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


             H.R. 660, H.R. 1415, H.R. 1689, H.R. 2750,
               H.R. 3160, H.R. 3228, H.R. 3692, H.R. 3748, 
               H.R. 3764, H.R. 3817, H.R. 3864, H.R. 3892, 
               and H.R. 3906

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

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                         Tuesday, June 22, 2021

                               __________

                            Serial No. 117-6

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


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

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
44-957 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------           
         
                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
   GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                  BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member

Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA                        Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Doug Lamborn, CO
    CNMI                             Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA                    Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Paul A. Gosar, AZ
Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Garret Graves, LA
Joe Neguse, CO                       Jody B. Hice, GA
Mike Levin, CA                       Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Katie Porter, CA                     Daniel Webster, FL
Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM           Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM             Russ Fulcher, ID
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Pete Stauber, MN
Diana DeGette, CO                    Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Julia Brownley, CA                   Jerry L. Carl, AL
Debbie Dingell, MI                   Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
A. Donald McEachin, VA               Blake D. Moore, UT
Darren Soto, FL                      Yvette Herrell, NM
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU        Lauren Boebert, CO
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL         Jay Obernolte, CA
Ed Case, HI                          Cliff Bentz, OR
Betty McCollum, MN
Steve Cohen, TN
Paul Tonko, NY
Rashida Tlaib, MI
Lori Trahan, MA

                     David Watkins, Staff Director
                        Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
               Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                
                                ------                                

                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, June 22, 2021...........................     1

Statement of Members:
    Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................    10
        Prepared statement of....................................    11
    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     2
        Prepared statement of....................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:
Panel 1

    Beyer, Hon. Donald S. Jr., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Virginia......................................    18
        Prepared statement of....................................    19
    Gonzalez-Colon, Hon. Jenniffer, a Resident Commissioner in 
      Congress from the Territory of Puerto Rico.................    15
        Prepared statement of....................................    15
    Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................    20
        Prepared statement of....................................    21
    Pingree, Hon. Chellie, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Maine.............................................    16
        Prepared statement of....................................    17
    Plaskett, Hon. Stacey E., a Delegate in Congress from the 
      Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands.......................    12
        Prepared statement of....................................    13

Panel 2

    Guertin, Stephen, Deputy Director for Policy, U.S. Fish and 
      Wildlife Service, Falls Church, Virginia...................    22
        Prepared statement of....................................    24
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    29
    LeBoeuf, Nicole, Acting Administrator, National Oceanic and 
      Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC.................    30
        Prepared statement of....................................    32
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    38

Panel 3

    Guardado, Mauricio, General Manager, United Water 
      Conservation District, Oxnard, California..................   100
        Prepared statement of....................................   101
    Gutierrez-Graudins, Marce, Founder and Executive Director, 
      Azul, San Francisco, California............................    95
        Prepared statement of....................................    96
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    99
    Johnson, Ayana Elizabeth, Co-Founder, Urban Ocean Lab........    75
        Prepared statement of....................................    77
    Lee, Chris, State Senator, Hawaii State Legislature, 
      Honolulu, Hawaii...........................................    67
        Prepared statement of....................................    69
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    73
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva
        Letter of support signed by 136 organizations............     4
        Letter of support signed by 19 leading aquariums.........     8
        National Parks Conservation Association, Letter of 
          support................................................   123

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman
        Stronger America Through Seafood, Letter of concern......   124
                                     


 
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 660, ``SHOVEL-READY RESTORATION GRANTS FOR 
  COASTLINES AND FISHERIES ACT OF 2021''; H.R. 1415, ``TRIBAL COASTAL 
  RESILIENCY ACT''; H.R. 1689, ``OFFSHORE WIND FOR TERRITORIES ACT''; 
   H.R. 2750, ``BLUE CARBON FOR OUR PLANET ACT''; H.R. 3160, ``KEEP 
  AMERICA'S WATERFRONTS WORKING ACT''; H.R. 3228, ``NATIONAL COASTAL 
RESILIENCE DATA AND SERVICES ACT''; H.R. 3692, ``MARINE MAMMAL CLIMATE 
  CHANGE PROTECTION ACT''; H.R. 3748, ``BLUE GLOBE ACT''; H.R. 3764, 
 ``OCEAN-BASED CLIMATE SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2021''; H.R. 3817, ``REGIONAL 
 OCEAN PARTNERSHIP ACT''; H.R. 3864, ``CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESEARCH 
 ACT''; H.R. 3892, ``NATIONAL OCEANS AND COASTAL SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS 
          ACT''; AND H.R. 3906, ``BLUE CARBON PROTECTION ACT''

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, June 22, 2021

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:59 p.m., via 
Webex, Hon. Raul M. Grijalva [Chairman of the Committee] 
presiding.
    Present: Representatives Grijalva, Huffman, Lowenthal, 
Porter, Stansbury, Dingell, McEachin, Soto, Case, Cohen, Tlaib; 
Westerman, Young, Gohmert, Graves, Radewagen, Gonzalez-Colon, 
Stauber, Tiffany, Carl, Moore, Herrell, Boebert, and Bentz.

    The Chairman. Thank you. The Committee on Natural Resources 
will come to order.
    The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on ocean 
climate legislation. Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral 
opening statements at the hearing are limited to the Chair and 
the Ranking Member or their designees. This will allow us to 
hear from our witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their 
schedules.
    Therefore, I am asking unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today or at the 
close of the hearing, whichever comes first.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    I also want to welcome today Representative Melanie 
Stansbury to the Committee. Representative Stansbury has 
extensive experience on issues under the Committee's 
jurisdiction. Before being elected to the House of 
Representatives, Representative Stansbury served in the New 
Mexico legislation where she advanced many forward-thinking 
climate and natural resource policies.
    The Representative also reported on natural resources 
issues at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the 
Office of Management and Budget, and the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee where she oversaw western water 
issues and other issues that fall under this Committee she'll 
be serving under. Representative Stansbury will bring valuable 
experience to the Committee, and we are very lucky to have her 
join us, and we welcome her.

    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement on the 
legislation before us today.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    The Chairman. Today, during World Oceans Month, the 
Committee is meeting about the new and improved Ocean-Based 
Climate Solutions Act. In November 2020, at that hearing, it 
introduced many of us to the concept of ocean-based climate 
solutions which we learned can provide up to 21 percent of the 
annual emissions cuts we need to address climate change.
    With ocean climate action, we will protect coastal 
communities and their ecosystems from dangerous symptoms of 
climate change, capture and reduce greenhouse gases, and 
achieve justice for underserved communities. And while we are 
at it, we can build back better, bolstering the economy and 
putting people to work in green or blue careers.
    There are several changes in the Ocean-Based Climate 
Solutions Act that I would like to highlight for you today. 
Some of the sections were removed because they have already 
been signed into law such as the Digital Coast Act or the 
Integrated Coastal Ocean Observation System. Other sections 
were removed because the Biden administration is already acting 
on the initiative to protect 30 percent of our ocean by 2030 
and reinstating the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience 
Area.
    A new title places a 5-cent excise tax on virgin plastic 
manufactured for single-use products, which will help pay for 
ocean conservation. Taxing plastic will also discourage this 
wasteful material that chokes our marine life, contributes to 
climate change, and creates environmental injustices.
    Other new additions to this version of the bill will 
include: a report on the United States' progress and plans 
toward achieving the targets of our United Nations Sustainable 
Development Goal to conserve and sustainably use the oceans and 
marine resources; a new grant program in the National Marine 
Sanctuary System to support climate research and resilience 
with Indigenous and local knowledge of marine and natural 
areas; a requirement that NOAA develop and coordinate data, 
products, and services regarding coastal flooding, sea level 
rise, and Great Lakes water levels; a study on black carbon, 
quantifying black carbon emissions and examining its impact on 
Indigenous communities and arctic wildlife; and a study on 
public access to our Nation's coasts, including the Great 
Lakes, because, unfortunately, there are many barriers and 
obstacles for underserved communities accessing our coasts, and 
climate change is only making that more difficult.
    Throughout the bill, we made technical changes based on 
feedback from stakeholders and environmental groups as well as 
NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, who are with us today 
to provide further feedback. We talked to a wide array of 
stakeholders, ensuring our solutions are solutions for 
everyone.
    I greatly look forward to the hearing from today's panel of 
witnesses, who are leading ocean climate and justice efforts at 
grassroots, local, state, and national levels. With 29 co-
sponsors already on, we are proud of this bill and the momentum 
for ocean climate solutions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair, Committee on 
                           Natural Resources
    Today, during World Oceans Month, the Committee is meeting about 
the new and improved Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act.
    Our November 2020 hearing introduced many of us to the concept of 
ocean-based climate solutions, which we learned can provide up to 21 
percent of the annual emissions cuts we need to address climate change.
    With ocean climate action, we will protect coastal communities and 
ecosystems from dangerous symptoms of climate change, capture and 
reduce greenhouse gases, and achieve justice for underserved 
communities. And, while we're at it, we can build back better, 
bolstering the economy and putting people to work in green--or blue--
careers.
    There are several changes in the new Ocean-Based Climate Solutions 
Act that I'd like to highlight for you.
    Some sections were removed because they have already been signed 
into law, such as the Digital Coast Act and the Integrated Coastal 
Ocean Observation System.
    Other sections were removed because the Biden administration is 
already acting on the initiative to protect 30 percent of our ocean by 
2030 and reinstating the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area.
    A new title places a 5-cent excise tax on virgin plastic 
manufactured for single-use products, which will help pay for ocean 
conservation. Taxing plastic will also discourage this wasteful 
material that chokes our marine life, contributes to climate change, 
and creates environmental injustices.

    Other new additions to this version of the bill include:

     a report on the United States' progress and plans toward 
            achieving the targets of our United Nations Sustainable 
            Development Goal to conserve and sustainably use the ocean 
            and marine resources;

     a new grant program in the National Marine Sanctuary 
            System to support climate research and resilience with 
            Indigenous and local knowledge of marine and natural areas;

     a requirement that NOAA develop and coordinate data, 
            products, and services regarding coastal flooding, sea-
            level rise, and Great Lakes water levels;

     a study on black carbon, quantifying black carbon 
            emissions and examining its impacts on Indigenous 
            communities and Arctic wildlife;

     and a study on public access to our nation's coasts, 
            including the Great Lakes--because unfortunately, there are 
            many barriers and obstacles for underserved communities to 
            accessing our coasts, and climate change is only making it 
            more difficult.

    Throughout the bill, we made technical changes based on feedback 
from stakeholders and environmental groups, as well as NOAA and the 
Fish and Wildlife Service, who are with us today to provide further 
feedback.
    We talked to a wide array of stakeholders, ensuring that our 
solutions are solutions for everybody.
    I greatly look forward to hearing from today's panel of witnesses, 
who are leading ocean-climate and justice efforts at the grassroots, 
local, state, and national levels.
    With 29 co-sponsors already signed on, we are proud of this bill 
and the momentum for ocean climate solutions.
    Finally, I would like to enter into the record two letters of 
support for the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act. One is signed by 
more than 135 organizations and businesses, representing millions of 
Americans. Another is from 19 of the nation's leading aquariums.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Finally, I would like to enter into the 
record two letters of support for the Ocean-Based Climate 
Solutions Act. One is signed by more than 135 organizations and 
businesses representing millions of Americans. The other is 
from 19 of the Nation's leading aquariums.

    [The information follows:]

                                                      June 22, 2021

        Nancy Pelosi, Speaker         Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy,

    Our ocean is a source of solutions and hope when it comes to 
addressing climate change. The undersigned businesses and organizations 
are writing to express our strong support for ocean climate action and 
the inclusion of ocean-based solutions in any larger climate 
legislation.
    Major scientific reports such as the Special Report on the Ocean 
and Cryosphere and the High Level Panel Report on a Sustainable Ocean 
Economy have shown us not just the devastating toll climate change has 
had on the ocean, but also the incredible role it has to play as a 
source of climate solutions with the potential to provide a fifth of 
the greenhouse gas emission reductions needed globally to limit 
temperature rise to 1.5+C.

    Support for ocean climate action is at an all time high. Since 
January, the Biden Administration has made impressive progress on ocean 
climate action, through promoting ocean-based renewable energy; pausing 
offshore oil and gas leasing for a rigorous review; prioritizing 
environmental justice in ocean and climate decision making; advocating 
for investments in coastal restoration and resilience; and supporting 
ocean sanctuaries for fish and wildlife to thrive in a changing 
climate.
    Now, Congress has the opportunity to act and turn the vision for 
ocean climate action into durable solutions. The Ocean-Based Climate 
Solutions Act of 2021 (H.R. 3764), led by House Natural Resources 
Committee Chair Raul Grijalva, will codify many of the proposals made 
by the Biden Administration, and includes many other innovative 
provisions to leverage the power of the ocean to address climate 
change. By implementing a full suite of ocean-based climate solutions, 
the legislation would bolster frontline communities, increase the 
resilience of ocean ecosystems, and demonstrate much-needed leadership 
in the global effort to address the climate crisis.

    Specifically, the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2021 will:

    Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by supporting the transition to a 
clean energy economy through promoting ocean-based renewable energy. 
The bill also prohibits oil and gas development activities in most 
areas of the Outer Continental Shelf.

    Increase Carbon Storage in Blue Carbon Ecosystems by capitalizing 
on the carbon storage potential and other co-benefits provided by 
``blue carbon'' ecosystems like salt marshes, sea grasses, and 
mangroves. These ecosystems absorb carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere 
and safely store it at a rate of up to four times that of forests on 
land. They also protect coastal communities by limiting the impacts of 
coastal erosion, flooding, and storms--all while providing habitat for 
marine wildlife and fisheries.

    Promote Coastal Resiliency to protect our coasts and communities 
from the climate impacts we can't avoid; mandate the establishment of a 
strategic task force to coordinate federal efforts around voluntary 
relocation; and recognize and support tribal and Indigenous knowledge 
and expertise. It also authorizes a $10 billion investment in coastal 
restoration and resilience that is a win-win-win for our economy, our 
frontline communities, and our environment.

    Improve Ocean Protection by supporting the Biden Administration's 
goal to protect at least 30% of our ocean by 2030. Marine protected 
areas, like our protected areas on land, are a key tool for protecting 
biodiversity, which is more critical than ever in the face of the 
nature and climate crises.

    Support Climate-Ready Fisheries by encouraging the development and 
implementation of strategies to improve the management of fisheries in 
a changing climate. The bill will help to promote U.S. seafood sourced 
from environmentally and climate-friendly fisheries and eliminate 
fishing subsidies in trade agreements for countries that contribute to 
overfishing or illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.

    Tackle the Ocean and Human Health Challenges of ocean acidification 
and harmful algal blooms and the impacts of plastic pollution by 
establishing a manufacturers fee on virgin single-use plastic 
production.

    The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2021 would bolster 
frontline communities most at risk from climate change; increase the 
resilience of ocean ecosystems; and help demonstrate much-needed 
leadership in the global effort to address the climate crisis. We urge 
you to act quickly to implement the measures detailed in this 
legislation--before it's too late.

            Signed,

        350 Maine                     Inland Ocean Coalition Great 
                                      Lakes Chapter

        Acadia Center                 Inland Ocean Coalition Illinois 
                                      Chapter

        AFGE Local 704                Inland Ocean Coalition Montana 
                                      Chapter

        Alaska Wilderness League      Inland Ocean Coalition North 
                                      Texas Chapter

        ALRAS Digital                 Inland Ocean Coalition University 
                                      of Michigan Chapter

        American Littoral Society     Inland Ocean Coalition Washington 
                                      DC Chapter

        Audubon Delta                 Inland Ocean Coalition Wyoming 
                                      Chapter

        Audubon Florida               International Fund for Animal 
                                      Welfare

        Audubon Great Lakes           International Marine Mammal 
                                      Project of Earth Island Institute

        Audubon New York              League of Conservation Voters

        Audubon Society Lincoln 
        City                          Lopez-Wagner Strategies

        Audubon South Carolina        Marine Conservation Voters

        Audubon Washington            Maine Council of Churches

        Azul                          Maine Unitarian Universalist 
                                      State Advocacy Network

        Bay Area Youth Climate 
        Summit                        Marine Conservation Institute

        Benitez Strategies            Marine Mammal Alliance Nantucket

        Blue Frontier                 Maryland League of Conservation 
                                      Voters

        California League of 
        Conservation Voters           Milwaukee Riverkeeper

        Californians for Western 
        Wilderness                    Mystic Aquarium

        Center for American 
        Progress                      National Aquarium

        Center for the Blue Economy   National Audubon Society

        Cetacean Society 
        International                 National Ocean Protection 
                                      Coalition

        Clean Water Action            National Parks Conservation 
                                      Association

        Climate Law & Policy 
        Project                       Natural Resources Defense Council 
                                      (NRDC)

        Climate Strong Islands 
        Network                       NC League of Conservation Voters

        Coastal Conservation League   New Mexico Wildlife Federation

        Colorado Ocean Coalition      NY4WHALES

        Conservation Law Foundation   Ocean Conservancy

        Conservation Voters PA        Ocean Conservation Research

        Conservation Voters South 
        Carolina                      Ocean Defense Initiative

        Corazon Latino                Ocean River Institute

        CT League of Conservation 
        Voters                        Ocean Visions, Inc.

        Defenders of Wildlife         Oceana

        EarthEcho International       Oceanic Preservation Society

        Endangered Species 
        Coalition                     Only One

        Environment America           Oregon League of Conservation 
                                      Voters

        Environmental Action 
        Committee of West Marin       Patagonia

        Environment California        Philadelphia Zoo

        Environment Connecticut       Restore America's Estuaries

        Environment Florida           Rivers Alliance of Connecticut

        Environment Georgia           Sachamama

        Environment Maine             Sanctuary Education Advisory 
                                      Specialists (SEAS)

        Environment Massachusetts     Save the Manatee Club

        Environment New Jersey        Save the Sound

        Environment North Carolina    Seattle Aquarium

        Environment Oregon            Seven Circles Foundation

        Environment Texas             Shedd Aquarium

        Environment Virginia          Sierra Club

        Environment Washington        Sierra Club National Marine Team

        Environmental Defense 
        Center                        South Shore Audubon Society

        Environmental Law & Policy 
        Center                        Southern Environmental Law Center

        Environmental League of MA    Surfrider Foundation

        Florida Bay Forever           Sylvia Earle Alliance/Mission 
                                      Blue

        Friends of Casco Bay          TAO

        Gotham Whale                  The FREED Peoples

        Great Old Broads for 
        Wilderness                    The Ocean Foundation

        GreenLatinos                  The Ocean Project

        Greenpeace USA                The Rachel Carson Council

        Hannah4Change                 The Rewilding Institute

        Healthy Ocean Coalition       The Whale Guitar Project

        Hispanic Access Foundation    The Wilderness Society

        Inland Ocean Coalition        The Years Project Inc.

        Inland Ocean Coalition 
        Alaska Chapter                Tropical Audubon Society

        Inland Ocean Coalition 
        Arizona Chapter               Urban Ocean Lab

        Inland Ocean Coalition 
        Buffalo NY Chapter            Virginia Aquarium & Marine 
                                      Science Center

        Inland Ocean Coalition 
        Central Texas Chapter         Waterkeeper Alliance

        Inland Ocean Coalition CSU 
        Fort Collins Chapter          Wildlife Conservation Society

        Inland Ocean Coalition CU 
        Boulder Chapter               World Wildlife Fund

                                 ______
                                 
                                 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.001
                                 

                                            .epsJune 14, 2021      

        Hon. Raul Grijalva            Hon. Bruce Westerman
        Chair                         Ranking Member
        Committee on Natural 
        Resources                     Committee on Natural Resources
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Hon. Peter DeFazio            Hon. Sam Graves
        Chair                         Ranking Member
        Committee on Transportation 
        and Infrastructure            Committee on Transportation and 
                                      Infrastructure
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515
    Dear Chair Grijalva, Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member Westerman and 
Ranking Member Graves:

    As the nation's leading aquariums committed to ocean and freshwater 
conservation, we thank you for your climate leadership and express our 
support for strong ocean-climate action included in the Ocean-Based 
Climate Solutions Act of 2021 (H.R. 3764).
    We recognize that climate change is the greatest threat to the 
future of our planet, of people, and of our ocean and freshwater 
systems. For the well-being of people and all life on Earth, we must 
take immediate and significant action to address the climate crisis. 
Climate action can produce local economic benefits, generate new jobs, 
restore public lands and waters, and engage current and future 
generations to help rebuild our infrastructure and create a clean-
energy future. We must also ensure that communities disproportionately 
bearing the brunt of climate impacts are engaged in designing equitable 
strategies for a path forward and derive environmental and economic 
benefits from their engagement.
    To fight climate change, we need a healthy ocean. According to the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, oceans absorb 
approximately 25 percent of the carbon dioxide generated by human 
activities, and more than 90 percent of the excess heat. But these 
services have come at a tremendous cost. By altering the chemistry and 
temperature of the ocean, we have put marine ecosystems and wildlife at 
increasing risk. The life-giving benefits we derive from ocean and 
freshwater systems--including food and water, transportation, defense, 
tourism, and cultural values--underpin our global prosperity and 
community identities.
    Our ocean, lakes, and rivers are also sources of climate solutions. 
Together, we can build resilience to the impacts of climate change by 
restoring and conserving natural habitats, curbing pollution, and 
managing fisheries and other natural resources in sustainable ways. We 
also can protect and restore our tidal marshes, seagrasses, wetlands, 
and mangroves that sequester atmospheric carbon, and develop new 
offshore sources of renewable energy in an environmentally responsible 
way.
    Our aquariums, which make up the Aquarium Conservation Partnership, 
play unique and powerful roles in promoting climate solutions. We are 
trusted science-based communicators, conservation stewards, and local 
business leaders. We are committed to working with our communities, 
government leaders, business partners, and public audiences to meet 
these challenges and accelerate the pace of progress for our planet.
    Our aquariums appreciate your leadership on ocean-climate action 
and we stand ready to work with you to address the causes of climate 
change and find solutions to the impacts it is having on ocean and 
freshwater life and ecosystems.

            Sincerely,

        Ron Forman,                   John F. Calvelli,
        President and CEO             Exec. VP, Public Affairs
        Audubon Nature Institute of 
        New Orleans                   Wildlife Conservation Society, on 
                                      behalf of the New York Aquarium

        Scott D. Sampson, PhD,        Vikki Spruill,
        Executive Director            President & CEO
        California Academy of 
        Sciences                      New England Aquarium

        Jerry Borin,                  Dennis Pate,
        Interim President & CEO       CEO
        Columbus Zoo and Aquarium     Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo & 
                                      Aquarium

        Roger Germann,                Alan Varsik,
        President/CEO                 Director
        The Florida Aquarium          Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium

        Dr. Alistair D.M. Dove,       Robert Davidson,
        VP of Research, Cons. & 
        Nutrition                     CEO
        Georgia Aquarium              Seattle Aquarium

        Jason Patlis,                 Bridget C. Coughlin, PhD,
        President & CEO               President and CEO
        The Maritime Aquarium at 
        Norwalk                       John G. Shedd Aquarium

        Julie Packard,                Kevin Mills,
        Executive Director            President and CEO
        Monterey Bay Aquarium         South Carolina Aquarium

        Stephen Coan,                 Keith Sanford,
        President & CEO               President and CEO
        Mystic Aquarium               Tennessee Aquarium

        John Racanelli,               Cynthia Whitbred-Spanoulis,
        CEO                           Executive Director
        National Aquarium             Virginia Aquarium & Marine 
                                      Science Center

        Kurt Strand,
        President & CEO
        The National Mississippi 
        River Museum & Aquarium

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member 
for his statement, and I believe it is Congressman Bentz, as 
designee for Ranking Member Westerman. Sir, you are recognized.

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

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me begin by welcoming 
Members and witnesses to today's hearing. We are considering 13 
bills, 12 of which are included in some form in Chair 
Grijalva's larger 290-page, 14 title bill, H.R. 3764. These 
bills reflect a broad set of concerns including climate, 
resilience to higher ocean levels, conservation, restoration, 
tribal issues, wind leases, waterfront task forces, Great Lakes 
water levels, and improvement of circumstances of marine 
mammals, to name just some of the bill's many topics.
    But will this bill address and help our Nation also face 
one of the major challenges with us today, that being the 
greatest drought in modern day history, affecting some 70 
million people across the western United States? Do these bills 
contain provisions for and possibly solutions that the ocean 
might offer, such as desalinization, to offset long-term 
drought? Perhaps our witnesses today will tell us.
    Additionally, as this bill title suggests, it is ocean-
based, but obviously, the bill carries with it serious 
implication for land and inland waters. Take, for example, the 
national blue carbon ecosystem map mandated in the bill. This 
provision would require that NOAA identify upstream structures 
or pollution sources that affect the watershed and potential 
for blue carbon sequestration. This requirement has no limits 
of how far upstream that process might reach. For example, the 
Columbia River watershed includes the landlocked states of 
Idaho and Montana and parts of Canada, including some 182 
million acres and tens of thousands of miles of waterways. Do 
those who support this bill understand the extent, not 
necessarily oceans-linked, of this bill's impact?
    Equally concerning are new consultation requirements 
contained in this bill for all Federal agencies where a 
proposed action has the potential to cause an adversarial 
impact to blue carbon areas of significance or marine mammal 
climate impact management plans. Will these new requirements 
cause delay in activities adjacent to such waterways such as 
construction of needed bridges, roads, wind energy projects, 
and other infrastructure? Could adding red tape to the siting 
of energy projects and energy transmission drive up consumer 
costs?
    Indeed, these requirements will understandably create yet 
another layer of environmental bureaucracy that will be used to 
block Federal actions such as maintaining or building new 
infrastructure of any and all kinds that might be adjacent to 
waterways. It could also be used as a reason or a justification 
for removal of essential existing water infrastructures, or 
cause more litigation, and that is coming from me, an attorney.
    The upstream impacts of this bill will no doubt make any 
activity with Federal involvement slower and more difficult. 
There are several areas of this bill that cause concerns due to 
potential far-ranging and uncertain impacts to water management 
for communities of millions of people in the western United 
States. The last thing this half of the United States needs is 
yet another demand for diminishing volumes of water caused by 
Federal legislation. We are fortunate to have a witness 
representing the Family Farm Alliance with us today who will 
discuss some of these important issues. I want to welcome this 
witness, Mr. Mauricio Guardado, from Oxnard, California, who 
will testify about his concerns over the far-reaching 
authorities contained in this bill.
    In conclusion, I am hopeful that these bills will 
ultimately advance our Nation's interests, directing Federal 
agencies to explore how to conserve our seas and the creatures 
and structures in them, while at the same time, helping people 
cope with the on-land challenges of drought and ever more 
expensive energy. While we have had an oversight hearing on 
drought almost a month ago which the 70 million people affected 
by the drought and the 115-degree temperatures I am sure 
appreciate, I hope that this or that hearing is not the only 
thing Congress will do regarding this drought because it is 
only getting worse.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bentz follows:]
    Prepared Statement of the Hon. Cliff Bentz, a Representative in 
                   Congress from the State of Oregon
    Let me begin by welcoming Members and witnesses to today's hearing. 
We are considering 13 bills, 12 of which are included in some form in 
Chairman Grijalva's larger 290-page, 14 title bill, H.R. 3764. These 
bills reflect a broad set of concerns including climate, resilience to 
higher ocean levels, conservation, restoration, tribal issues, wind 
leases, waterfront task forces, Great Lake water levels, and 
improvement of the circumstances of marine mammals, to name just some 
of the bill's many topics.
    But will this bill help our nation also address one of the major 
challenges facing us today--that being the greatest drought in modern 
day history affecting some 70 million people? Do these bills contain 
solutions that the ocean might offer (such as desalination) to offset 
long-term drought? Perhaps our witnesses will tell us.
    Additionally, as this bill's title suggests it's ``ocean based'' 
but obviously the bill carries with it serious implications for lands 
and inland waters. Take, for example, the national blue carbon 
ecosystem map mandated in the bill. This provision would require that 
NOAA identify upstream structures or pollution sources that affect the 
watershed and potential for blue carbon sequestration. This requirement 
has no limits of how far upstream that process might reach. For 
example, the Columbia River watershed includes the landlocked states of 
Idaho and Montana, and parts of Canada--some 182 million acres and tens 
of thousands of miles of waterways. Do those who support this bill 
understand the extent, not necessarily oceans-linked, of this bill's 
impact?
    Equally concerning are new consultation requirements contained in 
this bill for all federal agencies where a proposed action has the 
potential to cause an adversarial impact to ``blue carbon areas of 
significance'' or ``marine mammal climate impact management plans.'' 
Will these new requirements cause delay in activities adjacent to 
waterways, such as construction of bridges, roads, wind energy 
projects, and other infrastructure? Could adding red tape to sitting 
key energy projects and energy transmission drive up consumer costs? 
Indeed, these requirements will undoubtedly create yet another layer of 
environmental bureaucracy that will be used to block federal actions, 
such as maintaining or building new infrastructure of all kinds near 
water including water supply infrastructure that could help in meeting 
demand caused by drought in the West. Importantly, the processes found 
in this bill could also be used as a reason or justification for 
removal of essential existing water infrastructure. Or it could cause 
more litigation, and that's coming from a lawyer.
    The upstream impacts of this bill will no doubt make any activity 
with federal involvement slower and more difficult. The last thing the 
Western half of the U.S. needs is yet another demand for diminishing 
volumes of water caused by federal legislation. We are fortunate to 
have a witness representing the Family Farm Alliance who will discuss 
some of these important issues. I want to welcome this witness, Mr. 
Mauricio Guardado from Oxnard, California, who will testify about his 
concerns over the far-reaching authorities in this bill.
    In conclusion, I am hopeful that these bills will ultimately 
advance our nation's interests by directing the federal agencies to 
explore how to conserve our seas and the creatures and structures in 
them, while at the same time helping people cope with the on-land 
challenges of drought and even more expensive energy. While we had an 
oversight hearing on drought almost a month ago (which the 70 million 
people affected by the drought and 115 degree temperatures I'm sure 
appreciated) I hope that that hearing is not the only thing Congress 
will do regarding the drought because it is getting worse. We need to 
act now.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. We will begin. The first panel is the 
Congressional panel. It is featuring the bill sponsors from 
today's agenda. As was noted, 12 individual pieces of 
legislation have been integrated into the overall climate 
solutions legislation, and we have some of our colleagues with 
us today to speak to their piece of the legislation that have 
been incorporated to the bill.
    Let me begin now by recognizing Representative Plaskett for 
her statement on H.R. 660. You have 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. STACEY E. PLASKETT, A DELEGATE IN 
     CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

    Ms. Plaskett. Good afternoon to my colleagues, and good 
afternoon, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bentz, acting 
for Congressman Westerman. Thank you for holding this 
legislative hearing on ocean-based climate action and providing 
me the opportunity to lend support for my legislation, H.R. 
660, the Shovel-Ready Restoration Grants for Coastlines and 
Fisheries Act.
    I am pleased that the Committee is holding today's hearing 
on the important issue of improving our coastlines and oceans. 
Healthy coastal ecosystems provide critical social and 
environmental benefits in addition to playing important roles 
to the fishing industries and broader economies of coastal 
communities across the country. According to the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, our coastal 
economy supports 2.3 million jobs and contributes approximately 
$373 billion to our Nation's gross domestic product.
    Sadly, we are losing these habitats at rapid rates, and we 
are seeing losses across habitat types, from coral reefs to 
wetlands to kelp. Coral reefs and mangroves are extremely 
important in places like my home in the Virgin Islands and 
other coastal communities. They protect our shorelines by 
reducing 90 percent of wave energy during storm surges. They 
feed our families by providing habitat for our fisheries, and 
the quiet beaches and bays they create support our economy by 
attracting millions of tourists each year. They also provide 
adaptation to climate changes by reducing damage due to storm 
surges caused by more frequent and intense storms.
    Our response to these losses needs to address the causes of 
decline and accelerate recovery through the restoration and 
resilience projects that my bill, H.R. 660, would authorize.
    During the last major recession, Congress provided $167 
million through the Americans Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
2009 for NOAA to support coastal resilience projects that 
create jobs. This program was highly successful in advancing 
coastal and marine restoration while also spurring economic 
recovery.
    As we work to recover from the coronavirus pandemic and the 
related economic recession, I believe it is very important that 
we support projects that can both stimulate the economy and 
make strides in advancing coastal restoration. Economies in 
coastal communities like my home tend to be highly reliant on 
tourism, and consequently, have some of the hardest-hit 
communities during the coronavirus pandemic.
    That is why Congressman Don Young, Dean of the House, and I 
re-introduced the Shovel-Ready Restoration Grants for 
Coastlines and Fisheries Act. This bipartisan legislation is 
modeled after and expands on the temporary program originally 
established by ARRA.
    Our bill would meet the need for coastal restoration and 
economic recovery projects by creating a $3 billion NOAA grant 
program to fund shovel-ready projects that restore and improve 
coastal habits, coastal resiliency, and the economy of coastal 
communities.
    Under the program, priority projects are those that would 
stimulate the economy and would begin within 90 days of the 
grant award. Additionally, these priority projects would also 
provide compensation to fishermen for either their labor or use 
of fishing vessels.
    It is important to note that the bill would not only 
support remote coastal communities neighboring the oceans, but 
would also support those coastal communities that border the 
Great Lakes.
    In addition to being included in Chairman Grijalva's Ocean-
Based Climate Solutions Act of 2021, H.R. 3764, with the 
funding raised to $10 billion, the Shovel-Ready Restoration 
Grants for Coastlines and Fisheries Act was also passed by the 
House of Representatives last year as part of H.R. 2.
    And I would like to thank Dean Young for working with me on 
this initiative, and I invite other members of this Committee 
to co-sponsor the bill.
    Investing in coastal restoration is good policy. It is not 
just the right thing to do for the environment; it is the right 
thing to do for coastal communities, vulnerable coastal 
populations, and the U.S. economy.
    I urge the Committee to move this legislation through the 
House to final passage by the Senate to strengthen our coastal 
resiliency and help countless Virgin Islanders and other 
coastal community residents who are out of work through no 
fault of their own.
    Thank you again for your consideration.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Plaskett follows:]

   Prepared Statement of the Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett, a Delegate in 
         Congress from the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands

    Good afternoon, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Westerman. 
Thank you for holding this legislative hearing on ``Ocean-Based Climate 
Action'' and for providing me with the opportunity to lend support for 
my legislation, H.R. 660, the Shovel-Ready Restoration Grants for 
Coastlines and Fisheries Act.
    I am pleased that the Committee is holding today's hearing on the 
important issue of improving our coastlines and oceans. Healthy coastal 
ecosystems provide critical social and environmental benefits, in 
addition to playing important roles to the fishing industries and 
broader economies of coastal communities across country. According to 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), our coastal 
economy supports 2.3 million jobs and contributes approximately $373 
billion to the nation's gross domestic product.
    Sadly, we're losing these habitats at a rapid rate, and we're 
seeing losses across habitat types--from coral reefs to wetlands to 
kelp. Coral reefs and mangroves are extremely important to places like 
my home of the Virgin Islands and other coastal communities. They 
protect our shorelines by reducing 90% of the wave energy during storm 
surges; they feed our families by providing habitat for our fisheries; 
and the quiet beaches and bays that they create support our economy by 
attracting millions of tourists each year. They also provide adaptation 
to climate change by reducing damage due to storm surge caused by more 
frequent and intense storms. Our response to this loss needs to address 
the causes of decline and accelerate recovery through the restoration 
and resilience projects that my bill, H.R. 660, would authorize.
    During the last major recession, Congress provided $167 million 
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) for 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to support coastal 
resilience projects that created jobs. This program was highly 
successful in advancing coastal and marine restoration while also 
spurring economic recovery. In fact, the program created an estimated 
17 jobs for every million dollars spent, and it generated $15 dollars 
in net economic benefits for every dollar invested. However, the 
program was so popular that it received about $3 billion in proposed 
projects from communities across the country--far more applications 
than were initially anticipated.
    As we work to recover from the coronavirus pandemic and the related 
economic recession, I believe it is very important that we support 
projects that can both stimulate the economy and make strides in 
advancing coastal restoration. Economies in coastal communities--like 
my home of the Virgin Islands--tend to be highly reliant on tourism, 
and have consequently been some of the hardest hit communities during 
the coronavirus pandemic.
    That's why Congressman Don Young, Dean of the House, and I 
reintroduced the Shovel-Ready Restoration Grants for Coastlines and 
Fisheries Act. This bipartisan legislation is modeled after and expands 
on the temporary program originally established by ARRA. Our bill will 
meet the need for coastal restoration and economic recovery projects by 
creating a $3 billion NOAA grant program to fund shovel-ready projects 
that restore or improve coastal habitats, coastal resiliency, and the 
economy of coastal communities. Under the program, priority projects 
are those that would stimulate the economy and could begin within 90 
days of the grant award. Additionally, these priority projects would 
also provide compensation to fishermen for either their labor or use of 
a fishing vessel. It is also important to note that the bill would not 
only support remote coastal communities neighboring the ocean, it would 
also support those coastal communities that border the Great Lakes.
    This bill would go far to provide the resources and labor needed to 
protect our shorelines, improve our fisheries, and attract more 
tourism. These projects are reinvestments in our communities.
    In addition to being included in Chairman Grijalva's Ocean-Based 
Climate Solutions Act of 2021 (H.R. 3764), with the funding raised to 
$10 billion, the Shovel-Ready Restoration Grants for Coastlines and 
Fisheries Act was also passed by the House of Representatives last year 
as part of H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act. I would like to thank Dean 
Young for working with me on this initiative, and I invite the other 
members of this Committee to co-sponsor this bill.
    Investing in coastal restoration is good policy. It's not just the 
right thing to do for the environment; it's the right thing to do for 
coastal communities, vulnerable coastal populations, and the U.S. 
economy. I urge that the Committee move this legislation through the 
House to final passage by the Senate, to strengthen our coastal 
resiliency and help countless Virgin Islanders--and other coastal 
community residents--who are out of work through no fault of their own.
    Thank you for your consideration.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Representative, and I 
appreciate your comments.
    Let me now recognize a member of the Committee. I want to 
recognize Representative Gonzalez-Colon for her statement on 
H.R. 1689. Representative, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JENNIFER GONZALEZ-COLON, A RESIDENT 
   COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO

    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 
appreciate you and Ranking Member Westerman, now Bentz, for the 
opportunity to testify on my bill, H.R. 1689, the Offshore Wind 
for Territories Act.
    This is a bipartisan legislation that would apply the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act to the submerged lands off the five 
U.S. territories for renewable energy purposes. It further 
requires the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with 
the appropriate Federal and local stakeholders, to study the 
potential for offshore wind energy development in these Federal 
waters off the territories. Should a study determine that a 
wind lease is viable, the Secretary is directed to conduct a 
lease sale.
    By allowing us to tap into potential offshore wind 
resources, H.R. 1689 would help territories address high energy 
costs, diversify our fuel sources, and end our reliance on 
foreign petroleum imports. In Fiscal Year 2020, just for an 
instance, only 2.5 percent of Puerto Rico's electricity came 
from renewables.
    The bill would also guarantee each territory a state 
equivalent share of all royalty payments made to the Federal 
Government by offshore wind developers. Territories would 
receive 37.5 percent of qualifying revenues, consistent with 
the revenue sharing structure established for the Gulf Coast 
states under GOMESA.
    Lastly, H.R. 1689 directs that 12.5 percent of the revenues 
be deposited into a Coral Reef Conservation Fund, thus 
providing dedicated funding for coral reef conservation efforts 
at no additional cost to the American taxpayer.
    Last Congress, this Committee passed a previous version of 
this Offshore Wind for Territories Act with unanimous support. 
Similarly, in the 115th Congress, the House approved this 
legislation under suspension. If enacted, the Offshore Wind for 
Territories Act would boost revenues and provide Americans in 
the territories access to cleaner, renewable energy sources, 
and help protect our coral reefs.
    I, therefore, hope that we can once again work in a 
bipartisan manner to move H.R. 1689 out of the Committee and 
finally get it across the finish line.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

