[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]