U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–233PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

SEA CHANGE: IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE 

ON OUR OCEANS AND COASTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2019 

Serial No. 116–3 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

AMI BERA, California, 

Vice Chair 

CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania 

LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas 

HALEY STEVENS, Michigan 

KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma 

MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DON BEYER, Virginia 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SEAN CASTEN, Illinois 

KATIE HILL, California 

BEN MCADAMS, Utah 

JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, 

Ranking Member 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL DUNN, Florida 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas 

TROY BALDERSON, Ohio 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio 

MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida 

JIM BAIRD, Indiana 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

HON. LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas, Chairwoman 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SEAN CASTEN, Illinois 

BEN MCADAMS, Utah 

DON BEYER, Virginia 

ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas, Ranking 

Member 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio 

JIM BAIRD, Indiana 

VACANCY 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

February 27, 2019 

Page 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 2 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 

Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Statement by Representative Roger Marshall, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 18 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Sarah Cooley, Director, Ocean Acidification Program, Ocean Conservancy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

Dr. Radley Horton, Lamont Associate Research Professor, Lamont-Doherty 

Earth Observatory, Columbia University Earth Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 41 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 43 

Dr. Thomas K. Frazer, Professor and Director, School of Natural Resources 

and Environment, University of Florida 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 51 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 53 

Ms. Margaret A. Pilaro, Executive Director, Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers 

Association 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 60 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 62 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 72 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Sarah Cooley, Director, Ocean Acidification Program, Ocean Conservancy 92 

Ms. Margaret A. Pilaro, Executive Director, Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers 

Association ............................................................................................................ 96 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Letters submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Subcommittee on 

Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 98 

Letter submitted by Representative Bill Posey, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 111 

(1) 

SEA CHANGE: IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE 

ON OUR OCEANS AND COASTS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2019 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 

room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lizzie 

Fletcher [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

HEARING CHARTER 

Sea Change: Impacts of Climate Change on Our Oceans and Coasts 

PURPOSE 

Wednesday, February 27, 2019 

10:00 a.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

The purpose of this hearing is to explore the impacts of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions 

on our oceans and coasts. The Subcommittee will receive expert testimony on the state of the 

science on ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and sea level rise with special attention 

to findings in recently published significant climate reports and discuss the impacts of climate 

change to a coastal industry. 

WITNESSES 

• Dr. Sarah Cooley (COO-lee), Director, Ocean Acidification Program, Ocean Conservancy 

Dr. Cooley is an ocean acidification expert and was the Review Editor for the Oceans and 

Marine Resources Chapter in the Fourth National Climate Assessment published in 2018. 

She is currently a Lead Author on Working Group II of the IPCC's 6th Assessment Report. 1 

• Dr. Radley Horton (HOR-ton), Lamont Associate Research Professor, Lamont-Doherty 

Earth Observatory, Columbia University Earth Institute- Dr. Horton is a sea level rise 

expert and co-authored the NOAA technical report on global and regional sea level rise 

scenarios for the United States published in 2017 that went into the Fourth National Climate 

Assessment. He was the lead author on the Northeast Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States Chapter in the Third National Climate Assessment, published in 2014.2 

• Dr. Thomas K. Frazer (FRAY -zher), Professor and Director, School of Natural Resources 

and Environment, University of Florida- Dr. Frazer is an expert in aquatic ecology and 

broadly studies the effects of anthropogenic activities on the ecology of both freshwater and 

marine ecosystems, especially in Florida. His recent studies have involved corals, algae, and 

lionfish.3 

• Ms. Margaret A. Pilaro (Peh-LAR-oh), Executive Director, Pacific Coast Shellfish 

Growers Association (PCSGA)- Ms. Pilaro has been the executive director ofPCSGA since 

' https://oceanconservancy.org/people/sarah-cooley/ 

2 https://www.radleyhorton.com/ 

3 http://sfrc.ufl.edu/people/faculty/frazer/ 
3 

20 I 0. PCSGA growers have experienced early negative effects of ocean acidification and 

deoxygenation on their shellfish hatcheries, and have worked collaboratively with academia 

and government to develop potential solutions to these impacts on their industry.4 

BACKGROUND 

Overview 

The oceans play a central role in regulating the global climate system by absorbing and 

redistributing heat and carbon dioxide.5 Since the Industrial Revolution, the oceans have 

absorbed significant amounts of heat and carbon dioxide from anthropogenic (human-caused) 

emissions, resulting in three main changes to the physical and chemical state of the oceans: 

warming, acidification, and deoxygenation. Without the oceans acting as a climate change 

buffer, the surface of the earth would be heating up much faster than it is. Ocean warming, 

acidification, and deoxygenation are already occurring and have been observed across the global 

oceans. These processes interact with, and potentially aggravate, one another and interact with 

other human-influenced stressors in the marine environment, such as pollution, nutrient runoff, 

habitat degradation, overfishing, and illegal fishing. 

Forty-two percent of the U.S. population lives along the coasts, spanning three oceans as well as 

the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and the Pacific and Caribbean islands.6 Climate change is 

already affecting the social, economic, and environmental systems along the coasts. The oceans 

and coasts provide important ecosystem services in the way of carbon storage, oxygen 

generation, flood and storm surge protection, food security, and jobs. Primary production in the 

oceans (primarily from phytoplankton) produces approximately half of the oxygen in the 

atmosphere. 7 Coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrasses are much 

faster and more efficient at storing carbon than terrestrial forests. 8 Climate change threatens to 

alter these services from the oceans and coasts on which humans depend. 

While our understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological changes in the oceans and 

resulting impacts has increased significantly in the last several decades, more research is needed. 

The Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) identifies major research gaps in our 

understanding of climate change. Some of the major research gaps specific to the oceans and 

coasts identified in the NCA4 include the need to: continue efforts to improve the understanding, 

modeling, and projections of sea level change, and ocean processes and chemistry, especially at 

the regional scale; improve characterization of important sources of uncertainty, including 

feedbacks and possible thresholds in the climate system associated with changes in ocean 

4 https://pcsga.org!our-staf£' 

5 Pershing, A.J., R.B. Griffis, E.B. Jewett, C.T. Armstrong, J.F. Bruno, D.S. Busch, A.C. Haynie, S.A. Siedlecki, 

and D. Tommasi, 2018: Oceans and Marine Resources. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: 

Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, 

K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 

USA, pp. 353-390. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH9 6 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 8 7 NOAA.gov. May 21,2018. "Marine organisms produce over half of the oxygen that land animals need to breathe." 

https://oceanexplorer .noaa.gov/facts/oceanproduction.html 8 IUCN.org. November 2017. "Blue Carbon." https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/blue-carbon 

2 
4 

dynamics; and maintain and enhance research and development of data collection and analyses 

to monitor and attribute ongoing and emerging climate impacts across the United States, 

including changes in ecosystems and oceans. The IPCC is set to finalize a Special Report on the 

Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate9 in September 2019 that will include potential 

solutions, policy options and governance, as well as resilience pathways, and adaptation options. 