    [The prepared statement of Miss Gonzalez-Colon follows:]
  Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, a Resident 
       Commissioner in Congress from the Territory of Puerto Rico
    Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Westerman, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on my bill, H.R. 1689, the Offshore Wind for 
Territories Act.
    This bipartisan legislation would apply the Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act to the submerged lands off the five U.S. territories for 
renewable energy purposes. It further requires the Secretary of the 
Interior--in consultation with appropriate federal and local 
stakeholders--to study the potential for offshore wind energy 
development in these federal waters off the territories. Should a study 
determine that a wind lease is viable, the Secretary is directed to 
conduct a lease sale.
    By allowing us to tap into potential offshore wind resources, H.R. 
1689 would help the territories address high energy costs, diversify 
our fuel sources, and end our reliance on foreign petroleum imports. In 
Fiscal Year 2020, for instance, only 2.5% of Puerto Rico's electricity 
came from renewables.
    The bill would also guarantee each territory a state-equivalent 
share of all royalty payments made to the Federal Government by 
offshore wind developers. Territories would receive 37.5% of qualifying 
revenues, consistent with the revenue sharing structure established for 
the Gulf Coast States under GOMESA.
    Lastly, H.R. 1689 directs that 12.5% of revenues be deposited into 
a Coral Reef Conservation Fund, thus providing dedicated funding for 
coral reef conservation efforts at no additional cost to the American 
taxpayer.
    Last Congress, this Committee passed a previous version of the 
Offshore Wind for Territories Act with unanimous support. Similarly, in 
the 115th Congress, the House approved this legislation under 
suspension.
    If enacted, the Offshore Wind for Territories Act would boost 
revenues, provide Americans in the territories access to cleaner, 
renewable energy sources, and help protect our coral reefs. I therefore 
hope we can once again work in a bipartisan manner to move H.R. 1689 
out of Committee and finally get it across the finish line.
    Thank you, I yield back.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you for your legislation. It is 
appreciated and has far-reaching impacts. As we did in the 
past, I hope we can move that on to the Senate so they can do 
their part of the job.
    Now I want to recognize Representative Pingree for her 
statement on H.R. 3160. The Representative is recognized.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHELLIE PINGREE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Chairman Grijalva and 
Ranking Member Bentz, for giving me the opportunity to speak in 
support of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act, and thank you 
for having this hearing today.
    This legislation includes my bipartisan bill with 
Congressman Wittman, the Keep America's Waterfronts Working 
Act. Throughout my time in Congress, I have advocated for the 
needs of coastal communities and those who use our working 
waterfronts. I am grateful to have a chance to talk a little 
bit about this bill with you today.
    I know members of this Committee hear regularly from 
constituents who make their living from the water, whether they 
are boat builders from the West Coast, seafood buyers and 
processors across America, recreational fishing guides in the 
Gulf of Mexico, or commercial fisherman and aquaculture 
business owners in New England. The refrain is always the same. 
Water-dependent businesses from coast to coast need our help. 
They want us to preserve access to the working waterfronts that 
make their livelihoods possible and keep our coastal economies 
thriving.
    More than 30,000 Mainers rely on marine-related industries 
for their livelihoods. In fact, in our state, we refer to this 
as a ``heritage industry'' because it is so ingrained in the 
fabric of the state. Yet, out of 5,000 miles of coastline, just 
20 miles of working waterfronts remain in my state.
    Across the country, working waterfronts are rapidly 
disappearing due to heavy development pressure. When fishermen 
must grapple with the loss of wharves, processing facilities, 
and other essential infrastructure in addition to navigating 
the challenge of climate change, it threatens the very survival 
of coastal communities.
    Congress can contribute to the great work that states are 
already doing by expanding access to funding and resources. We 
don't need to duplicate efforts, but we can provide more 
support for states to preserve coastal economies. I have been 
proud to work across the aisle with my colleagues, including 
Congressman Wittman of Virginia, to create bipartisan solutions 
that can work for America's coastal communities.
    This bill will help reverse a worrying trend of shrinking 
waterfronts, while simultaneously protecting jobs and 
preserving the character of our coastal communities. It 
establishes a Working Waterfront Grant Program for waterfront 
preservation and sets up a task force within the Department of 
Commerce to identify and prioritize critical needs for the 
Nation's working waterfronts. Through the task force, the bill 
will also help communities identify and mitigate the impacts of 
the climate crisis.
    These programs are voluntary, so states can opt into the 
program this bill would create. Through the creation of 
statewide working waterfront plans, each state can identify 
their own needs and create their own plans to address the 
unique challenges facing their working waterfronts.
    It has been gratifying to hear so many proposals to solve 
the problems facing our coastal communities today. Working 
waterfronts are an integral part of our coastal communities, 
economies, and traditions. We must all do our part to ensure 
they survive into the future. I would welcome the opportunity 
for the Committee to move this bill.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I yield 
back.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Pingree follows:]
  Prepared Statement of the Hon. Chellie Pingree, a Representative in 
                    Congress from the State of Maine
    Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Westerman for 
giving me the opportunity to speak in support of the Ocean Based 
Climate Solutions Act. This legislation includes my bipartisan bill 
with Congressman Wittman, the Keep America's Waterfronts Working Act.
    Throughout my time in Congress, I have advocated for the needs of 
coastal communities and those who use our working waterfronts. I am 
grateful to have a chance to discuss this bill with you today.
    I know members of this Committee hear regularly from constituents 
who make their living from the water. Whether they are boatbuilders 
from the West Coast, seafood buyers and processors across America, 
recreational fishing guides in the Gulf of Mexico, or commercial 
fishermen and aquaculture business owners in New England, the refrain 
is the same: water-dependent businesses from coast to coast need our 
help. They want us to preserve access to the working waterfronts that 
make their livelihoods possible and keep our coastal economies 
thriving.
    More than 30,000 Mainers rely on marine-related industries for 
their livelihoods. In fact, in our state we refer to this as a 
``Heritage Industry'' because it is so ingrained in the fabric of our 
state. Yet out of 5,000 miles of coastline, just 20 miles of working 
waterfronts remain in my state.
    Across the country, working waterfronts are rapidly disappearing 
due to heavy development pressure. When fishermen must grapple with the 
loss of wharves, processing facilities, and other essential 
infrastructure in addition to navigating the challenge of climate 
change, it threatens the very survival of coastal communities.
    Congress can contribute to the great work that states are already 
doing by expanding access to funding and resources. We don't need to 
duplicate efforts, but we can provide more support for states to 
preserve coastal economies.
    I have been proud to work across the aisle with my colleagues, 
including Congressman Wittman of Virginia, to create bipartisan 
solutions that can work for America's coastal communities.
    This bill will help reverse a worrying trend of shrinking 
waterfronts, while simultaneously protecting jobs and preserving the 
character of our coastal communities.
    It establishes a Working Waterfront Grant Program for waterfront 
preservation and sets up a Task Force within the Department of Commerce 
to identify and prioritize critical needs for our nation's working 
waterfronts.
    Through the task force, the bill will also help communities 
identify and mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis.
    These programs are voluntary, so states can opt into the 
programming this bill would create. Through the creation of statewide 
working waterfront plans, each state can identify their own needs and 
create their own plans to address the unique challenges facing their 
working waterfronts.
    It has been gratifying to hear so many proposals to solve the 
problems facing our coastal communities today. Working waterfronts are 
an integral part of our coastal economies, communities, and traditions. 
We must all do our part to ensure they survive into the future. I would 
welcome the opportunity for the Committee to move this bill.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I yield back.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Representative. Your 
legislation is appreciated and I am very happy to be supporting 
it and helping move it along.
    Let me now recognize Representative Beyer for his statement 
on H.R. 3892, his legislation.
    Sir, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONALD S. BEYER, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

    Mr. Beyer. Chairman Grijalva, thank you very much, and 
thank you and Congressman Bentz for having this legislative 
hearing. I am honored to be here today. It is always a thrill 
to be back with the National Resources Committee.
    I just recently re-introduced the bipartisan National 
Oceans and Coastal Security Improvements Act. I worked on this 
in the last session with Congressman Francis Rooney and this 
session with my colleague, Representative Brian Mast. This bill 
aims to improve the ability of coastal communities to become 
resilient.
    Resilience is the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, 
recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events, 
such as extreme weather and long-term changing environmental 
conditions. This bill is intended to reduce the vulnerability 
of coastal communities and infrastructure from the impacts of 
extreme weather events, climate hazards, and changing ocean 
conditions.
    Currently, there is insufficient Federal attention to the 
necessary coastal research, resiliency, conservation, and 
restoration work that coastal communities need, so this bill 
aims to address those needs. The bill improves on NOAA's 
existing National Coastal Resilience Fund with improved 
definitions. It applies a formula for improved distributions 
for state block grants and a national competitive grant 
program.
    It clarifies specific projects that would be eligible for 
the fund's grant programs, including things like technical 
assistance to help develop comprehensive resilience and 
mitigation plans as an eligible funding effort.
    Eligible recipients include state, local, tribal, and 
territorial government agencies and non-profits. They use these 
funds to increase the ability to prepare for and recover from a 
variety of coastal threats, including hurricanes, tsunamis, and 
sea level rise.
    I have been working on coastal resilience funding since I 
first got to Congress. You know, I live just across the river 
in Alexandria, and I hear from constituents daily about the 
nuisance flooding that has only gotten worse over time. I have 
been working to address these concerns and build up the 
resources that can respond, but unfortunately, resource needs 
greatly outpace the funds that are historically available.
    To competitively fund projects across the 35 coastal and 
Great Lakes states, as well as territories, this bill will also 
direct 30 percent of offshore wind revenues to the program. It 
is critical that we protect our coastal communities and 
ecosystems and help them more effectively adapt and prepare for 
sea level rise and changing ocean conditions. According to the 
4th NCA, shoreline counties hold 49.4 million housing units, 
while homes and businesses worth at least $1.4 trillion sit 
within an eighth of a mile of the coast. Flooding from rising 
sea levels and storms is likely to destroy, or make unsuitable 
for use, billions of dollars of property by the middle of the 
century, with the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts facing greater-than-
average risk compared to other regions of the country.
    In 2018 alone, there were 14 separate billion-dollar 
weather and climate disasters in the United States with a total 
cost of at least $91 billion. The cost of weather disasters has 
illustrated the need to plan for these risks and invest in 
resilience. This can reduce the need for far more costly steps 
in the decades to come.
    So, Mr. Chairman, this bill is intended to meet those 
funding needs and reduce the vulnerability of coastal 
communities. Thank you for letting me be here today. I hope we 
can advance this bipartisan bill and help our coastal 
communities.
    With that, I yield back, sir.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Beyer follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Donald S. Beyer, Jr., a Representative 
                 in Congress from the State of Virginia
    Thank you Chair Grijalva and Ranking Member Westerman for having 
this legislative hearing.
    I am honored to be here today and always glad to be back with the 
Natural Resources Committee.
    I just recently reintroduced the bipartisan National Ocean and 
Coastal Security Improvements Act that I worked on with former 
Congressman Rooney last Congress with my colleague Representative Mast 
this Congress.
    The bill aims to improve the ability of coastal communities to 
become resilient.
    Resilience is the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover 
from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events such as extreme 
weather or long-term changing environmental conditions.
    This bill is intended to reduce the vulnerability of coastal 
communities and infrastructure from the impacts of extreme weather 
events, climate hazards, and changing ocean conditions.
    Currently, there is insufficient federal attention to the necessary 
coastal research, resiliency, conservation, and restoration work that 
coastal communities need.
    This bill aims to meet those needs.
    This bill improves on NOAA's existing National Coastal Resilience 
Fund with improved definitions, applies a formula for improved 
distribution for state block grants and the national competitive grant 
program, and clarifies specific projects that would be eligible for the 
Fund's grant programs, including things like technical assistance to 
help develop comprehensive resilience and mitigation plans as an 
eligible funding effort.
    Eligible recipients include state, local, tribal and territorial 
government agencies and nonprofits who use these funds to increase the 
ability to prepare for and recover from a variety of coastal threats, 
including hurricanes, tsunamis, and sea level rise.
    I have been working on improving our coastal resilience response 
and funding since my first years in Congress.
    I live in Alexandria and I hear from constituents daily about 
nuisance flooding that has only gotten worse over time.
    I have been working to address these concerns and build up the 
resources that can respond. Unfortunately, resource needs greatly 
outpace the funding that has been historically available.
    To competitively fund projects across the 35 coastal and Great 
Lakes states as well as territories, this bill also directs 30 percent 
of offshore wind revenues to the program.
    It is critical that we protect our coastal communities and 
ecosystems and help them more effectively adapt and prepare for sea 
level rise and changing ocean conditions.
    According to the 4th NCA, shoreline counties hold 49.4 million 
housing units, while homes and businesses worth at least $1.4 trillion 
sit within about 1/8th mile of the coast.
    Flooding from rising sea levels and storms is likely to destroy, or 
make unsuitable for use, billions of dollars of property by the middle 
of this century, with the Atlantic and Gulf coasts facing greater-than-
average risk compared to other regions of the country
    In 2018 alone, there were 14 separate billion-dollar weather and 
climate disasters in the United States, with a total cost of at least 
$91 billion.
    In the GAO's own words, federal investments in resilience to reduce 
fiscal exposures have been limited.
    The cost of recent weather disasters has illustrated the need to 
plan for these risks and invest in resilience.
    Investing in coastal resilience can reduce the need for far more 
costly steps in the decades to come.
    This bill is intended to meet those funding needs and reduce the 
vulnerability of coastal communities and infrastructure from the 
impacts of extreme weather events, climate hazards, and changing ocean 
conditions.
    Thank you for letting me be here with you today and I hope we can 
advance this bipartisan bill to help our coastal communities.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Congressman Beyer. Much 
appreciated. And you should have stayed on the Committee, 
Beyer. I am telling you. We miss you like you miss us.
    Mr. Beyer. I do miss you.
    The Chairman. I now want to recognize the Subcommittee 
Chair of the Committee of jurisdiction, Representative Huffman, 
for his statement on H.R. 3906.
    Chairman, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we do, indeed, 
have Beyer's remorse. We miss Don Beyer. And I want to thank 
you for your leadership in bringing this legislation together. 
Thank you for including my bill in the package.
    The concept behind the Blue Carbon Protection Act is 
simple. It aims to protect and restore blue carbon ecosystems 
across the country. My bill invests in blue carbon ecosystems 
so that the carbon sequestration potential of these important 
areas can be sustained as a key tool in tackling the climate 
crisis.
    Blue carbon is the carbon stored in coastal and marine 
ecosystems, like mangroves, tidal marshes, and seagrass beds. 
Coastal and ocean blue carbon ecosystems can naturally capture 
and store quantities of carbon for hundreds of years. And they 
can do that 10 times more effectively per area than terrestrial 
forests, really, a remarkably powerful tool.
    Not only are these ecosystems excellent at storing carbon 
and helping our climate, they are also some of the most 
productive ecosystems in the world. They are important grounds 
for feeding, spawning, breeding, and nesting for an incredibly 
diverse community of animals. These ecosystems are also 
critical natural buffers that protect shorelines, coastal 
communities, and property.
    However, these ecosystems are threatened by coastal 
development, climate change, and pollution. In the last 50 
years, up to 50 percent of some global blue carbon ecosystems 
have already been converted or degraded. When these ecosystems 
are destroyed, not only does the carbon that was stored in them 
get released into the atmosphere, but significant sequestration 
capacity is also lost. And the importance of these ecosystems 
for carbon sequestration makes their protection and restoration 
essential for nature-based climate solutions.
    My bill directs NOAA to establish a new program to research 
and evaluate blue carbon storage and to protect and restore 
blue carbon ecosystems, including through a new blue carbon 
grant program.
    In addition, it directs NOAA to designate blue carbon areas 
of significance. These areas would be prioritized for 
protection, and the bill requires consultation and mitigation 
requirements for proposed agency actions that may cause adverse 
impacts to these areas of significance.
    And lastly, my bill authorizes funding for NOAA, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service, all of 
which have some blue carbon areas under their jurisdiction, to 
conduct coastal and marine restoration and protection 
activities to sequester carbon and to reduce methane emissions 
from degraded wetlands.
    The Blue Carbon Protection Act would provide NOAA the tools 
needed to ensure these important ecosystems are part of the 
fight to tackle the climate crisis.
    I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and 
again, thank you very much for your leadership, Mr. Chairman. I 
yield back.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
   Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, a Representative in 
                 Congress from the State of California
    Thank you Chair Grijalva for including my bill, the Blue Carbon 
Protection Act, in today's hearing and in your climate legislation. I'd 
also like to thank you, my colleagues on the Committee, and other 
Members who have co-sponsored the bill.
    The concept behind the Blue Carbon Protection Act is simple--it 
aims to protect and restore blue carbon ecosystems across the country. 
My bill invests in blue carbon ecosystems so that the carbon 
sequestration potential of these important areas can be sustained as a 
key tool in tackling the climate crisis.
    Blue carbon is the carbon stored in coastal and marine ecosystems, 
like mangroves, tidal marshes, and seagrass beds. Coastal and ocean 
blue carbon ecosystems can naturally capture and store large quantities 
of carbon, often for hundreds of years, and they are 10 times more 
effective at sequestering carbon per area than terrestrial forests.
    Not only are these ecosystems excellent at storing carbon and 
helping our climate, they are also some of the most productive 
ecosystems in the world. They serve as important grounds for feeding, 
spawning, breeding, and nesting for an incredibly diverse community of 
animals. These ecosystems are also critical as natural buffers to 
protect shorelines, coastal communities, and property.
    However, these ecosystems are threatened by coastal development, 
climate change, and pollution. In the last 50 years, up to 50% of some 
global blue carbon ecosystems have already been converted or degraded. 
When these ecosystems are destroyed, not only is the carbon that was 
stored released into the atmosphere, but significant sequestration 
capacity is also lost. The importance of these ecosystems for carbon 
sequestration makes their protection and restoration essential for 
nature-based climate solutions.
    My bill directs NOAA to establish a program to research and 
evaluate blue carbon storage and protect and restore blue carbon 
ecosystems, including through a new blue carbon grant program.
    In addition, it directs NOAA to designate ``blue carbon areas of 
significance.'' These areas would be prioritized for protection, and 
the bill requires consultation and mitigation requirements for proposed 
agency actions that may cause adverse impacts to these areas of 
significance.
    Lastly, my bill authorizes funding for NOAA, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and National Park Service, which all have some blue carbon 
areas under their jurisdiction, to conduct coastal and marine 
restoration and protection activities to sequester carbon and reduce 
methane emissions from degraded wetlands.
    The Blue Carbon Protection Act would provide NOAA the tools needed 
to ensure these important ecosystems are part of the fight to tackle 
the climate crisis.
    I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. Thank you, and 
I yield back.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Much appreciated.
    And that concludes our Member panel. I thank all the 
Members and their staffs for their collective work in bringing 
these good pieces of legislation forward, and we look forward 
to moving it comprehensively and also the standalone ability of 
each one of these pieces of legislation. Thank you.
    We now transition to the second panel which will feature 
Administration witnesses. Our first witness will be Mr. Stephen 
Guertin, Deputy Director for Policy at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service.
    Our second witness will be Ms. Nicole LeBoeuf, Acting 
Administrator for the National Ocean Service at the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    Let me just quickly remind the witnesses that under 
Committee Rules, their oral statements are limited to 5 
minutes. Their entire written statement will appear in the 
hearing record.
    The lights will turn green on the witness table, after 4 
minutes, yellow, and then red. Your time will have expired when 
the red light comes on, and I will ask you to please complete 
your statement. I will also allow the entire panel to testify 
before questioning from the Members.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Guertin for him to testimony 
and welcome him. Sir, the floor is yours.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR POLICY, U.S. 
       FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA

    Mr. Guertin. Good afternoon, Chairman Grijalva, Congressman 
Bentz, and members of the Committee. I am Steve Guertin, Deputy 
Director of Policy for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I 
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on H.R. 
3764, the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act.
    My written testimony provides detailed comments on the 
specific provisions of the bill related to the Service. I would 
like to focus my remarks here on the climate crisis and how the 
Service is stepping up to meet the challenges that it presents 
to our wildlife conservation mission.
    The Administration has set ambitious goals that will ensure 
America and the world can meet the urgent demands of climate 
change, and the Service is a key player in advancing those 
goals.
    We are integrating climate change considerations into 
nearly all of our actions from at-risk species conservation 
decisions to invasive species prevention and response to 
prescribed fire activities.
    The Service is working to reduce and mitigate the impacts 
of climate change on our trusted resources. We are actively 
combating this threat by increasing carbon sequestration 
through the maintenance and restoration of healthy ecosystems 
and by reducing our own carbon footprint to more efficient 
facilities and vehicles.
    Our mission is working with others to conserve, protect, 
and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for 
the continuing benefit of the American people. Climate change 
presents a profound and growing challenge for this conservation 
mission. Warming temperatures, changing weather patterns, and 
other climatic changes are having far-reaching impacts on 
species and ecosystems.
    The impacts of climate change are especially apparent along 
our Nation's coasts. Our coasts face rising sea levels, 
saltwater intrusion, and increasingly frequent and intense 
storms.
    These climate stressors can have cascading and cumulative 
impacts on species and their habitats. Increasing coastal 
development further compounds these risks by reducing available 
habitat and making our coast less resilient in the face of 
storms.
    Despite these challenges, there are ample opportunities to 
mitigate the effects of climate change and create a more 
resilient future for people and wildlife along the coast. The 
potential for oceans and coasts to absorb and hold on to 
atmospheric carbon, also known as blue carbon, is easily 
overlooked, even though it is a critical tool in the fight 
against climate change.
    The Service manages extensive coastal and marine resources 
and works with partners to restore and protect coastal wetlands 
and ecosystems across the country. Section 109 of this bill 
complements our existing work and will increase our capacity to 
harness the potential of blue carbon ecosystems.
    The protection of our Nation's coastal barriers is another 
highly effective strategy to combat climate change. Congress 
had great foresight when it enacted the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act nearly 40 years ago. Using a broadly supported, 
free market approach, CBRA removes Federal incentives to build 
in risky coastal areas. The law saves taxpayers millions of 
dollars each year in what would be wasteful expenditures.
    In addition, these areas which were relatively undeveloped 
40 years ago remain relatively undeveloped today--3.5 million 
acres of the coast barrier resource system provide significant 
benefits to coastal communities and wildlife. They serve as 
natural buffers against storm surge and sea level rise, habitat 
for countless fish and wildlife species, improved water 
quality, and enhanced recreation and tourism opportunities.
    As the impacts of sea level rise and storm surge due to 
climate change continue to increase, CBRA is more relevant and 
important than ever. This bill recognizes CBRA's role in 
mitigating the coastal hazards associated with climate change 
and in reducing development pressure along the coast.
    In order to address the growing threat of climate change, 
it is essential that we consider all available tools to build 
climate resiliencies in communities, species, and habitats. By 
investing in coastal restoration, green infrastructure, and 
nature-based solutions, we can create and improve more fish and 
wildlife habitat, sequester more carbon, and more effectively 
protect coastal communities from severe storms.
    The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act recognizes the 
important role that oceans and coasts play in addressing 
climate change and its impacts on the people and natural 
resources that depend on them. The bill seeks to strengthen the 
Federal Government's response to climate change through its 
stewardship of our Nation's marine and coastal resource. The 
Service appreciates the Committee's attention to this important 
issue.
    We are committed to meeting the challenge that the change 
in climate presents to fish and wildlife resources, and we look 
forward to working with this Committee and Congress to advance 
this important work.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Guertin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director for Policy, U.S. 
         Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
    Good afternoon Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and 
members of the Committee. I am Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director for 
Policy for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) within the 
Department of the Interior (Department). I appreciate the opportunity 
to testify before you today on the Service-related provisions contained 
in H.R. 3764, the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act. This testimony 
provides comments on the provisions of greatest relevance to the 
Service's areas of jurisdiction and does not include comments on other 
provisions of the legislation, which continue to be under review by the 
Department and the Administration.
    The Service's mission is ``working with others to conserve, protect 
and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the 
continuing benefit of the American people.'' As we work to carry out 
this important charge, climate change presents a profound and growing 
conservation challenge. Warming temperatures, changing weather 
patterns, and other climatic changes are having far-reaching impacts on 
species and ecosystems, causing shifts and contractions in species 
ranges, changes in the timing of breeding and migration events, and 
declines in fish, wildlife, and plant populations.
    The impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are 
especially apparent along our nation's coasts, which face rising sea 
levels, saltwater intrusion, warming ocean temperatures, ocean 
acidification, and increasingly frequent and intense storms. These 
stressors can have cascading and cumulative impacts to species and 
their habitats. Increasing coastal development further compounds these 
risks by reducing available habitat and making our coasts less 
resilient in the face of storms. With population growth and 
urbanization projected to increase along the American coastline, the 
people, assets, and natural resources exposed to these risks will 
increase significantly.
    Despite these challenges, our coasts present a tremendous 
opportunity to address climate change and its effects, and create a 
more resilient future for people and wildlife alike. By investing in 
green infrastructure and coastal protection and restoration, fish and 
wildlife habitat can be created and improved, more carbon can be 
sequestered, and coastal communities can be more effectively buffered 
from severe storms. The Service deploys these strategies in coastal 
habitats across the country to capture and store carbon, mitigate the 
impacts of climate change, and help wildlife and people adapt to our 
changing world. The Ocean-Based Climate Solution Act recognizes the 
important role that oceans and coasts play in addressing climate change 
and its impacts on the people and natural resources that depend on 
them. The bill authorizes new programs and expands upon existing ones 
with the goal of better tackling the impacts of climate change on 
coastal and marine communities and ecosystems.
           title iv--coastal barrier resources act amendments
    Undeveloped coastal barriers and their associated aquatic habitat 
provide a number of benefits to the economy and society. These lands 
and waters serve as natural storm buffers; provide habitat for 
countless fish and wildlife species, including many at-risk species; 
support recreationally and commercially important fisheries; improve 
water quality; and create recreation and tourism opportunities that 
help support local economies. Development of these dynamic areas, 
however, often puts people in harm's way and can disrupt the natural 
movement and functions of the barriers, degrading fish and wildlife 
habitat and increasing shoreline erosion. The impacts of sea level rise 
and storm surge due to climate change will increase both the risk 
associated with developing coastal barriers and the value of these 
areas as cost-effective buffers to protect mainland communities against 
coastal storm damage.
    With the passage of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) in 
1982, Congress recognized that certain actions and programs of the 
Federal Government have historically subsidized and encouraged 
development on coastal barriers, resulting in the loss of natural 
resources, threats to human life, health, and property, and the 
expenditure of millions of tax dollars each year. The purposes of the 
law are to save taxpayers' money, keep people out of harm's way, and 
remove federal incentives to develop coastal barriers. The law 
accomplishes these purposes by restricting most new federal 
expenditures and financial assistance, including federal flood 
insurance, in areas designated as the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 
Resources System (CBRS).
    The CBRS now encompasses about 3.5 million acres along the 
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto 
Rico coasts. The Service is responsible for administering CBRA, which 
includes maintaining and updating the official maps of the CBRS and 
consulting with federal agencies that propose to spend funds within the 
CBRS. Congress plays an important role in the implementation of the law 
by considering and adopting the Service's recommended maps into law.
    CBRA does not prohibit or regulate development; however, it removes 
the federal incentives to build on these unstable and environmentally 
sensitive areas. By removing federal incentives for such development, 
CBRA uses a nonregulatory and free-market approach to conserve and 
maintain these hurricane-prone, biologically rich coastal barriers. 
Over its nearly 40-year history, CBRA has been successful in achieving 
its goals. One recent study evaluating the effectiveness of CBRA in 
discouraging development on coastal barriers found that the Act has 
been successful in its intention of decreasing development rates and 
densities of hazard-prone coastal areas.\1\ Another study found that 
CBRA reduced federal coastal disaster expenditures by $9.5 billion 
between 1989 and 2013.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Kyle Onda et al., ``Does removal of federal subsidies 
discourage urban development? An evaluation of the US Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act,'' PLoS ONE 15, no. 6 (June 2020): e0233888, accessed 
March 25, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233888.
    \2\ Andrew S. Coburn and John C. Whitehead, ``An analysis of 
federal expenditures related to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 
(CBRA) of 1982,'' Journal of Coastal Research 35, no. 6 (November 
2019): 1358-1361, accessed March 25, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2112/
JCOASTRES-D-18-00114.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Maintaining these natural storm buffers will be even more important 
as the nation prepares for more severe coastal flooding, erosion, and 
other anticipated effects associated with climate change and sea level 
rise. Title IV of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act recognizes 
CBRA's role in mitigating these hazards associated with climate change 
and reducing development pressures along our coasts. The bill makes 
several amendments to the law to expand its geographic scope and to 
enhance compliance with and awareness of CBRA. The Service supports the 
provisions of this title, which are outlined below, and looks forward 
to working with the Committee on technical changes.
Section 401. Undeveloped coastal barrier
    The Service supports Section 401, which revises the definition of 
an ``undeveloped coastal barrier'' to remove restrictive language 
regarding the impact of ``man's activities'' on coastal barriers. 
Section 401 also modifies the definition of a coastal barrier to 
accommodate the geomorphology of the Pacific Coast and address sea 
level rise.
Section 402. Coastal hazard pilot project
    The Service supports Section 402, which authorizes a pilot project 
to examine application of the free market CBRA approach to certain high 
hazard coastal areas that are not currently a part of the CBRS. The 
longer-term purpose of this project is to better address coastal 
hazards that are increasing, such as sea level rise and storm surge. 
This section directs the Service to consider including within the CBRS, 
certain vulnerable coastal areas that would not otherwise meet the 
criteria of CBRA and submit to Congress a subset of draft maps 
delineating those areas. This pilot project could lead to future 
Congressional action to add such areas to the CBRS under certain 
conditions and may result in enhanced coastal resiliency for the longer 
term.
Section 403. Report on expanding Coastal Barrier Resources Act to the 
        Pacific coast
    Section 403 authorizes a study on expanding the CBRS to include 
areas along the Pacific coast, including Alaska, Pacific Territories, 
and Freely Associated States. The Service supports the intent of this 
provision to increase the resiliency of the Pacific coastline and save 
taxpayer dollars. There are, however, significant geological and 
climatic differences between the Pacific coast and those areas of the 
Atlantic and Gulf coasts that meet the definition of coastal barrier 
under CBRA. Additionally, large portions of the Pacific coast of the 
contiguous United States are already either highly developed and 
therefore would not meet criteria for inclusion in the CBRS, or are 
currently protected for conservation purposes, and therefore at low 
risk of development. Given these significant differences between the 
Pacific coast and other coastlines currently subject to CBRA, the 
Service does not believe that CBRA is the most effective tool to 
achieve the goal of this section. If enacted, we would interpret 
Section 403 to allow for the consideration of coastal high hazard areas 
similar to those considered in Section 402. To ensure that the 
potential impacts on federally-recognized tribes, indigenous 
communities, and cultural and historic resources are fully considered, 
the Service would coordinate with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 
Interior's Office of Insular Affairs on a study of expanding CBRA to 
the Pacific Coast.
Section 404. Require disclosure to prospective buyers that property is 
        in the CBRS
    Section 404 requires that sellers of real property disclose to 
buyers when property is within the CBRS and would require the 
Department to create an online reporting system for such transactions. 
The Service supports the goal of this provision to increase awareness 
of CBRA. A CBRS designation can limit the availability of federal flood 
insurance and other federal subsidies. When prospective buyers are not 
aware of a property's inclusion in the CBRS, they are unable to make 
informed decisions that consider the increased costs of obtaining 
private flood insurance. Because many sellers (and buyers) may not be 
aware of existing CBRS designations, the disclosure system established 
under Section 404 may not have the full desired effect. The Service 
suggests modeling this disclosure requirement after the Residential 
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, which has been highly 
effective at increasing awareness of lead-based paint and lead-based 
paint hazards before the sale or lease of most housing.
Section 405. Improve Federal agency compliance with CBRA
    The Service supports Section 405, which requires the Secretary of 
the Interior (Secretary) to annually certify to Congress whether 
federal agencies are in compliance with CBRA. This builds upon an 
existing requirement that affected agencies certify annually to the 
Secretary that they are in compliance with the Act. Section 405 also 
directs affected agencies to update their regulations and guidance, as 
necessary, to comply with CBRA.
Section 406. Excess Federal property
    The Service supports Section 406, which expands upon the existing 
authority for the Secretary to administratively add to the CBRS excess 
federal property that qualifies as an ``undeveloped coastal barrier'' 
to also allow for the inclusion of any excess federal property 
regardless of the degree of development.
Section 407. Emergency exceptions to limitations on expenditures
    The Service supports Section 407, which modifies the emergency 
exemption to CBRA's limitations on expenditures to better provide for 
critical response activities to alleviate an immediate emergency. 
Section 6 of CBRA provides several exceptions to the law's limitations 
on expenditures for federal assistance. These exemptions are divided 
into two broad categories--those exempted activities and projects that 
must be consistent with the purposes of CBRA and those that are 
exempted regardless of consistency.
    Currently, the law's exemption for emergency actions essential to 
saving lives and protecting property and public health and safety 
requires that the exempted actions be consistent with the purposes of 
CBRA. The Service supports removing this requirement, as it is not 
practical for urgent life-saving emergency actions. The Service also 
agrees that this exception should be limited to expenditures necessary 
to alleviate the ``immediate'' emergency, consistent with the original 
spirit of the exception. It is the Service's view that the emergency 
exception should not be used to facilitate federal expenditures for 
property protection activities that exceed the scope and needs of the 
true and immediate emergency.
Section 408. Authorization of appropriations
    The Service supports Section 408, which reauthorizes CBRA through 
2026 at an increased level. Fulfillment of this section will better 
position the Service to help mitigate the effects of climate change. In 
addition to supporting the implementation of the above provisions, the 
increased authorization level will allow the Service to increase its 
capacity to maintain and update the maps, improve public awareness of 
CBRA, and engage in consultation with other federal agencies.
Additional opportunities for enhancement of CBRA
    The Service proposes the following additional amendments to CBRA to 
complement and enhance the efforts contained in Title IV, H.R. 3764, 
the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act.
Incentivizing federally-funded buyouts to enhance long term coastal 
        resiliency
    With the heightened risk of sea level rise and coastal flooding, 
federally-funded buyouts that remove properties from the development 
cycle and allow them to return to their natural state are becoming an 
increasingly important component of federal disaster policy. As 
coastlines become more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, 
federal, state, and local governments are offering incentives in 
certain areas to help keep people and property out of harm's way. Such 
efforts can result in a patchwork of acquired properties when some 
property owners decline buyout offers. Because buyout programs are 
generally consistent with the purposes of CBRA, the Service recommends 
amending Section 4 to allow the Service to administratively add to the 
CBRS coastal barrier areas that have been offered federally-funded 
buyouts. This authority would build upon CBRA's free-market approach 
and allow property owners a choice to be fairly compensated by the 
federal government for transferring ownership of their property and 
removing it from the development cycle; or to maintain their homes in 
high-risk areas, but to do so at their own expense, without future 
federal financial assistance.
Mapping progress and timely adoption of recommended maps
    An important step in solidifying CBRA's conservation legacy is the 
digitization and modernization of the maps upon which the law is based. 
The official maps of the CBRS were first created more than 40 years 
ago. Today's technology produces more refined maps and digital data 
that are more easily accessed and understood by the public. Congress 
recognized the challenges associated with the outdated maps and, 
through the 2000 and 2005 CBRA reauthorizations, directed the Service 
to prepare digital maps for the entire CBRS and make recommendations 
for its expansion. The Service agrees that the maps should be 
modernized and is working diligently on that effort.
    To date, the Service has transmitted comprehensively revised maps 
for approximately 14 percent of the CBRS to Congress for consideration 
and Congress has adopted modernized maps for 9 percent of the acreage 
within the CBRS.
    The Service is actively remapping an additional 26 percent of the 
CBRS. This includes the Hurricane Sandy Remapping Project, through 
which the Service is modernizing and remapping the official maps of the 
CBRS for the nine states affected by Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The 
Service is also undertaking smaller mapping projects to address mapping 
errors and make technical corrections, including revising the maps for 
certain units in Florida and South Carolina. The maps associated with 
these projects recently underwent public review and we look forward to 
delivering the Service's final recommended maps to Congress in the near 
future.
    Congress' adoption of final recommended maps produced by the 
Service will help enhance coastal resiliency and sustainability by 
improving federal agency compliance with CBRA and by adding other 
vulnerable coastal areas that qualify as undeveloped coastal barriers 
to the CBRS. Many of these revised maps also correct mapping errors 
affecting property owners and provide more accurate and accessible CBRS 
data for planning coastal infrastructure projects, habitat conservation 
efforts, and flood risk mitigation measures. We would appreciate the 
opportunity to brief the Committee on the process and on outstanding 
maps.
          title vii--strengthening marine mammal conservation
    The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 established a 
federal responsibility for the management and conservation of marine 
mammals and was the first statute to call for an ecosystem approach to 
natural resource management and conservation. Jurisdiction under the 
MMPA is shared between the Service and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, with the Service having authority over the conservation and 
management of sea and marine otters, walrus, polar bear, three species 
of manatee, and dugong.
    Despite the significant conservation gains since the passage of the 
MMPA nearly 50 years ago, many marine mammal populations continue to 
face declines due to habitat loss and other anthropogenic impacts such 
as boat strikes and entanglement in marine debris. The Service supports 
efforts to strengthen MMPA implementation and enhance conservation 
delivery for marine mammals, such as those in Title VII of the Ocean-
Based Climate Solutions Act. We offer the below comments on the 
sections in this title and look forward to working with the Committee 
on this and other marine mammal legislation.
Section 701. Conservation of marine mammals adversely affected by 
        climate change
    Section 701 directs the Administrator of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to designate a list of marine mammal 
species and stocks that may be negatively impacted by climate change 
and to develop climate impact management plans for the entities on that 
list. The Service supports the intent of this section to increase the 
consideration of climate change impacts in marine mammal management and 
conservation and recommends that this section direct coordination with 
the Service for those species under Service jurisdiction. All Service-
managed stocks are already facing the effects of climate change, 
including loss of sea ice and changes in the range and abundance of 
important prey species. As such, the Service recommends that the 
listing process be struck from this section so that agencies can focus 
limited resources on developing and implementing measures to address 
the impacts of climate on marine mammals.
    Section 701 also recognizes the inherent connection between climate 
impact management plans and similar plans under Section 115 of the MMPA 
(conservation plans) and Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 
(recovery plans) and encourages the integration of such plans. The 
Service appreciates the Committee's consideration of these 
complementary plans and recommends that the requirements of Section 701 
be incorporated into existing requirements for similar plans under the 
MMPA and other conservation statutes to avoid duplicative efforts. Many 
of the components of climate impact management plans are already 
considered in existing species planning efforts. By incorporating the 
concepts of this section into existing management and recovery plans, 
we can achieve more effective and efficient conservation for marine 
mammals.
Additional Marine Mammal Sections

     Section 702. Vessel speed restrictions in marine mammal 
            habitat

     Section 703. Monitoring ocean noise for marine mammal 
            protection

     Section 704. Grants for seaports to establish programs to 
            reduce the impacts of vessel traffic and port operations on 
            marine mammals

     Section 706. Grants to support technology that reduces 
            underwater noise from vessels

     Section 707. Naval technology transfer for quieting 
            Federal non-combatant vessels

    The risks and challenges that marine mammals face due to climate 
change are exacerbated by other human-caused stressors, including 
vessel strikes and noise pollution. We have seen the harmful effects of 
these stressors on Service-managed species. Sea otters may alter their 
behavior in the face of noise pollution, with high levels of noise 
causing temporary and permanent hearing loss. Slow-moving manatees may 
be injured or killed by accidental collisions with watercraft, an 
ongoing threat that the Service is working to reduce in coordination 
with state and local authorities.
    Sections 702, 703, 704, 706, and 707 of the Ocean-Based Climate 
Solutions Act authorize NOAA and the U.S. military to pursue various 
studies, grant programs and regulations with the goals of reducing and 
mitigating the impacts of ocean noise and vessel strikes. The Service 
supports these goals and recommends that these sections be carried out 
in coordination with the Service and, when appropriate, the relevant 
state, Tribal, and local governments. Coordination among the many 
agencies responsible for marine mammal conservation is essential in 
order to provide the best management strategies and practices for 
marine mammals.
                          title i--blue carbon
Section 109. Federal coastal and marine blue carbon restoration and 
        protections; funding
    Section 109 directs the Service, the National Park Service, and 
NOAA to conduct coastal and marine restoration and protection 
activities to support blue carbon ecosystems. The Service manages 
extensive coastal and marine resources, including 760 million acres of 
Marine National Monument submerged lands and waters, and has vast 
experience in restoring and protecting coastal wetlands and ecosystems 
across the country. Many lands and waters of the National Wildlife 
Refuge System are strategically located along our coasts and estuaries 
where blue carbon ecosystems are located, and the Service's Coastal 
Program provides key financial and technical assistance to federal, 
state, and local agencies as well as local communities for projects 
that have blue carbon co-benefits. As a result, the Service is well-
positioned to execute the Service-related provisions of Section 109 and 
to further the goals of restoration and protection of our nation's blue 
carbon ecosystems.
                               conclusion
    Warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will accelerate 
the rate of climate change, which will in turn have significant 
consequences for people and natural resources across the globe. In 
order to address this growing threat, it is essential that we consider 
all available tools to build climate resilience for communities, 
species, and habitats. The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act recognizes 
the dual vulnerability and resilience of our coastal and marine 
resources and proposes, through the policies discussed above, to 
strengthen the Federal Government's response to climate change through 
stewardship of these resources. The Service is committed to meeting the 
challenge a changing climate presents to fish and wildlife resources, 
and we look forward to working with this Committee and the Congress to 
enhance this important work.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Stephen Guertin, Deputy 
          Director for Policy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
              Questions Submitted by Representative Sablan
    Question 1. Several parts of this bill call upon the Department of 
the Interior to leverage their resources and improve the resilience of 
the insular areas, tribes, and Indigenous communities to the rapidly 
worsening effects of climate change. How will focusing on equity while 
lifting up these historically neglected and under-represented areas and 
communities benefit everyone in our fight against climate change?

