the RESTORE Act was enacted
into law. Senator Boxer?
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much.
Thanks to my colleagues. Senator Rubio, thank you as well.
I am really directing my remarks to the Honorable Bruce
Andrews and Mr. Justin Ehrenwerth, who are the Federal folks
who are going to be making sure that the implementation of our
RESTORE Act is followed and the intent is followed and there is
no freelancing about what we meant. We knew what we meant. We
worked really hard on this. So where is Justin? Hi, Justin. I
see Bruce there. So this is to you in friendship.
Just over 3 years ago, as Chairman of the Environment and
Public Works, I stood with most members of the Gulf Coast
Senate delegation to announce a far-reaching bipartisan
agreement that would dedicate 80 percent of the Clean Water
Act's civil penalties collected in relation to the BP spill to
activities to restore the Gulf Coast ecosystem and economy. And
I say that very clearly. Two points: restore the ecosystem,
restore the economy. Not one, but two.
I want to thank Senators Landrieu and Vitter and Nelson and
Shelby and others who worked so hard with us to develop a
compromise proposal. As a Senator from California, this was not
affecting my state, but I know when something happens like that
what it does to you. It just takes you back. And we have gone
through earthquakes, floods, fires, and droughts. We continue
to go through those things. And my colleagues always step up to
the plate.
So my approach was let us get these funds where they
deserve to go. Eighty percent back. And I am very pleased that
the RESTORE Act was ultimately incorporated into the conference
agreement on the transportation bill, as Senator Vitter
reminded us, known as MAP-21. That whole transportation bill is
coming back this afternoon, but I will not get into that.
Over 4 years after the BP oil spill, the impacts on the
fish and wildlife of the Gulf region are still being felt.
Things are getting better, for sure. And I just got back from
New Orleans. I was so excited to see the amazing amount of
vitality in New Orleans.
Recent research has shown that dolphins near the spill are
suffering. Scientists have also found an abnormal number of
fish with problems. So we need significant research on the
long-term consequences of the spill.
The RESTORE Act was designed to help ensure that the Gulf's
damaged ecosystem and the thousands of jobs that depend on them
are once again thriving and strong. And we know that small
businesses and their employees have been hit hard in all these
states. And, my colleagues, I know how hard you have all worked
to bring this back, and that is what the RESTORE Act is about,
restoring the ecosystems, restoring the economy.
The Gulf of Mexico and its abundant natural resources are a
great economic asset. We just relearned that the ocean-related
economy, which is something that Senator Nelson always reminds
me, is generating $21 billion in economic activity and supports
over 400,000 jobs. That is the Gulf Coast economy. So the
RESTORE Act is absolutely critical.
And I do have concerns that I want to address to my
colleagues. A legal settlement was reached with Transocean in
February 2013. As a result, there is money sitting in the Gulf
Coast restoration trust fund waiting to be spent. The needs on
the ground are too great for us to wait any longer. The funding
has to go where it is needed most in accordance with our law.
The RESTORE Act set many important milestones, including a
one-year deadline for release of an initial comprehensive plan
to restore and protect the natural resources, the ecosystems,
the fisheries, marine and wildlife habitat, beaches, coastal
wetlands. This plan will guide the Federal, State, and local
efforts to restore the damaged Gulf of Mexico environment.
I am very pleased that the RESTORE Council, Justin,
released an initial comprehensive plan that provides a
framework. It is very important. But I am concerned that the
project-by-project list required by the legislation has not yet
been released despite being more than a year overdue. Folks in
the Gulf Coast region--they need help now. The committee today
is going to hear from our friends that I just mentioned. And I
have to be at another incredibly important hearing on Iran, so
I will not be here, but I am here in spirit. And with my
colleagues, I will hear what you say.
As the administration works to implement the RESTORE Act,
it must strive to faithfully implement the legislation passed
by Congress, including--and this is important--the delicate
balance between restoration of the Gulf Coast ecosystems and
the economy. Now, gentlemen, these two are related. The
beautiful environment in the Gulf Coast and the vibrant economy
go hand in hand. I come from a coastal State. Something happens
to our coast, our economy crashes. People come there for the
beauty.
So I am so proud of our accomplishment in passing the
RESTORE Act. It is over 2 years ago. However, much more needs
to be done. And I am so glad that Senators Landrieu and Vitter
and Wicker and Rubio and Nelson and I are going to make sure
that this really happens. We remain committed to addressing the
devastating impacts of the BP oil spill. We need to get a step
ahead. We do not know how much is going to come in on this, but
it is going to be substantial. If we cannot get our act
together now and we have funds sitting in there now, it does
not bode well for our moving forward quickly.
So for me to you, I stand ready to help. If there is
anything I can do, please call on me. If you have any problems
with what was the intent of the law, we know because we wrote
it. So just do not go off on something that you think is in
there. Talk to us. And again, we will ride herd and we will be
with you as you roll this all out.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for this hearing.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Rubio?
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, could I just underscore 1
minute before Senator Rubio?
Senator Nelson. Of course.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you so much.
Senator Nelson. And if the two of you need to leave, go
ahead.
Senator Landrieu. Yes. I think we are going to leave this
in good hands.
But I want to thank Senator Boxer for her extraordinary
leadership. This would not have happened without her. It went
through the EPW Committee, and without her leadership, the
RESTORE Act would not have happened.
And of course, this committee is now going to play a vital
role in the implementation.
I want to underscore what Senator Vitter said and Senator
Boxer, the law is clear. We debated the issue of pot 2. That
money was expressly and solely directed to ecosystem
restoration. Period. Pot 1 and Pot 3 were negotiated by
Senators for both, for ecosystem and economic, because our
states suffered differently, and that was a negotiation. It is
written in the law as plain as day. So let us follow the law.
Let us meet our deadlines. Let us get this work done.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Nelson. I hope the Treasury Department listens to
this testimony.
Senator Rubio?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Senator Nelson, for holding this
hearing.
And I want to thank the Senators from Louisiana as they go
about their work today. Thank you for being here today and
being a part of this and all the work that went into getting us
to this point.
At the outset, I wanted to say there is another hearing
going on in Foreign Relations where the key negotiators for the
U.S. with Iran are the witnesses. So at some point in the
hearing, when it would be my turn, I am going to run and do
those questions and then come back over.
But I wanted to thank you, Senator Nelson, for holding this
hearing as well.
And I wanted to thank Grover Robinson and Mimi Drew for
being here today. Grover actually interrupted his family
vacation to be here. And to both Mimi and Grover, your
dedication to restoration of Florida's economy and the
ecosystem has not gone unnoticed, and we thank you for all that
you do.
I also, like I said, wanted to thank my Gulf colleagues
from Louisiana and Mississippi and everywhere else for the work
we have done together. Bipartisan support is ultimately what
got the Act enacted in the first place, and that is what it is
going to take to have proper oversight over its implementation.
And today we are holding a very timely hearing on the progress
and the challenges of implementing the RESTORE Act.
I have significant concerns about the progress being made
to date, particularly at the Federal level. I am optimistic
that once a final settlement is reached under the Clean Water
Act, our state and local partners will be ready to move forward
with the several projects that they have waiting in the wings.
And by the way, I am pleased to see a representative of the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation who is here today. The
Foundation has already been working on funding projects through
the Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund, administering
approximately $12.5 billion in funds to projects all across the
region. It will be good to hear of lessons learned in
administering these separate funds in hopes of perfecting the
process overall as we move forward.
However, as I mentioned and you have already mentioned, one
of my biggest concerns is the slow pace of the administration
in meeting--or should I say not meeting--the deadlines that are
prescribed under the law. For example, even settlement money
received to date cannot be expended without a final rule from
the Treasury Department. Under the RESTORE Act, the Department
was directed to establish procedures to expend any money
received within 180 days. So that would have been around
December 2012. However, to date, we still have not received a
final rule from the Department.
And as we will hear today from Grover and from Mimi, this
delay has had some real on-the-ground implication for
stakeholders. In Florida, our counties are impeded from even
moving in the planning process as they do not have the
administrative funds necessary to undertake such a massive
project. The restoration process has many moving parts, several
different funds, and several different administrators of those
funds. Proper planning is going to be key in making sure
spending is not duplicative and that the money is spent in the
most responsible way possible.
Unfortunately, this delay by Treasury has already impeded
the success of restoration. And while I appreciate the Gulf
Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council's announcement on Friday of
last week on their, quote, progress that they have made in
finalizing the approval process for projects submitted to them,
I find their announcement lacking in the detail necessary to
truly provide a clear and straightforward process for
interested parties.
Last, I have two important clarifications to make regarding
the interpretation of the RESTORE Act.
First of all, as we negotiated the Act here in the Senate,
we worked very hard to put forward in the law exactly how we
intended for the money to be spent, both in what projects would
be eligible and by formula how much each state should receive.
I would like to reiterate to the Council and to the
stakeholders here today that both myself--and I think I speak
for Senator Nelson--fully expect that the Council will adhere
to the letter of the law as it was intended. It would be
inappropriate of the Council to reinterpret, for example, the
oil spill impact allocation formula that divides a portion of
the settlement funds between the states.
Additionally, there is one issue in Florida related to both
the economy and the ecology and that is the issue of water
quality. Just this weekend, just today we read reports about
the lasting impact of the dispersants that were used. Trace
elements are still found in tar balls, and we were told that
those things would disperse when they came in contact with
water. But 4 years later, they are still interacting with its
impact, and it is not fully understood the lasting impact that
that would have on our ecology. And you can just imagine these
are not the kinds of things that you brag about in your Chamber
of Commerce pamphlets as tourists are interacting with these
tar balls and there is real concern about its implications.
And already we keep hearing that, well, the long-term
impacts of the dispersants are not complicated or we do not
think they are very dangerous. But already some of the claims
that were made initially before their use have proven not to be
true, and there simply is not enough research or data to tell
people this with a level of certainty that we hear from the
industry and that tragically sometimes government has echoed.
So I think we would all like to better understand from everyone
here today how they value water quality, particularly as it
relates to habitat restoration off the coast of Florida.
Again, I want to thank everyone that is here today coming
to this hearing, and I appreciate you holding this hearing,
Senator Nelson. And I look forward to returning in a few
moments after my line of questioning in Foreign Relations is
up.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
I want to invite the witnesses up.
Senator Wicker, any comments from you before we get into
the testimony?
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Yes, I have comments. I want to subscribe
to much of what you, Mr. Chairman, have said, as well as
Senator Boxer, Senator Rubio, and Senator Landrieu.
I want to take my 2 minutes of opening statement to pay
special tribute to Dr. Trudy Fisher, who will testify, and
perhaps that will shorten the introduction that you have to
make for her.
Dr. Fisher served as Executive Director of the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality for the past 8 years, and
she will soon be leaving that position. She was first appointed
by Governor Haley Barbour, reappointed by Governor Phil Bryant.
She was the first woman to serve as the department's director
and has been instrumental in the aftermath of the BP oil spill.
Dr. Fisher serves as Mississippi's trustee under the Oil
Pollution Act and has served as Chair of the National Resources
Damage Assessment Deepwater Horizon Trustee Council.
In addition, Director Fisher serves as Governor Bryant's
designee on the RESTORE Council where she oversees and helps
implement programs to restore the Gulf Coast.
Before serving as Executive Director, Dr. Fisher led an
environmental law practice, served on the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality as General Counsel for the
Department of Environmental Quality.
She received her bachelors degree from MUW and her law
degree from the University of Mississippi School of Law where
she was Editor-in-Chief of the Mississippi Law Journal. She has
repeatedly been recognized by her peers as one of the best
lawyers in America and recently received a rating of AV
Preeminent, which is the highest possible legal rating in both
ability and ethical standards.
So I am delighted to recognize this daughter of Mississippi
to testify as part of this panel today. Her work has kept our
state clean and safe so future generations of Mississippians
and Americans can continue to enjoy our abundant natural
resources.
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted
to claim Dr. Trudy Fisher as a friend and to welcome the other
five members of our distinguished panel.
[The prepared statement of introduction by Senator Wicker
follows:]
Statement of Introduction for Trudy Fisher by Hon. Roger F. Wicker
Trudy Fisher has served as Executive Director of the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality for the past eight years. She is
first appointed by Governor Haley Barbour in 2007 and was reappointed
by Governor Phil Bryant in 2012.
She was the first woman to serve as the department's director and
has been instrumental in the aftermath of the BP oil spill in 2010.
Trudy serves as Mississippi's Trustee under the Oil Pollution Act and
has served as Chair of the National Resources Damages Assessment's
Deepwater Horizon Trustee Council, which is comprised of the five Gulf
States and the four Federal trustees.
In addition, Trudy serves as Governor Bryant's designee on the
RESTORE Council, where she oversees and helps implement programs to
restore the Gulf Coast.
Before serving as Executive Director, Trudy led an environmental
law practice and served on the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality's general counsel Trudy received her Bachelor of Science degree
from the Mississippi University for Women and her law degree from the
University of Mississippi School of Law.
She has repeatedly been recognized by her peers as one of the best
lawyers in America and recently received a rating of ``AV Preeminent,''
which is the highest possible legal rating in both ability and ethical
standards.
During her time as Executive Director of the Mississippi Department
of Environmental Quality, Trudy managed a staff of over 400 employees
and a budget of over $250 million. She is responsible for protecting
Mississippi's environment and she administers most EPA programs in our
state. After Hurricane Katrina, the agency, under Trudy's leadership,
implemented a $640 million wastewater and water infrastructure program
for the Gulf Coast region.
Her work has kept our state clean and safe so future generations of
Mississippians can continue to enjoy our abundant natural resources. We
greatly appreciate Trudy's service to Mississippi and wish her well in
her future endeavors. Thank you.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator.
Welcome. We are going to hear first from Bruce Andrews, who
is the Deputy Secretary of Commerce. He is well known to us as
the former General Counsel for this committee and Chief of
Staff of this committee. And he was just confirmed to this
position very recently, within the last few days.
Then we are going to hear from Justin Ehrenwerth, the
Executive Director of the RESTORE Council. Welcome.
As Senator Wicker has already introduced, Trudy Fisher,
Executive Director of Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality.
And then Mimi Drew, the Governor's Designee to the RESTORE
Council representing our state, the State of Florida.
And then Grover Robinson, Commissioner Robinson, the County
Commissioner of Escambia County, which is Pensacola. And he is
the new President of the Florida Association of Counties and
was someone who helped us personally pass the RESTORE Act a
couple of years ago.
I think what you have heard some of the Senators say that
this was almost a miraculous kind of coming together of the
politics that enabled us just before an election to pass this
historic piece of legislation. And it was tacked onto a
transportation bill. The whole RESTORE Act was put on as an
amendment, and it has made its way through.
And then finally, we are going to hear from Thomas Kelsch,
the Senior Vice President of the Gulf Environmental Benefit
Fund, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
And so we welcome you all and we will take you--now, we are
putting your formal statement in the record. If I can forego my
formal statement, so can you. So do not sit there and read us
your statement. Talk to us and limit it to about 5 minutes.
Mr. Andrews?
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE H. ANDREWS,
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF COMMERCE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Andrews. Good morning, Senator Nelson, and thank you.
Good morning also, other members of the Committee. Thank you
for inviting me here today to testify regarding Gulf Coast
restoration. It is good to be back at the Commerce Committee.
It sort of feels like being home.
Mr. Chairman, I want to personally thank you for holding
this hearing and for what a great champion you have been for
Gulf Coast restoration. I know how important this is to your
state and you have spoken quite passionately about it.
The Department of Commerce and the administration are
strongly committed to restoring the Gulf Coast region, a region
that is vital to our Nation and our economy.
In response to the oil spill and building on our prior
efforts, there are several large-scale initiatives that have
begun, including the work under the RESTORE Act, which I know
we want to talk about predominantly today, but also the NRDA
process and the work through the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation. The Department of Commerce, along with our partners
in both the Federal and State government, are playing an
important role in each of these initiatives. We are working
with our partners to advance the common goals and advance the
goals of the legislation, trying to avoid the duplication of
these various efforts and maximize the benefits that inure to
the Gulf Coast region.
Our goal and our commitment is simply to address the damage
caused by the spill but also to enhance the long-term
environmental health and economic prosperity of the region.
While each of these efforts is important, I want to focus
today on the RESTORE Act, especially because the previous
speakers were so focused on its implementation. And as you
know, the Council is by design a unique State-Federal
partnership that fosters deliberative decisionmaking. It brings
together the skills and expertise of all of the parties and
frankly the variety of perspectives. However, with 11 members,
there are a number of diverse views and sometimes competing
interests which, under that, decisionmaking can sometimes take
time. Yet, we recognize that it is imperative for the Council
to continue to move forward with all deliberate speed and
concerted effort to achieve this critical mission, and under
the Department's leadership, the Council has achieved
significant progress in setting a foundation to restore the
Gulf Coast for future generations.
Most of the Council's efforts to date have been undertaken
leveraging the existing resources and the personnel both from
the Council members and from outside sources. And in the fall
of 2013, the Council was able to access a small amount of the
initial funding to begin hiring core staff and put basic
operations in place. Although the Council is still
administratively housed in the Department of Commerce, we hope
to have it established as an operational entity by the end of
this fiscal year, which I think is an important milestone in
moving all of this forward.
In August 2013, after extensive public input, the Council
unanimously passed the Initial Comprehensive Plan, which is
another important milestone because it helped set a framework
and build the necessary process for both the project evaluation
and selection under the plan. The evaluation process provides a
merit-based selection of projects with also transparency for
everybody involved to see. It allows for independent science
review, which is critically important. It provides for
coordination at the project level with all these various
efforts, how important that is. And it gives the highest
priority--and I want to underscore this because I know this was
mentioned this morning. It gives the highest priority to
projects that meet one of more of the evaluation criteria that
were included in the law.
The Council has developed project submission guidelines and
anticipates releasing those guidelines in August, which is an
important milestone in moving all of this forward because that
will allow us to establish and publish a draft funded
priorities list for public comment and then for final action.
Finally, the Council has begun a two-part rulemaking to
implement the oil spill impact formula component, which also
has been mentioned here this morning. In the next 2 months, the
Council anticipates releasing the interim final rule that will
allow accessing up to 5 percent of the Bucket 3 funds to both
states and the Florida counties, recognizing how important that
is for the process moving forward. And concurrently, the
Council is developing a proposed rule and guidelines that will
implement the oil spill impact formula. This two-part approach
will allow us to access the funds that will allow the planning
process to go forward but also allow the states to develop the
State expenditure plans in a fair and transparent rulemaking
process.
So in conclusion, it has been 4 years since the Deepwater
Horizon spill. Much progress is made, but we also recognize
that there is a lot to be done. And the Department of Commerce,
through our roles in various pieces of the restoration process,
is committed to continuing the work with the citizens of the
Gulf Coast to both make smart investments and use available
resources to wisely restore the region's ecosystem and economy
for future generations.
So I appreciate the Committee's time, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce H. Andrews, Deputy Secretary,
U.S. Department of Commerce
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Rubio, and Members of
the Committee. Thank you for inviting the Department of Commerce to
testify before you today on the successes and challenges in restoring
the Gulf Coast region's environment and economy following the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill.
