[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 [email protected] 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]