- LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1395, TO AMEND THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE NATION ACT TO REAUTHORIZE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, "DELAWARE RIVER BASIN CONSERVATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2023"; H.R. 5487, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO ESTABLISH AND CARRY OUT A GRANT PROGRAM TO CONSERVE, RESTORE, AND MANAGE KELP FOREST ECOSYSTEMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, "HELP OUR KELP ACT"; H.R. 6814, TO REQUIRE THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE TO ASSESS CERTAIN OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PLATFORMS AND PIPELINES FOR POTENTIAL USE AS ARTIFICIAL REEFS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, "MARINE FISHERIES HABITAT PROTECTION ACT"; AND H.R. 7020, TO DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION TO CONDUCT HIGH- RESOLUTION MAPPING OF THE LAKEBEDS OF THE GREAT LAKES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, "GREAT LAKES MAPPING ACT"

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

                       H.R. 1395, H.R. 5487, H.R. 6814,
                                 AND H.R. 7020

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

                               LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND
                                    FISHERIES

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                            Thursday, March 21, 2024

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-107

                                   __________

           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
    55-274 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

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

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

                        Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                          Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                     Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                     ------

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

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

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

                                  -----------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Thursday, March 21, 2024.........................     1

    Statement of Members:

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

        Panel I:

        Graves, Hon. Garret, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Louisiana.........................................     5
        Fitzpatrick, Hon. Brian K., a Representative in Congress from
          the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania...........................    11
        McClain, Hon. Lisa C., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan..........................................    12

    Statement of Witnesses:

        Panel II:

        Porch, Clay, Director, Southeast Fisheries Science Center,
          National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
          Atmospheric Administration, Miami, Florida.................    13
            Prepared statement of....................................    14
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    17
        Knutson, Kelly, Director, Coalition for the Delaware River
          Watershed, Princeton, New Jersey...........................    17
            Prepared statement of....................................    19
            Supplemental testimony submitted for the record..........    21
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    24
        Boehme, Jennifer, Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes
          Observing System, Ann Arbor, Michigan......................    26
            Prepared statement of....................................    27
            Supplemental testimony submitted for the record..........    33
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    35
        Self, Deb, Executive Director of Restoration and
          Partnerships, Greater Farallones Association, San
          Francisco, California......................................    38
            Prepared statement of....................................    39
        Horton, Chris, Senior Director, Fisheries Policy,
          Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Bismarck, Arkansas...    44
            Prepared statement of....................................    45

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Statement for
          the Record on H.R. 6814....................................    58
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Statement for the Record on
          H.R. 1395..................................................    60

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman

            National Audubon Society, Letter of Support for H.R. 1395
              and H.R. 7020..........................................    62
            Environmental Defense Center and Surfrider Foundation,
              Letter to Oppose H.R. 6814.............................    63
            Ocean Conservancy, Letter to Oppose H.R. 6814............    66
            Record of Decision, Programmatic Environmental Impact
              Statement for Oil and Gas Decommissioning Activities on
              the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf....................    68
            Multiple Stakeholders, Letter of concerns regarding H.R.
              6814...................................................    75

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Graves

            Multiple Stakeholders from the fishing community, Letter
              of Support for H.R. 6814...............................     7
            Charter Fishermen, Letter of Support for H.R. 6814.......     8

      LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1395, TO AMEND THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
      IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE NATION ACT TO REAUTHORIZE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN
     CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``DELAWARE RIVER BASIN
     CONSERVATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 5487, TO REQUIRE THE
      SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO ESTABLISH AND CARRY OUT A GRANT PROGRAM TO
      CONSERVE, RESTORE, AND MANAGE KELP FOREST ECOSYSTEMS, AND FOR OTHER
       PURPOSES, ``HELP OUR KELP ACT''; H.R. 6814, TO REQUIRE THE UNDER
       SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE TO ASSESS CERTAIN
       OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PLATFORMS AND PIPELINES FOR POTENTIAL USE AS
     ARTIFICIAL REEFS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``MARINE FISHERIES HABITAT
      PROTECTION ACT''; AND H.R. 7020, TO DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
        NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION TO CONDUCT HIGH-
     RESOLUTION MAPPING OF THE LAKEBEDS OF THE GREAT LAKES, AND FOR OTHER
                     PURPOSES, ``GREAT LAKES MAPPING ACT''

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, March 21, 2024

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                 Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bentz, Graves, Westerman; Huffman,
    Peltola, Hoyle, Dingell, and Porter.
        Also present: Representatives Donalds, Fitzpatrick,
    McClain; and Evans.

        Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and
    fisheries will come to order.
        Good morning everyone. I want to welcome Members,
    witnesses, and our guests in the audience to today's hearing.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
    hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member. I
    therefore ask unanimous consent that all other Members' opening
    statements be made part of the hearing record if they are
    submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I also ask unanimous consent that the Congressman from
    Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick; the Congresswoman from Michigan,
    Ms. McClain; and the Congressman from Florida, Mr. Donalds, be
    allowed to participate in today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        We are here today to consider four legislative measures:
    H.R. 1395, the Delaware River Basin Conservation
    Reauthorization Act of 2023, sponsored by Representative
    Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania; H.R. 5487, the Help Our Kelp Act,
    sponsored by Ranking Member Huffman of California; H.R. 6814,
    the Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act, sponsored by
    Representative Graves of Louisiana; and H.R. 7020, the Great
    Lakes Mapping Act, sponsored by Representative McClain of
    Michigan.
        I now recognize myself for a 5-minute opening statement.

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

        Mr. Bentz. Good morning again. Let me begin by thanking our
    witnesses for joining us and, of course, thanks to the Members
    for the thought and effort they have put into creation of the
    legislation we will be considering in this Committee today.
        This morning's hearing gives us the opportunity to advance
    legislation which applies to some of the myriad of issues that
    face marine systems. Marine systems are oceans, rivers, lakes,
    and other bodies of water that serve many essential purposes.
    They provide habitat for fish and animal species, a means of
    transporting freight in clean and environmentally friendly
    ways, opportunities for all types of recreation, millions upon
    millions of megawatts of electric power, water for irrigated
    agriculture, and, of course, fish for human consumption.
        The legislation we are considering today, if enacted, would
    improve the environmental condition of our oceans, enhance our
    access to and understanding of geographic features of the lake
    beds of the Great Lakes, build upon a successful partnership of
    states within the Delaware River Basin who joined together to
    clean up water running into the rivers and streams in that
    basin.
        Two of the four bills we will discuss today concern
    research and data development.
        H.R. 7020, the Great Lakes Mapping Act, directs NOAA to
    complete high-resolution mapping of the five Great Lakes by
    2030. This mapping will dramatically improve our understanding
    of what rests on the floors of these lakes, improve our
    understanding of the safest shipping channels, provide a
    baseline for studying water levels and currents and the
    location of underwater habitats, among many other benefits.
    Given that these lakes provide an estimated $6 trillion for our
    nation's economy, not to mention $7 billion in annual
    commercial recreational fishing revenue, this data-gathering
    effort is obviously important.
        Another bill focused on research is H.R. 5487, the Help our
    Kelp Act, introduced by Ranking Member Huffman. This bill would
    direct NOAA to stand up a new competitive grant program for
    states and local governments, tribes, the fishing industry, and
    higher educational institutions to create projects that bolster
    the health of underwater kelp and improve monitoring efforts.
    Given studies that suggest 96 percent of kelp forests in the
    Northern California region and off Oregon have been destroyed,
    this is an important bill.
        A third piece of legislation we are considering this
    morning is H.R. 1395, the Delaware River Basin Conservation
    Reauthorization Act of 2023. This legislation authorizes the
    Delaware River Basin Restoration Program, a non-regulatory
    program that helps advance restoration efforts across the five
    Delaware River Basin states through partnership and
    collaboration. This reauthorization adds the state of Maryland
    to the list of Basin states and alters the Federal cost share
    for projects in rural and disadvantaged communities.
        The Delaware River Basin contributes some $21 billion in
    ecosystem services annually through flood and stormwater
    management and soil conservation, among other benefits. Since
    2018, this program has funded projects that have restored 1,000
    acres of wetland and 76 miles of streams. Reauthorization
    allows for the continuation of these effective partnerships.
        Finally, H.R. 6814, the Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection
    Act, capitalizes on the benefit that offshore energy
    infrastructure provides to marine habitats, particularly in the
    Gulf of Mexico. Since the year 2000, 60 percent of oil rigs in
    the Gulf of Mexico have been removed, as required by law,
    causing disruption to habitats and harm to the fishing sector.
    Mitigating this disruption is critical, given recent data from
    the American Sports Fishing Association which found that
    anglers in Louisiana contributed some $2.5 billion in economic
    output and supported nearly 18,000 jobs.
        This legislation requires NOAA to conduct further
    assessment of the relationship between offshore energy
    infrastructure and marine habitats, and directs NOAA to provide
    the Secretary of the Interior a map of the idle structures in
    the Gulf that support marine life.
        Additionally, this legislation gives owners and operators
    of this infrastructure the ability to reef such structures that
    are set to be decommissioned in places within 5 years once the
    structure's safety is determined. This will encourage greater
    participation in a program that has benefited the marine
    environment in the Gulf, recognizing that energy production and
    marine life can work together, and minimizing the impact on the
    Gulf of Mexico's fisheries.
        I once again want to thank the Members and their witnesses
    that have joined us this morning. I am looking forward to
    hearing more about how these pieces of legislation will advance
    the objectives of this Committee using the most up-to-date
    science, encouraging partnerships between the Federal
    Government with states, and recognizing the multiple uses of
    the United States' abundant natural resources.
        With that, I recognize Ranking Member Huffman for 5
    minutes.

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

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
    everyone. We have four bills before us today. Three of them I
    support. One I have some concerns about, as we will discuss.
        The first is H.R. 1395, the Delaware River Basin
    Conservation Reauthorization Act. This continues conservation
    and restoration work in the Delaware River watershed. This was
    authorized in 2016. The bill does include critical changes to
    matching requirements to address ongoing funding access
    problems for small, rural, and disadvantaged communities. It is
    a good bill.
        H.R. 7020, the Great Lakes Mapping Act, directs NOAA to
    conduct high-resolution mapping of the Great Lakes. We need
    that in order to fill knowledge gaps and manage our greatest
    freshwater resources.
        And then H.R. 5487, I am a little biased on this, it is my
    bill, the Help our Kelp Act, but it is very critical to help
    kelp ecosystem health and restoration on the West Coast. I will
    dive into the details of that a little bit later.
        My concern in this hearing is H.R. 6814. Now, I am not
    categorically opposed to rigs to reefs. I know there can be
    some benefits in certain conditions, and I am sure that when
    Mr. Graves gets here we are going to see some impressive
    pictures of him posing a red snapper that was caught maybe near
    a decommissioned reef or even a working reef. By the way, he
    has been known to pose pictures of fish that his children catch
    as if they were his own catches. But we will have to address
    that on a case-by-case basis, as we should address the
    challenge of what to do with decommissioned rigs when they have
    outlived their life cycle.
        I think there could be opportunities to reuse and recycle
    some of this offshore oil and gas infrastructure, potentially
    even for other energy resources such as offshore wind. We
    should be talking about that as an option if we are talking
    about something other than full decommissioning. All of these
    things, though, have to be carefully considered on a site-by-
    site basis. We can't have an absolute, one-size-fits-all rule,
    which just happens to be a windfall to big oil.
        When these companies enter leases and rights-of-way for oil
    drilling or pipelines, they commit to full decommissioning.
    They commit at the start, and the commitment is to leave the
    ocean in pre-leasing conditions when they are finished. And
    this legislation would flip the script by stalling any
    decommissioning until layers of studies and certifications are
    complete. A very low level of scrutiny, which means anything
    that has any marine life on it, if you can find a barnacle, it
    is going to be pretty much impossible to decommission that
    infrastructure.
        So, the bill is like one of those choose-your-own-adventure
    books, where no matter which choice you make it takes you back
    to something other than full decommissioning as a windfall to
    big oil. And it makes this the rule in every case instead of an
    option. So, this seriously conflicts with state rigs-to-reef
    programs, and that includes my home state of California.
        Our story is important here. As a recent GAO report
    demonstrated, we have a lot of idle oil and gas infrastructure
    in the Pacific. It is past due for decommissioning. And the
    longer it sits there, the more contamination risks are
    presented, the more other safety hazards grow. And we have
    these state rigs-to-reef laws. We also have a new record of
    decision from BSEE that came out in December. It identifies
    full decommissioning as the preferred option.
        So, we are moving in these thoughtful directions, and this
    bill would conflict with that and set us back considerably. It
    needs some more work. California and other states shouldn't be
    forced into projects that they and BSEE have deemed counter to
    the best course of action for cleaning up expired
    infrastructure.
        And the bill also shifts liability in a very problematic
    way to the Federal Government or to the states. Even as a GAO
    report identifies that $40 to $70 billion in potential
    decommissioning costs are out there for the Department of the
    Interior, in the face of this we are talking about letting big
    oil and gas companies off the hook financially. That is a
    mistake.
        Let me be clear. Big oil wants rigs to reef as the rule in
    every case, not because they have some newfound love of marine
    life or biodiversity. They want to save money. And we should
    just be very careful as we approach this policy. I will not
    support another handout to the industry, an industry that
    continues to exacerbate climate change and harm our ocean
    ecosystems.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

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

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. GARRET GRAVES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to find
    some of the pictures from a trip with Mr. Huffman and make
    clear that the minnows that he catches fishing are
    substantially smaller than the whales that I caught in our
    trip.
        I seriously do appreciate my friend from California coming
    down to Louisiana to take a tour on some of our unique coastal
    areas, and everything from the fresh and brackish marsh out to
    the coast and the offshore. And I appreciate him coming down to
    see that, to understand how different Louisiana is than
    California. I have been waiting, what, 7 years now for the
    reciprocal invite. I know it is coming, Jared, and I look
    forward to that.
        Mr. Huffman. As soon as you clean up your act.
        Mr. Graves. I am on the cusp of it. I am on the cusp.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Graves. So, seriously, there are big differences
    between the Gulf Coast and the West Coast. The habitat for our
    fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico is the energy infrastructure.
    And at one point in time, it was something like 75 percent of
    all of the offshore energy infrastructure in the world was in
    the Gulf of Mexico. I don't think that percentage is as high
    anymore, but it is a huge, huge percentage of the overall reef
    structure in the Gulf of Mexico. Yes, we have flower garden
    banks as a sanctuary, but the fish that congregate around the
    reef structure in the Gulf of Mexico is the energy
    infrastructure, which includes the pipelines, as we found
    through the great red snapper count.
        What has happened over the last several years is we have
    had platforms removed, all of this reef structure removed at a
    rate that has never, ever been seen before. So, you are
    removing the reef habitat for the fisheries, and nothing is
    being put back. It is having a profound impact on the
    fisheries.
        And in addition to having Mr. Huffman down there, we also
    had one of his former California delegation members, Mr.
    Lowenthal. And that is where you fish. You fish at the rigs.
    That is where the habitat is, that is where the fish are, that
    is where the reef infrastructure is. And by pulling it out, I
    can't say it enough, you are having a substantial impact on the
    habitat in the Gulf of Mexico.
        Now, Mr. Huffman just said something about concerns about
    liability and all those things. I want to be clear, I agree
    with you. There is nothing we want to do that we want to
    increase the threat to the health and the ecological
    productivity of the Gulf of Mexico.
        What our bill does is our bill simply tries to create a
    clear process, provide regulatory certainty on how we can take
    this energy infrastructure that may be moving toward
    decommissioning, the P&A work and ultimately decommissioning,
    and allow for it to be reefed in place. And that can mean all
    sorts of different things. It could literally be right there,
    cut down to a safe level to where you are not an obstruction to
    navigation. It means you could drag it to a special artificial
    reef zone, as we have done in the past. But ensuring that we
    are not removing this habitat is what is most important.
        We have worked with a number of different folks on this
    over the years, including the Coastal Conservation Association
    and the American Sport Fish Association. I have a few letters,
    Mr. Chairman, one from the American Sportfishing Association;
    Bonefish & Tarpon Trust; Center for Sportfishing Policy; the
    CCA, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; International Game
    Fish Association; the National Professional Anglers
    Association; and TRCP, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
    Partnership. I ask unanimous consent that these be included in
    the record.
        I also have a March 6 letter from the Destin Charter Boat
    Association; the Florida Guides Association, the Charter
    Fishermans Association; the Alabama Charter Fishing
    Association; and the Panama City Boatmens Association. These
    are all organizations that are supporting this bill, and many
    of these are groups that we have worked with before we
    introduced it.

        Mr. Bentz. Without objection.

        [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                              December 14, 2023

    Hon. Garret Graves
    Hon. Marc Veasey
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Congressman Graves and Congressman Veasey:

        On behalf of the nation's recreational fishing community, we thank
    you for your leadership to protect diverse marine ecosystems and
    important angling access through the Marine Fisheries Habitat
    Protection Act.
        The saltwater recreational fishing community is comprised of 10
    million angler conservationists and thousands of businesses who
    strongly support healthy marine resources. As part of both its
    conservation mission and providing access to sustainable fisheries, the
    recreational fishing community has long advocated for, and contributed
    to, efforts to enhance fisheries populations through habitat
    protection, restoration, and creation.
        Since the late 1940's, the development of offshore oil and gas
    infrastructure has been enhancing marine habitats in coastal waters of
    the United States. Energy infrastructure on the Outer Continental Shelf
    (OCS) has boosted fish, coral, and other marine animal productivity by
    providing an otherwise absent hard substrate on which organisms can
    colonize and begin developing local reef ecosystems. Over time, these
    structures have been the catalyst for teeming communities of fish and
    marine life that serve as incredibly important destinations for
    recreational anglers, divers, and commercial fishermen alike.
        The importance of the OCS platforms and supporting infrastructure
    on enhancing marine ecosystems is well documented. A study by Sammarco
    et al. in 2004 found 11 species of coral commonly inhabit oil and gas
    platforms in the northern Gulf of Mexico,\1\ two of which are currently
    listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN)
    critically endangered list. Likewise, an article published in the
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded oil and gas
    platforms off the coast of California have the highest secondary fish
    production per unit area of seafloor of any marine habitat that has
    been studied.\2\ Similarly, a 2020 study report commissioned by the
    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management estimated that as much as 48% of the
    total biomass of greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico, a currently
    depleted fishery, is associated with OCS oil and gas infrastructure.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Expansion of coral communities within the Northern Gulf of
    Mexico via offshore oil and gas platforms.'' 2004 https://
    www.researchgate.net/publication/234046738_Expansion_of_coral_
    communities_within_the_Northern_Gulf_of_Mexico_via_offshore_oil_and_gas_
    platforms
        \2\ ``Oil platforms off California are among the most productive
    marine fish habitats globally.'' 2014 https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/
    10.1073/pnas.1411477111
        \3\ ``Explosive Removal of Structures: Fisheries Impact
    Assessment.'' 2020. https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/BOEM_2020-
    038.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Unfortunately, less than 25% of these original structures remain
    nationally, and due to recent bankruptcies in the oil and gas industry
    or expired mineral leases, many more of these important habitats for
    recreationally and commercially important fish and marine animals will
    be unnecessarily lost in the next few years. The Marine Fisheries
    Habitat Protection Act seeks to stem that loss and convert many of
    these platforms to state Rigs-to-Reefs programs, ensuring their
    contribution to fisheries productivity endures for future generations.
        Specifically, the bill requires an evaluation of the remaining
    structures for the presence of important reef organisms, and once
    found, allows for more time for the structures to be converted to a
    Rigs-to-Reefs program, provided the associated wells are safely plugged
    just as they would be if they were decommissioned on land. Furthermore,
    it encourages oil and gas companies to consider the Rigs-to-Reefs
    program as a decommissioning option by designating the area in the
    immediate vicinity of the platforms as reef planning areas with the
    goal of conserving important localized marine ecosystems. Essentially,
    the bill uses a science basis to facilitate the voluntary conversion of
    oil and gas platforms to permanent reef fish habitat.
        Thank you again for your leadership in preserving important marine
    fisheries habitat and angler access to healthy fisheries for future
    generations. We look forward to working with you in support of the
    Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act as it moves through the
    legislative process.

                Sincerely,

            American Sportfishing
            Association                   Congressional Sportsmen's
                                          Foundation

            Bonefish & Tarpon Trust       The International Game Fish
                                          Association

            Center for Sportfishing
            Policy                        National Professional Anglers
                                          Association

            Coastal Conservation
            Association                   Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
                                          Partnership

                                     ______

                                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                  March 6, 2024

    Hon. Garret Graves
    U.S. House of Representatives
    2077 Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Representative Graves:

        The Charter Fishermans Association is a gulf-wide federally
    permitted For-hire industry advocacy group with members in all five
    Gulf States. The Destin Charter Boat Association represents the
    federally permitted For-hire fishing fleet out of Destin, Florida. The
    Florida Guides Association represents state and federally permitted
    fishing business from across the entire State of Florida. The Alabama
    Charter Fishing Association represents the federally permitted For-hire
    fishing fleet from the State of Alabama. The Panama City Boatmens
    Association represents the federally permitted For-hire fishing fleet
    out of Panama City, Florida.
        We are writing today in the support of the ``Marine Fisheries
    Habitat Protection Act''. In the Gulf, we have more recreational
    stakeholders than any other regional management area in the nation. And
    with the continued population of Americans that are moving to the Gulf
    coasts interest in marine and deep-sea fisheries continues to grow.
        The Gulf has a vast amount of area suitable to support habitat for
    the Reef and Pelagic fish complexes. Multiple states in the Gulf have
    artificial reef programs which continue to try to enhance habitat and
    angling opportunities for its citizens. This Act is a welcome change
    from programs such as ``Idle Iron'' which were counter intuitive to
    these efforts. Decommissioning and removing these structures in a non-
    ecological mindset have hampered efforts to create more habitat for our
    nation's resources in the Gulf.
        Your proposed Act would help ensure that federal agencies would
    have to apply that ecological mindset when addressing regulatory issues
    and balance them with the needs of the nation's fisheries in the Gulf
    of Mexico. This will align agencies actions with all regional
    management areas that desire to grow and maintain healthy fish stocks
    and create more biomass which is imperative for not just the
    recreational enjoyment of fishing in the Gulf but also the commercial
    fisheries which the nation relies upon for sustainably caught wild
    seafood.
        With, all of the signed associations whole heartedly support your
    efforts in protecting the unforeseen benefits of the oil and gas
    industries infrastructures, and pledge to continue to work with you and
    your colleagues to get legislation like the ``Marine Fisheries Habitat
    Protection Act'' passed for the betterment of our nation's resources
    while providing more angling opportunities.

                Sincerely,

            Capt. Jim Green, President
            Charter Fishermans
            Association

            Mrs. Kelia Paul, President    Capt. Dylan Hubbard, President
            Panama City Boatmens
            Association                   Florida Guides Association

            Capt. Jason Klosterman,
            Vice Pres.                    Capt. Dale Woodruff, President
            Destin Charter Boat
            Association                   Alabama Charter Fishing
                                          Association

                                     ______

        Mr. Graves. So, let me just say in closing I look forward
    to working with you all. I want to be clear we are not going to
    have pride in authorship, and if there are some perfections we
    need to do, we would love to hear some of the thoughts on how
    we could do that. But I think this is an absolutely critical
    thing.
        And it may seem foreign to folks on the East Coast, the
    West Coast, and other areas, but I want to be crystal clear on
    this. This is our habitat. This is our reef structure. And it
    is absolutely critical that we ensure that we have some type of
    plan to maintain this important habitat for the fisheries.
        I yield back.