The Administration is strongly committed to restoring the Gulf
Coast region, and I want to thank you for being a champion of Gulf
restoration. The Gulf Coast region is vital to our Nation and our
economy, providing valuable energy resources, abundant seafood,
extraordinary beaches and recreational activities, and a rich cultural
heritage. Over twenty-two million Americans live in Gulf coastal
counties and parishes--working in important U.S. industries like
commercial seafood, shipping, tourism, and oil and gas production. The
region also boasts ten of America's fifteen largest ports accounting
for nearly a trillion dollars in trade each year. Its waters and coasts
are home to one of the most diverse environments in the world--
including over 15,000 species of sea life. Over the past century, the
Gulf Coast has experienced the loss of critical wetland habitats,
erosion of barrier islands, imperiled fisheries, and water quality
degradation. Amplifying these issues, the region has endured
significant natural and man-made catastrophes in the last decade,
including major hurricanes such as Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike, and
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
In response to the oil spill, and building on prior efforts to help
ensure the long-term restoration and recovery of the Gulf Coast region,
several large scale restoration initiatives have begun, including work
under the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist
Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of
2012 (RESTORE Act); the Natural Resources Damage Assessment process;
and projects through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. While
each process is subject to different requirements for investing
resources and each is overseen and managed by a unique set of
governance arrangements, funding from all of these efforts will be
directed to Gulf restoration. These efforts are at different stages of
maturity and implementation. As a practical matter, the total amount of
funding that ultimately will be available for restoration under the
RESTORE Act and the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process and the
timing of those funds is still unknown.
The Department of Commerce, along with our state and Federal
partners, plays an important role in each of these initiatives. We
understand the importance of and are committed to coordination across
these Gulf restoration initiatives and will work closely with our
partners to advance common goals, reduce duplication, and maximize the
benefits to the Gulf Coast region. We recognize this unique and
unprecedented opportunity to implement a coordinated Gulf region-wide
restoration effort in a way that restores and protects the Gulf Coast
environment, reinvigorates local economies, and creates jobs in the
Gulf region. Our goal and commitment is not simply to address the
damage caused by the spill--it is to enhance the long term
environmental health and economic prosperity of the Gulf Coast region
for generations.
The RESTORE Act
The RESTORE Act was passed by Congress on June 29, 2012, and signed
into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012. The RESTORE Act provides
for planning and resources for a regional approach to the long-term
health of the valuable natural ecosystems and economy of the Gulf Coast
region. The RESTORE Act dedicates 80 percent of any civil and
administrative penalties paid under the Clean Water Act, after the date
of enactment, by responsible parties in connection with the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill to the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (the Trust
Fund) for ecosystem restoration, economic recovery, and tourism
promotion in the Gulf Coast region. The RESTORE Act divides the Trust
Fund into five components and sets parameters for how these funds will
be spent:
35 percent of the funds are divided equally among the five
Gulf Coast states for ecological and economic restoration.
Eligible activities include: restoration and protection of
natural resources; mitigation of damage to natural resources;
workforce development and job creation; improvements to state
parks; infrastructure projects, including ports; coastal flood
protection; and, promotion of tourism and Gulf seafood.
30 percent of the funds will be administered for restoration
and protection according to the Comprehensive Plan developed by
the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council).
30 percent of the funds are dedicated to the Gulf Coast
states based on the Oil Spill Impact Formula set out in the
RESTORE Act. This formula will be based on the number of miles
of shoreline that experienced oiling, the distance from the
Deepwater Horizon mobile drilling unit at the time of the
explosion, and the average population as of the 2010 Census.
Each state is required to have a Council-approved plan in place
for use of these funds.
2.5 percent of the funds are dedicated to the Gulf Coast
Ecosystem Restoration Science, Observation, Monitoring and
Technology Program. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) will establish a Gulf Coast Ecosystem
Restoration, Science, Observation, Monitoring and Technology
Program for marine and estuarine research, ecosystem monitoring
and ocean observation, data collection and stock assessments,
and cooperative research.
2.5 percent of the funds are dedicated to the Centers of
Excellence Research Grants Program. The Centers of Excellence
Research Grants funding is distributed through the states to
nongovernmental entities to establish centers of excellence
that will focus on the following disciplines: coastal and
deltaic sustainability; restoration and protection; fisheries
and wildlife ecosystem research and monitoring; offshore energy
development; sustainable and resilient growth; and
comprehensive observation, monitoring and mapping in the Gulf.
In addition, interest generated from the funds in the Trust Fund is
allocated among the NOAA Science Program, the Centers of Excellence,
and Council implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Department of Commerce plays a key leadership role in
implementation of the RESTORE Act. The Secretary of Commerce serves as
a member and is honored to serve as the Chairperson of the Council. In
this role, the Department has brought together a diverse range of
expertise and experience from across our bureaus, including NOAA's
expertise in science-based natural resource restoration, the Economic
Development Administration's expertise in sustainable economic
development, and International Trade Administration's expertise in
travel and tourism promotion, to help implement the integrated approach
to Gulf restoration envisioned by the RESTORE Act. In addition, the
Department of Commerce through NOAA is responsible for establishing and
implementing the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration, Science,
Observation, Monitoring and Technology Program.
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council
The RESTORE Act established the Council to help restore the
ecosystem and economy of the Gulf Coast region by developing and
overseeing implementation of a Comprehensive Plan and carrying out
other responsibilities. The Council is comprised of the Governors of
the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas and
the Secretaries of the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Army,
Homeland Security and the Interior, and the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The Council has oversight over the
expenditure of sixty percent of the funds made available from the Trust
Fund: thirty percent will be administered for restoration and
protection according to the Comprehensive Plan developed by the Council
and thirty percent will be allocated to the states according to a
formula set forth in the RESTORE Act and spent according to individual
state expenditure plans to contribute to the overall economic and
ecological recovery of the Gulf. The state expenditure plans will be
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and
are subject to the Council's approval. The Council will oversee and
implement this funding with the goal of a coordinated federal, state,
and local long-term recovery approach.
The Council is committed to working with Gulf communities and
partners to invest in actions, projects, and programs that will ensure
the long-term environmental health and economic prosperity of the Gulf
Coast region. To guide these investments, the Council has adopted five
overarching goals:
Restore and Conserve Habitat;
Restore Water Quality;
Replenish and Protect Living Coastal and Marine Resources;
Enhance Community Resilience; and,
Restore and Revitalize the Gulf Economy.
Implementation--Progress and Challenges
The Council is by design a unique state-federal partnership that
fosters deliberative decision-making, allows for the coordinated use of
the expertise of its members, and provides a mechanism to maximize the
opportunity for collaboration and ultimate success. One of the
Council's strengths is its ability to bring together each state and
Federal agency's capabilities and expertise; however, with eleven
members with diverse views, and sometimes competing interests,
decision-making requires cooperative effort and can take time.
Nonetheless, the Council and its members continue to proceed with
deliberate speed and concerted effort to meet key milestones and
achieve common goals.
The Department of Commerce recognizes that it is imperative that
the Council move forward efficiently to achieve its critical mission.
Under the Department's leadership, the Council has made significant
progress in setting up a strong foundation to restore the Gulf coast.
During the first year, the Council established basic processes;
assembled a transition staff; developed and published a proposed
Comprehensive Plan; developed and published an Initial Comprehensive
Plan and accompanying environmental compliance documents; hosted public
listening sessions in all five Gulf Coast states with over 2,000
individuals in attendance; and hired key management positions,
including an Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer. Since the
Comprehensive Plan was approved in late August 2013, the Council has
taken important steps to implement the Comprehensive Plan and fund
projects under the Plan. During the past year, the Council also has
worked on developing a regulation for the Oil Spill Impact Formula
Component and is preparing to review and fund projects under state
expenditure plans.
Standing up a New Independent Entity in the Federal Government
One of the major challenges of standing up the new independent
entity has been the lack of dedicated resources. Most of the Council's
efforts to date have been undertaken by leveraging existing resources
and personnel from Council members and outside sources. The Department
of Commerce has dedicated significant Departmental resources to help
the Council in this start-up period. We have contributed both personnel
and basic support services to the Council, including human resources,
IT, payroll, legal and contracting. While awaiting the Treasury
regulations, the Department of Commerce worked with the Department of
Treasury and the Council to make initial funding accessible to the
Council to begin hiring core staff, put basic operations in place, and
to make further progress on implementation. This Fiscal Year, the
Council continued to focus on building operational capacity,
establishing institutional procedures and infrastructure, and
implementing key milestones to enable it to be prepared to begin
selecting and funding projects. Justin Ehrenwerth, the Council's
Executive Director, will go into more detail about this. The Council is
still administratively housed within the Department with the goal of
establishing an operationally independent Federal entity by the end of
this Fiscal Year. To that end, the Council has begun recruiting for key
staff positions and selecting a more permanent office in the Gulf
region.
Developing a Comprehensive Plan and Funded Priorities List Under the
Plan
After extensive public input, the Council unanimously approved the
Initial Comprehensive Plan on August 28, 2013. This major
accomplishment provides a framework to implement a coordinated, Gulf
Coast region-wide restoration effort in a way that restores, protects,
and revitalizes the Gulf Coast. The Council deferred developing a
Funded Priorities List and Ten-Year Funding Strategy (i.e., a
description of the allocation of the amounts from the Trust Fund
projected to be made available to the Council to implement the Plan for
the next ten years). Over the past several months, the Council has
built the necessary steps to operationalize the project selection and
vetting process described in the Comprehensive Plan. This project
selection and vetting process provides for a merit-based selection of
projects to achieve comprehensive ecosystem restoration. It
incorporates an independent peer review evaluation to ensure projects
are grounded in science, provides for coordination at a project level
with other restoration efforts, and gives the highest priority to
projects that meet one or more of the evaluation criteria enumerated in
the law. The Council also developed project submission guidelines. The
Council anticipates releasing the project submission guidelines and
beginning review of the submissions in August. Using this process, the
Council will develop the draft Funded Priorities List. The Council will
publish the draft list for public review and comment before finalizing
the list and incorporating it into the Plan. It should be noted that
the Council faces the challenge of making strategic funding decisions
that will achieve comprehensive Gulf-wide restoration without knowing
the total amount of money that will be available.
Progress on Implementing Oil Spill Impact Formula Component
The Council has begun a two-part rulemaking to implement the Oil
Spill Impact Formula Component. The first part will take the form of an
interim final rule that would provide access to the states and Florida
counties of up to 5 percent of funds for planning. The Council
anticipates releasing this rule in the next two months. Concurrently,
the Council is developing a proposed rule and guidelines that will
implement the oil spill impact formula. The proposed rule will be
published for public notice and comment. This approach will allow
access to funds to develop a state expenditure plan while providing a
fair and transparent rulemaking process.
RESTORE Act Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Science, Observation,
Monitoring, and Technology Program
In addition to the Department's work within the Council, another
key element of the Department's efforts to implement the RESTORE Act is
the responsibility to establish a Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration
Science, Observation, Monitoring, and Technology Program (NOAA RESTORE
Act Science Program or the Program). In January 2013, NOAA established
this Program. The Program will receive 2.5 percent of the funds, plus
25 percent of the interest, from the Trust Fund.
To develop the Program, NOAA worked diligently with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and with key stakeholders including the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (FMC), the Gulf States Marine
Fisheries Commission (Commission), the five Gulf states, Federal
partners, academic institutions, non-profit organizations and other
entities across the Gulf region. The Program seeks to achieve a
holistic understanding of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and support, to
the maximum extent practicable, restoration efforts and the long-term
sustainability of the ecosystem, including its fish stocks, habitats,
and fishing industries.
Program Engagement and Coordination
To be successful, the NOAA RESTORE Act Science Program must harness
the expertise of the scientific community in the Gulf of Mexico and
beyond, and link it to the region's pressing science needs. An
engagement process that connects researchers, resource managers, and
resource users and allows their collective knowledge to inform the
Program's direction is required. NOAA, working with its USFWS partners,
initiated this engagement process early in the program development
phase and has continued it as it moves to early stages of
implementation. NOAA and USFWS have already held over 100 meetings with
stakeholders including representatives from the Commission, the FMC,
universities, Federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations.
These meetings shaped the Program's current framework and continued
engagement is shaping the development of the Program's science plan.
It is important to keep in mind that this Program is one of several
recently created research programs focused on increasing our
understanding of the Gulf of Mexico. Others include the Gulf Research
Program at the National Academies, the Gulf of Mexico Research
Initiative, and the State Centers of Excellence also authorized in the
RESTORE Act. These programs will add their activities to the existing
Federal and other research programs already active in the Gulf of
Mexico. NOAA is actively engaging and coordinating with these other new
initiatives, as well as with existing research programs.
Program Organization and Next Steps
The Program is housed within the National Ocean Service's National
Center for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS). NCCOS's experience running
grant programs focused on pressing coastal and ocean issues, its
experience working in the Gulf of Mexico, and its demonstrated ability
to transfer the results of researchers to resource managers make it a
logical home for the Program. An Executive Oversight Board internal to
NOAA and the USFWS will keep the program connected to the other
research programs within NOAA and the USFWS. An Advisory Working Group
established under NOAA's Science Advisory Board and comprised of
subject matter experts as well as representatives of various Gulf of
Mexico science programs including the Commission, FMC, and RESTORE Act
Centers of Excellence will keep the Program connected to the larger
science community. A Gulf-based director for the Program will keep the
Program grounded in the region.
The Program currently is developing a science plan that will guide
program implementation and anticipates releasing the draft plan for
public comment by Fall 2014. In addition to providing additional detail
on the structure and administration of the Program, the science plan
will lay out the science priorities for the Program, the connection of
those priorities to management needs, and the expected outputs and
outcomes that will result from the activities competitively funded
under each priority. The priorities are being drawn from prior science
and research needs assessments for the Gulf of Mexico and from input
the Program received from stakeholder engagement. Once finalized, the
science plan will guide the development of the competitive Federal
funding opportunities the Program will support.
Early in the development of the Program, it became apparent that
there was a pressing need to provide support for short-term projects
whose results would inform the future direction of the Program, as well
as the other science and restoration initiatives underway or being
planned for the region. As a result, the Program has developed an
initial Federal funding opportunity around the short-term priorities
identified in the Program's science plan framework. Those short-term
priorities are:
Comprehensive inventory and assessment (i.e., strengths and
weaknesses) of ongoing ecosystem modeling efforts (conceptual
and quantitative);
Identification of currently available health/condition
indicators of Gulf of Mexico ecosystem components, including
humans, followed by comparative analysis of strengths and
weaknesses and design and testing of additional indicators;
and,
Assessment of monitoring and observation needs and
development of recommendations to build off existing assets to
establish a Gulf wide monitoring and observation network.
This opportunity will be available once the Treasury regulations
are in effect. The NOAA RESTORE Science Program represents an
opportunity and capacity to help integrate the disparate science
efforts across the Gulf and advance overall understanding of the Gulf
of Mexico as an integrated ecosystem. The Program will contribute to
the science needed for the long-term sustainability of the Gulf of
Mexico ecosystem, including its fisheries, and help inform restoration
and management efforts.
The Department of Commerce's Natural Resources Damage Assessment Role
Another important Gulf restoration effort is the Natural Resources
Damage Assessment (NRDA) process. The Department of Commerce,
represented by NOAA, has a critical role under the Oil Spill Pollution
Act (OPA) serving as a natural resource trustee. NOAA, along with its
co-trustees, is charged under the Act with conducting a Natural
Resource Damage Assessment to assess the natural resources and the
damage to them caused by the oil spill and the response, as well as the
value of the lost use of those resources until they are restored. This
is an injury to the public, and the public availability of those
resources, and is in addition to any individual injury caused by the
spill. The OPA requires the Trustees to use the damage assessment as
the basis for developing a restoration plan with public review and
input. The Trustees then present the restoration plan to responsible
parties (primarily BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BP)) for
funding, and either BP agrees to fund it or the Trustees file it with
the Court as a claim for litigation. The essence of the process is to
identify and quantify the injury to resources caused by the spill,
determine the type and amount of restoration needed to restore the
resources to their pre-spill state or provide equivalent alternative
resources, and compensate for their interim lost use. Inherent in this
process is the need to assess the injuries to natural resources that
are caused by the oil spill itself, as well as those caused by actions
carried out as part of the oil spill response. For restoration, OPA
requires the trustees to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the
equivalent of the injured natural resources and services and in doing
so there must be a nexus between the types and magnitude of the injury
and the restoration.
In general, stewardship of the Nation's natural resources is shared
among several Federal agencies, states, and federally recognized
tribes. NOAA, acting on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, is the
lead Federal trustee for many of the Nation's Federal coastal and
marine resources.
The Deepwater Horizon NRDA Trustees (NRDA Trustees) are, in
addition to NOAA, the trustee agencies from the States of Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas; and the U.S. Department of
the Interior (DOI), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These nine entities (five
states and four Federal agencies) have formed a Trustee Council that
has worked cooperatively since shortly after the Deepwater Horizon
spill to assess compensable injuries caused by the spill, and to
develop a restoration plan to restore affected Gulf resources,
compensate for lost uses including lost human uses, and to implement
those plans. We note that two of the Federal agencies--EPA and USDA--
were added by Executive Order in September, 2012, and have joined the
cooperative efforts since that time.
NRDA regulations explicitly seek participation in the assessment
and restoration planning by responsible parties and the NRDA Trustees
to facilitate the restoration of natural resources and their services
injured or lost by oil spills. The nature and extent of participation
in restoration planning is left to the discretion of the NRDA Trustees.
OPA also encourages compensation of injured natural resources in the
form of restoration, with public involvement in determining the types
and magnitude of the restoration. Indeed, public involvement is an
important component of the OPA and of the National Environment Policy
Act Environmental Impact Statement processes that work together to
inform decisions about restoration plan development and implementation.
Assessing injury to natural resources in this context is
challenging. Understanding complex ecosystems, the services these
ecosystems provide, and the injuries caused by the release of oil and
the response takes time--often years. The time of year the resource was
injured, the type and source of oil, the amount and duration of the
release, the location, and the nature and extent of clean-up are among
the many diverse factors that affect how quickly injury to resources
can be assessed, and restoration and recovery planning and
implementation can occur. The OPA requires that trustees be able to
demonstrate connections between the release of the oil, exposure of the
resources to the oil, and, finally, a causal connection between
exposure and resource injury. Exposure and its effects on the resource
can be direct and/or indirect. For example, the health of a dolphin
might be adversely affected by being directly exposed to the oil in the
water. It may also be exposed and affected indirectly by eating prey
that becomes contaminated by the oil.
In addition, because the NRDA forms the basis for a restoration
plan that may be litigated, an especially careful level of scientific
rigor is required for the studies that are to demonstrate these
connections in order to ensure that our studies will be accepted by a
court as evidence in the case. For all of these reasons, the assessment
and the restoration plan based on it may take a numbe r of years to
complete and even more time to implement. For example, the implementati
on of the restoration plan for the Exxon Valdez oil spill that occurred
in 1989 is still ongoing. The NRDA process requires an objective,
scientifically rigorous, and cost-effective assessment of injuries--and
development of a restoration plan with public input that assures that
harm to the public's resources is fully addressed.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment Early Restoration
In April 2011, the NRDA Trustees announced an agreement under which
BP would provide $1 billion toward implementation of early restoration
projects. This agreement is called the Framework Agreement for Early
Restoration Addressing Injuries Resulting from the Deepwater Horizon
Oil Spill (Framework Agreement). A separate agreement among the NRDA
Trustees allocated that $1 billion as follows: the five state trustees,
DOI, and NOAA are each allocated $100 million for funding early
restoration projects pertaining to injury to their primary trust
resources. The remaining $300 million is to be used to fund additional
state-proposed restoration projects as selected by NOAA and DOI. All
projects must be approved by the NRDA Trustee Council and are subject
to BP approval through its agreement to stipulations that all Trustees
sign and BP agrees to. The Framework Agreement represents an initial
step toward fulfilling BP's obligation to fund the complete restoration
of injured natural resources and compensate for lost use of those
resources.