    Answer. Although climate change affects everyone, we know that it 
disproportionately affects historically disadvantaged and 
underrepresented communities. These communities are often hit the 
hardest by climate stressors like sea level rise and flooding but have 
the fewest resources available to address or prevent climate impacts. 
In addition, there are many communities that have been underrepresented 
in discussions about how to address climate change.
    To advance climate adaptation and resilience in these areas, we 
will first listen. Then, we will work together and leverage our 
resources to support climate adaptation and resilience projects in 
these communities. These projects will improve the health and safety of 
populations in the most vulnerable situations, prevent damage to homes 
and infrastructure, minimize economic losses, and create new jobs, 
recreational opportunities, and access to nature to support healthy 
ecosystems, thriving fish and wildlife populations, and vibrant 
communities. These social, economic, and environmental outcomes benefit 
all Americans.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Graves
    Question 1. South Louisiana is home to a truly unique ecosystem--
the coastal forest. These forests comprise over 1 million acres of 
cypress-tupelo swamp, and represent the final stretch of land connected 
to the Mississippi River Watershed before it deposits into the Gulf of 
Mexico. The forests were formed over centuries from the hydrologic 
patterns of the Mississippi River, which provided alternating periods 
of drying followed by several months of seasonal flooding on an annual 
basis. The net result of these hydrologic patterns over thousands of 
years was an environment uniquely adapted for bald cypress and water 
tupelo trees to establish and thrive.
    However, due to a multitude of natural and man-made changes to the 
landscape over the past century, these forests are declining at a 
staggering rate. The loss of these valuable ecosystems represents a 
significant loss of biodiversity, valuable wildlife habitat, floodwater 
retention and control, and hurricane and storm surge buffering. Yet 
perhaps most alarming, these forests would convert from a beneficial 
carbon sink to a detrimental carbon source.
    Restoring the coastal forests of south Louisiana would fulfill many 
of the enumerated goals of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act. 
Moreover, the grant programs included in this legislation could provide 
a valuable lifeline to these forests. Unfortunately, I am worried they 
will not be included in these programs because they are 100% freshwater 
systems.

    Would these forests be considered ``blue carbon'' under the Ocean-
Based Climate Solutions Act and, if not, how can we work to have them 
included in these future grant programs?

    Answer. H.R. 3764 defines ``blue carbon ecosystem'' to mean 
``vegetated coastal habitats including mangroves, tidal marshes, 
seagrasses, kelp forests, and other tidal or salt-water wetlands that 
have the capacity to sequester carbon from the atmosphere for a period 
of not less than 100 years.'' The Service does not believe this 
definition includes freshwater systems like the coastal forests 
referenced in your question.
    The Service agrees that these ecosystems can provide numerous 
ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration. While freshwater 
systems do not appear to qualify as blue carbon under the Ocean-Based 
Climate Solution Act of 2021, the Service has financial and technical 
assistance programs that can support conservation of these coastal 
forests, including our Coastal Program and Partners for Fish and 
Wildlife Program. We would be happy to work with your office to 
identify existing financial assistance programs available to these 
ecosystems.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you very much for your comments. Much 
appreciated.
    Let me now turn to Ms. LeBoeuf, Acting Administrator, 
National Ocean Service, NOAA, for your comments. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you.

  STATEMENT OF NICOLE LEBOEUF, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL 
     OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. LeBoeuf. Chairman Grijalva, Congressman Bentz, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify on the bills comprising the Ocean-Based Climate 
Solutions Act of 2021. I am Nicole LeBoeuf, Acting NOAA 
Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone 
Management.
    The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act addresses many of the 
challenges facing the ocean coastal resources and coastal 
communities as well as economies and industries upon which our 
entire Nation depends. I thank the Committee for shining a 
light on ocean and coastal health and for connecting the 
contributions of NOAA's long-standing programs and technical 
expertise to new and innovative approaches to climate 
readiness.
    The Act highlights the dual roles of the ocean and coasts 
in both expressing and in reducing the impacts of climate 
change. Beyond intensifying hurricanes, the ocean's heat and 
circulation influence our inland weather patterns, including 
dangerous droughts and wildfires occurring far from the water's 
edge. At the same time, ocean and coastal ecosystems will be 
essential to creating climate resilient solutions via carbon 
sequestration or as buffers from hazardous conditions.
    These bills have substantial implications for NOAA's 
mission and operations and are timely as the demand for our 
climate and ocean-related services is rapidly increasing. 
Today, I will briefly touch on key areas of alignment between 
the various bills and NOAA's interest and capabilities, 
including those found within NOAA's FY 2022 budget request.
    One of NOAA's long-standing and increasingly important 
missions is safeguarding communities, industry, and critical 
infrastructure in the coastal zone.
    Along our coasts and Great Lakes, Americans are already 
experiencing changes in the intensity, duration, and frequency 
of extreme weather, as well as the chronic threat of sea level 
rise which already impacts lives, homes, and our essential 
built-in natural environments.
    NOAA must be empowered and sufficiently resourced to build 
on its foundational ocean and coastal data and services to 
produce timely, authoritative observations and predictions and 
to facilitate Federal coordination and integration of coastal 
risk data.
    NOAA's FY 2022 request includes upgrading our ocean and 
coastal observing systems and better integrating NOAA's marine 
navigation, weather, and environmental information into public 
and private sector decision making to ensure that we are 
planning for changing conditions in this urgent and historic 
opportunity to make significant investments in our Nation's 
future.
    Because underserved communities are especially vulnerable 
to climate change, NOAA proposes targeted investments related 
to historically underserved populations, including enhancements 
to the development and delivery of coastal hazard products like 
our weather and climate tool kit and our sea level rise viewer.
    With NOAA's unique emphasis on research-to-operations, our 
Fiscal Year 2022 budget proposals expand key flagship programs 
to help communities prepare for the impacts of a changing 
climate, and it seeks to empower on the ground expertise via 
Sea Grant, NOAA's Coastal Zone Management Program, and our 
regional observing partners.
    NOAA proposes to enhance our work with nature-based 
resilience solutions via coastal habitat and research, engaging 
communities and creating local jobs through significant new 
investments in coral reef conservation programs and the 
National Coastal Resilience Fund.
    NOAA proposes to augment our pioneering research on blue 
carbon sequestration for places that provide fish habitat, 
storm and erosion protection, and water quality improvements. 
And NOAA is actively seeking input from key stakeholders such 
as tribes and regional fishery management councils on how to 
create climate resilient fisheries as well as how to conserve 
species and special places through investments in our national 
marine sanctuaries and our National Estuarine Research Reserve 
System.
    NOAA proposes to dedicate more research toward biological 
observing and modeling to inform conservation and restoration 
adaptation strategies that project climate impacts and then 
incorporate this knowledge into our next generation 
observations and forecasting modeling systems and tool 
development.
    This includes NOAA's proposed new investments in our 
capacity to support the planning, siting, and permitting of 
offshore wind development so that Americans may expand clean 
energy usage while protecting marine resources, fisheries, and 
other important ocean activities.
    NOAA is a proud leader in delivering authoritative climate 
and ocean science and services in service of the Nation's 
coastal communities and in ensuring responsible stewardship of 
our ocean and coastal resources.
    We share the Committee's interest in advancing the role of 
ocean and coasts in tackling the climate crisis, and we welcome 
the opportunity to work with you to enhance NOAA's unique 
mission and capabilities to help all Americans prepare for 
climate change.
    Thank you for your support of NOAA, and I look forward to 
any questions that you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. LeBoeuf follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Ms. Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Assistant Administrator 
   for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management (Acting), National 
                 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the 
``Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2021.'' NOAA appreciates the 
Committee's strong commitment to addressing climate impacts to our 
ocean and coasts and to sustaining their health and resilience for this 
and future generations. Today, my testimony will focus on key NOAA 
priorities that align with and complement provisions of this 
legislation. We look forward to continued collaboration with the 
Committee throughout the legislative process.
    It is fitting that this hearing is being held during the month of 
June as President Biden recently designated June 2021 as National Ocean 
Month, in continuance of one of our nation's modern traditions. The 
world's ocean is critical to our Nation and to life on Earth. The ocean 
powers our economy, provides food for billions of people, supplies 50 
percent of the world's oxygen, offers recreational opportunities for us 
to enjoy, and regulates weather patterns and our global climate system. 
Likewise, our coastal habitats and ecosystems provide essential 
protection from coastal hazards for large population centers and are 
home to many commercially and recreationally important marine species. 
While human activities are impacting the ocean environment, resulting 
in ocean warming, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification, the ocean 
environment and the associated ocean economy also present critical 
opportunities to strengthen our efforts to mitigate and adapt to the 
impacts of climate change.
    NOAA's science and services are the bedrock of efforts to 
understand these changes and to enhance resilience and efficient 
operations of many sectors of the economy, including ports, shipping, 
transportation, agriculture, seafood and fishing, and ocean-based 
tourism and recreation. In 2018, our ocean and coastal economies 
contributed $397 billion or 45 percent of the U.S. GDP.\1\ Investing in 
climate-resilient, reliable coastal infrastructure--including modern 
ports and waterways--that can withstand the impacts of rising seas and 
powerful storms will keep our economy competitive in the global 
marketplace while safeguarding our communities and their livelihoods. 
Conserving and restoring coastal wetlands and habitats will improve the 
resilience of coastal communities, support climate mitigation efforts, 
and help restore nursery areas that are important to our essential 
commerce and recreational fisheries and other marine wildlife.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/coastaleconomy.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    noaa's priority initiatives align with the ocean-based climate 
                             solutions act
    NOAA's mission is science, service, and stewardship. Our reach goes 
from the surface of the sun to the depths of the ocean floor as we work 
to keep the public informed of the changing environment. NOAA manages 
fisheries, coastal habitats and species, and protected areas around the 
Nation and administers key authorities, such as the Coastal Zone 
Management Act and others, based on the best scientific information 
available. The broad portfolio of environmental science, tools, and 
services that NOAA provides are crucial to carrying out our mission and 
to ensuring that future generations can enjoy the benefits of healthy 
ocean and coastal communities, economies, and ecosystems. NOAA's 
capabilities to observe, monitor, and predict changes in our oceans and 
along our coasts are more important than ever given the unprecedented 
rate with which those changes are occurring.

    At this critical time in our planet's history, many of NOAA's ocean 
and coastal priorities are aligned with the goals of the Ocean-Based 
Climate Solutions Act of 2021 and can be summarized in the following 
categories:

  1.  Improving the resilience of critical infrastructure and services;

  2.  Mobilizing the next generation of workers to equitably advance 
            climate solutions;

  3.  Improving environmental and community resilience; and

  4.  Scaling up climate science and services, innovation, and research 
            & development.

    While this is not an exhaustive list, these four categories 
highlight some of NOAA's priority ocean and coastal activities to 
address climate change.
(1) Improving the resilience of critical infrastructure and services
    The science is clear. The impacts of climate change are happening 
now and are projected to worsen over the coming decades, not only here 
in the United States but around the world. Coastal communities and 
critical infrastructure are particularly vulnerable and are already 
experiencing adverse impacts. These impacts include changes in the 
intensity, duration, and frequency of certain extreme-weather events, 
as well as sea level rise and coastal flooding, which are increasingly 
threatening lives, homes, and the natural environment. We must 
safeguard investments in infrastructure, bringing to bear NOAA's 
essential observation and prediction capabilities to help others assess 
and plan for climate risks in both the near and long term.
    NOAA plays an increasingly important role in understanding our 
changing coastal environment and strengthening and protecting coastal 
infrastructure and economies.
National Coastal Resilience Data and Services
    Improved understanding of coastal flood risk, sea level rise, 
changing Great Lakes water levels, and land subsidence is an urgent 
national priority due to their significant negative environmental, 
economic, and social impacts. The scope of this challenge requires a 
long-term, whole-of-government commitment, with NOAA science and 
service delivery at its center. NOAA's long-standing observational 
infrastructure, such as the National Water Level Observation Network 
(NWLON), the National Bathymetric Source, and the National Spatial 
Reference System, represent foundational national assets, that 
undergird the ability of public and private sector partners to monitor, 
model, predict, and warn communities about climate-related impacts. 
This information is already enabling city and community planners to 
revise building codes and land use plans on decadal and longer 
timescales. For example, with more flooding expected in the future, 
NOAA's foundational and climate data have the potential to play an 
increasing role in helping our nation decide how and where to build.
    This legislation would authorize NOAA to build on these services 
and develop a comprehensive suite of data, products, and services, 
which would produce and maintain timely, authoritative observations, 
predictions, and maps to allow coastal communities to understand and 
plan for floods and other risks. NOAA's science and services are 
central to our nation's ability to make climate-informed decisions, 
both when it comes to weather- and climate-ready infrastructure and 
safeguarding and investing in more vulnerable communities. We are 
working to assess and eliminate any inequalities that exist in the 
coastal flooding products and services available to users due to 
regional gaps in data coverage. For example, in remote or rural 
communities in particular, the distance between water level or vertical 
land motion observations, modeling, and analysis can exceed 200 miles. 
NOAA's FY 2022 Budget Request lays the framework for success in service 
delivery equity moving forward.
    Furthermore, we have an historic opportunity to make significant 
investments in our nation's infrastructure as we prepare for coastal 
change; however, that will require more than just pouring concrete. For 
example, the capacity and efficiency of our Nation's seaports must be 
sustained and enhanced given their major role in supporting our 
economic livelihood and the global competitiveness of U.S. goods, 
generating $5.4 trillion in economic activity, and supporting the 
employment of more than 31 million people. NOAA's integrated suite of 
timely and accurate information, products, and services enhance 
understanding of our ports and waterways, their connections to our 
coastal communities and intermodal transportation networks, and their 
vulnerability to current and future weather and climate hazards.
Regional Ocean Partnerships and U.S. IOOS Regional Associations
    NOAA's mission could not be fully carried out without our long-
standing and trusted local and regional partnerships. The Ocean-Based 
Climate Solutions Act 2021 authorizes the establishment of new Regional 
Ocean Partnerships on request from the governor of a coastal state. 
Regional Ocean Partnerships are state-driven, voluntary forums that 
identify shared priorities and take action on a diversity of ocean, 
coastal and Great Lakes issues. These long-standing interstate 
partnerships are also an effective means of fostering interagency 
coordination, data-informed ocean and coastal management, and 
thoughtful engagement with regional constituents. For example, NOAA is 
the federal co-chair of the Northeast Regional Ocean Council (NROC), a 
15-year-old federal-state partnership that addresses challenges at a 
regional scale around ecosystem health, coastal hazards, and 
infrastructure. Through NROC, NOAA has established a 10-year credible 
ocean management forum trusted by both regulators and ocean users, who 
use data on the robust Northeast Ocean Data Portal to inform decision-
making. The Council continues to learn and improve in real time by 
sharing best practices and hosting informative webinars on topics such 
as regional offshore wind transmission and coastal resilience.
    NOAA administers other critical programs, including the U.S. 
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) and its 11 Regional 
Associations (RAs), which provide ocean observations, data management, 
regional knowledge and technological expertise, and outreach and 
engagement to advance the development of products that meet regional 
and local stakeholder needs. Since 2019, NOAA has supported joint ROP 
and RA collaborative efforts to enhance our collective capacity for 
sharing and integrating Federal and non-Federal data into public-facing 
data portals to better inform regional coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes 
decision-making.
(2) Mobilizing the next generation of workers to advance climate 
        solutions
    There are numerous provisions of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions 
Act of 2021 that prioritize ensuring that communities of color, low-
income communities, tribal communities, and other underserved 
communities have the tools and resources they need to both effectively 
mitigate and adapt to effects of climate change. As described in our FY 
2022 Budget Request, NOAA is investing in our internal capacity to 
better respond to the needs of vulnerable populations, assessing key 
services to identify and address barriers to access for all Americans, 
funding targeted investments in historically underserved communities, 
and enhancing NOAA's capabilities, such as our award-winning Weather 
and Climate Toolkit and the Sea Level Rise Viewer. With NOAA staff 
living and working throughout the United States, NOAA is well 
positioned to efficiently and effectively deliver our products and 
services and to actively solicit feedback about needed improvements. 
NOAA is aware that underserved communities are especially vulnerable to 
weather, water and climate events, with large disasters causing poverty 
rates to increase. NOAA also provides education, training, and hands-on 
research opportunities to individuals from traditionally 
underrepresented minority communities through internship programs like 
the Jose E. Serrano Educational Partnership Program with Minority 
Serving Institutions. Their research has significantly contributed to 
the understanding of communities as they prepare for and adapt to 
climate change as well as better respond to severe weather events.
    Through programs such as National Sea Grant, National Estuarine 
Research Reserve System, Coastal Zone Management Program, Coral Reef 
Conservation Program, GulfCorps, EarthCorps, and Vet Corps, NOAA will 
continue to empower local communities and mobilize the next generation 
of workers to advance climate solutions through grants, fellowships, 
training, and short-term employment opportunities. These efforts will 
support natural infrastructure projects, such as wetland and coral reef 
restoration, which curb storm impacts, reduce flooding, absorb excess 
carbon dioxide, and provide essential fish and wildlife habitat, while 
also supporting tourism, recreation, and other economic benefits.
(3) Improving environmental and community resilience
    We know that addressing climate change is crucial for the 
environment, people, and economy. We have long-standing, distributed 
programs across NOAA that deliver services like habitat restoration, 
research, and community engagement as a part of our core activities. We 
note that a number of provisions in the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions 
Act of 2021 would aim to tackle climate change by supporting adaptation 
for industry and for communities and by promoting sustainable job 
opportunities. Similarly, our FY 2022 Budget Request proposes 
significant investments in NOAA programs that connect scientists and 
local decision makers around climate resilience, such as the Regional 
Integrated Sciences and Assessments Program, as well as efforts to 
restore coastal habitats and protect communities, such as the National 
Coastal Resilience Fund.
    Healthy coastal habitats, such as mangroves, salt marshes, and 
seagrass beds benefit natural and human communities through protections 
from storms, providing fishing and tourism opportunities, capturing 
carbon, among other benefits. Restoration of these habitats creates an 
average of 15 jobs per $1 million invested \2\ and require a diverse 
set of skills that directly and indirectly employ a wide variety of 
people, including construction workers, engineers, fishermen, 
ecologists, project managers, veterans, and heavy equipment operators. 
As an example of NOAA's work in this area, NOAA's Restoration Center 
has successfully executed a Shovel-Ready Restoration Grant Program 
similar to what is described in the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act 
of 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/15030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Zone Management Act
    NOAA appreciates the continued interest in the Coastal Zone 
Management Act. Our state coastal zone managers provide frontline 
leadership in protecting, restoring, and responsibly managing the 
diverse resources along our coasts. NOAA recognizes that Indigenous 
communities face unique coastal challenges, including those related to 
climate change and the conservation of natural, cultural, and 
historical resources and sacred sites.
Conserving Resilient Living Marine Resources
    At the heart of NOAA's stewardship mission is species and place-
based conservation, authorized by multiple statutes. Like other aspects 
of NOAA's mission, however, our changing climate and other pressures 
facing our ocean and coasts will require NOAA to adapt our programs and 
services. For example, NOAA is currently developing a process that will 
seek input from ocean and coastal stakeholders on how to implement and 
measure additional place-based conservation, particularly in light of 
climate change. NOAA proposes utilizing our National Marine Sanctuary 
System and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System to enhance 
conservation of our nation's ocean and coasts. Indeed, NOAA is 
advancing the designation of new national marine sanctuaries while also 
considering initiating the designation process for nominated sites in 
the inventory. In addition, NOAA is collaborating with states and 
territories on potential new National Estuarine Research Reserve 
designations. If approved, they would join a network of coastal sites 
managed in partnership with coastal states and local partners for the 
protection and research of essential estuarine systems.
    NOAA's National Marine Sanctuary System and our National Estuarine 
Research Reserves System conserve and protect habitats and resources 
that enhance the resilience of and make positive economic contributions 
to the coastal communities that they serve. Diverse activities within 
national marine sanctuaries, such as commercial fishing, research, 
education, recreation and tourism support billions of dollars in output 
within local sanctuary economies. Similarly, pilot studies at three 
national estuarine research reserves have demonstrated that these sites 
contribute to local economies by supporting jobs; through visitor 
spending, partnerships, and stakeholder engagement; and investments in 
reserve staff salaries, facility maintenance, and operations. Each of 
these contributions has ripple effects that lead to greater economic 
impacts.
    The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2021 requires NOAA to 
update the NOAA Marine Protected Areas Inventory, and authorizes NOAA 
to maintain a baseline assessment of how much ocean and Great Lakes 
waters in the United States are currently protected, conserved, and 
restored. As a complement to our traditional place-based conservation 
programs, NOAA recognizes the important contributions of regional 
fishery management councils and their conservation and management 
measures under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act and is committed to investing in ecosystem-based management of 
species through the U.S. Marine Biodiversity Observation Network to 
advance biological observing, modeling, and other innovative tools to 
inform adaptation strategies.
Ensuring More Resilient Fisheries and Protected Resources
    Changing climate and oceans affect nearly every aspect of our 
mission, from fisheries management and aquaculture, to conservation of 
important protected resources and vital habitats. To address these 
growing impacts, NOAA is gathering and integrating information on 
climate and ecosystem changes into its resource management decisions. 
For example, with respect to fisheries management, NOAA is implementing 
a NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy, Regional Climate Action 
Plans, and an Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management Road Map. In 
partnership with the regional fishery management councils, interstate 
fishery commissions, and states, we are taking steps to help fisheries 
and protected species prepare for and respond to changing climate and 
ocean conditions by ensuring well-managed fish stocks with a 
sustainable biomass and stock structure; producing regional ecosystem 
status reports to track and provide early warnings of climate and 
ecosystem changes in each region; using climate vulnerability 
assessments of major fish stocks, habitat and protected species to 
better understand their vulnerability and support management actions; 
and using scenario planning and other tools to identify effective 
fishery management strategies and protected species recovery actions 
under current and future conditions. NOAA is also reviewing input from 
fishermen, regional ocean councils, regional fishery management 
councils, scientists, and other stakeholders on how to make fisheries 
and protected resources more resilient to climate change, including 
changes in management and conservation measures, and improvements in 
science, monitoring, and cooperative research. NOAA will consider these 
stakeholder recommendations in future policy, guidance or management, 
affecting programs discussed in this testimony.
    Through proactive partnerships with industries and other 
stakeholders, NOAA has led the advancement of new methods for reducing 
negative human impacts on protected species and places. These 
advancements may also have the added benefit of reducing the carbon 
footprint of marine industries. For example, partnerships with the 
shipping industry have spurred a new field of innovation in that 
sector, and are now poised to study vessel design and operation methods 
that can both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce underwater 
noise in places that matter to the marine animals and protected areas 
in our trust. In recognition of the transboundary nature of both the 
species we manage and maritime transport operations, NOAA will seek to 
build on past collaborations, with our interagency partners, through 
international forums such as the UN's International Maritime 
Organization and the Arctic Council.
(4) Scaling up climate science and services, innovation, and R&D
    NOAA's climate science and services contribute greatly to the 
United States leadership in climate science, clean energy technology, 
and clean energy jobs. NOAA has long-standing research and technology 
programs, with an emphasis on research-to-operations, providing the 
foundation for smart policy and decision making in a changing world.
    NOAA develops and runs world class research and operational 
weather, hydrologic, ocean, Great Lakes, climate, and Earth System 
Modeling systems. These and other physical science research and 
development capabilities and programs at NOAA Laboratories, Cooperative 
Institutes and Centers--as well as access to partners like the IOOS 
Regional Associations, academia, and other research groups through NOAA 
grants programs--provide a solid foundation for much-needed research, 
regional/local application development, and numerical, statistical, and 
hybrid modeling improvements to advance understanding of coastal flood 
risk, including sea level rise. This applied research, and the 
expertise in transitioning research into operations, directly enhances 
the operational products and decision-support services that NOAA and 
our partners provide to help communities adapt to and mitigate the 
impacts of a changing climate.
    NOAA will continue to provide climate data, tools, and services to 
Federal agencies, state and local governments, tribes, and the 
commercial sector. However, to ensure that our services continuously 
reflect the most current understanding of our changing climate, it is 
imperative that NOAA dedicates more research toward understanding and 
projecting coastal inundation from rising seas, high lake levels, 
heavier precipitation, and more frequent extreme weather events and 
incorporate this knowledge into the next-generation modeling systems 
and tool development. NOAA's goal, as reflected in our FY 2022 Budget 
Request, is to scale up efforts to research the climate system and 
inform solutions to the climate crisis through investments in research, 
observations and forecasting, restoration and resilience. This includes 
support for ecologically sound offshore wind development and equitable 
services through multiple programs that touch everyday lives.
Offshore Wind
    Offshore wind development is rapidly expanding in the United 
States, particularly in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West Coast, 
and there is renewed interest along the Gulf of Mexico as well. This is 
a relatively new use of our marine waters and will require continued 
and substantial scientific and regulatory review to balance energy 
production with protecting marine resources, fisheries production, 
Department of Defense testing and training that supports national 
security requirements, and NOAA sensors, like radar, that are sensitive 
to wind turbine interference.
    In this vein, the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2021 
describes the importance of increasing electricity production from 
offshore wind while addressing key issues such as increasing funding 
for scientific research and developing strategies to protect wildlife 
and be compatible with other ocean uses. Working in partnership with 
other key federal agencies, NOAA's science and stewardship missions 
will be critical to helping our nation fully utilize our ocean as a 
producer of offshore wind energy in a way that is environmentally and 
scientifically sound. As reflected in NOAA's FY 2022 Budget Request, 
NOAA's expertise and capabilities will have to keep pace with this 
growing industry and will require investing in several key areas to 
appropriately engage in Federal interagency planning, siting, and 
environmental review and permitting of offshore energy projects to 
responsibly evaluate, monitor, and minimize impacts on our trust 
resources and constituencies.
Blue Carbon
    The Ocean-Based Climate Solution Act of 2021 highlights the 
contributions coastal ecosystems can make to climate mitigation and 
adaptation efforts and authorizes a Blue Carbon Program in NOAA to 
advance understanding, conservation and restoration of these ecosystems 
for their climate services. This program would build on NOAA's existing 
pioneering research on blue carbon, with the primary focus on carbon 
sequestration and storage in coastal habitats (e.g., coastal wetlands, 
including seagrasses, salt marshes, and mangroves). These habitats have 
been a focus of NOAA research, restoration and conservation for many 
years because of their importance in providing essential fish habitat, 
wildlife habitat, storm and erosion protection, and water quality 
improvements; and align with the climate-oriented activities described 
in the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2021. NOAA's coastal blue 
carbon activities are a collaborative effort across the agency and with 
other Federal agencies. Other initiatives that Primary topics include 
greenhouse gas inventory and accounting; habitat restoration and 
protection; research, monitoring and mapping; the management of coastal 
blue carbon in National Estuarine Research Reserves, national marine 
sanctuaries, and the coastal zone; technical assistance and outreach; 
and international cooperation and capacity building. NOAA can also 
support Advanced Research Projects Agency-Climate (ARPA-C) through its 
observations, monitoring and advanced climate research. A better 
understanding of coastal and deep seabed blue carbon habitats and their 
role in climate change mitigation will assist NOAA and other partners 
and stakeholders to better manage and maintain these ecosystems and 
provide multiple, critical benefits to communities and species.
Ocean Acidification and Harmful Algal Blooms
    The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2021 also describes 
activities to address ocean acidification and harmful algal blooms 
(HABs). As the lead federal agency for both ocean acidification and 
HABs, NOAA is committed to identifying knowledge gaps and potential 
adaptation strategies needed to address the increasing severity of both 
ocean acidification and HABs being driven by climate change.
    Climate change is one of the drivers of the increasing frequency, 
toxicity, and duration of harmful algal blooms. Warmer waters, changes 
in salinity and carbon dioxide levels, sea level rise, and coastal 
upwelling are creating conditions in which HABs thrive. Toxic blooms 
threaten human and marine mammal health, drinking water, tourism, and 
commercial and recreational fisheries. Some blooms kill fish and 
shellfish directly, causing millions in losses to the aquaculture 
industry. NOAA is the lead federal agency for marine HABs and shares 
jurisdiction for the Great Lakes with the Environmental Protection 
Agency. NOAA's role is understanding, detecting, monitoring, and 
forecasting HABs, and in helping communities with decision-making 
related to their prevention, control, and mitigation. NOAA's HAB 
programs are national in scope but targeted to different regional 
needs.
    Through our research, forecast, monitoring, and response 
activities, NOAA provides actionable information about HABs to 
decision-makers responsible for water treatment, aquaculture, public 
health, tourism, and coastal resource management. NOAA provides funding 
and technical training to state and local partners to build HAB 
monitoring capacity, and most HAB observing networks are a 
collaboration between NOAA and non-NOAA partners. NOAA and our partners 
provide long-term operational HAB forecasts for Lake Erie, Florida, and 
Texas that support public drinking water managers, and the fishing and 
tourism industry sectors. Additionally, NOAA runs HAB forecasts in 
several other regions of the country, including California, the Pacific 
Northwest, and the Gulf of Maine, that have not yet been 
operationalized (i.e., they provide a sustained service while remaining 
in research mode).
    Additionally, NOAA is the lead federal agency for understanding the 
impacts of coastal and ocean acidification and chairs the Interagency 
Working Group on Ocean Acidification. NOAA's efforts are led by the 
Ocean Acidification Program (OAP) in partnership with the Integrated 
Ocean Observing System (IOOS) and the IOOS Regional Associations, and 
others. The OAP seeks to better prepare society to respond to changing 
ocean conditions by expanding our understanding of ocean acidification, 
a fundamental change in the ocean's chemistry caused by absorbing 
carbon dioxide. OAP created and continues to partner extensively with 
the regional coastal acidification networks to understand and work to 
mitigate the impacts of acidification at the local level, where it is 
felt most severely. We have also created the Ocean Acidification 
Information Exchange \3\ portal that makes data and tools on coastal 
and ocean acidification available to partners to assist them in 
understanding and preparing for this dramatic element of a changing 
climate. OAP also partners with the National Sea Grant College Program 
to provide heavily impacted stakeholders, such as the aquaculture 
industry, with adaptation techniques for acidification and a changing 
climate broadly. Finally, OAP is working with the National Centers for 
Coastal Ocean Science on ongoing research to fill knowledge gaps in the 
linkages between acidification and HABs, identify potential research 
products, and stakeholder needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ oainfoexchange.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
               ocean-based climate solutions act of 2021
    The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2021 is a broad bill aimed 
at addressing many challenges facing ocean and coastal wildlife and 
habitats as well as coastal communities and economies. As such, the 
bill has substantial implications for NOAA's mission and operations. 
With the exception of the provisions that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service addresses in its statement, the Administration has not taken a 
position on this bill. We are happy to provide technical suggestions on 
the bill as needed.
                               conclusion
    NOAA is proud to continue to lead the world in ocean science, serve 
the nation's coastal communities and industries, and ensure responsible 
stewardship of our ocean and coastal resources. With our expertise and 
unique capabilities, NOAA can help our nation better understand our 
changing planet and make better decisions to prepare for, adapt to, and 
tackle the climate crisis. Together, we can meet the moment. Thank you 
and your staff for your work to support NOAA's mission.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Nicole LeBoeuf, Acting 
     Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
              Questions Submitted by Representative Sablan
    Question 1. Title VI of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act 
directs NOAA's Office for Coastal Management to provide technical 
assistance to the insular areas to enhance their coastal management and 
climate change programs. Can you describe what that technical 
assistance might look like and why it is important that we include this 
language?

    Answer. NOAA's Office for Coastal Management (OCM) provides 
technical assistance in a number of ways to help coastal communities 
access and apply tools, technology, policy, science, and other 
knowledge to address coastal management issues. NOAA also provides 
subject-matter expertise that allows coastal decision-makers to make 
the best use of tools and techniques to answer specific questions or 
resolve issues. A few examples of NOAA's technical assistance include:

     Training on topics, tools, and processes. The OCM has 
            recently provided training on topics such as nature-based 
            solutions for coastal hazards and climate adaptation 
            planning to the territories, and demand for these trainings 
            continues. For example, Puerto Rico has interest in more 
            nature-based solutions trainings. The OCM also provides 
            demos of different Digital Coast tools such as the sea 
            level rise viewer and the coastal flood exposure mapper and 
            can help insular areas apply those tools to their location 
            in order to assess vulnerabilities and prioritize 
            adaptation actions.

     Providing geospatial support: The OCM helps insular areas 
            acquire geospatial data by partnering on data acquisition 
            under our existing geospatial contract. The OCM also 
            provides technical assistance accessing and applying data 
            on the Digital Coast, such as lidar, shoreline, and land 
            cover change data. The OCM also offers training on coastal 
            inundation mapping that helps local staff with GIS 
            expertise learn how to do specialized mapping.

     Facilitating and/or assisting in planning partner 
            workshops and meetings: The OCM has expertise in planning 
            and facilitating meetings, and can support insular areas in 
            identifying desired outcomes, applying different process 
            techniques such as breakout groups, and executing a well-
            run event.

     Supporting Coastal Zone Management (CZM) and Coral 
            programs: The OCM liaison positions support the territories 
            as they apply for, execute, and report out on their use of 
            NOAA grant funds, and they share lessons and best practices 
            from other states and territories. One liaison serves Coral 
            and CZM programs in each territory. Also, the OCM supports 
            fellowships that build capacity in territories' coastal and 
            coral programs.

     Regional networking: By maintaining a strong regional 
            presence in the Southeast and Caribbean as well as the 
            Pacific, the OCM often serves as the first point of contact 
            for coastal programs looking for partners in the 
            continental U.S. For example, the OCM helps connect 
            partners in other NOAA programs, federal agencies, 
            academia, and non-profit organizations.

Importance of technical assistance language being included:

     The territories often face more significant capacity 
            limitations than their stateside counterparts due to 
            historic inequities. Providing technical assistance is 
            critical to ensure insular areas can access and apply 
            available science and data, can learn from others in the 
            coastal management field, and can maximize the impact of 
            grant funding they receive. Over time, this technical 
            assistance builds on-the-ground capacity and enables 
            partners to take full advantage of not only NOAA funding 
            but other federal, non-profit, or foundation funding.

     Insular areas need access to online data, tools, and 
            references, as well as high-touch delivery of the science 
            that enables them to apply it in decision-making.

     Another important aspect of technical assistance is taking 
            the time to listen to and understand needs. The OCM has 
            staff living in the territories and working directly with 
            partners. That enables the OCM to learn about the 
            challenges faced, the capacities and expertise available 
            locally, and the opportunities to make gains. Then, 
            assistance can be tailored to best fit needs.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Graves
    Question 1. South Louisiana is home to a truly unique ecosystem--
the coastal forest. These forests comprise over 1 million acres of 
cypress-tupelo swamp, and represent the final stretch of land connected 
to the Mississippi River Watershed before it deposits into the Gulf of 
Mexico. The forests were formed over centuries from the hydrologic 
patterns of the Mississippi River, which provided alternating periods 
of drying followed by several months of seasonal flooding on an annual 
basis. The net result of these hydrologic patterns over thousands of 
years was an environment uniquely adapted for bald cypress and water 
tupelo trees to establish and thrive.
    However, due to a multitude of natural and man-made changes to the 
landscape over the past century, these forests are declining at a 
staggering rate. The loss of these valuable ecosystems represents a 
significant loss of biodiversity, valuable wildlife habitat, floodwater 
retention and control, and hurricane and storm surge buffering. Yet 
perhaps most alarming, these forests would convert from a beneficial 
carbon sink to a detrimental carbon source.
    Restoring the coastal forests of south Louisiana would fulfill many 
of the enumerated goals of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act. 
Moreover, the grant programs included in this legislation could provide 
a valuable lifeline to these forests. Unfortunately, I am worried they 
will not be included in these programs because they are 100% freshwater 
systems.

    Would these forests be considered ``blue carbon'' under the Ocean-
Based Climate Solutions Act and, if not, how can we work to have them 
included in these future grant programs?

    Answer.

     The forests in question would need to be tidal and salt-
            water to fall within the definition of ``blue carbon 
            ecosystem'' in the current draft bill. Congress would need 
            to modify this definition and/or the grant program 
            description to more broadly include other aquatic 
            ecosystems that capture and store carbon resulting in net 
            greenhouse gas reduction in order to include Cypress-tupelo 
            swamps.