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Congressman Graves. I now recognize
    Ranking Member Huffman for 5 minutes to discuss H.R. 5487.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the bills we
    are discussing today is my Help our Kelp Act. I am proud to
    lead this with my colleagues on the Subcommittee, Mr. Case and
    Mr. Mullin.
        Kelp is critical for healthy coastal communities, marine
    ecosystems, and addressing climate change threats like ocean
    acidification and coastal erosion on the West Coast. But kelp
    forests are getting wiped out, and we need to do something
    about it quickly. These coastal habitats are not unlike the
    forests that we are all familiar with on land. Think about an
    underwater rainforest. They provide food and habitat for
    hundreds of marine species, including ones that are valuable to
    local fishers and local economies.
        The bull kelp and the giant kelp that make up these forests
    do a lot of things. They are not only essential building blocks
    for the many fisheries and invertebrates that live and forage
    in that habitat, they play a vital role in coastal protection,
    tourism, carbon sequestration, and other values. So, you can
    imagine the serious impacts that extensive kelp loss would have
    on our ocean and those who depend on it, and that is exactly
    what is happening in the north coast of California, my
    district.
        We have more than 95 percent of our kelp forests that have
    been lost due to this perfect storm of bad conditions. The
    climate crisis is bringing higher ocean temperatures, limiting
    kelp growth. Then we have increasing purple sea urchin
    populations. The favorite food of the purple sea urchin happens
    to be kelp, and they are exploding because their primary
    predator, the starfish, is not around because of a starfish
    wasting disease. So, all of these conditions have combined, and
    our kelp is just getting wiped out.
        We are feeling the effects from the ocean to the shore.
    Habitat loss means fewer fish, less food for birds, larger
    fish, marine mammals, and, of course, commercial and
    recreational fishers. The red abalone fishery was severely
    impacted by lack of food, and it was forced to close, harming a
    lot of local businesses and communities.
        And the good news is that local communities and our state
    partners are already hard at work with kelp restoration and
    urchin removal projects. They need our support for those
    efforts. We need to direct necessary Federal resources to these
    important recovery initiatives, and this bill addresses that
    need by establishing a NOAA grant program to fund conservation,
    restoration, and management projects focused on kelp forest
    restoration.
        In order to fully restore and productively manage these
    kelp forests, we also need to support diverse and traditional
    approaches, which is why this bill includes a cost share waiver
    set aside for tribal applicants.
        The ecological disaster that we are dealing with is too big
    to ignore. We need to get the Help our Kelp Act passed and
    signed into law soon. I am very grateful to my colleagues on
    this Committee and others who have co-sponsored the bill.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including it in the agenda
    today, and I hope to see it pass the Congress so that we can
    commit to restoring these ecosystems.
        In the remaining seconds I have, I just want to introduce
    our witness, Deb Self.
        I am delighted to have you here, Deb, in Washington.
        She is the Executive Director of the Greater Farallones
    Association. The Greater Farallones Association conserves the
    wildlife and habitat in marine-protected areas along the
    Northern California coast, and among the vital programs the
    Association administers they work with NOAA's Greater
    Farallones National Marine Sanctuary to help kelp forest
    habitat along the Northern California coastline through active
    restoration, monitoring, research, and community engagement.
        There are no better voices on this topic than those doing
    the work on the ground, so it is my honor to introduce Deb Self
    to the Committee today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. I thank Ranking Member Huffman for his
    testimony. I now recognize Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick for 5
    minutes to discuss H.R. 1395.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
             CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Chairman Bentz and Ranking
    Member Huffman, for holding this bipartisan hearing. I am
    grateful to have this opportunity to speak before the
    Subcommittee about my bill, the Delaware River Basin
    Conservation Reauthorization Act.
        First, it is my pleasure to introduce one of today's
    witnesses, Kelly Knutson, a biologist by training. Kelly now
    serves as the Director for the Coalition for the Delaware River
    Watershed. The CDRW joins together stakeholders throughout the
    region to ensure conservation efforts are as impactful as
    possible for our basin communities. Today, Kelly will share
    with you and with this Committee how our partners working on
    the ground in the watershed have made the restoration program
    an incredible success, and have helped preserve the Delaware
    River for generations to come.
        Mr. Chairman, for my constituents in Bucks and Montgomery
    Counties in Pennsylvania, and for our entire region, the
    Delaware River is more than a natural resource. It is an
    essential component of our daily lives, our health, our
    economies, and our heritage.
        Since the Basin Restoration Program was established by
    Congress in 2016, it has been a model for how the Federal
    Government can effectively bring together states, localities,
    and non-profit organizations looking to carry out conservation
    efforts. The program is, by definition, collaborative.
    Communities throughout the watershed voluntarily identify areas
    of need and coordinate with preservation groups to propose
    projects to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        At the foundation of the program is also a cost-sharing
    mechanism, which guarantees that the Federal Government and the
    stakeholders carrying out these crucial conservation efforts
    are, in fact, true partners. Mr. Chairman, in just 6 years, the
    program has provided $55 million in grants to leverage an
    additional $79 million in non-Federal matching funds to support
    nearly 200 conservation initiatives across the Basin region.
    Projects in my congressional district alone have allowed our
    community to improve water quality, reduce flood risk, and
    expand recreational access to the river, just to name a few.
        This bipartisan bill that I propose will strengthen the
    program by correcting the definition of eligibility to include
    Maryland, as well as by increasing the Federal cost share for
    projects and smaller, more rural communities throughout the
    watershed region. By reauthorizing the Basin Restoration
    Program through Fiscal Year 2030, Congress can ensure that this
    collaborative, non-regulatory relationship between the Federal
    Government and communities throughout the Delaware River
    Watershed continues to create success stories after more
    success stories.
        And as co-Chair of the Delaware River Watershed Caucus, I
    want to close by thanking the Members on both sides of the
    aisle who co-sponsored this effort, as well as the CDRW, and
    all of our state and local partners for their support.
        Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, I look forward to
    continuing to work with both of you and the members of this
    Committee to ensure this common-sense approach to conservation
    and environmental stewardship can continue to benefit
    generations to come.
        Thank you, and I yield back.

        Mr. Bentz. I thank Congressman Fitzpatrick for his
    testimony. I now recognize Congresswoman Lisa McClain for 5
    minutes to discuss H.R. 7020.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. LISA C. McCLAIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
    for being here. Thank you for the opportunity to really address
    this Subcommittee.
        The Great Lakes states and surrounding region generates
    over $6 trillion to the nation's GDP, supports over 51 million
    jobs, and is a critical shipping lifeline for the entire
    country, with more than 200 million tons of cargo shipped
    through the Great Lakes annually.
        Despite the immense benefits the Great Lakes and the
    surrounding region provide for the United States, they have
    never really fully been explored. Thousands of shipwrecks lay
    hidden in the depths that the ancient civilization has left,
    their cultural footprint hundreds of feet below the surface.
        Our Great Lakes power a $7 billion fishery economy, yet
    their habitats are barely understood. Recreational boats and
    commercial vessels traverse the vast waters of the lakes, but
    unknown dangers lurk beneath the surface.
        Nationally, tens of millions of dollars are being allocated
    for ocean-related initiatives. But, unfortunately, the Great
    Lakes remains a low priority and, as a result, are underfunded,
    undervalued. In fact, only 13 percent of the Great Lakes are
    mapped to modern standards.
        I believe it is time to take exploration and discovery of
    the underwater environment of the Great Lakes into our own
    hands. That is why I joined with Representative Debbie Dingell
    and 17 of our colleagues to introduce the Great Lakes Mapping
    Act.
        This critical legislation directs the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration to engage with states, regional
    coastal observing systems, universities, industries, and other
    stakeholders to map the lake beds of the Great Lakes by 2030.
    This data, which will be made publicly available, will enable
    exploration, yield valuable discoveries, enrich lake knowledge,
    and inform efforts to protect our Great Lakes, one of America's
    greatest natural resources, really, for generations to come.
        Lastly, I would like to thank the Great Lakes Observing
    System and its partners for their work in developing the Lake
    Bed 2030 campaign. Without your work in describing the need and
    setting the vision for the Great Lakes mapping, we would not be
    here today.
        I thank the members of this Committee for their
    consideration of this legislation and ask for your support.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I thank the Members for their
    testimony. I will now introduce our second panel.
        Mr. Clay Porch, Director of the Southeast Fisheries Science
    Center with NOAA in Miami, Florida; Mr. Kelly Knutson, Director
    of the Coalition of the Delaware River Watershed in Burlington,
    New Jersey; Dr. Jennifer Boehme, CEO of the Great Lakes
    Observing System in Ann Arbor, Michigan; Ms. Deb Self,
    Executive Director of Restoration and Partnerships with the
    Greater Farallones Association in San Francisco, California;
    and Mr. Chris Horton, Senior Director for Fisheries Policy with
    the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation in Washington, DC.
        Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules,
    they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their
    entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
        To begin your testimony, please press the button on the
    microphone.
        We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn
    green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn
    yellow. And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red,
    and I will ask you to complete your statement.
        I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member
    questioning.
        I now recognize Mr. Porch for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF CLAY PORCH, DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST FISHERIES SCIENCE
    CENTER, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
               ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, MIAMI, FLORIDA

        Mr. Porch. Chair Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members
    of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    today. My name is Clay Porch. I am the Director of NOAA's
    Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Today, I am here to
    represent NOAA's views on three of the bills under
    consideration, and I look forward to any questions and the
    discussion that follows.
        I will first address H.R. 6814, the Marine Fisheries
    Habitat Protection Act. NOAA currently serves in a consultative
    role, and provides comments to states and other Federal
    agencies on the creation, siting, and permitting of artificial
    reefs. NOAA also advises on standards for the transfer,
    cleaning, and preparation of certain reef materials. We
    appreciate Congress' interest in these issues, and we have
    several comments regarding implementation and timing.
        Primarily, NOAA has concerns about the scope of the charge,
    including what specifically the Act would require in terms of
    assessments, and how it defines reef-associated species. NOAA
    would face challenges in fully complying and implementing the
    legislation as presently drafted, given existing staff,
    vessels, equipment, and funds.
        We acknowledge Congress' interest in supporting the
    repurposing of existing structures to provide marine habitat
    and enhance marine life and would be happy to work with
    Congress more on this issue.
        Next, I would like to address H.R. 7020, the Great Lakes
    Mapping Act. The National Ocean Mapping, Exploration, and
    Characterization Council released a progress report earlier
    this month on unmapped U.S. waters. The report stated that 87
    percent of U.S. waters in the Great Lakes remain unmapped to
    modern standards, the highest percentage unmapped of all U.S.
    regions.
        NOAA strongly supports the need to map U.S. waters to
    modern standards, particularly in the Great Lakes. In 2022,
    NOAA's ship, Thomas Jefferson, conducted hydrographic surveys
    in the Great Lakes, the first survey there since 1990. This
    year, we have four mapping projects planned for Lakes Superior,
    Erie, and Ontario. NOAA aims to send one of its hydrographic
    survey ships to the lakes every 3 to 5 years to continue making
    progress on mapping the Great Lakes.
        NOAA is very grateful for the funding provided to the Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative, GLRI, for this mapping work. We
    have invested in improved technologies to improve resolution
    and classification of shorelines, biology, and socioeconomic
    features, and appreciate Congress' interest in and support of
    this work.
        Finally, I will speak to H.R. 5487, the Help Our Kelp Act.
    In recent years, Washington and California have seen dramatic
    declines in their kelp populations. These declines have caused
    impacts to threatened and endangered salmonids, abalone, and
    commercial and recreational fisheries. The Help our Kelp Act
    authorizes NOAA to carry out a grant program to conserve,
    restore, and manage kelp forest ecosystems.
        Currently, NOAA works with a diverse set of partners,
    including government agencies, environmental organizations,
    academic institutions, and community partners on kelp
    restoration. NOAA and these partners are also working to
    identify state management priorities, engaging and educating
    stakeholders, providing technical assistance, and working to
    streamline permitting on subtitle restoration efforts.
    Restoring and conserving kelp forest is a priority for NOAA,
    and additional resources through a grant program would allow us
    to scale up this important work.
        NOAA is proud to serve as a steward of America's ocean,
    coastal, and Great Lakes resources. We appreciate the
    Subcommittee's attention to these topics, and appreciate the
    opportunities to enhance our work with partners, conserve our
    coastal and marine ecosystems, and build community resilience.
    Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Porch follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Clay Porch, Director,
     Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service,
                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
                          U.S. Department of Commerce
               on H.R. 1395, H.R. 5487, H.R. 6814, and H.R. 7020

    Introduction

        Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding
    these two ocean related bills. My name is Clay Porch and I am the
    Director for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
    National Marine Fisheries Service's (NOAA Fisheries) Southeast
    Fisheries Science Center.
        NOAA acknowledges and appreciates the ongoing work with this
    Subcommittee to enhance successful ocean and coastal resilience,
    conservation, and restoration, and I look forward to discussing the
    bills under consideration with you today.
    H.R. 6814--Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act

        H.R. 6814, Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act, would establish
    a process, managed by Federal and State agencies, by which operators
    choose to donate decommissioned oil and gas platforms to coastal States
    to serve as artificial reefs under the National Artificial Reef Plan
    (Rigs- to Reefs). NOAA serves in a consultative role for activities
    such as providing comments to states and other federal agencies on the
    creation, siting, and permitting of artificial reefs as well as
    standards for the transfer, cleaning, and preparation of certain reef
    materials.
        NOAA Fisheries approaches the existing Rigs-to-Reef program through
    the lens of multiple mandates regarding fisheries, habitat, endangered
    species, and marine mammals. The major permitting and consultative
    actions that NOAA Fisheries is responsible for in relation to the Rigs-
    to-Reefs program, include: Endangered Species Act Section 7
    Consultation--50 CFR 402; Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act Essential Fish Habitat--50 CFR 600.805; and, Marine
    Mammal Protection Act--50 CFR 216.
        We appreciate Congress's interest in these issues and we have
    several comments regarding implementation and timing.
        As drafted, H.R. 6814 directs NOAA to conduct an assessment of each
    ``idle structure,'' defined as an offshore oil and gas platform or
    pipeline which the Secretary of the Interior has determined no longer
    useful for operations, and determine if there is an ``established reef
    ecosystem'' on, under, or in the immediate vicinity of the idle
    structure. The proposed definition of ``established reef ecosystem'' is
    broad and as such may be of limited value in practice and may present
    challenges in terms of identifying true ``established reef
    ecosystems.'' The word ``established'' implies some level of permanence
    or longevity. As drafted, current language would designate an area as
    an established reef ecosystem when an identified reef species is
    present, regardless of period of residency, even if it is transient. As
    such, any place in the Gulf where an identified reef species meeting
    criteria in the bill are present--such as the general water column,
    even if only passing through, and regardless of their association with
    decommissioned oil and gas infrastructure--becomes an established reef
    ecosystem.
        These man-made structures are recognized as temporary additions to
    the environment by the Department of the Interior (DOI) under the Outer
    Continental Shelf Lands Act, as well as the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
    Management Council with respect to the biologic communities associated
    with them. DOI's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
    regulations, primarily codified at 30 C.F.R. Part 250, subpart Q apply
    to the removal, reuse, or reefing of idle structures. NOAA has observed
    that the decision to donate/make the jacket structure available to
    State programs currently appears to be a business decision of the
    private entity. NOAA is supportive of the existing programs in place,
    managed by the states in conjunction with the Gulf States Marine
    Fisheries Commission, which currently allow for structures to be added
    to existing artificial reefing areas, reefed in place, or removed
    altogether. Leaving idle structures or reefing them in place must take
    into consideration competing uses of the seafloor including commercial
    fishing interests as well as considerations for navigational safety and
    the potential risks posed to the natural environment from structures
    being toppled or relocated during hurricane storm events. There is also
    concern regarding the affinity of invasive species, such as orange cup
    coral and lionfish, to these artificial structures.
        NOAA would face challenges in fully complying with the Marine
    Fisheries Habitat Protection Act, as presently drafted, given existing
    resources, staff, vessels, underwater autonomous vehicles, and funds to
    contract with the private sector to support implementation. NOAA
    currently does not have the resources to implement this program and the
    FY 2025 President's Budget does not include funding for these
    activities. We acknowledge Congress's interest in supporting the
    repurposing of idle structures to provide marine habitat and enhance
    marine life, and would be happy to work with Congress more on this
    issue.
    H.R. 7020--Great Lakes Mapping Act

        H.R. 7020 addresses high-resolution mapping of Great Lakes water
    depths and lakebeds. NOAA appreciates the interest in our mapping
    efforts and continues to work to map our Nation's waters to the
    necessary modern standards with today's advanced technologies.
        NOAA would appreciate the opportunity to have additional discussion
    with the Committee on this legislation and offer some minor
    modifications to more holistically support the necessary high-
    resolution mapping work NOAA and partners are doing and need to do in
    this region.
        The National Ocean Mapping, Exploration, and Characterization
    Council (NOMEC) released a progress report on unmapped U.S. waters
    earlier this month. This report states that 87 percent of U.S. waters
    in the Great Lakes remain unmapped to modern standards.
        NOAA strongly supports the need to map U.S. waters to modern
    standards, particularly in the Great Lakes. In 2022, NOAA Ship Thomas
    Jefferson conducted hydrographic surveys in the Great Lakes. Although
    NOAA has a significant presence in the Great Lakes, this is the first
    time a NOAA hydrographic ship has deployed there since the early 1990s.
    The survey efforts of NOAA Ship Thomas Jefferson covered 450 square
    nautical miles of lake bottom in Lake Erie and 274 square nautical
    miles in Lake Ontario with high resolution mapping data. These surveys
    identified 42 confirmed and new shipwrecks, and discovered 22 other
    lakebed features. In addition to NOAA ships, we have a contract
    mechanism to collect bathymetric data that will update the suite of
    NOAA navigation products and services, like the one done in 2023 in
    southwestern Lake Michigan. In 2024, NOAA's Navigation Response Teams
    and contractors have four projects planned for Lakes Superior, Erie and
    Ontario. NOAA aims to send one of its hydrographic survey ships to the
    lakes every 3-5 years to continue making progress on mapping the Great
    Lakes.
        Since 2019, NOAA has also received funding totaling over
    $11,000,000 through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) to
    support updated and improved mapping in understanding coastal and
    nearshore benthic habitats. This work has involved the collection of
    new multibeam sonar data and airborne bathymetric lidar to aid in the
    classification and high-resolution mapping of the Great Lakes bottom
    environments. To date over 1,000 square kilometers (386 square miles)
    of high-resolution data has been collected to help inform in-water
    habitat monitoring and restoration efforts. Additionally, GLRI has
    provided $5,150,000 to NOAA over the last 5 years to update the Great
    Lakes Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) datasets which map and
    classify shorelines, biology, and socioeconomic features. These funds
    paid for updates to the ESIs for the following geographies: Straits of
    Mackinac, St. Clair Detroit River System, and Lakes Ontario, Michigan,
    Superior, and Huron, while the U.S. Coast Guard paid for updates to
    Lake Erie, and the St. Marys and Lawrence Rivers. This work is in
    accordance with the Great Lakes Environmental Sensitivity Index Act of
    2020, which directs that NOAA shall endeavor to update the ESI datasets
    at least once every seven years.
        NOAA supports interagency coordination through NOMEC to achieve the
    highest return on investment for mapping and charting, and operates
    under the adage ``map once, use many times''. To enable this, NOAA
    follows international standards for hydrographic surveys and rigorous
    quality assurance procedures to ensure mapping data can support the
    full range of applications, including updating NOAA's official nautical
    charts to ensure safety of navigation. NOAA is also well-positioned to
    ensure free and open access to mapping data via its National Centers
    for Environmental Information and the seamless, authoritative National
    Bathymetric Source. NOAA currently does not have the resources to
    implement the program called for in H.R. 7020, and the FY 2025
    President's Budget does not include funding for these activities.
    H.R. 5487--Help our Kelp Act

        Kelp forests harbor a greater variety and higher diversity of
    plants and animals than almost any other ocean community. Additionally,
    kelp forests provide a variety of ecosystem services to humans and
    serve as habitat for a number of ecologically, culturally and
    commercially important fishery species such as kelp bass and black
    rockfish. Bull kelp in South Puget Sound (Washington) has declined by
    more than 80 percent in the last 145 years, according to recent
    analyses. Since 2014, northern California has lost over 95 percent of
    its kelp beds, causing significant impacts to the vital ecosystem that
    provides habitat to threatened and endangered salmonids, abalone, and
    commercial and recreational fisheries.
        H.R. 5487 authorizes NOAA to carry out a grant program to conserve,
    restore, and manage kelp forest ecosystems. NOAA currently does not
    have the resources to implement this program and the FY 2025
    President's Budget does not include funding for these activities. NOAA
    collaborates with a diverse set of partners, including government
    agencies, environmental organizations, academic institutions, and
    community partners to restore, manage, conserve, and better understand
    these iconic, ecologically significant, and economically valuable
    habitats. NOAA and our partners are researching kelp ecosystem dynamics
    and socio-economic input to help identify state management priorities,
    restoring kelp and abalone through outplanting and reduction of urchin
    grazing pressure, engaging and educating stakeholders, providing
    technical assistance, and working to streamline permitting on subtidal
    restoration efforts.
    Conclusion

        NOAA is proud to serve as steward of America's ocean, coastal, and
    Great Lakes resources, and we appreciate the Subcommittee's support for
    our mission. We look forward to working with you to enhance our work
    with partners, conserving our coastal and marine ecosystems, and
    building community resilience.

                                     ______

        Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Clay Porch, Southeast
                         Fisheries Science Center, NOAA

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

                 Questions Submitted by Representative McClain

        Question 1. Mr. Porch, high resolution mapping of the Great Lakes
    is a big job that will cost a lot. How will NOAA perform this work in
    an efficient and affordable manner? Will NOAA use the private sector
    expertise in high-resolution mapping and the processing of bathymetric
    data to the maximum extent possible?

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Porch. I now recognize Mr.
    Knutson for 5 minutes.

        STATEMENT OF KELLY KNUTSON, DIRECTOR, COALITION FOR THE
            DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Knutson. I appreciate the Subcommittee for their
    leadership in hearing this bill. I also just want to express my
    gratitude to Congressman Fitzpatrick for championing this
    effort in Congress and inviting me down to Washington, DC.
        As noted, my name is Kelly Knutson. I am the Director of
    the Coalition for the Delaware Watershed, testifying in support
    of H.R. 1395, the Reauthorization of the Delaware Basin
    Conservation Act.
        Just as a little bit of background, the Coalition is a
    network of over 185 different local non-profit groups working
    to preserve and protect this watershed that provides drinking
    water to over 14.2 million people. Our network represents land
    conservancies, fishing and sporting interests, watershed
    protection groups, among other national advocacy entities.
        This piece of legislation is bipartisan in Congress, and we
    are really happy that it is also widely received amongst our
    non-profit partners. In fact, many of our non-profit partners
    that engage with the Coalition have received money through the
    Federal Government and completed on-the-ground projects through
    this existing program.
        So, on our end, Congress really affirmed the importance of
    the Delaware Watershed when it passed the bipartisan piece of
    legislation known as the Delaware Basin Conservation Act in
    2016. This initiated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
    create and facilitate the Delaware Basin Restoration Program,
    which is non-regulatory, leverages private investment, local
    knowledge, and regional partnerships to implement on-the-ground
    projects.
        For us, we are really pleased that the Service has
    implemented six rounds of funding. The seventh is on its way. I
    think the RFP actually closes this week, so another grant soon
    to come, and that is through the Delaware Watershed
    Conservation Fund. Congress required that to be the core part
    of this program in that legislation.
        So, projects can really run the gamut, and improve public
    access, recreational opportunities, can protect vulnerable fish
    and wildlife habitats, as well as restore riparian ecosystems,
    stream, wetland ecosystems, and much, much more.
        Since 2018, the Delaware Watershed Conservation Fund, as
    Congressman Fitzpatrick previously noted, has actually awarded
    $55.1 million to 195 projects. There has been $79.2 million in
    non-Federal match for a total conservation impact of $134.3
    million. In Fiscal Year 2023 alone, the National Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation, who administer these grants, actually saw
    64 proposals totaling a $26.7 million in demand for projects.
    They are only appropriated $11.5 million to distribute.
        So, there is really no shortage of demand. However, a lot
    of this demand comes from larger, well-endowed national and
    regional organizations, compared to those smaller entities,
    especially those located in less populated and rural areas.
    This legislation actually is really strategic in trying to
    address that problem head on.
        Historically, there has been a one-to-one non-Federal match
    in order to participate and receive monies from this program.
    This legislation has language that would make it more available
    to a wider prospective of grantees by allowing a 90 percent
    Federal investment for a 10 percent match for small, rural, and
    disadvantaged communities as defined by the Department of the
    Interior. Of course, the Secretary may waive all match
    requirements at their own discretion, as well.
        On our end, we think that this will allow funding to flow
    to communities that just historically haven't had a chance to
    access these Federal funds. Again, it provides some much-needed
    match relief to really expand the program's reach to
    economically challenged and less populated communities
    throughout the watershed, as well. This shift is done in a way
    that is cost effective, locally driven, and really can tap into
    that tremendous unmet demand that I spoke about earlier, and
    again, an efficient, effective way to maximize the dollars
    coming into the watershed, and making sure that communities
    that historically haven't accessed these funds can benefit and
    leverage them, too.
        So, reauthorization of this critical and well-established
    program would just continue to affirm the national and economic
    significance of the Delaware Watershed. In order to fully
    realize the benefits of this Act, we must continue to support
    the Delaware Basin Restoration Program and reauthorize the Act.
    If passed, this legislation would continue the program through
    Fiscal Year 2030.
        Again, I really appreciate the leadership of this
    Subcommittee in hearing this bill and, again, look forward to
    working with you all to help make it happen.
        I am happy to take questions, and I will yield my time
    back. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Knutson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Kelly Knutson, Director, Coalition for the
                            Delaware River Watershed
                                  on H.R. 1395

        On behalf of the Coalition for the Delaware River Watershed, I
    write in support of H.R. 1395--the Delaware River Basin Conservation
    Reauthorization Act--which will continue the non-regulatory program
    that provides resources for advancing protection and restoration of the
    ecologically and economically significant Delaware River Watershed.
        The Coalition for the Delaware River Watershed unites organizations
    working throughout the multistate region to enhance their capacity to
    effectively advocate and work toward protecting and restoring the
    Delaware River. Our coalition represents over 185 local watershed
    associations, land conservancies, outdoor recreation and sporting
    interests, national organizations, and other stakeholder groups working
    throughout the 13,539 square miles of the watershed. The bill also has
    broad and deep support among the communities we represent. These
    include national organizations like, Trout Unlimited and Ducks
    Unlimited, along with local groups, like Friends of the Upper Delaware
    in upstate New York, who have completed on-the-ground projects that
    were funded from the existing program.
        Congress clearly affirmed the importance of protecting the natural
    resources of the Delaware River Watershed when it passed the Delaware
    River Basin Conservation Act in December 2016 with bipartisan support
    and leadership. The legislation directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service to create and facilitate the Delaware River Basin Restoration
    Program, a non-regulatory effort that leverages private investment,
    regional partnerships, and local knowledge to protect and restore the
    resources of the watershed. The Service has since successfully executed
    six annual rounds of funding and is finalizing the seventh, through the
    Delaware Watershed Conservation Fund, a grant program which Congress
    required to be the core of the program. Projects include those that
    improve public access and recreational opportunities, support restoring
    and protecting vulnerable fish and wildlife habitat, and protect
    riparian, stream, and wetland habitat.
        Since 2018, the Delaware Watershed Conservation Fund has awarded
    $55.1 million to 195 projects, which generated $79.2 million in match,
    for a total conservation impact of $134.3 million. These projects will
    collectively restore over 29 miles of riparian habitat and 76 miles of
    stream habitat, conserve and enhance 1,339 acres of wetland habitat,
    restore 293 acres of floodplain, improve 29,321 acres of forest habitat
    and open 6,052 acres for public access. In FY23 alone, the National
    Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which administers the grants, received a
    total of 64 proposals requesting $26.7 million dollars. This amount
    reinforces a continued need to improve the health and resources of the
    watershed for generations to come. There's no shortage of demand,
    however, this often comes from larger, national, and regional
    organizations as opposed to smaller organizations, especially in less
    populated rural areas.
        While historically a minimum of a one-to-one non-federal match is
    required for the grant program, the program is structured to increase
    the competitiveness of grants that exceed that threshold to leverage
    the maximum amount of non-federal dollars. To make the program
    accessible to a wider array of prospective grantees, reauthorization
    would allow a 90% federal investment with 10% match for small, rural,
    or disadvantaged communities and the Secretary may waive all match
    requirements at their own discretion. This would allow projects to move
    forward with funding that was previously out of reach for local
    communities that need help the most but lack the financial resources to
    provide matching dollars.
        The Coalition believes that match relief will help to expand the
    program's reach to economically challenged and less populated rural
    areas as well as some urban areas. This shift is done in a locally
    driven and cost-effective way, and taps into the tremendous unmet
    demand to do work throughout the watershed. This type of approach is an
    efficient and effective way to ensure that limited resources are
    targeted to where they can provide maximum benefit and expand to areas
    where historically it hasn't had an impact locally.
        The Delaware River Basin is the five-state region that drains into
    the Delaware River and Delaware Bay. Along with its historic importance
    for our nation, the river basin is a powerhouse for the economy and
    home to more than 8 million people. Significantly, the watershed serves
    as the source of clean drinking water for 14.2 million people, or
    roughly five percent of the U.S. population, in the densely populated
    Mid-Atlantic region.
        The Delaware River is a historical icon that is home to nationally
    significant ecological and recreational assets, including one of the
    country's most visited units of the National Park System, the Delaware
    Water Gap. It also hosts more than 400 miles of National Wild and
    Scenic Rivers, six National Wildlife Refuges, and Delaware Bay is one
    of the largest systems in the National Estuary Program.
        Reauthorization of this critical and well-established federal
    program would continue to affirm the nationally and historically
    significant Delaware River as a resource worth protecting. In order to
    fully realize the benefits of the Act and help ensure a healthy
    watershed for generations to come, we must provide continued support to
    the Delaware River Basin Restoration Program and reauthorize the
    Program. If passed, the program and restoration successes would
    continue through 2030.
        We greatly appreciate your leadership and thank you for considering
    the reauthorization of the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act.
    Please contact me at kelly.knutson@delriverwatershed.org if you have
    any questions. The Coalition looks forward to working with you on this
    important legislation.