The NRDA Trustees' key objective in pursuing early restoration is
to achieve tangible recovery of natural resources and natural resource
services for the public's benefit while the longer-term injury and
damage assessment and restoration plan development is under way. As
with the more complete assessment and restoration planning process, a
restoration plan with opportunity for public input must accompany early
project selection.
Phase I and Phase II Early Restoration
The first early restoration plan, the Phase I Early Restoration
Plan & Environmental Assessment (Phase I ERP/EA), was presented for
public review and comment in December 2011 and finalized by the NRDA
Trustees in April 2012. The eight projects included in the Phase I ERP/
EA are now being implemented and collectively will provide marsh
creation, coastal dune habitat improvements, near-shore artificial reef
creation, and oyster cultch restoration, as well as the construction
and enhancement of boat ramps to compensate for lost recreational use
of resources. The total estimated cost for the Phase I ERP/EA is $62
million.
The NRDA Trustees presented the Phase II Early Restoration Plan &
Environmental Review (Phase II ERP/ER) for public review and comment in
November 2012 and finalized it in December 2012. The Phase II ERP/ER
projects, of which there are two, will help restore nesting habitats
for beach-nesting birds and sea turtles harmed as a result of spill
response activities. The total estimated cost for these two projects is
$9 million. Implementation of both of these projects has begun and, for
some project components, construction is in progress.
Phase III Early Restoration
To initiate the third phase of early restoration, the NRDA Trustees
in December 2013 released a draft plan that proposed more than $600
million in new restoration projects across the Gulf states. The Draft
Programmatic and Phase III Early Restoration Plan and Draft Early
Restoration Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft Phase
III ERP/PEIS) were available for public review and comment through Feb.
19, 2014. The NRDA Trustees held a total of nine public meetings across
the Gulf Coast during this public comment period to spur public
engagement, and also accepted comments on the draft plan via numerous
other avenues, including the Trustees' website, e-mail, and U.S. Mail.
In June 2014, the Federal natural resource trustee agencies and the
state natural resource trustee agencies from Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, and Mississippi released the Final Programmatic and Phase
III Early Restoration Plan and Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (Final Phase III ERP/PEIS) and associated environmental
analyses to the public. The plan outlines 44 proposed projects totaling
an estimated $627 million. Projects focused on ecological restoration
represent 63 percent of the total dollar amount of projects, while the
remaining 37 percent focus on restoring lost recreation uses of natural
resources. The Plan also identifies a preferred programmatic strategy
for early restoration actions. This programmatic strategy may also
serve as the base document from which to tier subsequent environmental
compliance evaluation for future early restoration plans. More
information is available at www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov.
Final decisions on both the programmatic early restoration plan
alternatives and each of the 44 projects will be documented in a final
record of decision. The record of decision for the Final Phase III ERP/
PEIS will provide and explain the NRDA Trustees' decisions regarding
the selection of a programmatic early restoration alternative and
specific early restoration projects. The NRDA Trustees will issue the
record of decision no earlier than 30 days after the Environmental
Protection Agency publishes a notice in the Federal Register, which
occurred on June 27, 2014, announcing the availability of the Final
Phase III ERP/PEIS.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation-Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund
In early 2013, a U.S. District Court approved two plea agreements
resolving certain criminal cases against BP and Transocean which arose
from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. The agreements
direct a total of $2.544 billion to the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF) to fund projects benefiting the natural resources of
the Gulf Coast that were impacted by the spill. Pursuant to the plea
agreements, NFWF is required to consult with natural resource
management agencies, including NOAA and USFWS, on the identification
and prioritization of appropriate projects for Gulf of Mexico
restoration.
Over the next five years, NFWF's Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund
will receive a total of $1.272 billion for barrier island and river
diversion projects in Louisiana, $356 million each for natural resource
projects in Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi, and $203 million for
similar projects in Texas.
Conclusion
It has been four years since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Much
progress has been made, and there is still much to be done. The
Department of Commerce, through our roles in all of these large Gulf
restoration efforts, is committed to continuing to work with the
citizens of the Gulf Coast to make smart investments and use available
resources wisely to restore the region's ecosystem and economy.
Although the Council faces challenges implementing portions of the
RESTORE Act, the Department is committed to ensuring that this Council
continues to work with deliberate speed and focused effort to help
restore the Gulf Coast region's environment and economy.
Thank you again, Chairman Nelson and Members of the Committee, for
the opportunity to discuss the Department of Commerce's role in Gulf of
Mexico restoration. I appreciate the Committee's time and attention,
welcome any questions, and look forward to working with you further on
this important effort.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Andrews.
Mr. Ehrenwerth?
STATEMENT OF JUSTIN R. EHRENWERTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GULF
COAST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION COUNCIL
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Good morning, Chairman Nelson, Senator
Wicker, and members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak with you today about the Council's work
for its implementation of the RESTORE Act and our restoration
mission.
In the same spirit of cooperation and collaboration that
Congress exhibited in the passage of the RESTORE Act, Council
members are working together to create a foundation for
collaborative work that will allow us to efficiently and
effectively fund large-scale ecosystem restoration across the
Gulf.
While this has taken more time than the Council members
anticipated, we believe that we have had some time well spent
and this initial investment of time and resources will result
in a more efficient, responsible, and successful organization.
Due to the ongoing litigation against BP and some of the
other responsible parties, there remains tremendous uncertainty
about the amount and ultimate timing of funding that will be
available for our work. The Council recognizes the need to
continue to move forward in getting project implementation
underway while taking the time to get this right.
We applaud Congress for creating the Council as an
independent entity in the Federal Government. In so doing,
Congress provided the opportunity for this Council to leverage
the tremendous expertise of the five Gulf Coast States and the
six Federal agencies which are just invaluable resources that
will facilitate sound and inclusive restoration decisions.
While the Council remains administratively housed in the
Department of Commerce, as Deputy Secretary Andrews said, we
expect to be fully independent by the end of this fiscal year.
And indeed, over the past year, we have taken a number of steps
on the very complex road of establishing a new independent
entity in the Government, which are more fully described in my
written testimony.
One of the Council's primary responsibilities was to
develop a comprehensive plan to restore the ecosystem and
economy of the Gulf, a plan that we did issue in August of
2013. Due to the uncertainty in the amount and timing of funds
that will be available, as well as the fact that the states
could not finish their own planning efforts without guidance
from the comprehensive plan, our initial plan did not include a
list of projects to be funded. I am very pleased to report
today that the Council has finalized the selection process of
this element of our work. The selection process will allow the
Council to invest early in specific actions that will be
carried out in the near term with known funding. The process
will ensure that the Council honors the requirements of the
Act, that our decisions are made on the best available science,
and that we carry out our work in a transparent and inclusive
fashion.
The Council anticipates soliciting project submissions from
its members next month and have a draft list of projects
published for public review in 2015.
While the Council will select and fund ecosystem
restoration projects according to our comprehensive plan, spill
impact component funds will be invested in projects and
programs identified in State expenditure plans. In recognition
of the need to provide funding for planning and development of
these state plans, I am very pleased to report today that the
Council will publish an interim final rule this summer that
will allow the states and counties in Florida to access funds
for planning purposes. Concurrently, the Council will continue
to move forward with publishing a draft regulation that
addresses the additional requirements of the spill impact
component, including an impact allocation formula. The Council
is committed to working collaboratively to address these
complex issues involved with this aspect of our mission.
Our Council continues to closely coordinate our restoration
activities with so many of our key partners, including the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the NRDA Trustee
Council, States, Federal agencies, tribes, and so many other
entities working in the region. We are actively engaged at many
levels to coordinate so that we advance common goals, avoid
duplication, and maximize the benefits to the Gulf Coast
region. While we all represent different organizations with
varied missions, we are all committed to the collective
restoration of the Gulf.
Four years after the unprecedented disaster in the Gulf and
2 years after the passage of the RESTORE Act and thanks to the
leadership, foresight, and cooperation of a bipartisan
Congress, we are poised to chart a new future for the natural
resources, economy, and communities of the Gulf. More than
process, more than any individual project, this effort is about
ensuring that the people and wildlife who call the Gulf home
can do so for many generations to come. We take our charge to
move forward quickly and efficiently very seriously. The
Council appreciates this Committee's support of our efforts and
for the opportunity to share our progress with you.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehrenwerth follows:]
Prepared Statement of Justin R. Ehrenwerth, Executive Director,
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council
Good morning Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Rubio, and Members of
the Committee. My name is Justin Ehrenwerth and I am the Executive
Director of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council). I
appreciate the opportunity today to speak to the Committee about the
Council's work towards implementation of the RESTORE Act and
comprehensive restoration of the Gulf of Mexico region.
My comments today will focus on the Council's progress to date on
implementation of the RESTORE Act. The Council recognizes the
incredible opportunity the RESTORE Act represents for the Gulf of
Mexico and the imperative that we get this right. In the two years
since passage of the Act, the Council has worked to develop the
foundational steps necessary to stand up and administer an independent
Federal entity whose charge will be to select and fund restoration
projects in the Gulf region. While this has taken more time than
Council members anticipated, we believe it is time well spent and will
result in a more efficient, responsible and successful organization.
With the RESTORE Act, Congress brought together the five impacted
Gulf Coast states with six Federal agencies, creating an independent
entity with an unprecedented amount of restoration expertise and
knowledge. In the same spirit of cooperation and collaboration that
Congress exhibited in the passage of the Act itself, Council members
are working together to create a foundation for collaborative work that
will allow us to efficiently and responsibly fund and implement large-
scale restoration projects across the Gulf, the likes of which the
region has not seen.
The Gulf region is vital to our Nation and our economy, providing
valuable natural resources, abundant seafood, extraordinary beaches,
recreational activities and a rich cultural heritage. Its waters and
coast are home to one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world,
including over 15,000 species of sea life. Over twenty two million
Americans live in Gulf coastal communities. Despite this richness, the
health of the region's ecosystem has been significantly impacted over
the last several decades. The Gulf Coast region has experienced loss of
critical wetland habitats, erosion of barrier islands and other coastal
areas, imperiled fisheries, water quality degradation and significant
coastal land loss due to the alteration of hydrology, other human
activities, and natural forces.
Against this backdrop of both abundance and decline, the explosion
of the Deepwater Horizon rig on April 20, 2010 cost eleven men their
lives and set into motion one of the largest man-made disasters in our
Nation's history. While thousands of people worked to stop the flow of
oil from the wellhead and protect our shorelines, wildlife and coastal
communities, we also looked to the future. We understood that an event
of this magnitude would take the collective thinking and cooperation of
the entire region to ensure that the Gulf recovered.
Two years after the passage of the RESTORE Act, and four years
after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, the Council is well-
positioned to begin the process of selecting restoration projects in
the next several months. The Council has made significant progress
toward finalizing the activities and processes required to lay a solid
foundation for large-scale restoration in the future.
There are a number of challenges the Council must address in
executing its mission. Due to the ongoing litigation against BP and
other responsible parties, there remains tremendous uncertainty
regarding the ultimate amount of funding that will be available for
restoration projects as well as the timing of its availability. The
Council recognizes the need to move forward in getting project
implementation underway while at the same time planning for a future
that is still uncertain. Indeed, the Council must consistently balance
the urgency to move forward quickly and efficiently with the need to
take the time to get this right. That said, the foundational steps are
now almost complete and will serve to expedite our ability to fund
projects from both the Comprehensive Plan and Spill Impact Components
once Trust Funds become available.
Overview of the RESTORE Act and the Council
Passed in 2012, the RESTORE Act envisions a regional approach to
restoring the long-term health of the valuable natural ecosystems and
economy of the Gulf Coast region. The RESTORE Act dedicates eighty
percent of any civil and administrative penalties paid under the Clean
Water Act, after July 6, 2012, by responsible parties in connection
with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to the Gulf Coast Restoration
Trust Fund (the Trust Fund) for ecosystem restoration, economic
recovery, and tourism promotion in the Gulf Coast region.
In addition to establishing the Trust Fund, the RESTORE Act
establishes the Council as an independent entity in the Federal
Government. The Council is charged with helping to restore the
ecosystem and economy of the Gulf Coast region by developing and
overseeing implementation of a Comprehensive Plan and carrying out
other responsibilities. The Council is currently chaired by the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Council has oversight over the expenditure of sixty percent of
the funds made available from the Trust Fund. Thirty percent will be
administered for restoration and protection according to the
Comprehensive Plan developed by the Council. The other thirty percent
will be allocated to the States according to a formula established by
the Council by regulation and spent according to individual State
Expenditure Plans to contribute to the overall economic and ecological
recovery of the Gulf.
Administrative Establishment of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration
Council
The Council applauds Congress for creating the Council as an
independent entity in the Federal Government.\1\ In so doing, Congress
provided the opportunity to leverage the tremendous expertise of the
five Gulf States as well as that of six agencies in the Executive
Branch--invaluable resources that will facilitate sound and inclusive
restoration decisions and inform the manner in which we go about a task
as large and complex as the comprehensive restoration of the Gulf of
Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``ESTABLISHMENT.--There is established as an independent entity
in the Federal Government a council to be known as the `Gulf Coast
Ecosystem Restoration Council' '' 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2)(C)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Council remains administratively housed in Department of
Commerce, we expect to be fully independent from Commerce by the end of
FY14. Indeed, over the past year, the Council has taken many steps on
the complex road of establishing a new, independent entity in the
Federal Government. For example, the Council has been established as an
independent entity with the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S.
Treasury Department, the Office of Personnel Management and the General
Services Administration. The Council also executed Memoranda of
Understanding (MOU) with Treasury for access to administrative and
programmatic funds in order to support start-up operations and to begin
hiring staff. The Council has established a number of internal and
financial controls as well as core operating systems including
accounting, human resources, procurement, website hosting and travel.
The Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer/Director of
Administration have been in place since mid-2013. Additional core staff
capacity has been made possible by details and temporary personnel
assignments from member agencies and others. Though organizational
independence is beneficial, there are challenges associated with
standing up any new independent Federal agency. The Council has worked
to overcome the budget challenges of starting operations from the
ground-up by relying on our member states and agencies.
The Council members recognize the great task ahead of them, and as
the members have worked together to advance a complicated and critical
restoration mission, the Council has evolved and strong relationships
have been established.
Council-Selected Restoration Component
One of the Council's primary responsibilities is to develop a
Comprehensive Plan to restore the ecosystem and economy of the Gulf
Coast region. The Council approved an Initial Comprehensive Plan (Plan)
in August 2013 that outlines overarching goals for restoring and
protecting the natural resources of the Gulf.
To develop the Plan, the Council carefully reviewed the findings
and recommendations of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
Strategy (Strategy). The Council also reviewed numerous existing local,
regional, state, and Federal plans to inform the development of the
Plan. The Council initiated a robust public engagement process to
receive input from diverse voices from across the region. The Council
hosted fourteen public meetings with over 2,300 attendees; over 41,000
public comments on the Draft Initial Comprehensive Plan and
accompanying Programmatic Environmental Assessment were received. These
comments were considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into the
Initial Comprehensive Plan.
Building on the strong foundation established in the Task Force
Strategy and other local, regional, state, and Federal plans, the
Council is taking an integrated and coordinated approach to Gulf Coast
restoration. This approach strives to both restore the Gulf Coast
region's environment and, at the same time, revitalize the region's
economy because the Council recognizes that ecosystem restoration
investments may also improve economic prosperity and quality of life.
In addition, this approach acknowledges that coordinated action with
other partners is important to successfully restore and sustain the
health of the Gulf Coast region. This coordination is particularly
important because diverse funding sources and decision-making bodies
are simultaneously investing in Gulf Coast restoration.
To provide the overarching framework for an integrated and
coordinated approach for region-wide Gulf Coast restoration and to help
guide the collective actions at the local, state, tribal and Federal
levels, the Council has adopted five goals:
(1) Restore and Conserve Habitat--Restore and conserve the health,
diversity, and resilience of key coastal, estuarine, and marine
habitats.
(2) Restore Water Quality--Restore and protect water quality of the
Gulf Coast region's fresh, estuarine, and marine waters.
(3) Replenish and Protect Living Coastal and Marine Resources--
Restore and protect healthy, diverse, and sustainable living
coastal and marine resources.
(4) Enhance Community Resilience--Build upon and sustain communities
with capacity to adapt to short-and long-term changes.
(5) Restore and Revitalize the Gulf Economy--Enhance the
sustainability and resiliency of the Gulf economy.
The fifth goal focuses on reviving and supporting a sustainable
Gulf economy to ensure that those expenditures by the Gulf Coast States
authorized in other sections of the RESTORE Act, such as the Direct
Component and the Spill Impact Component, can be considered in the
context of comprehensive restoration. To achieve all five goals, the
Council will support ecosystem restoration that can enhance local
communities by giving people desirable places to live, work, and play,
while creating opportunities for new and existing businesses of all
sizes, especially those dependent on natural resources. In addition,
the Council will support ecosystem restoration that has the added
benefit of building local workforce capacity.
The RESTORE Act requires creation of a ``Funded Priorities List''
(FPL) that indicates which projects and programs the Council intends to
fund. The Initial Plan did not include this list for several reasons,
including the uncertainty regarding ultimate availability of funding,
and the fact that states could not begin planning efforts for their
State Expenditure Plans without the guidance from the Comprehensive
Plan. For all of these reasons, the Council purposely deferred
developing the Ten-Year Funding Strategy and FPL.
I am pleased to report that earlier this month, the Council
finalized a proposal submission and evaluation process to select
projects for inclusion on a forthcoming FPL, which will be included as
an addendum to the Initial Comprehensive Plan. This FPL addendum will
contain projects and programs that will be funded with available
Transocean Deepwater Inc. funds. Future amendments to this FPL and the
process by which projects are selected for inclusion will evolve over
time as new information becomes available, adaptive management
activities occur, and as funding uncertainties are resolved. The
Council anticipates that once the full amount ultimately to be paid
into the Trust Fund is known, future amendments to the FPL will include
significantly larger projects and project lists that reflect the full
amount available to be spent for restoration activities.
This approach will allow the Council to invest early in specific
actions, projects and programs that can be carried out in the near-term
with known funding to provide on-the-ground results while maintaining a
focus on the long-term recovery of the Gulf Coast.
The RESTORE Act outlines several requirements the Council must
consider when selecting projects to fund, including that projects must
utilize best available science, and that the Council prioritize
projects that meet one or more of the four priority criteria outlined
in the Act. This process will ensure that projects that receive funding
meet the statutory requirements of the RESTORE Act, will have a
positive impact on the natural resources of the Gulf, and will provide
a level of transparency and assurance that projects were chosen using
the application of consistent and objective criteria.
The Council developed a rigorous proposal submission and evaluation
process that:
1. Ensures that projects to be funded meet both statutory
requirements and commitments the Council made in the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Provides for external scientific review of project proposals to
maintain objectivity and ensure that statutory requirements for
use of best available science are met.
3. Promotes project submissions that emphasize:
a. How a project is foundational in the sense that the project
forms the initial core steps in addressing a significant
ecosystem issue so that future projects can be tiered to
substantially increase the benefits;
b. How a project will be sustainable over time;
c. Why a project is likely to succeed; and
d. How a project benefits the human community where
implementation occurs.
4. Proposes a project focus area of Habitat and Water Quality for
the first addendum to the Plan to allow Council members to
submit for consideration projects that address common ecosystem
priorities and to find synergies among projects and across
jurisdictional boundaries.