Major Ocean and Coastal Changes 

Warming 

Warming of sea surface temperatures is the most well-documented and obvious impact of 

climate change on the oceans. 10 The oceans have absorbed more than 93 percent of the extra heat 

in the atmosphere due to carbon emissions since the mid-201

h century. 1 1 Consequently, sea 

surface temperatures have warmed on average 1.3° ± 0.1 op (0.7° ± 0.08°C) per century globally 

between 1900 and 2016. 12 Globally, ocean warming is occurring fastest near the surface, with the 

upper 75 meters having warmed 0.11 (0.09 to 0.13] oc per decade over the period 1971 to 

20 I 0; 13 however, warming is now being observed at depths of over I ,000 meters. 14 If global 

carbon emissions continue unabated, the oceans are expected to warm as much as 4.9° ± 1.3°F 

(2.7° ± 0.7°C) by the end of2100, with even higher levels of warming in some U.S. coastal 

regionsY 

There are many consequences of ocean warming: sea levels are rising, sea ice is melting, ice 

shelves and glaciers are destabilizing, ocean circulation is changing, and waters are becoming 

more stratified (density contrast between the surface and deeper waters). 16 In addition, warmer 

oceans make waves stronger, 17 fuel stronger storms and increase damage from hurricanes and 

tropical storms. 18 Warmer water also changes biological productivity, for example, potentially 

enhancing the productivity of fish stocks at the cold end of their range (such as Atlantic croaker), 

while causing reductions in others (such as the Pacific cod). 19 Harmful algal blooms have also 

been linked to warm events and increasing temperatures in both the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans.20 The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), the major surface and deep 

currents in the Atlantic that include the Gulf Stream, 21 is potentially slowing due in part to 

9 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srocc/ 

10 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 9 11 NCA4· Volume J· Ch 13 12 NCA4: Volume II; Ch. 9 13 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and Ill to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. 

Meyer(eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, !51 pp 14 Levitus, S., et al. (2012), "World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000 m), 1955-2010," 

Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, LI0603, doi:I0.102912012GL051106. 15 NCA4; Volume I; Ch. 13 16 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 9 17 Reguero, B.J., Losada, I.J., Mendez, F.J. (2019), "A recent increase in global wave power as a consequence of 

oceanic warming." Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08066-0 18 NCA4; Volume II; Ch.8 19 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 9 20 NCA4; Volume ll; Ch. 9 21 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 18 

3 
5 

increasing ocean heat content - this could dramatically slow the ability of the oceans to act as a 

sponge for atmospheric heat and carbon dioxide and have climate feedback effects.22 

Global sea level rise is due primarily to thermal expansion of seawater from warming, as well as 

sea ice melt. Sea levels have already risen 6.3-8.3 inches since 1900.23 Since the IPCC 

Assessment Report 4 was released, sea level rise simulations have improved due to an increased 

understanding of changes in glaciers and ice sheets.24 The Fourth National Climate Assessment 

(NCA4) predicts global mean sea level to rise an additionall.0-4.3 feet by 2100.25 Studies 

published since the NCA4 was released show the contribution of ice melt from the Greenland26 

and Antarctic27 ice sheets is much larger than previously known. 

Ocean Acidification 

Since the Industrial Revolution, the oceans have absorbed approximately one-third of the carbon 

dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.28 This has caused ocean surface pH to decrease by 0.1, 

corresponding to a 26 percent increase in acidity.29 When carbon dioxide gas reacts with seawater, 

it lowers the pH, which raises the acidity. This process of the gradual reduction in the ocean's pH 

(and corresponding increase in acidity levels) is known as ocean acidification. The oceans continue 

to absorb over a quarter of global carbon emissions every year, roughly the equivalent of China's 

total annual carbon emissions. 30 

Acidification is occurring faster in some U.S. coastal regions as a result of upwelling of naturally 

low pH water (Pacific Northwest), changes in freshwater inputs (Gulf of Maine), and high nutrient 

inputs (for example, in agricultural watersheds).31 Under a higher emissions scenario, global mean 

surface acidity is expected to increase by I 00-150 percent by the end of the century.32 

Deoxyl(enation 

Ocean warming is causing a decline in the average oxygen concentrations of seawater due to the 

relationship between temperature and oxygen solubility because warm water holds less oxygen.33 

Stratification of the water column (density contrast between the surface and deeper waters) due 

to surface warming further reduces the transfer of oxygen to the deep waters and reduces 

22 NCA4; Volume I; Ch. 13 23 NCA4; Volume I; Ch. 12 24 IPCC AR5 25 NCA4; Volume I; Ch. 12 26 Trusel, L.D., et al. (2018). "Nonlinear rise in Greenland runoff in response to post-industrial Arctic warming." 

Nature, 564: 104-108. 

27 Rignot, E., et al. (2019). "Four decades of Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance from 1979-2017." Proc. of the Nat. 

Acad. of Sciences, 116 (4): 1095-1103. https://doi.org!IO.l073/pnas.l812883116 28 IPCCAR5 29 IPCC AR5 30 Eddebbar, Y.A., Gallo, N.D., and Linsmayer, L.B. 2015. The Oceans and the UN Framework Convention on 

Climate Change. American Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography. Pp. 69-72. 31 NCA4; Volume I; Ch. 13 32 NCA4; Volume I; Ch. 13 33 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 9 

4 
6 

biological productivity at the surface.34 Since the 1960s, oxygen concentrations have decreased 

in coastal waters and the open ocean surface. 35 In addition, oxygen minimum zones that naturally 

occur at mid-depths in some regions of the oceans are likely expanding, particularly in the 

tropics.36 Human-influenced coastal "dead zones", or low-oxygen zones due to excessive 

nutrient pollution from human activities, are predicted to expand as well.37 

Due to continued ocean surface warming, it is predicted that oxygen content of the oceans will 

decrease by up to 3.5 percent by the end of this century, primarily in the subsurface mid-latitude 

regions.38 However, the extent of low oxygen waters in the open ocean is uncertain because of 

uncertainties in biogeochemical feedbacks and ocean dynamics.39 

Resulting Impacts of Ocean and Coastal Changes 

Impacts to Coastal Economies and Property 

The most obvious impacts of anthropogenic carbon emissions on the oceans are felt by coastal 

communities that depend on the oceans and coasts for food and jobs in defense, fishing, 

transportation, tourism, and commerce. The coasts are economically important to the United States 

with coastal zone counties (which includes coastal and coastal-adjacent counties) employing 134 

million Americans and contributing $16.7 trillion to our national gross domestic product (GDP).40 

The fishing industry alone contributes over $200 billion in economic activity annually and supports 

1.6 million jobs.41 

Climate change threatens the coasts through increasing frequency and extent of high tide 

flooding due to sea level rise, higher storm surges, and more heavy precipitation events. The 

resulting impacts of flooding, erosion, waves, saltwater intrusion into aquifers and elevated 

groundwater tables, changing patterns of local rainfall and river runoff, and increasing water and 

surface air temperatures, as well as the challenges of ocean acidification harm the coasts and 

cascading impacts metastasize throughout the U.S. economy. Warmer sea surface temperatures 

also fuel more intense tropical cyclones, including hurricanes, which lead to more damage upon 

landfall.42 The severity of costly compound events is on the rise, in which trends like rising sea 

levels, increased river discharge, more frequent and intense storms and cyclones, and flooding 

co-occur _43 

Sea level rise, higher storm surges, and more intense precipitation events will threaten crucial 

coastal infrastructure such as roads, bridges, tunnels, pipelines, power plants, military bases, 

airports, and seaports, with cascading impacts across the national economy, and is already being 

34 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 9 35 IPCC AR5 36 IPCCAR5 37 IPCC AR5 38 NCA4; Volume I; Ch. 13 39 IPCCAR5 40 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 8 41 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 8 42 NCA4; Volume II, Ch. 8 43 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 8 

5 
7 

felt in low-lying cities across the United States, such as Miami, New York City, New Orleans, San 

Francisco, and Norfolk, Virginia.44 In addition to storms, floods, and erosion, sea level rise 

threatens the approximately $1 trillion in national wealth held in coastal real estate.45 The low to 

moderate emissions outcomes in the NCA4 found that up to half of this real estate is expected to 

be below sea level by 2100, which could lead to 13.1 million Americans needing to migrate by 

21 00 due to rising seas. 46 High tide flooding due to sea level rise is already forcing some East coast 

cities such as Miami Beach to install costly pump stations to frequently clear floodwaters from the 

streets.47 Under a high emissions scenario, daily high tide level will be greater than the current 

1 00-year water level event on most U.S. coastlines, exposing dozens of power plants,48 and 60,000 

miles of U.S. roads and bridges lie in coastal floodplains.49 

Ocean acidification and deoxygenation have been linked to mortality of shellfish larvae in the 

Pacific Northwest, causing local commercial hatchery failures and associated major economic 

losses in the mid-2000s.50 The hatcheries have been able to improve shellfish growth by treating 

the water to raise the pH and oxygen levels for the larvae. 