                                     *****

    The following documents were submitted as supplements to Mr. Knutson's
    testimony.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240321/116893/HHRG-
    118-II13-Wstate-KnutsonK-20240321-SD001.pdf
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5274.004

                                   *****

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240321/116893/HHRG-
    118-II13-Wstate-KnutsonK-20240321-SD002.pdf
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5274.005

                                   *****

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240321/116893/HHRG-
    118-II13-Wstate-KnutsonK-20240321-SD003.pdf

                                    ------

        Questions Submitted for the Record to Kelly Knutson, Director,
                   Coalition for the Delaware River Watershed

               Questions Submitted by Representative Fitzpatrick

        Question 1. Mr. Knutson, one of the themes our Committee has talked
    about repeatedly in recent months is the multiple uses of our natural
    resources for sectors of our economy and for recreational activity.

        1a) Can you share your perspective on how the Delaware River Basin
    serves these multiple uses?

        Answer. The Delaware River Basin and its many natural resources
    support the economy and recreation in many different and valuable ways.
    The Delaware River Basin Restoration Program is an essential program
    that ensures the continued conservation of the basin and its many
    resources for the benefit of the local, regional and national economy,
    endless recreational opportunities throughout the basin, and the
    continued supply of clean drinking water for millions of people.
        A 2016 study by the University of Delaware's Water Resources Center
    which is one of the most comprehensive studies of the basin to date,
    calculated that the Delaware River basin contributes over $21 billion
    in annual economic activity from fish and wildlife ($1.5 billion, which
    includes commercial and recreational fishing and hunting), public parks
    ($1.8 billion), water quality ($2.5 billion), navigation ($2.6
    billion), agriculture ($3.4 billion), water supply ($3.8 billion), and
    forest benefits ($5.1 billion, which includes environmental and health
    benefits). The Delaware basin supports 600,000 direct/indirect jobs
    with $10 billion in wages in the coastal, farm, ecotourism, water/
    wastewater, ports (Ports of Philadelphia, Wilmington, Camden, and
    Salem), and recreation industries. In addition, as I noted in my
    testimony, the Delaware River watershed serves as the source of clean
    drinking water for over 14 million Americans--roughly 5% of the U.S.
    population. The Delaware River Basin Conservation Act, which was
    enacted by Congress in 2016, has only helped bolster the contributions
    the broader Delaware River watershed contributes to the economy and
    residents as more recreational opportunities have been made available,
    improved water quality and more jobs as a growing number of people
    access the natural treasures throughout the watershed.
        In addition, the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service
    (NRCS) has been engaging with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
    to further support conservation practices that align well with the
    habitat needs of fish and wildlife. By working with agricultural
    producers and forest landowners, NRCS and FWS are enhancing working
    lands, which is key to this watershed that is 21% in agricultural
    lands. Benefits are numerous: increased habitat for pollinators,
    improved water quality for economically and culturally important fish
    species, and enhanced forest management for forest a variety of forest
    bird species.

        Question 2. Mr. Knutson, in your testimony you noted that since
    2018 the Delaware Watershed Conservation Fund--a core part of the
    Delaware River Watershed's conservation programs--has awarded $55.1
    million with a generated match of $79.2 million.

        2a) Can you talk about how these programs have helped to leverage
    taxpayer dollars in a way that effectively gets resources to the places
    they're needed most?

        Answer. The Delaware Watershed Conservation Fund (DWCF) has and
    continues to select high quality projects in areas of the greatest
    need, but that also leverage much more funding than the non-Federal
    match required by the enacting legislation. In fact, the Program's
    funding strategy prioritizes projects that have the potential to
    generate significant matching funds from other sources, and encourages
    collaboration among various stakeholders. Additionally, the Program
    emphasizes projects that provide multiple benefits, such as improving
    water quality, enhancing wildlife habitat, and supporting recreational
    activities. In the first six years of funding, funded projects have
    provided an additional $24.1 million over and above what was required--
    that provides an additional 44% of on-the-ground project work that
    would not have been done if only the minimum ``one for one'' dollar
    match was provided. The Fish and Wildlife Service's partnership with
    the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) as the implementing
    partner for the DWCF is critical to bringing non-federal match to the
    table since one of NFWF's primary purposes, to raise private funds to
    match with federal funds, was one of Congress's reason for creating the
    Foundation forty years ago.
        Over the first six rounds of grants, the implementing partners have
    developed and funded a diversity of projects both geographically, and
    by type. Concern continues to grow among underserved and rural
    communities that the current matching fund requirements of the Program
    will hinder or even fully prevent these communities from qualifying--
    even in cases where these communities have developed expertise to
    implement the projects effectively. Concern is also growing that as the
    needs of the Delaware River Basin grow, there will not be enough
    implementation partners able to manage quality projects due to the
    current match requirements that limit the number of organizations and
    communities that can qualify for the funding.

        Question 3. One of the changes that the Delaware River Basin
    Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2023 makes to the Delaware River
    Basin Restoration Program is adding the state of Maryland.

        3a) Can you talk about how adding Maryland to this program will
    expand and improve restoration efforts across the Delaware River Basin?

        3b) As knowledge of the reach of the Delaware River has increased,
    how important is it to ensure that Maryland is involved seeking
    solutions to challenges to restoration and conservation efforts?

        Answer. The addition of Maryland to the DRBCA is simply a technical
    correction to the existing law. The second Finding under the original
    law states: ``The Basin contains over 12,500 square miles of land in
    the States of Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania,
    including nearly 800 square miles of bay and more than 2,000 tributary
    rivers and streams;'' This geographic description of the ``basin'' or
    watershed, is technically incorrect because a small portion of Maryland
    includes part of the watershed and therefore Maryland should be
    included in the authorizing statute.
        The Christina River originates in southeast Pennsylvania and flows
    35 miles through the northeast corner of Maryland into Delaware and
    then joins the mainstem of the Delaware River in Wilmington, DE.
    Although ``Maryland'' was not mentioned in the original Act, the U.S.
    Fish & Wildlife Service would consider any proposed project in the
    Maryland portion of the basin to be eligible for consideration of
    funding, although no such proposals have been submitted to date. The
    inclusion of Maryland in the bill simply fixes a geographic omission.
    It does not negatively impact the Program in any way and but should
    expand cross-jurisdictional conservation practices to address the needs
    of the watershed more comprehensively.
        The large majority of the Christina River watershed is upstream
    from Maryland in Pennsylvania (71% of the watershed), and 28% is
    downstream in Delaware. With only 1% of the Christina River watershed
    in Maryland there is little that can be done in the Maryland portion of
    the watershed to have significant impacts on the rest of the river
    system, but every restoration action can still have a positive impact.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Congresswoman McClain
    to introduce Dr. Boehme.
        Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor to
    introduce to you Dr. Jennifer Boehme.
        Dr. Boehme is the Chief Executive Officer of the Great
    Lakes Observing System, a bi-national non-profit which aims to
    provide data services to support science, policy, management,
    and industry on the Great Lakes.
        Dr. Boehme has served with the GLOS as CEO since 2023, and
    previously was a member and Chairwoman of its Board. Dr.
    Boehme's career has long revolved around our Great Lakes.
    Throughout her time serving at International Joint Commission,
    focused on Great Lakes water quality and on various boards and
    commissions. As a research scientist in the University of Maine
    and the Smithsonian, Dr. Boehme has cultivated a broad range of
    knowledge and expertise on the Great Lakes that is very much
    appreciated and very much needed.
        Under her leadership, GLOS is pursuing its Lake Bed 2030
    campaign to map the lake beds of the Great Lakes by 2030. I am
    so glad to be working alongside her and her organization in
    pursuit of this goal, through the Great Lakes Mapping Act being
    discussed here today.
        Thank you very much, Dr. Boehme, for being here and for
    your testimony today, and for your commitment, most of all, to
    the Great Lakes. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. Dr. Boehme, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF JENNIFER BOEHME, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GREAT
              LAKES OBSERVING SYSTEM, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN

        Dr. Boehme. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
    Huffman, and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting
    me to speak in support of H.R. 7020, the Great Lakes Mapping
    Act, and giving me the opportunity to highlight how this bill
    is critical to the people, economy, and ecosystems in our
    region.
        I am Jennifer Boehme, the Chief Executive Officer of the
    Great Lakes Observing System, or GLOS, a Michigan-based non-
    profit organization that provides high-quality lake information
    in support of science, policy, management, and industry in the
    Great Lakes region.
        GLOS is one of 11 regional associations, or RAs, that are
    part of the Integrated Ocean Observing System, or IOOS, a
    network of non-Federal organizations that collect data and
    transform it into useful tools tailored to local needs through
    public-private partnership. IOOS is funded through the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and RAs like GLOS
    leverage those dollars to do even more for our communities.
        GLOS provides critical data such as weather information;
    water characteristics; wind, wave, and water patterns; and
    biological and chemical parameters that inform key business,
    policy, and public health decisions in the Great Lakes.
    Underpinning all of these observations is the lake floor
    itself, an area woefully lacking in up-to-date high-density
    data collected to modern standards.
        It may sound cliche, but it is true: We know more about the
    surface of Mars than we do about our own planet. With only 13
    percent of the U.S. Great Lakes' waters mapped to modern
    standards, we know surprisingly little about the world's
    largest freshwater ecosystem that serves tens of millions of
    people and supports a massive economy. Meanwhile, we have
    nearly complete coverage of the surface of Mars at a higher
    density than exists for the Great Lakes. That is downright
    embarrassing.
        The Great Lakes Mapping Act seeks to increase data density
    by a thousand-fold in many parts of the lakes, dramatically
    improving our ability to manage and protect this vital
    resource.
        The total economy for the U.S. Great Lakes region generates
    approximately $3.1 trillion in gross domestic product, while
    employing 25.8 million people and supporting $1.3 trillion in
    wages. This is due in large part to our blue economy and the
    five major ports in the region: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit,
    Duluth, and Milwaukee.
        The Great Lakes also supports a vibrant $7 billion
    commercial fishery, as well as shipping, recreational boating,
    heavy industry, telecommunications, tourism, and all the
    related businesses that support those industries.
        Researchers around the lakes are working hard to understand
    the full impact of environment and public health threats such
    as pollution of our drinking water and increasing invasive
    species that affect our fisheries. In order to do that, they
    need the full picture, water depths, lake bed configurations,
    shoreline delineations, so that they can assess the true size
    and scale of impacts, and then recommend scientifically sound
    resilience and adaptation strategies to local decision makers.
        The Great Lakes Mapping Act seeks to reverse course and
    chart a new direction for fully mapping the underwater
    environment of the Great Lakes. This is a game-changer for the
    understanding of and ability to support and manage the people
    and industries that rely on them.
        The bill has two primary goals. The first is to use new and
    improved technologies to comprehensively survey the Great Lakes
    to modern standards and in high density. This activity includes
    the collection, processing, and bathymetric construction of a
    high-resolution digital elevation model of the lake beds. The
    second primary goal of this bill is to ensure widespread,
    equitable access to the data so everyone can benefit.
        GLOS, as the IOOS regional association, will work with NOAA
    and its partners to build and release integrated, high-
    resolution maps and digital elevation models. Based on the work
    undertaken by GLOS and assessments done by three separate
    survey companies, the estimated total cost for this effort is
    $200 million, the amount authorized in this bill.
        Mapping the Great Lakes can ultimately help the economic
    transformation of the region, from the Rust Belt to the Blue
    Belt. This type of mapping data and information is considered a
    foundational data set, meaning it is essential data to have in
    order to understand geospatial context, make decisions, realize
    opportunities, and plan investments.
        The direct economic benefits from better supporting a
    commercial fishery, commercial shipping and transportation,
    growing tourism and recreation, protecting infrastructure and
    coastline, growing and retaining a workforce that stays in the
    region while growing the blue economy are significant. If
    passed, the Great Lakes Mapping Act would bring our region up
    to par with other U.S. coastal areas. The return on investment
    for mapping the Great Lakes benefits America, the American
    people, American business, and perhaps most importantly, the
    future of our Great Lakes.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions. I yield back my time.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Boehme follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Jennifer Boehme, Chief Executive Officer,
                          Great Lakes Observing System
                                  on H.R. 7020

        Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify in support of H.R.
    7020, the Great Lakes Mapping Act, and giving me the opportunity to
    highlight how this bill is critical to the people, economy, and
    ecosystems in our region.
        I am Jennifer Boehme, Chief Executive Officer of the Great Lakes
    Observing System (GLOS), a Michigan based non-profit organization that
    provides high-quality lake information in support of science, policy,
    management, and industry in the Great Lakes region.
        GLOS is one of 11 Regional Associations that are part of the
    Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), a network of non-federal
    organizations that collect data and transform it into useful tools
    tailored to local needs through public-private partnership. IOOS is
    funded through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA), and RAs like GLOS leverage those dollars to do even more for
    our communities.
        GLOS provides data such as weather information, water
    characteristics, wind/wave/water patterns, and biological and chemical
    parameters that inform key business, policy, and public health
    decisions in the Great Lakes. Underpinning all of these observations is
    the lakefloor itself, an area woefully lacking in up-to-date high-
    density data collected to modern standards with new technologies.
        It may sound cliche, but it's true: we know more about the surface
    of Mars than we do of our own planet. With only 13% \1\ of U.S. Great
    Lakes waters mapped to modern standards, we know surprisingly little
    about the world's largest freshwater ecosystem that serves tens of
    millions of people and supports a massive economy. Meanwhile, we have
    nearly complete coverage of the surface of Mars at a higher density
    than exists for the Great Lakes. That's downright embarrassing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping, `U.S. Bathymetry Coverage
    and Gap Analysis', Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping, 2024, https://
    iocm.noaa.gov/seabed-2030-bathymetry.html (accessed 14 March 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Great Lakes Mapping Act seeks to increase data density by a
    thousandfold in many parts of the Lakes, dramatically improving our
    ability to manage and protect this vital resource.
    Importance of the Great Lakes

        Mapping data above and below the waterline in the Great Lakes is an
    essential missing component for the people and industries that call
    this region home.
        Unlike Mars, the Great Lakes region is home to over 40 million
    people in two countries, eight states and one province. It is the
    world's largest freshwater lake system with a coastline of 4,350
    miles.\2\ Five lakes, Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario make
    up the Great Lakes with depths, ranging from 30 feet in the shallowest
    of places in Lake Erie to nearly 1332 feet in Lake Superior. The total
    area of all the Great Lakes, including Canadian waters, is 94,250
    square miles--approximately the size of the state of Oregon. Supporting
    major international cities, such as Chicago, Toronto, Detroit,
    Cleveland and Milwaukee, the Great Lakes supplies drinking water to
    approximately 30 million people, 10% of the U.S. population.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ F. Klug, `Great Lakes have the most miles of coastline in the
    contiguous US', MLive, 2 April 2013, https://www.mlive.com/news/2013/
    04/who_has_more_miles_of_coastlin.html (accessed 14 March 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Economically, the importance of the Great Lakes cannot be
    understated. The total economy for the U.S. Great Lakes region
    generates approximately $3.1 trillion in gross domestic product (GDP)
    while employing 25.8 million people and supporting $1.3 trillion in
    wages. This is due in large part to the five major ports in the region:
    Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Duluth, and Milwaukee.\3\ When combined
    with Canada, this represents over a $6 trillion GDP, the 3rd largest in
    the world, if the Great Lakes region were its own country.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ NOAA Office of Coastal Management, `NOAA Regional and State
    Report on the U.S. Marine Economy', NOAA Office of Coastal Management,
    2023, https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/econ-report-
    regional-state.pdf (accessed 14 March 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our blue economy underpins everything. The Great Lakes support a
    vibrant $7 billion commercial fishery, shipping, recreational boating,
    heavy industry, telecommunications, freshwater management, tourism, and
    all the related businesses that support these industries.
    Mitigating Environmental Impacts

        Researchers around the lakes are working hard to understand the
    full impact of environmental and public health threats such as
    pollution of our drinking water and increasing invasive species
    affecting our fisheries. In order to do that, they need the full
    picture, water depths, lakebed configurations, shoreline delineations
    so that they assess the impacts and recommend resilience and adaptation
    strategies to local decision-makers.
        The Great Lakes are a dynamic environment challenged by legacy
    impairments with new stressors and threats that emerge every year.
    There are more than 180 non-native species \4\ that have been
    introduced into the Great Lakes through the ballast water of seagoing
    ships, sometimes from other countries. Sea lamprey, alewife, dreissenid
    mussels, round gobies, and the spiny water flea are all examples of
    invasive species that have affected or are affecting Great Lakes
    fisheries.\5\ An estimated 750 trillion mussels are carpeting the lake
    floor. These mussels muscle out native species and disrupt the food
    chain by siphoning out nutrient-rich plankton that fish also need to
    survive.\6\ The collective invasive species are responsible for the
    loss of 18 fish species in at least one Great Lake.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Shedd Aquarium, `Great Lakes Invasive Species: 180 and
    Counting', Shedd Aquarium, 20 February 2020, https://
    www.sheddaquarium.org/stories/great-lakes-invasive-species-180-and-
    counting (accessed 14 March 2024).
        \5\ Great Lakes Fishery Commission, `Invasive Species', Great Lakes
    Fishery Commission, 2024, http://www.glfc.org/invasive-species.php
    (accessed 14 March 2024).
        \6\ K. Lavey, `How do you get rid of 750 trillion mussels in the
    Great Lakes', Detroit Free Press, 22 February 2017, https://
    www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/02/22/zebra-quagga-
    mussels-great-lakes/98242180/ (accessed 14 March 2024).
        \7\ Great Lakes Fishery Commission, `Invasive Species', Great Lakes
    Fishery Commission, 2024, http://www.glfc.org/invasive-species.php
    (accessed 14 March 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Runoff, water level fluctuations, ice cover, or lack thereof, wind
    and storm events, as well as other human and nature induced impacts
    further affects the Great Lakes. This winter, Lake Superior is
    experiencing a historic low with ice cover less than 2 percent in
    February.\8\ The variability and diminishing of ice cover for the past
    several decades has heavily influenced the nearshore waters and altered
    historic sediment distribution patterns. Industry, homeowners,
    businesses and those who enjoy recreation on the Great Lakes have
    established themselves along the shores where coastlines can change.
    Fluctuating lake levels and coastal erosion can cause hundreds of
    thousands of dollars of damage in a single year and upwards to several
    million dollars in a single storm event. Improved mapping data would
    aid researchers in assessing the extent of these challenges and
    devising effective strategies to mitigate them.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ P. Huttner, `Where's the ice? Historic low Superior and Great
    Lakes ice cover', MPR News, 22 February 2024, https://www.mprnews.org/
    story/2024/02/22/wheres-the-ice-historic-low-superior-and-great-lakes-
    ice-cover (accessed 14 March 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The State of Our Maps

        Before NOAA's Lake Survey Center closed its doors in 1976, the
    Great Lakes were surveyed at low density with what is now obsolete
    technology. Since then, there has not been a concerted effort to map
    the Great Lakes until NOAA brought its hydrographic survey vessel
    Thomas Jefferson to the region in 2022. The Great Lakes Mapping Act
    aims to make that level of effort routine. With over eight states and a
    Canadian province surrounding the lakes, there is no state level
    jurisdictional agency responsible for this type of work, nor does the
    computing infrastructure exist at the state level to handle this volume
    and type of specialized data.
        Legacy and current efforts for national mapping have deprioritized
    the Great Lakes in favor of U.S. ocean coastal waters. With much of the
    depth data for the Great Lakes over 50 years old, in a dynamic
    environment, our understanding of the lakebeds and their relationships
    with habitat, subaqueous processes, invasive species, and coastline
    erosion is limited, introducing significant risk into science, policy,
    management, and day-to-day business operations.
    The Great Lakes Mapping Act

        The Great Lakes Mapping Act seeks to reverse course and chart a new
    direction for fully mapping the underwater environment of the Great
    Lakes, all within a relatively short time frame. There are two primary
    goals of the bill.
        The first is to use new and improved technologies to
    comprehensively survey the Great Lakes to modern standards and in high-
    density. This activity includes the collection of and processing of
    bathymetric construction of a high-resolution digital elevation model
    of the lakebeds.
        The second primary goal of this bill is related to data sharing for
    widespread, equitable access to the data, which will be so useful for
    so many purposes. Data sharing will depend heavily on high quality
    metadata and data archive for accessibility. GLOS, as the IOOS Regional
    Association for the Great Lakes, will work with NOAA and partners to
    build and release integrated high resolution maps and digital elevation
    models as data is acquired.
        Based upon the work undertaken by GLOS \9\ and assessments done by
    three separate survey companies, the estimated total cost for this
    effort is $200 million.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://glos.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Costs-and-
    Approaches-for-Mapping-the-Great-Lakes.pdf

    Impact and Benefit of the Great Lakes Mapping Act
    Foundational Dataset
        This type of mapping data and information is considered a
    foundational dataset, meaning it is essential data to have in order to
    understand the geospatial context, make decisions, realize
    opportunities, and plan investments. Across the United States, and even
    in the states surrounding the Great Lakes, we have mapped our land
    elevations to much higher accuracy and density than the Great Lakes
    themselves. We need to understand the bathymetric composition of our
    Great Lakes themselves, and combine this information with the
    surrounding topography for a complete picture. For a resource that
    supplies drinking water to tens of millions of people, supports a
    massive economy including a fishery and shipping, is a complex
    ecosystem threatened by a changing climate, coastal processes and
    invasive species, it is in the national interest to fully map our Great
    Lakes waters in short order.
    Economic
        The economic benefits of investing in this initiative are
    comprehensive. NOAA's Blue Economy Strategic Plan for 2021-2025 aims to
    advance America's Blue Economy and enhance the global ocean economy.
    This includes the Great Lakes. A commercial fishery is better informed,
    better managed and would likely yield higher revenues with a better
    understood lakebed. Shipping routes would have more up to date
    information, for safer navigation and greater access with more accurate
    data, reducing risk and saving time and money in commercial operations.
    Tourism and recreational activities are increased, driving revenues,
    directly impacting local economies, creating jobs and providing new
    opportunities for companies to establish themselves in the region.
    Technology innovation is a natural consequence of investing in this
    initiative. The Great Lakes are a perfect test bed for new technology
    development. Similar conditions exist in the Great Lakes as the high
    Arctic, an area that is primed for new exploration with warming polar
    regions and increased shipping traffic. Preparing a workforce to
    support this burgeoning industry goes hand-in-hand with educating,
    attracting and retaining talent in the region, further enhancing the
    economic benefits. Mapping the Great Lakes can ultimately help the
    economic transformation of the region from the `rust belt' to the `blue
    belt'.
    Environmental
        From an environmental perspective, the Great Lakes are changing.
    This year, the city of Duluth had an ice-free winter on Lake Superior.
    Temperatures are warming, water levels are fluctuating, the shoreline
    is changing, algae blooms are increasing, the ecology is changing, and
    large rain events are becoming more predominant. All of these have
    impacts on the lakebeds of which we have very little baseline knowledge
    of. Coastal resilience is an important theme for NOAA and stormwater
    runoff is a major threat. One of the primary activities to improving
    management of stormwater runoff is fully understanding the underwater
    environment impacted by this human activity. Human migration is
    anticipated to dramatically increase, bringing hundreds of thousands of
    people to the region, all requiring drinking water. New infrastructure
    will be required to support this growth and a well understood lakebed
    will aid in this decision making. More research is required to better
    understand all of these environmental indicators of change in the Great
    Lakes and having a foundational dataset is critical to the human
    knowledge required for the protection and preservation of the Great
    Lakes. Without it, the economic impact would be profound. More
    efficient decision making, impacting a wide range of beneficiaries and
    constituents, would be made as a result of having access to better
    data.
        Investing in mapping the Great Lakes will undoubtedly see an almost
    immediate return on investment economically, environmentally and in
    areas that represent opportunity.
        The Great Lakes Mapping Act can be executed successfully and
    efficiently by leveraging the power of organizations that span
    jurisdictions, have federated partner networks and non-commercial
    interests in facilitating the two primary goals of the bill. In support
    of the goal of `High-resolution Lakebed Mapping', a qualified
    organization would utilize existing reports on prioritization, gap
    analysis and strategic areas of importance to set priorities,
    coordinate mapping efforts and facilitate communication and management.
    Working with other stakeholders, a high-resolution map would be created
    while in process and at the completion of the effort, lead the
    development of a methodology and implementation of a process for data
    processing and work with partners on an efficient use of existing and
    new cyberinfrastructure resources for data management, cataloging,
    archival and metadata management. Supporting the second goal, `Data
    Sharing', a regionally certified authority under NOAA would provide
    public access points for data and metadata discovery, download, map
    visualization and sharing both during and after the mapping effort.
    This includes ensuring that all relevant and approved data is archived
    within Federal government data holdings and made publicly available.
    The development of high visibility products, such as maps, models and
    related information would be coordinated and communicated to a wide
    range of stakeholders for effective and future decision making that
    benefits the economy, environment and American people.
    Investment and Conclusion

        The Great Lakes Mapping Act is an investment in the future of the
    Great Lakes. The direct economic benefits from better supporting the
    commercial fishery, commercial shipping, growing tourism and
    recreation, protecting infrastructure and coastline, growing and
    retaining a workforce that stays in the region while growing the blue
    economy are significant. From an environmental perspective, the Great
    Lakes have a lot to gain with this foundational dataset. Understanding
    the risks from invasive species on the lakebed, unveiling discoveries
    of the deep--both human, such as shipwrecks, and geologic, such as
    mineral or gaseous deposits all impact the economic picture of the
    Great Lakes. Using this data to understand the effects of a changing
    climate, stormwater runoff, coastal processes, benthic habitats and
    decreasing ice coverage impacts enable the research community to make
    informed decisions that affect economic sustainability of a wide range
    of industries. Human migration is poised to significantly grow the
    population of the Great Lakes, putting strain on a fragile freshwater
    ecosystem that supplies drinking water to many Americans. This data
    helps prepare for that eventuality. Current Great Lakes bathymetry is
    decades old, low density and captured with obsolete technology. The
    Great Lakes Mapping Act will see comprehensive high-density data
    collected to modern standards and made publicly available through
    intuitive discovery tools. This brings the region up to par with other
    U.S. coastal areas for having the kind of coverage and depth data
    required for effective and efficient decision making that impacts
    millions of lives and businesses in one of the largest economies in the
    world. This effort is able to take advantage of established
    organizations via NOAA, IOOS and GLOS that already work with large
    partner networks that include state, federal, local and commercial
    interests. Furthermore, supporting technologies and computing
    infrastructure already partially exists to facilitate the collection,
    cataloging, storing, processing, modeling, sharing and visualization of
    this comprehensive data and high-resolution map of the Great Lakes.
        The return on investment for mapping the Great Lakes benefits
    America, the American people, American business and perhaps most
    importantly, the future of the Great Lakes.
    Support for the Great Lakes Mapping Act

        ``As Director of the Great Lakes Acoustic Telemetry Observation
    System (GLATOS), a binational research effort with a mission of
    understanding the movements of Great Lakes fish, the need for high-
    resolution bathymetric mapping of the lake beds is imperative. GLATOS
    researchers are able to understand fish movement patterns at
    unprecedented scales with acoustic telemetry technology; however,
    without precise information about what habitat these fish are using
    (i.e., via high resolution lake bed mapping) a large information gap
    exists. A concerted high-resolution mapping effort across the Great
    Lakes Basin would allow researchers and managers to better understand
    native fish critical habitat use (i.e., for spawning, nursery and
    foraging) to ensure these economically and ecologically important
    species persist in the face of climate change.''