5. Ensures that all applicable environmental compliance requirements
are addressed.
While the Council will more formally discuss this process with the
public in the coming weeks and months, this process was developed to
ensure that projects comply with the requirements of the RESTORE Act.
It also provides Council members the project-specific context they need
to ensure that the activities chosen for funding can be expected to
have a synergistic and significant positive impact.
After projects are vetted, the Council will publish for public
review and comment a Draft FPL, which will identify the projects and
programs the Council intends to prioritize for funding. The Council
will carefully review public comments, make any appropriate changes,
and finalize the FPL. Once finalized, the FPL will serve as the basis
for allocating funds currently available under the Comprehensive Plan
Component through grants to the five Gulf Coast States and Interagency
Agreements with Federal Agencies.
The Council anticipates soliciting project submissions from its
members in August 2014, with a draft FPL published in 2015.
Spill Impact Component
While the Council will select and fund projects and programs to
restore the ecosystem with Council-Selected Restoration Component
funds, the Spill Impact Component funds will be invested in projects,
programs, and activities identified in approved State Expenditure Plans
(SEP). The RESTORE Act allocates 30 percent of the Trust Fund to the
Gulf Coast States under a formula established by the Council by
regulation and spent according to individual SEPs. Each Gulf Coast
State will develop an SEP describing how it will disburse the amounts
allocated under the Spill Impact Component. These projects, programs,
and activities will be implemented through grants to the States in a
manner that is consistent with the requirements of the RESTORE Act as
well as the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
The RESTORE Act provides the scope of activities eligible for
funding under the Spill Impact Component. As described in the Act,
these activities can include:
Restoration and protection of the natural resources,
ecosystems, fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches,
and coastal wetlands of the Gulf Coast region.
Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, and natural
resources.
Implementation of a federally approved marine, coastal, or
comprehensive conservation management plan, including fisheries
monitoring.
Workforce development and job creation.
Improvements to or on State parks located in coastal areas
affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Infrastructure projects benefitting the economy or ecosystem
resources, including port infrastructure.
Coastal flood protection and related infrastructure.
Planning assistance.
Administrative costs of complying with the Act.
Promotion of tourism in the Gulf Coast region, including
recreational fishing.
Promotion of the consumption of seafood harvested from the
Gulf Coast region.
Once an SEP is approved by the Council, grants will be awarded to
the State, in accordance with a formula developed by the Council as
directed by the Act, for specific projects, programs, and activities
identified in the SEP.\2\ Because the ultimate size of the Trust Fund
is unknown at this time, a State may submit periodic addenda to its SEP
in order to request additional disbursements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Council approval of a SEP is signified by the certification by
a State member of the Council that the plan satisfies all requirements
in (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(B), when joined with an affirmative
vote of the Council Chair. 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2)(C)(vi)(III)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council is developing a draft regulation for public comment
which adheres to the structure of the Act. In recognition of the need
to provide funding for planning and the development of SEPs, I am
pleased to report that the Council plans to publish an Interim Final
Rule this summer that will allow states to access funds for planning
purposes. Concurrently, the Council will move forward with publishing a
draft regulation that addresses the additional requirements for the
Spill Impact Component, including the finalization of the impact
allocation formula. These complex decisions take time and involve
several levels of coordination at both the state and Council levels.
The Council is committed to working collaboratively on these issues. We
are confident that we are nearing resolution of any outstanding
questions regarding the Impact Allocation Formula and will keep you
apprised of the Council's progress.
The publication of an Interim Final Rule to allow access to funding
for planning will be particularly helpful to the State of Florida. The
Council applauds Florida's Gulf Consortium on its progress in
establishing a new public entity among Florida's 23 Gulf Coast Counties
in order to draft Florida's SEP. The Council understands the importance
of these funds to the Consortium's critical planning efforts.
Environmental Compliance and Effectiveness
Projects and programs to be funded by the RESTORE Council will need
to comply with a range of existing legal, regulatory, and policy
requirements. Depending on the type of activity to be funded, the
Council and its members may need to address laws such as the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Water Act, and Endangered
Species Act, among others. The Council is currently developing policies
and procedures to efficiently and effectively address these
requirements.
Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the
Council is required to establish procedures for complying with NEPA.
The Council is currently developing these NEPA procedures in a
collaborative process, involving input from all Federal and state
members. One of the overarching goals of the Council's procedures will
be to ensure that NEPA and other potentially applicable regulatory
requirements are addressed as expeditiously as possible. Among other
efficiency practices, the Council's NEPA procedures will encourage
robust interagency coordination and collaboration. The Council's NEPA
procedures will also seek to avoid potential redundancy and
inefficiency by encouraging concurrent and unified processes when
addressing a range of regulatory requirements. The Council intends to
publish its draft NEPA procedures for public review in 2014.
The Council fully recognizes the public interest in expeditious
implementation of Gulf ecosystem restoration projects and programs.
Being comprised of state and Federal agencies, including those with
jurisdiction over major environmental laws and regulations, the Council
is in a unique and advantageous position with respect to interagency
coordination and collaboration. The Council intends to leverage this
broad membership with the goal of becoming a model of efficiency and
interagency coordination on regulatory matters.
Coordination with Our Restoration Partners
The Council will work to coordinate our restoration activities with
those of our key partners. While the Council does not have direct
involvement in the activities undertaken by the states or local
governments through the Act's Direct Component, the Council will
strive, as appropriate, to coordinate its work with those activities.
In addition, the Council will actively coordinate with the Gulf Coast
Ecosystem Restoration Science Program and the Centers of Excellence
Research Grants Program.
The Council recognizes that there are other partners critical to
restoring and sustaining the health of the Gulf Coast region. The
Council will coordinate with states, Federal agencies, tribes, and
other entities working in the Gulf Coast region to achieve common
goals, create regulatory efficiencies, and collectively work towards an
integrated vision for comprehensive restoration. Additionally, the
Council will coordinate with other intergovernmental bodies and Gulf
Coast restoration initiatives to ensure that efforts are complementary
and mutually beneficial.
Specifically, the Council recognizes similar work resulting from
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill undertaken by the Natural Resource
Damage Assessment (NRDA) Trustees, the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund (NAWCF). A brief overview of
these efforts is provided below.
The Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment
Trustees are assessing injury to natural resources and the
services they provide, as well as the lost use of such
resources, resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in
the Gulf and the Gulf Coast States. Damages for natural
resource injury will include the cost of restoring,
rehabilitating, replacing, or acquiring the equivalent of the
injured natural resources; the diminution in value of those
natural resources pending restoration; and the reasonable cost
of assessing those injuries as a result of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill. The Trustees are using a public process to
select and implement restoration projects.
NFWF was established by Congress in 1984. NFWF will receive
over $2.5 billion throughout the next five years from the
Transocean (January 2013) and BP (November 2012) criminal plea
agreements with the United States. NFWF has stated that these
funds will be used ``to support projects that remedy harm to
natural resources (habitats, species) where there has been
injury to, or destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of those
resources resulting from the oil spill.''
The NAS received $500 million from the Transocean and BP
criminal plea agreements. These funds are to be used for human
health and environmental protection, including oil spill
prevention and response in the Gulf region.
The NAWCF received $100 million from the BP criminal plea
agreement for wetlands restoration, conservation, and projects
benefiting migratory birds.
The Council will work with its partners to advance common goals,
avoid duplication, and maximize the benefits to the Gulf Coast region.
Conclusion
Four years after the unprecedented disaster in the Gulf, two years
after passage of the RESTORE Act, and thanks to the leadership,
foresight and cooperation of a bipartisan Congress, we are poised to
chart a new future for the natural resources, economy and communities
of the Gulf Coast region. The Council is committed to the success of
this effort in the long-term; more than process, more than any
individual project, this effort is about ensuring that the people and
wildlife who call the Gulf home can continue to do so for generations
to come. We take our charge to move forward quickly and responsibly
very seriously. The Council appreciates this Committee's support of our
early efforts and for the opportunity to share our progress with you.
Senator Nelson. Thank you.
Ms. Fisher, tell us about Mississippi.
STATEMENT OF TRUDY D. FISHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Ms. Fisher. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Wicker, thank you for your opening comments. Good morning.
My comments are going to be made in context to the
testimony of the first two gentlemen and the rest of the
esteemed panelists sitting here with me this morning. I want to
take us back and kind of put things in context of where we were
in April 2010. And no one at that time could have predicted the
enormity of the Federal and State resources which would be
devoted to response and restoration after the spill. I
seriously doubt that any of us conceived then just how long and
tedious the path ahead would be. While our Gulf residents are a
hardy and resilient cohort, the largest manmade disaster in
U.S. history, the spill, came as the region was still
struggling to complete recovery from the largest natural
disaster in U.S. history, Hurricane Katrina.
Our experience in these early days of April 2010 taught us
lessons which are as important today as they were then. First
and foremost, virtually every endeavor since the spill occurred
has been unprecedented, complex, and unique. The three
restoration funding streams are no different. Now, I want to
take a moment just to highlight these and the accomplishments
to date.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment process. That process
weaves together the largest trustee council ever assembled
after any oil spill since the passage of the Oil Pollution Act.
It brings to the table five diverse states and four Federal
agencies. NRDA also marks the very first use of the early
restoration model where we got a down payment on injury to the
Gulf. We stand poised to commit over $600 million to projects
in the Gulf of Mexico. And this progress has been done, has
been accomplished while the trustee council is shouldering the
most complex natural resource damage assessment in history.
Distinguished by its decided long-term injuries that are in
nature, this assessment will create both policy and practice
which has never existed before as we learn more about the
important issues of long-term exposure, aggregate impacts, and
synergistic effects. I fully believe that we will all look back
at this time and it will reveal gains in scientific method far
beyond what we could have imagined in 2010.
RESTORE Act. With its passage 2 years after the spill, the
RESTORE Act entered the restoration funding arena as a bold,
new model for assuring that restoration would be Gulf-driven,
that the tangible benefits would be visible on the ground in
all five Gulf States. As a state representative, I view the
RESTORE Act as an innovative Congressional statement on the
importance of the five Gulf States in the thinking, the
planning, and the doing which will result in restoring the
Gulf. But it too is the first of its kind, bringing together
five states and, in this case, six Federal agencies.
As an independent Federal entity, there has been a lot of
infrastructure work required to actualize the RESTORE Council.
You have received a report on a lot of that work today. I am
sure that every member of the Council and every member of our
staff, just as you, wish we could move faster, and we wish we
had projects to share with you today. That said, I often have
to remind myself that we just have a small portion of the
funding which is likely to come to the RESTORE Act through the
Clean Water Act penalties.
But we stand here before you today poised to pull the
trigger, poised to pull the trigger on the release of RESTORE
funding to projects and planning efforts. We are going to have
to coordinate our efforts as a Council, continue to
collaborate, and make decisions. We must press ourselves to
come to closure on a number of decisions which are within our
grasp. We have worked mightily as Federal and State
partnerships to get to the base camp below the summit of
RESTORE. If we do not redouble our efforts now and exert that
last burst of energy to get us across the finish line, shame on
us. As a State representative, I am comfortable that we have
all worked hard to date and that our discussion has been a rich
one. However, it is time to quit talking and start acting. Mr.
Chairman, if we sit here before you again next year and we have
not fielded suites of projects under all three RESTORE buckets,
none of us should be satisfied and you should not be satisfied
with us.
As you, we remain anxious to see the final Treasury
regulations which control all of the uses of the RESTORE
dollars. We are energized and stand ready to allocate
Mississippi's allotment under the RESTORE Act.
Mr. Kelsch is going to be talking about the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation, but those monies have been launched
with great gusto and is in its second round of annualized
funding. In Mississippi, we are focusing--you talked about
water quality and coastal streams and improving a habitat. We
also received a $3.6 million grant from the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, representing 1 percent of the total money
that we will ultimately receive, to ensure that our National
Fish and Wildlife funds are maximized.
What we do in Mississippi and the other teams is leverage
the dollars. How are we going to leverage RESTORE, the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the NRDA process?
And also, I would like to remind us, lest we forget, that
the results that we have been talking about to get to where we
are today have all been accomplished atop the backdrop of
complex, multiple legal proceedings by the Federal Government
and the Gulf States to hold one of the richest companies in the
world accountable for its actions in the Gulf of Mexico.
In the face of this panoply of historic factors, we have
all had to learn to see things differently and to do things
different. In Mississippi, our team coalesces around a duet of
guiding principles in our work on restoration. It is really
simple. Our watchwords are to get it right and to conduct
business as unusual. Getting it right means taking the
necessary time to consider and resolve important issues and
questions, most of which have never been addressed before or
have never been addressed on this scale. The energy we all
share for tangible results--the energy in this room for
tangible results must always be tempered with overriding goal
of getting things right through a science-based, transparent,
collaborative approach. ``Right'' in this context means
decisions based on the law, based on science, and made in the
full context of the concerns and expectations of our public,
our NGO's, our tribes, and our local and State elected and
appointed officials.
Senator Nelson. Ms. Fisher, I need you to wrap up.
Ms. Fisher. Yes, sir.
In summary, are we as far along as we wish we were in the
RESTORE process? Absolutely not. But we are proud of the
hundreds of millions of dollars in projects which are either
directly on the ground or are targeted for over the next 5
years through two of the funding streams. We understand the
Gulf of Mexico and its sensitive ecosystem better than we ever
have. We understand each other on the RESTORE Council and the
other councils better than we ever have, having spent literally
thousands of hours together working together. We are confident
that prompt execution of the RESTORE Council's near decisional
agenda is going to result in a flow of projects to the Gulf.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing and for the
hearing we had last year. Yours and the Committee's active
involvement is a powerful meter of accountability to the
RESTORE Council and for the work that is going on in the Gulf
of Mexico. Your continued inquiry is one of our most powerful
tools in ensuring that we harvest all that you intended through
the RESTORE Act.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fisher follows:]
Prepared Statement of Trudy D. Fisher, Executive Director,
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Good morning Senators Nelson and Wicker, and members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
State of Mississippi on environmental restoration following the 2010
Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the progress and challenges in
implementing the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist
Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast Act of 2012
(RESTORE Act).
My name is Trudy D. Fisher and I have served as the Executive
Director of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality for
over seven years. Our agency is responsible for state environmental
programs as well as most of the Federal environmental programs
delegated to the states by the Environmental Protection Agency. In
addition, MDEQ serves as a ``first responder'' for man-made and natural
disasters. As Executive Director, I serve as Mississippi's Trustee
under the Oil Pollution Act. Our emergency response to the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill and responsibilities as a Trustee and Trustee agency
began very shortly after April 20, 2010. Since that time, I have been
actively engaged in the Natural Resources Damages Assessment (NRDA)
process on behalf of the State, through the NRDA Deepwater Horizon
Trustee Council comprised of the five Gulf states and the four Federal
trustees. I also serve as Governor Phil Bryant's designee on the
RESTORE Council and MDEQ is the lead agency for coordination of monies
flowing through court decrees, including the sums administered by the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's (NFWF) Gulf Environmental
Benefit Fund.
My comments are in context to the other thoughtful perspectives you
will hear today as you have assembled stakeholders from around the
table we all share in restoring the Gulf. The Restore Council's
Executive Director, Justin Ehrenworth and Deputy Secretary of Commerce
Bruce Andrews have both spoken to the structure work which has occurred
since your last briefing as well as the map for near term progress on
RESTORE. Rather, I will focus on Mississippi's perspective on the
overall journey to Gulf restoration across the multiple funding lanes
which have materialized since the spill. I will also speak directly to
some of the challenges we have faced as well as the significant
progress I believe we have made and the gains I see in our near future.
In April 2010, no one could have predicted the enormity of Federal
and state resources which would be devoted to response and restoration
after the spill. I seriously doubt that any of us conceived then how
long and tedious the path ahead would be. While Gulf residents are a
hearty and resilient cohort, the largest manmade disaster in U.S.
history, the spill, came as the region was still struggling to complete
recovery from the largest natural disaster in U.S. history, Hurricane
Katrina.
Our experience in the early days after the spill taught us lessons
which are as important today as they were then. First and foremost,
virtually every endeavor since the spill has been unprecedented,
complex, and unique. The three restoration funding streams are no
different. I will take a moment to highlight each.
NRDA weaves together the largest Trustee Council ever assembled
after an oil spill, bringing to one table five diverse states and four
Federal agencies. NRDA also marks the first use of the ``early
restoration'' model, whereby the NRDA Trustee Council has managed to
commit over $600 million to projects while at the same time shouldering
the most complex natural resource damage assessment in history.
Distinguished by its decided long term injury nature, this assessment
will create both policy and practice which has never existed before as
we learn more about the important issues of long term exposure,
aggregate impacts, and synergistic effects. I fully believe that we
will all look back at this time and it will reveal gains in scientific
method far beyond what we could have imagined in 2010.
In the case of Mississippi, we have secured (or will soon secure)
over $60 million in early restoration projects and are on course to
securing additional projects should exhaust close to our state's full
share of early restoration. Those projects include artificial reed
enhancement, oyster reef restoration, projects to restore human use
losses and other projects designed to restore habitat. Each of these
projects is wholly ecological in purpose.
With its passage two years post spill, the RESTORE Act entered the
restoration funding arena as a bold new model for assuring that
restoration would be Gulf driven and that the tangible benefits would
be visible on the ground in all five Gulf states. As a state
representative, I view the RESTORE Act as an innovative Congressional
statement on the importance of the five Gulf states in the thinking,
planning, and actions which will restore the Gulf. But, it too is the
first of its kind, bringing together five states and six Federal
agencies. As an independent Federal entity, there has been much
infrastructure work required to actualize RESTORE. You have received a
report on that work today and I will not recount the numerous steps
which have been taken. I am sure that every member of the Council and
every member of our staff wish we could move faster and wish we had
projects to share with you today. That said, I often have to remind
myself that we presently have only a small portion of the funding which
is likely to come through a final future resolution of the Clean Water
Act penalties which fuel RESTORE.
We come before you today poised to pull the trigger on the release
of RESTORE funding to projects and planning efforts. We are going to
have to coordinate our efforts as a Council, collaborate and make
decisions. We must press ourselves to come to closure on a number of
decisions which are within our grasp. We have worked mightily as a
federal/state partnership to get to the base camp below the summit of
RESTORE. If we don't redouble our efforts now and exert that last burst
of energy, shame on us. As a state representative, I am comfortable
that we have all worked hard to date and that our discussion has been a
rich one. However, it is time to quit talking and start acting. If we
sit here before you again next year and we have not fielded suites of
projects under all three RESTORE buckets, none of us should be
satisfied. And you should not be satisfied with us.
We remain anxious to see the final Treasury regulations which
control all of the uses of RESTORE dollars. We are energized and eager
to apply for RESTORE funds out of the shared portion of funds and we
are poised to thoughtfully spend Mississippi's allotment from both the
direct component and the Oil Spill Allocation Fund. The potential
release of planning dollars through the interim final rule described by
other witnesses today will be vital to all five states in charting a
comprehensive map for maximum use of the RESTORE dollars.