Climate change impacts on the coasts are also exacerbating social inequalities. As coastal flooding 

and erosion become more frequent and widespread, already vulnerable populations are most likely 

to suffer impacts, such as the elderly, homeless, children, and those economically disadvantaged 

and with preexisting mental illness; the poor will become increasingly tied to the most at-risk 

housing. 51 

Impacts to Marine Species and Ecosystems 

Ocean warming, acidification, and deoxygenation pose many and varied threats to marine life and 

ecosystems. These processes work together with localized human-influenced stressors like 

pollution and nutrient-rich agricultural runoff to create interactive, complex, and sometimes 

amplified impacts to ecosystems. 5

2 

Many recent studies show changes in abundance, distribution, and type of marine species across 

all ocean basins. 53 Ocean warming is causing marine fishes, invertebrates, and phytoplankton to 

shift distributions poleward and/or to deeper, cooler waters. 5

4 Further, ocean acidification impairs 

the ability of shelled organisms, such as corals and shellfish, to build their shells, reduces growth 

and survival rates in some species, is linked to behavior changes in some fishes, and may 

exacerbate other physiological stresses. 55 In addition to these changes; phytoplankton production 

44 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 8 45 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 8 46 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 8 47 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 8 48 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 4 49 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 8 50 Phys.org. December 16, 2014. "Ocean acidification a culprit in commercial shellfish hatcheries' failures." 

https:/ /phys.org/news/20 14-12-ocean-acidification-culprit-commercial-shellfish.html 51 NCA4· Volume II· Ch 8 52 IPCC AA5 , . 

"IPCCAR5 

54 IPCCAR5 55 IPCC AR5 

6 
8 

may be enhanced in some regions due to access to more carbon dioxide, further disrupting 

ecosystems.56 Coastal ecosystems like coral and oyster reefs, kelp forests, mangroves, and salt 

marshes that provide habitat, carbon sequestration, and shoreline protection from storms are also 

vulnerable to climate impacts. 5

7 

Oxygen availability plays a key role in structuring marine ecosystems, since nearly all life depends 

on oxygen. Therefore, deoxygenation will have significant impacts to marine species and 

ecosystems, especially those that cannot migrate away from low oxygen zones. 5

8 Some marine 

organisms are more tolerant to low oxygen than others, such as jellyfish and squid, while others 

require high levels of oxygen, like fish and crustaceans. 59 Expansion of oxygen minimum zones 

in the tropical Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans are constraining fish habitat.60 

While climate change-driven ecosystem impacts are pervasive across the oceans, tropical coral 

reefs and polar sea ice ecosystems are experiencing the fastest changes from warming.61 Warmwater coral reefs host approximately 25 percent of the ocean's biodiversity and are in decline 

globally due to warm water-induced coral bleaching and diseases, impacting iconic habitats and 

important fisheries.62 Sea ice loss is occurring at fast rates, causing the loss of habitat for polar 

bears and ringed seals and disrupting the yearly phytoplankton blooms at ice edge that drive the 

entire ecosystem.63 Polar oceans experience the fastest acidification because cold water holds more 

dissolved gas (carbon dioxide ).64 As a result, an important polar food source, the pteropod, has 

already demonstrated thinner shells due to ocean acidification.65 

Across the oceans, many plant and animal species face a high extinction risk due to climate change 

because they will be unable to migrate fast enough or adapt to the rapid rates of change this century 

under mid- and high range scenarios.66 The IPCC's 5th Assessment Report (AR5) found that even 

natural global climate changes over the past millions of years, which occurred at much lower rates 

than current anthropogenic climate change, caused significant ecosystem changes and species 

extinctions. 

Impacts to the Great Lakes 

The Great Lakes contain 84 percent of North America's surface fresh water,67 providing drinking 

water to more than 35 million people and supporting important economic and cultural services 

''IPCCAR5 

57 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 9 58 Breitburg, D., et al. (2018). "Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters." Science, Vol. 359, Issue 

6371. DOl: 10.1126/science.aam7240 59 Vaquer-Sunyer, R., Duarte, C.M. (2010). "Temperature effects on oxygen thresholds for hypoxia in marine 

benthic organisms." Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/IO.llll/j.l365-2486.2010.02343.x 60 IPCCAR5 61 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 8 62 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 8 63 NCA4; Volume II; Ch. 8 64 NCA4; Volume I; Ch. 13 65 IPCCAR5 66 IPCCAR5 67 EPA.gov. January 31, 2019. "Facts and figures about the Great Lakes." https://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/facts-andfigures-about-great-lakes 

7 
9 

such as shipping, fishing and recreation.68 In recent decades, the Great Lakes region has 

experienced notable changes linked to anthropogenic carbon emissions. Air temperatures have 

risen 2°F in the region this century,69 with water temperatures rising even faster, increased 

summer evaporation rates, declining water levels/0 and decreasing lake ice cover.71 

Warmer waters also promote freshwater harmful algal blooms (HABs), which are already 

becoming problematic in Lake Erie72 in concert with agricultural runoff. HABs threaten fish, 

wildlife, and human health.73 Warming due to climate change is also increasing the duration of 

stratification of the water, which may fully stop this mixing leading to aquatic species declines. 

Climate change is tending to make dry regions of the Great Lakes drier and wet parts wetter and 

increase extreme precipitation events. 74 The Great Lakes are most at risk when these climate 

stressors interact with land use change, habitat loss, pollution, excess nutrients, and invasive 

species. 

Additional Reading 

Regional Sea Level Scenarios for Coastal Risk Management: Managing the Uncertainty of 

Future Sea Level Change and Extreme Water Levels for Department of Defense Sites 

Worldwide 

https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Resource-Conservation-andResiliency/Infrastructure-Resiliency/Regional-Sea-Levei-Scenarios-for-Coastal-RiskManagement 

Coasts, water levels, and climate change: A Great Lakes perspective 

https:/ /www.glerl.noaa. gov /pubs/fulltext/20 13/20 13002l.pdf 

Climate Impacts on US Living Marine Resources 

https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/tm89.pdf 

68 NCA4; Volume II; Ch.21 69 Walsh, J., eta!. 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. J. 

M. Melillo, T. C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program. 70 Seagrant.umn.edu. February 23,2015. "Climate change and Lake Superior." 

http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/climate/superior 

71 NCA4; Volume II; Ch.21 72 NOAA.gov. "Harmful algal blooms (HABs) in the Great Lakes." 

https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/brochures/NO AA _ HABs _in_ Great_ Lakes.pdf 73 NCA4; Volume II; Ch.21 74 UMich.edu. "Extreme precipitation." http://glisa.umich.edu/climate/extreme-precipitation 

8 
10 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. The hearing will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

Good morning. Welcome to the Environment Subcommittee’s first 

hearing of the 116th Congress. This hearing is entitled, ‘‘Sea 

Change: Impacts of Climate Change on Our Oceans and Coasts.’’ 

Building on the momentum of our first full Committee hearing on 

the State of Climate Science, today we’ll be discussing how climate 

change is impacting our oceans and coasts. This is an important 

topic, and I want to convey a few things as we begin. First, every 

American should care about changes to the oceans, even those who 

do not live along the coasts. Second, we are already seeing visible 

changes and paying a very real price. Climate change impacts are 

here, happening now, not far-off events for future generations to 

address. And those impacts can be seen in our oceans and coasts. 