            Christopher S. Vandergoot
            Director, Great Lakes Acoustic Telemetry Observation System
            Associate Professor, Michigan State University

        ``High-resolution bathymetry data for the lakebed would be
    tremendously beneficial to sustainable management of the Great Lakes
    fishery, said Dr. Marc Gaden, executive secretary of the Great Lakes
    Fishery Commission, a Canada-US treaty organization. We need these data
    for the whole of the Great Lakes. Bathymetry data would allow us to
    link fish movement and behavior to specific habitat; would allow us to
    identify, protect, and improve areas most important to fish spawning
    and fish recruitment; and would help us better predict fishery
    production in areas where good habitat data are otherwise unavailable.
    Moreover, from a whole lake perspective, high-resolution bathymetry
    would allow us to develop better models and tools to better understand
    occupancy and ecosystem function, and allow fishery managers to work
    more effectively with their water quality counterparts. The Great Lakes
    Fishery Commission and its partners look forward to the day when these
    tools are available in the Great Lakes basin.''

            Marc Gaden, PhD
            Executive Secretary
            Great Lakes Fishery Commission
            2200 Commonwealth Blvd. Ste 100
            Ann Arbor, MI 48105

        Further information regarding mapping in the Great Lakes can be
    found in Attachments 1 and 2.

                                  Attachment 1

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240321/116893/HHRG-
    118-II13-Wstate-BoehmeJ-20240321-SD001.pdf

                                  Attachment 2

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240321/116893/HHRG-
    118-II13-Wstate-BoehmeJ-20240321-SD002.pdf

                                    ------

    Questions Submitted for the Record to Jennifer Boehme, Chief Executive
                     Officer, Great Lakes Observing System

                 Questions Submitted by Representative McClain

        Question 1. Dr. Boehme, GLOS' November 2021 report, Costs and
    Approaches for Mapping the Great Lakes, talks about the roles of
    different mapping technologies, including airborne LiDAR, vessel-based
    multibeam echosounder, and autonomous surface and underwater vessels.

        1a) Can you talk about the need to use multiple technologies to
    effectively and timely map the Great Lakes and how industry can aid
    NOAA in these efforts?

        Answer. The Use of Multiple Technologies for Mapping the Great
    Lakes and Industry Role:

        Leveraging multiple technologies and approaches for mapping the
    Great Lakes provides the highest likelihood of complete and rapid
    coverage while maximizing industry contribution by leaning on multiple
    specialities; driving further economic benefit in the region.
        There are two broad categories of approaches to achieve high
    density mapping in the Great Lakes, `crewed' and `uncrewed'. Crewed
    techniques involve aerial (helicopter and fixed wing aircraft) and
    surface vessels (usually small to large vessels). Uncrewed techniques
    typically include autonomous and semi-autonomous surface and subsurface
    vehicles. There are also only two methods for capturing lake floor
    depths, reflected light and reflected sound. Aerial methods (including
    aircraft and even satellite imagery) rely on reflected light (LidAR and
    multispectral imagery) and is usually limited to very shallow and very
    clear water. Reflected sound, SONAR (Sound Navigation and Ranging) is
    the principle method for collecting high density data via either crewed
    or uncrewed methods. There is a broad range of systems employed by both
    industry and government that are tailored for shallow or deep water
    collection.
        The `field season' in the Great Lakes is limited to good weather
    and sea state conditions. A vessel experiencing poor weather conditions
    on the surface will not usually collect good quality data from the lake
    bottom. Therefore, both crewed and uncrewed platforms need to take
    advantage of a relatively short weather window (May to September) for
    survey operations.
        The most practical reason for diversifying the approaches, methods
    and technologies for Great Lakes lakefloor data acquisition is to
    maximize the resources available for the work. The US Government is
    limited in the hardware, personnel, and technology that it can apply. A
    federated group within industry is best positioned to support this
    effort. Few companies boast the capability to employ a wide range of
    mapping technologies, resulting in the reliance on a number of
    companies who specialize in one of the primary approaches.
        Leveraging multiple approaches to Great Lakes mapping is also an
    efficiency gain. Costs vary based on distance from shore and water
    depth--requiring different platforms. Crewed vessel based operations
    are best suited for longer durations in the field, further from shore
    and deeper water. These platforms can cost anywhere from $6,000-$60,000
    per day. As of late, uncrewed vessels have typically had shorter
    durations, being better suited for shallower water, closer to shore and
    have a cheaper price point, often around $200-600 per hour ($5,000-
    $15,000 per day) yielding a 15% to 75% benefit in cost savings.
    Uncrewed range, depth and duration is changing though, reflecting the
    continuing evolution and innovation in this competitive sector. Given
    the limited nature of crewed vessels, in terms of both skilled
    personnel and the vessels themselves, by utilizing a traditional survey
    approach in conjunction with uncrewed systems, we create a force-
    multiplier, covering more area for less money and less time. There is
    also an environmental benefit to leveraging uncrewed vessels; these
    vessels are usually smaller, requiring less power and are often battery
    or even solar powered, reducing carbon emissions.
        Employing a multi-faceted approach to mapping, leveraging industry,
    utilizing different approaches, and taking advantage of a wide range of
    technologies, has a cumulative effect on the ability to map the Great
    Lakes within a short time frame. Organizations like the Great Lakes
    Observing System can serve as a conduit for partner coordination,
    mission planning, data throughput and product development. NOAA stands
    to gain from industry and non-industry participation by leveraging the
    force multiplier effect, domain expertise, innovative approaches, as
    well as environmental and operational efficiency.

           Question asked during the hearing by Representative Bentz

        Question 1. On the value of mapping, could you provide a very
    narrowly constructed list of the benefits.

        Answer. The Value of Mapping the Great Lakes:

        The value proposition for mapping the Great Lakes is extensive and
    touches many aspects of the broader economy in the region.
        It has intrinsic value--a better understanding of the world's
    largest freshwater ecosystem is aligned with the U.S. National Strategy
    For Mapping, Exploring, And Characterizing The United States Exclusive
    Economic Zone (NOMEC); and investment value--by creating an environment
    for increased flow of businesses, educated resources and tourism to the
    region, as well as economic value--by creating jobs, benefiting the
    commercial fishery, savings through prevention of marine accidents, and
    increased shipping & trade in the region.
        Humans have long had an instinctive nature to explore and discover
    their surroundings. This interest in exploration also extends to the
    Great Lakes. Never having been fully explored in high density before,
    our insatiable desire to map these waters goes beyond basic human
    traits. While national interests may not demonstrate immediate or
    direct economic benefits in the short term, they help protect and
    document a national boundary that straddles Canada, which is home to
    tens of millions of people and supports a region-wide $6 trillion
    economy. There are over 6,000 wrecks in the Great Lakes, most of them
    undiscovered, unexplored and undocumented. Discovery, preservation and
    documentation of these wrecks is important for the historical record,
    but also for the families of the missing seeking closure for their
    loved ones.
        Mapping the Great Lakes is not only about documenting and exploring
    the depths. It is also about investing in the region. Boasting a
    massive economic output and a burgeoning economy centered solely around
    maritime and marine related activities, this effort has the opportunity
    to help transform the region from the rust belt to the blue belt.
    Mapping the Great Lakes will require an army of knowledge workers, thus
    spurring increased educational offerings in the region, who will reduce
    the brain drain of the Great Lakes and rather enable the brain gain of
    the Great Lakes. These educated professionals will settle in the area,
    have families, contribute to the economy and support local businesses
    and communities.
        While the fundamental technologies exist at present for surveying
    the depths of the lakes, innovation in this exploration sector is
    blossoming. LiDAR and SONAR systems, uncrewed & autonomous platforms,
    artificial intelligence, data processing, vessel positioning, data
    transmission are all just some of the technologies that are ripe for
    continued development. Investing in mapping the Great Lakes will yield
    growth in the region's blue economy with a wide range of beneficiaries.
        It is not just the act of mapping the Great Lakes that will yield
    investment value. It is also the data itself. One of NOAA's Integrated
    Ocean and Coastal Mapping core principles is, ``map once, use many
    times.'' This refers to the recurring value that is derived from data
    collected via a single investment. In the Great Lakes, this translates
    into investment potential ranging from applications of the data,
    increased tourism from scuba diving \1\ and cruise ships \2\, future
    infrastructure development, resource extraction, coastal resilience and
    all of the subsequent spinoff industries. This data also increases the
    situational awareness for vessel operators (both recreational and
    commercial) both by creating efficiencies and by reducing risk, saving
    Americans' lives and insurance companies' financial exposure.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.michiganseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/11-
    715-Lake-Huron-Scuba-Diving.pdf
        \2\ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/cruises-on-
    the-great-lakes-are-giving-new-life-to-the-rust-belt
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, the direct economic value to mapping the Great Lakes is
    already well documented. NOAA and partners have done many studies
    showing the direct impact of the value of nautical charts (derived from
    depth mapping), the importance of hydrography (the science of depth
    mapping), and the value of the maritime transportation system and its
    relationship to economic benefit. NOAA's report on `Value to the
    Nation' \3\ from 2018 cites that there is a 15x direct benefit and 30x
    indirect benefit from coastal mapping in the U.S. As the GLOS written
    testimony documented, the existing $7B commercial fisheries in the
    Great Lakes stands to gain economically from this effort. Better
    understanding of the benthic habitat and spawning grounds for lake
    fish, from which the fishery is dependent upon, will lead to more
    efficient operations, higher yields and increased profits. A 2024
    report \4\ from NOAA's Office for Coastal Management details the
    economic profile in the region by state (eight of them) and by ocean
    sector category including three new categories; power generation, state
    & local government, and research and education. All told, this new
    report boasts over 15,000 businesses with hundreds of thousands of
    employees earning over $11 billion in wages supporting a $22.6 billion
    gross domestic product (GDP) annually. Tourism and recreation are two
    of the largest categories, producing over half of the GDP. Both are
    poised to grow in the coming years, collecting comprehensive and high
    density data, shared publicly, will further fuel this economic growth.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/document/2019/
    Nov/NOAA-by-the-Numbers-Accessible-Version-Corrected-17-JUL-
    18%20%281%29.pdf
        \4\ https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/marine-economy-
    great-lakes-profile.pdf

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. Narrowly Constructed List of the Benefits:

        To be succinct in the benefits of Great Lakes Mapping, they are:

         Economic impact

              o  Job creation

              o  Investment

              o  Innovation

              o  Education & workforce development

         Business relevance

              o  Commercial shipping/transportation

              o  Ports and harbors

              o  Fishery/aquaculture

              o  Tourism

                      Boating, coastal activities

                      Scuba diving

                      Cruise/passenger vessels

              o  Technology innovation/startups

              o  Company migration

         Science/Research

              o  Climate adaptation

              o  Coastal resilience/erosion

              o  Renewable resource site identification

              o  Benthic habitat

              o  Invasive species

              o  Pollution effects

              o   Modeling (elevation, coastal processes, ice, temperature,
            wave, current, storm surge, volume)

         National/Regional benefits

              o  Ship/aircraft wreck discovery & documentation

              o  Ancient civilization/cultural significance & documentation

              o  National security considerations

              o  Supports national strategic initiatives

              o  Underwater hazards

    Additional Support for the Great Lakes Mapping Act

        ``High resolution lakebottom mapping has been essential to our
    conservation efforts within the sanctuary and is leading to the
    discovery of new, nationally-significant cultural sites. The maps also
    provide up-to-date nautical charts for commercial and recreational
    vessels. Equally important, this type of mapping enables the creation
    of high resolution lakebed habitat maps, which do not currently exist
    for the sanctuary or much of the Great Lakes. Such maps are an
    essential tool for our academic, local, state, and federal partners as
    they look for solutions to the devastating impacts of invasive species
    on fisheries, beaches, and the general health and well-being of Lake
    Michigan.''

            Russ Green
            Superintendent, Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National Marine
            Sanctuary
            One University Ave.
            UW Green Bay, Sheboygan Campus
            Sheboygan, WI 53081

        ``A critical knowledge gap exists in our understanding of the Great
    Lakes, and that limits our ability to effectively manage this important
    resource. Comprehensive, high-resolution mapping would be a
    transformative investment, supporting the development of a sustainable
    blue economy and providing the information needed to ensure safe
    drinking water, resilient coastlines, sustainable fisheries, and
    accessible recreation.''

            Celine B. Gerson
            Group Director, Americas and President USA
            Fugro

        ``The Nature Conservancy is a global organization with the mission
    of conserving the lands and waters on which all life depends. TNC has a
    long history in the Great Lakes region with a focus on fisheries,
    aquatic invasive species, coastal resiliency, climate, and sustainable
    agriculture. The high-resolution bathymetry data that would result from
    the Mapping the Great Lakes Act is not only relevant to all of these
    management issues, but would help us and our myriad of partner better
    protect and restore this globally important resource.''

            Scott Sowa
            Juli Plant Grainger Great Lakes Program Director
            Wisconsin chapter of The Nature Conservancy

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Dr. Boehme.
        I now recognize Ms. Self for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF DEB SELF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF RESTORATION AND
     PARTNERSHIPS, GREATER FARALLONES ASSOCIATION, SAN FRANCISCO,
                               CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Self. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and
    members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the honor to testify
    today in strong support of the Help our Kelp Act.
        My name is Deb Self. I am the Executive Director of Greater
    Farallones Association, a non-profit organization dedicated to
    working in close public-private partnership with NOAA in
    studying and restoring ecosystems of the Greater Farallones and
    Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries, and the Northern
    Management Area of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
    This encompasses approximately 5,000 square miles of federally
    protected ocean along the coast of Northern California,
    representing one of the most biologically productive ocean
    ecosystems in the world.
        On behalf of GFA and our many collaborators working on kelp
    restoration in California, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and
    Maine, it is my pleasure to voice strong support for H.R. 5487,
    sponsored by Ranking Member Huffman.
        In Northern California as elsewhere, kelp forests have
    historically formed the backbone of our marine ecosystems, with
    massive benefits to numerous species of fish and invertebrates,
    marine mammals, and people. Commercial and recreational
    fisheries, recreational diving businesses, tribes, communities,
    and the health of state economies have all depended on healthy
    kelp forests in the past. Kelp's ecosystem value for California
    fisheries alone has been estimated to be worth hundreds of
    millions of dollars. One study puts it at $1.1 billion for one
    type of seaweed alone.
        Unfortunately, kelp forests have been decimated by climate
    stressors and disease vectors that have wiped out most kelp
    forests along the West Coast, leaving widespread so-called
    barrens of purple urchin that, having eaten all the kelp, can
    lie dormant for decades, waiting for the next kelp to come
    along.
        The greatest loss of kelp forests on the West Coast has
    occurred in Northern California, with some of the most
    devastating losses in Greater Farallones National Marine
    Sanctuaries, primarily along Sonoma and Mendocino coasts, where
    more than 90 percent of historic kelp cover was lost between
    2014 and 2016.
        Now, along the Northern California coast, there are only
    remnants of kelp forests, but these remaining beds offer hope
    because they may serve as vital sources of kelp spores and also
    offer critical lessons in resilience, which makes a kelp forest
    be able to withstand these kinds of stressors. GFA is avidly
    studying this through underwater scientific diving and aerial
    mapping.
        Though the collapse has brought peril to fisheries and
    communities alike, there is a window of time right now to
    reduce purple urchin density and to grow and plant baby kelp,
    and then defend that kelp against urchins. This will save our
    fisheries, our economies, and our cultures.
        The Help our Kelp Act would provide 5 years of urgently-
    needed funding to bring to scale highly effective, science-
    based restoration projects within a framework of collaboration
    and with a crucial set-aside for tribes. GFA believes that this
    is just the right approach. Successful partnerships are
    integral to GFA's restoration efforts, and we partner
    extensively with under-employed commercial fishermen who
    actually know how to quickly and efficiently remove purple
    urchin to defend the kelp, and we also partner extensively with
    academic institutions, marine labs, NOAA, and state
    governments.
        The establishment of this grant program through H.R. 5487
    will increase the speed, the scale, and the impact of these
    efforts, and it is critical to both the immediate success in
    re-establishing kelp, and also to ensuring its resilience over
    time.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today in
    strong support of H.R. 5487, which will help our kelp and will
    help our communities and our economies. I am more than happy to
    take any questions. I yield back.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Self follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Deb Self, Executive Director,
                         Greater Farallones Association
                                  on H.R. 5487

        Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the honor of testifying before you today on
    behalf of Greater Farallones Association. My name is Deb Self, and I am
    the Executive Director of GFA, a nonprofit organization dedicated to
    working in close public-private partnership with NOAA's Greater
    Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and the Northern
    Management Area of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
        Our kelp ecosystems are in dire need of rapid restoration to
    maintain the fisheries and communities that are dependent on kelp. It
    is my pleasure to voice strong support for H.R. 5487, the Help Our Kelp
    Act, which would create additional restoration funds for kelp,
    including an emphasis on ensuring Tribes receive resources for
    restoration and co-management.
        This is important to Greater Farallones Association, because our
    mission is to ensure a thriving ocean ecosystem through science,
    restoration, and education. From deep-sea research to community-based
    coastal monitoring, Greater Farallones Association provides critical
    longitudinal data to support good decisions about protection of
    species. In working to inspire and train the next generation of ocean
    scientists and stewards, we educate around 14,000 California primary
    and secondary students per year, and provide paid fellowships to
    college students. Increasingly, we are called on to restore balance and
    function to sanctuary ecosystems--none more important than kelp
    forests.
        Together, the national marine sanctuaries we partner with encompass
    approximately 5,000 square miles of federally protected ocean along the
    coast of California--representing one of the most biologically
    productive upwelling zones in North America. In this unusual geologic
    setting, cold water rises from the depths of the ocean, bringing
    nutrients and plankton to the surface, supporting 36 marine mammal
    species, more than a quarter million seabirds, and more than 500
    species of fish, crabs, shrimp, deep-sea corals, sponges, squid and
    octopuses. It provides a necessary feeding ground for a globally
    significant population of white sharks.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NOAA Greater Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine
    Sanctuaries
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This abundance is the foundation of Pacific commercial and
    recreational fisheries, supporting countless communities and federal
    and state tribes, and also providing vital cultural and recreational
    value not only to California's inland communities but to all of the
    American public.
    The Value of Healthy Kelp

        Along the coasts of Northern California and Oregon bull kelp is a
    foundation species, creating ecological resilience by forming favorable
    habitat for hundreds of species. Kelp forests provide habitat for
    numerous state and federally managed fish species, including the
    federally listed black abalone, lingcod, cabezon and rockfishes.
        Healthy kelp forest habitats provide intrinsic biodiversity value
    through the tourism they support; opportunities for recreation in and
    around them including SCUBA diving, freediving, swimming, kayaking, and
    wildlife viewing; kelp harvesting, commercial and recreational fishing;
    and cultural significance to Tribes and other communities. The Oregon
    Kelp Alliance (ORKA), estimates the value of ecosystem services of
    marine kelp forests in Oregon at $23-52 million (a preliminary estimate
    derived from the pre-publication 2024 Oregon Kelp Forest Status Report
    authored by the Oregon Kelp Alliance). Kelp's ecosystem value for
    California fisheries, meanwhile, has been estimated to be worth upwards
    of hundreds of millions of dollars.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Eger, A.M., Marzinelli, E.M., Beas-Luna, R. et al. The value of
    ecosystem services in global marine kelp forests. Nat Commun 14, 1894
    (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37385-0

        However, this vital resource is teetering. Climate change has
    brought unusually warm ocean waters to the West Coast over the past
    decade, and the warmer waters have lowered reproduction rates of kelp
    and allowed diseases to remove important predators of purple urchin,
    which graze on kelp. The combination of successive marine heat waves
    and the introduction of Sea Star Wasting Syndrome to Northern
    California waters resulted in a widespread die-off of numerous species
    of sea stars, including the iconic sunflower sea star (Pycnopodia
    helianthoides). A population explosion of purple urchin ensued, and the
    kelp stood no chance against urchin with voracious appetites and no
    predators. As a result, kelp forests and their associated species have
    all but disappeared, including the less competitive red urchin, whose
    commercial fisheries in California have also collapsed; without kelp
    restoration, increasingly dire effects on nearshore groundfish
    fisheries are expected.
        The greatest proportionate loss of kelp forests on the West Coast
    has occurred in Northern California, with some of the most devastating
    loss in Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, where more than
    90% of historic kelp cover was lost between 2014-2016. Now, along the
    Northern California coast, there are only remnant kelp beds--so
    valuable now, because they may serve as vital sources of kelp spores
    and also provide information about resilience.
    Economic Impact from the Kelp Forest Collapse

        The extensive and prolonged loss of kelp forests along the Sonoma
    and Mendocino County coastlines has resulted in devastating economic
    impacts for adjacent communities. The recreational red abalone fishery
    was closed in 2017, causing an estimated $44 million non-market loss
    annually (Reid et al 2019). Due to the loss of revenue from red abalone
    divers, the sole dive shop on the Sonoma-Mendocino coast closed
    indefinitely. The commercial red sea urchin fishery, with an estimated
    $3 million value, subsequently collapsed, leaving commercial fishermen
    out of work. Loss of kelp forest habitat leads to the loss of
    additional ecosystem services, including valuable recreational
    opportunities such as SCUBA diving and kayaking, and supporting
    cultural resources such as fishing, hunting and traditional subsistence
    knowledge.
        The kelp forests of the California, Oregon, and Alaska coast also
    have deeply held cultural value for numerous Tribes with customary uses
    and historic management of these coastal ecosystems. For example,
    several of Oregon's coastal Tribes use abalone shell extensively in
    traditional regalia and crafts. Members of the Coquille Indian Tribe
    have expressed to the Oregon Kelp Alliance that they are concerned
    about how abalone will persist in the face of the loss of so much of
    their habitat.
    Tipping the Balance From Urchin-Dominated Back to Kelp-Dominated