Mississippi has also made great strides in the use of funds
directed to the states as a part of the consent decree which resolved
criminal charges against BP and Transocean. The Gulf Environmental
Benefit Fund, created by NFWF to administer over $2 billion to the
states over a five year period has launched with great gusto and is in
its second round of annualized funding. Mississippi has used funding to
date to improve streams in all three of our coastal counties, provide
improved habitat for birds in more than twenty locations, and to
restore and improve the State of Mississippi's system of Coastal
preserves. Our state is excited about the projected announcement of
Round Two projects later this year and we expect to field a robust
suite of restoration activities from that round. We also recently
received a $3.6 million grant from NFWF (approximately one percent of
the overall NFWF dollars allocated to Mississippi) to create an
integrated, coast wide, restoration plan that will guide the path
forward for using the balance of our state's $356 million share of NFWF
funds.
Lest any of us forget, results since 2010 have all been
accomplished atop the backdrop of complex multiple legal proceedings by
the Federal Government and the states to hold one of the world's
richest companies accountable for their actions in the Gulf of Mexico.
In the face of this panoply of historic factors, we have all had to
learn to see things differently and to do different things. In
Mississippi, our team has coalesced around a duet of guiding principles
in our work on restoration. Though profoundly simple, our watchwords
are to ``get it right'' and to conduct ``business as unusual''. Getting
it right means taking the necessary time to consider and resolve
important issues and questions, most of which have never been addressed
before or have never been addressed in an effort of this scale. The
energy we all share for tangible results must be tempered with the
overriding goal of ``getting things right'' through a science based,
transparent, collaborative approach. ``Right'' in this context means
decisions based on the law, based on science, and made in the full
context of the concerns and expectations of our public, NGOs, Tribes,
state and Federal elected and appointed officials.
A second compelling component in getting this effort right is our
willingness to adopt a ``business as unusual'' business model. We must
be prepared to make expedited decisions to make progress. As one of our
Federal partners has observed in many of our meetings, ``we cannot
afford to let great be the enemy of good.'' While many of the questions
which face us in this effort are unique and of first impression, we
must wrestle with them, apply our best thinking, and move forward.
While all of our decisions must be based upon law and best available
science, we must find practical answers to the questions of
restoration, make decisions, and move forward. As we say on the
Mississippi team, we have to remember to play offense in every setting.
We cannot afford to focus on undue effort to over define the challenges
or to become trapped in negative thinking or ``getting to no'' in our
decision making. Every member of our team is expected to bring his or
her best game to the table every day. Our citizens rightly expect this
level of commitment and hard work and we will not deliver the results
each of you envisioned from the RESTORE act without this mindset.
We only have one chance to get this right and those of us
privileged to represent our fellow citizens in this effort bear a
fiduciary duty to those back at home to turn our discussions into
projects. Coordination and collaboration among the Gulf states and
Federal agencies are essential to any degree of success we have, as is
the will to seek solutions which serve our common good. Through both
the NRDA process and the RESTORE Council, strong bonds of shared
understanding and effort have been formed and strengthened. Many of us
have spent literally thousands of hours together in the last four
years. I cannot overestimate the importance of this shared experience.
It has fostered greater understanding across geopolitical boundaries,
promoted a more holistic view of the Gulf, and created an
interdependent path to restoration. Like all joint endeavors, things
work best when everyone has common goals and objectives. The biggest
challenges arise when a member state or Federal agency acts out of a
singular interest rather than the common interest, or strays from or
stretches basic reading of Federal law. We cannot afford to distract
our focus or risk the good of the whole by self-serving actions. And
when we must disagree with one another, it must be done in a way which
does risk damage to long term collaboration.
In summary, are we as far along as we wish we were in the RESTORE
process? Absolutely not. But, we are proud of the hundreds of millions
of dollars in projects which are either already on the ground in
Mississippi or are targeted there over the next five years through NRDA
and NFWF funds. We understand the Gulf and its sensitive ecosystem
better than we ever have. We understand our stakeholders' needs and
concerns better than we ever have before. And we understand one another
better. We are confident that prompt execution of the RESTORE Council's
near term decisional agenda will result in the flow of projects to the
five Gulf states.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for
continuing to focus on the RESTORE Act and its implementation. Your
active involvement acts as a powerful meter of accountability for all
of us who do the day to day work to give full impact to this important
law. Your continued inquiry is one of our most powerful tools in
assuring that we harvest all that was intended by the Act. I would also
like to thank Senator Wicker and his staff for their continued
perseverance in restoration of the Mississippi Gulf. I know that he
feels, as I do, that the work we accomplish in this effort is legacy
work, which, if we are tenacious and thoughtful, will live long after
all of us are gone.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss MDEQ's role in the
Gulf of Mexico and our Gulf Coast restoration. I appreciate the
Committee's time and attention, welcome any questions, and look forward
to working with you further on this important effort.
Senator Nelson. Thank you.
Ms. Drew, tell us about your work on the Council.
STATEMENT OF MIMI A. DREW, FORMER SECRETARY,
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;
AND FLORIDA GOVERNOR RICK SCOTT'S DESIGNEE TO THE
GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION COUNCIL
Ms. Drew. Good morning. Senator Nelson, Senator Wicker,
thank you very much for having this opportunity to talk to you
today.
I represent Governor Rick Scott on the Gulf Coast Ecosystem
Restoration Council, we call the ``Council.'' I am pleased to
be here and I have been working on this for the last 4 years.
Like my friend, Ms. Fisher, and several others of us, we have
been working on it since the oil spill actually happened.
I am a Florida native. I have invested 30-plus years in
environmental protection in various careers, and I happened to
be serving for the Florida DEP as the Deputy Secretary when the
Deepwater Horizon disaster occurred and spent a lot of time
during that time following up with the issues that had to be
dealt with across the state. I also was promoted to the
Secretary position and at that point retired from State
government. However, I am now back as a special advisor to
Secretary of DEP Herschel Vinyard and I represent the state on
all issues related to the Deepwater Horizon.
As you can imagine, coming from my long-term service and
love for the State of Florida, it was with dismay that I
watched the spill. I worked in command centers across the Gulf
during the spill, as well as the Florida Emergency Operations
Center, and we held our breath as we watched the oil spread
slowly toward Florida's beaches and marshlands. It is
gratifying, after living through those long months, to see that
restoration efforts are now beginning to take shape.
You invited us here today to discuss the successes and
challenges specifically to date in implementing the RESTORE
Act. I am not going to repeat which you will have already heard
from several others today, but I do want to spend some time
talking specifically about challenges.
So Florida is unique among the Gulf States. As we already
heard this morning from Senator Nelson, our economy is really
driven by tourism and a healthy environment is paramount to a
good economy in Florida. We are known as the fishing capital of
the world. Recreational and commercial fishing bring in
millions and billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of
jobs. More than 95 million people visit Florida each year, all
expecting a clean and healthy environment to swim, fish, boat,
or simply enjoy the gorgeous beaches and waterways.
The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon was devastating to
the tourist economy that summer, and we all watched closely for
87 days until the well was capped. As you know, we still are
having tar balls and tar mats in Florida. So it is a continuing
issue for us.
One overarching issue and challenge for us has been the
amount of time between the spill and achievement of meaningful
restoration. We have an early partial settlement from BP under
NRDA, National Resource Damage Assessment of the Oil Pollution
Act, but even that has taken a while to get money out the door
for those projects. I am pleased to say that in Florida, we
will have about $100 million worth of projects this year ready
to go on the ground from that fund, but it has been a long,
slow process.
I would like to move now to the specific challenges and
areas within the Act. In Florida, the direct funding component,
or Bucket 1, flows directly from the Treasury Department to the
individual counties. We at the state level will not be actively
involved in that process, but we have reached out to the
counties to try to ensure that projects that are done at that
level clearly meet the stated goals of the Act and work
collaboratively with the other parts of the Act that the state
will have an involvement with.
I believe that you are going to hear more from Commissioner
Robinson today, but one of the biggest issues there has been
funding to develop planning for Bucket 1.
I am going to address Bucket 2 now, which really I think
you all have heard a lot about this morning. But the biggest
issue again has been lack of ability to have funding for
planning. We have all had meetings over the last couple of
years and tried hard to get--we got the interim plan out. We
now have a path forward for funding. We are hopeful to see a
funded priorities list very soon. All of that, of course, is
contingent on the Treasury regs becoming final, and we are all
hopeful to see that happening very soon.
Bucket 3, or the spill component. Again, this issue is--we
have been confounded a little bit by lack of planning funds.
Bucket 3 is to be administered by the Florida Gulf Consortium,
and they are to develop the State expenditure plan, which is
then approved by the Governor and submitted to the Council. We
are hopeful that with announcement of the interim final
regulation, we will be able to see planning funds go to the
counties to develop that plan.
So I am going to move to the successes now because we have
had a few successes. So I think the Council has been able to
come together with the interim final plan, which really set a
path forward for us. We landed on a good, robust process for
beginning to develop the programs and projects for Bucket 2. We
have agreed to two focus areas for Bucket 2 to help everyone
get started, and those are water quality and habitat
restoration. We have identified a way to get planning funds
available, once the Treasury regulations are final.
And there is one area of success that is a little more
subtle, and I would just like to take a moment to highlight
that. We have been successful in knitting together a diverse
group of agencies, personalities, and agendas in the RESTORE
Council itself. Those of you who work in Congress are no
strangers to the skills it takes to bring together a diverse
group and end up with an outcome that is satisfactory to all.
We are facing the same type of challenges. We have come a long
way toward identifying unifying goals.
I am pleased to be here today to have the opportunity to
talk about that, and I am happy to answer any questions. And we
look forward to reporting back to you once we have some
additional things to say. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Drew follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mimi A. Drew, Former Secretary, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection; and Florida Governor Rick
Scott's Designee to the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Rubio, and Members of
the Committee. My name is Mimi Drew, and I represent Governor Rick
Scott on the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council). I am
pleased to be here today, representing the state of Florida. As a
Florida native, I have invested 30 + years working to protect and
restore natural resources in Florida for the use of our citizens and
many visitors who come to the state every year. During my career, I
held several positions within state government related to environmental
protection. I was serving as Deputy Secretary of the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP) when the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
(the Spill) occurred. During the Spill, I was promoted to the position
of Secretary of FDEP, and remained with the department until my
retirement from the state in 2011. Following that, I was asked to stay
on as a Special Advisor to the state to ensure continuity with all the
Deepwater Horizon activities that continue to this day. I am currently
representing Florida's interests in the multiple environmental
restoration efforts that have developed since the Spill. In addition to
serving on the Council, I am also Florida Department of Environmental
Protection Secretary Herschel T. Vinyard Jr.'s representative on the
Deepwater Horizon Trustee Council, and I work closely with the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) to ensure Florida's interests and
priorities are well represented. Prior to that, I sat on the Gulf Coast
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, predecessor to the Council.
As you can imagine, coming from my long term service and love for
the State of Florida, it was with dismay that I watched the Spill. I
worked in several command centers across the Gulf during the Spill, as
well as Florida's Emergency Operations Center, and held my breath along
with everyone else as we watched the oil spread slowly toward Florida's
beaches and marshlands. It is gratifying after living through those
long months to see that several restoration efforts are now beginning
to take shape.
You invited us here today to discuss the successes and challenges
to date in implementing the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability,
Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States
Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act). I am not going to repeat what you will have
already heard from Justin Ehrenwerth, Executive Director of the
Council. He speaks for all of us on the Council with his summary of
activities and status report.
What I would like to do is to report more specifically on issues
around the RESTORE Act that affect Florida, and how we have worked to
address them. I would also like to briefly mention the other
restoration funding streams and let you know how we are coordinating
within the state to ensure that Florida ends up with the most efficient
and effective projects with those funds.
Challenges
Those of us who live and work around the Gulf of Mexico are aware
of its unique ecosystems and natural resources. Each of the five Gulf
States, ranging from Florida to Texas, relies on the Gulf for
recreation, business, and simple aesthetic appreciation. Florida has
been nicknamed the ``Fishing Capital of the World.'' Recent data
indicates that Florida Gulf recreational fishing generated more than
$13.1 billion in sales and created just over 109,000 jobs while
commercial fishing generated $16.6 billion in sales and created more
than 82,000 jobs.\1\ Nearly 95 million people visit Florida each year,
drawn to our sugar sand beaches along the Gulf; providing a huge
economic boom to businesses that support those visits. People who are
fortunate enough to live close to the Gulf enjoy simple and inexpensive
opportunities to fish, swim, kayak, bird watch, or just soak up the sun
and views. All of these activities that we take for granted were
threatened on April 20, 2010, with the explosion of the Deepwater
Horizon. First, the loss of eleven lives from the explosion saddened
everyone. Then, the constant broadcasting on television stations around
the world of the oil spewing from the bottom of the Gulf kept everyone
worried for 87 long days before the final cap was placed on July 15,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Fisheries Economics of
the United States, 2012. U.S. Department Commerce NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-
F/SPO-137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The result in Florida was that many people who normally would have
vacationed during that summer changed their plans. I won't spend much
more time on this, because the history is available in the multiple
reports that have been issued. However, it is important to understand
how Florida was uniquely damaged by the Spill. In Florida, a clean
environment is crucial to a healthy economy. When that is threatened,
the economy and the families who live here all suffer.
Part of our challenge in recovering from the Spill is being able to
leverage available funding streams that will address restoration. The
initial funding stream, called ``Early Restoration'', grew out of a
partial interim settlement that the Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource
Trustees reached with BP three years ago which basically provides a
down payment against BP's ultimate liability, which will be determined
by the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) under the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990. That agreement is for $1 billion to be made
available to affected State and Federal Trustees to restore proven
injury, and Florida's allocation is $100 million plus some portion of
$300 million to be shared among the states at the direction of the
Federal Trustees. Because this is a partial interim settlement and the
first of its kind, the process has taken a good deal of time to
implement as all the Early Restoration projects require full Trustee
approval as well as agreement with BP that the project offsets a known
injury. We are now close to being able to have committed $100 million
for projects in Florida, and the result will be the implementation of
many good projects to deal with some of the injured natural resources,
as well as the loss of recreational use, which occurred as a result of
the Spill.
The focus of the NRDA projects has been to offset currently known
injury. The beauty of the RESTORE funding is that it is broader in
nature and can be used to improve the health of the Gulf in general.
Therefore, we see this as an opportunity to expand and enhance the type
of projects that we haven't been able to fund through NRDA.
One of our largest, and I would say, overarching challenges across
all programs has been the amount of time between the Spill and
achieving meaningful restoration. Although everyone involved has worked
diligently to implement the various programs and funding streams, it
has seemed to the watching public that we haven't been expeditious. In
response to this criticism, it's important to note that this was the
largest environmental disaster ever to occur in the United States. It
involves five states, and at least four Federal agencies. By its
nature, it is complicated and the rules are difficult to understand.
Managing expectations has been very difficult, as the general public as
well as people outside the immediate circle of the councils and
committees become more frustrated with the pace of restoration.
I don't have a solution for this. Working on the inside of this
issue, I can tell you it is not from lack of trying that our groups
aren't able to move more nimbly. It is however a challenge and perhaps
history will suggest that there could be changes in laws or rules that
might permit a more rapid approach to restoration. One thing I will
note here: had we not reached an early partial settlement with BP on
the NRDA side, we would have no restoration projects at all as the
litigation continues to work its way through court.
Direct Funding Component
Under the RESTORE Act, the flow of funding is structured
differently for Florida when compared to the other Gulf Coast states.
For the Direct Funding Component, or Bucket 1 as it is commonly called,
funding in Florida flows directly to the individual 23 Gulf Coast
Counties (Counties). The RESTORE Act directs that 75 percent of the
available funds will be distributed among the eight most western Gulf
Coast counties (Escambia through Wakulla) with the remaining 25 percent
being distributed among the remaining fifteen Gulf Coast counties
(Jefferson through Monroe). Once the Department of Treasury (Treasury)
Regulations are finalized, the individual Counties can access these
funds directly from the Treasury. The funds will be released once the
Counties have met the conditions outlined in the RESTORE Act, which
include submitting a multiyear implementation plan to the Treasury.
Once Transocean makes its final payment, there will be $56,000,000
available for distribution among the Counties.
The challenge here is to make sure by working with the Counties
that projects within Bucket 1 are coordinated with other funding
streams, and if possible, achieve some measure of leveraging to get the
best possible projects across the Gulf. And of course, as I'm sure you
will hear from the County representative later, part of their challenge
has been to start planning for these projects without funding, which
will not be available until the Treasury Regulations are finalized.
Comprehensive Plan Component
Florida has unique ecosystems, and has a long history of
environmental protection measures to ensure they flourish. Florida's
Gulf of Mexico coastline includes 23 counties, and ranges from Escambia
County to Monroe County. Each of the counties has a different set of
restoration priorities. In the Panhandle, which includes eight counties
from Escambia to Wakulla, population is fairly low, and intense
development is limited to several large cities. There still remains a
great deal of natural landscape along the Gulf in these counties.
Further south, toward Hillsborough County, the population increases and
the urban impacts on the Gulf also increase. Of course, Monroe County
which includes the Florida Keys, is the only tropical coral reef in the
United States, and has its own set of challenges.
Because there was no available funding to the Council to develop
the Initial Comprehensive Plan (Plan), all the members were challenged
to be able to provide staff and funding to develop and publish the
Plan. This is not news to this Committee, as the issue of funding
availability is one that runs through all portions of the RESTORE Act
implementation. Aside from the funding challenge, one of the biggest
challenges to us in developing projects for the Funded Priority List
(FPL), which is part of the Plan, is to reflect the different
ecosystems as well as socioeconomic situations which range along the
Gulf. The one unifying factor for us is that the Council just recently
reached agreement on two goals to focus on in the initial FPL, which
are identified in the testimony from Justin Ehrenwerth. These stated
goals of water quality restoration and protection, and habitat
conservation and protection are two that rise to the top of Florida's
priorities. For years, Florida has been a leader in both of these areas
through our continued programs for water quality protection. Most
recently, we became one of the few states to adopt numeric water
quality standards, which will go a long way toward enhanced water
quality protection. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Secretary, Herschel T. Vinyard Jr., has repeatedly taken the position
that water quality protection is his highest priority, and therefore
the decision by the Council to emphasize this goal is welcome to
Florida.
In terms of habitat restoration, Florida has a long history of
successful habitat restoration across the state. Land acquisition has
been a large part of that, and over the years, Florida has acquired
more land than any other state or Federal entity. But that's not the
whole picture. Within Florida State Parks, for example, there is a very
active program for habitat restoration and conservation. The Florida
Fish and Wildlife Commission also has an active habitat restoration and
management program on lands that they oversee and manage; and the state
agencies work closely with interested local governments to extend that
ethic. Additionally, the state works closely with interested private
landowners to protect and restore habitat on private lands. We look
forward to translating these focus areas into meaningful projects for
Florida's portion of the projects and programs funded under the
Comprehensive Plan.
Spill Impact Component
Again, the RESTORE Act sets out a different process in Florida for
developing projects under this component, or Bucket 3 as it is often
called. The Florida Gulf Consortium (Consortium) is identified as being
responsible for developing the State Expenditure Plan, which is then to
be approved by the Governor and submitted to the Council for approval.
The Consortium has been hampered in this effort by lack of funds, and
you will hear later on your agenda today what they have done so far to
begin implementation of this component.
I'd like to focus today on specific challenges that have come up to
ensure that there is active collaboration and cooperation among the
state and local entities responsible for this funding stream.