According to NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), nearly half of Americans live along our 95,471 miles of 

coastline, which span three oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great 

Lakes, and the Pacific and Caribbean islands. And more people are 

moving to the coasts each year. The Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA) found that coastal zones employ 134 million people 

and contribute a staggering $16.7 trillion to our national gross domestic product. And for the other half of Americans who don’t live 

on the coast, the oceans and coasts impact them directly and indirectly, too, providing economic, recreational, and cultural opportunities. There’s a lot to lose—not only for the environment, but for 

our thriving economy and communities—by failing to address climate change impacts on our oceans and coasts. 

As science has established, climate change is real, it’s happening, 

and it’s caused primarily by human activity. NOAA just reported 

last month that 2018 was the fourth-hottest year on record. Many 

people don’t realize that global warming would be significantly 

worse without the buffering effects of the oceans. Oceans act like 

a big sponge, soaking up much of the excess carbon dioxide and 

heat in the atmosphere. In fact, the International Union for Conservation of Nature found that if the excess heat trapped by the 

oceans between 1955 and 2010 were released back into the lower 

atmosphere, the temperature would warm up nearly 97 

°Fahrenheit. The oceans are protecting us from climate change’s 

impacts by buffering against this increase in temperature, but this 

buffering is causing major changes to the oceans. 

Increased carbon emissions alter the oceans in three main ways: 

Making them warmer, more acidic, and less oxygenated. These 

changes are occurring at unprecedented rates. For example, according to research published in the journal Science, the chemistry of 

the oceans is changing faster now than in the last 300 million 

years. 

Climate change has now claimed its first mammal in a way directly related to today’s hearing. Just last week, the Australian 

Government reported that the Bramble Cay mosaic-tailed rat, a 

small rodent, was driven to extinction. Their island home became 

inundated with saltwater from rising sea levels, causing their food 

and shelter to disappear. The threats of sea-level rise, ocean warming, acidification, and deoxygenation are far-reaching, and many 
11 

marine species face risk of extinction as these changes occur faster 

than most species can adapt. 

In Texas’ 7th Congressional District, which I have the privilege 

to represent, we’re seeing some of the earliest effects of coastal climate change, and we stand to face great risks as the fourth-largest 

city and biggest energy exporter in the United States. At just 50 

feet above sea level and as one of the flattest cities in America, 

Houston already experiences heavy rainfall, and our region faces 

the threat of storm surge, increasing the risk and the reality of 

flooding. Hurricane Harvey set the record for total rainfall from a 

tropical cyclone in the continental United States. Climate change 

is intensifying storms—making so called 1,000-year storms like 

Harvey more frequent—and causing sea levels to rise in Galveston 

Bay. According to the Fourth National Climate Assessment published in November, sea-level rise along the Texas Gulf Coast is 

twice as large as the global average. Experts are warning cities 

that cities like ours don’t have that much time to adapt. 

That’s why I am glad we’re here today to hear from our distinguished panel. I would like to welcome our witnesses this morning. 

Some of our scientific witnesses have been involved in writing and 

reviewing major climate change reports—the National Climate Assessment and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change) Assessment Report—and are here to summarize some of 

the major findings on ocean and coastal changes. We will also hear 

from a representative of a coastal industry whose experience of 

these issues is instructive for us all. 

I was encouraged in our first Committee hearing to hear interest 

from Members on both sides of the aisle toward developing solutions and technologies to address climate change. Adaptation and 

mitigation are very important. They’re important parts of this conversation, and with today’s hearing, we’re laying the foundation for 

future discussions that will lead us to legislative solutions. 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Fletcher follows:] 
12 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON 

SCIENCE, SPACE, & TECHNOLOGY 

Opening Statement 

Chair Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX) 

of the Subcommittee on Environment 

Subcommittee on Environment Hearing: 

"Sea Change: Impacts of Climate Change on Our Oceans and Coasts" 

February 27, 2019 

Good morning, and welcome to the Environment Subcommittee's first hearing of the 116'h 

Congress. Building on the momentum of our first full Committee hearing on the State of Climate 

Science, today we'll be discussing how climate change is impacting our oceans and coasts. This 

is an important topic, and I want to convey a few things as we begin: First, every American 

should care about changes to the oceans, even those who do not live along the coast. Second, we 

are already seeing visible changes and paying a very real price. Climate change impacts are 

here-happening now-not far-off events for future generations to address. And those impacts 

can be seen in our oceans and our coasts. 

According to NOAA, nearly half of Americans live along our 95,471 miles of coastline, which 

span three oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and the Pacific and Caribbean islands. 

And more people are moving to the coasts each year. The Fourth National Climate Assessment 

found that coastal zones employ 134 million Americans and contribute a staggering $16.7 trillion 

to our national gross domestic product. And for the other half of Americans who don't live on 

the coast, the oceans and coasts impact them directly and indirectly, too, providing economic, 

recreational, and cultural opportunities. There's a lot to lose -not only for the environment, but 

also for our thriving economy and communities - by failing to address climate change impacts 

on our oceans and coasts. 

As science has established, climate change is real, it's happening, and it's caused primarily by 

human activity. NOAA just reported last month that 2018 was the fourth hottest year on record. 

Many people don't realize that global warming would be significantly worse without the 

buffering effects of the oceans. Oceans act like a big sponge, soaking up much of the excess 

carbon dioxide and heat in the atmosphere. In fact, the International Union for Conservation of 

Nature found that if the excess heat trapped by the oceans between 1955 and 2010 were released 

back into the lower atmosphere, the temperature would warm up nearly 97 degrees Fahrenheit. 

The oceans are protecting us from climate change's impacts by buffering against the increase in 

temperature, but this buffering is causing major changes to the oceans. 

Increased carbon emissions alter the oceans in three main ways, making them warmer, more 

acidic, and less oxygenated. These changes are occurring at unprecedented rates. For example, 
13 

according to research published in the journal Science, the chemistry of the oceans is changing 

faster now than in the last 300 million years. 

Climate change has now claimed its first mammal in a way directly related to today' s hearing. 

Just last week, the Australian government reported that the Bramble Cay mosaic-tailed rat, a 

small rodent, was driven to extinction. Their island home became inundated with saltwater from 

rising sea levels, causing their food and shelter to disappear. The threats of sea level rise, ocean 

warming, acidification, and deoxygenation are far-reaching, and many marine species face risk 

of extinction as these changes occur faster than most species can adapt. 

In Texas's Seventh Congressional District, which I have the privilege to represent, we are seeing 

some of the earliest effects of coastal climate change, and we stand to face great risks as the 

fourth largest city and biggest energy exporter in the United States. At just 50 feet above sea 

level and as one of the flattest cities in America, Houston already experiences heavy rainfall, and 

our region the threat of storm surge increasing the risk and reality of flooding. Hurricane 

Harvey set the record for total rainfall from a tropical cyclone continental U.S. Climate change is 

intensizying storms- making so called I ,000 year storms like Harvey more frequent- and 

causing the sea levels to rise in Galveston Bay. According to the Fourth National Climate 

Assessment published in November, sea level rise along the Texas Gulf Coast is twice as large as 

the global average. Experts are warning cities like ours don't have that much time to adapt. 

That is why I am glad we are here today to hear from our distinguished panel. I would like to 

welcome our witnesses this morning. Some of our scientific witnesses have been involved in 

writing and reviewing major climate science reports- the National Climate Assessment and the 

IPCC Assessment Report - and are here to summarize some of the major findings on ocean and 

coastal changes. We will also hear from a representative of a coastal industry whose experience 

of these issues is instructive for us all. 