     Also, as currently drafted in the Act in Section 104(d) 
            (selection criteria), an applicant would need to show how 
            their project would result in long-term protection and 
            sequestration of carbon stored in coastal and marine 
            habitats.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Let me now begin questions by Members. Let me turn to the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Huffman, for your questions. 
You have 5 minutes, sir. You are recognized.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks very much 
to this panel of witnesses.
    Ms. LeBoeuf, I would like to begin with you, please. One of 
the key aspects of the Blue Carbon Protection Act, Title I of 
the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act, is a partnership grant 
program.
    I want to just ask if you could speak to how grants to non-
Federal entities to restore blue carbon ecosystems fit into the 
Administration's goals to build back better.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes. Thank you, Congressman Huffman. 
Investments in on-the-ground restoration activities are really 
good spends for taxpayer dollars. Coastal economies depend on 
coastal environments to be healthy and resilient to climate 
change, but our entire nation depends on the ability of our 
industries and economies and infrastructure along the coastal 
zone, both nature-based and hardscape, to survive the climate 
impacts that they are already facing.
    At NOAA, we have been doing coastal restoration and habitat 
restoration for decades. We have been studying carbon 
sequestration. And we verified what we heard already, that 
coastal environments like salt marshes can sequester as much as 
10 times the amount of carbon as terrestrial forest habitats. 
But they also provide habitat and nurseries for recreational 
and economically important species of fish and shellfish. They 
also provide places for people to recreate and to call home.
    And what we also heard just from Members today is the 
importance of these coastal environments as protection from 
erosion and storms and storm surge and other coastal hazards. 
So, every time we invest in coastal restoration and in coastal 
ecosystems, we are building back better those environments for 
people, for the animals, for the plants, and for future 
generations.
    I will say also that we know that habitat restoration 
creates jobs. For every $1 million invested in habitat 
restoration, we estimate at least 15 jobs across a wide range 
of industries from project management to engineering. This is 
something that NOAA is very eager to expand and continue to 
invest in.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. I am glad you brought that up 
because this bill also includes a $10 billion program to 
support shovel-ready coastal restoration projects. And my 
understanding is a similar program was put in place after the 
2009 recession.
    Can you briefly speak to the success of that program as an 
example of what we might expect.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes. Absolutely. And the demand for that work 
has grown so much since 2009. In 2009, NOAA was able to scale 
up its existing restoration grant programs and provide funds 
for over 100 projects in 24 states and territories around the 
country, really not only jump starting and kick starting those 
economies through job creation, and again, through all kinds of 
other ecological services that those habitats provide but also 
have really helped local communities invest in the restoration 
and recovery of habitats that are important to them and 
important to their local traditions and cultures.
    So, it has really provided a model, not only for the 
benefits of habitat restoration, but within NOAA, how we can 
quickly scale up our grant programs to meet the demand which is 
really outstripping our abilities right now.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
    In the time I have left, Mr. Guertin, I would like to ask 
you to speak to how the goal of conserving blue carbon 
ecosystems aligns with protecting wildlife in our National 
Refuge System.
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman. 
Conservation of blue carbon ecosystems aligns very well with 
our conservation issues with wildlife and fisheries restoration 
and protection on the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 
refuge system conserves these species and habitats on a 
landscape scale. There are about 180, 182 coastal refuges 
encompassing more than 740 million acres of coastal and marine 
habitat.
    They feature a wide range of blue carbon opportunities of 
salt grass, kelp beds, and mangroves, and they are critical to 
the conservation of many Federal trust species including 
manatee, sea turtles, and migratory water fowl, so there is a 
very good alignment, sir.
    Mr. Huffman. All right. Thank you very much, sir.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Bentz, you are the Ranking Member, Congressman. You are 
recognized, sir.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    A question for Ms. LeBoeuf on the Interagency Task Force 
created by H.R. 3764. It identifies 19 Federal agencies, but 
notably missing is the Bureau of Reclamation. As you know, that 
agency maintains critically important water supply projects, 
many located on the rivers and streams that ultimately run into 
the ocean. Considering the task force has the potential to 
impact the Bureau of Reclamation's work, wouldn't it make sense 
to include them in that task force?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you for your question, Congressman 
Bentz. And we are still reviewing the bills in their entirety 
and have not taken a position on them at this time. What I will 
say, when it comes to coastal resilience and climate action, we 
are going to need all hands on deck.
    We are going to need to be consulting with those with the 
expertise and those that will be impacted from other Federal 
agencies to communities on the ground to all be a part of the 
solutions.
    And I would say to use one more analogy, we need to put as 
many tools in our toolbox as possible. So, as I am saying to 
other Federal agencies, if you have something to bring to this 
conversation, let's hear it.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. And while we are talking about 
consultation, H.R. 3764 creates several new consultation 
requirements such as blue carbon areas of significance, marine 
mammal climate impact management plans, and changes to 
consultation requirements under ``essential fish habitat.''
    Would your agency need to complete three different 
consultations, should a Federal action affect these 
designations?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you for that question as well. I will 
speak mostly to the climate aspects of those consultations. 
Again, conversations are needed to make sure we are not being 
duplicative across Federal agencies and that we are bringing 
taxpayers' dollars to bear in the best way possible. I know we 
consult with, for example, the Marine Mammal Commission on a 
number of activities because they can look across the Federal 
agencies, identify best practices or gaps in information, and 
help queue us in on those activities.
    So, I would welcome continued work with you and other 
Committee members to ensure that we are bringing the right 
folks to the table and having the right kinds of conversations.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. And the question that often comes up 
in dealing with consultations is how long is it going to take, 
and that brings us almost immediately into how much information 
you have already developed that applies to these types of 
consultation.
    Do you anticipate that these bills will require additional 
studies before you are able to correctly engage in such 
consultations?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Well, of course, we would want to have as much 
information as necessary to make meaningful decisions, 
particularly when it comes to predictive decision making and 
climate change in the future.
    What I will say is that consultations across the board, 
whether they be for essential fish habitat or other means, are 
designed to bring the right agencies to bear so that we are not 
missing anything and we're not making mistakes along the way.
    I do believe that there are many opportunities across NOAA 
and the Federal agencies to further empower us to bring good 
information to the table so that we can enable, for example, 
infrastructure choices as an example for promotion of wind 
energy development, for the promotion of other industries along 
the coastline.
    And without the ability to bring the right agencies the 
right information together, we could very well be doing things 
in a duplicative manner or could be missing important vital 
information for those choices.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. And while we are talking about 
consultation, the bill also amends the essential fish habitat 
provisions of the law. It would trigger secretarial 
consultation on any federally permitted action on essential 
fish habitat.
    If information or determinations were to come from regional 
councils, federal or state agencies, and then ``or from another 
source,''--it is this last phrase I am interested in. Can you 
please tell us your interpretation of what this means to your 
agency and whether you think it will expose the agency to a 
proliferation of essential fish habitat-related petitions.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes. Thank you. My agency does not have a 
position on that particular interpretation. I will say that we 
are very much looking forward to working with the Committee on 
refinement of language where we do need to discuss that kind of 
interpretation. There are a lot of shared interests here, and 
healthy fish populations are just one of those. But at this 
time, I would say, sir, we are still reviewing that 
interpretation.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And 
your point on the involvement of the Bureau of Reclamation is 
well taken, Congressman, and I appreciate that suggestion, and 
your comments regarding that.
    With that, let me now--Chairman Lowenthal. Sir, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for 
holding this very, very important hearing on really protecting 
and preserving our oceans and our ecosystems around the ocean.
    What I am interested in is a number of critically important 
protections within the legislation to help marine mammal 
populations rebound. Two protections that I would like to 
highlight. One is the creation of a quiet sky--the Quiet Seas 
and Clear Skies, the vessel speed reduction award program. And 
the second is a study directing NOAA to analyze fishing gear, 
marine debris, and issue recommendations on management measures 
to address this issue.
    I was hoping that both of you or either one of you, 
although I will ask specifically a question to each of you, can 
deal with this issue. One, the issue of abandoned fishing gear. 
I will start with that one and then come back to ship strikes.
    And this is for Assistant Administrator LeBoeuf. Can you 
briefly touch on how such a study from NOAA can help shed light 
on the domestic and international problem of abandoned fishing 
gear? And what do you see as the best management practices that 
you are aware of to help address this issue.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Congressman Lowenthal, thank you very much, 
and thank you for your long-standing support of NOAA and for 
your background, although that doesn't look like the LA Long 
Beach area to me. What I will say is----
    Mr. Lowenthal. It is a little bit further, further west.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. It is a little further west. OK.
    Mr. Lowenthal. That is right.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Any additional information we can obtain on 
best practices for, first, prevention and then recovery of 
derelict fishing gear would be an advancement. This, like ship 
collisions, are best prevented rather than clean up on the 
other end, but we are looking to develop best practices and 
would welcome further investigation into that.
    Of course, you know there are some methods employed now. 
There are ways to tag gear so that it can be tracked and 
retrieved. And, of course, we are looking to expand our marine 
debris grants program to actually employ fishermen to be a part 
of the solution to retrieve fishing gear once it has become 
loose in the water. And we would welcome to continue to work 
with you to better assess what that problem is.
    Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I don't think many people are 
aware of how large the problem is on abandoned fishing gear and 
the impacts of it, so I just really wanted to raise this issue, 
and I know that NOAA is working really hard on this issue. And 
I think it is critical that as we are talking about protection 
of our oceans that we look at some of what we are throwing into 
the ocean, what we are leaving in the ocean.
    Deputy Director Guertin, I have a question. Can you briefly 
touch on how a voluntary program to reduce ship speeds can help 
minimize ship strikes on whales and other marine mammals? And 
does a program like this work?
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman. Our 
nexus to this issue is largely with some of the in shore 
species like manatee and sea otters. Unfortunately, about a 
quarter of the mortality every year is caused by ship strikes. 
We do a lot of work as this is a listed species with the state 
boating industry, recreational and commercial fishermen to put 
in place a lot of buoys, markers, mapping products, and public 
information. We also have three law enforcement officers in the 
Service deployed to Florida to work specifically on working 
with the boating recreational folks on awareness and 
management.
    These voluntary things we believe go a long way toward 
helping these animals. We know largely where they are going to 
be, but they move around a lot on their own, and we try to 
focus our efforts to keep people away from the known corridors 
and known foraging areas and do a lot of public awareness.
    And, certainly, many of the provisions in this bill that 
address some of the wound-related stress on marine mammals, 
habitat conservation, and resiliency would go a long way toward 
our ongoing efforts for manatee and other sea mammal 
recoveries, sir.
    Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
    I am going to yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back, and I recognize 
the Dean of the House, Congressman Young. You are recognized, 
sir.
    Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. God bless you.
    Interesting hearing. I am sorry I am a little late. I had 
another meeting I had to go to. It was not a Zoomer, but 
anyway.
    Ms. LeBoeuf, H.R. 3764 requires the creation of national 
grant programs to support U.S. fisheries, including the motion 
of domestic products for climate friendly fisheries and 
fisheries with low bycatch and low impacts on marine mammals.
    My question is this: Currently, the NOAA and regional 
council successfully manage their fisheries to reduce bycatch 
as much as possible, and the MM&P requires very strict, some of 
the most precautionary work in the world. Therefore, our 
fisheries are, by and large, considered sustainable.
    Wouldn't it be more beneficial to a greater portion of our 
domestic industry and our Nation to allow access to our 
national grant program promoting research and development for 
as many products as possible rather than limiting access via a 
subject list of qualifiers? The last part is the real question.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Oh. Yes, sir. I appreciate your question, and 
thank you for raising this issue. We work very closely with the 
fishery management councils, as you know, to make sure that 
U.S. seafood is sustainably harvested and is safe to eat, quite 
frankly, and is as delicious as it can possibly be. We don't 
have a position on this particular provision of the Act.
    I will say that working with our U.S. fishermen is a 
complex business. They are very well invested in sustainability 
of those fisheries, and then it is up to our folks at NOAA to 
figure out how to work with them and work with the provisions 
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to make sure that their 
fisheries are sustainable when it comes to marine mammal 
conservation as well.
    So, the Administration doesn't have a preference on one 
approach or another, but we will continue to work with the 
fishery management councils both under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
and under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to do the best thing 
we can.
    Mr. Young. Thank you. And keep us informed on this issue 
because it has come up to me before, and I think we can improve 
is what I am saying. I do believe that there is room for 
improvement there.
    Mr. Guertin, Section 701 of H.R. 3764 amends the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act, whereby the Secretary is required to 
publish and maintain a list of marine mammals negatively 
impacted by climate change and requires the development of 
climate impact management plans and 18 to 30 months to address 
any activity that may contribute to population declines.
    The provision also allows population projection using 
climate projection data 100 years in the future, just as was 
done with the polar bears, the original poster child of climate 
change. I will never forget some of the scenes I saw. But we 
have learned we got it wrong with the polar bears. 
Statistically speaking, there are more polar bears today than 
there were listed under the ESA Act of 2008, mostly due to the 
impacts from climate change.
    Based on this example, is it fair to say we may well get it 
wrong again but only after we have implemented regulations 
undermining commerce in the U.S. EEZ zone? What I am saying--
sorry. If you don't understand that question, I will make it 
very clear. We sometimes made mistakes, and I don't like to 
make mistakes when they affect the commerce part of our EEZ 
zone.
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman. We 
don't want to make mistakes either at the Federal Government 
level, and our commitment to you is we will always use the best 
available science. We will work closely with our state 
partners. We will keep Congress informed as we move forward. It 
is in our collective best interest to always use the best 
available information to make any species determination.
    Mr. Young. With all due respect, sir, best available 
information sometimes isn't any information at all. And when 
you do make a decision like with the polar bears, I do believe 
the Secretary made a mistake, and I don't want that to happen 
again.
    And, by the way, where did you get that little elk behind 
you? It looks like a 5-pointer or 10-pointer. I would be really 
shocked--if I count the points right, it was illegal?
    Mr. Guertin. That is just a painting, a reproduction of a 
Olaus Murie painting, sir, just sentimental value. I didn't 
shoot it----
    Mr. Young. If you have been to my office, you would 
understand what I am saying.
    Mr. Guertin. Oh.
    Mr. Young [continuing]. Real elk.
    Mr. Guertin. So, that is just sentimental--a copy of a 
thing from the visitor center out in Grand Teton that I keep.
    Mr. Young. All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I don't have any other questions. Thanks for 
having this hearing, and I do appreciate it. God bless.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Young, and appreciate your 
questions.
    Let me now ask Congressman, the gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. 
Case, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And first of all, to the witnesses, I am a co-introducer of 
this measure and so that will tell you where I am coming from. 
I do want to say to Mr. Guertin and Ms. LeBoeuf, from Hawaii 
and the Pacific, thank you for your efforts. The Fish and 
Wildlife Service and NOAA have been great partners, and I look 
forward to that all continuing, so really appreciate the 
partnership.
    Mr. Guertin, I am looking at your testimony, and I am 
focusing on the Coastal Barrier Resources Act amendments, the 
provision that basically calls for the 1982 approach that I 
believe your testimony was to the effect that it has been quite 
successful. And the goal of preserving our coastal barrier 
areas in this bill, of course, proposes to expand that to the 
``Pacific Coast,'' although, I am still unsure whether that 
includes Hawaii, as well as to the territories and the Freely 
Associated States.
    And you made a comment that the coastal geology is 
different, so it wouldn't be appropriate there. I just kind of 
paused on that to ask myself whether I agree with that because 
obviously anything we can do to preserve our coastal ecosystems 
we should do.
    And if it has been successful in the Atlantic Coast, why 
wouldn't it be successful elsewhere? And if the answer is the 
geology of the Atlantic Coast are barrier islands and you don't 
have that in the other side of the country, then I will accept 
that. But is that what you meant?
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman. We 
can be kind of pin heads, I guess, when we write our testimony. 
We take things very scientifically but in very general terms. 
In our view, the Pacific Coast and the Hawaiian Islands, for 
example, face different threats and challenges from the 
Atlantic, Great Lakes, and Gulf Coast where the traditional 
CBRA is.
    We focus the traditional program more on these sand barrier 
islands and offshore kind of things. When we look at the 
Pacific Coast, a lot of it is already protected. Military bases 
and state parks are very heavily developed, not a lot of 
similar geology. Hawaiian Islands, we are not seeing so much 
the traditional offshore sand barriers there necessarily.
    That said, we are very open to working with Congress as you 
interpret what the implementation will be going forward. There 
are certainly many other factors in this legislation that would 
apply to the Hawaiian Island chain out there and other sections 
of the Pacific Ocean.
    So, we are open to working with Congress as we work 
forward, but apologize if our testimony was a little too 
egghead for you. It is just we are looking at the traditional 
meaning of what the CBRA program has gotten us so far and its 
focus on these largely offshore complexes along these coast 
lines.
    Mr. Case. OK. I appreciate that, and understood. I would 
comment back to you that I am not sure the geology should be 
the determining factor here. I mean, we have clear erosion 
going along our Pacific Coast and to include the Hawaiian 
Islands and elsewhere in the Pacific.
    Mr. Guertin. Sure, that is fine.
    Mr. Case. The impact of climate change is what we are after 
here, and some of the mechanisms that the Federal Government 
employed in that 1982 law to disincentivize development in that 
coastal region could well be applicable to a different geology 
elsewhere. Anyway, I will leave it at that because I would like 
to move on quickly to Ms. LeBoeuf.
    I am noting that in the first part of your testimony, you 
say that basically NOAA's ocean and coastal priorities are 
aligned with the goals of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions 
Act, and yet you conclude with the statement that the 
Administration doesn't take a position on the bill other than 
for the Fish and Wildlife portion, and I am not sure what that 
means.
    Does that mean you just haven't done it yet or generally it 
is OK but you may take a different approach, or you have more 
ideas for the Committee to consider, or how am I to interpret 
that?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes, thank you for the clarifying question. 
Alignment, in my mind, is that we have a lot of shared 
interests in keeping our oceans healthy and our coastal 
communities and economies safe and prosperous. We are still 
analyzing the various aspects of the bill, and there are 
several for which we have already provided technical drafting 
assistance, and that was taken, and we are appreciative of 
that.
    We would just like more of an opportunity to examine some 
of the refined versions that have just recently come out. But 
when I say ``alignment,'' I mean it is very clear that there 
are shared interests between NOAA's mission and the interests 
of this Committee.
    Mr. Case. OK. Thank you so much.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Case.
    Let me now recognize Congressman Gohmert for your 
questions, sir. You are recognized.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am curious when I hear about wanting to help the fish 
population. Growing up in Texas, I heard for years that, ``Gee, 
if we allow oil and gas production off the Texas coast, we are 
going to have big problems, and it is going to end up killing 
off the fish.''
    And then, over time, it turned out that actually when 
people go fishing now, they like to go around where there is a 
rig because it is an artificial reef, and fish have just really 
populated the area extensively. So, all of those gloom-and-
doomers that were saying developing oil and gas and helping the 
economy, that was all going to destroy fishing in the Gulf of 
Mexico, it ended up having exactly the opposite effect.
    And last I checked, there was a long wait, a long list of 
places that wanted oil rigs that were actually discarded in 
their area because of the artificial reef it created. I haven't 
heard anything about how drilling of oil and gas actually can 
proliferate fishing or fish population. I have just heard about 
gloom and doom again, like I did when I was young in Texas.
    I would just ask either one of you, have you taken that 
into account at all, that actually the work of a vibrant 
economy in producing oil and gas can actually help increase the 
population of fish?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Congressman Gohmert, I will give a start at 
that. And I also grew up in the Gulf Coast of Texas and did a 
lot of fishing myself and found a love for the coastal 
communities there, not just the beach, but the folks that live 
near the beach and the industries that depend on them.
    And your example is not one that I am aware of that we have 
studied per se. I can absolutely take that as a question back. 
I do know that we do find dive sites around rigs and, as you 
have said, that rigs can turn into artificial reefs once they 
are decommissioned.
    There is information out there that fish like to aggregate 
around things that are bigger than they are, right, and so if 
it is a big pile of rocks or a rig, fish may not know the 
difference.
    What I will say, as you know being from Texas, the ocean 
and the coast, that is a busy place. There are a lot of 
industries out there that contribute to our Nation's entire 
well-being. From sneakers to bananas to natural gas, people all 
over the country require our coastal communities and economies 
to be vibrant and to be ready for what is to come.
    And one of the things that gets me excited when I talk 
about coastal infrastructure is about all the information that 
we can bring to bear from NOAA to make sure that our 
infrastructure is climate ready so that all of those economies 
and industries can prepare for what is to come.
    Mr. Gohmert. I am a little surprised that there hasn't been 
any looking at that and how man's productivity can work hand in 
hand with the fish world. I am quite concerned that that hasn't 
been looked at because what I have heard from sources in Texas 
is that it has been a big boon for fishing growth and fishing 
population, the growth of population.
    And as we continue to try to take actions to change the 
climate change, and we know that polar ice caps have melted, as 
I understand Antarctica has actually expanded. But I understood 
recently that it is for sure that the polar ice caps on Mars 
are also melting, and I have a hard time believing that 
anything we are going to do is going to change the climate on 
Mars and stop the polar caps continuing to melt there. It is 
just one thought.
    But it also seems that the more we talk about giving 
government more and more power, more and more money to battle 
evil climate change that we have seen for millions of years, it 
is a matter of giving up more and more private rights and 
personal rights that the Constitution assured to us.
    My time is expired. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
    Let me recognize the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman Grijalva, for this 
important hearing today.
    As we all are becoming increasingly aware, you don't have 
to live near an ocean to feel the effects of our warming 
planet. If we are going to fight the climate crisis with the 
scale and urgency necessary to save our planet, we must look 
toward ocean-based climate solutions as key pieces for our 
efforts.
    This question is for you, Mr. Guertin. Researchers predict 
climate change will have a significant impact on the Great 
Lakes system's natural resources, and for Michigan, that is 
something critically important.
    Creating new problems for our ecosystems and making 
existing problems like rising water levels and algae blooms 
worse, how do you anticipate the Fish and Wildlife Service will 
balance existing problems, which also include habitat 
degradation, pollution, erosion, invasive species, with actions 
to address its issues that emerge with the increasing climate 
change?
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman. We 
are integrating climate change and these other stressors on the 
environment into nearly all of our management actions as an 
agency. Many of the existing problems you have highlighted are 
exasperated by climate change and the negative impacts of these 
multiple stressors on wildlife can be cumulative and 
compounding.
    A number of the programs highlighted in today's bill, 
including CBRA, restoration of blue carbon ecosystems, and 
others, allow us to tackle both the existing problems as well 
as these emerging threats of climate change.
    We are a land manager. We manage our Nation's beautiful 
National Wildlife Refuge System. We work with our state, 
tribal, and private landowner partners, military base 
commanders on a lot of habitat restoration projects. We can 
bring a lot of capacity, know-how, and programs to the table.
    And we come back to our defining mission statement. Working 
with others, the Service will tackle these on behalf of the 
American people. So, we believe a lot of these tenets included 
in this legislation will help amplify our ongoing conservation 
mission to get after some of the issues you have addressed. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you.
    And, Ms. LeBoeuf, I love that I can actually hear your 
passion and love for our oceans as you speak about growing up 
near that kind of environment. We know the Ocean-Based Climate 
Solutions Act and Rep. Velazquez's H.R. 3228 call for NOAA to 
lead on improvements to products and services which enable 
sound and science-based decisions in the face of climate 
change. Can you discuss NOAA's vision for identifying data gaps 
and adjusting vulnerabilities and investing in communities on 
the front lines of climate change, please?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman Tlaib. And on 
the front lines of climate change, we are here mostly talking 
about coastal. We know that the changes on the coastal 
environment in the ocean are happening more rapidly than 
elsewhere and the rate of change is accelerating.
    But on the front lines, I think also means communities that 
have been historically underserved, communities that rely upon 
the coastal environment for their lives and livelihoods. And we 
spend a lot of time on the ground listening to those 
communities and to their industry representatives and others 
that can help us understand what their needs are, the questions 
that they have, the problems that they are seeing coming their 
way.
    One of the best ways to provide for communities and 
economies is to be able to predict and to provide them with the 
right of informed decision making, and that is one of the 
things that NOAA really works hard and prides ourselves in 
doing for all Americans, is providing authoritative 
information, not just for research or science's sake but for 
solutions and for decision support for training and for 
enabling communities to really make informed decisions for 
themselves. And that is what we are looking forward to continue 
doing. And where we see gaps, we are asking questions, and we 
are finding some gaps, and we are addressing those right away, 
particularly when it comes to underserved communities.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much.
    And, Chairman Grijalva, I would love to really continue to 
try to talk about--and I know this is Natural Resources, but we 
never have public health experts in line in this conversation 
about vulnerabilities of frontline communities. Because I think 
it is so interconnected, and for us to truly understand the 
impact for frontline communities is to understand the impact on 
their public health.
    It is not just what we are putting in our body from the 
fishery, but we also very much rely on that kind of environment 
for our air, our water, and those kinds of things. So, I hope 
in some ways we can always bring that public health aspect to 
it.
    With that, I yield, sir.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Tlaib, and your 
point is really good. We anticipate soon to have a hearing on 
EJ initiatives, overall EJ legislation, what the Administration 
is doing and not doing with working groups and everything to 
get an update on a very urgent issue, and integral to that--and 
I appreciate your recommendation--integral to that to deal with 
the consequences around public health for frontline communities 
and impacted communities. So, yes, I appreciate it very much. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. Congressman Graves, sir, you are recognized.
    Representative Radewagen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And talofa lava, 
good afternoon, and thank you for testifying today.
    Ms. LeBoeuf, I have a couple questions for you. Title I of 
the bill introduces two new types of coastal and marine 
designations, coastal and marine blue carbon ecosystems, and 
blue carbon areas of significance that the bill would enhance 
the protection of.
    But the bill also gives the Administrator of NOAA the 
authority to identify vulnerable areas where management, 
protection, and restoration effort should be focused, as well 
as the authority to establish national coastal and marine 
carbon ecosystem protection and restoration priorities.
    Do you think the identification of these areas and the 
requirement to protect and restore these areas will over-ride 
existing habitat protection programs, such as those through the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, MSA, or add new criteria that are not 
currently in the MSA? And if so, how will this affect fisheries 
management in the United States, which is already lauded as the 
gold standard of fisheries management?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your question. 
Every time a new law is enacted, we seek to ensure that there 
aren't any contradictory provisions, so we often have to 
reconcile on the other side. And we will work with the 
Committee to make sure that if there is anything we see that 
could come our way that doesn't work with another law, that we 
can identify that.
    The habitat restoration efforts that we have had ongoing 
for decades rely upon users on the ground in communities to 
help identify and to apply for programs that can assist them in 
that restoration. We have long-standing research programs on 
carbon sequestration.
    We have not yet been in the business of prioritizing over 
those grant proposals, in addition to the grant proposals that 
have already been provided to us, and into those evaluate 
criteria. We would want to look more closely as to how those 
existing programs might harmonize or marry up with the new 
requirements that you speak of. Thank you.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you. Title III appears to create an 
independent international body to review countries' fishery 
management practices and do assessments of the health of 
fishery stocks in the United States. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 
is already viewed as the most sustainable management system in 
the world, yet this requirement, this legislation would require 
an outside review to review our system. Is this really 
necessary?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. I will say that we have not taken a position 
on that particular element of the legislation or the Act as a 
whole. We do have a laudable fisheries management system in the 
United States. I certainly have no problem eating U.S. seafood 
myself and choose it every time that I can. So, I appreciate 
your acknowledgment of the work that we have done to have 
sustainable fisheries.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you. As a follow-up, in addition, 
this title would require that future trade agreements require 
parties to the agreement to have a system of protected areas, 
not just marine protected areas, that protects at least 30 
percent and also that protects biodiversity. How do you believe 
the WTO will view this language?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. That is a great question. I am certainly not 
an expert in the World Trade Organization or would never 
speculate on its interpretations, but I am certain that NOAA is 
looking at that. We have a lot of experts in WTO interpretation 
and cases, but thank you for that question.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Let me now recognize Ms. Stansbury, the gentlelady from New 
Mexico. Representative, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to all of our folks who testified today. My 
question is about the provisions in this bill that would 
benefit tribes, and I am not sure if this question should be 
directed to the sponsors of the bill or to our agency experts 
here, but could you talk a little bit more about the various 
grant programs and provisions in here that would benefit tribes 
in different regions and what those programs do?
    The Chairman. The primary one, Representative, is the 
Coastal Resilience Grant Program that targets and specifies 
tribes and Indigenous communities. There are others in there 
that deal with the consequences to some of these frontline 
communities, but specifically to your answer, that would be the 
one that would be primarily focused on that.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And are these 
expansions of existing programs, or does this create new 
programs that various tribes would be able to apply for?
    The Chairman. It is codifying existing programs into law.
    Ms. Stansbury. Got it. With that, I yield. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    The gentlelady yields.
    Let me recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Graves. 
Mr. Graves, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
    Mr. Graves. I want to thank the witnesses for being here 
today and appreciate your testimony.
    I also want to welcome some of my friends to the 21st 
century. It is great to finally hear you all talking about the 
importance of resiliency in our coastal areas and protecting 
our coastal communities and ecosystem because, for years now, 
you all have fought us on some of those efforts. Every single 
one of you have voted against efforts to make substantial 
investments in our coastal communities, in the resilience for 
our ecosystem, resilience for our coastal lands.
    I am curious, Ms. LeBoeuf, I am from south Louisiana, and 
the largest coastal wetlands loss in the Continental United 
States occurs in my home state. The Government Accountability 
Office found that 90 percent of the coastal wetlands loss 
occurs in our state. And when you start looking at how and why 
that is happening, the largest cause is attributable to how the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manages the Mississippi River. 
That is what used to cause our state to grow. It is what 
created our state.
    We, in the past, have actually gone and made inconsistency 
determinations under CZM for the state--for the Corps of 
Engineers management of the river system, and NOAA, even dating 
back to the Obama administration, refused to come in and allow 
for some type of mediation. Do you have any thoughts on maybe 
how we could engage the Corps more constructively that would 
result in a more sustainable coastal system in Louisiana 
utilizing the river's resources?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes, thank you, Congressman Graves. You and I 
have spoken. It has been a couple years, but we have spoken 
about the need for really informed and durable solutions to 
coastal resilience, including taking care of our economies and 
the communities there.
    We do work closely with the Army Corps of Engineers across 
the board on their nature-based infrastructure initiatives as 
well as their increasing incorporation of sea-level rise into 
their projections and that kind of thing, so I know we have 
really close relationships there. I can't speak to the history 
of consultation of the CZ consultation there, and I can 
absolutely look into that and be happy to follow up with you on 
that specific area.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you. I just want to ask, so think about 
this for just a minute. We have the greatest coastal wetlands 
loss. You all were just talking about the productivity, the 
efficacy of these areas, the sequestration potential, and these 
are the areas that are just completely being ignored, the 
greatest loss of habitat, the most productive habitat, again, 
this Committee fighting against us when we are trying to save 
it, and having our own Federal Government that is undermining 
our efforts at sustainability, which, of course, increases 
disaster cost, implications on livelihoods in south Louisiana.
    To see this is really confounding when it is our own sister 
agency that is the primary cause of the problems, and NOAA 
refusing to step in and sort of referee some type of discussion 
that would allow for better sustainability. So, I do want to 
ask that you would follow up with us on this and see if you 
could be more helpful.
    The second question I have, and I know I don't have much 
more time, but for both of you--Mr. Huffman has legislation 
regarding blue ocean sequestration opportunities, and I am just 
curious when you start looking at the cost per ton of 
sequestration opportunities, looking at what China is doing and 
just exceeding everything that everyone else is doing in regard 
to increasing emissions, shouldn't we be looking at where you 
get the best bang for the buck?
    I mean, where are the best opportunities, the lowest 
hanging fruit for the greatest cost per ton--or not the 
greatest, I guess the lowest cost per ton for sequestration as 
opposed to--and I don't know the answer. I don't know the 
comparison of Mr. Huffman's legislation, but shouldn't we be 
looking at not just in the United States but globally 
considering this is a global problem?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes, I am not going to speak to the 
international question, but I do believe, and I said this 
earlier, we should be developing and utilizing all the right 
tools in the toolbox. You are absolutely right about the loss 
of coastal wetlands and habitat around the United States. It is 
a real loss for opportunity here at home to combat the climate 
crisis and to keep these communities and economies durable and 
prosperous.
    I am with you. I don't think we can wait any longer to help 
restore and preserve, particularly the areas where we know 
there is potential of 10 times as much carbon sequestration as 
a terrestrial habitat. We are kind of sitting on a pot of gold 
when it comes to our coastal wetlands, and I think anything we 
can do to preserve them and to restore them we should be 
focused on.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you very much.
    I know I am out of time. Mr. Chairman, all I heard her say 
is, ``I am with you,'' so I am just going to take that and go 
to the bank. But, Members and Mr. Chairman, I hope we can work 
together on some of these programs that you all have fought us 
on in the past. It is great to see you all finally in the same 
lane that we are. Take care.
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentleman, Mr. Cohen, for 
5 minutes. Sir, you are recognized.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to direct my question to Mr. Guertin. In your 
written testimony, you discussed impacts on marine mammals 
caused by humans, such as vessel strikes and noise pollution. 
Can you elaborate on those stressors?
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman. We 
have done a lot of work to see what is happening with these 
animals. We know for a fact that over a quarter of the 
mortality each year to our management population is due to 
over-running by vessels. They are also very highly susceptible 
to noise and other disruptions in their environment.
    Our strategy to combat and try to address those stressors 
is to be very proactive. We are working with states and 
industry and recreationists and others to put a lot of buoys 
and sensors out there. We do a lot of monitoring the 
populations. We try to map out where the animals are going to 
be moving, congregation areas, things like that, try to steer 
people away from them so that they can go about their business 
every day.
    Mr. Cohen. How about the effect of sonar on the animals 
that use sonar for direction, particularly dolphins, whales as 
well?
    Mr. Guertin. I would defer to NOAA for their expertise on 
those animals, sir.
    Mr. Cohen. NOAA?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you. I appreciate your question, sir. We 
do know that acoustics and the auditory environment is the most 
important for most whale and dolphin species, sort of like our 
visual environment and visual cues are important for us.
    And with the vessel strikes, of course, anything we can do 
to slow vessels. We know that reducing, for example, vessel 
speed by down to 10 knots cannot only decrease the probability 
of vessel strikes of large whales but can decrease the 
likelihood of serious injury and mortality when those vessel 
strikes do occur.
    So, we look to engage with the industry, the shipping 
industry and others to make sure they are aware of the 
potential harm to marine mammals from vessel strikes. And 
through voluntary as well as required means, we try to slow 
those boats down.
    Mr. Cohen. And what is the main enemy of dolphins?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Well, when I was a kid, I thought it was 
sharks, but what----
    Mr. Cohen. And you are still a kid.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. I am still a kid. I was told it was sharks. 
Marine mammals are exposed to a wide range of threats from 
water quality to habitat loss, including things in the ocean 
that they can move away from, like sound, or sometimes water 
quality, they can move.
    In other cases, marine mammals, like bottlenose dolphins 
along the coast, they get really loyal to certain places and it 
is hard for them to leave. I think we kind of know where our 
happy place is. Dolphins find a bay, for example, and they will 
stay there despite the threats posed to them.
    So, it is important to continue to try to minimize impacts 
to those populations, whether it is through fishing or sound or 
other things. And at NOAA, we provide a lot of the science and 
the analysis to make sure that we can engage in a very busy 
ocean, lots of activities, while minimizing impacts to their 
populations.
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Guertin mentioned manatees, and I grew up 
part of the time in Florida and lived on a canal, and we had 
manatees. I know that boats can be a problem for manatees, 
which you mentioned. How about humans that just have malevolent 
motives?
    Mr. Guertin. Could you repeat your question, sir?
    Mr. Cohen. Manatees, are they more damaged by boats and 
accidents by humans, or is it humans with intentional conduct 
and people that are just not very humane?
    Mr. Guertin. Again, sir, we turn to the evidence we can 
see. We know that we are suffering enormous loss of manatees 
this past year, particularly in the area of Indian River 
Lagoon. That was caused by a very large mortality event, a lack 
of forage for them. Over the winter, they congregated there. 
The other major cause of loss is attributed to collisions with 
pleasure boats, fishing boats, and things like that.
    What we try to do is be proactive, put in place speed zone 
regulations, enforcement signage, buoys, and things like that. 
They are very docile creatures. People will go to Florida and 
other places to swim with them where it is allowed. You are not 
supposed to harass or harm them because they are endangered 
species, so that doesn't happen much anymore, but they tend to 
kind of shy away from any type of danger they see out there. 
Our strategy for recovery is continuing to work on all levels 
to give them the habitat they need, the room they need to move 
around, and freedom of access to their areas.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Guertin. If I have the manatees, 
I'll say thank you.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. The gentleman yields.
    Let me recognize Representative Tiffany. You are recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. LeBoeuf, H.R. 3764 would require NOAA to create a map 
listing any upstream restrictions. Would that include the 
Mississippi River watershed?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Are you asking if the Mississippi River 
watershed would be included in the map?
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. I would presume so, sir. I would have to 
double check that, but I would assume so.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you think it is reasonable to include 40 
percent of the United States with a map like that? I mean, that 
is----
    Ms. LeBoeuf. That is a lot of water. That is big territory.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you think it is reasonable?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. We have not taken a position on that aspect of 
the bill.
    Mr. Tiffany. One of the concerns I have, Mr. Chairman, is 
that this is a backdoor WOTUS, the Waters of the United States, 
which the people of this country have rejected. And it really 
concerns me that that is part of what is trying to be 
accomplished here.
    Mr. Guertin, you said in your conclusion that anthropogenic 
global warming will accelerate. Are you guaranteeing that?
    Mr. Guertin. Sorry, sir, I couldn't connect. Your question 
was, am I guaranteeing that?
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. In your conclusion, you said 
anthropogenic global warming will accelerate.
    Mr. Guertin. That is what a lot of the models are showing, 
sir, that we can anticipate that. As a land management agency, 
we try to build in planning of some things going forward.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, it is based on models?
    Mr. Guertin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. Kind of the same question, Ms. LeBoeuf, 
you said that impacts happening now are projected to worsen. Is 
that for sure going to happen?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. The worsening is for sure going to happen. The 
degree of worsening and the localized impacts are what we are 
still trying to understand. We know that the rates have changed 
particularly along the coast and the ocean are accelerating, 
not just changes, but the changes are accelerating.
    But impacts of climate change are going to be highly 
localized, so better understanding the various contributors to 
those impacts and understanding what is happening in the 
different places under different conditions is where we use our 
modeling capabilities.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. So, it is based on models, and you believe 
that model is a guarantee that this is going to happen, that 
global warming will continue into the future?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. It is modeling, but the models are fed by our 
continuous observing. We have real-time observations at NOAA at 
least in the coast and the oceans, in the atmosphere throughout 
our country that are being used and coupled with one another to 
better understand the processes. And as new data become 
available, those data feed the models, groundproof them, and 
the models are powered by modelers, right.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK, yes.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. There are a lot of people working on that.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you. The only thing is, 
Representative Young, the Representative from Alaska, brought 
up a very good situation in regards to polar bears. He said the 
science claimed from a couple decades ago that polar bears were 
going to decrease in numbers has been wrong. So, public policy 
decisions emanate from this, and we are seeing some significant 
mistakes.
    I mean, I would take you back to Newsweek and Time magazine 
in 1975 when they were predicting global cooling will cause 
much of the--I believe they said up to 2 billion people could 
starve to death because we are not going to have enough 
agricultural production. That is as recent at 1975. They got it 
completely wrong. What if these models are wrong also?
    And I just take a look at our backyard--I represent up to 
the south shores of Lake Superior, and it was back in 2004, 
2011, we had a significant drought in that region, and water 
levels were very low. It was attributed to climate change. 
Well, now we are here in 2021, and those water levels are 
significantly high, higher than normal.
    So, I sometimes wonder if we are seeing weather rather than 
climate in some of the discussion that we have here, but there 
are real-world impacts that happen as a result of some of the 
recommendations that are given to us policy makers. And if we 
are wrong, as Representative Young brought up in regards to the 
polar bear, that really can create a significant problem.
    Anyhow, with that, I am very skeptical of these models that 
have been out there because we have seen this modeling now for 
decades that predict global cooling, global warming. The 
climate is always changing, and we should adapt to it, but we 
should make sure that we are very circumspect about this and 
that we don't take actions on the public policy front that 
could end up harming not just our economy but also the 
environment.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
    I recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. 
Westerman. Sir, you are recognized.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
the witnesses for the testimony today.
    I want to continue the questioning that Mr. Tiffany started 
with Ms. LeBoeuf and talk more about the practical side, the 
operational side of NOAA, and, first off, just to be clear, 
this would be a new authority that would be given to your 
agency. Is that correct?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Which authority, sir, for clarification?
    Mr. Westerman. The monitoring of the--I am thinking about 
the Mississippi watershed.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Oh, gotcha, the mapping, yes. Yes, that would 
be a new requirement. I will say, we are already conducting a 
lot of the research and observations that would go into that 
kind of an exercise. It is different and new, but it is not 
altogether foreign from the kind of expertise that we have.
    Mr. Westerman. Yes. Have you had a chance to give any 
thought to the impact of the workload and the new decision 
authorities that would be required to add this to the scope?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Not this requirement specifically. I will say 
that, when it comes to climate change and the impacts folks are 
already feeling, our phones are ringing off the hook, and that 
is why we have requested such a large increase in Fiscal Year 
2022 to bring up our capacity to respond to industry. Whether 
it is insurance reports to local economies and states, really, 
across the board, the signal is very, very strong, and we take 
much pride in providing trusted, authoritative data for 
decision makers in industry and like yourselves so that you can 
make your own predictions and make your own decisions based on 
that information.
    Mr. Westerman. Right. And making ports and harbors more 
resilient, I think, is certainly an area where we could find 
common ground on that.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Absolutely.
    Mr. Westerman. When we look at the effects the oceans have 
on carbon in these blue water areas, practically what would you 
be looking at in the Mississippi watershed? I am from Arkansas. 
The Arkansas River feeds the Mississippi River. Mississippi 
borders the eastern side of our state, so basically every drop 
of water that falls in Arkansas at some point--well, not all of 
it, but most of it--makes its way into the Mississippi River, 
but all of it makes its way into the Gulf.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes. We have to ask our colleagues at USGS for 
some of that information. But NOAA is most concerned about the 
coastal impacts of riverine runoff, but precipitation, 
quantity, and quality is something that we are working with our 
sister agencies to better understand.
    We are looking to understand precipitation events or lack 
of precipitation events such as drought conditions. We know 
that the ocean is influencing those patterns. We are trying to 
understand how much and how the ocean is influencing the inland 
patterns, including precipitation and scale of runoff and 
flooding. So, we would have to just keep looking to see how 
much more resources it would require to carry out those 
provisions in addition to everything else that we are getting.
    Mr. Westerman. Where do you see the role of NOAA with the 
Corps of Engineers? Because obviously the Corps of Engineers 
controls a lot of the flow and the structures along the 
Mississippi River, and they are not always the easiest agency 
or group to work with. So, what would NOAA's role be in 
conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Well, I would never speak ill about another 
member of the Federal family, but what I will say is NOAA is in 
a unique position as connective tissue between the science 
agencies and the service agencies, because we are a science-
based service organization.
    And we are working very closely with the other science 
organizations, such as NASA, NSF, Department of the Interior, 
and others, to better understand the kinds of data streams that 
they have on climate change and how we can incorporate them 
into our products and services.
    When it comes to the service agencies, like Army Corps, 
FEMA, and HUD, we are doing something very analogous by finding 
out what they need from us to do their missions better. And in 
the case of Army Corps of Engineers, for example, we are 
working closely with them to understand the effects of their 
projects on the coastal environments as well as the effect of 
sea-level rise on their projects, so I would like to see an 
expansion of that. And we do continue to work well with them, 
but it is an evolving process, just as climate change is, for 
sure.
    Mr. Westerman. Would you say your role is to streamline the 
process by the Corps, or would it take even longer to do a 
Corps of Engineers project if NOAA was in the equation with 
them?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. I would hope that NOAA's expertise would 
enable their projects to be more climate resilient and climate 
smart so that they are not building something for conditions 
that we believe are going to change over the life of that 
project. I don't see it as slowing up or speeding up their 
projects but making them more durable over time.
    Mr. Westerman. So, my friends from Louisiana, just south of 
Arkansas, one of the problems I hear them talk about a lot is 
the loss of coastline. And some people want to blame the Corps 
of Engineers on that for closing off the Atchafalaya Basin. 
Where do you see issues like that down the road?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. I think----
    The Chairman. Ms. LeBoeuf, if you could respond in writing. 
We are over, and we have four more people, if you don't mind, 
Mr. Westerman.
    Mr. Westerman. That is fine. I couldn't see the clock. I am 
anxious for us to get back here in person, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. We will get a chance to be all cozy tomorrow. 
That is tomorrow's hearing with Secretary Haaland will be our 
first hybrid meeting, most of the people coming in person. I am 
looking forward to that.
    Let me now recognize Mr. Carl for 5 minutes. You are 
recognized, Representative.
    Mr. Carl. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate the chance.
    There are 110 million red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. 
That is three times more than was previously estimated. A study 
paid for by Congress using world-class scientists and 
universities just made that determination this year. I have 
seen videos where you can throw chicken bones off the back of 
boats and they are catching red snapper, they are so plentiful.
    And I just got back from a fishing trip with the University 
of South Alabama where we took robotics, and we looked at three 
or four of these reefs where there are 2,000 or 3,000 of these 
man-made reefs that are in the Alabama waters, so the abundance 
of snapper is just totally underestimated.
    Folks back home, they get frustrated. They want to know why 
they can only fish a certain amount of days when they can go 
out and catch their limit in a matter of minutes. If we found 
300 percent as many snapper in the Gulf this year, you would 
think our season would be increased by that much. It sounds 
like following the science to me, but that is not how it works. 
We only get to fish 2 percent more this season versus 300 
percent more. Try explaining that to a constituent.
    What I have concluded is that NOAA has its own 
environmental agenda, and they would rather see no fishing at 
all. That is why I am concerned about the piece of this bill 
that would create a new program, NOAA, to improve management 
fishery under the current and expected impact of climate 
change.
    The climate change that we keep focusing on, the rising of 
the water, has been going on for thousands and thousands of 
years. It is not something that is new. If you don't believe 
it, I can take you out, show you a petrified forest out in the 
Gulf of Mexico. That is all the proof I need.
    This is not about the environment because every fisherman 
in Alabama, when they get in those Alabama waters, they are 
environmentalists. They lost their chance of a lifetime of 
fishing when we had the Deepwater Horizon. I saw grown men 
crying because, in their eyes, they would never be able to get 
back in speckled trout fish.
    One of the positive things that came from the Deepwater 
Horizon is they have turned every fisherman into an 
environmentalist. They are picking up trash. They are reporting 
oil spills. They are out there. They are boots on the ground, 
eyes.
    What I see, this is about taking America's resources away 
from American people and giving more power to unelected 
bureaucrats who probably have never even been fishing, and I 
would encourage the handful of them to go with me sometime.
    Mr. Guardado, your testimony highlighted several concerns 
you had with giving NOAA more power. Can you highlight some of 
those concerns and talk about what it has been like working 
with NOAA so far?
    The Chairman. The person you are addressing the question to 
is in the next panel, and if you want to reserve that question 
for then, and have one for the two witnesses that we have on 
this particular panel, please do so, but he is on the third 
panel.
    Mr. Carl. OK. Well, let me ask about the snapper count, the 
great red snapper count. Does NOAA agree with that count?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Congressman Carl, and NOAA does 
incorporate that count and the data from that count into its 
information. I am not a red snapper specialist. I did grow up 
fishing on the Gulf Coast of Texas, but I am not here to answer 
those kind of questions.
    I do know that NOAA does provide the best information that 
it can to manage those fisheries and does take into account the 
data that is provided in the great red snapper count.
    Mr. Carl. Let me ask you another question. Since sea level 
is rising, do you think that is something we can stop?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. I believe based on the science that is before 
us, the conditions for the next few decades are, I hate to say 
it, baked in. What we are trying to understand is the localized 
impacts and how we can adapt to those so that our communities 
and our economies can survive the next little while, while we 
get under control what we can't predict as easily, and that is 
our emission of greenhouse gases and our ability to sequester 
carbon like we have been talking about through coastal 
ecosystems.
    Mr. Carl. So, you are looking at the ecosystem out in the 
water. This is kind of a greenhouse, a New Green Deal in blue 
water? Is that what we are talking about here?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Well, the ocean is an effective heat sink. She 
is storing a lot of heat and carbon for us right now. We are 
seeing that express itself through ocean acidification and 
other problems with the ecosystems. We are just looking to find 
any tool in the toolbox we can right now, quite honestly, and 
the ocean and our coastal ecosystems can help us.
    Mr. Carl. There are a lot of tools in the toolbox we don't 
need to use, though, and that is what I am arguing. Your 
mapping that we are talking about, is this mapping also the 
Alabama river system?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Sir, I would assume that it is any river 
system that is relevant to the request that the Committee has 
provided to us. We have not taken a position on the bill yet.
    Mr. Carl. So, you are talking about NOAA taking over every 
river system, basically, across the Nation?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. We have to work with the Committee to better 
understand the requirements of that bill.
    Mr. Carl. Wow.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time is up.
    Let me now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, 
for 5 minutes. Sir, you are recognized.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for putting 
together this omnibus of multiple, amazing bills.
    I want to start out with a question for Ms. LeBoeuf from 
NOAA. Florida has the second largest coastline of all states 
and territories and Freely Associated States. How will 
investing in natural infrastructure bolster living shorelines 
and coastal or blue carbon ecosystem resiliency to help protect 
all Floridians, even communities located further from the 
shore?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes. Thank you for that question, Congressman 
Soto. Florida has been a leader on climate resilience and 
coastal resilience. And in heavily developed areas of south 
Florida, for example, we will need to use a complement of 
nature-based and hard infrastructure to make sure that 
communities and infrastructure, resilient essential 
infrastructure like airports and ports, remain climate 
resilient and durable over time.
    In terms of improving our ability to predict the conditions 
along the coast of Florida, as you know, not just the coastal 
Floridians are affected when there are large scale evacuations 
from hurricanes or whether there is nuisance flooding at 
airports or ports. That affects all of the state, and in some 
cases, our entire Nation.
    Coastal tourism in Florida is a huge economic source of 
prosperity for the state of Florida, but the coastal 
communities around the country, and Florida is the leading 
example of this, make up a disproportionate amount of our 
economy and population and a high level of population growth. 
Forty percent of the U.S. population lives in coastal counties 
which means that if something goes wrong with those populations 
in those economies, something is going wrong for the rest of 
the country. So, I see easy connections between coastal Florida 
health and the rest of your constituents across Florida as well 
as the rest of the Nation.
    Mr. Soto. And my fellow Floridian, Representative Crist, 
brought up the Regional Ocean Partnership Act. It is part of 
the slate of bills that would make sure that we have more 
regional ocean partnerships between Florida, Georgia, Alabama, 
Mississippi, and other areas in the Southeast. How key is that 
to help protect our living resources and expand and protect 
valuable habitats and ocean ecosystems?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes. Thank you. NOAA is a proponent of 
regional ocean partnerships and other type regional 
partnerships that allow us to better serve communities' needs 
because we are working with partners that are in those 
communities, asking the questions and finding out what it is 
that folks need for solutions.
    We are active participants in the existing regional ocean 
partnerships and other regional bodies and really rely upon 
them, like you said, to get that intelligence from the users so 
we can make sure that not only are we providing the right data 
and tools but that they are able to scale down to the level of 
specificity that their local stakeholders and users need, which 
can mean that we don't need to. So, it is a wonderful 
partnership to have those folks. It is almost like a workforce 
multiplier.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Guertin, there is a bipartisan concern about the 
unusual mortality event among manatees in Florida. Both myself 
and Representative Buchanan, Representative Murphy, and 
Representative Mast have all put forward legislation and 
letters about this. What is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife doing to 
ensure that these mortality trends, like saving the manatees, 
whether we can protect them in the future? What can we do to 
help save the manatees in Florida?
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman. We 
are working hard to ensure that all of our partners, including 
the state, have the resources they need for rescue and 
rehabilitation to address this ongoing unusual mortality. 
Almost 800 animals lost this year in 6 months already, two-
thirds of those in the Indian River Lagoon area. They 
congregated there because of the warm water during cold 
weather.
    We declared the unusual mortality event that allowed us to 
unlock a lot more additional funding and capacity to give to 
partner organizations to do a lot of rescue and rehabilitation 
work. We just recently allocated another $100,000 to the state 
of Florida to support that work, but that has gotten us through 
June now. What we are doing now is focusing on what comes next 
and preparing for the eventuality that we could have another 
cold winter down there and face the same type of mortality 
coming up again.
    So, we are trying to do what we can to restore habitats. 
What we can do is do some planting in seagrass beds, get that 
restored, do a lot of early surveillance this time, make sure 
our partners, particularly the rehab groups and others, have 
the resources they need.
    They are looking at an old hatchery down there to maybe 
house some of them during the cold weather snaps, get them out 
of harm's way, so to speak. Do a lot of public awareness. We 
already know the manatee is stressed from other factors 
including boat strikes and things like that. We have done a lot 
of proactive community involvement, but we are very concerned 
about this, and as you know, the manatees are due for a 5-year 
status assessment next year. We will certainly give due 
consideration to what we have learned from this unusual 
mortality event, but very, very troubling for all of us in 
conservation, sir.
    Mr. Soto. Well, we hope you will consider raising it to 
endangered again. And thank you, Chairman, for all your work on 
coastal conservation and resiliency and saving the Florida 
manatee.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Soto.
    Let me now recognize Representative Moore. Five minutes are 
yours. Thank you.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the chance to 
be here today.
    While I appreciate the intent behind H.R. 3764, I have 
concerns that it goes too far to accomplish its goals and 
expands the size and scope of the Federal Government. I think 
that is a fundamental piece in this, but again, I appreciate 
the intent.
    I have several questions for Mr. Guertin. In your 
testimony, you said that you support incentivizing federally 
funded buyouts to enhance long-term coastal resilience. The 
question on this is, under this kind of an approach, what 
protections would be provided to property owners living within 
coastal barrier areas to ensure they are not compelled to give 
up their property, and if they choose to do so, making sure 
that they are fairly compensated?
    Mr. Guertin. Sure. The whole premise behind the CBRA 
legislation is to try to steer development away from high 
hazard areas. So, building on that foundation, one area that we 
are looking at is working with private landowners who wind up, 
through no fault of their own, in a newly designated area or 
just are not able to cope with the threats that they are facing 
there. So, the concept here would be working on some type of 
mechanism to offer them a voluntary buyout or incentive 
program.
    We don't have condemnation authority. We are not 
envisioning anything like that. This would all be just a 
proactive way to partner with private landowners and recognize 
their property rights and try to bring the free market 
principles of CBRA legislation to bear as well.
    And, certainly, sir, we would not be the action agency to 
do that. We are a conservation agency. There would probably be 
other Federal agencies who would be stepping into that role.
    Mr. Moore. Excellent. Continuing on in that same sense, I 
have concerns that in pursuing federally funded buyouts, that 
we run the risk of triggering land speculation among developers 
since it would basically guarantee them a buyer. Have there 
been discussions around this? How would you propose avoiding 
such speculation?
    Mr. Guertin. We are just in the early stages of taking a 
look at this proposed legislation, Congressman. That is 
certainly a great point for us to take to heart as we move 
forward. We will work on the Federal level with Committee staff 
and your staff as this legislation gets further scoped out. And 
that is certainly a key point that we need to take a look at, 
but we also don't want to encourage a lot of speculative 
purchases on some of these high hazard areas as well. It is in 
no one's interest if that was how it turned out.
    Mr. Moore. Yes. Excellent. I would agree that it is not in 
anyone's interest. Have there been any potential buyout sites? 
Have they identified any potential buyout sites at this point?
    Mr. Guertin. Not that I am aware of, sir. This is all just 
draft legislation.
    Mr. Moore. All draft legislation. OK.
    Mr. Guertin. Or introduced legislation. I am not an expert 
on the rules up there, sir. Introduced legislation.
    Mr. Moore. Any initial conversations in certain sites? Any 
sense for how that process would be approached?
    Mr. Guertin. We have not been involved in any, sir.
    Mr. Moore. OK. The question that I would want to get to, 
then, and I think I will hold off on that for right now, but 
what the anticipated cost would be for these kind of buyouts.
    So, I just want to kind of hit on those points. I look 
forward to more discussion. Thank you.
    And, Chairman, I will yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Moore. I appreciate it.
    And Representative Boebert, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Good afternoon, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking 
Member Westerman and members of the Committee. I would like to 
thank all the witnesses for taking time to testify today.
    For me, it is really extremely unfortunate that we are 
meeting to discuss these partisan bills that will hurt our 
economy and add excessive red tape on the private sector. It is 
no surprise that the House Democrats and their radical 
environmental activists are pushing an agenda that falls 
squarely in line with the Green New Deal, which the American 
people do not want.
    Chairman Grijalva's 290-page bill, H.R. 3764, is simply an 
attack of the American energy industry and American consumers. 
It is a big giveaway of $19 billion in new discretionary 
spending and a pretext to lock up more land from development. 
My screen is off also. One second. Sorry. Let me get that. I 
will let you all see too.
    Title I of H.R. 3764 creates a new blue carbon program 
within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
NOAA, and it directs NOAA to create a national blue carbon 
ecosystem map which requires the listing of any upstream 
restrictions that are detrimental to the watershed processes 
and conditions including dams, dikes, and levees. This is the 
exact kind of provision that Washington bureaucrats will use to 
expand their regulatory power into the private sector.
    There are zero limits on just how far upstream the map can 
extend. For all we know, the map can include over 30 states. 
Under this bill, NOAA is required to designate in each coastal 
state the blue carbon areas of significance.
    These areas of significance are to include the coastal 
zones, U.S. territorial waters, or U.S. exclusive economic 
zones that provide long-term storage or sequestration of 
significant amounts of ecosystem carbon. And among other 
things, it provides a spawning, breeding, feeding, or nesting 
habitat for wildlife, or to say it another way, a land grab by 
the Federal Government and red tape headache for private 
companies who want to develop coastal lands in the areas and 
the people who benefit from these resources.
    There is no content to lock up more land from productive 
use, the bill outright ends all offshore oil and gas leasing in 
the Outer Continental Shelf except for the western and central 
Gulf of Mexico. While this probably plays well with the 
millionaire and billionaire donor club in New York and 
California, it is a recipe for higher energy bills, and the 
cost will fall squarely on the middle class. This is a classic 
example of how out of touch Democrats are hell bent on 
destroying good-paying jobs.
    Research conducted by the National Ocean Industry 
Association, NOIA, studied the economic impact of the offshore 
drilling ban and found that if no new permits are issued, the 
offshore industry would lose 179,000 jobs in about two decades. 
That is about half the jobs that are currently supported right 
now by the industry. Again, I will never support this.
    Finally, H.R. 3764 is full of unnecessary spending. Why is 
the Federal Government spending money on underwater noise 
mitigation? Think about that. We are proposing spending money 
to reduce noise underwater where humans do not live. Is that 
the proper role of the Federal Government? I don't think so.
    This bill would spend $10 billion on coastal restoration 
projects with a priority given to projects that will benefit 
low income and communities of color. I don't think that the 
government should pick winners and losers, especially on the 
basis of race. We have seen the Democrat playbook insert race-
based spending in every program the Federal Government runs, 
and there is a whole lot of it. There is no place, not your 
home, not your school, not the places you work, not even 
coastal restoration, that is off limits for the left's social 
justice warriors.
    Mr. Chairman, I have used up my time, but someone has to be 
real with the American people and tell them what is up with the 
kind of stuff that the Democrats would pass into Federal law.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Anyone else?
    Let me ask a couple of questions. Mr. Guertin, updating the 
Coastal Barrier Resource Act or CBRA is featured prominently in 
the legislation. How does CBRA save taxpayers dollars while at 
the same time enact smart climate policy?
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Maintaining and conserving our Nation's undeveloped coastal 
barriers is a time-proven, cost-effective strategy to protect 
mainland communities against coastal storm damage and mitigate 
negative impacts of climate change such as sea level rise and 
saltwater intrusion.
    CBRA has removed the Federal incentives to build on these 
unstable and environmentally sensitive areas, which saves 
taxpayers millions of dollars each year in what would otherwise 
be wasteful expenditures. We believe using this non-regulatory 
and free market approach, CBRA can guide smarter development in 
stable, less risky areas.
    The Chairman. So, in reality, what is done with CBRA, and 
with the program, and now under the Act would be an enhanced 
program to prevent the waste of money; and (2) prevent 
development speculation in areas it shouldn't be, and end up 
costing the taxpayers, states, and communities even more money 
to attempt to mitigate or to remediate those areas.
    This is a pre-emptive and proactive approach, and I think 
by making it more prominent as a strategy, as you said, you 
create an opportunity in the marketplace that I think is very 
important.
    The other issue I think for review by both NOAA and 
yourselves is the whole idea of mapping upstream that is 
becoming, according to some critics, part of a general 
conspiracy in life as we know it, that you look, and it is 
about blue carbon. It is about the ocean-based mapping and 
priorities so that we can look at where those threats are and 
where resilience has to be built in.
    And upstream, as far as I can read it, there is no specific 
mandate that says you must and you shall. So, before we get all 
worked up over that, let's actually understand how it is 
written.
    The other issue, Ms. LeBoeuf, a big part of the reason we 
wrote this bill was because the ocean was largely left out of 
climate conversation. A lot of the climate legislation it seems 
focuses on the Environmental Protection Agency. However, your 
agency is one that runs climate.gov, if I am correct. Can you 
share the role your agency plays in climate efforts within the 
Federal Government? And do you believe that NOAA should even be 
more prominent with a seat at the table in these climate 
discussions?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva. I welcome the 
opportunity for oceans and coastal resources to be a part of 
the conversations. Again, the Committee has highlighted for 
many that the oceans are both signaling climate change and 
rapid change along our coasts, and our oceans also can serve to 
help mitigate and help us adapt, so they are really quite a 
boon for us if we are paying attention.
    NOAA has been studying the oceans and the atmosphere from 
the highest part of our environment to the lowest part of the 
ocean for many decades, and we have done so always with the 
view of providing decision support. And that may seem like a 
term of phrase, but that just means that we are conducting 
science for the purposes of getting into people's hands to 
create solutions and to make sure our economy is prosperous and 
to make sure that farmers, ranchers, and industry have 
predictability so that they can invest and capitalize in their 
industries.
    Like I said earlier, the insurance companies come to us. 
The ports come to us. We would love to have a greater seat at 
the table because we do believe we are the connective tissue 
between the science agencies and the service agencies when it 
comes to climate change.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I agree. I think that the whole 
point of this discussion, and you see it as a basic template of 
the legislation we are talking about today and the other pieces 
that were integrated in there is the reliance on empirical 
information, fact, and science, and that reliance should not be 
a threat to anybody. That reliance is not a conspiracy to undo.
    It is almost a demand now that if we are going to deal with 
climate change, it has to be integrated. It has to be 
comprehensive. And if we can all agree that we are moving 
forward on a basis of empirical information, fact, and peer-
reviewed science, then I think people will be more assured that 
this is not a decision--the politics that were played was to 
ignore science for the last 4 years. The politics we are trying 
to play is to integrate science back into the discussions.
    I want to thank the witnesses very much for their 
testimony, it is much appreciated. I now invite the third panel 
up, and I will introduce them. Thank you so much.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you.
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    We are beginning Panel 3. I will now recognize my 
colleague, Mr. Case of Hawaii, to introduce our first witness, 
Hawaii State Senator Chris Lee, and then we will proceed from 
there.
    Mr. Case, you are recognized.
    Mr. Case. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I am really honored 
to introduce my friend and colleague, Hawaii State Senator 
Chris Lee, who has been a passionate advocate for environmental 
issues with a long history of working in a bipartisan manner in 
Hawaii and nationally.
    Senator Lee currently serves as Vice President of the Board 
of Directors for the National Caucus of Environmental 
Legislators and is a member of the Natural Resources 
Infrastructure Committee at the National Conference of State 
Legislators. Senator Lee authored the bipartisan legislation 
that established Hawaii as the first state to require full 
carbon neutrality by 2045. I really appreciate your leadership, 
Senator Lee, and good to have you here today.