        There is a window of time--right now--to reduce purple urchin
    density, culture and plant baby kelp, and defend emergent kelp beds
    from urchin encroachment.
        Bull kelp, which grows mostly north of Monterey Bay and all the way
    up the West Coast, is an annual species that grows up to an astonishing
    10 inches per day. This fast annual growth makes bull kelp forests
    among the most resilient and productive ecosystems in the world that
    thousands of marine species depend on for nursery grounds, food, and
    shelter. Kelp forest loss on the North Coast has persisted for a
    decade, but with the focused removal of urchin grazing pressure and
    replenishment of bull kelp spore availability within strategic
    locations, the large-scale recovery potential of kelp forests is
    incredibly high due to the natural resilience and dynamics of kelp.
        The benefits of restoring this habitat will also extend to coastal
    businesses and other jobs related to recreational abalone divers and
    nearshore recreational and commercial fisheries--and will provide
    renewed opportunities for recreation for the benefit of local
    residents, businesses, and tourists.
        Kelp restoration on the West Coast is a federal, state, and Tribal
    priority. Working with multiple partners, Greater Farallones
    Association's goal is to transition urchin barrens formed in 2014-2016
    to kelp forests by removing red and purple urchins to less than two
    urchins per square meter; culture and plant baby kelp, support the
    introduction of sunflower sea stars (an major urchin predator) and
    defend the growth of kelp from encroachment until it is reestablished.
        In 2019, Greater Farallones Association published the Sonoma-
    Mendocino Bull Kelp Restoration Plan,\3\ outlining strategies in kelp
    restoration, monitoring, research, and community engagement. In
    developing those strategies, GFA has met with representatives from the
    Kashia Band of Pomo Indians, Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo, Noyo Tribal
    Community, North Coast Resource Partnership Tribal Representatives,
    Round Valley Tribes, Coyote Valley Band of Pomo, Manchester/Point Arena
    Tribe, Potter Valley Tribe, and InterTribal Sinkyone Council. Since
    publication of the Restoration Plan, GFA and NOAA have actively worked
    to identify areas of kelp resilience and persistence in the Greater
    Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Using drones and historical
    imagery from crewed fixed-wing surveys, we identified persistent kelp
    beds that historically have shown high resilience to stressors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Hohman, R., Hutto, S., Catton, C. and F. Koe. 2019. Sonoma-
    Mendocino Bull Kelp Restoration Plan. Plan for the Greater Farallones
    National Marine Sanctuary and the California Department of Fish and
    Wildlife. San Francisco, CA. 166 pp.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We continue to collaborate with the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians to
    establish a kelp forest canopy mapping site at Kashia Coastal Reserve
    and this year we look forward to further information sharing as the
    Tribe begins work to start their own restoration project. I'll say
    again that GFA is very supportive of the set aside in H.R. 5487 to fund
    Tribal restoration efforts.
    We Have Begun Restoring Kelp in Greater Farallones National Marine
            Sanctuary

        With the support of a previous appropriation of funds for kelp
    restoration, Greater Farallones Association has begun restoration work
    within the marine sanctuary. We have done so by standing up a trained
    team of scientific divers to conduct biological assessments and to
    monitor the success of our restoration strategies. Secondly, GFA
    entered the commercial fishing industry with a California commercial
    fish buyers license that allows us to leverage the efforts of
    commercial fishermen who are really struggling to make ends meet. In
    our first short season of 2023, commercial urchin divers used rakes to
    collect more than 24,000 pounds of urchin by hand, making substantial
    headway in several key restoration areas. These boat-based urchin
    removals occur primarily out of Bodega Bay and secondarily out of Point
    Arena. For each restoration site, commercial urchin divers are removing
    urchins to densities of 1-2 urchins per sq meter at transects we
    established to demarcate the restoration sites, which are in depths 10
    to 60 feet. The commercial fishermen return to the sites to collect
    urchins every 2-3 weeks after the initial pass for at least 12 months
    after initial urchin removal. The fishermen bring proficiency with hand
    rakes and baskets, offering a fast-paced, high-quantity removal effort;
    their long-time experience diving in these coves brings safety and
    important observations about the substrate and urchin barriers (like
    sand bars) as hone our approach to securing long-term sustainability of
    cleared areas.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Commercial urchin dive boat (left) and a commercial urchin
    diver, harvesting urchins (right). Photo: Stephen Page.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Left, an urchin barren in Greater Farallones National Marine
    Sanctuary. Right, long-time commercial urchin diver Erik Owen,
    celebrating a haul of purple urchin with a GFA Staff member and NOAA
    Scientific Diver. (Photos: CDFW, GFA)
    Kelp Enhancement (Outplanting)

        In a complementary strategy, Greater Farallones Association is also
    planting baby kelp and giving it a shot at quickly growing and reaching
    its reproductive stage within a given season--all with the hopes of
    seeding a connected ``necklace'' of resilient kelp beds along the
    coast. We have partnered with Moss Landing Marine Lab (MLML) and Sonoma
    State University to develop practical and cost-effective techniques for
    enhancing recruitment of bull kelp in kelp restoration areas following
    urchin removals.
        First, we culture bull kelp recruits at MLML and Bodega Marine Lab
    (BML) for planting in the restoration zones. Then, we transport them to
    the North Coast where our collaborative team of scientific divers runs
    mesh bags with concentrated spores and twine inoculated with juvenile
    kelp along the restoration plots. By pairing kelp enhancement with
    urchin removal efforts, we aim to grow kelp and seed the next
    generation of kelp plants in the restoration area.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Kelp culturing set-up managed by SSU at the UC Davis Bodega
    Marine lab (left). Kelp are grown on gravel under conditions and
    temperatures similar to that of the field (center). Photos: Brent
    Hughes, SSU. At right, growing kelp with restoration staff.

        Finally, because the recovery of the understory algal community and
    settlement of bull kelp will be heavily influenced by ocean conditions
    (primarily temperature), we are working with several academic partners
    to deploy moorings at each site equipped with sensors to continuously
    collect environmental data during the growth season for bull kelp.
    Conclusion

        To plan, conduct, monitor, and maintain kelp restoration projects
    is critical to not just ecosystem health, but our states' economic
    health. From commercial fishing to recreational dive shops, from
    community well-being to Tribal autonomy, restoring kelp can reverse
    devastating economic and cultural trends.
        H.R. 5487 will help our kelp and help our communities. Greater
    Farallones Association strongly supports the Help Our Kelp Act and its
    emphasis on science-based restoration and Tribal engagement. We look
    forward with hope to extending nascent restoration programs to ensure
    there is adequate time to bring back the kelp.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Photo credit: NOAA

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ms. Self.
        I now recognize Mr. Horton for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF CHRIS HORTON, SENIOR DIRECTOR, FISHERIES POLICY,
        CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S FOUNDATION, BISMARCK, ARKANSAS

        Mr. Horton. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
    Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Chris
    Horton, and I am the Senior Director of Fisheries Policy for
    the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. I am also a fisheries
    biologist. I want to thank you for holding a hearing on H.R.
    6814, the Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act. This
    bipartisan, science-based legislation will help to ensure that
    important fishing and diving destinations and highly-productive
    marine habitats are protected today and for future generations.
        I currently serve on the Sport Fishing and Boating
    Partnership Council, which reports to the Secretaries of
    Commerce and Interior, as well as on the board of the National
    Fish Habitat Partnership. Though perhaps most important
    relative to today's hearing, I am an avid angler. And the
    waters of the Gulf of Mexico around Fort Morgan, Alabama are my
    home waters when it comes to saltwater fishing. And many of my
    best, most consistent fishing locations are around oil and gas
    platforms and their associated infrastructure.
        Energy infrastructure on the Outer Continental shelf, or
    OCS, has boosted fish, coral, and other marine animal
    productivity for more than three-quarters of a century by
    providing hard substrate over an otherwise sterile, soft, mud
    and sand bottom. Over time, these structures have been the
    catalyst for teeming communities of fish and marine life.
        There has been a long-standing debate as to whether
    artificial structures like oil and gas platforms are simply
    aggregators or fish producers. While some level of aggregation
    no doubt occurs, recent research has demonstrated they can
    contribute to increasing the biomass of marine reef fish
    communities. For instance, the study published in 2014, the
    Marine Ecology Progress Series, used stable isotope ratios to
    essentially support the notion that platforms and other hard
    structures promote the establishment of filter feeders, which
    in turn feed on phytoplankton floating by in the water column,
    and allows for the assimilation of planktonic organic matter
    into the food chain that otherwise would have been lost in the
    absence of the hard structure.
        However, OCS platforms aren't just important to fish; they
    are important to corals, as well. Another study surveyed 13 OCS
    platforms for corals in the northern Gulf of Mexico and found
    eight reef-building coral species, two of the most common of
    which were the ten-ray star coral and the symmetrical brain
    coral. Both species are on the IUCN Red List, and are
    considered critically endangered from a global perspective. The
    authors conclude that OCS platforms have facilitated the
    expansion of coral populations in the Gulf of Mexico, and
    possess an intrinsic environmental value.
        Fortunately, there is an opportunity to convert these
    highly-productive structures into permanent artificial reefs
    through the Rigs-to-Reef Program. Through current Federal law,
    states that have an approved Rigs-to-Reef Program can accept
    the liability and ownership of OCS infrastructures as
    artificial reefs. Strict conditions must be met, including all
    associated wells have been permanently isolated, capped, and
    abandoned, just as they would if they were taken completely to
    shore for decommissioning. All components are clean and free of
    contaminants, and the platform doesn't pose a navigational
    hazard when reefed.
        Unfortunately, of the more than 6,000 to 7,000 platforms
    once constructed in the Gulf of Mexico, today we are down to
    1,101, and 266 of those have formal decommissioning
    applications submitted, and many more are at or nearing the end
    of their life in the next several years. This legislation would
    facilitate the conversion of the most important and prolific
    marine habitats on standing OCS platforms to permanent
    artificial reefs under the Rigs-to-Reef Program.
        Specifically, the bill requires a science-based evaluation
    of the remaining structures for the presence of established
    reef fish communities and, once found, allows for more time for
    the structures to be converted to a state's Rigs-to-Reef
    Program, and allows for designating the area in the immediate
    vicinity of the platforms as reef planning areas. However, the
    bill does not remove any platform decommissioning
    responsibilities by the owners, including isolating and
    permanently capping the associated wells.
        Regardless of where you are from, your recreational
    interests, people come from all over the country and the world
    to experience the rich, diverse habitat and biodiversity OCS
    platforms have to offer.
        In addition, reef platforms could also play an important
    role in climate resiliency for some species, including corals.
    However, it is difficult to explain the importance of
    biodiversity and climate resiliency to offshore anglers and
    divers from Texas to Alabama when the U.S. Government required
    the removal of their favorite offshore destination that had the
    most diverse habitat they had ever seen.
        In summary, the science-based Marine Fisheries Habitat
    Protection Act is simply a win for anglers, commercial
    fishermen, nearby coastal communities, divers, and the marine
    environment.
        Thank you for your time. I am happy to answer any
    questions.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Horton follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Chris Horton, Senior Director, Fisheries Policy,
                      Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
                                  on H.R. 6814

        Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of
    the Subcommittee. My name is Chris Horton, and I'm the Senior Director
    of Fisheries Policy for the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF).
    First, I would like to thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members
    of the Subcommittee for holding a hearing on H.R. 6814, the Marine
    Fisheries Habitat Protection Act, a bill strongly supported by CSF.
    This bipartisan, science-based, very timely legislation will help to
    ensure extremely important fishing and diving destinations and highly
    productive marine habitats off our coasts are protected today and for
    future generations.
        Established in 1989, CSF is a non-partisan organization that works
    with the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus (CSC), the
    largest, most active caucus on Capitol Hill, and with state legislators
    and governors across the country. The current House CSC Co-Chairs are
    Representatives Bruce Westerman (AR) and Jimmy Panetta (CA), and Vice
    Chairs are Representatives Garret Graves (LA) and Jared Golden (ME). I
    have had the privilege to work with Members of Congress, state
    legislators, governor's offices, state and federal natural resource
    agencies, and recreational fishing organizations for the last 11 years
    serving as the fisheries policy lead for CSF.
        I began my career as a fisheries research biologist for a state
    natural resource agency. Prior to joining CSF in 2010, I held the
    position of conservation director for B.A.S.S., the largest angling
    organization in the world. I currently serve as an appointed member to
    the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, which reports to the
    Secretaries of Commerce and Interior, as well as on the board of the
    National Fish Habitat Partnership. Though perhaps most importantly
    relative to this hearing today, I'm an avid angler. In fact, one of my
    earliest memories as a child was fishing with my grandmother sometime
    around the age of five. I have had the good fortune of fishing across
    the nation, from salmon and halibut in Alaska to mahi and sailfish off
    the coast of Florida. However, the Gulf of Mexico, and particularly
    inshore and offshore waters near Fort Morgan, Alabama, are my home
    waters when it comes to saltwater fishing. Many of my best, most
    consistent fishing locations are associated with oil and gas platforms
    and associated infrastructure.
        Energy infrastructure on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) has
    boosted fish, coral, and other marine animal productivity for more than
    three quarters of a century by providing the necessary hard substrate,
    in an otherwise soft mud/sand substrate, on which organisms can
    colonize and begin assimilating nutrients from the surrounding water
    column and developing local reef ecosystems. In addition to providing
    incredibly important destinations for recreational anglers, divers, and
    commercial fishermen, over time, these structures have been the
    catalyst for teeming communities of fish and marine life. In fact, the
    contributions of OCS energy infrastructure, as well as artificial reefs
    in general, to enhancing marine ecosystems is well documented, and I
    offer several examples below.
    Fisheries Abundance and Production

        A March 2020 report funded by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
    found that as much as 48% of the estimated greater amberjack stock in
    the Gulf of Mexico is likely associated with OCS platforms and
    infrastructure.\1\ In addition, the report stated that ``Platform
    removals are likely having, and will likely have, significant adverse
    impacts on local fisheries, especially those offshore Louisiana and
    Mississippi.'' Likewise, studies suggest that the production of young
    red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico has likely increased as a result of
    habitat enhancement by artificial structures, including OCS
    platforms.2,3
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/BOEM_2020-038.pdf
        \2\ https://sedarweb.org/documents/s31rd18-a-life-history-review-
    for-red-snapper-in-the-gulf-of-mexico-with-an-evaluation-of-the-
    importance-of-offshore-petroleum-platforms-and-other-artificial-reefs/
        \3\ https://sedarweb.org/documents/sedar-52-rd-02-investigation-of-
    the-relative-habitat-value-of-oil-gas-platforms-and-natural-banks-in-
    enhancing-stock-building-of-reef-fish-in-the-western-gulf-of-mexico/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A 2014 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy
    of Sciences found that, ``. . . oil and gas platforms off the coast of
    California have the highest secondary fish production per unit area of
    seafloor of any marine habitat that has been studied, about an order of
    magnitude higher than fish communities from other marine ecosystems.''
    \4\ Furthermore, a 2015 modeling study published in Integrated
    Environmental Assessment and Management concluded the potential
    contribution of reefing a platform by partial removal to fish
    production in this region of California is significant.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1411477111
        \5\ https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.1689
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Production vs. Aggregation

        Until relatively recently, there has been a long-standing debate as
    to whether artificial structures like oil and gas platforms simply
    attracted and aggregated fish from surrounding areas or whether they
    contributed to secondary production and new biomass locally. While some
    level of aggregation no doubt occurs, recent research is adding to a
    growing body of evidence that artificial habitats provide important
    ecological functions, including secondary production.
        For instance, using stable isotope ratios of carbon (13C) and
    nitrogen (15N) of the pelagic and benthic organic matter surrounding
    artificial reefs as a unique ``fingerprint'' (so to speak), Cresson et
    al. (2014) demonstrated that artificial reefs effectively support
    biomass production, as invertebrate species directly depended on
    locally produced organic matter, primarily from the water column.
    Isotopic ratios of surrounding fish confirmed the importance of the
    artificial reefs as a food supplier.\6\ Essentially, this study
    supports the notion that OCS platforms and other artificial hard
    structure allow for sessile filter feeders (barnacles, clams, mussels,
    oysters, etc.) to attach and colonize. These organisms begin building
    biomass locally by collecting and feeding on phytoplankton from the
    surrounding water column that would have otherwise drifted out to sea
    over soft mud/sand bottoms. The growth and increasing abundance of the
    filter feeders provides forage for other invertebrate predators and
    fish, thus allowing for the assimilation of planktonic organic matter,
    again otherwise lost in the absence of hard structure, to the top of
    the local trophic food chain.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
    265067101_Artificial_reefs_do_increase_secondary_
    biomass_production_Mechanisms_evidenced_by_stable_isotopes
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to the assimilation of pelagic organic matter to the
    trophic chain locally, the addition of artificial habitat where natural
    reef habitat is absent can increase fish production by enhancing larval
    and juvenile fish survival. Heath et al. (2020) looked at production
    versus attraction at three widely separated estuaries with limited
    rocky-reef habitat along the coast of southeast Australia. Their
    findings ``provide evidence that the fish seen on artificial reefs were
    not attracted from the nearby rocky-reefs and were likely `produced' by
    the addition of artificial reefs in these estuaries. Artificial reefs
    can increase the carrying capacity in these estuaries by providing
    refuge that would otherwise be unavailable.'' \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/
    1365-2664.13666
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benefits of OCS Platforms for Corals

        While the abundance of fish around OCS platforms is an inherent
    draw for anglers and divers alike, it is the diving community that is
    privileged to see the true splendor of these artificial reefs. Many
    species of stony corals are commonly found in abundance on OCS
    platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, and these artificial reefs could serve
    as important donor colonies for coral restoration efforts and provide a
    great example of real and effective climate resiliency opportunities.
        Sammarco et al. (2004) surveyed 13 OCS platforms for corals in the
    northern Gulf of Mexico. They found eight hermatypic scleractinians
    (reef-building stony corals), two of the most common of which were the
    ten-ray star coral (Madracis decactis) and the symmetrical brain coral
    (Diploria strigosa, now Pseudodiploria strigosa).\8\ Both species are
    on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red
    list and are considered critically endangered globally.9,10
    Subsequently, the authors conclude, ``Platforms have facilitated the
    expansion of coral populations in the GOM. Such platforms possess an
    intrinsic environmental value through the presence of coral
    populations, and this may influence future decisions regarding their
    removal.'' \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
    234046738_Expansion_of_coral_communities_
    within_the_Northern_Gulf_of_Mexico_via_offshore_oil_and_gas_platforms
        \9\ https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/133663/166001780
        \10\ https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/133155/165745174
        \11\ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
    234046738_Expansion_of_coral_communities_
    within_the_Northern_Gulf_of_Mexico_via_offshore_oil_and_gas_platforms
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In a final report to BOEM on this study, as well as studies on
    coral recruitment and genetic affinity in 2013, Dr. Sammarco states,
    ``These communities should be considered fragile because of their slow
    development rate. Mass coral mortality on these platforms would require
    decades for recovery.'' \12\ Yet, given current policies regarding OCS
    infrastructure at the end of its production life, we are on a
    trajectory to lose around 75% or more of these coral populations on OCS
    platforms in the near future. Furthermore, without the hard substrate
    throughout the water column that OCS platforms provide, there will be
    no chance for recovery.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/5335.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rigs to Reefs Program

        Fortunately, there is an opportunity to convert these highly
    productive, climate resilient structures into permanent artificial
    structures through the Rigs to Reefs program. In 1984, Congress passed
    the National Fishing Enhancement Act (NFEA), which was followed shortly
    thereafter by the National Artificial Reef Plan (NARP) in 1985. The
    NARP allows for states that have an approved Rigs to Reef plan to
    accept liability and ownership of OCS infrastructures. In total, there
    are five federal agencies that have a role in the eventual permitting
    of platforms to a Rigs to Reefs program (BOEM, BSEE, EPA, US Coast
    Guard, US Army Corps of Engineers). However, three primary conditions
    that must be met are 1) a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    on the final reefing location and at a US Coast Guard-approved surface
    clearance depth; 2) all components to be reefed must be cleaned and
    clear of contaminants; and 3) the platform owner has permanently capped
    and abandoned all associated wells, just as they would if
    decommissioning the structure to shore.
        An additional ``win-win'' to the Rigs to Reefs program is that the
    OCS platform owner shares a portion of their decommissioning cost
    savings of reefing a structure with the state accepting liability,
    typically at 50% of the difference in the cost to reef the structure
    versus towing to shore for decommissioning. To date, there have been
    over 550 OCS platforms reefed as part of a state's Rigs to Reefs
    program. While the majority of those were off the coast of Louisiana
    and Texas, all five Gulf of Mexico states have benefited from the Rigs
    to Reefs Program, both through the permanent addition of habitat and
    financially.
    Current Challenges for the Rigs to Reefs Program

        Since the first OCS platform was constructed in the Gulf of Mexico
    in the 1940s, there have been somewhere between 6,000-7,000 platforms
    installed over time. Today, 1,101 remain with 266 of those having
    formal decommissioning applications submitted. Out of the 266, only 76
    are slated for the Rigs to Reefs program. With many more OCS platforms
    at or nearing the end of their life, it will be difficult to ensure the
    majority of those with established reef fish communities become
    permanent habitat under the Rigs to Reefs program. Given the lengthy
    process (24-48 months, Alabama DCNR personal communication) to secure
    permits and the transfer of liability to the states, stakeholders who
    highly value these artificial habitats fear that the vast majority will
    be lost forever.
        The cost to replace these habitats, once removed, would be
    excessive. For instance, the Alabama Department of Conservation and
    Natural Resources (AL DCNR) has the most extensive artificial reef
    system in the world. A fifteen-foot-tall concrete pyramid commonly used
    for artificial reefs costs around $500 per cubic meter for the agency
    to construct, haul, and deploy. A real example of a basic 4-leg
    platform off the coast of Louisiana in around 130 feet of water depth
    would require 397 pyramids to replace the same surface area of habitat
    at a cost of $3.9 million dollars. The deeper the water and the more
    legs on the platform jacket, the cost is exponentially higher. However,
    just assuming a $3.9 million price tag for the shallow, four-leg
    example and applying to the remaining 1,101 platforms in the Gulf of
    Mexico, the value of the lost habitat in constructing an equivalent
    replacement alone equals $4.3 billion, in addition to the tremendous
    lost economic value for angler access and fisheries production in the
    meantime.
    The Solution

        The Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act would facilitate the
    conversion of the most important and prolific marine habitats on
    standing OCS platforms to permanent artificial reefs under the Rigs to
    Reefs program, ensuring their contribution to fisheries productivity
    endures for future generations. Specifically, the bill requires a
    science-based evaluation of the remaining structures for the presence
    of established reef fish communities, and once found, allows for more
    time for the structures to be converted to a state's Rigs to Reefs
    program. Furthermore, it encourages oil and gas companies to consider
    the Rigs to Reefs program as a decommissioning option by designating
    the area in the immediate vicinity of the platforms as reef planning
    areas with the goal of conserving important localized marine
    ecosystems.
        This bill does not remove any platform decommissioning
    responsibilities by the owners. The bill also does not relieve oil and
    gas companies of their liability for any associated wells, which must
    be permanently plugged, capped, and abandoned whether the platform
    structure is donated to the Rigs to Reefs program or towed to shore and
    scrapped on land. Rather, this bill should assist in facilitating the
    timelier conversion of many end-of-life platforms where the disposition
    of which may be uncertain.
        OCS platforms are incredibly important tourism destinations that
    provide significant economic benefits to nearby coastal communities.
    For anyone who has ever fished offshore from Texas to Alabama, chances
    are, you fished around an oil and gas platform. Whether you are an
    angler or recreational diver from Louisiana, Maine, Alaska, or anywhere
    in between, these artificial habitats in federal waters belong to us
    all, and people come from all over the country and the world to
    experience the rich, diverse habitat and biodiversity OCS platforms
    have to offer.
        As stated by Dr. Sammarco in his study of corals associated with
    OCS platforms, the structures have ``intrinsic environmental value''.
    Their potential to provide refuge at deeper depths for the same species
    of corals suffering bleaching and disease in shallower depths in the
    Florida Keys, Caribbean, and other parts of the world could play a
    crucial role in climate resiliency for those species. However, it's
    difficult to explain the importance of biodiversity and climate
    resiliency to offshore anglers and divers from Texas to Alabama when
    the U.S. Government required the removal of their favorite offshore
    destination that had the most diverse habitat they have ever seen.
        In closing, H.R. 6814, the Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act,
    is simply a ``win'' for anglers, commercial fishermen, recreational
    divers, fisheries productivity, biodiversity, climate resiliency, and
    nearby coastal communities. The bill uses a science-based approach to
    identify habitats associated with OCS energy infrastructure that
    support important assemblages of fish and coral and encourages the
    conversion of that infrastructure to permanent artificial reefs under
    state ownership, all while maintaining the environmental safety
    requirements for infrastructure decommissioning.