I was encouraged in our first Committee hearing to hear interest from Members on both sides of 

the aisle toward developing solutions and technologies to address climate change. Adaptation 

and mitigation are very important parts of this conversation, with today's hearing laying the 

foundation for future discussions that will lead us to legislative solutions. 
14 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Marshall 

for an opening statement. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Fletcher, for 

holding this hearing today to discuss a nuanced and significant 

issue. First off, I want to congratulate you on your appointment to 

Chair the Environment Subcommittee. I look forward to working 

with you. 

In this Committee, we may not always agree on everything, but 

I hope that we can agree on objectives and goals. Our objectives 

should be thoroughly—be to thoughtfully listen to the science and 

theories surrounding these topics. And our goal, at least in my 

opinion, should be to leave this environment of this country and 

the world better than we found it for our children, our grandchildren, and future generations so that we can all flourish. 

I was just reminded this past week. I was—I got to help my 

grandson catch his first fish in the ocean. One of my loves is fishing and tasting the outdoors, so it was great to be able to do that. 

But I have to be honest; the closest thing we have to oceans in the 

State of Kansas are amber waves of grain. So this is a unique opportunity for me to learn about the relationship between climate 

and the ocean. I’m looking forward to hearing from our witnesses 

today and hope we can find a way to talk constructively about 

these issues and, more importantly, about potential solutions. 

Oceans cover more than 70 percent of the Earth and contain 

more than 90 percent of life on our planet. Oceans, more specifically phytoplankton, produce most of the oxygen that we breathe 

and absorb most of the carbon dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere, creating a constant cycle of oxygen and CO2. I have to tell you I was giddy when I got to read some of your 

reports and go back to some of my biochemistry days. And it just 

brought me back to my college days in so many ways and just really, really enjoyed the papers. I know Congressmen aren’t supposed 

to be excited about science, but I really am. 

Like plant and animal life on land, marine life and oceans themselves evolve. The chemistry and ecology change and life adapts. 

It’s been happening for millions of years, but unfortunately, scientific evidence suggests that the pace of change, like the Chairwoman said, has increased over the last century, adding more 

stress to our complex marine ecosystems. 

Some of this stress is the result of increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that are absorbed by the ocean. The result is a change in the chemistry of the 

oceans in which researchers have noted increased water temperature, lower pH levels, and decreased oxygen levels in certain areas. 

It’s essential that we gain a better understanding of ocean chemistry, effectiveness of potential solutions, and mitigation of negative 

impacts. For instance, some species are proving more resilient and 

adaptable to changing conditions. One of our goals should be to better understand this resiliency and find ways to translate this 

knowledge to broader ecosystem sustainability. 

One of our witnesses, Dr. Tom Frazer, is the Director of the University of Florida’s School of Natural Resources and Environment. 

He will go into detail on his research to help us all better understand the impacts and changes in aquatic ecosystems, as well as 
15 

discuss some of the potential solutions to maximize environmental 

and economic value of our oceans. 

I believe advancing technology is the best path forward. As we 

speak, industry and governments around the world are examining 

carbon removal and carbon storage technology. There are some big 

ideas out there from direct air capture to genetically modified 

phytoplankton and giant kelp farms, which I’m especially interested to hear about, in the ocean that can absorb carbon dioxide. 

We learned during our hearing 2 weeks ago that moving entirely 

to renewables is not realistic or sustainable, so we must consider 

solutions like these that can help reduce or remove emissions generated around the globe. 

Researching, developing, and deploying these technologies will 

take a little time, but the payoff will be significant. Innovating our 

way to solutions has been a trademark of the American spirit since 

our country’s inception. For example, in my practice as an obstetrician I have seen how private innovation and response to market 

demand have done more to improve and drive down the cost of 

healthcare than any law or regulation written here in D.C. 

Just look at the evolution of medical imaging. Forty years ago, 

MRI machines and CAT scanners were just hitting the market. But 

now we have high-resolution, microscopic cameras that reduce the 

need for invasive surgeries and provide us a window into human 

health in ways that we never thought or I dreamed possible. 

Basic research, industry innovation, and thriving marketplace 

are what brought these technologies and others like it into our 

lives, not government regulation. We need to prioritize instruments 

that target the most impactful areas of research and provide specific steps for resiliency planning. America must lead the way and 

partner with industry to develop innovative technologies and solutions to the problems discussed here today. 

I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I yield the balance of my time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:] 
16 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member 

Roger Marshall at Environment 

Subcommittee Hearing on Ocean Health 

Feb 27,2019 

Opening Statement 

Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, for holding this hearing today to discuss a 

nuanced and significant issue. First off, I want to congratulate you on your 

appointment to chair the Environment Subcommittee. I look forward to working 

with you this Congress. 

On this committee, we may not always agree on everything, but I hope we can 

agree on objectives and goals. Our objectives should be to thoughtfully listen to 

the science and theories surrounding these topics. And our goal, at least in my 

opinion, should be to leave the environment of this country and the world better 

than we found it for our children, grandchildren, and future generations so that 

they can flourish! 

I have to be honest-the closest thing we have to oceans in my home state of 

Kansas are "amber waves of grain." So this is a unique opportunity for me to 

learn about the relationship between climate and the oceans. I'm looking 

forward to hearing from our witnesses today and I hope we can find a way to 

talk constructively about these issues and-more importantly-about potential 

solutions. 

Oceans cover more than seventy percent of the earth and contain more than 

ninety percent of life on our planet. Oceans, more specifically phytoplankton, 

produce most of the oxygen that we breathe, and absorb most of the carbon 

dioxide from the earth's atmosphere, creating a constant cycle of oxygen and 

C02. Accordingly, it is impossible to overstate the importance of ocean health. 

Like plant and animal life on land, marine life and oceans themselves 

evolve. The chemistry and ecology change and life adapts. It has been 

happening for millions of years. Unfortunately, scientific evidence suggests that 

the pace of change has increased over the last century, adding more stress to 

our complex marine ecosystems. 

Some of this stress is the result of increased levels of carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere that are absorbed by the ocean. The 

result is a change in the chemistry of the oceans in which researchers have 

noted increased water temperature, lower pH levels, and decreased oxygen 

levels in certain areas. 
17 

It is essential that we gain a better understanding of ocean chemistry, 

effectiveness of potential solutions, and mitigation of negative impacts. For 

instance, some species are proving more resilient and adaptable to changing 

conditions. One of our goals should be to better understand this resiliency and 

find ways to translate this knowledge to broader ecosystem sustainability. 

One of our witnesses, Dr. Tom Frazer, is the Director of the University of Florida's 

School of Natural Resources and Environment. He will go into detail on his 

research to help us all better understand the impacts and changes in aquatic 

ecosystems, as well as discuss some of the potential solutions to maximize 

environmental and economic value of our oceans. 

I believe advancing technology is the best path forward. As we speak, industry 

and governments around the world are examining carbon removal and carbon 

storage technologies. There are some big ideas out there-from direct air 

capture to genetically modified phytoplankton and giant kelp farms in the 

ocean that can absorb carbon dioxide. 

We learned during our hearing two weeks ago that moving entirely to 

renewables is not realistic or sustainable, so we must consider solutions like these 

that can help reduce or remove emissions generated around the globe. 

Researching, developing, and deploying these technologies will take a little 

time, but the payoff will be significant. Innovating our way to solutions has been 

a trademark of the American spirit since our country's inception. For example, in 

my practice as an obstetrician I have seen how private innovation and response 

to market demand have done more to improve and drive down the cost of 

healthcare than any law or regulation written here in D.C. 

Just look at the evolution of medical imaging. 40 years ago, MRI machines and 

CAT scanners were just hitting the market. Now we have high resolution, 

microscopic cameras that reduce the need for invasive surgeries and provide us 

a window into human health in ways that we never thought possible. 

Basic research, industry innovation, and a thriving marketplace are what 

brought these technologies and others like them into our lives, not government 

regulation. We need to prioritize investments that target the most impactful 

areas of research and provide specific steps for resiliency planning. 