STATEMENT OF STATE SENATOR CHRIS LEE, HAWAII STATE LEGISLATURE, 
                        HONOLULU, HAWAII

    Mr. Lee. Thank you very much, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking 
Member Westerman. I really appreciate the opportunity to 
testify on the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act.
    To keep it short because I know we are running long here, 
climate change has been harming our entire Nation. Taxpayers 
from coast to coast and out here on our islands are 
hemorrhaging money and funds as a result of having to deal with 
climate impacts. And states are taking action, but we do need 
Federal assistance because we know that the faster we are able 
to act, the less it will ultimately cost taxpayers, the less it 
will cost states, and the less it will cost our economy.
    This bill, in particular, deals with a number of things, 
and it is going to help protect against the costs of sea level 
rise that is impacting homes which in our state are falling 
into the ocean. It is going to help to adapt to rising seas. 
For our part, we have done some of the highest resolution sea 
level rise analysis in the world on Hawaii, and we found that 
we are on par to lose about $19 billion of homes and displace 
20,000 residents in the coming few decades.
    We are looking at $15 billion in highways we are going to 
have to move inland, and we are already having to spend 
hundreds of millions of dollars to do that just to keep them 
above water.
    This bill will also help protect taxpayers against the cost 
of plastics and pollutants that are entering our oceans at 
unfathomable rates. We are spending millions on the part of 
states and local municipalities to clean this up. These costs 
are hidden, but taxpayers are being forced to bear the costs to 
clean up. Also, the cost of energy. This bill will help speed 
up removals, offshore wind, and other opportunities that we 
know are cheaper than other traditional fuel sources.
    And in Hawaii and in California, who have, in part, led the 
way, making this transition already, we know that getting off 
of costly fossil fuels have already reduced our electric bills 
by about $39 a month since 2011 which is huge amounts of money, 
about $3 billion in savings we have already locked in by 
switching over to renewables. And if we go a little bit 
further, we have billions more to save.
    And we know that government bureaucracy has been basically 
holding back some of those opportunities, offshore wind and 
others, just mired in endless red tape. This bill lets that 
innovation move forward. It helps advance these kinds of 
projects that will reduce costs across the electric grid and 
help taxpayers and rate payers all around the country.
    We know there is an opportunity for this bill to also help 
protect businesses and the economy. We know that beach loss is 
a huge deal. It affects my 4-year-old niece who can't play on 
the same beach I did growing up in Hawaii. Waikiki, perhaps the 
most prominent beach in the country, if it loses that beach 
which is currently eroding rapidly, that is $2 billion out the 
door. And it is a rare case where hotels and businesses stepped 
up and said, you know what, tax us more so we can help restore 
this beach.
    When we lose our reefs, as other witnesses have mentioned, 
there is a huge economic cost. Those contribute $477 million to 
our local economy in Hawaii alone. Florida has its reefs and 
other millions and hundreds of millions of dollars in 
protections that they provide. Most of all, the ocean economy 
around the country provides over $373 billion to GDP, and this 
bill will take critical steps to help protect those natural 
resources, businesses, and economies that rely on them.
    Most of all, it will help protect our families. We know 
hurricanes have been intensifying as a result of warming seas. 
We know that along the Gulf Coast, colleagues that represent at 
the state level, those states have been pleading for additional 
help to help prevent the kinds of property loss, loss of lives 
that we know that those things can lead to. And this will help 
empower those local communities to help save the natural 
barriers that protect them from these kinds of events.
    But, also, climate action is creating jobs and boosting the 
economy, and this bill can work hand in hand with a lot of 
that. California and Hawaii, as I mentioned, were the first to 
act. There is a clean jobs economy going on that has been 
producing a whole lot of new opportunities and complete 
industries that have helped save our economy through the last 
recession, and in California, have led to hundreds of thousands 
of jobs created, 350,000 still on track to be created by 2030 
as a result of meeting those clean energy standards, and this 
bill will help accelerate that kind of growth.
    Finally, we will hit clean investment, sustainable 
fisheries which can provide for more stable future jobs and 
economy in those areas, alternatives to plastics that are 
creating new businesses and jobs that didn't exist even a few 
years ago. These kinds of things are huge economic drivers.
    In conclusion, states are taking action, but it is just not 
enough. We can look at I think the GAO report released this 
year highlighting, and I quote, ``climate change poses risks to 
many environmental and economic systems and creates a 
significant fiscal risk to the Federal Government. The Federal 
Government has not made measurable progress to reduce its 
fiscal exposure to climate change, and therefore, this high 
risk area warrants significant attention.''
    And I will end by saying, when it comes back to my 4-year-
old niece, which is why I got into politics and policy in the 
first place--if we don't change, by the time she graduates from 
high school, the Federal Government will have lost hundreds of 
billions, if not trillions of dollars, to these kinds of 
impacts. By the time she is 33, there will be more plastic in 
the oceans by weight than fish if we do nothing. And, finally, 
by the time she is my age, there won't be reefs in Hawaii 
anymore. Almost none are expected to survive that long.
    So, we have a lot of work on our hands, and I appreciate 
the Committee for working on this measure and working with the 
states in partnership to move this issue forward.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lee follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Senator Chris Lee, Hawaii State Legislature
    Chair Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and distinguished members 
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this written 
testimony regarding the Oceans-Based Climate Solutions Act. It is an 
honor to be able to provide a unique perspective on this measure from 
state and local governments working on these important issues.
    I am a State Senator representing the 25th Senate District in the 
State of Hawaii. For 13 years I have been fortunate to serve the people 
of our state representing a district that stretches over 1,200 miles 
across the Pacific Ocean, encompassing populous areas of the main 
Hawaiian Islands, as well as countless other islands, coastal and 
marine habitats, fisheries, and the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 
Monument.
    I currently serve as the chair of the Senate Committee on 
Transportation, and previously chaired both the House Committee on 
Judiciary and House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection. 
Throughout my time in office our committees worked diligently with 
government, business, non-profit, and community stakeholders to address 
the harmful impacts of climate change on our taxpayers, economy, and 
way of life. Together, we have taken bipartisan action to address ocean 
degradation and climate change, while also reducing cost to taxpayers, 
growing new markets, industries, and jobs, with positive real-world 
results.
    I am testifying today in strong support of the Oceans-Based Climate 
Solutions Act. Despite Hawaii and other states beginning to take 
individual action on climate change, significantly more must be done to 
avoid costly and irreversible climate damage in the years to come. 
Climate change is not a challenge that can be resolved by any one 
state, it is a challenge faced in some way by every state. Nationwide 
coordination, resources, and execution will be critical to future 
success. Federal partnership and investment proposed by the Oceans-
Based Climate Solutions Act will be necessary to maximize the ocean's 
potential to help mitigate this threat.
    Healthy oceans can fight climate change and reduce climate impacts. 
Oceans have already absorbed over a third of our carbon emissions and 
90 percent of the excess heat we have generated, moderating the impacts 
of climate change. However, the ocean's capacity to safely absorb 
carbon and heat is limited. This has already resulted in warming 
waters, stronger hurricanes, ocean acidification, sea level rise, 
shifting fish stocks, and coral reef die-offs. The Oceans-Based Climate 
Solutions Act is an important step forward that provides a coordinated 
roadmap for ocean and coastal climate resilience. The investments it 
makes will help preserve our oceans and minimize the worst impacts of 
our changing climate.
Changing climate is already impacting people, businesses, and economies 
        in states around the country, draining state and local 
        resources.
    Often lost in discussions about future impacts from climate change 
are the taxpayers and businesses in states around the country already 
being impacted by the effects of climate change today. Many are already 
paying higher costs for adaptation and need help. Globally, weather 
disasters have doubled since the 1980s, resulting in billions in annual 
economic losses and increased costs to taxpayers.\1\ Recent years have 
seen record fires in states like California and Oregon. Warming 
temperatures are shifting seasons in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. 
Hurricanes and flooding are increasingly devastating Louisiana, 
Florida, and Gulf Coast states. Declining rainfall and drought are 
threatening water supplies in Arizona, Nevada, and the Southwest. 
Heatwaves are baking Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas. And large 
industries such as agriculture are being impacted across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://reliefweb.int/report/world/human-cost-weather-related-
disasters-1995-2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea level rise, warming, and ocean acidification are jeopardizing local 
        economies and increasing costs to taxpayers and businesses. 
        Federal coordination and assistance is needed.
    Around the country sea level rise is already threatening coastal 
communities and infrastructure at a rapid pace. Over the past century, 
Hawaii has experienced about 8 inches of sea level rise, with most of 
the increase coming from accelerating rise in recent years. The rising 
ocean has pushed over 70 percent of Hawaii's shoreline into a state of 
chronic erosion.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Fletcher, C.H., et al. (2012) National assessment of shoreline 
change: Historical shoreline change in the Hawaiian Islands: U.S. 
Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1051, 55 p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On Oahu and Maui, homes and roads are being undermined by rising 
waves, and private homeowners in multiple counties are losing property 
and investments. As sea levels continue to rise, an additional $19 
billion in coastal assets will be exposed to damage and loss as sea 
levels in Hawaii approach 3 feet, perhaps as soon as 2060.\3\ This 
includes 38 miles of roads, 6,500 structures, 20,000 residents 
displaced, 25,800 acres of land, and 550 cultural sites.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/.
    \4\ Anderson, T., et al. (2018) Modeling multiple sea level rise 
stresses reveals up to twice the land at risk compared to strictly 
passive flooding methods. Nature Scientific Reports 8: 14484 
DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-32658-x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State and local governments in the islands are already being forced 
to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to move, retrofit, or replace 
critical infrastructure, such as projects increasing the height of the 
docks at Honolulu Harbor, and moving coastal highways on Maui and Oahu 
inland. The State Department of Transportation has identified an 
additional $15 billion in projects to move, raise, or harden threatened 
coastal highways that serve as lifelines for population centers.
    Sea level rise is also responsible for the loss of over 13 miles of 
sandy beaches around the state through the latter half of the 20th 
century. Beaches are critical to Hawaii's communities and economy. The 
loss of Waikiki Beach alone is projected to cause annual losses of $2 
billion to Honolulu's local economy. As a result, in 2014 local hotels 
and businesses groups worked together to establish a new tax applied to 
about 6,000 commercial properties in Waikiki to raise funds to 
regularly replenish eroding sand on Waikiki Beach.
    Ocean acidification and warming sea surface temperatures threaten 
Hawaii's coral reefs. We have already seen an 8.7% increase in ocean 
acidity in just 30 years.\5\ Warmer, acidic ocean water is dissolving 
corals and killing reefs. As a result, by midcentury nearly all of 
Hawaii's reefs will be experiencing annual bleaching and ecosystem 
collapse from which most are unlikely to recover.\6\ Reefs host about 
25% of the ocean's marine life, and losing reefs means massive losses 
to fishing communities and disruption of the global food chain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https:/ /coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/publications/
state_of_the_environment_2017_hawaii-usapi_noaa-nesdis-ncei_oct2017.pdf
    \6\ Van Hooidonk, R., et al. (2014) Opposite latitudinal gradients 
in projected ocean acidification and bleaching impacts on coral reefs. 
Global Change Biology, 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hawaii's top tourist attraction is Hanauma Bay, a world-famous 
coral reef reserve that draws more visitors per year than Pearl Harbor. 
Hanauma Bay and reefs around the state were valued at $33.57 billion in 
2011.\7\ They currently contribute $477 million to the local economy 
each year.\8\ Losing these reefs will have a crippling effect on jobs 
and our tourism-dependent economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Richard C. Bishop, et al. 2011. Total Economic Value for 
Protecting and Restoring Hawaiian Coral Reef Ecosystems: Final Report. 
Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Office 
of Response and Restoration, and Coral Reef Conservation Program. NOAA 
Technical Memorandum CRCP 16. 406 pp.
    \8\ Keener, V., et al. (2018) Hawai`i and U.S.-Affiliated Pacific 
Islands. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth 
National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., et al. 
(eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 
1242-1308. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By a different measure, Hawaii's reefs also provide natural 
protection and buffer high waves and storm surges, providing $860 
million in flood-risk benefits to property owners and people's 
livelihoods every year.\9\ Reefs also provide other coastal states like 
Florida with similar protections and benefits. Losing these reefs means 
increasing damage from hurricanes, which themselves are growing in 
number and intensity as a result of warming seas providing more fuel 
and shifting tracks into Hawaiian waters.\10\ More hurricanes also 
threaten the Atlantic seaboard and Gulf Coast causing billions in 
damage and lives lost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Reguero, B.G., et al. (2021) The value of US coral reefs for 
flood risk reduction. Nat Sustain (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41893-021-00706-6.
    \10\ Murakami, H., et al. (2013) Projected increase in tropical 
cyclones near Hawai'i. Nature Climate Change, v. 3, August, pp. 749-
754.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Oceans-Based Climate Solutions Act will help address these 
critical issues facing coastal states. It will provide coordination and 
resources to enhance coastal barriers to better protect against natural 
disasters, expand coastal barrier programs to include the Pacific Coast 
and offshore islands, update the Coastal Zone Management Act, enable 
indigenous and underserved communities to better manage coastal 
resources, provide grants for coastal resiliency and adaptation work, 
and provide for better research and understanding to act on ocean 
acidification to protect coastal communities and economies.
Plastics and other pollutants in the ocean are harming coastal 
        communities, ecosystems, and increasing costs to taxpayers for 
        cleanup.
    Shorelines in coastal states around the country from Alaska to 
Florida have been inundated with trash, pollutants, and microplastic 
debris. About 40 percent of today's global plastic waste continues to 
end up in the environment with 11 million metric tons of plastic leaked 
into the ocean in 2016 alone.\11\ Plastic debris is now so common in 
the ocean that by 2050 the world may have more plastics in the ocean 
than fish, by weight.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2020/07/
breakingtheplasticwave_report.pdf.
    \12\ https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-new-plastics-economy-
rethinking-the-future-of-plastics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Plastic and other debris litters marine environments in coastal 
states where it is being ingested by fish, turtles, birds, and is now 
showing up in local catch at our supermarkets. Plastic debris often 
ends up breaking into millions of small microplastic contaminants that 
are incredibly difficult to clean up. In Hawaii every single beach, 
including those regularly rated ``the best beach in the country'' are 
now littered with microplastic. One beach on Oahu's Kahuku coastline is 
notorious for high volumes of marine debris. In a single 90-minute 
cleanup there with 100 volunteers it is possible to remove as much as 
10,000 pounds of debris.
    Taxpayers are being forced to pay the costs to clean up plastics 
and other pollutants in Hawaii and in cities around the country. In 
recent years California has spent over $400 million per year to help 
prevent trash and plastic debris from getting into waterways, and 
eventually the ocean.\13\ Residents in New York City have spent over 
$40 million per year on waste management fees for single-use plastic 
foodware.\14\ Taxpayers in other places around the country commonly pay 
for similar cleanup efforts in their states and cities. Reducing the 
amount of plastics and debris entering the waste stream will reduce the 
burden for cleanup that is passed on to taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://www.nrdc.org/resources/waste-our-water-annual-cost-
california-communities-reducing-litter-pollutes-our-waterways.
    \14\ https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5d696bc69fa6c2515873360a/
5e618b692785ae55f96072f7_The 
%20Dirty%20Truth%20About%20Disposable%20Foodware_vF.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Oceans-Based Climate Solutions Act will help reduce the unfair 
burden of cleanup currently passed on to taxpayers. It will place a 5-
cent tax on virgin plastic manufacturers that would create a market-
based incentive encouraging more plastic to be recycled properly so 
less ends up in the ocean. Funds raised will be directed to address 
ocean-based climate solutions and could potentially be used for 
plastics and pollutants cleanup. That will allow people who wish to 
purchase virgin plastic products the freedom to do so without unfairly 
passing the cost of cleanup along to their neighbors.
Expanding opportunities for offshore wind and transitioning to clean 
        energy can reduce cost and risk for ratepayers, as well as 
        reduce greenhouse gasses.
    Switching to renewable electricity generation from fossil fuels not 
only reduces greenhouse gas emissions but can also help reduce energy 
costs for ratepayers. The cost of solar panels and batteries have 
decreased by about 85 percent over the last decade. The cost of wind 
power has declined about 50 percent. As a result, renewables are now 
the cheapest form of energy to install on the electric grid in many 
places, and their cost continues to fall. Additionally, renewables 
operate at a fixed cost and aren't subject to price volatility due to 
supply shortages or foreign events that can drive up the cost of fossil 
fuel energy, which makes renewables a much safer long-term financial 
investment for ratepayers.
    Mitigating climate change means rapidly decarbonizing the economy. 
To this end, 11 states have already established targets to achieve 
economy-wide carbon neutrality by mid-century. They include Montana, 
California, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, and Maine, among others. An 
additional 12 states have established paths to significantly reduce 
carbon emissions, typically a reduction of 80% below 2005 levels by 
mid-century.
    Hawaii was the first state to commit to achieving 100% clean 
electricity and a carbon-negative economy by 2045. Over the last decade 
Hawaii has more than tripled renewable energy on the electric grid 
resulting in significant savings to ratepayers. Utility scale solar, 
wind, and battery storage projects have helped stabilize volatile 
fossil fuel electric rates. Most significantly, today one in three 
single family homes in Hawaii has rooftop solar panels. Collectively, 
rooftop solar is the single largest source of power on the electric 
grid and together with energy efficiency upgrades is a key driver that 
helped reduce electric bills by an average of $39 per month since 
2011.\15\

    \15\ https://energy.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-
FF_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rapid declines in the price of renewable technology have now made 
renewable projects financially viable all around the country. If Hawaii 
can transition to clean, renewable power resulting in cost savings for 
residents and the economy, the same can be done faster, better, and 
cheaper in other places with larger electric grids with greater 
economies of scale, more flexible resources, and declining costs of 
renewable technology.
    The Oceans-Based Climate Solutions Act has immediate potential to 
unlock those opportunities for appropriately sited offshore wind that 
can provide some of the largest sources of clean energy for coastal and 
inland states. Requiring approvals for reasonable amounts of wind 
generation creates an instant market providing certainty to project 
financiers, developers, and communities seeking to benefit from the 
opportunity. This is one of the quickest ways to help deploy these 
resources and spur change.
Ocean-based climate solutions can create new jobs and innovative 
        industries.
    Perhaps one of the most notable benefits of taking action to 
protect our oceans and address climate change through the Oceans-Based 
Climate Solutions Act is the potential for new jobs and innovative 
industries that it creates.
    In 2018, America's ocean economy contributed roughly $373 billion 
to the nation's gross domestic product, with coastal tourism and 
recreation bringing in $143 billion.\16\ With support from the Oceans-
Based Climate Solutions Act, resources could begin flowing through 
grants and other means into ocean-based economies with the potential to 
expand local benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/marine-economy-in-2018-
grew-faster-than-us-overall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Hawaii, NOAA's Economics National Ocean Watch found that the 
islands' ocean-dependent economy can support over 114,000 employees in 
47 industries across six sectors, producing a conservative estimate of 
over $8 billion in the annual gross domestic product.\17\ Today, 
Hawaii's ocean sector is believed to be under-performing its potential 
to provide jobs to local residents. The Oceans-Based Climate Solutions 
Act can help seed work that properly assesses, manages, and restores 
Hawaii's marine resources. Restoration of natural habitat, sustainable 
fishing, recreation and other sectors can in turn expand markets and 
create new potential for more community and economic benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ NOAA Office for Coastal Management. 2018. ENOW Hawaii: 
Exploring the Hawaii Ocean Economy through a Deeper Dive into the ENOW 
Dataset. https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/econ-hawaii.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Right now the energy and climate technology market is the strongest 
it has ever been, with climate tech investment growing 3 times faster 
than investments in artificial intelligence and 5 times faster than the 
average growth of general venture capital. In 2019, over $13B was 
invested into climate technology which is more than double what it was 
in 2016. These funds have birthed startups and companies working on 
climate issues such as CarbonCure, a sustainable carbon-sequestering 
concrete company that now provides carbon-infused cement for Hawaii's 
roadways. There is incredible potential for entrepreneurial innovation 
in the climate and oceans space.
    Around the country the transition to cheaper, cleaner, renewables 
has spawned an entire new sector of high paying jobs. In Hawaii alone, 
jobs in solar installation, energy efficiency, and renewable fuel 
production totaled over 15,000 in 2016, paying an average of $3 to $7/
hour higher than the state's median wage. Clean energy jobs related to 
renewables such as appropriately sited offshore wind have been proven 
to similarly create decades of high-paying work for local residents.
In Conclusion
    Thank you once more for the opportunity to provide these comments 
on the Oceans-Based Climate Solutions Act. State and local governments 
have taken steps which prove that investing in climate solutions helps 
to address climate impacts, reduces costs to taxpayers, and promotes 
economic growth. However, no state can solve climate change on its own. 
Coordination, planning, and resources will be needed if we are to 
succeed. I appreciate the role the federal government has to play to 
help address this global issue, because our time to meaningfully 
address it is running out. Our oceans, our economy, our way of life, 
and our future depend on it.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Senator Chris Lee, Hawaii State 
                              Legislature

              Questions Submitted by Representative Sablan

    Question 1. Sea-level rise, storm surge, and other climate impacts 
are of utmost concern for Pacific island communities. How do programs 
in the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act better protect communities in 
places like Hawaii and the Northern Mariana Islands?