        For these reasons, we urge your support of H.R. 6814.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I thank the witnesses for their
    testimony. I will now recognize Members for 5 minutes each for
    questions.
        Mr. Graves, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
    all for your testimony.
        Mr. Horton, I know that Alabama has spent a substantial
    amount of money on creating artificial reefs. Why do they do
    that?
        Mr. Horton. Because Alabama is known for some of the best
    reef fishing. No offense to Louisiana, you all are good, too,
    because of the oil and gas platforms. They don't have as many
    oil and gas platforms as Louisiana, but they have created a lot
    of artificial reef habitat, and it has paid off tremendously.
        Mr. Graves. And you noted in your testimony the extraction
    of all these platforms or otherwise artificial reefs. As I
    recall, I think 60 percent of the platforms have been removed
    since 2000, a huge, huge percentage. Doesn't it seem so much
    strange or ironic that states like Alabama, as well as efforts
    in Louisiana, money is being spent to create artificial reefs
    whenever at the same time we are effectively removing them?
        Mr. Horton. Yes, that is something that, as recreational
    anglers, it is hard to understand why we would take out habitat
    that has been there for 40 years and established these
    communities. It would cost a considerable amount to replenish
    those habitats with newly-constructed artificial reefs.
        For instance, Alabama, the typical 15-foot-tall pyramid
    that they install roughly costs $500 per cubic meter for that
    one pyramid to take it out and install it. And if you take just
    a four-legged platform, there is a real-life example in my
    testimony of a four-legged platform off the coast of Louisiana
    in 131 feet of water. To replace that same surface area, it
    would require 397 of those pyramids at a cost of $3.9 million.
        Mr. Graves. Wow. Well, thank you. That is amazing.
        Dr. Porch, thanks for being here. In your testimony, you
    cite the overly broad definition of ``established reef
    ecosystems.'' Could you just talk a little bit about how you
    think that could be tightened up, or what you think could be
    done to help to improve or just clarify the intent there?
        Mr. Porch. Sir, thank you for the question. Yes, as
    written, it really could mean almost anything, including you
    just see a fish that typically is associated with reefs and
    passing through. So, almost any structure might at one time----
        Mr. Graves. So, transient fish versus homeowners. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Porch. Right. That is one thing we would want to be
    careful about there.
        Also, what is the threshold where we would say it is
    established reef ecosystem? So, what percentage of what species
    would we need to see, what percentage of coverage that we would
    call it an ecosystem. We would be happy to work with you on the
    language there.
        Mr. Graves. OK, I certainly would appreciate that, if we
    could continue the dialogue.
        Mr. Horton, if I can come back to you, again, I know that
    you spent a lot of time fishing in the Gulf of Mexico in one of
    the top five fishing states, I believe, in the Gulf of Mexico.
    You are familiar with the great red snapper count, and you are
    familiar with the fact that I believe it is two-thirds of the
    abundance under the great red snapper count that was this
    massive effort carried out by academia, they were actually
    identified as being in what is known as otherwise
    uncharacterized bottom.
        Could you talk about, as a marine biologist, your thoughts
    there on the role of pipelines, and if we are properly sort of
    assessing, under the NOAA system, if we are properly assessing
    the Gulf of Mexico, or what the great red snapper count sort of
    brought to light?
        Mr. Horton. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. And
    yes, the great red snapper count was an unprecedented study
    that came and kind of gave us a brand new look and perspective
    on red snapper. And we found that the vast majority of red
    snapper aren't on hard structures, the population itself, it is
    an uncharacterized bottom. And some of this uncharacterized
    bottom is pipelines. And actually, the great red snapper count
    estimated that there were over 500,000 red snapper on
    pipelines. And if you take the 7-pound average for red snapper
    in the Gulf of Mexico, that is 3.5 million pounds of red
    snapper. That is basically the entire private recreational
    quota that is found on pipelines.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you.
        Dr. Porch, if I can come back to you, totally changing
    gears, or maybe the Great Lakes folks just very quickly, March
    16, 1957, a F-94 Spitfire Squadron was flying from a base in
    Indiana to Wurtsmith, which is an Air Force base in Michigan.
    One of the planes in that squadron was piloted by, let's see,
    it was Lieutenant Henry Charles Nicolay, and the first officer
    was Lieutenant Harold Lewis. The plane went down, and they
    believe it was in Lake Huron.
        I know that some of these mapping efforts, they are going
    to try, this plane has never been found, the people have never
    been found. Our constituent is actually the son. Would these
    mapping efforts be able to help to identify perhaps where this
    plane went down in Lake Huron?
        Quickly, please. I am sorry, I am out of time.
        Mr. Porch. Yes, thank you for that question. Certainly,
    with adequate coverage, with the multi-beam sonars we can pick
    up things like that.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you.
        I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Hoyle for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Hoyle. Thank you very much.
        I was very proud to be able to secure a $2.5 million grant
    for the Oregon Kelp Alliance's Kelp Forest Protection and
    Restoration Initiative for the Fiscal Year 2024 government
    funding bill to help remove sea urchins across six sites on the
    Oregon coast, and planting and seeding bull kelp to help
    reestablish the kelp on three of the cleared sites.
        Representative Huffman's bill, the Help our Kelp Act, would
    create grant programs through NOAA focused on restoring and re-
    establishing kelp forests. So, I guess I have some questions
    for Ms. Self.
        One, how quickly do you begin to see kelp regrow, once the
    issues like sea urchins are addressed?
        And I know what kelp restoration does for the biodiversity
    and ocean ecosystems on the Oregon coast; I represent 250 miles
    of the Oregon coast. But can you talk about the benefit to the
    economies of coastal communities when we invest in these kinds
    of projects?
        Ms. Self. Thanks very much for your question and for your
    prior efforts to get funding to the Oregon coast for kelp
    restoration. I did speak with the Oregon Kelp Alliance in
    preparation for this testimony, and they are very excited to be
    represented here in support of the Help our Kelp Act, as well.
        So, how quickly does kelp take hold? Well, it depends on
    the kind of kelp. But bull kelp grows at an astonishing rate. I
    was looking for my notes, because I don't want to get it wrong,
    but because it is an annual species, it will actually grow kind
    of from the hold-fast at the rock all the way to the surface,
    which can be 30 meters in a given season.
        So, just keeping the urchin out of that area or across a
    sand barrier where the urchin can't get to the kelp, and then
    giving outplanted kelp something to attach to, and then letting
    it grow all season, it will become reproductive and produce
    spores in a given season. So, it is this kind of critical
    window right out of the bat where you want to clear the
    urchins, keep them back, do a successful outplanting, and then
    hopefully produce spores that will have a place to take hold
    the next season. So, it can be a pretty rapid response.
        What was your other question? Fisheries values?
        Ms. Hoyle. But specifically what I would like you to
    address is the benefit to coastal economies because both
    commercial and sport fishing are really, really important parts
    of our economy. And I just want you to talk about that kind of
    benefit.
        Ms. Self. Absolutely. In both Northern California and
    Oregon, both commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries,
    recreational dive shops are really a backbone to the economies.
        I know that in Oregon, and a preliminary estimate, the
    Oregon Kelp Alliance has established that somewhere upwards of
    $50 million a year is related to kelp alone, so enormous
    benefits to jobs and businesses.
        Ms. Hoyle. Thank you so much.
        I yield my time.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman
    Dingell for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
    H.R. 7020, the Great Lakes Mapping Act is included as part of
    today's hearing.
        This is a piece of legislation that I am leading alongside
    my friend and colleague from Michigan, Lisa McClain, and her
    partnership on this has really, really been an important
    bipartisan effort.
        The Great Lakes Basin is the largest freshwater ecosystem
    in the world, and it is home to more than 20 percent of the
    world's freshwater supply. It is a vital part of our nation's
    economic, environmental, and cultural identity. Not only are
    the Great Lakes unparalleled in their beauty, they are also
    home to 3,500 unique plant and animal species.
        Economically, the Great Lakes provide trade,
    transportation, and one-of-a-kind recreational activities for
    Michiganders and visitors across the nation. Their coastlines
    boast some of the sandiest beaches and, honestly, without the
    risk of stepping on washed up jellyfish or swimming with
    sharks.
        However, despite how much we enjoy the Great Lakes, we know
    very little about the lakebed. In fact, 85 percent of the Great
    Lakes remain unexplored, and there has been little effort to
    provide accurate information. This gap in the data hinders
    informed decision-making regarding many issues facing the Great
    Lakes.
        The Great Lakes Mapping Act directs the Administrator of
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA,
    to conduct high-resolution mapping of the lake beds by 2030 and
    to collect important data. In addition, the bill requires NOAA
    to share the data publicly no later than 100 days after the
    completion of the mapping effort.
        Today, we are joined by a witness who just happens to be a
    constituent, as well, Ms. Jennifer Boehme.
        It is great to see you today, and thanks for joining us for
    this important discussion. Ms. Boehme, the Great Lakes Mapping
    Act authorizes NOAA to conduct groundbreaking, high-resolution
    mapping of the lake beds. Currently, the Line 5 Pipeline lays
    at the lake bed of the Straits of Mackinac in between Lake
    Michigan and Lake Huron, carrying some 22 million gallons per
    day of light crude oil and LNG. How will this legislation
    improve our understanding of these lake beds, where pipelines
    run along the bottom uncovered and liable to leakage?
        Dr. Boehme. Thank you for your question. The help here is
    finding a missing puzzle piece.
        Currently, the mapping that exists in the Great Lakes is a
    patchwork quilt, and it is unevenly distributed throughout the
    lakes themselves. What we are talking about with the Great
    Lakes Mapping Act, that would allow us to achieve mapping to 1
    percent of lake depth. So, that means we would have detailed
    maps at less than a meter resolution for a shallow lake like
    Lake Erie, up to 5 meters resolution in Lake Superior. At this
    type of resolution, we would be able to maintain and expand
    maps for, for instance, zebra mussel invasion, and also be able
    to provide detailed mapping for pipeline status so that we can
    monitor for safety.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. Ms. Boehme, how does this
    authorization or requirement for high-resolution mapping
    support combating climate change threats and growing the blue
    economy in the Great Lakes region?
        Dr. Boehme. Sure. Understanding the lake bed means a better
    understanding of shoreline impacts of storms, and helping us
    identify coastal areas that are a risk for erosion, especially
    those that we haven't currently identified yet.
        With increasing climate change, the Great Lakes is
    expecting greater frequency of storms, as well as less ice
    cover. The winter-time ice cover that protects the coastlines
    from storm impacts isn't going to be in place the way that it
    used to be.
        As far as the economy, this effort itself will generate new
    jobs for knowledge workers for gathering data, and developing
    the maps themselves, as well as downstream economic impacts
    through the support of fisheries and recreation in the region.
        Mrs. Dingell. OK. In the last 30 seconds, can you tell us
    how will the American people benefit from having this high-
    resolution mapping of the Great Lakes?
        Dr. Boehme. Sure. The Great Lakes is the only regional
    association at IOOS where we drink our water. So, this type of
    mapping would support protection of also drinking-water
    pipelines for major cities in the region. It supports coastal
    access for commercial fishing and anglers, and recreational use
    of the Great Lakes coast. So, this bill would support a
    drinkable, swimmable, fishable Great Lakes.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you very much. I look forward to
    continuing our work.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ranking Member
    Huffman for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Self, thanks for your testimony about the kelp, and I
    understood you to answer my colleague from Oregon about the
    bull kelp, you were talking about bull kelp that grows. It is
    an annual. Is it the same with the giant kelp?
        Ms. Self. No, giant kelp, I think that it has been
    documented to live as long as 7 years, so it is a little bit of
    a different biological structure and reproductive cycle.
        Mr. Huffman. But in both cases, it sounds like the key is
    to keep the urchins at bay long enough for this fast-growing
    kelp to re-establish and reproduce. And the good news, perhaps,
    is that if you can control those urchins in that way, you are
    going to get your kelp forests back pretty quickly. Is that
    fair to say?
        Ms. Self. Well, we hope.
        Mr. Huffman. Yes.
        Ms. Self. We hope so and, again, those remnant beds that
    are left are teaching us lessons about what kinds of
    oceanographic conditions and topographic conditions and what
    kind of substrate, whether it is sand or boulder, lead to kind
    of a natural balance where the urchin don't have as much
    success. So, we are looking for those resilient places, and to
    try to defend them and then connect contiguous, high-value
    spots where there historically has been really healthy kelp.
        Mr. Huffman. Right. And you also spoke to the importance of
    these kelp forests to our local recreational economies and to
    fishermen. I understand you are actually working with some of
    those folks as part of the urchin control effort in these
    restoration projects. Could you talk a little more about that?
        Ms. Self. Thanks for asking. I had to cut that part in my
    statement. In fact, Greater Farallones Association and I myself
    am now a commercial fish buyer. We work extensively with mostly
    out-of-work, red urchin fishermen, and we purchase urchin from
    them. So, they used to gather red urchin, which are now
    decimated by the purple urchin, and they go out on their own
    commercial fishing vessels with their own rakes and under their
    own commercial licenses with the California Department of Fish
    and Wildlife, and they gather these urchin really efficiently,
    and they bring them to Dandy Fish Co. in Bodega Bay, where we
    purchase them.
        Currently, we send them for composting, so we have just
    gotten started on this effort, and this bill would really help
    us bring that to scale.
        Mr. Huffman. Yes, I think that is fantastic.
        I am not going to ask you about this, because I know that
    your organization doesn't yet have a position, but I know that
    there is another great way to control urchins involving a
    keystone predator that happens to be quite charismatic that we
    would like to reintroduce to the North Coast, to California. I
    am all for it, and it makes an awful lot of sense. But that is
    probably another conversation. I am talking about the sea
    otter.
        Mr. Porch, I want to ask you a little more about Mr.
    Graves' legislation. Thanks for discussing the need to tighten
    up some of those definitions so that everything doesn't qualify
    as an existing ecosystem. But another technical problem I want
    to discuss with the bill is including oil and gas pipelines.
        Can you explain how this infrastructure would also be
    impacted by this legislation?
        Does this have the potential to support reefs and
    incredibly valued fishing habitat, or is this maybe just an
    unintended consequence of the way the bill is drafted?
        Mr. Porch. Thank you for the question.
        Of course, the existing Rigs-to-Reef Program does not
    consider pipelines as adequate for artificial reef building.
    However, in places where they are exposed, particularly below
    200 feet, they don't have to be buried, they do carry a lot of
    reefs-associated species, and sometimes quite large numbers of
    fish. So, there is no question that they can support reef fish
    communities in those areas.
        Whether you would want to move them or leave them in place
    is a different question.
        Mr. Huffman. Yes, let's talk about that. I understand that
    NOAA is already not conducting surveys supporting states' Rigs-
    to-Reef Programs. BSEE estimates that the process of those
    surveys takes 1 to 2 years. And this bill would raise the bar,
    giving you a deadline of 90 days to do all this. You don't have
    the resources for it, the bill doesn't provide those resources.
        So, what happens when everything grinds to a halt is you
    can't proceed with decommissioning under this legislation,
    which is a problem, and specifically would be a problem for
    things like buried pipelines or even exposed pipelines. Could
    you talk a little more about that, about the risks as this
    infrastructure just sits there and ages?
        Mr. Porch. Certainly, thank you for the question. Yes, if
    the infrastructure was allowed to sit there and it wasn't
    properly cared for, we have already discussed, yes, you have
    the possibility of introducing hazardous materials into the
    water column. Of course, if they decay and pieces fall off, you
    can create navigational hazards. If the debris is not located
    properly, it could provide interference for fisheries like our
    shrimp fishery, where they are dragging nets on the bottom.
        So, there certainly are those concerns if the rigs are left
    there too long, navigational hazards, et cetera.
        Mr. Huffman. All right, I appreciate it. Again, I am not
    absolutely opposed to a bill like this. I think it needs to be
    much more narrowly tailored, though, to address some of these
    concerns we have flagged.
        I appreciate the testimony and yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Peltola for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I enjoyed all of your testimony very much. I was listening
    on C-SPAN, so thank you.
        I was particularly interested in Mr. Horton's comments
    about red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska. We have
    seen some real depletions in our stocks, specifically three
    salmon stocks and halibut and crab. And I was wondering if you
    had any advice or ideas for Congress to consider in rebuilding
    stocks around the United States.
        Mr. Horton. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
        One of the species or groups of species that I am not that
    familiar with are the salmonid species, specifically, in the
    Pacific Northwest. I don't think artificial habitat would
    benefit those. But we have just seen the benefits of artificial
    habitat in the Gulf of Mexico and other coastlines, and the
    potential for even things like wind energy. When you put metal
    in the water, things are going to grow on it. And the reef-
    fish-associated type species or bottom species are going to
    benefit from that, long term.
        But I wish I could help on the salmon issue in the Pacific
    Northwest, because that is obviously a major concern there, for
    sure.
        Mrs. Peltola. Thank you.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes himself for 5
    minutes.
        Director Porch, I met with NOAA some time ago, maybe 2
    years ago, and expressed my concern about the lack of focus
    upon ocean conditions. And I note you are the Director for the
    Southeast Fisheries Science Center, so that is in Florida. But
    I am going to be talking about Oregon, Washington, and the West
    Coast.
        I was concerned when I asked about the number of studies,
    particularly involving such things as, oh, I know, kelp, by
    NOAA. Are you aware of something more than mere observation
    going on in NOAA when it comes to the value of kelp and salmon,
    for example? Is there a study ongoing by NOAA now on that
    issue?
        Mr. Porch. I am not certain on the specifics of that, but I
    would be happy to get back with you on that.
        Mr. Bentz. I would very much appreciate that. And, in fact,
    while you are at it, I would like to see a list of the studies
    that NOAA, NMFS are supporting right now when it comes to the
    condition of our oceans. Because what I see is a focus on
    rivers, with almost a blind eye toward the ocean, which seems
    extremely odd. So, if you will get me a list of the types of
    studies that are ongoing, particularly on the West Coast, I
    don't need the rest of the world, but the West Coast is
    terrifically important to me.
        And while we are talking about kelp, I am going to go to
    Ms. Self.
        You must be working with Oregon State University on their
    efforts in that space. Are you aware of any focus upon the
    importance of kelp to salmon?
        Ms. Self. Thank you for the question. Greater Farallones
    Association is not working with Oregon State, but I know that
    the Oregon Kelp Alliance is, and I believe that they are
    working with that agency carefully on a study that will be
    coming out soon valuing the fisheries that are dependent on
    kelp in Oregon. We are working more closely with the California
    Department of Fish and Wildlife.
        And, in fact, to your prior question, all of our projects
    are actually joint projects with NOAA's Office of National
    Marine Sanctuaries. So, all of our work on kelp, much of it
    funded through NOAA, some funded from other sources, is done on
    behalf and in partnership with NOAA. I just wanted to speak to
    that engagement on the West Coast ecosystems.
        Mr. Bentz. Right, thank you for that. I am interested, of
    course, in the question. Ignore Oregon State for a moment. If
    you can tell me, has there been a focus on the value of kelp to
    salmon in any of your work, or are you aware of any that NOAA
    is actually doing?
        Ms. Self. I am not certain. I do know that kelp provides a
    really important shelter and place for herring spawn, and I am
    not at all familiar with the life cycle of salmon and how it
    relates to kelp. But I would be really happy to look into that
    and provide references.
        Mr. Bentz. I hate to say I wasn't paying total attention to
    all of your important testimony, but I did look up the papers
    while I was sitting up here earlier, and there are indeed a
    couple of papers indicating the importance of kelp to salmon.
    That has been studied by at least some people. I am just
    wondering why our most important agency when it comes to these
    kinds of issues, NOAA, is not doing it, because they should be.
    And I am looking forward to seeing what they are doing so I am
    not blaming them for no good reason.
        I want to shift to Dr. Boehme for a moment and go to the
    mapping. And there is much discussion about the value of
    mapping, but we never seem to quite get to what that value
    actually is. And I know that the Ranking Member suggested that
    finding the Edmund Fitzgerald would be a valuable thing, but
    there must be more to it than that. So, what is it?
        And lake currents, depths of water, where does the value
    come from?
        Dr. Boehme. Part of the value here is understanding how the
    depths of the lake bed are shifting, so that we have better
    models for wave action to predict shore impacts during severe
    storms. And this would enable us to better protect coastal
    communities. It would allow public and private-sector
    infrastructure to be better protected from the flood risks that
    come from these high-impact storms in the region. The Great
    Lakes is experiencing these more and more often.
        So, this is the type of information that we are, as we
    said, 13 percent mapping, we are quite a bit far behind. So,
    this foundational data set would help us better protect our
    coastal communities from flood risk.
        Mr. Bentz. Right. And I am out of time, but it is extremely
    interesting to me. So, if you could provide a very, very
    narrowly constructed list of the benefits, I would very much
    appreciate that.
        Dr. Boehme. We would be happy to follow up.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
        Ms. Porter, do you want to be recognized?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Bentz. OK, well, then I think that exhausts our
    Congressfolk.
        I want to thank you for your testimony and the Members for
    their questions.
        The members of the Committee may have some additional
    questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
    these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the
    Committee must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5
    p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 26. The hearing record will
    be held open for 10 business days for these responses.
        Without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                            Statement for the Record
                 Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
                        U.S. Department of the Interior
             on H.R. 6814, Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act

    Introduction

        The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE)
    appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement for the record on
    H.R. 6814, the Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act. BSEE is
    responsible under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) for
    regulating the development of oil, gas, and other energy and mineral
    resources on the United States outer continental shelf (OCS) in an
    orderly manner while safeguarding the environment. Current BSEE
    regulations allow for converting decommissioned platform jacket
    structures to artificial reefs when such structures become part of a
    State artificial reef program and the responsible State agency acquires
    the necessary permit and accepts title and liability for the structure.
    Rigs-to-Reefs Background

        BSEE is responsible for permitting and overseeing the installation
    and eventual removal of oil and gas and other energy-related facilities
    on the OCS. When an OCS lease, right-of-way, or right of use and
    easement expires and/or the facilities are no longer useful for
    operations, the responsible parties are obligated to decommission and
    remove their facilities (30 CFR Sec. Sec. 250.1703, 1725(a)) and clear
    the seabed of all obstructions (30 CFR Sec. 250.1740).
        In 1984, the National Fishing Enhancement Act was enacted to
    address increased interest and participation in fishing at offshore oil
    and gas platforms and widespread support for effective artificial reef
    development by coastal states. The Act recognizes the social and
    economic values in developing artificial reefs, establishes national
    standards for artificial reef development, provides for creation of a
    National Artificial Reef Plan, and provides for establishment of a
    reef-permitting system.

        Since 1985, BSEE has supported and encouraged the reuse of obsolete
    oil and gas platform jackets as artificial reef material and may grant
    a departure from removal requirements under 30 CFR Sec. 250.1725(a) and
    applicable lease obligations when:

         The structure becomes part of a State reef program that
                complies with the National Artificial Reef Plan;

         The State agency acquires a permit from the U.S. Army
                Corps of Engineers and accepts title and liability for the
                reefed structure once removal/reefing operations are
                concluded;

         The lessee, owner, or grant holder satisfies any U.S.
                Coast Guard navigational requirements for the structure;
                and

         The reefing proposal complies with BSEE engineering and
                environmental standards.

    H.R. 6814

        H.R. 6814 would amend the National Fishing Enhancement Act by
    codifying terms related to the conversion of idle oil and gas
    infrastructure on the OCS to artificial reefs. The bill directs the
    Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA) to conduct assessments of such structures to determine if there
    is an established reef ecosystem, and gives authority to the
    Administrator to designate a reef planning area in the immediate
    vicinity of such structures. It also requires the Administrator to
    submit a report to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) within one
    year of enactment regarding each assessment conducted and determination
    reached.
        H.R. 6814 would also amend OCSLA by codifying terms related to the
    conversion of idle oil and gas infrastructure on the OCS to artificial
    reefs. The bill would require the Secretary to suspend removal of idle
    structures pending the Administrator's report. If the Secretary concurs
    with the determination of the Administrator, the Secretary cannot
    require structure removal as it continues through the process for
    acceptance into an artificial reef program managed by a coastal State
    or Federal agency. All other decommissioning obligations must be
    accomplished by the lessee, owner, or grant holder within two years of
    filing a notice of intent to become part of an artificial reef program,
    and reefing in place of the structure must be completed within five
    years.
    Analysis

        BSEE appreciates the sponsor's focus on this topic and support of
    the Rigs-to-Reefs process and science-based decision making, including
    scientific-based ecosystem assessment. However, BSEE has concerns about
    some provisions of the legislation that would impact the government's
    oversight of oil and gas infrastructure and its potential use as
    artificial reefing material on the OCS.
    Rigs-to-Reefs Process and Policy
        BSEE is concerned about the legislation's proposed changes to the
    Rigs-to-Reefs process and policy that could fundamentally change the
    scope and intent of the program. The bill as written is not entirely
    clear as to whether the intent is to provide greater authority to NOAA
    to establish a national Rigs-to-Reefs program on the OCS in the Gulf of
    Mexico, with NOAA taking on liability for artificial reefs established
    in NOAA designated reefing areas, in addition to the State programs.
        The bill also defines ``Idle Structure'' to include pipelines and
    associated equipment and infrastructure. These structures are not
    currently considered adequate or appropriate reefing materials under
    BSEE's Rigs-to-Reefs Program Policy (BSEE Directive 550.4 DS-G,
    November 21, 2019). BSEE also believes the definition conflicts with
    BSEE's definition of ``idle iron,'' which will create confusion for
    industry regarding its decommissioning obligations (BSEE NTL No. 2018-
    G03, Idle Iron Decommission Guidance for Wells and Platforms). Aligning
    the bill's definitions to BSEE's definitions would ensure consistency
    across programs and properly identify platform structures that are no
    longer of use for their original purpose.
    Federal/State Coordination
        The bill lays out coordination between Federal and State agencies,
    but BSEE believes there could be more clarity on the role of State
    programs and their authority and responsibilities regarding the
    designation and approval of reef planning areas and the selection of
    structures for reefing purposes.
        BSEE supports science-based, informed decision-making for all
    activities on the OCS. In support of those efforts, especially with
    regard to Rigs-to-Reefs, BSEE created and maintains the publicly
    available OCS Facility Infrastructure Dashboard, which already provides
    the information contemplated by the bill's requirement to create an
    Offshore Infrastructure Dashboard. BSEE's OCS Facility Infrastructure
    Dashboard is an important tool that has served all stakeholders in the
    Rigs-to-Reef process.
    Decommissioning Obligations and Enforcement
        The bill would restrict the Secretary's ability, through BSEE, to
    enforce decommissioning requirements on idle structures until the
    Administrator has completed reports on its assessment of idle
    facilities and makes its determinations regarding the existence of a
    reef ecosystem. Because of the large number of idle facilities in the
    Gulf of Mexico, this restriction could impede BSEE's ability to require
    decommissioning in a timely manner, causing potential safety and
    pollution hazards to remain in the water longer than they would
    otherwise.
    Conclusion

        BSEE appreciates this opportunity to share its experience working
    with its Federal and State partners to assess certain offshore oil and
    gas platforms for potential use as artificial reefs while continuing to
    ensure energy operations on the OCS are safe and environmentally
    responsible. BSEE welcomes the opportunity to work with the
    Subcommittee, NOAA, and the Sponsor to address the areas of the
    proposed legislation that have been noted to be of concern.