America must lead the way and partner with industry to develop innovative 

technologies and solutions to the problems discussed here today. I thank our 

witnesses for being here today and I yield the balance of my time. 
18 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you, Mr. Marshall. 

The Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman of the full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an opening statement. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Ms. Fletcher, and 

congratulations on your first Subcommittee meeting. And let me 

say, too, let me welcome the witnesses but also welcome to our 

former Subcommittee Ranking Member Ms. Bonamici, who has 

prepared legislation in this area. I’m pleased to join you this morning. 

Two weeks ago we had our first climate change-related hearing 

on the ‘‘State of Climate Science and Why It Matters.’’ That fruitful 

hearing was a broad overview of the myriad of ways climate change 

is affecting multiple aspects of the environment and our society. 

Today, we continue in that same vein and look specifically at the 

science and how the anthropogenic carbon emissions are affecting 

our oceans and coasts. 

NOAA has found that almost 40 percent of the U.S. population 

lives in coastal counties. I’m not one of those. We have manmade 

lakes for drinking water where I live in north Texas. But we do 

have a very large coastal area at the other end of the State. From 

the white sand beaches of Florida to the rocky shorelines of the Pacific Northwest, our coasts are not only iconic, popular tourist destinations, but also economic powerhouses of the Nation. Coastal 

counties contribute $6.6 trillion to our economy. Given the clear societal and economic importance of our oceans and coastal communities, it is imperative that we work to protect these resources. 

But our coastal communities are already seeing impacts of climate change. Ocean warming due to the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is responsible for rising sea levels, melting sea ice, 

and lower oxygen concentrations in our seawater. Warmer ocean 

temperatures also fuel stronger storms, which can lead to additional coastal damage from hurricanes. The findings from the 

Fourth National Climate Assessment were very clear: Cutting our 

emissions of greenhouse gases will significantly and quickly help 

stave off the most severe potential impacts of climate change. Laying the foundation of the current state of science on our oceans and 

coasts in this hearing will help us better understand what we can 

expect to see if we do not act to mitigate our carbon emissions now. 

During the first hearing, many of my colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle were excited to discuss potential solutions to the climate 

challenges that many of us are starting to face in our districts. 

However, in order to come up with robust solutions to the rapid 

changes we are seeing in our oceans and coastal communities, it is 

critical that we understand what is driving these changes. Successful mitigation and adaptation solutions will be based on robust 

science. 

I’m looking forward to having another productive hearing on climate change today, and I’m especially interested in receiving testimony from our expert scientific witnesses on how climate change 

is affecting sea-level rise, the physical and chemical processes within our oceans, and marine ecosystems. I am also glad to have a representative from the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association to 

speak about concrete evidence of climate change impacts on their 
19 

livelihood, and how they utilized science to develop solutions to this 

pressing issue. 

The diverse perspectives provided by our witnesses will help 

guide the Members of this Committee as we work to develop bipartisan policy solutions to address climate change and ocean acidification based on sound science and ensure there is significant Federal funding for climate research. 

I thank you, Madam Chair, and yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:] 
20 

Opening Statement 

Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Environment Subcommittee Hearing 

Sea Change: Impacts of Climate Change on Our Oceans and Coasts 

February 27,2019 

Thank you Madam Chair, and I would also like to join you in welcoming our witnesses this 

morning. 

Two weeks ago we had our first climate change related hearing on the "State of Climate Science 

and Why It Matters." That fruitful hearing was a broad overview of the myriad ways climate 

change is affecting multiple aspects of the environment and our society. Today, we continue in 

that same vein and look specifically at the science of how anthropogenic carbon emissions are 

affecting our oceans and coasts. 

NOAA has found that almost 40 percent of the U.S. population lives in coastal counties. From 

the white sand beaches of Florida to the rocky shorelines of the Pacific Northwest, our coasts are 

not only iconic, popular tourist destinations, but also economic powerhouses of the nation. 

Coastal counties contribute $6.6 trillion to our economy. Given the clear societal and economic 

importance of our oceans and coastal communities, it is imperative we work to protect these 

resources. 

But, our coastal communities are already seeing impacts of climate change. Ocean warming due 

to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is responsible for rising sea levels, melting sea ice, 

and lower oxygen concentrations in our seawater. Warmer ocean temperatures also fuel stronger 

storms, which can lead to additional coastal damage from hurricanes. The findings from the 

Fourth National Climate Assessment were very clear; cutting our emissions of greenhouse gasses 

will significantly and quickly help stave off the most severe potential impacts of climate change. 

Laying the foundation of the current state of science on our oceans and coasts in this hearing will 

help us better understand what we can expect to see if we do not act to mitigate our carbon 

emissions now. 

During that first hearing, many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were excited to 

discuss potential solutions to the climate challenges that many of us are starting to face in our 

districts. However, in order to come up with robust solutions to the rapid changes we are seeing 

in our oceans and coastal communities, it is crucial that we understand what is driving these 

changes. Successful mitigation and adaptation solutions will be based on robust science. 

1 
21 

I am looking forward to having another productive hearing on climate change today. And I am 

especially interested in receiving testimony from our expert scientific witnesses on how climate 

change is affecting sea level rise, the physical and chemical processes within our oceans, and 

marine ecosystems. I am also glad to have a representative from Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers 

Association to speak about concrete evidence of climate change impacts on their livelihoods, and 

how they utilized science to develop solutions to this pressing issue. 

The diverse perspectives provided by our witnesses will help guide the Members of this 

Committee as we work to develop bipartisan policy solutions to address climate change and 

ocean acidification based on sound science and ensure there is sufficient federal funding for 

climate research. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

2 
22 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time, I’d like to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness 

is Dr. Sarah Cooley, the Director of the Ocean Acidification Program at the Ocean Conservancy. Dr. Cooley is an expert on the impacts of ocean climate change on human communities and her research spans ocean climate—and her research spans ocean carbon 

cycling, science communication, and science-based policy development. Dr. Cooley was a lead author on the Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report and review editor on volume 2 of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, both released last November. She’s also 

a lead author on the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, which will be complete 

in 2021. Dr. Cooley received her Ph.D. in marine science from the 

University of Georgia. 

Our second witness is Dr. Radley Horton, who is Lamont Associate Professor—Research Professor at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. His research focuses on climate 

extremes, sea-level rise, tail risks, climate impacts, sea-level rise, 

and adaptation. Dr. Horton was a convening lead author for the 

Third National Climate Assessment. He currently co-chairs Columbia University’s Climate Adaptation Initiative and is Principal Investigator for the NOAA Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments-funded Consortium for Climate Risk in the Urban Northeast. He received his Ph.D. in earth and environmental sciences 

from Columbia University. 

Our third witness is Dr. Thomas K. Frazer, who is Professor and 

Director of the School of Natural Resources and Environment at 

the University of Florida. His research examines water quantity 

and quality, nutrient dynamics, biogeochemical processes, fish population dynamics, food web interactions, and ecological restoration 

of degraded ecosystems. He’s conducted field research in both freshwater and marine systems around the globe and is intimately familiar with environmental and resource challenges, including coral 

bleaching, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise. He received his 

Ph.D. in biological sciences from the University of California Santa 

Barbara. 

Our final witness is Ms. Margaret Pilaro, who has served as the 

Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, or PCSGA, since 2010. PCSGA represents over 100 shellfish 

companies who sustainably produce mussels, oysters, clams, and 

geoduck in the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, 

and Hawaii. Prior to her current role, she worked for the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for 12 years and as 

a municipal planner in Rhode Island where she dealt with storm 

and wastewater issues, restoring the fishery, and harbor management. Ms. Pilaro received an M.A. in marine affairs from the University of Rhode Island. Welcome to all of you. 