    Answer. Coastlines and taxpayers in the United States and 
throughout Pacific island communities face enormous risk, impact, and 
cost increases as a result of climate change.

    Sea level rise has already begun causing coastal losses and is 
driving up cost to taxpayers around the country and across Pacific 
islands. In Hawaii in 2017, as homes and roads began falling into the 
ocean as coastal erosion accelerated, the State of Hawaii conducted the 
highest resolution and most comprehensive sea level rise study to date, 
finding that over $19 billion of property, including 38 miles of roads, 
6,500 structures, 25,800 acres of land, and 550 cultural sites will be 
lost to sea level rise in coming decades. This study also found that 
20,000 people will be displaced. Further analysis by the State 
Department of Transportation found that an additional $15 billion in 
highways would also be imperiled, spurring over $175 million in 
projects already underway to modify or move coastal highways.
    Unfortunately, most coastal areas in the United States and 
throughout Pacific island communities do not have this kind of 
comprehensive analysis. The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act (OBCSA) 
will help provide coordination and resources to assist coastal 
communities who do not have the ability or expertise to analyze risk 
and plan to adapt, especially in rural areas. OBCSA will also allow for 
regional ocean partnership opportunities for states and territories to 
coordinate and work together and learn from one another as we analyze 
the full risk to taxpayers and local economies.
    As human-induced greenhouse gasses continue to accumulate in the 
atmosphere and oceans at rates exponentially faster than would 
otherwise naturally occur, climate changes will continue to accelerate 
infinitely faster than would otherwise be naturally possible. Warming 
ocean waters are already helping to fuel stronger storms and hurricanes 
of greater intensity and frequency. This directly impacts areas such as 
the Gulf coast, Hawaii, and Pacific islands. A direct impact from a 
hurricane on a city the size of Honolulu is estimated to incur as much 
as $40 billion in damage and loss of life.
    Coastal barriers such as reefs and dune systems are critical tools 
to help prevent damage from increasing hurricanes and storm surges. 
Hawaii and many coastal areas have robust coral reefs. In Hawaii, 
coastal barriers contribute $477 million to our local economy enabling 
fishing, tourism, and related industries. Most of all the presence of 
coral reefs blunts the impact of storm surges and coastal erosion, and 
this adds an estimated $860 million in annual benefit to coastal 
resiliency. This is the result of reduced shoreline damage, insurance 
claims, loss to industry, and local economies.
    However, as oceans absorb greater quantities of carbon and 
greenhouse gasses, water begins to acidify. In Hawaii we have already 
measured an 8.7% increase in the acidity of ocean water over 30 years. 
Together with warming ocean waters, the acidification of the ocean is 
causing Hawaii coral reefs to experience unprecedented bleaching which 
is killing entire reef ecosystems. Hawaii is expected to lose about 95% 
of its coral reefs by mid-century to chronic bleaching. The same is 
true in many coastal areas.
    OBCSA will help provide for coastal community vulnerability 
assessments to identify risks to key coastal barriers and expand 
definitions to encompass bluffs and other vulnerable areas. It will 
allow for regional ocean partnerships between states and agencies. It 
will help quantify reef loss potential in vulnerable communities and 
make recommendations for action. It will also help the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration coordinate and address harmful algal 
blooms that threaten coral reefs and the coastal protection they 
provide. OBSCA will also protect consumers and property owners by 
requiring disclosure of risk, and limitations on the availability of 
federal assistance. It will provide grants to assist working 
waterfronts to ensure more resilient harbors and protect jobs. And it 
will critically exempt cost sharing requirements in communities that 
may not have adequate resources for disaster relief. Ultimately, 
assistance from OBCSA will help save coastal economies, jobs, and 
lives.
States and Municipalities Need Federal Help

    States and municipalities do not have the resources to address the 
threats to their economies, jobs, and communities from climate change. 
Federal action is necessary for assistance to states and 
municipalities, and to mitigate financial risk to the federal 
government itself.
    The 2021 GAO (Government Accountability Office) High Risk Report--
Limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing 
Climate Change Risks, found that, ``Climate change poses risks to many 
environmental and economic systems and creates a significant fiscal 
risk to the federal government. Since our 2019 High-Risk Report, the 
federal government has not made measurable progress to reduce its 
fiscal exposure to climate change; therefore, this high-risk area 
warrants significant attention.''
    ``Specifically, the federal government needs to, among other 
things, (1) lead the development of a national climate strategic plan; 
(2) establish an entity to prioritize national-scale climate resilience 
projects; (3) develop a national climate information system; (4) make 
structural changes to the flood and crop insurance programs; and (5) 
establish a pilot program for community climate migration.''
    OBCSA will take long overdue steps to responsibly limit harm and 
risk to taxpayers, local economies, jobs, and communities around the 
country and throughout the Pacific.
The United States is Falling Behind Other Countries

    Other countries have already begun assessing the impacts of climate 
change on their coastlines and economies. Many nations are also taking 
action to mitigate the impact of climate change far in excess of the 
United States, which has the added benefit for them of surpassing the 
United States in technological innovation and economic development.
    For example, of all new solar capacity added globally in 2018, 45% 
was in China. China has also become the largest produce or solar 
panels, wind turbines, batteries, and electric vehicles. It is 
committed to the rollout of 800,000 electric vehicle chargers and on 
track to produce over 8 million electric vehicles per year by 2028, 
while the United States is likely to produce just 1.4 million. These 
investments in clean technology and greenhouse gas mitigation are 
significantly boosting their economy today and forging a path to 
dominate the global economy in the future. India has already reduced 
emissions intensity by 21% over 2005 levels and is on track to exceed 
Paris Agreement Targets. It is expected to reach 175 GW of renewables 
by 2022.
    If the United States is going to remain globally competitive it 
must innovate and build a clean economy that can mitigate climate 
emissions and compete with other nations through the rest of the 21st 
century. OBCSA is a complimentary and necessary step to our nation's 
mitigation strategies that will adapt coastlines and protect 
communities from climate impacts that mitigation efforts cannot 
prevent.
Acting on Climate Change Does Not Have to be a Partisan Issue

    Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, business, labor, 
and communities can all come to agreement that climate change is a 
critical threat to our economy, communities, and way of life, and take 
action that not only addresses its impacts, but benefits taxpayers, the 
economy, and local communities at the same time. In Hawaii our 
collaboration across sectors and ideologies proves it.
    It was a Republican governor who began the Hawaii Clean Energy 
Initiative to transition Hawaii off fossil fuels and begin to address 
climate change. Democratic governors have continued accelerating this 
effort. As a Democrat, I joined together with our House Republican 
leader to lead a campaign that successfully blocked a $4.2 billion 
buyout that would entrench fossil fuels in our electric grid at great 
risk to taxpayers. We were successful because it was not about party or 
ideology, it was about what would most benefit everyone in Hawaii.
    When we passed legislation in 2018 making Hawaii the first state to 
commit to achieving a carbon negative economy by 2045, it was passed 
unanimously with all Republicans and Democrats in support. It was also 
supported by a coalition of environmental advocates, labor and business 
interests alike. The President of the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii 
noted at its signing that, ``Moving forward on this bill will help 
catalyze additional investment in local businesses while helping us 
reach our 100% renewable energy by 2045 goal and achieve economic, 
social and environmental sustainability.''
    Setting politics aside and working together to address climate 
change we have been able to successfully triple renewable energy in 
Hawaii over the last decade. Investment in clean energy has reduced 
electric bills by almost $40/month for local residents who are now on 
track to save $3 billion over the life of these projects. Hawaii is now 
leading nation with one in three single family homes having installed 
rooftop solar, whose financial benefits and cost reductions are shared 
by all ratepayers. Increasing the number of homes with solar panels by 
just 10% will save an additional billion dollars for everyone. Hawaii 
has built an entirely new clean energy industry with thousands of jobs, 
grown innovative companies, and we are collectively on track to achieve 
a carbon negative economy that will help reduce climate impacts for 
everyone.
    Taking action to address climate change benefits everyone. It is 
fiscally responsible to protect taxpayers and businesses. It is 
economically empowering for jobs and the economy. Most of all it is 
morally responsible to ensure a better future for our next generation. 
Hawaii proves that when Democrats and Republicans set partisan politics 
aside to act on climate, everyone can benefit.

    I strongly encourage our elected representatives in the U.S. 
Congress to do the same.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator.
    I am going to take the virtual gavel from the Chair and 
pinch hit here for a bit, and the Chair will now recognize Dr. 
Ayana Elizabeth Johnson for 5 minutes.
    Welcome, Dr. Johnson.

  STATEMENT OF DR. AYANA ELIZABETH JOHNSON, CO-FOUNDER URBAN 
                           OCEAN LAB

    Dr. Johnson. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member 
Westerman, and members of the Committee for this invitation to 
testify.
    The ocean is a source of nourishment, protection, 
livelihoods, and joy. It is the foundation of climate 
stability. In the United States, the blue economy supports 
around 2.3 million jobs and contributes $373 billion annually 
to GDP from tourism, to shipping, to fishing. This value can 
continue to increase but only if we have robust laws in place 
and only if we protect and restore ocean ecosystems.
    Because of climate change, ocean temperatures are climbing, 
pH is plummeting, fish are fleeing for the poles, corals are 
frying in place, marine mammals are threatened with extinction, 
and plastic is everywhere. The situation is extremely bad. The 
United States is the largest historical emitter of greenhouse 
gasses and the largest current contributor to ocean plastic 
pollution of any nation in the world. We must understand these 
stakes and our responsibility. We are here to talk about 
solutions.
    The ocean is not merely a victim; it is also a hero. 
Collectively, ocean-based solutions could be 21 percent of our 
climate solution, and there are three that I would like to 
highlight: (1) protecting and restoring coastal ecosystems that 
absorb tons of carbon and protect us from storms too; (2) 
producing clean, renewable energy from offshore wind; and (3) 
farming the ocean regeneratively to support a sustainable food 
system.
    First, coastal ecosystems. When we think of climate 
solutions, it is tempting to think about technological fixes, 
but nature and the process of photosynthesis are key. For 
example, during Superstorm Sandy, although 85 percent of the 
wetlands in New York and New Jersey had already been destroyed 
by development, what little remained prevented $625 million in 
damages.
    Coastal ecosystems often provide cheaper and more effective 
shoreline protection than hard structures such as sea walls 
while absorbing up to four times more carbon in their soils 
than a forest on land. This is why I support the blue carbon 
proposal as well as the proposal introduced by Congresswoman 
Plaskett that would allocate $10 billion to coastal 
restoration. Also key is the provision that would support the 
President's goal of protecting 30 percent of the ocean by 2030.
    Second solution, renewable ocean energy. Historically, 
ocean energy meant drilling for oil and gas, but today, we have 
the opportunity for renewable energy offshore, and 66 percent 
of Republican and 72 percent of Democrat voters support new 
offshore wind farms. In the next decade, such farms could 
support 80,000 jobs per year which is 60 percent more jobs than 
the coal mining industry provided in 2019.
    And with 40 percent of Americans living in coastal 
counties, harnessing this offshore renewable energy would allow 
the United States to generate electricity near where demand is 
highest. I support the provision to set a national goal of 30 
gigawatts of offshore wind production by 2030.
    And the third solution, regenerative ocean farming. As we 
consider the future of seafood, we must focus on farming the 
ocean regeneratively. Instead of farming tuna and salmon, think 
of seaweed and shellfish which live simply off sunlight and 
nutrients already in the water. A single acre of ocean can 
produce 25 tons of seaweed and 250,000 shellfish in just 5 
months.
    Scaling regenerative ocean farming could create millions of 
direct and indirect jobs, improve habitat, and provide 
nutritious food. No land, fresh water, or fertilizer required. 
Notably, there is little in the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions 
Act on supporting this type of aquaculture, a gap worth 
filling.
    One last key point, ocean justice. How we go about ocean 
conservation and the implementation of ocean climate solutions 
really matters. Ocean conservation is not only about fish or 
wells or even about octopuses and the phytoplankton; it is also 
about people. It is about who has access to healthy seafood to 
eat, clean waters for recreation, and jobs in the blue economy, 
and who does not.
    Our solutions must be grounded in environmental justice, 
and I appreciate that many of the provisions in the Ocean-Based 
Climate Solutions Act recognize that need. That need has also 
led the non-profit think tank I have co-founded, Urban Ocean 
Lab, to convene the Ocean Justice Forum to ensure justice is at 
the heart of U.S. ocean climate policy.
    In closing, with robust policies like the bills we are 
discussing here today, the ocean can be a core element of our 
climate solutions, sequestering carbon, protecting coastal 
communities, producing clean energy, providing nutritious 
seafood, and providing millions of jobs.
    Frankly, we have not been giving the ocean the respect it 
deserves, and that must change. Trying to address the climate 
crisis without including the ocean is simply a recipe for 
failure.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I 
look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Johnson follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, Ph.D., Co-founder of 
                            Urban Ocean Lab
    Thank you Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and members 
of the committee for the invitation to testify today on these important 
bills. Thank you for your leadership Mr. Chairman, both with the 
introduction of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act (OBSCA) and with 
the Environmental Justice For All Act. I also want to thank the 
sponsors of the other bills we are talking about today, many of which 
contribute to ocean policy topics which have been the focus of my work 
for the last decade.
    The ocean is singular--one interconnected system of currents and 
wildlife covering 71% of our planet. It is a source of nourishment, 
protection, livelihoods, and joy. A healthy ocean is critical to our 
food security, economies, cultures, and human health.
    In the U.S., the ``blue economy'' supports around 2.3 million jobs 
and contributes $373 billion annually to GDP--from tourism to shipping, 
fishing, and construction. The largest share of that is tourism and 
recreation, which alone contributes around $143 billion to the U.S. 
economy each year. These industries depend on a healthy ocean, clean 
beaches, and abundant fish and wildlife. That number of jobs can 
continue to grow and the economic value can continue to increase, but 
only if we have robust policies in place, and only if we protect and 
restore ocean ecosystems.
    The ocean has massively buffered the impacts of climate change, and 
it can't take much more. For example, it has absorbed over 90% of the 
excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases. Without the ocean absorbing 
all that heat, our atmosphere would be around 95 degrees fahrenheit 
hotter. The ocean has also absorbed around 30% of the carbon dioxide 
we've emitted by burning fossil fuels.
    But absorbing all this heat has changed the ocean--dramatically and 
for the worse. As the ocean heats up, many species are migrating toward 
the poles in search of cooler waters, while coral reefs are frying in 
place. And warmer seawater fuels stronger and wetter storms, wreaking 
havoc on coastal communities. Absorbing all this carbon dioxide has 
also made the entire ocean 30% more acidic--among other things, this 
increased acidity makes it harder for shellfish and corals to grow 
their shells and skeletons, and harder for fish to smell home or their 
predators or prey.
    More broadly, to date, 66% of marine environments have been 
``severely altered'' by human actions--overfishing, pollution, coastal 
development and climate change. The ocean's biodiversity is also at 
risk with a third of reef forming corals and marine mammals threatened 
with extinction. And every year approximately 8 million tons of 
plastic, and rising, end up in our ocean, harming marine life and 
getting incorporated into the food chain. The U.S. is the largest 
contributor to ocean plastic pollution of any nation in the world. 
Therefore, I was pleased to see that this re-introduced version of 
OBCSA includes creation of a tax on single-use, virgin plastics.
    But at the same time, we need to reframe the narrative of the ocean 
being merely a victim, and sometimes a threat, to valuing the ocean as 
a hero--as a source for climate solutions. So I appreciate the name of 
the OBCSA because indeed we must leverage the power of the ocean to 
address our climate crisis.
    Ocean-based mitigation options could provide 21% of the greenhouse 
gas emission reductions needed by 2050 to reach the goal of remaining 
below 1.5 Celsius of global warming--and reaching that goal is the most 
important thing we can do for the ocean. This reduction is larger than 
annual emissions from all current coal fired power plants worldwide.
    There are three main ocean-climate solutions I would like to 
highlight in my testimony: (1) protecting and restoring coastal 
ecosystems that absorb tons of carbon and protect us from storms; (2) 
producing clean, renewable energy from offshore wind; and (3) farming 
the ocean regeneratively to support a sustainable food system. Many of 
the bills we are considering today would further these solutions, so I 
will elaborate briefly on each of the three.
1. Coastal Ecosystems
    The carbon sequestered by ocean ecosystems is often called ``blue 
carbon.'' While trees get a lot of attention for their carbon dioxide 
absorbing potential, wetlands, mangroves, kelp forests, and seagrasses 
can absorb several times more carbon in their soils than a forest on 
land.
    Yet, these ecosystems are increasingly threatened--degraded and 
destroyed by development, climate change, and pollution. Disturbing 
these ecosystems not only inhibits ongoing carbon sequestration, but 
also releases previously stored carbon. Up to 1 billion tons of carbon 
dioxide are released annually from degraded and destroyed coastal 
ecosystems. And worse, this destruction also releases massive amounts 
of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
    When we think about climate solutions, it is tempting to think 
about technological fixes. But in reality, nature and the process of 
photosynthesis are a big part of the solutions we have at our 
fingertips. For example, during Superstorm Sandy, although 95% of the 
wetlands in New York and New Jersey had already been destroyed by 
development, what little remained prevented $625 million in damages to 
property and infrastructure. Coastal ecosystems can often provide 
cheaper and more effective shoreline protection than hard structures 
such as sea walls. They also enhance food security and support coastal 
economies. Clearly, protecting and restoring these ecosystems is 
critical.
    That is why I and many others support Title 1 of the OBCSA and Mr 
Huffman's bill H.R. 3906, establishing a Blue Carbon program to 
conserve and restore marine and coastal blue carbon ecosystems, as well 
as the provision in the OBCSA and in H.R. 660, introduced by 
Congresswoman Plaskett, that would allocate $10 billion to a broad 
scale coastal restoration program. We can expect that investment to be 
paid back many times over through healthier fish stocks, reduced storm 
damages, and climate mitigation that we desperately need.
    At present, less than 3% of the global ocean area is fully 
protected, while leading scientists recommend protecting at least 30% 
in order to safeguard biodiversity and restore ocean health. While 23% 
of U.S. waters are well-protected, the vast majority of that is around 
remote Pacific Islands. A well-connected, effectively and equitably 
managed system of marine protected areas, that includes all ecosystem 
types and the high seas, will build the ocean's resilience against 
climate change. Therefore, the OBCSA provision that would support the 
President's goal of protecting 30% of the ocean by 2030 is key.
2. Renewable Ocean Energy
    Historically, ocean energy meant drilling for oil and gas--whose 
extraction will only intensify climate change. Today, both President 
Biden and the OBCSA are advocating for increases in ocean-based 
renewable energy. Clean offshore energy (now primarily wind energy, but 
perhaps in the future wave, tidal, and other forms as well) will be a 
critical component of rapidly transitioning away from polluting fossil 
fuels and eliminating the economic and ecological devastation caused by 
oil spills.
    Well-planned and well-sited offshore wind has the potential to 
support an average of 80,000 jobs per year through development, 
construction, and operation from 2025 to 2035, including many union 
jobs and jobs that require skills easily transferable from the oil and 
gas sector. That's 60% more jobs than the coal mining industry provided 
in 2019.
    And there is strong public support for this burgeoning industry. 
Polling by Data for Progress shows that U.S. voters support the 
construction of new offshore wind farms by a 48-percentage-point 
margin, with support from 66% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats.
    With 40% of Americans living in coastal counties, harnessing 
offshore renewable energy would allow the U.S. to generate energy close 
to where demand is highest. That is why I strongly support the 
provision in the OBCSA that would set a national goal of 30 GW of 
offshore wind production by 2030--matching the goal set by the 
President.
3. Regenerative Ocean Farming
    Globally, approximately 34% of the world's fish stocks and 18% of 
U.S. fish stocks are overfished. We cannot rely heavily on wild fish to 
feed our growing world population. At the same time, industrial 
aquaculture, the farming of seafood, has been largely unsustainable, 
often focused on raising carnivorous fish that require a lot of feed, 
feed which to-date is often smaller wild fish. Hence, I support the 
provisions in the OBCSA that would promote sustainable, climate ready 
fisheries.
    However, for our food security and for sustainability, as we 
consider the future of seafood we must focus on regeneratively farming 
the ocean. Regenerative agriculture on land has gained a lot of 
traction in recent years--it is essentially farming in a way that 
regenerates the health of the soil, restores ecosystems and 
biodiversity, and absorbs carbon in the soil instead of emitting it. In 
the ocean, this would look like seaweed and shellfish farms along our 
coastlines--with oysters and clams growing in cages on the seafloor, 
mussels growing on hanging ropes, and kelp growing like hanging 
curtains between it all. These organisms live simply off sunlight and 
nutrients already in seawater--no fertilizer, freshwater, or feed 
required.
    A single acre of ocean can produce 25 tons of seaweed and 250,000 
shellfish in just five months. Moreover, these seaweeds have high 
nutritional value, and one species, when fed to cows, can reduce their 
methane emissions by over 60%. Through photosynthesis and the formation 
of shells, ocean farms can absorb tons of carbon, help reduce local 
ocean acidification, and improve local water quality, while also 
creating a habitat for a cornucopia of wild marine life. Scaling 
regenerative ocean farming could create millions of direct and indirect 
jobs. Notably, there is little in this bill on supporting this type of 
aquaculture--a gap well worth filling.
Ocean Justice
    One last key point I must include: How we go about ocean 
conservation and the implementation of ocean-climate solutions really 
matters.
    Ocean conservation is not only about fish or whales, or even 
octopuses or phytoplankton. It's also about people, about protecting 
our livelihoods and communities, about preserving coastal cultures. 
It's about parents and grandparents getting to take their kids 
fishing--and actually catching something. It's about who has access to 
healthy seafood to eat, clean waters for recreation, and jobs in the 
blue economy--and who does not.
    The well-being of communities of color and of poor and working-
class communities are deeply affected as the ocean's health degrades. 
In the United States, people of color make up about 40% of the 
population, but 48% of the population of coastal counties and, per my 
team's estimates, 53% of the population of coastal cities. Within these 
areas, people of color often live in low-lying, flood-prone areas.
    It has been well-documented that poor communities and communities 
of color endure disproportionate exposure to toxic air, land, and 
water. New Orleans, Flint, Standing Rock, and countless places in 
between exemplify the need to prevent such communities from bearing the 
brunt of environmental devastation. In New York, where I live, high-
polluting peaker plants are located adjacent to lower-income 
communities of color. Hence, in the last few decades as the 
environmental movement arose, right alongside it arose the 
environmental justice movement.
    According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
environmental justice will exist ``when everyone enjoys the same degree 
of protection from environmental and health hazards, and equal access 
to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which 
to live, learn, and work.''
    This need for environmental justice clearly extends to the 
coastline and into the sea. Ocean conservation is a social justice 
issue. This is why, in collaboration with the Gulf Coast Center for Law 
and Policy, Azul, and Center for American Progress, the non-profit 
think tank I co-founded, Urban Ocean Lab, is convening the Ocean 
Justice Forum, to ensure justice is at the heart of U.S. ocean-climate 
policy.
    The longer we wait to enact strong ocean and climate policies, the 
more vulnerable people of color and low-income people in coastal 
communities will become. Therefore, our solutions must be grounded in 
environmental justice, and I appreciate that many of the provisions in 
the OBSCA recognize that need.
    In sum, the ocean is severely threatened, but it is also resilient. 
With robust policies like the OBCSA and other bills we are discussing 
here today, the ocean can be a core element of our climate solutions--
sequestering carbon, protecting shorelines, producing renewable energy, 
providing nutritious and sustainable seafood, and supporting millions 
of good jobs.
    Frankly, we have not been giving it the respect it deserves, and 
that must change. Trying to address the climate crisis without 
including the ocean is a recipe for failure. If we protect the ocean, 
it will protect us.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I look 
forward to your questions.

                                 *****

The following documents were submitted as supplemental materials to Ms. 
Ayana Elizabeth Johnson's testimony.

Select relevant publications:

    --  Podcast: An Origin Story of the Blue New Deal--How to Save a 
            Planet, 2021 https://gimletmedia.com/shows/
            howtosaveaplanet/2ohwd7k/an-origin-story-of-the-blue-new-
            deal

                                  ***

 Policy Memo: A Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in the U.S.--Urban Ocean 
                               Lab, 2021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.002

.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.003

.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.004

.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.005

.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.006

.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.007

 .epsTo Save the Climate, Look to the Oceans--Scientific American, 2020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.008

.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.009

.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.010

.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.011

.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.012

    .epsWhat I Know About the Ocean: We Need Ocean Justice--Sierra 
                             Magazine, 2020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.013

.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.014

.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.015

  .epsThe Concrete Jungle Has 578 Miles of Coastline at Risk--The New 
                            York Times, 2019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4957.016


                                 .eps__
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Dr. Johnson.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Marce Gutierrez-Graudins for 5 
minutes.

 STATEMENT OF MARCE GUTIERREZ-GRAUDINS, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE 
           DIRECTOR, AZUL, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Gutierrez-Graudins. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman 
Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, members of the House 
Committee of Natural Resources, and Committee staff for the 
opportunity to testify on the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act 
of 2021. My name is Marce Gutierrez-Graudins. I am the founder 
and Executive Director of Azul which was started in 2011 to 
work with Latinx communities to protect coasts and oceans.
    As someone who started their career in commercial fishing, 
I understand firsthand the importance of a thriving ocean for 
communities across the country. Now more than ever, climate 
change requires policy makers to take bold leadership in 
preserving marine resources while centering equity at the heart 
of these solutions.
    Climate change not only threatens marine resources, it 
disproportionately impacts communities of color. For example, 
these communities overwhelmingly live in areas prone to 
flooding and extreme weather. Environmental justice has never 
been prioritized like it has been by the Biden administration 
and its proposal to address the climate crisis.
    Chairman Grijalva, Congressman McEachin, and others are 
leading the way on environmental justice in Congress with the 
introduction of the Environmental Justice For All Act and now 
the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act.
    Azul is pleased to highlight provisions of the bill that 
address inequality, reducing greenhouse emissions, supporting 
the Biden administration's goal of equitably conserving 30 
percent of land and ocean by 2030, assessing barriers faced by 
communities of color when accessing nature, and enhancing the 
ocean's natural ability to store carbon and protect coastal 
communities and increasing their resilience of oceans through 
coastal ecosystems.
    The most important thing we can do for the ocean is to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This bill would advance the 
goal in several ways. First, by prohibiting the expansion of 
offshore oil exploration and drilling in most areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf except the western and central Gulf of 
Mexico.
    While we applaud the Committee's efforts to prohibit 
exploration and drilling in certain areas, Azul strongly 
advocates for complete prohibition of oil and gas exploration 
in the Outer Continental Shelf. Communities of color living 
along the coast have been disproportionately devastated by 
accidents involving offshore oil and gas. To continue emission 
reductions, the bill encourages the transition to renewable 
energy sources, including well planned and sited offshore 
renewables like wind and tidal energy as well as decreases in 
shipping emissions.
    Azul is strongly supportive of these provisions, especially 
the bill's $0.05 excise tax on single use plastic products. We 
appreciate the provisions in the bill that support the Biden 
administration's goal to protect 30 percent of the ocean by 
2030, including the authorization of a marine protected areas 
inventory and a marine biodiversity census and gap analysis 
that will help ensure accountability in the progress toward 
achieving 30 by 30.
    Over the last year, Americans from across the country 
turned to neighborhood parks, trails, and beaches for relief in 
healing more than ever before. The COVID-19 pandemic proved 
that access to nature is not a privilege. It is a necessity for 
our health and well-being.
    Azul is supportive of the bill's provisions enabling more 
equitable access to nature like authorizing a state-by-state 
analysis of public access to the Nation's coasts and great 
lakes, including opportunities and barriers to access for low 
income communities and communities of color and strategies to 
prevent the loss of public access as well as studying the 
impacts of sea level rise in extreme weather.
    The bill includes provisions to restore and protect coastal 
blue carbon ecosystems, including mangroves and salt marshes. 
Not only do these areas absorb and store carbon dioxide at a 
rate of four times that of forests on land, they provide 
habitat for marine wildlife, limit the impacts of ocean storms, 
while also creating enhanced land protection for coastal 
communities. We strongly support these provisions.
    Azul also thanks Congressman Huffman for his Blue Carbon 
Protection Act which establishes a blue carbon program to 
conserve and restore marine and coastal blue carbon ecosystems.
    Climate change can greatly impact commercial fisheries and 
the communities that depend on them. I believe maintaining and 
strengthening the fisheries management systems to support 
rebuilding and ensuring the sustainable supply of wild caught 
fish achieves the goal of supporting healthy fisheries in the 
ocean. We support the provisions of the bill directed to this 
goal.
    The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2021 would 
capitalize on the opportunities the ocean offers to combat 
climate change. And this bill is the kind of leadership from 
Congress we need to confront environmental justice that Azul 
and others have been working toward for many years.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this bill 
and to Congressman McEachin for your efforts to advance 
environmental justice so broadly.
    We look forward to working you to advance these important 
proposals.

    Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Gutierrez-Graudins follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Marce Gutierrez-Graudins, Founder & Executive 
                             Director, Azul
    Thank you to Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, members 
of the House Committee on Natural Resources, and Committee staff for 
the opportunity to testify on the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 
2021. My name is Marce Gutierrez-Graudins, and I am the Founder and 
Executive Director of Azul, an initiative legally organized under 
Multiplier founded in 2011 that works with the Latinx community to 
bring its voice to conversations about marine resources. As someone who 
began their career in the commercial fishing and aquaculture 
industries, I understand first-hand the importance of a thriving ocean 
for communities across the country. Now more than ever, the existential 
threat of climate change requires policymakers to take innovative, bold 
leadership in conserving marine resources while centering equity at the 
heart of these solutions.

    Since 2011, Azul's work has centered around celebrating Latinx's 
rich conservation traditions and connecting them to current solutions. 
The ocean is important to Latinx communities both culturally and as a 
means of economic sustainability. Unfortunately--climate change not 
only threatens marine resources--it disproportionately impacts 
communities of color. As climate change accelerates, environmental 
injustice will continue to worsen unless action is taken. Communities 
of color are especially vulnerable because they live in places that 
will confront severe repercussions due to climate change: a majority of 
the Latinx community in the United States live in California, Texas, 
Florida, and New York, all states considered to be most at risk of 
excessive flooding, air pollution, and heat waves.\1\ Despite 40 
percent of the U.S. population living in densely populated coastal 
areas, Latinxs living in coastal communities will bear the brunt of 
these impacts because, in many places, they overwhelmingly reside in 
flood-prone neighborhoods.\2\ This example of environmental injustice 
must be addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.nrdc.org/media/2016/161013.
    \2\ https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/
population.html#::text=As%20of%202014%2C%20nearly% 
2040,people%20live%20in%20coastal%20counties; https://
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/28/climate-change-
enviromental-racism-america.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Starting today, members of the Committee and the House can take 
action: the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2021 proposes to 
advance ocean climate action while centering equity and justice each 
step of the way. To this day, environmental justice has never been 
prioritized by an administration like it has by the Biden 
Administration in its proposals to address the climate crisis. Chairman 
Grijalva, Congressman McEachin, and others are leading the way on 
environmental justice in Congress, Mr. Chairman, with the introduction 
of H.R. 2021, the Environmental Justice for All Act and now the Ocean-
Based Climate Solutions Act. Azul is pleased to highlight elements of 
the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act that address inequality at its 
core. Provisions of the bill that address inequality include (1) 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions; (2) supporting the Biden 
Administration's goal of equitably conserving 30 percent each of land 
and water by 2030 (30x30); (3) assessing barriers faced by communities 
of color when accessing nature; (4) enhancing the ocean's natural 
ability to store carbon and protect coastal communities; and (5) 
increasing the resilience of ocean and coastal ecosystems.
Reducing GHG Emissions
    In order to keep global temperatures from increasing past the 1.5 C 
target of the Paris Agreement, the most important thing we can all do 
for the ocean is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This bill would 
advance that goal in several ways. First, by prohibiting the expansion 
of offshore oil exploration and drilling in most areas of the Outer 
Continental Shelf except the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico. While 
we applaud the Committee's efforts to prohibit exploration and drilling 
in certain areas, Azul strongly advocates for a complete prohibition of 
oil and gas exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf. Communities of 
color living along the coast are devastated by accidents involving 
offshore oil and gas. Moreover, expanding offshore oil drilling by any 
amount will intensify climate change and threaten ocean and coastal 
habitats that are important to healthy fish, marine wildlife, and 
coastal economies.
    As a first step toward recognizing the negative impact plastic 
production has on our environment and frontline communities, Azul is 
also supportive of the bill's goal to fund broader ocean climate action 
through a 5-cent excise tax on single use plastic production.
    We are also supportive of the provisions in the bill to encourage 
the transition to renewable energy sources, including well-planned and 
sited offshore renewables like wind and tidal energy, and Azul supports 
the bill's aim to promote decreases in shipping emissions.
Supporting the Biden Administration's Goal of 30x30
    We appreciate the provisions in the bill that support the Biden 
Administration's goal to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030 including the 
authorization of a Marine Protected Areas inventory and a marine 
biodiversity census and gap analysis that will help ensure 
accountability in the progress toward achieving 30x30.
Assessing Barriers Faced by Communities of Color When Accessing Nature
    Azul is especially supportive of a provision authorizing a study by 
the National Academies to assess public access to the nation's coasts, 
including the Great Lakes. This study must include a state-by-state 
analysis of the quality and quantity of existing public access points, 
opportunities and barriers to access for low-income communities, 
communities of color, Tribal and Indigenous communities, and rural 
communities, the impacts of sea-level rise and extreme weather, and 
strategies to prevent the loss of public access. Over the last year, 
Americans from across the country turned to neighborhood parks, trails, 
and beaches for respite and healing more than ever before. The COVID-19 
pandemic proved access to nature is not a privilege: it's a necessity 
for our health and wellbeing. Azul is supportive of these provisions 
enabling more equitable access to nature.
Enhancing the Ocean's Natural Ability to Store Carbon and Protect 
        Coastal Communities
    The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act includes provisions to 
restore and protect coastal blue carbon ecosystems, including 
mangroves, salt marshes, sea grasses, coral reefs, and kelp forests. 
These coastal ecosystems absorb carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere 
and safely store it at a rate of up to four times that of forests on 
land. Additionally, the bill will limit the impacts of coastal erosion, 
flooding, and storms, while providing habitat for marine wildlife and 
fisheries by protecting and restoring blue carbon ecosystems. In 
addition to these natural benefits, coastal communities of color will 
benefit substantially from enhanced flooding protections. We strongly 
support these measures in the legislation. Azul would like to also 
thank Congressman Huffman for his Blue Carbon Protection Act, which 
establishes a blue carbon program to conserve and restore marine and 
coastal blue carbon ecosystems.
Increasing the Resilience of Ocean and Coastal Ecosystems
    By decreasing the amount of stress placed on the ocean, healthy 
ocean systems are better able to adapt to the effects of climate 
change. I believe sustainably managing the ocean must be the standard 
moving forward if we want to continue enjoying the bounty marine 
resources provide.
    Climate change can greatly impact commercial fisheries and the 
communities that depend on them.\3\ This is something I witnessed 
during my time in the seafood industry: in the winter of 2006, a 
Pseudo-nitzschia bloom resulted in a large mortality event that 
affected bluefin tuna as a result of domoic acid poisoning, an event 
explained by ocean warming leading to harmful algal blooms.\4\ A 
healthy ocean leads to healthy fisheries and maintaining and 
strengthening fisheries management systems, to support rebuilding and 
ensuring a sustainable supply of wild caught fish, achieves the goal of 
supporting healthy fisheries. We support the provisions in the bill 
directed at this goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/12/04/671996313/
fishermen-sue-big-oil-for-its-role-in-climate-change.
    \41\ https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/378/docs/Caron_pdfs/
2018_Smith_etal_HA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The time to act on climate change is long overdue; the Ocean-Based 
Climate Solutions Act of 2021 will capitalize on the opportunities the 
ocean offers to combat climate change, and this bill is the kind of 
leadership from Congress we need to confront the environmental 
injustices that Azul and others have been working to correct for many, 
many years. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this bill 
and to you and Congressman McEachin for your efforts to advance 
environmental justice more broadly. We look forward to working with you 
to advance these important proposals and goals.

                                 *****

The following documents were submitted as supplemental materials to Ms. 
Marce Gutierrez-Graudins' testimony.