                                     ______

                            Statement for the Record
                         U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                  on H.R. 1395

    Introduction

        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) appreciates the
    opportunity to submit a statement for the record on H.R. 1395, the
    Delaware River Basin Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2023. The
    Service supports H.R. 1395, which would continue a legacy of successful
    collaborative conservation that benefits communities and ecosystems
    throughout the Delaware River watershed.
        The mission of the Service is working with others to conserve,
    protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for
    the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service's efforts to
    achieve this mission span a wide variety of programs, including the
    Delaware River Basin Restoration Program (DRBRP), which is relevant to
    the legislation addressed today.
        H.R. 1395 would reauthorize the DRBRP through 2030. This
    legislation would make several changes to the DRBRP's grant program,
    including defining the Delaware River Basin as a 5-state watershed with
    the addition of Maryland. Additionally, H.R. 1395 increases the federal
    cost share for projects that serve small, rural, and underserved
    communities to 90 percent. The Secretary of the Interior would also be
    authorized to issue a waiver for the non-federal cost share if the
    Secretary determines that the grant recipient is unable to pay or would
    experience significant financial hardship.
    Background

        The Service has a long history of tackling cross-cutting
    conservation issues. Using this expertise, the Service's Science
    Applications Program is bringing together partners to identify shared
    conservation priorities and deliver scientific information needed to
    achieve goals across the Delaware River watershed. Following the
    enactment of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act
    (P.L. 114-322) in 2016, the Service, in partnership with the National
    Fish and Wildlife Foundation, established the DRBRP to develop a
    comprehensive and collaborative approach to restore and protect the
    Delaware River watershed. This voluntary, non-regulatory program brings
    partners together across the watershed in pursuit of a shared vision:
    restoring and protecting the watershed's natural resources for the
    benefit of wildlife and people. Guided by a partner-developed strategic
    framework, the DRBRP prioritizes conservation activities in four key
    areas: restoring fish and wildlife habitat, improving water quality,
    reducing flooding and runoff, and enhancing safe recreational access
    for the public.
        The DRBRP's grant program, the Delaware Watershed Conservation Fund
    (Fund), implements these priorities by awarding matching grants to on-
    the-ground conservation projects. Since 2018, the Fund has awarded
    nearly $55.1 million to 195 projects, which have leveraged $79.2
    million in matching funds. This amounts to a total conservation impact
    of $134.3 million, a testament to the strength of our partnerships and
    the efficiency of the Service. The Service is appreciative of
    Congress's transformational investment in the Fund through the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which will provide $26 million to tackle
    larger projects and meet the demand for the Fund which continues to far
    exceed available resources through Fiscal Year 2026.
        Last year, awards supported efforts to develop 13-miles of
    recreational access for streams in Camden, New Jersey, enhance
    stormwater management to wetland species and improve public safety in
    Delaware, build pollinator gardens with faith communities in Delaware,
    conserve brown and rainbow trout in New York, and implement post-dam
    removal creek restoration in Pennsylvania. These projects have resulted
    in far-reaching benefits for fish, wildlife, and people. In total, the
    DRBRP has restored 76 miles of streams, improved 6,052 acres of habitat
    with public access, and advanced the management of 29,321 acres of
    forest, all while creating an estimated 445 jobs for local economies.
    H.R. 1395, Delaware River Basin Conservation Reauthorization Act

        Building off the last six years of success, H.R. 1395 would enable
    continued progress toward shared conservation goals in the Delaware
    River watershed. The DRBRP demonstrates the power of collaborative,
    landscape-scale conservation in tackling 21st century conservation
    challenges like climate change, habitat degradation, and biodiversity
    loss. We appreciate the bill sponsor, co-sponsors, and Committee's
    continued support for this valuable program.
        The addition of Maryland under H.R. 1395 would align the program
    with the watershed's geography. While entities from Maryland are
    currently eligible to apply for grants from the Fund, provided they
    meet all requirements, codifying Maryland's inclusion would clarify
    eligibility and drive increased engagement throughout the watershed.
        The Service appreciates this bill's focus on ensuring equitable
    access to funding for small, rural, and underserved communities. The
    non-federal cost share requirement for the DRBRP's grant program can
    serve as a barrier to participation for many of the communities that
    would most benefit from this funding. By reducing the non-federal cost
    share and authorizing a waiver, the Service can support communities
    that lacked the resources to participate in the program previously.
    Increasing equity and access to these resources would ensure that the
    program truly serves everyone who lives, works, and recreates on the
    Delaware River.
        The Service would welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor
    and the Subcommittee on three recommended changes to H.R. 1395. The
    Service recommends removing the prohibition on the net gain of Federal
    employees for the administration of the DRBRP under P.L. 114-322.
    Additionally, the Service suggests an edit to Section 2(d) to authorize
    the program rather than requiring the program to be sunset upon
    expiration. Finally, we would welcome the opportunity to work with
    Congress to ensure a strong DRBRP, while maintaining the Service's
    flexibility and resources to address other areas of conservation
    priority for the Nation.
    Conclusion

        The Service supports H.R. 1395, which would continue a legacy of
    successful collaborative conservation that benefits communities and
    ecosystems throughout the Delaware River watershed. We appreciate the
    Subcommittee's interest in community-based, collaborative conservation
    and continued support for the Delaware River Basin Restoration Program.
    The Service remains committed to working with partners, local
    communities, and private landowners to conserve habitat and species
    while benefiting the public with healthier and more enjoyable
    surroundings. We look forward to working with the sponsor and
    Subcommittee on this legislation.

                                     ______

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Huffman

                            National Audubon Society

                                 Washington, DC

                                                     March 19, 2024

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

    Re: Audubon Support for H.R. 1395 and H.R. 7020

        Dear Chair Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

        On behalf of the National Audubon Society, thank you for holding a
    legislative hearing on H.R. 1395, the Delaware River Basin Conservation
    Reauthorization Act of 2023 and H.R. 7020, the Great Lakes Mapping Act.
    These bills are critical to advancing bipartisan conversation solutions
    for the Delaware River watershed and the Great Lakes.
        H.R. 1395 will reauthorize the Delaware River Basin Restoration
    Program (DRBRP) through 2030 and empower small, rural, and
    disadvantaged communities to protect their local environment through a
    reduced match requirement of 10%. The bill also offers the Secretary of
    the Interior the ability to waive all cost-share requirements in cases
    of significant financial hardship. These changes will ensure that these
    communities can engage in conservation projects and access federal
    funds more equitably. The Delaware River Watershed encompasses a
    complex system of forests, rivers, marshes, and urban landscapes
    stretching 13,500 square miles and 2,000 rivers across the five basin
    states of Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland.
    The watershed provides drinking water to over 14 million people,
    critical habitat for a diverse ecosystem of birds and other wildlife,
    and a robust tourism and outdoor recreation economy. The DRBRP,
    administered by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, champions
    federal-local collaboration and critical on-the-ground projects in the
    Delaware River Watershed that conserve and restore this irreplaceable
    natural resource.
        H.R. 7020 would direct the Administrator of the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration to conduct high-resolution mapping of
    the lakebeds of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes serve as the drinking
    water source for more than 42 million people and provide a rich aquatic
    habitat supporting a $7 billion annual fishing industry and Great Lakes
    recreation that draws millions of tourists who boost the economies of
    our communities. Millions of migratory birds depend on coastal habitats
    along the Great Lakes for shelter, rest, and nourishment for their long
    journeys and thousands of raptors, waterfowl, and wetland birds rely on
    the Great Lakes systems for safe nesting grounds. High-resolution
    mapping of the lakebeds of the Great Lakes will help provide new
    scientific and technical information to support ongoing restoration of
    the Great Lakes.
        Audubon is grateful that these critical watersheds are receiving
    federal attention and support. Thank you again for holding a hearing on
    the Delaware River Watershed Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2023
    and the Great Lakes Mapping Act and we urge a favorable report from the
    committee.

                Sincerely,

                                                  Caitlin Wall,
                                                 Director, Water Policy

                                     ______

                          Environmental Defense Center

                                      and

                              Surfrider Foundation

                                                     March 20, 2024

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

    Re: H.R. 6814, Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act--OPPOSE

        Dear Chair Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

        We, as dedicated advocates for the marine environment, are
    compelled to strongly oppose H.R. 6814, the Marine Fisheries Habitat
    Protection Act. This legislation, if enacted, would disrupt existing
    federal law and regulations, impede ongoing decommissioning efforts to
    remove oil and gas infrastructure from the Pacific Coast, and hinder
    the implementation of existing California state law, which provides a
    balanced approach to creating artificial reefs from such
    infrastructure.
        The Environmental Defense Center (``EDC'') is a non-profit public
    interest law firm that works to protect and enhance the local
    environment through education, advocacy, and legal action. Since its
    inception, EDC has focused on protecting the coast from the risks and
    impacts caused by offshore oil and gas production.
        Surfrider Foundation's (``Surfrider'') mission is the protection of
    our ocean, waves, and beaches, for all people, through a powerful
    grassroots network. Surfrider advocates for the safe and responsible
    decommissioning of offshore oil and gas infrastructure.
    H.R. 6814 is Not the Right Solution for Decommissioning Offshore Oil
            and Gas Facilities

        A total of 23 aging oil platforms and related infrastructure remain
    offshore California, all constructed between 35-57 years ago (from
    1967-1989). Declining oil production has made some platforms obsolete,
    with others soon to follow in the foreseeable future. The process for
    decommissioning these facilities is already well underway on the
    Pacific Coast, but the passage of H.R. 6814 would only undermine the
    progress that has already been made.
        The consequences of H.R. 6814 are deeply concerning. It would
    establish a system that favors leaving oil and gas infrastructure in
    place, regardless of the suitability of a site for an artificial reef,
    and it disregards the critical need to return the ocean and seafloor to
    pre-lease conditions after production has ceased. Remnant oil and gas
    infrastructure poses significant risks, including obstructions and
    hazards to navigation, entanglement risks to commercial fisheries and
    marine wildlife, and the potential leaching of toxic chemicals from
    abandoned structures.
    1. H.R. 6814 Would Interfere with Existing Law, Regulations and Lease
            Requirements.

        Existing federal law and regulations under the Outer Continental
    Shelf Lands Act already mandate comprehensive decommissioning
    activities, ensuring the removal of platforms, pipelines, and other
    facilities associated with oil and gas leases. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 250.1703.
    Decommissioning activities include permanently plugging wells, removing
    all platforms and other facilities, decommissioning pipelines, and
    clearing the seafloor of all obstructions associated with the lease,
    among others. Id.

        Notably, however, current federal regulations already allow for
    partial decommissioning, making H.R. 6814 unnecessary. A Regional
    Supervisor may approve partial structure removal or toppling in place
    for conversion to an artificial reef if the operator meets the
    following conditions:

      1.  The remaining structure becomes part of a State artificial reef
                program;

      2.  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers grants the responsible state
                agency a permit and the state assumes title and liability
                for the structure; and,

      3.  The remnant structure meets U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) navigational
                requirements.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 30 C.F.R. Sec. 250.1730.

        Furthermore, H.R. 6814 is inconsistent with approved leases and
    permits for offshore oil and gas facilities which require safe and
    environmentally sound decommissioning in compliance with all applicable
    laws and regulations. For example, Exxon Company's Development and
    Production Plan for the Santa Ynez Unit dated September 1987 required
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    the following:

         All wells plugged and abandoned;

         Casings cut off at least 16 feet below the mud line and
                all obstructions removed from the ocean floor;

         All equipment removed from the platform;

         Decks dismantled and jackets and pilings removed to below
                mudline, all of which be transported to shore for disposal,
                salvage, or reuse;

         All obstructions removed from ocean floor;

         Nearshore marine terminal dismantled; and,

         All obstructions removed from ocean floor.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Exxon Company Development and Production Plan, Santa Ynez Unit
    Development, Pacific OCS Area Offshore Santa Barbara County, California
    (September 1987) at XI 18-19.

        While Exxon's production plan allowed pipelines to be purged and
    abandoned in place, the Minerals Management Service (the Bureau of
    Safety and Environmental Enforcement's (``BSEE'') predecessor federal
    agency) required nearly full removal of all infrastructure after
    operations have ceased.
        H.R. 6814 would disrupt the regime of federal law, regulations, and
    lease conditions currently in place for the oil and gas industry in
    their offshore operations.
    2. H.R. 6814 Would Interfere with Existing Federal Agency Efforts on
            Decommissioning.

        BSEE has set a course for decommissioning of oil and gas
    infrastructure on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf. In late 2023,
    BSEE concluded a multi-year effort to study and analyze decommissioning
    for oil and gas infrastructure by publishing its Record of Decision and
    Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Oil and Gas
    Decommissioning Activities on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf
    (``PEIS''). The PEIS is an extensive document that examined at length
    various options for decommissioning, but ultimately selected as its
    Preferred Alternative complete removal of platforms, jackets, and other
    subsea infrastructure. The PEIS is a programmatic analysis, from which
    future projects may tier as they become ready for decommissioning.
        BSEE extensively evaluated the potential environmental and
    socioeconomic impacts of decommissioning in the PEIS and selected
    complete removal of oil and gas infrastructure because it would ensure
    that no infrastructure would remain on the Pacific Outer Continental
    Shelf seafloor that could later interfere with navigation, commercial
    fisheries, future oil and gas operations, and other current or future
    users.
        Other alternatives studied in the PEIS included two partial removal
    options and a no action alternative. While acknowledging that removal
    of platforms, jackets and pipelines would result in some seafloor and
    habitat disturbance, on balance, BSEE found that any alternative
    leaving infrastructure in place would result in long-term risks such as
    entanglement of commercial fishing nets or ship anchors, and future
    long-term leaching of hazardous materials present in shell mounds at
    the base of platforms.
        Looking forward, the PEIS ``will support future federal review of
    and action on decommissioning applications, and will provide a
    programmatic analysis to which future, site-specific [National
    Environmental Policy Act] analyses may tier.'' \3\ This tiering process
    will allow future analyses to focus on site-specific issues and effects
    related to the removal activities.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ PEIS at ES-1-2.
        \4\ Id. at 4-22 and ES-2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        By mandating yet another study before remnant structures are
    removed, H.R. 6814 would upset the progress that has already been made
    towards decommissioning of infrastructure in the Pacific region. In
    addition, the criteria set forth in Section 207(a)(1)(B) of H.R. 6814
    for determining whether an owner or lessee may ``reef in place'' does
    not require that navigational or entanglement hazards be eliminated,
    only that navigational markers be placed around remnant infrastructure.
    Similarly, Section 207(a)(1)(B) requires that ``hazardous liquids'' and
    hydrocarbons be removed, but does not address the hazardous and toxic
    materials known to be present in shell mounds in the Pacific Region
    which could break apart in a seismic event. The criteria set forth in
    H.R. 6814 are wholly inadequate for ensuring that remnant
    infrastructure does not create a danger to marine wildlife and human
    users of the ocean environment.
        Simply put, H.R. 6814 does not address the many environmental and
    navigational hazards that would be created by leaving remnant
    infrastructure in the ocean environment. BSEE has already thoroughly
    studied and reached the conclusion that this infrastructure must be
    removed, which our organizations strongly support.
    3. California Law Already Addresses the Matters Contained in H.R. 6814.

        At the request of the oil industry, the State of California enacted
    a rigs-to-reefs law in 2010 that allows companies to apply for partial
    removal of their platforms as part of the decommissioning process.
    Prior to the passage of that law, platforms were required to be fully
    removed.
        This State law--the California Marine Resources Legacy Act--
    addresses the issues set forth in H.R. 6814. First, it provides a
    partial removal option for platforms that are decommissioned off the
    coast of California. Second, the law requires site-specific studies to
    analyze the impacts and benefits of the various decommissioning
    options. This analysis must consider the contribution of the structure
    to protection and productivity of fish and other marine life; any
    adverse impacts to biological resources, water quality, or the marine
    environment from partial or full removal; and any benefits to the
    marine environment that would result from partial or full removal.
    Third, it addresses liability for structures that are left on the
    seafloor. It was important for the State not to be left holding
    liability for structures that are decommissioned in federal waters, so
    the State added an indemnification provision. Finally, the law provides
    for a percentage of the oil companies' cost savings to be shared with
    the State.
        Several platforms in federal waters offshore California are ready
    for decommissioning. With the completion of the PEIS and adoption of
    the State's rigs-to-reef law, these platforms can and should be
    decommissioned in a timely manner, in accordance with existing law.
    This bill would delay that process until completion of an assessment of
    each idle structure. Such delay is not necessary because these
    assessments are already required by State law.
        In light of these considerations, we urge you to oppose H.R. 6814.
    This bill not only disregards established federal and state laws but
    also jeopardizes the marine environment and coastal communities. We
    implore you to prioritize the protection of our marine ecosystems and
    coastal communities, and support timely decommissioning, by rejecting
    this detrimental legislation.

                Sincerely,

            Linda Krop, Chief Counsel     Pete Stauffer,
            Rachel Kondor, Staff
            Attorney                      Ocean Protection Manager
            Environmental Defense
            Center                        Surfrider Foundation

                                     ______

                               Ocean Conservancy

                                 Washington, DC

                                                     March 20, 2024

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

    Re: Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act, H.R. 6814 (Oppose)

        Dear Chair Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

        We are writing to express Ocean Conservancy's \1\ concerns with
    H.R. 6814, the Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act. Under existing
    law, offshore oil and gas operators are responsible for cleaning up
    offshore infrastructure that has reached the end of its useful life.
    This process, called ``decommissioning,'' is critically important.
    Delays and failures in decommissioning can lead to safety,
    environmental and financial risks.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Ocean Conservancy is working with you to protect the ocean from
    today's greatest global challenges. Together, we create evidence-based
    solutions for a healthy ocean and the wildlife and communities that
    depend on it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In some instances, decommissioning, reefing in place, and
    dedicating the financial savings to conservation may yield ecosystem
    and recreational benefits. Evaluation of these benefits requires
    careful consideration. If evaluated case-by-case on the basis of
    adequate scientific analysis, and if consistent with a regional
    analysis and plan, partial decommissioning (``rigs-to-reefs'') projects
    may sometimes be consistent with long-term sustainable management of
    fishery resources.
        However, the proposal in this bill would not provide a sufficiently
    protective and functional rigs-to-reefs program. H.R. 6814 would be a
    sweetheart deal for the oil and gas industry, whereby entities who
    currently hold liability for oil and gas rigs/platforms and are
    responsible for their decommissioning would be able to unload
    responsibility for their large, expensive, and toxic garbage onto the
    public. This bill is a blank check for platforms to reef-in-place so
    long as they meet bare-minimum requirements.
        This bill fails to create a protective and functional pathway for
    offshore infrastructure to reef in place in at least three areas:
    1. Use of cost savings
        Under a sufficient rigs-to-reefs program, financial benefits to
    platform owners and operators associated with reefing should be
    dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the public's marine
    resources, including sustainable fisheries. Platform owners and
    operators should be required to direct financial benefits from reefing
    toward ocean conservation, monitoring, research, and observation
    programs established and run by the federal government in coordination
    with affected states. While this bill would provide a small amount of
    money to states, it would encourage states to take on costly long-term
    burdens in exchange for a small near-term financial gain. It would
    excuse the oil and gas industry from its responsibilities and would not
    require those funds to be used for the benefit of ocean resources.
    2. Liability
        Under a sufficient rigs-to-reefs program, platform owners and
    operators must fully indemnify, in perpetuity, the federal and state
    governments against any liability from the remaining portion of a
    platform and its associated wellhead or other facilities. In no
    instance should the liability for reefed or partially removed platforms
    be borne by the public. All costs of any necessary preparation,
    approval, and mitigation must remain the responsibility of the owner or
    operator. This bill does the opposite. It would subsidize the oil and
    gas industry and burden the public with all future liability and costly
    maintenance.
    3. Review
        Under a sufficient rigs-to-reefs program, reefing decisions must be
    made on a case-by-case basis consistent with regional analyses and
    plans, and with the goal of strengthening and maintaining ocean health
    and biodiversity. Reefing decisions should be based on science with
    independent review. This bill does not include regional analyses or
    plans and does not provide for independent review.
        A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report highlighted
    significant and ongoing weaknesses in the Department of the Interior's
    oversight and enforcement of offshore oil and gas decommissioning
    activities.\2\ The report also found many offshore oil and gas
    operators were not in compliance with existing decommissioning
    deadlines. GAO recommended that Congress consider ``implementing an
    oversight mechanism'' to help address agency shortcomings. Instead of
    strengthening Department of the Interior's enforcement and oversight
    mechanisms, this bill would reward malfeasant oil and gas operators by
    allowing them to transfer liabilities onto taxpayers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See Offshore Oil and Gas: Interior Needs to Improve
    Decommissioning Enforcement and Mitigate Related Risks, GAO-24-106229
    (Jan 25, 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This bill is a step in the wrong direction for our offshore
    resources. Ocean Conservancy acknowledges that a well-designed rigs-to-
    reefs program could, in some cases, have conservation benefits. But
    decommissioned rigs should not be classified broadly as federally
    recognized important habitat. Instead, decisions to leave industrial
    infrastructure in the ocean should be made on their ecological merits,
    consistent with science-based regional plans and analyses, and with
    independent review. Furthermore, financial benefits to platform owners
    and operators associated with reefing should be dedicated to the
    protection and enhancement of the public's marine resources. Rather
    than giving offshore oil and gas operators advantageous terms at
    taxpayer expense, Congress should strengthen the Department of the
    Interior's ability to oversee and enforce operators' decommissioning
    responsibilities.

        For all these reasons, Ocean Conservancy opposes H.R. 6814.
    Sincerely,

                Sincerely,

                                               Kathy Tsantiris,
                                         Director, Government Relations

                                     ______

                               RECORD OF DECISION
          Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Oil and Gas
                           Decommissioning Activities
                     On the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf

                                1. INTRODUCTION

        The purpose of this Record of Decision (ROD) is to record the
    decision selecting the Preferred Alternative described and analyzed in
    detail in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Oil and
    Gas Decommissioning Activities on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf
    (POCS). The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE)
    proposes to review and approve or deny decommissioning applications for
    the removal and disposal of oil and gas (O&G) platforms, associated
    pipelines, and other obstructions and facilities located offshore
    Southern California on the POCS as required by regulation and governing
    lease terms. The BSEE and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) POCS
    Regions prepared the ``Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for
    Oil and Gas Decommissioning Activities on the Pacific Outer Continental
    Shelf'' (PEIS) (BOEM 2023-1605, October 2023) to identify and evaluate
    the potential environmental impacts and socioeconomic considerations
    pertinent to the proposed action and alternatives. The PEIS supports
    future Federal review of and action on decommissioning applications,
    and provides a programmatic analysis to which future, site-specific
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses may tier, as
    permitted in NEPA's implementing regulations (43 CFR 46.140; 40 CFR
    1501.11). Future analyses will focus on site-specific issues and
    effects related to decommissioning activities.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ As clarified by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
    ``[p]rogrammatic NEPA reviews assess the environmental impacts of
    proposed policies, plans, programs, or projects for which subsequent
    actions will be implemented either based on the [Programmatic
    Environmental Assessment] or PEIS, or based on subsequent NEPA reviews
    tiered to the programmatic review (e.g., a site-or project-specific
    document).'' CEQ Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and
    Agencies, Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA Reviews, at 7 (Dec. 18,
    2014). This PEIS will support future actions based on subsequent site-
    specific NEPA reviews tiered to this programmatic review.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This ROD does not by itself authorize or impose requirements on
    decommissioning activities on the POCS. This decision does identify
    potential mitigation measures, which BSEE may supplement or otherwise
    adjust with additional requirements on permits or other authorizations
    as site-specific circumstances warrant after the agencies complete
    additional environmental review.
        The Preferred Alternative would apply to decommissioning activities
    on active and terminated leases in Federal waters of the POCS. The O&G
    reservoirs associated with the 43 originally active leases on the POCS
    have been in production for 26 to 48 years. During that time, the
    reservoir pressures and O&G production have been in decline. Currently,
    23 O&G platforms exist on the POCS off the southern California coast.
    The first platform was installed in 1967 and the last two in 1989.
    Eventually, all the platforms will be subject to decommissioning. Prior
    to approving a decommissioning application, a site-specific NEPA
    analysis and associated relevant consultations will be required.

                                  2. DECISION

        I am selecting the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 1 with sub-
    alternative 1a (Alternative 1a), of the PEIS because it best meets the
    purpose and need for the proposed action.
        The purpose of the proposed action is to perform BSEE's delegated
    functions of oversight and enforcement of decommissioning obligations
    for platforms, pipelines, and other obstructions and facilities on the
    POCS in a manner that ensures safe and environmentally sound
    decommissioning activities in compliance with all applicable laws,
    regulations, and lease or permit terms or conditions.
        In October 2023, BSEE and BOEM issued the Final PEIS, which
    incorporates analyses of the proposed action, two other action
    alternatives, and a no-action alternative presented in the Draft PEIS
    issued in October 2022. It also addresses public comments that BSEE and
    BOEM received on the Draft PEIS during the comment period. The Final
    PEIS evaluates four Alternatives: 1, 2, 3, and 4, which, together,
    depict the potential range of impacts resulting from decommissioning
    activities. In addition, each action alternative has a sub-alternative,
    which considers explosive severance, rather than mechanical severance,
    for the underwater portions of platforms and wells (casings).
        Alternative 1 with sub-alternative 1a is denoted as the Preferred
    Alternative in the PEIS. This alternative includes the complete removal
    of platforms, topside, conductors, the platform jackets to at least 4.6
    m (15 ft) below the mud line, and the complete removal of pipelines,
    power cables, and other subsea infrastructure (i.e., wells,
    obstructions, and facilities), with site clearance from the POCS. In
    the long term, the Preferred Alternative would ensure that no O&G
    infrastructure would remain on the POCS seafloor that could interfere
    with navigation, commercial fisheries, future O&G operations, and other
    current or future POCS users.
        Sub-alternative 1a provides the most proven reliable severance
    means for decommissioning activities. Not all decommissioning
    activities under the Preferred Alternative would require explosive
    severance; however, the use of explosive methods may need to be
    implemented if non-explosive severance methods cannot successfully be
    utilized for piling and conductor removals.
        I considered the Annual Air Emissions and Social Cost of Greenhouse
    Gases (GHG) estimates when making my decision to select the Preferred
    Alternative. The GHG analysis provided in Appendix F of the Final PEIS,
    Estimation of Peak Annual Air Emissions and Total Program GHG
    Emissions, Social Costs, and Emission Equivalencies, provides a
    benchmark for the short-term estimates of GHGs to be used for
    comparison with the future site-specific NEPA analysis. Alternative 1
    was estimated to have the highest temporary levels of associated GHG
    emissions because, in the short-term, this alternative may require more
    vessel use and more time for removal activities.
        Action Alternatives 2 and 3 include only partial jacket removal, to
    at least 26m (85 ft) below the waterline, rather than complete removal
    of platform topsides, jackets, pipelines, and other subsea
    infrastructure (wells, obstructions, and facilities). Alternative 2
    considers in-place decommissioning of the jacket with only the top
    sides of the platform transported to shore for disposal. Alternative 3
    includes a Rigs-to-Reefs (RTR) option for the disposal of the jacket
    with the top side structures removed for on-shore disposal.
        Under Alternative 4, the No Action Alternative, BSEE would take no
    action on decommissioning applications in the POCS region. Other
    ongoing regulatory and statutory requirements for managing platforms,
    pipelines, wells, power cables, and subsea infrastructure following
    lease termination would continue to apply, notably those for
    maintaining safety and protecting the environment, such as plugging and
    abandonment activities, including emptying platform tanks, equipment,
    and piping of all liquids, and emptying and flushing pipelines in
    anticipation of decommissioning.