As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes for 

your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included in 

the record for the hearing. When you all have completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member will 
23 

have 5 minutes to question the panel. Thank you so much for being 

here. We’ll begin this morning with Dr. Cooley. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. SARAH COOLEY, 

DIRECTOR, OCEAN ACIDIFICATION PROGRAM, 

OCEAN CONSERVANCY 

Dr. COOLEY. Thank you, Chairwoman. Good morning. My name 

is Dr. Sarah Cooley, and I’m a chemical oceanographer and Director of the Ocean Acidification Program at Ocean Conservancy. I 

have studied the ocean carbon cycle for 18 years. I’m an expert on 

the impacts of ocean climate change on ecosystem services, a lead 

author on the Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report, and the 

upcoming Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC, and I’m a review 

editor on the Fourth National Climate Assessment. 

That report, mandated by Congress, offers three key ocean messages, which I’ll explain in my testimony. First, the Nation’s ocean 

ecosystems are being disrupted by rising temperatures, acidification, deoxygenation, and other aspects of climate change, and this 

will worsen. Second, the Nation’s fisheries are at high risk from climate-driven changes. Third, extreme events due to climate are already harming important fisheries. 

Our ocean is experiencing unprecedented changes. Rising temperatures and absorption of greenhouse gases is impacting the 

ocean’s ability to sustain human communities and modulate the 

Earth’s climate. The ocean has absorbed 93 percent of the heat energy trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Despite this, 

our planet has still warmed by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the 

turn of the last century. The ocean has also absorbed 22 percent 

of the atmospheric carbon dioxide released by human activity this 

decade. 

While this has slightly reduced the planetary warming that 

would have otherwise occurred, it’s also changing the chemistry of 

the ocean. When carbon dioxide dissolves, it lowers seawater pH 

and alters chemical balances important for marine life. This is 

called ocean acidification. In the mid–2000s, widespread death of 

larval shellfish at hatcheries in Washington State and Oregon was 

definitively attributed to ocean acidification. 

We now know that ocean acidification causes many animals with 

hard shells and skeletons like corals and shellfish to grow more 

slowly and recover from damage less successfully. Some fishes and 

sharks become less able to find prey or avoid predators. Harmful 

algal blooms could become more frequent or toxic. Complex and 

hard-to-predict interactions occur among ocean acidification and 

other stressors, especially in the coastal zone. All of this can and 

already does impact human communities by disrupting fisheries, 

tourism, and more. 

Ocean heat absorption is also warming seawater and melting sea 

ice. This causes sea-level rise, and is changing ocean ecosystems 

and their benefits to people. Warmer ocean water holds less oxygen 

and allows less of the deep vertical mixing that normally moves oxygen into the ocean. Without enough oxygen in the ocean, ocean 

species will die. Warming oceans are driving our marine life north 

at about 5 miles a decade, but American lobsters have shifted 

north at 43 miles per decade. Rapidly shifting fisheries are very 
24 

hard to manage, and these strain fishing-dependent communities. 

Sea ice is melting, causing ice-dependent species to lose key habitats and Arctic waters to warm even more. Subsistence hunting 

will become dangerous and difficult, which threatens indigenous 

communities’ food security and ways of life. Decreasing sea ice also 

allows more Arctic vessel traffic, bringing opportunities and risks. 

This Committee can make a difference immediately by supporting science that focuses on solutions on how best to apply 

them, as well as continuing to support research that uncovers how 

the ocean–human system works. The common theme in the research recommendations detailed in my written testimony is that 

we need to understand how to apply individual findings to ecosystem scales and how to use that knowledge in an equitable, wellplanned approach that will reduce the stress from ocean climate 

change on marine ecosystems and the human communities they 

support. 

The fundamental solution to ocean climate change is to decrease 

emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide. That is a formidable global challenge. But the United States is the home of modern oceanography. After the World Wars, we unraveled the secrets of the deep 

oceans to gain a global military edge. In doing so, we have learned 

how our planet works. With this rich history, I have no doubt that 

the United States is up to the task of understanding and addressing climate change, the ocean challenge of today. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Cooley follows:] 
25 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF 

SARAH COOLEY, OCEAN CONSERVANCY 

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION DIRECTOR 

HEARING ON: 

SEA CHANGE: IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON OUR OCEANS AND COASTS 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

February 27, 2019 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Dr. Sarah Cooley, and I am the Director 

ofthe Ocean Acidification Program at Ocean Conservancy. Previously, I was a Research Associate Ill at 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a private, independent ocean research institution. I am an 

expert on the impacts of ocean climate change on human communities, and served as a lead author on 

the 2"• State of the Carbon Cycle Report and a review editor on Volume II of the 4'' National Climate 

Assessment. Additionally, I am a lead author on the 6'' Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, which will be complete in 2021. 

Ocean Conservancy is a 501(c)(3)nonprofit organization that creates science-based solutions for a 

healthy ocean and the wildlife and communities that depend on it. For over 40 years, Ocean 

Conservancy has been deeply engaged in supporting action at the local, national, and global level to the 

greatest challenges facing our ocean. 

Unfortunately, our ocean and the people who depend on it are facing unprecedented challenges. The 

ocean is a system at risk, struggling to keep pace with rising temperatures, pollution, and the absorption 

of greenhouse gases. With this testimony, I will describe the state of the science on ocean change as it 

relates to acidification, warming, and deoxygenation. I will also summarize the main findings of the 

"Oceans and Marine Resources" Chapter of the 4'' National Climate Assessment ("Fourth National 

Climate Assessment" 2018), a report which is designed to serve as an authoritative assessment on the 

science and impacts of climate change, with a focus on the United States, and provides important 

context for understanding the impact of climate change on the ocean and its resources. I will conclude 

by identifying research gaps in measuring and understanding ocean change that, if addressed, will 

create a stronger base of scientific evidence from which we can develop responses to better manage the 

impacts of ocean change. 

1. State af the Science 

The ocean has absorbed many of the most immediate consequences of carbon pollution, buffering us 

from some of its most damaging impacts. The ocean has absorbed 93% of the total excess heat energy 

taken up by greenhouse gas in the atmosphere ("Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National 

Climate Assessment, Volume 1." 2017, chap. 13). 1 Despite this, solar radiation has still heated the 

1 Henceforth, references to the Climate Science Special Report will be abbreviated "CSSR," and the Fourth National 

Climate Assessment will be abbreviated "NCA4". 
26 

atmosphere, land, and ocean surfaces of our planet by about 1.8•F from 1901-2016 (NCA4, chap. 2). At 

the same time, the ocean has absorbed 22% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide released as waste from 

fossil fuel burning and land use change from 2008-2017 (Quere et al. 2018). While this has kept those 

fossil fuel emissions from warming the atmosphere, it is also fundamentally changing the chemistry of 

the ocean via ocean acidification. 

1.1 Ocean Acidification 

Ocean acidification is an invisible but growing threat to the world's oceans. Time-series measurements 

show clearly that the dissolved carbon dioxide concentration of surface ocean water is rising at the same 

pace as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (Figure 1). When carbon dioxide dissolves in water, 

carbonic acid is created, which is gradually lowering the pH of seawater and altering other chemical 

balances important for marine life. 

We are already seeing the effects of ocean acidification. In the mid-2000s, widespread death of larval 

shellfish at hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States alerted the aquaculture 

industry to a major region-wide problem. In partnership with federal and university researchers, the 

industry identified the problem as ocean acidification caused by fossil fuel emissions dissolved in Pacific 

Ocean water that upwelled to the surface decades earlier than previously anticipated (Feely et al. 2008). 

This finding, plus growing evidence of the ocean's role in taking up a large portion of the annual 

emissions from fossil fuel burning (e.g., Quere et al. 2018), helped kick off a nationwide effort to 

understand ocean acidification's full impacts on marine ecosystems. In 2009, Congress took action to 

better understand the issue by passing the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act (or 

FOARAM), which provided for a coordinated response by U.S. federal scientific agencies to understand, 

track, and address ocean acidification. 