Recognizing that it is imperative that all the processes necessary to
develop, finalize and receive approval of the State Expenditure Plan
are streamlined and efficient, the Governor's office developed a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Consortium, which was signed on
June 12, 2013. We have been working actively with the Consortium since
passage of the RESTORE Act to ensure that we have a transparent and
collaborative process for approval of the State Expenditure Plan. As
Florida's representative on the Council, I have consistently encouraged
the Council to provide a funding mechanism for the Consortium (as well
as other states) to receive a planning grant for this component. I am
now pleased to say that once the Treasury Regulations are finalized,
the Council is poised to issue an Interim Final Regulation which will
allow the Consortium to apply for up to 5 percent of the funds that
will ultimately be available in this component such that they can be
used for development of the State Expenditure Plan. Therefore, the
Consortium will be able to begin the planning effort even while the
Council continues to develop the final rule for the Spill Impact
Component.
Success to Date
Although it has been somewhat of a long road to get RESTORE
activities off the ground and running, I am optimistic that we have
tackled and solved some of our larger administrative issues, and are
making good progress on some of the thornier technical issues. The
Council's recent agreement to use the existing funds in the trust fund
for the Comprehensive Plan Component to focus efforts across the Gulf
on water quality and habitat restoration gives us a good map to begin
proposing projects and programs to fit that model. In Florida, we will
be using our watershed protection approach to think about ways to
enhance whole ecosystems when we propose ideas for this component. We
believe that water quality improvement and protection is vital to
enhancing and restoring habitat, so these focus areas go hand in hand.
The water quality needs in Florida are huge. EPA's report to Congress
in 2008, called the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey, suggests that
Florida's stormwater needs are $2.5 billion. This was six years ago, so
I imagine that number has increased substantially. Nonpoint sources and
stormwater are the biggest threats to water quality in Florida, so
being able to develop projects which address these needs is very
important to us.
Another success relates to our ability to identify a way to get
planning funds to the Consortium shortly after the Treasury Regulations
are finalized. As mentioned above, this will be a major part in our
ability to create a thoughtful, long term State Expenditure Plan.
And finally, although more difficult to quantify, we have been
successful in knitting together a diverse group of agencies,
personalities and agendas in the RESTORE Council itself. Those of you
who work in Congress are no strangers to the skills needed to bring
together a diverse group and reach an outcome that is satisfactory to
all. We are facing the same type of challenges, and have come a long
way toward identifying unifying goals. Each of the members brings a
different set of interests and priorities to the table. Luckily for
some of us, membership is the same for most of the committees and
councils that are addressing Gulf restoration, so there are familiar
faces. Some of us have worked together since we rolled up our sleeves
during the Spill and walked the beaches looking for oil. This has
helped us come together as a Council and we are making good progress in
that area. For us to succeed, we have to share some common
characteristics: Patience, as the wheels of bureaucracy move slowly;
collaboration, as it takes all of us to reach agreement on a path
forward; dedication, because this is hard work; listening skills,
because everyone has a slightly different story to tell; and
recognition of the value of science, because we all want these projects
and programs to be a sustainable success.
Conclusion
In ending my testimony, I would like to thank you all for taking
the time out of your schedules to ask these very important questions.
As Florida moves ahead to knit together restoration plans, programs and
projects, we will be working with a large audience of interested
parties, including local governments, nonprofit organizations, and of
course just regular citizens. We have a robust outreach program, an
active website which we keep updated (www.deepwaterhorizonflorida.com)
and a long history of providing information to the public in meetings
or by other mechanisms. We are working closely with our other Gulf
State and Federal partners on the NRDA funding. We have established a
good relationship with the NFWF on a series of great restoration
projects for fisheries enhancement, water quality, and wildlife habitat
and restoration which will be funded out of the criminal settlements.
We expect to keep working with the NFWF in the coming months, and they
have assured us that it is their intent to reflect the states'
interests in restoration and help us to leverage all available funding
streams for restoration. It is our sincere intent to continue to engage
fully in all Gulf restoration efforts with the goal in mind of making
the best use of available funds to harmonize the various funding
streams and make good decisions about how best to apply available
funds.
I look forward to keeping you apprised as we continue to work
through our challenges, and hope to be able to report on many successes
in the future.
Senator Nelson. Thank you.
Commissioner Robinson?
STATEMENT OF HON. GROVER C. ROBINSON IV,
COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 4, ESCAMBIA COUNTY;
PRESIDENT, FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES;
AND CHAIRMAN, FLORIDA GULF COAST CONSORTIUM
Mr. Robinson. Mr. Chairman and also Ranking Member Senator
Rubio from the State of Florida, I appreciate the opportunity
to be here today to speak to you.
I am here today to talk on behalf of local governments but
also the Florida Gulf Consortium that was established by this
Act which represents 23 coastal counties along Florida.
First, I greatly appreciate the wisdom of this body in
insisting that local governments be involved in this process,
especially within the State of Florida. The direct component
will flow funds directly to these individual counties. In
addition, component 3 that deals with the oil spill impact fund
will also be directing funds to counties in the state
partnership as well that was created by this Act.
I do want to say for the purposes of the spill impact
formula in Florida, the 23 impacted local governments created a
formal entity known as the Gulf Consortium to write the state
expenditure plan and engage the public. In addition, the
individual counties are also engaging the public. These groups
are hearing from subject-matter experts not only with regard to
environmental restoration initiatives, but also potential
projects to bolster economic recovery across the region. Both
goals, environmental and economic restoration, remain essential
to developing and implementing the plans required by the Act
and the forthcoming Treasury rules.
That said, while all of us are excited by the many
opportunities these projects will provide, the critical aspect
at this moment exists with the required development of the
numerous plans that must serve as road maps for the pursuit of
appropriate projects for restoration.
Every stakeholder understands the more significant fines
and, thereby, funds will come from the outcome of the ongoing
litigation with British Petroleum. However, each of us has been
granted an immediate opportunity with the Transocean
settlement. This $1 billion settlement requires a deposit of
$800 million into the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund and
thus opens real opportunities for planning to begin quickly and
coordination amongst the different planning bodies to occur. It
is this planning that must be done to provide a positive and
necessary direction for the expenditure of funds to ensure both
environmental and economic restoration.
Recently I had the opportunity to visit with Senator Nelson
in Orlando, and I gave him the following Gulf Coast analogy. I
told him the Senate and the U.S. Congress had provided us in
the region with a great gift. To use a Gulf Coast metaphor, we
have essentially been handed an oyster. However, at this
particular time we have no tool to open the shell. We have no
shucking knife, which is the planning dollars, meaning we are
unable to really access this wonderful gift that has been
presented to us for the restoration of the Gulf of Mexico.
Therefore, the essential step for all stakeholders, Federal,
State, or local, is to pursue and complete the required
planning process allowing funds to flow wisely in a coordinated
method.
In addition to my individual role for the county, I am also
the Chairman of the Florida Gulf Consortium, which was created
by this Act. It is a truly unique organization combining both
multiple local governments, as well as State government, in a
true partnership. To date, I will tell you this body meets
almost bimonthly to coordinate and exchange information and
strategize about its planning process. The recent addition of
the Governor of Florida's six appointees to this consortium has
created a truly cohesive statewide approach.
But perhaps the most essential task of the consortium is
the establishment and the creation of the Florida State
expenditure plan, with the goal to outline and identify
practical and appropriate projects for both environmental and
economic restoration. It remains our sincerest hope that the
process developed within the State expenditure plan be applied
to maximize opportunities within the other funding mechanisms
across the Deepwater Horizon settlement sources, such as the
Natural Resource Damage Assessment, NRDA, and the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation, NFWF. While both NFWF and NRDA have
begun projects across the Gulf Coast, it concerns me that any
monies awarded through these entities may not necessarily be
based upon priorities consistent with the forming of the State
expenditure plan and the multiyear implementation plans. While
not yet an issue, I have real concern that any future
expenditures would be better coordinated and efficiently
overseen if these plans were already established. Toward that
end, the consortium and local governments need funding up front
now to ensure resources are available for this required funding
and further that it flows directly to those specific bodies
charged with drafting those plans.
Additionally, at the state and local level, we need
guidance on the process to develop and submit these plans. The
sooner we have specific rules of the game, the sooner we can
develop our plans consistent with all relevant state and
Federal regulations beyond just the RESTORE Act itself. This
includes specific direction on what documentation will be
required for these plans such as compliance with NEPA and at
what point we must secure any required permits and other
required approvals.
Finally, I would like to comment on the importance of
moving forward expeditiously on developing regulations for both
Components 2 and 3. In that regard, I understand that there has
been some disagreement on the potential formula related to the
spill impact component. I recently attended a National
Association of Counties meeting in New Orleans, along with
several other local officials from Gulf Coast counties and
parishes. At that meeting, all present agreed that while each
state and county/parish could argue they sustained more damage
and deserved more money than the other, any additional monies
provided to one entity would be to the detriment of an equally
deserving recipient of the greater coalition.
Knowing firsthand the amount of energy and effort that went
into the original negotiations on the spill impact formula,
coupled with the fact that each Gulf State participated in the
process of developing this formula, I believe changes after the
fact should not be entertained. The current statutory formula
included within the text of the RESTORE Act should be
maintained and the regulatory framework completed as soon as
possible for both the development of plans and the eventual
implementation of eligible projects. A great spirit of
cooperation existed between these stakeholders during the
negotiations surrounding these formulas, and I believe any
change to these would sincerely hinder restoration across the
Gulf of Mexico.
In closing, I would just like to say thank you again for
the work you did to provide the Gulf Coast with a real silver
lining after a terrible environmental and economic tragedy.
While nothing will totally remove the scars from that
experience, it is the RESTORE Act that provides hope to state
and local governments and the constituents they serve along the
entire Gulf Coast. That same spirit has brought significant
coordination and collaboration across the region and an
excitement for what the future may bring. I ask that you please
do all within your power to ensure that proper upfront funding
is established for planning at all levels of the Act and to
ensure a continued coordination between Federal, state, and
local governments.
Thank you again for all you have done for our region and
our country.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Grover C. Robinson IV, Commissioner,
District 4, Escambia County; and President, Florida Association of
Counties
I. Introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Commerce
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard. My name
is Grover Robinson, and I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to
address you this morning relative to the RESTORE Act and its
implementation across five (5) states on the Gulf Coast. In addition to
my being a commissioner from Escambia County Florida, I also serve as
the President of the Florida Association of Counties and Chairman of
the Florida Gulf Coast Consortium (comprised of 23 counties) created by
the RESTORE Act. My comments this morning will address local government
activities as they relate both to Component 1 (the Direct Component),
as well as Component 3 (the Spill Impact Component). In addition, my
comments focus on the immediate challenges facing local governments
post-Oil Spill primarily in Florida but also to a larger extent those
extended along the Gulf Coast.
First, I greatly appreciate the wisdom of this body in insisting
that local governments be involved as part of this process, especially
within the State of Florida. The Direct Component that specifically
provides funds directly to coastal counties impacted by the tragic
events of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill remains essential for both
environmental and economic restoration as envisioned by the RESTORE
Act. However, many of the same parallels can be drawn to the Spill
Impact Component and the charge entrusted to the Florida Gulf Coast
Consortium.
II. Input Into the Process for Developing the Required Plans
In both cases, groups have been established to oversee the Plan
development process and provide citizen input into the Multi-Year
Implementation and State Expenditure Plans. Within the Direct
Component, each individual county is generally creating a citizen
RESTORE Act committee to meet the public input requirement in the Act.
For the purposes of the Spill Impact Component in Florida, the 23
impacted local governments created a formal entity known as the Gulf
Consortium to write the State Expenditure Plan and engage with the
public. Currently, these groups are hearing from subject matter experts
not only with regard to environmental restoration initiatives, but also
on potential projects to bolster economic recovery across the region.
Both goals, environmental and economic restoration, remain essential to
developing and implementing the Plans required by the Act and
forthcoming Treasury Rules--be they for the Multi-Year Implementation
Plan in the Direct Component, or the State Expenditure Plans for the
Spill Impact Component.
That said, while all of us are excited about the many opportunities
these projects will provide, the critical aspect at this moment exists
with the required development of the numerous plans that must serve as
the roadmaps for the pursuit of appropriate projects for restoration.
III. Upfront Funds for Plan Development
Every stakeholder understands the more significant fines, and
thereby funds, will come from the outcome of ongoing litigation with
British Petroleum (BP). However, each of us has been granted an
immediate opportunity with the Transocean settlement funds. This one
billion dollar settlement requires a deposit of $800-million into the
Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund and thus opens real opportunities for
planning to begin quickly and coordination amongst the different
planning bodies to occur. It is this planning that must be done to
provide a positive and necessary direction for the expenditure of funds
to ensure both environmental and economic restoration.
Recently I had the opportunity to see Senator Nelson in Orlando,
and I gave him the following Gulf Coast analogy. I told him that the
Senate and the U.S. Congress have provided the region with a great
gift. To use an appropriate metaphor, we have essentially been handed
an oyster. However, at this particular time we have no tool to open the
shell (shucking knife/planning dollars), meaning we are unable to
really access the wonderful gift we have been presented-the
implementation of eligible projects to actually restore the Gulf Coast.
Therefore, the most essential next step is that all stakeholders:
federal; state, and local, pursue and complete the required planning
processes allowing funds to flow wisely and in a coordinated manner.
IV. Opportunity for Coordination Among the Planning and Funding Efforts
In addition to my individual county role, I am also the Chairman of
the Florida Gulf Consortium, which the U.S. Congress created through
this Act. It is a truly unique organization combining both multiple
local county governments as well state government in a true
partnership. To date, I will tell you this body meets almost bi-monthly
to coordinate, exchange information and strategize about its planning
process. The recent addition of the Governor of Florida's six
appointees to this Consortium has truly created a cohesive state-wide
approach. Perhaps the most essential task of the Consortium is to
establish and create the Florida State Expenditure Plan, with the goal
to outline and identify practical and appropriate projects for both
environmental and economic restoration. It remains our sincerest hope
that the process developed within our State Expenditure Plan be applied
to maximize opportunities with the other funding mechanisms across the
greater Deepwater Horizon settlement sources, such as Natural Resource
Damage Assessment (NRDA) and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
(NFWF). While both NRDA and NFWF have provided funding for projects
across the Gulf Coast, it concerns me that any monies awarded through
these entities may not necessarily be based upon priorities consistent
with the forthcoming State Expenditure and Multi-Year Implementation
Plans. While not yet an issue, I have real concerns that any future
expenditures would be better coordinated and efficiently overseen if
these plans were already established. Toward that end, the Consortium
and local governments need the proper funding upfront to ensure
resources are available for this required planning and further, that it
flows directly to those specific bodies charged with drafting those
specific plans.
Additionally, at the state and local level, we need clear guidance
on the process to develop and submit these plans. The sooner we have
specific ``rules of the game'' the sooner we can develop our plans
consistent with all other relevant state and Federal regulations beyond
just the RESTORE Act itself. This includes specific direction on what
documentation will be required in the plans, such as compliance with
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and at what point we must
secure any required permits or other required approvals.
Finally, I would like to comment on the importance of moving
forward expeditiously on developing the regulations for Components 2
(Comprehensive Plan) and 3 (Spill Impact). In that regard, I understand
that there has been some discussion and potential disagreement on the
formula related to the Spill Impact Component. I recently attended a
National Association of Counties meeting in New Orleans along with
other local officials from Gulf Coast counties and parishes. At that
meeting, all of those present agreed that while each state and county/
parish could argue they sustained more damage and deserved more money
than the other, any additional amounts provided to one entity would be
to the detriment of an equally deserving recipient of the greater
coalition.
Knowing firsthand the amount of effort and energy that went into
the original negotiations on the Spill Impact formula, coupled with the
fact that each Gulf State participated in the process of developing
this formula, I believe changes after-the-fact should not be
entertained. The current statutory formula included within the text of
the RESTORE Act should be maintained and the regulatory framework
completed as soon as possible for both the development of plans and the
eventual implementation of eligible projects. A great spirit of
cooperation existed between the stakeholders during the negotiations
surrounding these formulas, and I feel any attempt to alter the formula
significantly hinders the restoration of the Gulf of Mexico either
environmentally or economically.
V. Conclusion
In closing, I would just like to say thank you again for the work
you did to provide the Gulf Coast with a real silver lining after a
terrible environmental and economic tragedy. While nothing will totally
remove the scars of that experience, it is the RESTORE Act that
provides hope to state and local governments and the constituents they
serve along the entire Gulf Coast. That same spirit has brought
significant coordination and collaboration across the region and an
excitement for what the future may bring. I ask that you please do all
within your power to ensure that proper upfront funding is established
for planning at all levels of the Act and to ensure a continued
coordination between federal, state and local governments.
Thank you again for all you have done for our region and our
country.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Commissioner Robinson.
Mr. Kelsch, wrap us up here. I want you to also talk about
the fact that $2.5 billion under the Act has already flowed
because of a criminal fine, and that has flowed through Fish
and Wildlife. And that is for Gulf restoration projects. So
talk to us about that.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. KELSCH, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, GULF ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT FUND,
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
Mr. Kelsch. Thank you, Senator and Ranking Member Rubio. It
is an honor to be here with you today and to join a
distinguished panel of exceptional public servants and fellow
Gulf restoration partners.
I want to begin by apologizing on behalf of our Executive
Director, Jeff Trandahl, who is on travel and unable to be here
to testify today.
This year, the Foundation is celebrating its 30th
anniversary as a Congressionally-chartered conservation
nonprofit. As one of the Nation's largest conservation funders,
we currently work with 15 Federal agencies, numerous state
agencies, corporations, foundations, individuals, and our local
grantees to implement on-the-ground conservation projects in
all 50 states and internationally.
Our experience in the Gulf is extensive. In fact, prior to
the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Foundation had invested
over $128 million in conservation projects throughout the five
Gulf States.
As I am sure you are aware and as you just alluded to, in
2013 the plea agreements resolving certain criminal claims
against BP and Transocean were approved by the U.S. District
Court. Those plea agreements established the payment schedule
for restitution funds, $2.54 billion total, and an allocation
formula by state for those funds. The plea agreements also
directed the Foundation's use and management of the restitution
funds, which we refer to as the Gulf Environmental Benefit
Fund.
Under the terms of the plea agreements, we are charged with
funding projects whose purpose is to remedy harm to or reduce
the risk of future harm to natural resources, habitats, and
species in the states of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and
Texas that were affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In
Louisiana, we are directed to fund only barrier island
restoration and river diversion projects that are consistent
with the State's Coastal Master Plan and other related studies
that Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter mentioned earlier
today.
In identifying these projects and very importantly, the
Foundation is required to consult with natural resource
agencies from each of the five states and with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and with NOAA. To date, the Gulf
Environmental Benefit Fund has received $511 million in
payments from the responsible parties, and we have awarded $260
million, more than half of the available funds, to a variety of
projects that address priority conservation needs in all of the
five Gulf States. Already migratory birds, sea turtles,
oysters, and other fish and wildlife are directly benefiting
from these investments.
Following further extensive consultation with our state and
Federal resource agencies, we anticipate awarding an additional
$130 million or more this summer and fall. As we do with other
funding opportunities, we are continuing to build effective
partnerships with the states, Federal agencies, and the private
sector to identify and advance priority projects. Importantly,
we are engaged with members of both the RESTORE Council and the
Natural Resource Damage Trustees as appropriate to understand
their emerging conservation priorities and policies in an
effort to better understand how their efforts can complement
and inform our own. We recognize that such coordination will
ensure that investments from the Gulf Environmental Benefit
Fund contribute to the overall restoration goals for the Gulf
of Mexico as established under the RESTORE Act.
We also continue to look for opportunities to leverage Gulf
Environmental Benefit Funds with our other public and private
funds to maximize outcomes for the Gulf.