Select relevant publications:

    --  Neglected: Environmental Justice Impacts of Marine Litter and 
            Plastic Pollution. United Nations Environmental Programme. 
            April 2001

    --  Conservation Policy Must Include More Diverse Voices--
            CalMatters, 2021

    --  Proteger el oceano es una meta urgente para 2030. America 
            Latina ya esta marcando la pauta--Washington Post, 2021

                                 ______
                                 
   Questions Submitted for the Record to Marcela Gutierrez-Graudins, 
                  Founder and Executive Director, Azul

              Questions Submitted by Representative Sablan

    Question 1. Thank you for your work on the Azul and United Nations 
Environment Program report titled ``Neglected: Environmental Justice 
Impacts of Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution.'' Can you outline some 
of the environmental justice concerns surrounding single-use plastics?

    Answer. Plastic goes beyond impacting the health of our ocean--it 
impacts the health and rights of vulnerable communities worldwide every 
day. Azul's report in collaboration with the United Nations Environment 
Programme, Neglected: Environmental Justice Impacts of Marine Litter 
and Plastic Pollution, assesses how each stage of the death cycle of 
plastic impacts vulnerable communities and the natural resources they 
depend on to live. The report's main finding relates to how plastics 
hinder the achievement of all United Nations' 17 Sustainable 
Development Goals (SDG).
    Vulnerable communities around the world deal with the impacts of 
single-use plastics but have historically been unable to inform 
environmental conversations on the matter. Efforts to control and 
decrease plastic pollution are inadequate to address the specific needs 
of groups and peoples already in vulnerable situations, who are 
socially, economically, politically, institutionally, or otherwise 
marginalized.
    Ninety-nine percent of plastics are produced from petrochemicals, 
which are sourced from fossil fuels.\1\ Fossil fuel exploration and 
contamination has severely impacted indigenous peoples whose well-being 
is deeply tied to the health of the natural environment.\2\ Plastic 
production frequently occurs in close proximity to fossil fuel 
refineries given the volatility of the raw materials--and at the 
expense of achieving SDG No. 3 `Good Health and Well-being' for 
fenceline communities, which tend to have less political recognition 
and less economic means to relocate.\3\,\4\ Moreover, 
students in fenceline communities are more susceptible to adverse 
health impacts, compounding education disparities and challenging SDG 
No. 4 `Quality Education.' Plastics also challenge the achievement of 
SDG No. 5 `Gender Equality', as women face especially high toxicity 
risks to the harmful plastic additives due to their higher exposure to 
plastics in the household and personal care products, along with 
differences in biology, social roles, and political power.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ `Fossils, Plastics, & Petrochemical Feedstocks' (CIEL 2017).
    \2\ O'Rourke D and Connolly S, `Just Oil? The Distribution of 
Environmental and Social Impacts of Oil Production and Consumption' 
(2003) 28 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 587.
    \3\ `Plastic & Health: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet' (CIEL 
2019).
    \4\ Lerner S, Sacrifice Zones: The Front Lines of Toxic Chemical 
Exposure in the United States (MIT Press 2010).
    \5\ Lynn H, Rech S and Samwel-Mantingh M, `Plastic, Gender and the 
Environment. Findings of a Literature Study on the Lifecycle of 
Plastics and Its Impacts on Women and Men, from Production to Litter.' 
http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.2.33644.26242, accessed 18 November 
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Plastics are diverse and persistent. While these qualities make 
plastics desirable materials, they are also the reason why the majority 
of single-use plastics cannot be easily recycled by a one-size-fits-all 
solution.\6\ Instead, after one-time use, single-use plastics are 
discarded and vulnerable communities disproportionately bear the 
consequences of the health and environmental degradation that results 
from the accumulation of plastic toxins and increasingly smaller 
microplastics.\7\ Common plastic waste management processes, such as 
incineration, generate toxic air pollutants and significant 
CO2 emissions.\8\ Unfortunately, incinerators and landfills 
are disproportionately built in low-income and heavily minority 
communities, further challenging SDG No. 10 `Reduced Inequalities' by 
deepening social disparities with environmental degradation, health 
costs, and wasted public investments.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Hopewell J, Dvorak R and Kosior E, `Plastics Recycling: 
Challenges and Opportunities' (2009) 364 Philosophical Transactions of 
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2115.
    \7\ Choy CA and others, `The Vertical Distribution and Biological 
Transport of Marine Microplastics across the Epipelagic and Mesopelagic 
Water Column' (2019) 9 Scientific Reports 7843.
    \8\ Geyer R, Jambeck JR and Law KL, `Production, Use, and Fate of 
All Plastics Ever Made' (2017) 3 Science Advances e1700782.
    \9\ 124 Lerner S, Sacrifice Zones: The Front Lines of Toxic 
Chemical Exposure in the United States (MIT Press 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Single-use plastics and the associated environmental injustices 
they aggravate are grave and complicated issues that transcend 
political and geographic boundaries. For the reasons mentioned above 
and included in our report, I believe single-use plastics deserve our 
immediate attention. Although Azul supports the legislation's 5-cent 
excise tax on single-use plastic, more aggressive action aimed at 
reducing single-use plastic production should be considered. Thank you 
for the opportunity to comment on this topic and for the chance to 
testify on the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act, a bold solution to 
addressing threats impacting our ocean and quality of life. Azul looks 
forward to working with your committee again in the future.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much.
    Our last witness will be Mr. Mauricio Guardado, General 
Manager of the United Water Conservation. Welcome to the 
Committee. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF MAURICIO GUARDADO, GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED WATER 
           CONSERVATION DISTRICT, OXNARD, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Guardado. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Interim Chair 
Huffman, Ranking Member Westerman, and members of the 
Committee.
    On behalf of the Family Farm Alliance and United Water 
Conservation District, I thank you for the opportunity to 
provide my testimony today. I would also like to thank 
Congresswoman Brownley for her support and leadership with our 
water sustainability projects.
    My name is Mauricio Guardado. I am the General Manager of 
United Water Conservation District (United), which serves a 
population of approximately 400,000 and covers some 214,000 
acres in Ventura County, California, including U.S. Naval Base 
Port Hueneme, Oxnard, as well as several disadvantaged 
communities. Considered among the prime agricultural areas of 
the world, year-round growing seasons support high value crops 
such as citrus, avocados, berries, and row crops.
    United stores and releases water at its Santa Felicia Dam 
and utilizes its surface flows of the Santa Clara River which 
is dry about 9 months of the year to administer a water 
management program for all ground water basins within its 
boundaries. Surface water deliveries offset groundwater 
extractions near the coastline, mitigating sea water intrusion, 
among other beneficial activities.
    I also serve on the Advisory Committee of the Family Farm 
Alliance, a grassroots organization of family farmers, 
ranchers, irrigation districts, and allied industries in 16 
western states. Its mission of ensuring reliable, affordable, 
irrigation water and its commitment to preserving and 
protecting western agriculture's positive impact on the 
economy, environment, and national security is often overlooked 
in national policy decisions.
    My professional expertise substantiates my expertise in 
water management and validates the interactions I have had with 
National Marine Fishery Services, NMFS, a division of National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA.
    While the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2021 is well 
intended legislation, my primary concern is the expansion of 
the authority of NOAA, vaguely referenced as among other 
purposes.
    Several areas of the new legislation have the potential for 
far-ranging and uncertain impacts to water management and 
agriculture, impeding the development of critically needed 
infrastructure, especially in the drought stricken western 
states.
    I have direct experience with the arbitrary and capricious 
regulatory edicts of NMFS. This agency, at least in southern 
California, has taken Federal environmental laws intended to 
protect species and ecosystems, and without any basis in 
science, historical data, and even best practices, has issued 
issue requirements that are, quite frankly, senseless.
    For example, based on a number of scientific studies, it 
was determined that steelhead are unlikely to swim upstream in 
water with sediment levels greater than 2,000 milligrams per 
liter. However, NMFS' direction to United was to provide 
passage for steelhead on the Santa Clara River at flows of 
three times that sediment level. It looks like chocolate milk 
at that point. Most concerning is that sediment level is lethal 
to the steelhead that NMFS says it is trying to protect.
    NMFS has also asserted that Ventura County's Piru Creek is 
a possible steelhead resource despite the fact that since the 
late 1800s, fish and game biologists and regulatory agencies 
have documented that it is not conducive to steelhead. In fact, 
steelhead have never been observed in the watershed. Even the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission supports United's 
position.
    NMFS' response to this overwhelming evidence, the West 
Coast Regional Office of Southern California branch replied, 
the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. That 
attitude is the foundation upon which NMFS continues to demand 
expensive, unnecessary fish passage and habitat mitigation 
regardless of historical data, consistently dry conditions, 
natural migration barriers, and assessments of the region. NMFS 
has required continuous water releases from United's 
infrastructure into lower Piru Creek, deeming it as critical 
habitat for steelhead, a fish that has never been seen in the 
watershed. We have to ask, why are we taking water away from 
farms and communities to accommodate fish that do not exist in 
the watershed?
    The Family Farm Alliance and United are dedicated to 
finding a balance of environmental protection and sustainable 
water supply. Following the science, good sound engineering, 
and historical data will, in fact, yield successful results 
rather than foster potential conflicts. We appreciate Chairman 
Grijalva's efforts in making changes reflected in the current 
bill, but there is still room for additional improvement.
    While we support some provisions, other portions would 
benefit from additional scrutiny. Let's be partners in 
developing thoughtful climate policies based on sound science. 
We hope these comments are considered in refining this 
legislation.
    And, again, thank you for the opportunity to present this 
testimony to you. I am looking forward to questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Guardado follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mauricio Guardado, General Manager, United Water 
              Conservation District & Family Farm Alliance
    Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman and Members of the 
Committee, on behalf of the Family Farm Alliance (Alliance) and the 
United Water Conservation District (United), I thank you for this 
opportunity to present this testimony today.
    My name is Mauricio Guardado. I serve as general manager of United, 
which covers approximately 214,000 acres in Ventura County, California, 
and serves a population of approximately 400,000 residents including 
U.S. Naval Base Ventura County, the beach cities of Port Hueneme and 
Oxnard, and Channel Islands Beach district. Considered one of the prime 
agricultural areas of the world, the year-round growing seasons support 
high value crops such as lemons, oranges, avocados, strawberries, 
berries, row crops and flowers.
    United administers a ``basin management'' program for all of the 
hydrologically connected groundwater basins within its boundaries 
utilizing the surface flow of the Santa Clara River, impoundment of 
water through its tributaries, wholesale water deliveries and other 
activities in water supply for the beneficial use by various cities, 
municipalities and agriculture throughout Ventura County.
    United is one of California's few legislatively established Water 
Conservation Districts. In performing its District-wide watershed 
management efforts, United not only stores water at its Santa Felicia 
Dam and Lake Piru reservoir, it also directly recharges the groundwater 
aquifers via its Freeman Diversion. United also provides surface water 
deliveries via vast conveyance systems to minimize groundwater 
extractions near the coastline in its fight to mitigate seawater 
intrusion from contaminating the aquifers.
    I also serve on the Advisory Committee of the Family Farm Alliance 
(Alliance), a grassroots organization of family farmers, ranchers, 
irrigation districts, and allied industries in 16 Western states. The 
Alliance is focused on one mission: To ensure the availability of 
reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to Western farmers and 
ranchers. The Alliance is committed to the fundamental proposition that 
Western irrigated agriculture must be preserved and protected for a 
host of economic, sociological, environmental, and national security 
reasons--many of which are often overlooked in the context of other 
national policy decisions. The Western family farmers and ranchers who 
we represent are confronted with many critical issues today. At the top 
of the list is the daunting number of administrative policy and 
regulatory initiatives that our Western agricultural producers face 
daily.
    I would like to focus my comments on the Ocean-Based Climate 
Solutions Act of 2021 (H.R. 3764). This well-intended legislation 
directs the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) to provide for ocean-based climate solutions to 
reduce carbon emissions and global warming; to make coastal communities 
more resilient; and to provide for the conservation and restoration of 
the ocean and coastal habitats, biodiversity, and marine mammal and 
fish populations, among other purposes. In November 2020, the Family 
Farm Alliance developed written testimony for this committee on an 
earlier version of this legislation. Several concerns were raised in 
that testimony, and we were pleased to see that some of these issues 
were addressed in H.R. 3764. However, there are several areas of the 
new legislation that continue to cause concerns for our membership due 
to potential far-ranging and uncertain impacts to water management and 
agriculture in the West.
    So, why are organizations that serve family farmers and ranchers in 
southern California and the mostly inland West concerned with 
legislation that would appear to apply more to the ocean and coastal 
communities? It is because this wide-ranging bill could have a 
significant impact on the development of critically needed new inland 
water infrastructure. We have questions about whether the potential 
impact on the economy, budget, and existing statutes and regulatory 
processes have been assessed. Many of the Family Farm Alliance's 
farmers and ranchers--and water managers, like me--have been impacted 
by implementation of federal environmental laws intended to protect 
ecosystems far-removed from their operations. I will provide some hard-
learned, real-life observations in this testimony that should clearly 
demonstrate why many of us share these concerns.
    For these reasons, concerns remain that this bill could 
dramatically increase the role of federal agencies on inland rivers and 
adjacent lands, as further outlined in this testimony.
Alliance Involvement with Climate Change Issues
    In 2007, the Family Farm Alliance Board of Directors established a 
subcommittee to develop a white paper that addresses the important 
issue of climate change, its possible impact on Western water supplies 
and irrigated agriculture, and recommendations on how to plan and 
provide stewardship for this change. The report was prepared by a 
Family Farm Alliance climate change subcommittee, our Advisory 
Committee, and water resources experts from around the West. That 
document--titled ``Water Supply in a Changing Climate: The Perspective 
of Family Farmers and Ranchers in the Irrigated West''--was released in 
September 2007. Since that time, we have been asked to testify before 
Congress multiple times on how climate change could further strain 
fresh water supplies in the West. We continue to advocate that we must 
begin to practically plan for, and act on that immediately, and not 
wait until we are forced to make decisions during a crisis.
Importance of Western Irrigated Agriculture and Key Challenges
    Irrigated agriculture in the West not only provides a $172 billion 
annual boost to our economy, it also provides important habitat for 
western waterfowl and other wildlife, including southwestern pond 
turtle, least bells vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. Its open 
spaces are treasured by citizens throughout the West. Family farmers 
and ranchers are willing to partner with constructive conservation 
groups and government agencies, especially if there are opportunities 
to both help strengthen their businesses and improve the environment.
    Still, many Western producers face significant regulatory and 
policy related challenges, brought on--in part--by federal agency 
implementation of environmental laws and policies. The challenges are 
daunting, and they will require innovative solutions. The Family Farm 
Alliance and the farmers and water management organizations like United 
Water are dedicated to the pragmatic implementation of actions that 
seek to find a balance of environmental protection and sustainable 
water supply. Following the science, good sound engineering and 
historical data are the elements that guarantee constructive working 
relations among farmers and ranchers, water managers, environmental 
groups and regulatory agencies. Collectively, these elements yield 
successful results based on real world working solutions.
    All too often, unfortunately, environmental policy is not driven to 
achieve meaningful results. That is why our organization seeks to 
collaborate with those groups that also seek positive results as an 
objective. The foundation for some true, collaborative solutions will 
be driven from the constructive ``center,'' one that steers away from 
the conflict that can ensue between new regulatory overreach and 
grassroots activism intended to resist any changes to existing 
environmental and natural resource laws, regulations, and policies.
    The Alliance is on record as consistently supporting collaborative, 
coordinated and incentive driven voluntary efforts to implement species 
conservation programs. Included in this approach is the need to 
properly manage and support anadromous fish species.
Support for Voluntary Incentive-Driven Provisions
    The Family Farm Alliance has long advocated a voluntary, incentive-
driven philosophy to advance conservation, and thus we supported the 
bill's provisions to provide financial assistance to interests seeking 
to apply voluntary conservation practices. Unfortunately, we have 
several over-arching concerns about the uncertainties associated with 
the expansive and uncertain nature of the bill. We continue to strongly 
believe that, rather than creating new processes and planning groups to 
tackle pressing marine challenges, existing collaborative programs that 
have proven successful should be given emphasis and perhaps be used as 
templates to duplicate that success elsewhere.

    There are good examples of successful partnerships involving 
farmers and ranchers that benefit West Coast fisheries, to wit:

     The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
            Fisheries Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon calls 
            for public-private partnerships to conserve habitat for the 
            threatened species, positioning coho for possible removal 
            from the federal list of threatened and endangered species 
            within the next 10 years. The plan is voluntary, not 
            regulatory, and hinges on local support and collaboration. 
            The plan promotes a network of partnerships that integrate 
            the needs of Oregon Coast coho with the needs of coastal 
            communities.

     The Yakima River Basin Integrated Plan in Washington State 
            is the result of a collaborative effort on the part of 
            irrigators, environmentalists, local governments, the 
            Yakama Nation, the federal government, and the State of 
            Washington. The plan looks to improving water for farms, 
            fish and the environment in a manner that does not pit one 
            use against another. Anadromous fish runs are already 
            benefiting from this forward-thinking partnership.

     After nearly 12 years of discussions and negotiations, the 
            Deschutes Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was 
            recently announced, which will do a great deal to balance 
            streamflows and better protect four threatened species for 
            the next 30 years. The Deschutes HCP is a large-scale 
            planning effort that will help the City of Prineville, 
            Oregon and the Irrigation District members of the Deschutes 
            Basin Board of Control (DBBC) meet their current and future 
            water needs while enhancing fish and wildlife habitat. 
            Species covered under the HCP include three federally 
            listed species (Oregon spotted frog, bull trout, and 
            steelhead), and one currently unlisted species that have 
            the potential to become listed during the life of the HCP 
            (sockeye salmon).