              3. ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL BUT NOT SELECTED

        I did not select Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 because the Preferred
    Alternative (Alternative 1) best meets the purposes of the Outer
    Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and supports development of
    domestic conventional and nonconventional energy resources in an
    environmentally and economically responsible way.
        Alternatives 2 and 3 include only partial jacket removal, to at
    least 26m (85 ft) below the waterline, removal of the platform jackets,
    and pipeline abandonment-in-place. There would be relatively less near-
    term environmental disturbance under Alternatives 2 or 3 than under
    Alternative 1, which would include additional seafloor disturbance and
    habitat loss during complete removal of jackets, pipelines, power
    cables, and other obstructions and facilities (subsea infrastructure,
    shell mounds, etc.), and site clearance. However, both Alternatives 2
    and 3 would leave major portions of platform jackets and pipelines
    abandoned in place, or jackets reefed at approved sites in the long
    term. Under Alternatives 2-4, all or portions of platform jackets,
    pipelines, and other facilities and infrastructure would remain on the
    seafloor following any other required decommissioning. Long-term risks
    from remnant infrastructure include entanglement of commercial fishing
    nets or ship anchors, and future long-term leaching of potential
    hazardous materials present in shell mounds remaining around the base
    of platforms that were released in permitted discharges during past O&G
    operations. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, long-term risks would be
    analyzed in greater detail when plans are submitted for specific
    decommissioning projects. Such plans would identify jacket portions,
    shell mounds, or pipelines proposed to be abandoned in place. This
    would allow for the identification of the location of at-risk resources
    and better quantification of the long-term risks from remnant
    infrastructure.
        Under Alternative 4, ongoing regulatory and statutory requirements
    for managing platforms following lease termination would continue to
    apply; however, regulatory and lease or grant requirements for
    decommissioning of idle infrastructure and infrastructure on expired
    leases and ROWs would not be satisfied. Additionally, Alternative 4
    would result in permanent impacts from marine trash and debris left on
    the seafloor. Alternative 4 was not chosen because it does not meet the
    purpose and need for the Proposed Action, nor does it meet the legal
    obligations of the lessees or other liable parties and BSEE.

        For these reasons, I have not selected Alternatives 2, 3, or 4.

                   4. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE

        I have identified Alternative 2 as the environmentally preferable
    alternative based on the seafloor disturbance that would occur with
    complete removal; the expressed public desire to maintain hard bottom
    habitats that have become established from the presence of O&G
    infrastructure and to decrease localized habitat loss; and the
    potentially enhanced benefits for recreational and commercial fishing.
    Pursuant to Departmental NEPA regulations, 43 CFR 46.30, the
    environmentally preferable alternative is defined as that which
    ``causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment
    and best protects, preserves, and enhances historical, cultural, and
    natural resources.'' In addition, 43 CFR 46.30 states that ``[t]he
    environmentally preferable alternative is identified upon consideration
    and weighing by the Responsible Official of long-term environmental
    impacts against short-term impacts in evaluating what is the best
    protection of these resources.'' Table ES-2 of the PEIS, Summary
    Comparison of Potential Effects among Alternatives, includes additional
    description for each Alternative's effects on identified resources.
        Alternative 2 consistently exhibits similar potential effects to
    resources as Alternative 1, but in each case, the effects are expected
    to be reduced in magnitude, duration, or both. Alternative 2 leaves
    some infrastructure in place that may pose long term risks to other
    uses on the OCS, including entanglement and loss of gear to commercial
    and recreational fishing and contaminant leaching from potential
    hazardous materials present in shell mounds remaining around the base
    of platforms. The primary beneficial outcome of Alternative 2 is
    minimizing seafloor disturbance and habitat loss. The installation of
    platforms, pipelines, and subsea infrastructure in the marine
    environment resulted in habitat modification. Although these structures
    were intended to be temporary, the operational life is long term and
    can impact the local distribution of species in an area. The O&G
    infrastructure has created locally important hard bottom habitats for
    species and biodiversity in which the platforms and portions of
    pipelines have been colonized by dense communities of sessile and
    epibenthic invertebrate species. The complete removal of jackets and
    pipelines would mean a permanent loss of existing hard substrate and
    the associated invertebrate communities, which would be replaced by
    invertebrates typical of the water column and soft sediments.

             5. CONSULTATIONS AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

        On October 12, 2022, BSEE and BOEM published a notice in the
    Federal Register that announced a 47-day public comment period on the
    Draft PEIS for Oil and Gas Decommissioning Activities on the Pacific
    OCS. The comment period was extended and closed January 10, 2023. BSEE
    and BOEM also hosted two virtual public meetings on November 10 and
    November 15, 2022, to share information about BOEM's environmental
    review process and to solicit public input. In total, 34 submissions
    were received, via online and public comment hearings. Of the 34
    submissions received, 33 were identified as unique and one submission
    was a duplicate. BSEE and BOEM included a Summary of Public Comments
    received for the Draft PEIS as an appendix to the Final PEIS, Summary
    of Public Comments and Bureau Responses.
        BOEM and BSEE engaged in a number of consultation and coordination
    processes with Tribal, Federal, state, and local government entities
    regarding POCS decommissioning activities.
    Interagency Coordination
        In 1997, a group of Federal, state, and local agencies agreed to
    form an Interagency Decommissioning Working Group (IDWG) to develop an
    action plan to guide agency decommissioning efforts. The IDWG is
    composed of representatives from BOEM, BSEE, California State Lands
    Commission, California Coastal Commission, California Department of
    Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Ventura
    County, Santa Barbara County, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers (USACE). This group meets quarterly to discuss
    emerging topics impacting the region as it pertains to decommissioning
    oil and gas facilities in the offshore environment. Departmental
    agencies and bureaus are required, under 43 CFR 46.225, to invite
    eligible government entities to participate as cooperating agencies
    during the development of an EIS. The Notice of Intent invited other
    Federal agencies, as well as state, Tribal, and local governments to
    consider becoming cooperating agencies in the preparation of the PEIS.
    BSEE established cooperating agency status with the USACE for the PEIS.
    Government-to-Government Tribal Consultations
        Consistent with Executive Order (EO) 13175 and DOI directives that
    implement that EO, BOEM contacted four federally Recognized Indian
    Tribes, including the Pala Band of Mission Indians, Santa Rosa Band of
    Cahuilla Indians, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, and the Santa
    Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. On July 21, 2021, August 17, 2021, and
    February 19, 2022, BSEE sent formal letters to these four federally
    Recognized Indian Tribes in California notifying them of the
    development of the decommissioning PEIS. On October 19, 2021, BSEE sent
    another formal letter announcing and soliciting consultation regarding
    the Draft PEIS. The Pala Band of Mission Indians, Santa Rosa Band of
    Cahuilla Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians have deferred to
    the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians for any consultations and have
    requested that BSEE keep them informed of any progress. During the
    writing of the draft PEIS, one response was received from the Santa
    Ynez Band of Chumash Indians and a virtual consultation took place on
    February 1, 2022. Nothing else has been received in response to
    letters; however, discussions with designated Tribal representatives
    are ongoing to determine if any of the individual Tribes desire
    continued consultations.
    Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
        Provisions in the CZMA guide coastal states in developing voluntary
    coastal management programs (CMPs) to manage and balance competing uses
    of the coastal zone. Federal agency activities must be ``consistent to
    the maximum extent practicable'' with relevant enforceable policies of
    a state's Federally approved CMP (15 CFR 930 Subpart C and 15 CFR part
    923) (e.g., POCS lease sales, renewable energy competitive lease sales,
    and marine minerals negotiated competitive agreements). If an activity
    will have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects, the activity is
    subject to Federal consistency rules. For Federal consistency reviews
    under the CZMA, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) reviews Federal
    agency, Federally-permitted, and Federally-funded (to state and local
    government) activities that affect the coastal zone, regardless of
    their location.
        Pursuant to the CZMA, applicants will submit site-specific
    decommissioning applications to the CCC after certification by BSEE to
    ensure that the proposed activities are consistent with the enforceable
    policies of California's CMP.
    Endangered Species Act (ESA)
        The ESA mandates that the Bureaus, when carrying out their
    regulatory responsibilities, must consult with other Federal agencies,
    including the USFWS and NOAA's NMFS. At the time when decommissioning
    applications are submitted, BSEE will prepare a Biological Assessment
    specific to the structure removal and pipeline decommissioning
    activities described in the application to address consultation
    requirements with NMFS and USFWS. BOEM retains authority under OCSLA to
    apply additional mitigation measures on post-lease OCS activities, as
    necessary, to ensure protection of threatened and endangered species
    and their critical habitat. Throughout consultation, BOEM will ensure
    that the best available information related to listed species and
    designated critical habitat is fully considered. Moreover, no activity
    under a decommissioning application will be allowed to proceed without
    the completion of appropriate ESA consultation.
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Essential
            Fish Habitat (EFH)
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (as
    amended) requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS regarding
    actions that may adversely affect designated EFH. BSEE will consult
    with NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council when a specific
    decommissioning application is submitted and its supporting NEPA review
    identifies potential adverse effects on EFH.
    Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
        The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the ``take'' of marine
    mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the
    importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the
    United States (50 CFR part 216).
        POCS operators must receive authorization to take marine mammals
    incidental to decommissioning activities pursuant to the MMPA
    requirements. Appendix D of the PEIS includes potential take estimates
    of MMPA species for Level A and Level B harassment, as well as
    estimates of non-auditory injury, including mortality. BSEE will
    require POCS operators to comply with any terms included in MMPA take
    authorizations issued by NMFS and USFWS. In addition, BSEE will require
    POCS operators to follow the mitigation measures required for
    decommissioning in the current MMPA guidance and the guidelines
    outlined in BSEE's NTL 2010-G05, ``Decommissioning Guidance for Wells
    and Platforms,'' and NTL 2020-P05, ``Decommissioning of Pacific Outer
    Continental Shelf Region (POCSR) Facilities.''
    National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 (NFEA)
        The NFEA includes the following: (1) recognition of social and
    economic values in developing artificial reefs, (2) establishment of
    national standards for artificial reef development, (3) creation of a
    National Artificial Reef Plan (NARP) under leadership of the U.S.
    Department of Commerce, and (4) establishment of a reef-permitting
    system under the USACE. In the NARP, O&G structures are identified as
    acceptable materials for artificial-reef development. The NFEA led to
    the creation of a national RTR policy, plan, and program in the United
    States.
        When applicants propose project-specific reefing activities, they
    will work directly with state reefing programs to meet the requirements
    of the NFEA.
    National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
        Under Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended (54 U.S.C. 306108), and
    its implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800), Federal agencies must
    consider the effects of Federal undertakings on historic properties.
        BSEE initiated NHPA-required Section 106 consultations for this
    Action with four federally Recognized Tribes: the Pala Band of Mission
    Indians, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Soboba Band of
    Luiseno Indians, and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. BSEE also
    coordinated with BOEM, the California State Historic Preservation
    Officer, the California State Lands Commission, Channel Islands
    National Marine Sanctuary, Channel Islands Maritime Museum, and Channel
    Islands National Park, and initiated Section 106 coordination with
    interested parties, including: the Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission
    Indians, Chumash Council of Bakersfield, Coastal Band of the Chumash
    Nation, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Gabrielino-
    Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Gabrielino-Tongva San
    Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrielino-Tongva Nation, Gabrielino-
    Tongva Tribe, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation-
    Belardes, Northern Chumash Tribal Council, and the San Luis Obispo
    County Chumash Council. Section 106 consultations were held in
    conjunction with government-to-government consultations with the Santa
    Ynez Band of Chumash Indians on February 1, 2022. Several local
    entities were also contacted as a courtesy and for cultural resources
    input, including: the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County,
    Newport Harbor Nautical Museum, Santa Barbara Maritime Museum, and the
    Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. BSEE met with the Santa
    Barbara Museum of Natural History on March 10, 2022. BSEE then
    commissioned a historic context of California oil production, which
    includes preliminary National Register of Historic Places eligibility
    evaluations for the platforms proposed for decommissioning. Additional
    studies will be pursued as appropriate when identified in the site-
    specific analysis and consultations.
    National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)
        Section 304(d) of the NMSA requires that Federal agencies consult
    with NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries when a proposed
    action is indicated likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any
    National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) resource. When a specific
    decommissioning permit application is submitted to BSEE, the potential
    for affecting NMS will be examined during the application-specific NEPA
    process, and BSEE will address the need for a specific NMSA Section
    304(d) consultation at that time.
    Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA)
        Section 10 of the RHA is overseen by the USACE and prohibits the
    unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the
    United States (i.e., construction or placement of various structures
    that hinder navigable capacity of any waters), without the approval of
    Congress. Section 10 of the RHA is applicable to structures,
    installations, and other devices on the POCS seabed, and is directly
    applicable to O&G decommissioning and reefing platform components.
    Section 4 of the OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1333(e)) extended USACE's authority
    to prevent obstruction of navigation on the OCS. In California, the
    Department of Fish and Wildlife, as part of its responsibilities for
    the RTR program, applies to the USACE for RHA permits.
        Applicants are required to apply for a permit from the USACE to
    meet the requirements of the RHA when project-specific decommissioning
    activities (including RTR activities) are proposed. Any USACE decision
    on a permit application will be based on project-specific sediment
    testing data and methodology for the proposed decommissioning
    activities.

                             6. MITIGATION MEASURES

        The PEIS identified impact producing factors (IPFs) potentially
    affecting biotic, physical, and sociocultural resources, including:
    noise, air emissions, turbidity and sedimentation, seafloor
    disturbance, lighting, vessel strikes, habitat loss, sanitary wastes/
    wastewater discharges, marine trash and debris, visual intrusions, and
    space-use conflicts. Analysis of the IPFs considered a range of
    platform sizes, water depths, and locations on the POCS, and considered
    activities involved in each phase of decommissioning, as well as the
    location, magnitude, and duration of the activities with potential
    environmental impacts. All practicable mitigation measures to avoid or
    minimize environmental harm from the IPFs of the selected alternative
    will be adopted in future site-specific approvals. The Bureaus make
    every attempt to identify and minimize the environmental effects from
    decommissioning and adopt mitigation measures to minimize long-term
    impacts and maintain or enhance long-term productivity. Table 4.1-3 of
    the PEIS, Typical Mitigation Measures for Offshore Decommissioning of
    O&G Platforms and Related Structures, summarizes specific typical
    mitigation measures for offshore decommissioning of O&G platforms and
    related structures for the IPFs described above. BSEE expects that
    these measures and others will be included, as warranted and
    appropriate, as elements of forthcoming decommissioning applications.
        Mitigation measures will be further explored and defined in site-
    specific environmental reviews and through ESA section 7 and EFH
    consultations between BOEM/BSEE and NMFS and USFWS, and mitigation
    measures will be implemented for any identified adverse impacts. In
    addition, BSEE expects site-specific mitigations to be identified in
    decommissioning applications and will require site-specific mitigations
    as necessary in any approval of those applications. BOEM and BSEE
    retain discretion to explore and define additional mitigation measures
    as conditions of future site-specific environmental reviews and
    consultations.
        BSEE Notice to Lessees No. 2020-P02, issued in August 2020, also
    requires applicants to provide plans for protecting sensitive
    biological and archeological resources during removal operations,
    including mitigation measures to avoid and minimize impacts. Mitigation
    measures could include physical and engineered barriers, work
    practices, work timing, monitoring, and administrative measures for
    limiting impacts. Additionally, typical mitigation measures for
    offshore decommissioning of O&G platforms and related structures
    include measures to limit impacts from noise from equipment and
    vessels, to limit impacts of explosives use on marine life, to control
    air emissions, to reduce production of turbidity and sedimentation, to
    avoid and limit seafloor disturbance impacts on potentially affected
    resources and facilities from support vessel mobilization/
    demobilization, to limit impacts on biological and visual resources
    from lighting used in removal activities, to limit impacts of vessel
    strikes on marine protected species (e.g., sea turtles, marine
    mammals), to mitigate the impacts of loss of platform-based habitat, to
    reduce impacts from discharged sanitary and industrial wastewater,
    trash, and debris from work vessels and platforms, and to reduce space-
    use conflicts between decommissioning-related vessel activities and
    commercial navigation.
    Mitigation Monitoring and Adaptation
        BOEM and BSEE will continually assess compliance with, and the
    effectiveness of, mitigation measures to allow the Pacific Regional
    Office to adjust mitigation as needed. A primary focus of this effort
    is requiring submission of information within a specified timeframe or
    after a triggering event that is tracked by BOEM and/or BSEE. This
    information helps inform BOEM and BSEE regarding potential impacts,
    effectiveness of mitigation, and potential modifications to operations
    or mitigations in the future through post-lease conditions of approval.
    Enforcement
        BSEE has the authority to inspect and review operations and enforce
    OCSLA, its regulations, and any lease, ROW, plan, or permit term,
    stipulation, or condition of approval for any decommissioning activity.
    BSEE may require corrective actions, impose penalties, or other
    remedies on any lessee or operator that fails to comply with applicable
    law, regulations, the terms of a lease, plan, permit, approval, or
    order, including stipulations and other mitigation measures, and
    conditions of approval.

                                 7. CONCLUSION

        In carrying out this mandate, I considered many factors in
    selecting the Preferred Alternative 1 and sub-alternative 1a, including
    the purpose and policies of OCSLA; the regulatory requirements under 30
    CFR part 250; public input; comments from Federal, state, and local
    agencies, Non-Governmental Organizations, and individuals; and the
    effects analysis in the PEIS. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1505.2(b), I certify
    that DOI has considered all the alternatives, information, analyses,
    and comments submitted by Tribal governments, Federal, State, and local
    agencies, elected officials, industry, non-governmental organizations,
    and the public for consideration by the lead and cooperating agencies
    in developing the PEIS. BSEE fully considered the potential effects of
    this action and rationally articulated the relevant factors in
    recommending the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, I have decided that
    BSEE will review and approve or deny decommissioning applications for
    the complete removal and disposal of O&G platforms, associated
    pipelines, and other facilities offshore Southern California on the
    POCS as required by regulation and governing lease terms.

                                           Bruce Hesson
                                    Pacific OCS Regional Director
                         Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

                                     ______

                                                     March 19, 2024

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

    Re: Concerns regarding the Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act,
            H.R. 6814

        Dear Chair Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

        We are writing to express our concerns with Representative Garret
    Graves's H.R. 6814, the ``Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act'' and
    the impact this bill would have on our marine ecosystems. If passed,
    this bill would undermine the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to make
    leaving offshore oil and gas infrastructure in place the default,
    making it easier for oil and gas companies to transfer liability and
    costs stemming from corporate negligence to the American taxpayer. This
    bill severely undermines the safety and protection of our marine
    ecosystems, maritime navigation, and coastal communities.
        This bill's default treatment of applications states that if a
    determination on a reef-in-place application is not made within 90
    days, the application will be approved. This default treatment clause
    poses significant risks to the marine environment, maritime industry,
    and local communities. While properly decommissioned offshore oil and
    gas infrastructure can provide artificial reef habitat in some
    circumstances, significant uncertainties exist regarding reef-in-place
    structures' impact on the marine environment. These structures can host
    or act as a vector of invasive species \1\ and influence the
    redistribution, aggregation, or population numbers of fish species.\2\
    Scientists have explicitly noted that the success of reef-in-place
    structures in certain areas does not warrant adoption in others,
    stating, ``Every ecosystem is different and needs to be evaluated as
    such; creating a reef, simply because there is a platform that needs to
    be decommissioned, is indeed little more than waste disposal''.\3\
    Unsuitable or hazardous structures should never be approved for a reef-
    in-place permit, regardless of the application timeline.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Van Elden, Sean, Jessica J. Meeuwig, Richard J. Hobbs, and Jan
    M. Hemmi. ``Offshore oil and gas platforms as novel ecosystems: A
    global perspective.'' Frontiers in Marine Science 6 (2019): 548.
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00548
        \2\ Ajemian MJ, Wetz JJ, Shipley-Lozano B, Shively JD, Stunz GW
    (2015) An Analysis of Artificial Reef Fish Community Structure along
    the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico Shelf: Potential Impacts of ``Rigs-to-
    Reefs'' Programs. PLoS ONE 10(5): e0126354. doi:10.1371/
    journal.pone.0126354
        \3\ Van Elden, Sean, Jessica J. Meeuwig, Richard J. Hobbs, and Jan
    M. Hemmi. ``Offshore oil and gas platforms as novel ecosystems: A
    global perspective.'' Frontiers in Marine Science 6 (2019): 548.
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00548

        A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report \4\
    highlighted the abysmal track record of the oil and gas industry in
    meeting their decommissioning obligations. The report found that:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS Interior Needs to Improve Decommissioning
    Enforcement and Mitigate Related Risks. January, 2024. https://
    www.gao.gov/assets/d24106229.pdf

         Over 75% of end-of-lease and idle infrastructure in the
                Gulf was overdue as of June 2023, representing over 2,700
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                wells and 500 platforms.

         Over 40 percent of wells and 50 percent of platforms on
                Gulf leases that ended between 2010 and 2022 have not been
                decommissioned.

         The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) held about
                $3.5 billion in supplemental bonds to cover between $40
                billion and $70 billion in total estimated decommissioning
                costs as of June 2023, leaving taxpayers exposed to
                billions of dollars in financial risks if operators fail to
                meet their obligations.

        By not plugging offshore oil and gas wells, dismantling and
    disposing of platforms, and returning the seafloor to pre-lease
    conditions, the existing infrastructure--just miles from coastal
    communities where millions of Americans \5\ live and work--becomes
    increasingly vulnerable to damage and deterioration from storms and
    corrosion. This can topple platforms, cause oil spills, and make
    decommissioning more expensive and dangerous. This bill would further
    exacerbate this damaging cycle. Adding additional steps to removing
    offshore infrastructure would make it even less likely that companies
    would pay for the total cost of their operations, including
    decommissioning. When oil and gas companies sign a lease, they agree to
    take responsibility for rigs throughout their life cycle. Industry
    should be held to these obligations. We need more Congressional
    oversight on offshore infrastructure, not additional loopholes for oil
    and gas companies to avoid their decommissioning responsibilities. This
    bill gives a break to an industry that is causing the climate crisis
    and harming people, and only extends their damaging impacts further out
    into the future.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://ecowatch.noaa.gov/thematic/coastal-population
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Liability for oil and gas infrastructure should remain with
    companies and not be transferred to the public. As written, the default
    treatment clause of this bill allows for the complete transfer of
    liability to the taxpayer regardless of the feasibility of a site to
    serve as an artificial reef. If a reef-in-place application is accepted
    under this clause, taxpayer dollars will be used to maintain
    navigational markers, monitor the decaying infrastructure for
    environmental or health hazards, and pay for any damages resulting from
    the infrastructure, all while there may not be any net benefit to the
    marine ecosystem. This assumption of liability is particularly
    concerning as reef-in-place legislation in California requires the
    owner or operator of the oil platform or production facility to
    indemnify the state from any liability that may arise, including from
    active negligence.\6\ H.R. 6814 has no such provision. Instead, it
    makes American taxpayers liable for corporate negligence and stands in
    sharp contrast to state-led efforts to conserve and protect our marine
    ecosystems.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/
    ab_2503_bill_20100621_amended _sen_v95.html

        Instead of addressing long-standing issues surrounding
    decommissioning offshore infrastructure, this bill provides a handout
    to oil and gas companies by allowing them to shirk their
    responsibilities by passing along costs and liability to American
    taxpayers, all under the guise of environmental stewardship. The
    recently published GAO report makes it clear that for too long, the oil
    and gas industry has been leaving its mess for the American taxpayers
    to clean up. We urge you not to move forward on this bill, refrain from
    reporting it out of committee, and vote no should the bill make it to
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    the House floor.

                Sincerely,

            Alaska Wilderness League      Natural Resources Defense Council

            Center for Biological
            Diversity                     Nuclear Information and Resource
                                          Service

            Creation Justice Ministries   Ocean Conservation Research

            Earthjustice                  Ocean Defense Initiative

            Environmental Defense
            Center                        Oceana

            GreenLatinos                  Plaquemines Rising Coastal
                                          Restoration

            Healthy Gulf                  Surfrider Foundation

            Healthy Ocean Coalition       TAO

            Lopez-Wagner Strategies       Taproot Earth

            National Ocean Protection
            Coalition                     The Ocean Project

            National Parks Conservation
            Association

                                     [all]