Again, on behalf of the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, I want to thank you for the opportunity to join
today's hearing and to provide this brief update on the Gulf
Environmental Benefit Fund. We look forward to continuing to
work with our state and Federal agency partners to advance
significant conservation projects in each of the five Gulf
States over the life of the fund and also look forward to
keeping Congress apprised of our progress.
Before I conclude, I just want to take a moment to thank
both Trudy Fisher and Mimi Drew for their leadership and
dedication in working with NFWF to build a strong partnership
for conservation in both Mississippi and Florida. They and
their counterparts in other states and within Fish and Wildlife
Service and NOAA deserve our great thanks and gratitude, and we
look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelsch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas E. Kelsch, Senior Vice President, Gulf
Environmental Benefit Fund, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rubio, and Members of the
Committee. It is an honor to be here with you today, and to join this
distinguished panel of exceptional public servants, fellow Gulf
restoration partners, to discuss our collective efforts to restore and
protect the natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico region.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) was established by
Congress in 1984 to foster public-private partnerships to conserve
fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for present and future
generations of Americans. To fulfill our mission, we do not engage in
litigation, we do not advocate or oppose given policies or decisions,
and we do not lobby.
NFWF is governed by a 30-member Board of Directors that includes
the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and 28 private citizens, including several from states
bordering the Gulf of Mexico.
Over 30 years, NFWF has developed a successful model of
coordinating and leveraging public and private funds to address the
most significant threats to fish and wildlife populations. As one of
the Nation's largest conservation funders, NFWF currently works with 15
Federal agencies, numerous state agencies, private partners, and our
local grantees to implement on-the-ground and in-the-water conservation
projects in all 50 states and internationally. NFWF's work helps to
create and sustain abundant wildlife species and natural habitats that
serve as both a source of enjoyment for all Americans and an important
driver of our Nation's economic health.
NFWF's Initial Response in the Gulf
Our experience in the Gulf region is extensive. In fact, in the
years prior to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, NFWF had already
invested more than $128 million to support over 450 fish and wildlife
habitat projects throughout the Gulf region. These projects were
supported with Federal funds and private contributions from NFWF's
corporate partners. In response to the oil spill, NFWF's experience in
the Gulf region allowed us to take a leadership role in coordinating
immediate efforts to bolster wildlife populations outside the spill
zone and enhance their recovery once the spill was over.
NFWF worked with government agencies, non-governmental
organizations, private foundations, individuals, and corporations to
protect and restore Gulf Coast fish, wildlife, and habitats affected by
the oil spill. For example, NFWF engaged Walmart to secure a commitment
of $2.25 million for NFWF-funded conservation projects on Federal and
state wildlife management lands on the Gulf coast. We also worked with
FedEx and agency partners during the summer of 2010 to facilitate the
transfer of 25,000 endangered sea turtle eggs from the Gulf coast to
the Atlantic coast--one of the largest wildlife relocations in history.
NFWF also launched the Recovered Oil Fund for Wildlife in 2010, funded
with $22.9 million in proceeds from BP's share of net revenue from the
sale of oil recovered from the Deepwater Horizon site, and leveraged
those monies by working closely with some of our other corporate
partners. The Fund, and matching money, funded 53 grants between 2010
and 2013.
BP and Transocean Criminal Settlements
On November 15, 2012, the Justice Department announced that BP had
agreed to plead guilty to various criminal charges arising from the
2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Transocean followed suit on January
3, 2013. On January 29, 2013, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana approved BP's plea agreement. Two weeks
later, on February 14, 2013, Transocean's plea agreement was approved.
The plea agreements designated NFWF as the recipient of $2.394 billion
from BP and $150 million from Transocean to be used for projects to
``remedy harm and eliminate or reduce the risk of future harm to Gulf
Coast natural resources.'' These Deepwater Horizon settlement payments
were similar to various other settlement payments that have flowed to
NFWF over the years to fund projects benefitting our Nation's natural
resources. We believe that our long history of successfully managing
these types of funds contributed to the decision by the Department of
Justice to commit the BP and Transocean settlement funds to our care.
The requirements for BP and Transocean to pay these funds, as well
as the usage restrictions applicable to the funds, were entered in
Federal Court orders that are enforceable as special conditions of
probation. NFWF must look strictly to the plea agreements and these
Court-ordered probationary conditions in our administration of the
funds.
According to the plea agreements, the BP funds will be paid to NFWF
over a five-year period and the Transocean funds will be paid to NFWF
over a two-year period beginning in 2013. The plea agreements require:
50 percent of the funding to be allocated for barrier island
restoration and river diversion projects in Louisiana;
remaining funds to be allocated for natural resource benefit
projects in the states of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi (28
percent each), and Texas (16 percent); and,
consultation with the Gulf state resource agencies, as well
as with NOAA and the FWS, to identify projects for potential
funding.
NFWF Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund
NFWF has a long track record of successfully managing funds arising
from legal and regulatory proceedings that are designated to benefit
natural resources. In the case of the BP and Transocean criminal funds,
NFWF carries out this function through its Gulf Environmental Benefit
Fund (GEBF). As directed by the two plea agreements, NFWF will
administer a total of $2.544 billion to fund projects benefitting the
natural resources of the Gulf Coast that were impacted by the spill.
Purposes
The underlying plea agreements specify a narrow purpose for the
Louisiana-designated funds as compared to the purpose designated for
funds in the other four states. In Louisiana, the funds may be used
only ``to create or restore barrier islands off the coast of Louisiana
and/or to implement river diversion projects on the Mississippi and/or
Atchafalaya Rivers for the purpose of creating, preserving, and
restoring coastal habitat.'' Selection of projects must take into
consideration Louisiana's Coastal Master Plan, as well as the Louisiana
Coastal Area Mississippi River Hydrodynamic and Delta Management Study.
In the other four states, the funds must be used ``to conduct or
fund projects to remedy harm to [natural] resources where there has
been injury to, or destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of those
[natural] resources resulting from the Macondo oil spill.''
It is here that we have faced our greatest challenge. NFWF has no
discretion to stray from the strict language of the plea agreements
regarding the purpose or distribution of the GEBF--monies in the Fund
may be used only for projects that directly benefit the specific types
of natural resources (habitat and species) that were impacted by
Deepwater Horizon. Thus, for example, NFWF's GEBF is not available to
pay for otherwise important projects that aim to remedy economic or
social impacts from the Macondo spill. It has taken considerable time
and effort to educate stakeholders across the Gulf region regarding the
strict parameters under which we operate and to conform local
expectations to the terms of the plea agreements.
Consultation and Project Selection
As required by the plea agreements, NFWF has continually consulted
with natural resource management agencies in each of the five Gulf
States and with FWS and NOAA on the identification and prioritization
of appropriate projects. The specific state resource agencies with whom
NFWF is consulting are: (1) the Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, (2) Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission,
(3) Florida Department of Environmental Protection, (4) Louisiana
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, (5) Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality, (6) Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, (7) Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and (8)
Texas General Land Office. Many of the agencies with whom NFWF is
consulting serve on both the Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage
Assessment Trustee Council and the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration
Council, and their input has been the primary means through which
project selection under NFWF's GEBF has been coordinated with similar
activities under both the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) and
``Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and
Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States [RESTORE] Act of 2012''
programs.
NFWF has worked to develop general consensus among the state and
Federal agencies in identifying projects that meet the conditions of
the plea agreements and that maximize benefits for Gulf coast natural
resources. When our state and Federal agency partners suggest projects
that provide regional benefits, such as those crossing state boundaries
or even potentially Gulf-wide, NFWF has worked to facilitate interstate
and inter-agency agreement on project design and funding strategies.
However, even in the absence of consensus, NFWF retains the
responsibility and authority under the plea agreements to make final
project funding decisions.
In addition to the primary criteria for project selection set forth
in the plea agreements, NFWF identifies and prioritizes projects that
also meet the following criteria:
advance priorities in natural resource management plans,
such as those called for under the RESTORE Act;
are cost-effective and maximize environmental benefits;
are science-based; and,
produce measureable and meaningful outcomes for Gulf natural
resources.
As it does in its other conservation grant-making, NFWF's decision-
making relies on strong, science-based evidence and the technical input
from state and Federal resource agencies. In the aftermath of the oil
spill, public agencies, universities, and other organizations have
conducted, and continue to conduct, extensive research to improve the
understanding of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and efforts needed to
restore critical natural resources, enhance its resiliency, and improve
management. As this information becomes available, it will be used to
further inform our thinking.
Payment Schedule
From 2013 to 2018, the GEBF will receive a total of $1.272 billion
for projects in Louisiana, $356 million each for projects in Alabama,
Florida, and Mississippi, and $203 million for projects in Texas. In
accordance with the terms of the two plea agreements, payments into the
GEBF will occur over a five-year period in the case of BP and over a
two-year period in the case of Transocean. More than half of the
funding will arrive in years four and five. As payments are received,
NFWF will segregate funds into accounts by state in accordance with the
formula established by the plea agreements and will award the funds to
projects after the required consultations with state and Federal
resource agencies and approval by the NFWF Board of Directors. The
schedule of payments and mandated division of funds follows:
Grant Awards to Date
On November 14, 2013, one year after BP entered its guilty plea,
NFWF announced the first set of awards derived from the GEBF. Two
additional grants were announced on April 3 and April 8, 2014. To date,
NFWF has awarded more than $260 million, or more than 50 percent of the
$511 million received to date, for priority conservation projects in
the five Gulf States. A break out of awards follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount ($
State Project Description Grant Recipient in
millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Restoration & Alabama Department of $3.75
Enhancement of Oyster Conservation & Natural
Reefs Resources--Marine
Resources Division
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D'Olive Watershed Mobile Bay National 6.78
Restoration Estuary Program/Marine
Environmental Sciences
Consortium
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fowl River Watershed Mobile Bay National 2.05
Restoration Estuary Program/Marine
Environmental Sciences
Consortium
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Management & Florida Fish & Wildlife 1.73
Restoration of Conservation
Escribano Point Commission
Coastal Habitat--Phase
I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government Street Florida Department of 2.11
Regional Stormwater Environmental
Pond at Corrine Jones Protection
Park
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apalachicola Bay Oyster Florida Fish & Wildlife 4.19
Restoration Conservation
Commission
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comprehensive Panhandle National Audubon 3.21
Coastal Bird Society
Conservation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminating Light Sea Turtle Conservancy 1.50
Pollution on Sea
Turtle Nesting Beaches
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enhanced Assessment for Florida Fish & Wildlife 3.00
Recovery of Gulf of Conservation
Mexico Fisheries-- Commission
Phase I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Caminada Beach & Dune Louisiana Coastal 3.00
Increment II: Protection &
Engineering & Design Restoration Authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Timbalier Island: Louisiana Coastal 6.00
Engineering & Design Protection &
Restoration Authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Barataria Sediment Louisiana Coastal 40.40
Diversion: Engineering Protection &
& Design Restoration Authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Mississippi River Louisiana Coastal 13.60
Sediment Protection &
Diversions: Planning Restoration Authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase Atchafalaya Louisiana Coastal 4.90
Flow to Terrebonne: Protection &
Planning Restoration Authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caminada Beach & Dune Louisiana Coastal 144.55
Increment II: Protection &
Construction Restoration Authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississip Coastal Bird Mississippi Department 1.60
pi Stewardship Program of
Environmental Quality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi Coastal Mississippi Department 3.30
Preserves Program of
Environmental Quality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Stream & Mississippi Department 2.63
Habitat Initiative of
Environmental Quality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi Coastal Mississippi Department 3.60
Restoration Plan of
Environmental Quality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Sea Rim State Park Texas Parks & Wildlife 0.19
Coastal Dune Department
Restoration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Galveston Island State Texas Parks & Wildlife 2.49
Park Marsh Restoration Department
& Protection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Galveston Bay Scenic Galveston 4.08
Conservation
Corridor Habitat
Restoration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oyster Reef Restoration Texas Parks & Wildlife 0.84
in East Bay Department
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Coast Migratory Ducks Unlimited 1.25
Waterfowl
Habitat Enhancement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
total $260.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following further extensive consultation with state and Federal
resource agencies over the coming months, NFWF anticipates awarding, by
year's end, an additional $130 million or more of settlement funds
received thus far.
Our ability to begin awarding funds less than a year after the plea
agreements were approved was made possible in large part by the intense
efforts of our federal, state, local, and private partners to help us
craft a process that generated quality proposals in a timely manner
focusing on the highest priority conservation goals. This ``can do''
spirit, and the collaboration and cooperation that resulted, has been
one of the true success stories surrounding NFWF's GEBF.
Conclusion
As we move forward with the implementation of the GEBF, we will
continue to work with our state and Federal partners to identify high
priority projects that meet the requirements of the plea agreements and
provide long-term restoration benefits to the Gulf of Mexico region. As
stated, we are utilizing existing planning and prioritization efforts
such as those required by the RESTORE Act to deliver the funds without
creating new and duplicative processes. Accountability and fidelity to
the Court orders are essential to the process and we are committed to
awarding the funds entrusted to us in a timely and responsible manner.
NFWF will report annually to Congress, as well as to the Court and
Department of Justice, on its activities with regard to the GEBF. This
will include a list and descriptions of projects and the funding
awarded for them. We look forward to continued input from key
stakeholders, both public and private, to ensure the success of the
GEBF and its associated restoration projects.
Senator Nelson. Thank you.
Senator Rubio?
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just briefly so that no one is wondering where all the
money went, in my statement I said the Gulf Environmental
Benefit Fund was $12.5 billion. It is actually $2.5 billion.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. There is not $10 billion sitting around.
Mr. Andrews, what is your role on the Council?
Mr. Andrews. Senator, I serve as the Deputy Secretary of
the Department. Secretary Pritzker is the Chair selected by the
states of the Council, and so as part of the operating
structure, one of the roles of the Deputy Secretary of the
Department is essentially to serve as the Chief Operating
Officer for the Department. Because this is such a high
priority for the Department and making sure this is done well,
this is one of the projects, probably right now what I spend
most of my time on, frankly, focusing on and working with our
team to make sure that this is being done well and
appropriately.
Senator Rubio. Will Secretary Pritzker or you on her
behalf--will you make clear here today that you commit to
implementing the oil spill impact formula as is written in the
law?
Mr. Andrews. Senator, the statute is absolutely our guide
for implementing this, and we are going to follow the law.
Senator Rubio. Ms. Drew, thank you for being here. I
appreciate it very much.
Let me ask you this. How important is--let me just get to
this in the interest of time. How important is water quality to
habitat restoration, and do you feel water quality is being
appropriately emphasized in all of the current funding streams?
Ms. Drew. Thank you very much for that question, Senator
Rubio.
Unfortunately, under NRDA, we have not been able to address
water quality, and we know that in the State of Florida
particularly we had aquatic ecosystems that were injured. We
hope to be able to see both the NFWF funding and some of the
RESTORE funding go to water quality. It is my opinion that you
cannot have a good habitat, particularly marine or aquatic
habitat, unless you have good water quality. Florida has a long
history of water quality protection, and we would like to see
these funds be used for that continuing protection.
Senator Rubio. Mr. Robinson, thank you for being here. I
understand you have interrupted a vacation to be here with us
today. So I appreciate your commitment to this cause.
I wanted to get your thoughts on the Council's--what they
released on Friday, their proposal for submission and
evaluation.
Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your
invitation to be here.
We have seen a little bit of it and started being in the
process. Anything that begins to advance funds for planning is
most important at this particular time, whether we are at the
county level or at the state consortium level. I think it is
going to be important for Floridians that we get plans moving.
So I am very happy about that. I just want to make sure that in
all 23 of our counties, we are able to get the planning that we
need to get done in order to advance the projects.
Senator Rubio. Well, what has been the number one
impediment that the county consortium has had moving forward
with the restoration work?
Mr. Robinson. It is absolutely planning dollars. That has
been our biggest issue. And also in a sense somewhat that we
are a little bit different. The direct component does not go
directly to the State. So it is kind of hard to figure how to
advance some of those dollars. But once we get going, as I said
before, that group has been a very good mesh of state and local
government working together. I am very excited about what I
see. And we will be having our next consortium meeting next
week in Escambia County at Pensacola Beach, and we are moving
forward on that. We just need planning dollars so we can begin
to get a consultant moving on getting that plan done.
Senator Rubio. Mr. Ehrenwerth, you state that the Council
anticipates an interim final rule in the next 2 months that
would provide access to the states and Florida counties of up
to 5 percent of funding for planning. What has been the delay
in issuing that interim final rule?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Well, Senator, we have been very committed
to doing everything in our power to ensure that all the states
and Federal agencies who participate in the Council have the
support and the resources that they need to carry out this
work. We are very optimistic that we will get----
Senator Rubio. Why has it taken so long?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. We were exploring a number of options to
try to get money quickly to the consortium of counties in
Florida, as well as the other states. And I think with the
interim final rule option, we finally settled on the best
approach to get money----
Senator Rubio. So when can we expect that?
Mr. Ehrenwerth.--this summer. We are moving forward with it
as we speak.
Senator Rubio. The summer meaning August?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. We are going to try to do it as quickly as
we possibly can.
Senator Rubio. Mr. Kelsch, given the amount of money and
the different funding streams that have resulted from both
criminal and civil penalties from the Deepwater Horizon
incident, how important is process and planning on selected
projects so that we can avoid duplication and inefficiencies?
Mr. Kelsch. I think the plea agreements require that the
Foundation consult closely with the state resource agencies,
Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA. Importantly, the
individuals that we are consulting with, Mimi Drew, Trudy
Fisher, are the same individuals who sit and represent the
agencies on the RESTORE Council and NRD Trustee Council. That
coordination, that consultation has been extremely critical
relative to avoiding duplication. While we are constrained
within the plea agreement in terms of what we can support for
planning, we are pleased, as noted in Trudy's comments, our
ability to support some planning in the State of Mississippi
and Alabama to help address some of those critical needs as
well.
Senator Nelson. As you can hear by the comments of the
Senators, those of us who wrote and passed this law--we are
impatient. We want to get on with it. And it has been 2 years.
And although the big chunk of money, which will be as a result
of the civil fines imposed by Judge Barbier, which is going to
be anywhere from about $5 billion to $20 billion, 80 percent of
which is going to flow under the structure of the RESTORE Act,
the 20 percent, of course, going into the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund--you do not have that money, but you got other pots
of money. You have got $2.5 billion that has gone to Mr.
Kelsch's operation. You will have $800 million that has come
down from the Transocean money. So the message from us to you
is get on with it. And it is an opportunity to have some money
that is there to start the planning for when the big wad of
money comes when the judge decides in New Orleans and/or after
that goes through an appellate process, which could be some
time on down the road.
Now, that issue in front of Judge Barbier is how many
barrels of oil were spilled and what was the culpability. And
once he decides the latter, then he multiplies that times the
number of barrels of oil that were spilled. And then that money
is going to flow.
And the structure is pretty easy. It is fairly clear in the
statute. There are those three pots of money that you have been
talking about today. You call them ``buckets.'' Then there are
two more that are basically 2.5 percent each, one of which goes
to take care of the fish, fish stock assessments, another which
goes to the Centers of Excellence.
Anybody want to tell me about how the planning for the
Centers of Excellence has gone along in any of the states? Ms.
Fisher?
Ms. Fisher. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to address.