    Unfortunately, Alliance members like me fear that some sections of 
the ocean's climate bill might discourage further voluntary efforts, 
and would dramatically increase the role of federal agencies on inland 
rivers and adjacent lands, including all uses (agriculture, irrigation, 
ports, etc.).
The Need to Consolidate--and not Complicate--Existing Ocean Management 
        Efforts
    Western watersheds that drain to the Pacific Ocean are home to many 
species of fish, some of which are listed as ``endangered'' or 
``threatened'' under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and fall 
under the responsibility of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Because fish have different 
migration patterns or life histories, there are often duplicative and 
sometimes overlapping actions by each of the agencies under the ESA.
    Several of these species--like the Lost River and Short Nose 
suckers in the Upper Klamath Basin, the Delta Smelt in the Sacramento-
San Joaquin River & San Francisco Bay-Delta, and the bull trout in the 
Upper Snake River--spend their entire lives in freshwater. Other 
anadromous species--such as the southern California steelhead, coho 
salmon in the Lower Klamath River, chinook salmon in California's 
Central Valley, and salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River--spawn 
in freshwater, migrate to the ocean to mature, and return to spawn in 
freshwater. Still other species are polymorphic: an individual O.mykiss 
may live its entire life in freshwater, in which case the fish is a 
rainbow trout, or that fish may ultimately spend part of its life in 
the ocean, in which case it is a steelhead.
    In fact, up and down the West coast--from California's Santa Clara 
Valley Watershed and Central Valley Project, to the Upper Snake River 
Basin in Idaho and the Klamath Irrigation Project in Oregon and 
California--duplicative bureaucracies have generated ESA plans that 
sometimes compete with or even contradict one another.
    For example, based on a number of scientific studies reviewed by 
Stillwater Sciences, it was determined that steelhead are unlikely to 
swim upstream in water with sediment levels greater than 2,000 mg per 
liter. However, in NMFS' direction to United Water, the agency is 
requiring United to provide passage for steelhead on the Santa Clara 
River at flows that would see more than three times that rate, 7,000 mg 
per liter. This is lethal to the steelhead they say they are trying to 
protect.
    NMFS' arbitrary requirement leads us to ask, ``Why are we taking 
the water away from farms and communities when it would provide no 
benefit to the endangered species?''
    The Ocean Based Climate Solutions Act--in our view--provides 
potential to further these types of unfortunate examples, especially in 
the drought stricken Western United States. We should be looking for 
ways to streamline, improve and consolidate federal resource management 
efforts. We need to be sure that new planning groups and programs are 
necessary and do not waste public resources.
Key Concerns
    The Family Farm Alliance certainly sees the need to address the 
ocean impacts of climate change. For far too long, the ocean has been 
left out of conversations about West coast climate and environmental 
solutions. We fully support a robust, but thoughtful response to these 
challenges. The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2021 is a very 
comprehensive bill with a long list of proposals to address climate 
change. While many of the provisions of this bill go beyond our area of 
interest and expertise, there are sections that raise grave concerns as 
they relate to farmers and ranchers operating many miles inland from 
the ocean.
1. Putting the Cart Before the Horse
    We are not sure that the time is ripe for such a massive and 
ambitious bill addressing an issue that may be largely unknown to most 
Americans. For example, Title I proposes the establishment of a Blue 
Carbon Program within NOAA. The intent of this program is to draw on 
the latest science to address potential ocean solutions to accelerate 
progress on climate change. We are not sure what ``blue carbon'' 
actually is, and the bill does not provide a definition of this term, 
although Section 110 defines the term ``blue carbon ecosystem.'' That 
definition--``vegetated coastal habitats including mangroves, tidal 
marshes, seagrasses, kelp forests, and other tidal or salt-water 
wetlands that have the capacity to sequester carbon from the atmosphere 
for a period of not less than 100 years''--raises concerns, since the 
phrase ``have the capacity'' appears to be subjective. We are concerned 
how this term will be interpreted, as described later in this 
testimony.
    It would be helpful to provide additional information about the 
latest science and technology behind the blue carbon initiative. It is 
our understanding that resource managers attempting to promote the 
sequestration of blue carbon rely on best-management practices that 
have historically included protecting and restoring vegetated coastal 
habitats. Only recently are managers beginning to incorporate 
watershed-level approaches, a methodology that appears to be promoted 
in several sections of the ocean-based climate solutions bill.
    In our November 2020 written testimony, we raised concerns about 
ambitious provisions that directed the Secretary of Interior to 
undertake restoration of coastal wetlands on Department lands to halt 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and/or sequester carbon. We were pleased 
to see that the current bill does not include those provisions, which 
we believed ``put the cart before the horse'' and seemed to be 
premature.
    However, we hold fast to our belief that Congress should instead 
work to further ``raise awareness of blue carbon ecosystems as a tool 
to further conservation objectives through education and extension 
activities'', something that would be addressed as part of the 
strategic plan proposed in Section 101. Similarly, Section 1001 directs 
study examining the social and economic vulnerability to ocean 
acidification of coastal resource-dependent communities, including 
identifying critical knowledge gaps potential adaptation strategies. 
These are the sort of actions that should be conducted first, before 
the government moves forward with a new federal program that will cost 
approximately $4.8 billion in the first year alone.
    Given the relative unknown nature of blue carbon ecosystems to the 
general public and to policymakers, we would respectfully observe that 
a careful, thoughtful, and incremental approach be taken first.
    Also, the bill should be further examined to see if other 
legislative vehicles might be used to carry certain provisions. For 
example, Title VII, Section 821 establishes a grants program within the 
Department of the Interior to improve the resilience of Indian Tribes 
to the effects of climate change. We have strong relationships with 
many Western tribal groups, and we were happy to work with your 
committee in the last Congress to support important Indian water rights 
settlement legislation. However, it is difficult for us to see the 
nexus between a $1 billion tribal resilience package and ocean climate 
legislation. This section, as well as Title IX, Section 904--which 
authorizes $10 billion for fiscal year 2022 to support shovel-ready 
coastal restoration projects to help stimulate the economy and provide 
jobs for workers affected by COVID-19--would appear to be better 
advanced in a COVID-19 stimulus package.
2. Representation Concerns
    Traditionally, land use is a local and regional responsibility. The 
Family Farm Alliance strongly advocates that the best decisions in 
resources management are made at the local level. Section 101 calls for 
the above-referenced strategic plan to be developed in collaboration 
with Federal agencies, the interagency working group, State agencies, 
Tribes, and non-governmental organizations on research, restoration, 
and protection efforts relating to blue carbon ecosystems. The 
experience of Family Farm Alliance members has helped mold our 
philosophy that the best knowledge and solutions related to natural 
resources issues comes from those who work at the local level. The 
proposed collaborative effort should also include local government 
representatives like counties and cities, who can appoint other local 
experts like biologists, commercial fishermen, and other producers to 
provide a better level of ``ground-truthing'' to those unfamiliar with 
particular locales.
    Section 106 establishes an interagency working group consisting of 
federal department and agency representatives. Even though this working 
group includes numerous representatives already, we recommend also 
including the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 
since major federal water projects are located in all of the major 
watershed draining to the Pacific Ocean, and ``dams'', ``dikes'' and 
``levees''--common features to Reclamation projects--are clearly 
targeted for investigation in other sections of this bill.
3. Clarity and Practicality
    The proposed strategic plan contains elements that appear to be 
vague, subjective, and/or unrealistic. For example, the plan proposes 
to study measures that ``protect and restore habitats, waters, and 
organisms that are long-term carbon sinks or will be subject to habitat 
change as a result of climate change and development.'' Presumably, 
climate change will impact the entire globe, which theoretically will 
impart some degree of change on habitat everywhere. A study of this 
scope would appear to be a near-impossible task to achieve. Similarly, 
it will be a technically challenging and expensive task to quantify 
``co-benefits,'' including ``flood risk reduction, habitat restoration 
for endangered and threatened species, maintenance of biodiversity,\1\ 
water quality improvements, habitat maintenance and creation, cycling 
of nutrients other than carbon, commercial and recreational fishing and 
boating benefits.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Speaking of biodiversity, while this term appears 14 times in 
the bill, it is defined nowhere. The Convention on Biological Diversity 
defines biological diversity or biodiversity as ``the variability among 
living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, 
marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of 
which they are part: this includes diversity within species, between 
species and of ecosystems (United Nations).'' This widely accepted 
definition has been criticized by many for being too vague and in need 
of clarification. While most ecologists downplay this vagueness, there 
are at least three concerns regarding its actual application: 1) it can 
impair the coordination of conservation actions; 2) hide the need to 
improve management knowledge; and 3) cover up incompatibilities between 
disciplinary assumptions. We recommend that this term be removed, or 
defined in a manner that resolves these three concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 701 addresses conservation of marine mammals adversely 
affected by climate change by amending the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
to develop climate impact management plans for marine mammals that are 
highly threatened by climate change. These management plans must 
include strategies for mitigating the direct and indirect effects of 
climate change on the marine mammal population and encouraged to be 
integrated into Marine Mammal Protection Act conservation plans or ESA 
recovery plans.
    Again, this section is vague, and we believe could create 
opportunities for litigious challenges to inland irrigated agriculture. 
For example, the bill proposes that a list of marine mammal species and 
population stocks in U.S. waters will be developed, for which climate 
change, ``alone or in combination or interaction with other factors,'' 
has ``more than a remote possibility'' of resulting in a decline in 
population abundance, of impeding abundance or population recovery, or 
of reducing carrying capacity. That list shall include any species or 
population stock listed under the ESA, and any other species or 
population stocks, for which impacts have ``more than a remote 
possibility of occurring within 100 years'' (emphasis added).
    This criteria does not appear to carry any sense of priority. In 
simpler prose, it might as well say, ``Add all marine species to the 
list.'' A task of this magnitude will surely affect already budget 
strapped agencies that interact closely with Western agricultural 
irrigators, including the Departments of Commerce and the Interior, 
NOAA, and USFWS.
    We truly question the need to create new processes and planning 
groups to tackle pressing fisheries and marine mammal issues. Instead, 
existing collaborative programs that have proven successful should be 
given emphasis and perhaps be used as templates to duplicate that 
success elsewhere.
4. Environmental Litigation in the West
    Before discussing other concerns with this bill, it would be useful 
to set the stage and provide some background that drives our 
perspective. The federal government's significant presence in the West 
already presents unique challenges for Alliance members. This is 
particularly true with respect to the reach of federal environmental 
laws. Consider implementation of the ESA, which impacts the management 
of land and water throughout the West. For example, federal water 
supplies that were originally developed by Reclamation primarily to 
support new irrigation projects have, in recent years, been targeted 
and reallocated to other uses. The result is that these once-certain 
water supplies have now been added to the long list of existing 
``uncertainties.''
    Given the nature of water storage and delivery, Alliance members 
are often directly impacted by the implementation of federal 
environmental laws like the ESA. The ESA has at times been interpreted 
to empower federal agencies to take action intended to protect listed 
species without consideration of the societal costs of such action, 
even when it is not clear that the action taken will actually yield 
conservation benefits for the particular species. And the ESA and other 
environmental laws have many times been used to reallocate and diminish 
water supplies traditionally developed for irrigated agriculture in 
litigation by groups known for their litigious focus and not on helping 
species in trouble through collaboration.
    We emphasize here that not all conservation non-governmental 
organizations (NGOs) should be lumped into the same category as these 
activist groups that rely on litigation to drive their agenda.
    The Alliance has worked hard to create the Western Agriculture and 
Conservation Coalition, a collaborative effort with the goal of finding 
ways to improve the environment, protect Western irrigated agriculture, 
and keep farmers and ranchers in business. Other members of our 
Coalition include The Nature Conservancy, Farmers Conservation 
Alliance, California Farm Bureau Federation, Environmental Defense, 
Wyoming Stockgrowers, Trout Unlimited, Public Lands Council, and the 
California Agricultural Irrigation Association, to name a few.
5. Potential Risks to Inland Producers
    We developed the above background section to explain why we have 
concerns that certain programs proposed by this bill will generate 
further risk and uncertainty to farmers and ranchers who rely upon 
federal water projects in areas like the Columbia River, Klamath River, 
and Sacramento-San Joaquin watershed on the West coast. Parts of the 
bill include vague and undefined objectives, goals, and policies. We 
know from experience that these types of provisions can be used by 
critics of irrigated agriculture as the basis for negative media or 
lawsuits to stop or delay federally permitted activities.
    I have a specific example that illustrates this concern. Since the 
late 1800s, documentation from Fish and Game biologists and regulatory 
agencies have stated that the Piru Creek watershed in Ventura and Los 
Angeles Counties is not conducive to steelhead. In fact, there has 
never been documentation of steelhead in that watershed. The Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) submitted a Biological Assessment 
that supports this assertion. However, despite historical data, 
consistently dry conditions, natural migration barriers and assessments 
of the region, NMFS' Biological Opinion reaches different conclusions. 
It attests not only to the possibility of a steelhead resource, it also 
requires the construction of a very expensive fish passage structure 
and, since 2010, continuous water releases from United's infrastructure 
into lower Piru Creek, deemed critical habitat by NMFS, for fish that 
have never been seen there.
    Elsewhere, during the last drought NMFS determined that Central 
Valley salmon populations would go extinct unless government agencies 
change their water operations in California. In a draft biological 
opinion, NMFS concluded that the southern resident population of killer 
whales might go extinct because its primary food source--salmon--is 
imperiled by California's network of dams and canals. Similar linkages 
between these orcas and potato farmers (located hundreds of miles from 
the Pacific Ocean) were contemplated as a biological opinion was being 
drafted by NMFS for the Klamath Irrigation Project, located in the high 
desert of southern Oregon. Farmers in the Columbia Basin, east of the 
Cascades, fear that linkages made by some between Puget Sound orcas and 
dams located hundreds of miles away on the Snake River will be used to 
someday remove those dams.
    The bill opens the possibility of further emphasizing such 
questionable relationships. Further, it sets up new processes where 
requested federal permits would be subject to additional consultation 
processes prior to any formal consideration.
    For example, Section 102 calls for the development of a national 
map of coastal blue carbon ecosystems and a description of these 
ecosystem conditions. Among many things, one of the required 
descriptions is ``any upstream restrictions detrimental to the 
watershed process and conditions, including dams, dikes, and levees.'' 
Lumping in these features as ``detrimental'' is overly broad, 
inaccurate, and establishes a bias before the descriptions are even 
developed. Identifying ``any'' upstream pollution sources that threaten 
the health of each ecosystem also appears to be subjective and 
unrealistic. For example, in the Columbia River estuary, how far 
upstream would such an analysis extend? Canada?
    Sec. 103 requires a report that includes an assessment of ``Federal 
agency actions that have historically caused and presently cause great 
adverse effects on such ecosystems.'' As described previously, ``blue 
carbon ecosystems'' are defined as areas that ``have the capacity to 
sequester carbon from the atmosphere for a period of not less than 100 
years.'' This type of open-ended definition could lead to the 
designation of large areas of blue carbon ecosystems up and down the 
Pacific coast. This would provide critics of Reclamation and federal 
water projects with a new means of linking alleged environmental damage 
to federal actions undertaken hundreds of miles inland.
    Section 107 directs the Administrator of NOAA to develop criteria 
for and designate ``coastal carbon areas of significance'' (CCAS) and 
ensure conservation of CCAS using Department of Commerce programs and 
resources. This section of the bill raises many concerns. First, the 
criteria are vague. For example, one criterion says that CCAS should 
provide for ``long-term storage and sequestration of significant 
amounts of ecosystem carbon.'' ``Long-term'' and ``significant 
amounts'' are not defined and appear to be subjective. A larger concern 
is the new requirement that federal agencies proposing actions that may 
harm CCAS are required to notify NOAA, which would consult with the 
action agency to assess ``adverse impacts.'' The action agency is 
prohibited from taking the proposed action if an alternative exists 
that fulfills the purpose of the proposed action without harming CCAS. 
If no feasible alternative exists, the action agency is to take 
measures to mitigate the impact and to create carbon storage offsets 
for unavoidable impact.
    Section 308 addresses essential fish habitat (EFH) and requires new 
consultation and mitigation process for any activity that would have an 
adverse effect on EFH. In our November 2020 testimony, we noted that a 
spokesperson with the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association had expressed 
concerns that this bill would ``fundamentally undermine'' the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and particularly the existing regional council system. Our 
concerns with this section are similar to those previously expressed 
for the CCAS. Significant changes are made to the current EFH 
consultation process. It would replace the current consultation 
requirement between the Secretary of Commerce and another federal 
agency and replace it with a requirement that if any action by a 
federal agency may have an adverse effect on EFH, that agency would be 
required, through consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, to avoid 
the adverse effects. To the extent that adverse effects could not be 
avoided, the agency would be required to ``minimize and mitigate'' the 
adverse effect based on the recommendations of the Secretary of 
Commerce.
    On the West Coast, many of our members' federal water supplies are 
impacted by federal management decisions associated with salmon. The 
2014 Pacific Council's Salmon Fishery Plan includes specific types or 
areas of habitat within EFH based on several considerations. Because 
other areas of the bill underscore the ``detrimental'' aspects of dams 
and other federal water resources infrastructure to these ecosystems, 
this section provides a whole new set of tools for litigious critics of 
Western irrigated agriculture and federal infrastructure to use in the 
courtroom.
    We were pleased to see that troubling language \2\ in the earlier 
legislation has been removed. However, we reassert our concern that the 
entire bill be reevaluated to ensure that standards for scientific and 
commercial data that are used to make decisions are established. 
Relatively greater weight should be given to data that have been field-
tested or peer-reviewed. The former requirement would help clarify when 
such things as ``personal observations'' or mere folklore are 
considered by the agencies to be reliable enough to make decisions with 
potentially profound effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Section 121(D): ``. . . the lack of quantitative information 
shall not be a basis for a determination that a species or population 
stock is not adversely impacted by climate change, along or in 
combination or interaction with other factors.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In summary, the federal consultation requirements associated with 
the proposed CCAS, the vague terminology, and deemphasis on 
quantification provisions--however well intended they may be--represent 
yet another layer of red tape and uncertainty to Western irrigators 
working in watersheds that drain to the Pacific Ocean.
Conclusion
    American family farmers and ranchers for generations have grown 
food and fiber for the world, but we will have to muster even more 
innovation to continue to meet this critical challenge. That innovation 
must be encouraged by our government rather than stifled with new 
federal regulations and uncertainty over water supplies for irrigated 
farms and ranches in the rural West.
    We appreciate that Chairman Grijalva has made some encouraging 
changes that are reflected in the current bill. This is clearly major 
legislation with lofty goals, but in our view, there is plenty of room 
for additional improvement. There are some provisions we can support; 
but there are many which would benefit from additional scrutiny. We 
urge Congress to consider farmers, ranchers and water managers like me 
not as obstacles, but as partners in developing thoughtful climate 
policies, including ocean policies based on sound science. We hope you 
will consider these comments and those from other producer 
organizations as you further refine this legislation.
    We remain committed to working with your Committee and the Congress 
to share our concerns and perspectives. Thank you for this opportunity 
to present this testimony to you today.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much.
    We will now bring this back to the Members for their 
questions. I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes, 
and I would like to begin with Ms. Graudins.
    My colleague, Garret Graves, made the very valid point that 
the climate crisis is a global problem and that we should be 
looking for solutions and emission reductions all over the 
world. And he brought up the large emissions in China as 
something that call out for our attention. I don't disagree 
with that, but I think we should do all of it.
    And the interesting thing about the blue carbon solutions 
we have been discussing today is that in some ways for the 
local communities that are affected by blue carbon protection 
and restoration, there are layers of benefits potentially that 
might make this an even more attractive climate solution. Could 
you speak a little bit about the co-benefits that might inure 
to local communities from pursuing these projects?
    Ms. Gutierrez-Graudins. Thank you for the question. Yes, I 
think it is important that given that this is a global problem, 
we look at all the solutions as somebody had spoken about all 
the tools in the tool kit. We can talk about, as Dr. Johnson 
spoke about, what some of these areas that are the best for 
conservation for blue carbon offer in terms of protection to 
climate change and sea level rise. I think that we can talk 
about how that relates to local economy, whether people are 
interested in coming to experience these areas. Other than 
that, I would probably have to refer to someone with a little 
bit more direct experience to that.
    Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that.
    I will turn to Dr. Johnson next and certainly invite her 
thoughts on this, but I also want to ask about fishery 
disasters. This is something that in California and in my 
district, I have come to know all too well. We have seen the 
frequency of fishery disasters increasing because of algae 
blooms.
    Other large-scale ecosystem changes that we are seeing 
include the collapse of kelp forests all along the north coast, 
the loss of bull kelp due in part to ocean heat waves, and we 
have lost our red abalone and the red urchin fishery as well.
    How does this legislation we are talking about today ensure 
that our fisheries, fishing and coastal communities and 
managers, are prepared to adapt and respond to these events? 
And also, ultimately rather than just providing relief for the 
disasters, how do you think this legislation helps tackle the 
biggest climate drivers that are causing these disasters in the 
first place?
    Dr. Johnson. So, the No. 1 driver of our climate disaster 
is greenhouse gas emissions. The elements of the Ocean-Based 
Climate Solutions Act that rein in those emissions, including 
dramatically restricting drilling offshore and including 
protecting and restoring coastal ecosystems, which Ms. 
Gutierrez-Graudins and I both mentioned, can absorb up to four 
times what a forest on land can in its soils.
    Those kinds of ocean-based climate solutions can be a 
significant part of our national and global solutions and our 
contribution to meet our responsibility to the global 
community, because the United States is the largest historical 
emitter of greenhouse gases.
    So, even though China is the No. 1 emitter at this moment, 
we do have this overall responsibility for our contribution to 
the problem.
    And the specifics that you mentioned I think are really 
important because when we think about the effects of a warming 
and acidifying ocean, the ocean has absorbed over 90 percent of 
the heat that we have trapped by burning fossil fuels and 
emitting greenhouse gases.
    And, obviously, that has led the ocean to warm 
dramatically. And if the ocean hadn't absorbed all that heat, 
the atmosphere would be something like many dozens of degrees 
hotter than it currently is.
    The ocean has also absorbed around 30 percent of the carbon 
dioxide we have emitted which has led to ocean acidification. 
And all of these marine species, just like species on land, 
have a fairly narrow range of comfort zone when it comes to 
temperature. So, when waters warm by a few degrees, fish start 
fleeing for the poles. Things which can't move like coral 
reefs, like kelp forests, are really damaged where they are. 
And that heat can exacerbate other things like the spread of 
disease in the ocean, et cetera.
    So, it is important to think of all of these things 
holistically at an ecosystem level and think about what we do 
have the control and opportunity to manage.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Doctor.
    I see that Chair Grijalva has returned. I will pass the 
virtual gavel back to him and yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Let me now recognize Representative Bentz for his 
questions. Sir, you are recognized.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Guardado, do you think the Bureau of Reclamation should 
be included in the blue carbon interagency working group?
    Mr. Guardado. I have a lot of respect for the Bureau. This 
is in their wheelhouse when you are talking about 
infrastructure and supply. So, I think, any level of their 
involvement would only assist in the right direction. Yes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. And I think that is what we kind of 
heard from the Assistant Director. You also shared your concern 
regarding some of the definitions used in H.R. 3764, 
particularly, the definition of blue carbon ecosystem, and you 
highlighted the phrase ``have the capacity'' to be such an 
ecosystem, and you noted that that is open to interpretation. 
Can you share more why this definition is of particular concern 
to you?
    Mr. Guardado. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. It is the open-
ended language. Rather than being assistive in the process, it 
becomes weaponized. We have been experiencing, trying to figure 
out what to the maximum extent practicable even means. The 
language of ``more than remote possibility and other purposes'' 
I don't think is going to help us get to balanced solutions.
    Giving the NOAA more flexibility, more jurisdiction, and 
more authority to keep those things open-ended just creates 
litigation. We don't get anywhere. It creates delays. And when 
there are delays, we spend a lot of money in litigative 
circumstances. So, our main concern is to dial back in to more 
specifics and not keep these languages open-ended.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. Before I ask you my last question, I 
just wanted to thank you for your excellent testimony. A lot of 
work went into it, and I really appreciate the effort.
    Now to the question. You testified that NOAA is imposing 
fish restoration measures on your water district that are not 
workable. Those requirements are related to the Endangered 
Species Act. This bill doesn't directly impact the Agency's ESA 
responsibilities and instead is focused on other activities 
related to fish restoration. Based on your experience, what 
causes you concern about giving NOAA more responsibilities 
under this legislation?
    Mr. Guardado. Yes. More concern over greater authorities 
because, frankly, in our neck of the woods in the West, NOAA 
has not been transparent or forthcoming. For example, when 
steelhead went on the endangered species list in 1997, to date, 
we have a facility that over this span of time, we have only 
observed 12 steelhead, and 1 of those 12 steelhead have died in 
our facility. Fish and Wildlife was present, and they deemed 
that fish a hatchery fish, not a natural fish, because it had a 
disease on its face that was common to hatcheries. Our staff 
clipped the fins. Soon thereafter, NOAA confiscated those fins, 
confiscated the fish. To date, we still have not received the 
genetic results because that is what we were going to try to 
figure out despite several Freedom of Information Acts. So, as 
a result, we have a jeopardy biological opinion.
    If NMFS has it their way, and NOAA, we will be putting in a 
$200 million hard ramp in the middle of the river, a new fish 
passage when we already have an existing one with evidence 
through our videos that fish do pass. But 12 fish since 1997, 
only 1 dying in our facility that is speculative, their open-
ended authority, their vast jurisdiction and over-reaching 
regulation is causing a tremendous strain on our rate payers 
that are going to have to bear the cost of a $200 million fish 
passage structure when one already exists.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you so much.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
    Let me recognize our colleague, Representative Lowenthal 
for his questions. Sir, you are recognized.
    Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is good to see you 
back again, and I also want to thank Representative Huffman for 
his outstanding leadership in your absence.
    My questions go to Senator Lee and Dr. Elizabeth Johnson. 
In both of your testimonies, you highlighted the impacts of 
plastics on the marine environment. This is a critical issue 
for me which is why I introduced the Break Free From Plastic 
Pollution Act, a bill that would implement and extend the 
producer responsibility program, a national bottle deposit 
program, minimum recycled content standards, bans the export of 
unrecycleable plastic waste, and so much more. The bill seeks 
to shift the burden of plastic pollution and waste away from 
the taxpayers and on to the producers. This bill will reduce 
plastic waste, create a circular economy, and protect the 
environmental justice communities from the production of these 
products.
    My first question is to Dr. Johnson. Can you explain how 
policies addressing extended producer responsibility can help 
address the issue of plastics entering the environment and our 
oceans?
    Dr. Johnson. Thank you for this question. I will admit this 
is not a core area of my expertise, but I think it is important 
to recognize just at the broadest picture that the vast 
majority of plastics are made from fossil fuels and that as the 
demand for gasoline, et cetera, declines because we start to 
transition to renewable energies, we have a situation where 
there is this increase in the construction of facilities to 
produce plastics as an alternative use for that which results 
in the siting of those often in lower income communities or 
communities of color as you mentioned and the resulting 
detrimental effects on air quality and, therefore, public 
health.
    And, right now, what we have is companies that are creating 
all this single use plastic, and citizens and taxpayers are 
bearing the brunt of the costs of the disposal and recycling 
and cleanup of all that waste. And the United States is the 
largest contributor to ocean plastic pollution of any nation, 
so we definitely have a responsibility to get that right.
    And if companies were responsible for the products they 
created for the full life cycle of those products, that would 
certainly make a difference, incentivize greater recycling, 
reduce the creation of virgin plastics, increase the value of 
plastics, frankly, so that people saw it as a resource and not 
something to use a single time and throw away.
    Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. For someone who started off by 
saying you don't know very much about it, you gave a 
comprehensive and complete answer. Thank you very much.
    Senator Lee, can you elaborate on what Dr. Johnson said, 
why it is important to shift the cost burden to cleaning up 
plastic pollution away from taxpayers and on to the producers?
    Mr. Lee. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I think 
it is just, first, an issue of fairness. We ought to have a 
system in which people aren't going to be saddled with cost 
even though they do their part to avoid throwing something in a 
river that ends up in the ocean or on a beach.
    Where I come from, every beach in Hawaii is littered with 
plastic. The No. 1 and No. 2 beaches regularly ranked around 
the country, Kailua and Lani Kai, you put your hand in the sand 
and you come out with sand and tons of microplastic.
    On a beach just up the highway, there is a beach we have 
thousands of pounds of plastic and other marine debris we are 
regularly collecting. This is what has to be dealt with. We 
can't not pay to clean this up because it affects our economy, 
it affects our way of life, and it ends up in our storm drains 
clogging things up, and our state and county governments end up 
footing the bill, which goes on to taxpayers.
    Mr. Lowenthal. Yes.
    Mr. Lee. But there is opportunity. It can create new jobs.
    Mr. Lowenthal. I want to follow up on that--why then, if 
the taxpayers are paying for it, state and local governments 
are paying for it, they don't have the resources to do it, they 
finally end up with these large beach cleanups, with lots of 
volunteers, which just deals with literally the surface, why 
have we let the producers get away with this for so long? They 
don't pay anything.
    Mr. Lee. I think that is where it comes down to our 
obligation to our taxpayers to make sure that we act in their 
interest. We set up policies and regimes that make sure that 
their voices are accounted for so they are not the ones that 
are going to be unfairly saddled with this, raising their cost 
of living. We have the opportunity to do that as elected 
leaders, and I think that is an obligation that I feel, and it 
sounds like, I think, that is part of the discussion here 
today.
    Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you so much.
    With that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
    The Chair recognizes Representative Gohmert for his 5 
minutes. Sir, you are recognized.
    Let me recognize Mr. Stauber. Sir, you are recognized for 5 
minutes. When Mr. Gohmert gets online, he will be recognized as 
well.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Gutierrez-Graudins, thank you for joining us today. In 
your testimony, you applaud this Blue New Deal legislation 
toward the goal of reducing greenhouse gas use. As you may be 
aware, 80 percent of America's steel originates as taconite in 
my district. Miners harvest the iron ore, and it then gets 
shipped from ports in my district across Saint Lawrence Seaway 
through the Soo Locks and to steelmaking facilities across the 
rest of the Midwest.
    The steelmaking process in the United States is the 
cleanest in the world. The so-called Ocean-Based Climate 
Solutions Act levees incredible burdensome reporting 
requirements on those that use our waters for transportation. 
In fact, every vessel, over 5,000-gross tons in the bill, would 
be forced to comply with standards set by the European Union.
    The Mesabi Miner, a Great Lakes iron ore carrier, has a 
carrying capacity of 63,300-gross tons alone. This will 
undoubtedly hamper our clean domestic steelmaking and instead 
empower our rivals to produce more steel, hurting the miners in 
my district and steelworkers nationwide while ironically 
creating more greenhouse gas emissions globally.
    Do you agree or disagree that moving America to further 
rely on foreign steel, as this is what the Blue New Deal would 
inevitably accomplish, leads to an increase in greenhouse gas 
emissions?
    Ms. Gutierrez-Graudins. Thank you for the question. I will 
have to say, this is news to me. I am not very familiar with 
the steel production or the fact that, as you mentioned, the 
U.S. steel is the cleanest steel in the world. I would welcome 
some more information on that.
    I really don't think there is--I don't see that connection 
personally. I think this is obviously something that can be 
discussed. Do I support broad climate action, yes, I would 
welcome more information on the steel specifically and how you 
make that connection.
    Mr. Stauber. With your regulation and pushing of this piece 
of legislation, you weren't aware that the Great Lakes ships 
iron ore that makes 80 percent of the steel in our Nation, 
knowing full well that the European Union would set the 
standards? Did you not know that?
    Ms. Gutierrez-Graudins. I did not know that it was 
specifically your district, and I should qualify, the cleanest 
steel in the world, that is something I will admit I did not 
know, so I welcome more information on that.
    I understand that we talked about advancing the reporting 
requirements of vessels. I don't know if that is what you are 
referring to. Yes, we do need to know what the emissions are, 
and I think that is the first step in terms of taking action, 
but, frankly, I welcome more information specifically as it 
relates to your district.
    Mr. Stauber. Ma'am, I would give you as much information as 
you want with respect to the union workers of my district that 
mine the iron ore and have been for 135 years, and we do it 
best, and we make 80 percent of the steel. And we are on the 
verge of getting into critical minerals, which is going to help 
us in our alternative sources of energy.
    So, continuing on, this Blue New Deal would regulate any 
``upstream structure.'' The Mississippi River begins in 
Minnesota's 8th Congressional District and ends in the Gulf of 
Mexico; therefore, my district is part of this broad ecosystem 
map. Will this bill require NOAA to list a Federal dam system 
of the Mississippi River in Leech Lake, Lake Winnibigoshish, or 
Pokegama Lake as part of this map?
    Ms. Gutierrez-Graudins. I think we are going to have to 
submit more information to you in writing, if that is OK. As I 
understand it, what is it exactly that you are referring--maybe 
I am not understanding your question. What is it exactly you 
are referring to in the Blue New Deal?
    It would not actually regulate upstream structures, just 
map them. I think this is a point that Chair Grijalva made 
before specifically to that. So, maybe if you explain it 
specifically as it relates to Blue New Deal; otherwise, we 
would probably have to give you more information in writing.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. Last question, so you are saying that this 
legislation will not regulate any upstream?
    Ms. Gutierrez-Graudins. Correct. This is exactly what the 
Chair just said, said that it doesn't compel them.
    Mr. Stauber. No, I know.
    Ms. Gutierrez-Graudins. It just maps them.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. Thank you very much for your time, and we 
will have to get back with you for additional answers.
    Back to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
    The Chair recognizes Representative McEachin.
    Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, as always, 
thank you for your continued leadership on this issue as well 
as so many others.
    Today's conversation is both critical and timely. As we all 
know, our oceans play a significant role, arguably the most 
significant role in combating and addressing our climate 
crisis.
    According to the United Nations, our oceans are the single 
largest contributor of our planet's oxygen and are the main 
source for food for over 1 billion people worldwide. Most of 
the world's biodiversity lives within our oceans, as well as 40 
million individuals globally rely on ocean-based industries for 
employment.
    To put it simply, we cannot leave a healthy and sustainable 
planet for our children and grandchildren without ensuring the 
protection and preservation of our oceans. As such, we must 
enact bold, transformative policy, such as the Ocean-Based 
Climate Solutions Act, that will protect our ocean's coastal 
communities and rich wildlife.
    Dr. Johnson, in your testimony, you speak about how ocean 
conservation is intimately linked with the well-being of 
communities of color and low-income communities. As you know, 
the communities of color make up nearly half the U.S. coastal 
population. Consequently, many of these individuals are at risk 
of sea-level rise, environmental degradation caused by offshore 
drilling, and more.
    The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act aims to promote 
justice and equitable climate change mitigation by prioritizing 
benefits for frontline and fence-line communities. These 
policies include prioritizing resilience projects in at-risk 
communities and improving and expanding coastal access points 
for environmental justice communities.
    Doctor, can you speak to the important role that ocean 
conservation plays in protecting environmental justice 
communities, and how would these policies set out in the Ocean-
Based Climate Solutions Act protect frontline and fence-line 
communities?
    Dr. Johnson. Thank you, Congressman, for this question and 
also for all of your work co-sponsoring the Environmental 
Justice for All Act, which I see as very much related to this 
ocean-based climate solutions work.
    And I guess, I would say, I hope there are no fence-line 
communities in the ocean. Once we start building fences in the 
ocean, we have really lost to the plot. But I think, obviously, 
when it comes to coastal communities that are at risk because 
of climate change, we are talking about sea-level rise. We are 
talking about stronger and wetter storms. We are talking about 
heat waves combined with that. We are talking about flooding.
    We know that, for example, in New York, where I am from and 
where I live, low-income housing, public housing is often built 
in flood zones, so that when things like Superstorm Sandy hit, 
it is low-income communities and communities of color, who are 
hit the hardest, and that is certainly not something that is 
specific to New York City.
    This also makes me think of the need to address managed 
retreat, which is something that is included in this bill. 
Because of sea-level rise, some people, some communities are 
going to have to move out of harm's way because certain places 
will no longer be safe, inhabitable, and making sure that we 
set up that transition in a way that takes care of everybody, 
people who did not have very much of a hand in causing the 
climate crisis, who are now displaced because of it.
    We are at a stage where we will have climate refugees more 
and more within the United States, and that is certainly a 
justice issue, among other things. We notice the same thing 
also, as you mentioned, with access to coast lines, which is 
something that I know Ms. Gutierrez-Graudins works on, as well 
as just access to healthy seafood and clean water for 
recreation.
    So, certainly, when it comes to the ocean, environmental 
justice doesn't stop at the shore, and it is really important 
to consider the implications of how we implement various ocean 
climate solutions.
    Mr. McEachin. It is interesting that you say that. I just 
literally, while I was waiting for my turn to speak to this 
panel, received a report about a portion of my district where 
the refugees, as you pointed out, are just baked in. It is just 
a matter of how many refugees I am going to have, not if. If we 
do certain things, we can hold the number down; if we don't do 
anything, the numbers become staggering.
    Quickly though, in your testimony, you also spoke about the 
Ocean Justice Forum that you and others are convening to ensure 
the justice is infused into our Nation's ocean climate 
policies. Can you elaborate further, and how can Congress be 
helpful in uplifting and championing this work? Oh, and by the 
way, don't forget to thank the Chair for the Environmental 
Justice Act. I am just Robin, he is Batman.
    Dr. Johnson. I love a dynamic duo situation. Very quickly, 
the Ocean Justice Forum is a collaboration with Azul, Ms. 
Gutierrez-Graudins' organization, with the Gulf Coast Center 
for Law and Policy, as well as the Center for American Progress 
to bring together a few dozen ocean conservation groups to come 
up with a Federal policy agenda that will make sure justice is 
at the heart of our ocean climate policy.
    Thank you for asking what you might be able to do, and I 
think having the Committee welcome our suggestions and perhaps 
a hearing specifically on the intersection of ocean justice and 
climate and ocean policy could be a very important way to 
continue this discussion and make sure that we are developing 
and implementing policies that meet the mark.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you. And thank you for all your hard 
work in this area.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McEachin. The gentleman 
yields.
    I recognize Representative Moore. Sir, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman and everyone, for being here 
today.
    Mr. Guardado, I have a few questions. I appreciate your 
comments, and I would like to ask you a couple questions, just 
following up on your testimony. You and I both know that 
farmers rely on the health of our lands for their livelihoods. 
Can you highlight a few ways that farmers work to contain 
seepage or pollution in particular?
    Mr. Guardado. Well, you know, in our neck of the woods too, 
farmers and ranchers, they are some of the most innovative 
folks around. Many of them have had and owned family-owned land 
for over 100 years, so they have had to adjust and adapt to 
changing circumstances.
    They have been able nowadays to leverage technology to 
become some of the highest water efficiency irrigators 
anywhere. When you become self-contained like that, that is 
going to help any tributary runoffs. That is going to be self-
contained. It is going to be more efficient. And that all comes 
down to, I think, more of just a local control, local 
application.
    We have several examples where working with the governor's 
water resilience portfolio, that if you get the right people in 
the right room from a diverse set of groups, over 200 in this 
case, and we had large objectives that we had to meet, but we 
got together. We were able to develop action items, and we are 
moving through those right now as we speak. So, having that 
local control, that local application, nobody knows the 
landscape better than those who have been around for a while.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I am going to pull it up to the 30,000-foot 
view quickly. And just to build on what you are saying, like I 
have not been involved in many land issues before running for 
office. I had to dig in deep during the campaign to understand 
a lot of the public land issues.
    And Utah is a state that two-thirds of it is owned by the 
Federal Government. And that was the key thing that I learned, 
that the people that own the land, the people that are there 
sincerely are the best stewards, and this cuts through all 
political lines. I have met with people from all over the 
political spectrum on this and their willingness and their 
desire to be a good steward of the land. I think you have a lot 
of good examples of that in Utah.
    I have a bunch listed here. We may not get to them as I 
continue on some of this questioning, but just to hit that that 
has been my biggest takeaway, getting on to Natural Resources 
Committee, which I was thrilled to do. It is such an important 
Committee for Utah. But just in general, the ability for them 
to be able to make these decisions, and our country is vastly 
different. I have had three rainstorms just this week in DC, 
and we haven't had any in Utah, right. The range of challenges 
that exist are so important for that.
    Let me bring up voluntary conservation programs. They are 
critically important mechanisms through which we can manage and 
protect our lands. Do you agree, and if so, would you please 
expound on why these programs are such effective tools for land 
managers?
    Mr. Guardado. Well, sure, voluntary conservation measures 
are a direct result because these landowners are invested. They 
have been around a long time. They are invested in balanced 
solutions. Everybody wants to succeed. The difference is, when 
you provide the science, you provide the data, you provide the 
engineering, the monitoring that moves toward that balanced 
solution, the key element is it being considered.
    And when you just can dismiss it, with some of my 
testimonies I mentioned before with this kind of just arbitrary 
conditions, it makes it that much more difficult to get through 
those conservation measures. And that is why I think, again, 
this bill certainly has merit, but when you have this open-
ended, arbitrary-type language and statements, it prevents 
those landowners from actually executing some really solid 
balance-based solutions that carry forward for decades to come.
    Mr. Moore. In addition to addressing that language, is 
there anything else we can do off the top of your head to 
improve some of these conservation efforts, these volunteer 
conservation efforts?
    Mr. Guardado. To just get the right people in the room. I 
think if we had like almost a third-party arbitrator that can 
review the science to hold people accountable, I think it 
becomes very apparent, very focused on what should be done to 
take care of a lot of these issues. There is low-hanging fruit 
there. There are solutions out there. We just have to move past 
the personal agendas that I think some of the regulatory 
agencies have.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you. I recently had a meeting with a group 
in Summit and Weber County in Ogden Valley that is doing just 
this, and it is all volunteer, and they are active and they are 
engaged, and I appreciate it. So, thank you so much.
    My time is up, and I will yield back. Thanks, Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
    Representative Soto, sir, you are recognized.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you so much, Chairman.
    There is a place called the Indian River Lagoon as well as 
the Saint Johns River, estuaries and rivers on the East Coast 
of Florida, right near our district, and we have seen huge 
development over the years, as well as an increase in nutrient 
output combined with warming seas. And what happened? The 
seagrass that the Florida manatee rely on has been 
disappearing, exacerbated by climate change.
    It would be great to hear from you, Dr. Johnson. We have 
seen this unusual mortality event among Florida manatees. Can 
you explain to us how you think climate change and some of 
these other issues are affecting these large sea mammals?
    Dr. Johnson. Thank you for the question. I will admit, this 
is certainly not my area of expertise, but I think the way that 
you described it is really important, pointing out that there 
are multiple factors contributing to the negative impacts that 
we see on marine life.
    There is pollution and runoff from the fertilizer and 
pesticides associated with agriculture. There are the shifts in 
freshwater patterns based on how we are managing water on land 
and the history of land transfiguration through the work of the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. There is obviously changing 
climate, which is both the warming of sea water as well as it 
becoming more acidic.
    And with manatees having seagrass as their primary food 
source, of course, things that affect the seagrass in turn 
affect the manatees. So, it is a great example of the ways in 
which things are complex and interconnected, and we have to 
think about conservation solutions on a level that accounts for 
that.
    And I just want to thank you for your clear concern for 
marine mammals and for wanting to come up with solutions that 
will really be effective because if we don't have the heart to 
save the manatees, then we have sort of lost the love that 
drives a lot of ocean conservation work. So, thank you for 
that, and I am happy to provide more information if that is 
useful in the future.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. I appreciate it.
    And, Chairman, thank you for including Representative 
Brownley's bill to direct the Secretary of Commerce to 
establish climate impact management plans to conserve marine 
mammal species.
    Senator Lee, how has climate change impacted Hawaii's coral 
reefs? Representative Case and I have the Restoring Resilient 
Reefs Act. How do you see the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act 
and other of these efforts to save coral reefs critical to the 
future of both the quality of life, protecting species, and the 
economies of states like Hawaii and Florida?
    Mr. Lee. I appreciate the question. I am not going to try 
to repeat the name of the geographic places you mentioned in 
the last question. I won my state's geography bee, but I am not 
that good. But I will add, for seagrasses, they absorb five 
times more carbon than regular forests, and yet they are being 
destroyed at a rate significantly in excess. So, we are 
shooting ourselves in the foot in more ways than one.
    But when it comes to reefs, they are a huge part of the 
ecosystem too. We are seeing not only in Florida, in your area, 
but also in Hawaii, we are seeing 8.7 percent higher rates of 
acidification than we did 30 years ago. And this is huge 
because, coupled with warmer waters, it is destroying the 
ability for reefs to regrow themselves and survive.
    We are seeing record reef bleaching, and that is something 
that is destroying any economic opportunity we have for the 
future because those contribute $477 million to our economy, 
the tourism, fishing, our way of life. It also provides $860 
million in coastal resiliency, if there are storm surges from 
hurricanes and that sort of thing.
    We know that these things are critical. We have to have 
them preserved as much as possible, and this bill would really 
go a long way to try to coordinate agencies, put in some 
resources to try to take those first steps to see what kind of 
steps can actually save those reefs and save the economies, 
jobs, and ultimately lives that are at stake that they are 
protecting.
    Mr. Soto. Thanks so much, Senator Lee. On this Committee, 
we see this tension between states like ours that are really 
vulnerable to climate change, that have huge tourism and 
agriculture economies, versus those hailing from energy states. 
Our jobs are affected by these issues. Our way of life is 
affected by these issues. And I applaud you, Chairman, for 
bringing these bills forward.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Soto.
    Many contributors to the legislation, and I want to thank 
them as well.
    Representative Herrell, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 
The floor is yours.
    Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This has been a great Committee hearing, and I thank all 
the witnesses for coming forward and sharing with us. I feel 
like the Blue New Deal before us today, though, it threatens 
Americans' energy independence and creates billions in new 
spending and threatens existing onshore activity even though it 
is framed as an ocean-based climate bill.
    And included in the bill is the carbon program that 
requires NOAA to create a map of any upstream restrictions 
detrimental to the watershed process and conditions, including 
dams, dikes, and levees. In addition, NOAA must submit a report 
to Congress that assesses the threat to blue carbon ecosystems 
from water storage and flood control structures.
    In my district, Mr. Chairman, we are nowhere near the 
ocean, but it is home to a large portion of the Rio Grande 
watershed, which contains many dams, reservoirs, and dikes. The 
Rio Grande watershed is also experiencing the extreme drought 
that threatens several important sectors in our economy like 
Ag, recreation, and others.
    So, these existing dams and reservoirs are more important 
now than ever. In fact, we need more of them. In my view, the 
provisions I mentioned are the first step toward the breaching 
of critical existing dam infrastructures across the West. I am 
concerned with this bill that it would have extremely 
detrimental impacts to the existing assets that aid farmers 
across my district to receive water for irrigation and allow 
for my constituents to recreate along the river.
    My question is for Mr. Guardado. Do you share these same 
concerns, and if so, can you give the Committee some examples 
of where NOAA or another Federal agency whose primary 
jurisdiction is offshore has made decisions that have had 
negative impacts on upstream resources?
    Mr. Guardado. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman. As a matter of 
fact, we have a major conflict of interest as it relates to the 
marine and coast inland. The tributary that I spoke of earlier 
today is some 40 miles away from the ocean. Dry gaps, as I 
mentioned, that river is dry 9 months out of the year and, in a 
drought, more than that, obviously.
    But we talked about steelhead trout, and there is the 
resident rainbow trout, and that trout is deemed as a 
subspecies because the rainbow trout may have the genetics to 
turn into a steelhead trout. We are required to provide 
critical habitat for a trout that may have the capability and 
genetics to turning into steelhead.
    We have never witnessed steelhead nor trout in this 
particular tributary, yet, again, having to provide water 
releases for habitat and considering a fish passage to 
accommodate the species.
    Ms. Herrell. That is right.
    Mr. Guardado. So, here is a species that we are not allowed 
to touch, that we have to provide expensive monetary 
compensation to try to mitigate, yet the California Fish and 
Wildlife still allow permits and fishing license for the public 
to fish out that exact same species up to two a day.
    Ms. Herrell. That is right.
    Mr. Guardado. So, how are we supposed to recover in those 
kind of conflicts?
    Ms. Herrell. Right. And I appreciate what you are saying, 
and, again, I feel like this bill, while the intentions are 
good, I feel like it is just over-reach. And I would like to 
ask you one more question, because in your testimony I like 
that you said we really need to be working collectively, 
working together.
    So, what would you like to see or what ideas come to mind 
where we can see elements of this bill for our climate and 
ocean policies that would actually work where we can kind of 
bridge that gap? Because I think in this particular bill, what 
we are reading right now, it is an over-reach because it is 
compromising industries in my district and across the country, 
even those that are not right on the ocean.
    Mr. Guardado. Thank you. Yes, it is that balanced approach, 
getting the right people in the room. We have a model for it. 
We had climate change as one of the topics in the resiliency 
portfolio that I spoke of earlier, sea water intrusion, over 
drafting, all these things you need the right people in the 
room.
    If we follow the science, good, sound engineering, that 
will prevail all day every day. It is when those are ignored 
and then misinterpreted with open-ended language that gets us 
into trouble and creates the cost that you were speaking of to 
the constituents unnecessarily. The model is out there. This 
can be done, and I believe that.
    Ms. Herrell. Great. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, or is that Chairman Batman? No, I am kidding, 
but I think that my time is almost up, and so I will yield 
back. And thank you, again, to all the witnesses and, Mr. 
Chairman, for putting this together. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Chairman Batman, huh. I am more Green Lantern 
kind of stuff. But, anyway, recognizing myself, if there are no 
other Members, and thanking all the witnesses.
    And let me ask a kind of general question. This blueprint 
with the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act, there have been 
some comments and some recommendations that have been pointed 
out that certainly merit consideration, Bureau of Reclamation's 
involvement, the mapping issue that is brought up again and 
again. But, overall, let me, if I could, Dr. Johnson, Ms. 
Gutierrez-Graudins, and Senator Lee, a general question. This 
whole discussion is premised on that the last 4 years didn't 
exist and that we are all of a sudden beginning some process 
that is going to be viewed as a threat or detrimental to 
economic interest and local issues.
    I think that we are operating under the premise that there 
is an urgency here, an urgency to begin to move, an urgency to 
do the best parts of this piece of legislation and move it 
forward. And I want to ask you about that urgency and the topic 
as being the role of oceans in climate, in addressing the 
climate crisis, but also in the ever-increasing climate crisis 
that we are facing here globally and certainly in our country.
    So, talk about the need to move forward as opposed to be 
stuck in a place where nothing is done, which many times some 
of the recommendations I heard today is about leaving things as 
is, presuming there is no problem. Well, there is a problem, 
and it is a huge issue, and I want whatever reaction you might 
have in terms of the Committee moving forward on this piece of 
legislation and others dealing with the climate crisis. I can 
begin with Ms. Johnson, then Ms. Gutierrez-Graudins, and 
Senator Lee for whatever time we have left. Thank you.
    Dr. Johnson. Thank you for this question. I think, as a 
marine biologist, it has been very frustrating to see the ocean 
left out of pretty much all major climate legislation, so this 
is very needed and overdue, and thank you for making sure that 
this gets the attention that it deserves.
    And while there is always bits of room for improvement, I 
think I mentioned I would love to see more support for 
regenerative ocean farming in the bill, but overall, it really 
does hit the mark on a broad range of topics. And this work 
could not be more urgent, from reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions by reducing offshore drilling to protecting blue 
carbon.
    And we have talked at length about the value of coastal 
ecosystems in absorbing so much more carbon per acre than 
happens on land. We give so much attention to trees and not 
enough attention to wetlands, marshes, seagrasses, and 
mangroves.
    And I think it is important to also remember that this 
really is an economic issue. If we ignore it, if we do nothing, 
there are lives at stake. There are certainly millions of jobs 
at stake and billions of dollars at stake. So, doing nothing is 
a recipe for disaster. Ignoring the ocean when we think about 
climate solutions is a recipe for disaster.
    So, I think the name of this bill alone represents a really 
important step forward in recognizing ocean-based climate 
solutions as about a fifth of the solutions to the climate 
crisis that we face. Also, I really appreciate the recognition 
of nature-based solutions, not just technology but thinking 
about the value of protecting and restoring ocean ecosystems, 
which are very much protecting us.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Gutierrez-Graudins, if you want to add something to 
that, and obviously Senator Lee, we have a minute or so left.
    Ms. Gutierrez-Graudins. Thank you. Yes, I think it is 
important that we recognize the urgency of acting, that we know 
that ignoring the ocean is a potential huge mistake. We can't 
afford to make it because what is at stake is not just the 
environment and the health of the ocean but really the 
livelihood and the well-being of the communities that depend on 
them.
    And I will say that it is important to do this mapping 
because, as we have heard before from Mr. Guardado, it is 
important that we follow the science. But how we get to the 
science is by getting this information, by doing this analysis, 
by getting this mapping, and really starting from there. Thank 
you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator?
    Mr. Lee. Thanks very much. I would just throw in that, the 
faster we move, the less we are going to have to spend as 
governments dealing with this situation, because each passing 
year, it gets more and more expensive. And at the same time, I 
think there is a false dichotomy that this is going to cost 
money to do this when actually the investments we make are 
going to have an enormous return positively, both for state and 
federal revenues as well as job creation, economic benefit 
across the board that is going to benefit taxpayers from coast 
to coast and beyond. I think that is something that makes this 
sort of a no-brainer in a way where we can move forward 
benefiting all around. So, thank you for the opportunity to 
comment this afternoon.
    The Chairman. And thank you to all the witnesses for your 
testimony. It is very much appreciated. And the conversation 
reminds me of the conversation back home in Arizona relative to 
the Colorado River, the subsidence of that water level, Lake 
Mead, Lake Powell, the subsidence and the seven basin states 
that depend on the river for water, and you find discussions 
within my state of basically everything will be all right, we 
just have to somehow muscle through this crisis.
    All the science, all the facts are saying it is a mega 
drought. It is going to have economic and human consequences 
and life consequences on the region, and something has to be 
done beyond doing nothing. I think this is a kind of issue 
where sticking one's head in the sand is not a solution; it is 
making the situation even worse.
    I appreciate all the comments and appreciate the 
suggestions that were made to the legislation by my colleagues, 
and we will be looking at those as well.
    With that, the meeting is adjourned, and thank you very 
much for the hearing.

    [Whereupon, at 6:32 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

        NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION    

                                                      June 22, 2021

Re: NPCA Position on Legislation before the U.S. House Natural 
        Resources Committee

    Dear Representative:

    Since 1919, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been 
the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing 
our National Park System. On behalf of our more than 1.6 million 
members and supporters nationwide, I write to share our thoughts on 
H.R. 3764, the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act, ahead of a 
legislative hearing held by the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee 
scheduled for June 22nd, 2021. H.R. 3764 is comprehensive legislation 
that builds on knowledge and recommendations from recent national and 
international scientific reports and includes components and themes of 
the ocean-focused bills also included in the hearing.

    H.R. 3764--Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act: NPCA strongly 
supports this legislation, which harnesses the power of oceans to 
provide solutions to the climate crisis. Rising temperatures, melting 
glaciers, flooding, shoreline erosion, sea-level rise, extreme storms, 
coral bleaching and more are impacting America's national parks today, 
altering iconic landscapes, ecological processes, cultural resources, 
infrastructure assets and recreational opportunities. With 88 coastal 
parks in the National Park System covering more than ten percent of 
America's coastline, national parks need to be part of the climate 
solution.

    NPCA supports H.R. 3764 and the accompanying ocean-related bills 
that provide important steps to protect and restore the ecological 
integrity and resiliency of coastal national parks, where natural 
landscapes and historical and cultural structures are on the front 
lines of climate change impacts.
    This legislation will:

     Substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. NPCA 
            recognizes that H.R. 3764 calls for reducing greenhouse gas 
            emissions by advocating for stricter emissions standards of 
            vessels, increasing appropriately sited renewable energy 
            sources and energy efficiency such as offshore wind energy, 
            and preventing the expansion of offshore oil exploration 
            and drilling.

     Protect the ocean's natural ability to store carbon and 
            mitigate climate change, by conserving and restoring 
            coastal ``blue carbon'' ecosystems, including mangroves, 
            seagrass beds and salt marshes. NPCA prioritizes restoring 
            ``blue carbon'' ecosystems such as Everglades and Biscayne 
            National Parks, Cape Cod and Point Reyes National 
            Seashores, and Gateway National Recreation Area, and 
            recognizes this legislation advances policies that enhance 
            the ecological health of parks by restoring wetlands, 
            mangroves and living shorelines to better withstand the 
            worsening impacts of sea level rise and more intense 
            storms.

     Implement adaptation strategies to increase ocean 
            protection resiliency to the unavoidable impacts of climate 
            change. This includes strongly protecting at least 30 
            percent of the ocean in areas where marine wildlife can 
            thrive, as well as promoting sustainable fisheries 
            management, pollution reduction, ocean habitat restoration 
            and ocean planning. NPCA supports the goal of 30x30 and the 
            creation of a 30x30 task force to focus on potential 
            oceanic areas that deserve protection, building on the 
            legacy of Presidents Bush and Obama to establish marine 
            national monuments through the Antiquities Act to improve 
            the health of national parks and the wildlife they support, 
            particularly in sensitive habitats such as coral reefs 
            which harbor the highest diversity of any ecosystem. For 
            example, at Dry Tortugas and Channel Islands National 
            Parks, scientists have found that fully protected marine 
            reserves are contributing to bigger and more abundant sea 
            life within protected areas.

    Thank you for your consideration of our views. Please contact Sarah 
Gaines Barmeyer at rrrrr  if you have any questions or concerns.

            Sincerely,

                                          Christina Hazard,
                                               Legislative Director

                                 ______
                                 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman

             STRONGER AMERICA THROUGH SEAFOOD      


                                                June 21, 2021      

        Chairman Raul M. Grijalva     Ranking Member Bruce Westerman
        House Committee on Natural 
        Resources                     House Committee on Natural 
                                      Resources
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Westerman:

    I am writing to express concern with aquaculture provisions of H.R. 
3764, the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act. The section titled ``Ocean 
Aquaculture Research and Policy Program'' establishes a program for 
offshore aquaculture which would be limited to seaweed and shellfish 
only. Unfortunately, this falls short of what is needed for the U.S. to 
leverage the many environmental, societal, and economic benefits of 
offshore aquaculture. Instead, what America needs now is a 
comprehensive plan for managing and permitting U.S. offshore 
aquaculture, including finfish, that preserves existing environmental 
safeguards and minimizes impacts to existing ocean-based industries, 
much like what is envisioned in the 116th Congress' Advancing the 
Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture (AQUAA) Act, H.R. 
6191 and its bipartisan Senate companion, S. 4723.

    Wild fish harvests are and always will be an important part of the 
seafood supply. There is, however, a significant environmental and 
social opportunity for aquaculture to supplement wild harvests in both 
domestic and international markets. Aquaculture is one of the fastest 
growing sustainable forms of food production and has the unique 
potential to improve food security and nutrition, enhance coastal 
resiliency, create quality jobs, help restore species and habitats, and 
ensure that seafood (both wild-caught and farmed) continues to be an 
important part of the global food supply.

    The environmental benefits of offshore aquaculture include water 
conservation, lessened emissions and greater animal protein production 
using little space. Offshore aquaculture requires no land, minimal 
fresh water and a relatively small amount of space to provide abundant, 
healthful seafood. Since fish are cold blooded and grown in water where 
the effects of gravity are lessened, they can convert feed to edible 
protein much more efficiently than warm blooded animals produced on 
land. Plus, farming in the ocean is three-dimensional, allowing much 
more animal protein to be produced in the same areal footprint.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ World Economic forum 18 Oct 2017 Robert Jones, Global 
Aquaculture Strategy Lead, The Nature Conservancy https://
www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/10/how-aquaculture-can-feed-the-world-and-
save-the-planet-at-the-same-time.

    During the past 30 years, management practices and scientific 
innovation have reduced, eliminated, or minimized many of the 
environmental risks at responsibly managed farms.\2\ And, new coastal 
planning and siting tools are already available to assist managers, 
coastal planners and businesses in identifying suitable sites for 
marine aquaculture that avoid environmentally sensitive habitats and 
reduce spatial conflicts with existing ocean uses like fishing, 
shipping and energy development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Hall, S.J., et al. Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental 
Costs of Aquaculture. Penang, Malaysia: The World Fish Center (2011).

    Unfortunately, domestic aquaculture is currently constrained by 
disjointed federal leadership and numerous regulatory hurdles, 
including overlapping jurisdiction of federal, state and local 
governments, and the absence of an efficient and affordable permitting 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
process, particularly in U.S. federal waters.

    To overcome these regulatory hurdles and lay the groundwork for 
strengthening the U.S. aquaculture industry, AQUAA authorizes NOAA to 
clarify a pathway for permitting offshore aquaculture operations which 
meet robust National Standards for Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture 
which, like the National Standards for commercial fishing outlined in 
the Magnuson Stevens Act, are guiding principles for growing coastal 
economies, protecting ecosystems, and avoiding conflict among 
stakeholders. AQUAA leverages modern siting and monitoring technologies 
to mitigate potential environmental impacts. It also provides for 
strict federal enforcement and includes a process for public input 
which ensures that coastal communities and states are considered prior 
to permitting new operations. In short, AQUAA provides much-needed 
regulatory certainty for U.S. marine farmers while also preserving the 
environment, local economies, and public health.

    In addition to increasing our supply of healthful and sustainable 
American-raised seafood, growth of domestic aquaculture is an 
opportunity to revitalize the seafood industry which has been hard hit 
by the effects of COVID-19. As America rebuilds from the COIVID-19 
pandemic, creating a new American seafood source will have rippling 
effects throughout many areas of the country. Increased aquaculture 
production will lead to increased demand for American-grown crops such 
as soybeans, corn and peas which can be used in plant-based fish feed, 
will open up new markets to heartland farmers and lessen dependence on 
the uncertainty of foreign trade relationships.

    For these reasons, I encourage the Committee to support 
comprehensive offshore aquaculture legislation, like the AQUAA Act, 
instead of the limited research and policy program included in H.R. 
3764. For the U.S. to responsibly expand the aquaculture industry and 
tap into the full potential that aquaculture can provide, the AQUAA Act 
is the better choice.

            Sincerely,

                                        Margaret Henderson,
                                                   Campaign Manager

                                 [all]