We are anxiously awaiting the finalization of the Treasury
regs, as everyone is, to have those final rules in place. And
then the coordination and the testimony that was filed by
Deputy Secretary Andrews--the coordination of the Centers of
Excellence and the research work will be done--we are working
in Mississippi to leverage, Senator Rubio, for sure to avoid
duplication, but we focus on leveraging the dollars, how do we
maximize the three funding streams and the research, the
monitoring, the backup information that is needed. So that is
the type of discussions and planning that we are having with
proponents for our Centers of Excellence. How to leverage and
how to maximize all of those funding streams, including the 2.5
percent for the Centers of Excellence.
Senator Nelson. So what you just said is we are waiting for
the Treasury regs. And so, Treasury, please understand the
impatience of the Senators on this panel who have been
responsible in passing this Act.
Mr. Kelsch, do you want to give us any lessons learned
since you actually have your fingers on $2.5 billion? Any
lessons learned you want to share with all of us?
Mr. Kelsch. I think the work to date of the RESTORE Council
in implementing the RESTORE Act has actually helped to
establish the degree of kind of consensus and a path forward.
It has been critical to our success. I think the fact that we
are dealing again with the same individuals who are helping to
shape the initial master plan, shape the implementation of
priority projects, and then can work with them less encumbered,
if you will, by the conditions of the plea agreement and having
funds certain in the accounts that we have has allowed us to be
able to make very effective investments while these other
processes are being complete.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Ehrenwerth, you have stated that the
Council is slated to become operationally independent. This
panel wants to make sure that ``independent'' does not mean a
lack of accountability.
And, Mr. Andrews, how will the Council help ensure a
thorough and expedited environmental and regulatory compliance?
Mr. Andrews. Well, the Council, Senator, will continue to
work with all of the agencies and with all of the states. And
we recognize the impatience of the Committee but also, frankly,
of all the members of the Council, both on the Federal side and
the State side. So we have already been working among the
Federal agencies to make sure that we do the prep work upfront
to try to streamline the regulatory process on the back end so
that we are not slowed down by regulatory impediments.
Senator Nelson. All right. We are counting on you.
Otherwise, we are going to have another hearing, and we are
going to be beating on your door because you all have got to
implement this thing. And it has been 2 years and it is time to
get moving.
Commissioner Robinson, tell us what do you think--in
closing here, what can the Federal Government do to help the
local governments of all the Gulf Coast States in this
implementation process other than what has been stated clearly
here that you need planning money right now?
Mr. Robinson. Senator, thank you very much for your vision
very much in helping create this RESTORE Act. Again, it is
going to be vital to that point.
Twenty-three counties and almost half the Gulf Coast--of
the Gulf of Mexico is in the State of Florida. And I think in
order to protect Floridians, much of what has already been said
here today, many of the things there regards to planning and
other parts. But I want to echo what Ms. Drew also said. In
Florida, water quality leads to habitat, and we cannot have
habitat restoration without water quality improvements. So
those projects that are moving water quality--we need those to
be moving forward.
And, again, thank you for everything and your leadership in
making this happen for the RESTORE Act for all of us along the
Gulf Coast but especially us Floridians.
Senator Nelson. Well, I want to thank all of you very much.
Let us look at what we have learned here. We have learned
that the Department of Commerce has got to figure out a way to
get the funding moving for the planning as we wait for the big
wad of money to be decided by the court in New Orleans.
We need the administration to finalize the Treasury rules.
We need the administration to work with this Committee as
we oversee the implementation of the law.
And we need to make sure that the administration is
prioritizing large-scale ecosystem protection across science
and research programs, and that would include the so-called
fish fund,'' which is the science program on assessing the fish
stocks which was one of the little small set-aside funds that
was set up.
So I think we have learned some things here today, and it
is now up to you all to go out and implement it.
Thank you for your public service. Thank you for your
devotion to duty.
The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Gulf of Mexico University Research Collaborative
August 11, 2014
Hon. Mark Begich,
Chairman,
Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Marco Rubio,
Ranking Member,
Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson,
Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Begich, Rubio, and Nelson:
Thank you for holding the recent hearing, Revisiting the RESTORE
Act: Progress and Challenges in Gulf Restoration Post-Deepwater
Horizon. We greatly appreciate your unrelenting attention to the Gulf
in the wake of this tragedy and hope that science will be employed
widely and wisely to help guide restoration efforts and ensure that we
are better prepared for future injuries to our coastal communities and
resources.
As you well know, in response to the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon Oil
spill, various programs were authorized to address response,
restoration and science in the Gulf, with funding and oversight for
these programs originating from a variety of places, both Federal and
private. The Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI), Natural
Resource Damage Assessment, criminal plea agreements, Clean Water Act,
class action lawsuits, and the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability,
Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States
Act (RESTORE Act) represent the broad authorities, funding sources, and
diverse goals of the Nation responding to this tragedy. Given that each
program addresses a specific need, each also brings its own governing
body, timeline, and oversight structure. While the RESTORE Act included
some provisions for coordination among efforts, there is no requirement
or mandate for coordination among the various broader suite of
restoration science programs. With no overarching framework to identify
gaps or duplicative efforts that may exist in time or space or
opportunities to maintain continuity and availability of data and
information moving forward, we are left with no mechanism to ensure
that, at the end of these programs' tenure, we have a whole that is
greater than the sum of their individual parts.
Coordination among programs for creating efficiencies in programs
and reducing duplicative work is critical to the success of all the
programs. For instance, there will be monitoring efforts in many of
these programs, either to help actively manage a restoration project or
to improve basic knowledge of and forecasting for the coastal
environment. A coordinated ocean observing system that provides real-
time data from buoys, gliders, radar and other remote devices would be
a valuable asset for all programs and would advance the field of
knowledge to better prepare the Nation for the next oil spill
regardless of its location. Another example of needed coordination
exists with regards to research vessels. A dedicated regional research
vessel for the Gulf would certainly be fully utilized given the many
field experiments and monitoring activities that will be ongoing for
the next decade.
On the data side of monitoring, there are also multiple entities
with plans to compile all the historic data and establish a permanent
repository. Cyberinfrastructure of this sort is very complex, costly,
and needs to be thoughtfully designed and implemented to ensure quality
control of data going in and quality products coming out. Coordination
of efforts in data quality control and management is essential for
ensuring the Nation's researchers, industry and resource managers have
open access to data and information products that will aid sustainable
management of our resources.
Furthermore, a lateral strategy and coordination can maximize the
programs' varied timelines through staging of research, as well as
moving research findings into usable products. While some programs have
strengths in research and science, others focus on restoration,
communication, forecasting, mitigation, and myriad other topics.
Programs building on each other's strengths (as well as on data and
information from historical programs) and bolstering others to
complementarily fill mission gaps will create a cohesive, comprehensive
national approach to Gulf oil spill response and recovery.
Finally, we share your concerns with the sluggish way that the
Treasury Department has responded to the RESTORE Act regulations. As
you know, these regulations are overdue, and no money can flow until
they are finalized. It appears that Treasury and OIG activities are not
synchronized, further exacerbating a confusing situation along the
Gulf. In one case, the Federal entities (led by NOAA) are well on the
way to planning for RESTORE science activities, but the lack of rules
from Treasury seem to preclude the academic Centers of Excellence from
being at the planning table, even though it is prescribed in the
statute.
We share your commitment to a successful restoration of Gulf
ecosystems and hope that with your leadership we can achieve vigorous
coordination between the various Gulf spill science programs. It is
critical that this occurs as soon as possible to ensure that we take
the best advantage of the ongoing and future opportunities stemming
from the Gulf oil spill tragedy. We understand the complexity and
magnitude of coordinating across the breadth of Gulf restoration
resources and activities, and we offer the experiences of Consortium
for Ocean Leadership and the Gulf of Mexico University Research
Collaborative to assist with developing a strategy. We are happy to
discuss these issues with you in more detail at your earliest
convenience.
Regards,
Robert B. Gagosian,
President and CEO,
Consortium for Ocean Leadership.
William Monty Graham,
Board Chairperson,
Gulf of Mexico University Research Collaborative.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Hon. Bruce H. Andrews
Question. How will Department of Commerce ensure, as required by
the RESTORE Act, that oil spill programs do not replace but are
coordinated with existing NOAA programs mandated to support ecosystem
restoration and conservation?
Answer. The Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in partnership with the Gulf Coast
Ecosystem Restoration Council, actively coordinates with the other
entities involved in Gulf Coast ecosystem restoration to ensure all
programs are free of duplication. NOAA is actively engaging and
coordinating with governmental and nongovernmental research programs
that operated in the region prior to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
and RESTORE Act implementation to prevent any overlap. The coordination
efforts of both NOAA and the Council focus on, but are not limited to,
the following activities and entities: RESTORE Section 1604--NOAA
Science & Monitoring; RESTORE Section 1605--State Centers of
Excellence; Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA) trustees;
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF); National Academy of
Science (NAS); and Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI). We
continue to be strongly committed to coordinating with our partners in
our collective efforts to restore the Gulf Coast region. In addition,
the Council has built specific steps into the project selection process
to coordinate on project selection to help leverage resources and avoid
duplication.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
Hon. Bruce H. Andrews
Question 1. A topic we frequently hear about in Florida is not only
the importance of stock assessments, for example, of the red snapper
fishery but of a clearer understanding of how the Deepwater Horizon
incident may have impacted this fishery. How will the work of the Gulf
Coast Ecosystem Restoration Science, Observation, Monitoring, and
Technology Program contribute to stock assessments?
Answer. We recognize the need to advance our current understanding
of Gulf fisheries. The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Science,
Observation, Monitoring and Technology Program (Program) will
contribute to a holistic understanding of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem
including its fish populations, fishing industries, habitat, and
wildlife through ecosystem research, observation, monitoring, and
technology development. Because fish stocks and fisheries are such an
integral component of the ecosystem, much of the research supported by
the Program will either directly or indirectly increase our
understanding of fisheries in the Gulf and provide data that will be
critical to our assessment work on many Gulf species.
Question 2. When do you anticipate hiring a director for the
science program? Why hasn't a director been hired yet?
Answer. The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Science, Observation,
Monitoring and Technology Program, or NOAA RESTORE Science Program, has
been led for over a year by an Acting Director based in the region. We
are in the process of hiring a Director and a Washington, D.C.-based
Associate Director. We expect the Associate Director to be on the job
by October, 2014, and the Director to be on the job by the end of the
year.
Question 3. Is it possible that the delay in implementing sections
of the RESTORE Act, particularly science projects like the assessment
of fisheries, could have implications for the natural resource damage
assessment process as well?
Answer. The science for the injury assessment under the Natural
Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) is well underway and is not impacted
by the fact that science projects have not yet been implemented under
the RESTORE Act. The science projects that will be funded under
components of the RESTORE Act will be important in helping to inform
long term restoration planning and monitoring.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Justin R. Ehrenwerth
Question. The recently released project selection process
encourages projects that benefit ``the human community where
implementation occurs.'' That doesn't come from the statute, and in
fact, could take away from comprehensive restoration because several
projects provide benefits only far from where they actually are
implemented. For example, in Florida, by purchasing buffer lands around
freshwater springs, the benefit is to communities that rely on
downstream waters. So the project is implemented upstream, but the
benefits are elsewhere. How will this consideration be addressed?
Answer. Mr. Ehrenwerth failed to submit a response to the question.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Justin R. Ehrenwerth
Question 1. What programs non-federal programs (State agencies,
University Research Consortia, designated Center of Excellence: Center
for Gulf Studies) are being coordinated with?
Answer. Since 2013, representatives of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem
Restoration Council (Council) and Council staff have been informally
meeting and coordinating with many of our partners including the NOAA
RESTORE Act Science Program, the National Academy of Sciences Gulf of
Mexico Program, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Gulf Program,
the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, the Gulf of Mexico University
Research Consortium, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, the North American
Wetlands Conservation Fund, the National Resource Damage Assessment
program, candidate or prospective Centers of Excellence under the Act's
Section 1605 program, and various state agencies. Some of this
coordination has taken place under the banner of the ``Gulf Coast Ad
Hoc Coordination Forum'' which was created to provide regular
communication and coordination on Gulf of Mexico restoration related
science amongst the entities funded as a result of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill to support science and restoration. Coordination of
this forum has been carried out through monthly teleconferences and/or
webinars as well as periodic face-to-face meetings.
Question 2. How are they being coordinated with? How do we ensure
the states have the intended leadership role in developing the science
needs when NOAA is restricted from engagement with the Centers of
Excellence?
Answer. The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council staff has been
informally engaged through the Gulf Coast Ad Hoc Coordination Forum
with a variety of entities including: the NOAA RESTORE Act Science
Program, the National Academy of Sciences Gulf of Mexico Program, the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Gulf Program, the Gulf of Mexico
Research Initiative, the Gulf of Mexico University Research Consortium,
the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, the North American Wetlands Conservation
Fund, the National Resource Damage Assessment program, candidate or
prospective Centers of Excellence under the Act's Section 1605 program,
and various state agencies.
I defer to the U.S. Department of Commerce and NOAA to discuss its
activities in this regard.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
Justin R. Ehrenwerth
Question 1. Will Council commit to implementing the oil spill
impact formula as it was written in the law?
Answer. Yes. The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council)
is committed to a fair and transparent process when developing
regulations that adhere to the RESTORE Act. In August 2014, the Council
published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register that will allow
Gulf Coast states to receive funding for development of State
Expenditure Plans. The Interim Final Rule provides access to up to 5
percent of the funds available to each State under the Oil Spill Impact
Component for planning--a percentage equal to the statutory minimum
each Gulf Coast state is guaranteed under the RESTORE Act. The Council
anticipates releasing a second proposed rule in the coming months that
adheres to the RESTORE Act, details the oil spill restoration impact
allocation formula, and sets levels of funding provided to each State.
The Council will undertake a public notice and comment process for this
second rule. Following review of and response to public comments, the
Council will finalize the regulation and begin awarding funds to the
Gulf Coast States according to the RESTORE Act, the regulation, and
approved State plans.
Question 2. What has precluded the Council from entering a
Memorandum of Understanding regarding administrative funding with the
states similar to the MOU between the Department of Commerce and the
Department of Treasury?
Answer. In August 2013, the Council executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury)
to make funds from the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (Trust Fund)
available for administrative expenses. This MOU was an interim measure
to allow the Council to access administrative funds in support of
initial stand-up activities while Treasury finalized its regulations
concerning the investment and use of amounts deposited in the Trust
Fund. The MOU between the Council and Treasury expired on October 14,
2014, upon finalization of the Treasury regulations. The Act provides
the Council with a 3 percent cap on administrative expenses and the
Council has approved a budget consistent with this cap that allocates
funds to cover administrative expenses of the Council, such as
accounting systems, pay roll, etc. In recognition of the need to
provide funding for planning and the development of State Expenditure
Plans under the Oil Spill Impact Allocation Component, the Council
issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) in August 2014 to provide funding to
state Council members for planning and the development of State
Expenditure Plans under the Oil Spill Restoration Impact Allocation
Component of the Trust Fund.
Question 3. How will the Council weight each of the five goals in
the Comprehensive Plan?
Answer. The five Goals in the Initial Comprehensive Plan will not
be weighted. The Council will use the Goals and Objectives set forth in
the Initial Comprehensive Plan to guide its ecosystem restoration
funding decisions. The Goals provide the Council's desired long-term
outcomes for Gulf Coast restoration; the Objectives outline the broad
types of activities that are expected to achieve the Goals. The Council
intends to refine the Objectives over time to be more specific and
measureable as more information is known about the ultimate amount and
availability of funding.
Question 4. Please provide a detailed timeline of the milestones
and final publication of the funded priorities list.
Answer. The Council is committed to working with deliberate speed
to implement the Act and develop a Funded Priorities List (FPL).
Project solicitation window closes on November 17, 2014.
Projects reviewed for eligibility under RESTORE Act; budget
reasonableness; ``Priority and Commitment to the Initial
Comprehensive Plan'' review; ``Best Available Science'' review
conducted by external experts; ``Environmental Compliance
Readiness'' review; and concurrent development of ``context
reports'' for the aforementioned reviews completed March 2015.
Council review of context reports and development of Draft
FPL; Draft FPL published in the Federal Register June 2015, for
public review and comment.
Public comment period on Draft FPL closes July 2015.
Council review and incorporation of public comments;
finalization and publication of the FPL completed by September
2015.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
Mimi A. Drew
Question. You mention that, in lessons learned, there could be some
changes to laws or rules that would permit a more rapid approach to
restoration. Can you elaborate on this?
Answer.
Issue: On April 20, 2011, the Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource
Damage Assessment Trustees and BP signed the Framework for Early
Restoration Addressing Injuries Resulting from the Deepwater Horizon
Oil Spill, which set aside $1 billion dollars for early restoration.
However, three and half years later, the Trustees and BP have only
reached agreement on how to spend $700 million of the $1 billion. This
is due, in part, to the fact that the Trustees and BP must negotiate
the amount of credit that BP will receive for each early restoration
project that it funds. To date, when determining the amount offsets for
each project, BP has refused to use a dollar-for-dollar (value-to-
value) scaling approach, which is allowed under 15 C.F.R. Sec. 990.53.
Instead, BP has insisted that the Trustees calculate the offsets using
Habitat Equivalency Analysis, Resource Equivalency Analysis, or Benefit
Cost Ratio. If BP was required to use a dollar-for-dollar scaling
approach then the amount of time spent on negotiating the offsets for
the early restoration projects would be significantly reduced.
Recommendation: Amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), to
require the responsible parties to participate in early restoration for
spills where final restoration will not be implemented for a numbers of
years due to the size and complexity of the spill. As part of this
amendment, require early restoration projects to be credited using the
dollar-to-dollar (value-to-value) scaling approach, which would allow
for a more rapid restoration.
Issue: The Deepwater Horizon disaster has shown that an incident of
that type and size requires a huge and timely response. However, once
the initial cleanup is accomplished, technically, final restoration
could wait until the case is either litigated to conclusion or settled.
If the Trustees and BP hadn't been able to reach agreement on an early
restoration settlement of $1 billion, the affected Trustees would still
be waiting to begin the restoration of damaged resources.
Recommendation: Amend the Oil Protection Act of 1990 (OPA), to
require responsible parties provide early restoration funding for
spills or incidents over a certain size or geographic distribution.
Issue: One of Florida's most immediately recognized injuries was
the damage to recreational use of the resource, or loss of human use.
The existing law is very focused on detailed assessment for ecological
loss, but not particularly helpful in determining how to address loss
of human use.
Recommendation: Given the large role this injury played in the DWH
incident, the law should be reviewed against what we have learned for
possible changes to make this type of loss more easily addressed and
offset.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
Thomas E. Kelsch
Question 1. How important is water quality to habitat restoration?
Answer. Improved water quality can be an important element in
restoring the ecological functioning of priority bays and estuaries,
especially in areas where noted degradation of water quality is the
significant limiting factor in those systems. With limited funding
available, projects that provide the most significant measurable
improvement to the functioning of bays and estuaries affected by the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and the habitats and species they support,
must be prioritized to ensure the most significant outcomes and highest
possible returns on investment from the Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund
are achieved.
Question 2. Does the Foundation have any sort of rebuttal process
for projects that apply for funding but are not accepted?
Answer. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreements, NFWF
is required to consult with state and Federal resource agencies in
identifying projects for funding under the Gulf Environmental Benefit
Fund. NFWF works closely with our resource agency partners to provide
substantive comments and guidance on potential improvements to projects
that may make them more competitive.
To facilitate consideration for funding through the Gulf
Environmental Benefit Fund and other funding sources arising from the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, each of the Gulf States has established a
web-based portal to receive project ideas and comment from the public.
The states are responsible for managing these submission processes and
notifying applicants of the status of their submissions.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.