Since then, laboratory studies, many of them supported by the federal funding authorized by FOARAM, 

have shown that ocean acidification has an array of effects on marine species, and the effects are 

difficult to generalize. Global studies have determined with high confidence that increasing atmospheric 

carbon dioxide causes ocean acidification (Figure 2), and that acidification decreases the calcification 

rate of many organisms with hard shells and skeletons. Corals grow more slowly under acidification and 

are less able to recover from breakage or loss from heat-driven bleaching or disease. Many animals that 

sustain lucrative fisheries, such as oysters and crabs like Dungeness, red King, and Tanner crabs, are 

more sensitive at earlier life stages, and acidification causes them to grow more slowly and allows fewer 

to survive to adulthood. Ocean acidification changes the behavior of some fishes and sharks, impairing 

their ability to find prey or avoid predators. Some models suggest acidification will generally reduce fish 

biomass and catch. 

We have high confidence that ocean acidification can stimulate growth and primary production in 

seagrasses and some phytoplankton. Although increased plankton growth can provide benefits to 

marine ecosystems, some fast growing species can out-compete others and cause harmful algal blooms. 

Emerging evidence suggests that harmful algal blooms could become more frequent or toxic in response 

to acidification. 

While it is unclear exactly how ocean acidification's impacts will propagate through ocean ecosystems 

and food webs, there is no question that complex interactions will occur among ocean acidification and 

other stressors. That's especially true in the coastal zone where warming, deoxygenation, pollution, 

river discharge and precipitation, seasons, weather, climate, and tides intersect with human activities 

2 
27 

like fishing, dredging, development, and restoration. The end result is an especially complex system of 

environmental drivers that affect coastal systems and the humans that depend on them in ways that are 

difficult to predict. In addition, the variety of factors at play in the coastal zone often makes it difficult to 

attribute trends in coastal acidification directly to atmospheric carbon dioxide (Figure 3). 

Overall, ocean acidification may disrupt important benefits that ocean systems and resources provide to 

human communities. Coral reef-associated fisheries and tourism are at risk, as well as coastal 

communities protected from storm waves by corals. Some studies suggest ocean acidification will alter 

the market qualities of fishery harvests. One study reported changes in flavor of pink shrimp raised 

under ocean acidification conditions (Dupont et al. 2014), and integrated assessment models show that 

fishery revenues will decrease if ocean acidification decreases the recruitment or slows the growth of 

lucrative species like sea scallops and red king or Tanner crab (Cooley et al. 2015; Punt et al. 2014). 

Studies of the socioeconomic impacts of ocean acidification are fewer in number than studies of its 

geochemical or biological impacts. 

Despite the complexity of predicting ocean and coastal acidification's impacts on marine ecosystems 

and human communities, an active community has developed to identify, test, and share opportunities 

to act. In the Pacific Northwest U.S., shellfish hatchery owners have focused on protecting the multimillion dollar-a-year industry that employs thousands of people. Teaming up with researchers, 

hatcheries have invested in "future proofing" steps such as monitoring seawater chemistry at intake 

pipes, modifying the chemistry of intake water, and experimenting with selective shellfish breeding. 

Activities supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and authorized 

by FOARAM, have developed a rich observing network in the Pacific Northwest and across the nation.' 

This effort allows people who depend on ocean resources to track and respond to acidification and has 

been likened to "putting headlights on a car." 

Engagement of multiple sectors, including university and federal researchers, the shellfish aquaculture 

community, resource managers and more has been a hallmark of the particularly successful work of 

adapting to ocean acidification in the U.S. to date. It continues even now: Ocean Conservancy helped 

convene shellfish industry leaders from across the country last week on the Gulf Coast to share best 

practices to help the sector plan ahead for ocean acidification. 

In the United States, scientists, regional industry and resource management experts, educators, and 

science communicators are joining largely self-organized groups such as the Global OA Observing 

Network (GOA-ON) and the regional Coastal Acidification Networks (CANs) that are supported by the 

NOAA Ocean Acidification program and the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System. Lessons learned in 

one region are being transferred to other regions, accelerating the application of adaptive solutions and 

technology to monitor ocean acidification. Regional collaboration by the governors' offices of California, 

Oregon, Washington, and the premier's office of British Columbia recently helped create the 

International Alliance to Combat Ocean Acidification', a voluntary partnership of over 70 governments 

and nongovernmental organizations dedicated to advancing scientific understanding of acidification, 

reducing its causes, building adaptation and resiliency, expanding public awareness, and building 

sustained international support for research, monitoring, and education. At the same time, programs 

like the International Ocean Acidification Coordination Centre (OA-ICC), supported by the International 

2 http://www.ipacoa.org/Explorer 

3 https://www.oaalliance.org/ 

3 
28 

Atomic Energy Agency, are increasing international scientific coordination, collaboration, and capacity 

building. 

1.2 Warming: 

The increasing heat energy content of the ocean is leading to seawater warming and expansion, along 

with sea ice melt. A study released this January showed, using multiple different lines of evidence, that 

ocean heat content is rising more quickly than previous assessments indicated (Cheng eta!. 2019). 

Ocean model projections included in the last IPCC assessment (ARS) had predicted continued steady 

ocean heat uptake, but the evidence available at the time of ARS's publication, around 2013, showed 

surface ocean warming had slowed. This was due to redistribution of ocean heat and not reduced ocean 

heating. The increasing heat content of the ocean is changing ocean circulation, raising sea levels 

around the world ("Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume 1." 

2017}(hereinafter referred to as CSSR), and affecting biological responses in the ocean from top to 

bottom. 

1.2.1 Impacts of Sea Level Rise on Human Communities 

One of the most immediately apparent effects of ocean warming affects coastlines, where sea level is 

rising. Sea level rise is primarily driven by expansion of warming seawater and melting of land-bound 

glaciers. Coastal communities in the United States now experience regularflooding, euphemistically 

called "sunny day flooding" or "king tides." 50 million housing units are within 1/8 of a mile of the coast, 

and projections suggest that between $66 and $106 billion of real estate value may be underwater by 

2050 (NCA4, chap. 8). Moreover, 60,000 miles of roads and bridges are located along the coast (NCA4, 

chap. 12), many if not most of which will need to be repaired or relocated. These costs will become an 

increasing economic liability for municipalities and programs like the National Flood Insurance Program, 

which may become insolvent when properties become unsellable (NCA4, chap. 8). Ocean-dependent 

businesses like fishing will also be hurt when sea level rise damages or destroys coastal infrastructure 

like ports, marinas, and docks. And, we are already seeing these costs to our cities and military bases. 

The Department of Defense has been studying the potential impacts of climate change on military 

readiness and installations for decades, having produced at least 64 public reports and assessments on 

that topic since 1990.4 Not only is climate change likely to worsen international conflict or complicate 

military responses, but it will damage key assets like roads, runways, and waterfronts (NCA4, chap. 16). 

In Hampton Roads Virginia, the nation's largest naval base, Naval Station Norfolk, is at major risk from 

sea level rise (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment 2019). 

According to news reports, this is spurring a good deal of innovation and redevelopment in the area,5 

but questions remain about how to help the entire community adapt in a socially and economically 

equitable way. 

Of course, these issues are not confined to military infrastructure. Coastal communities and states 

throughout the country are already adapting to sea level rise in hope of averting greater costs 

4 https://climateandsecurity.org/resources/u-s-government/defense/ 

5 https:ljjnsideclimatenews.org/news/15052018/norfolk-virginia-navy-sea-level-rise-flooding-urban-planningpoverty-coastal-resilience: https://insideclimatenews. org/news/10252017/militarv-norfolk-naval-base-floodingclimate-change-sea-level-global-warming-virginia 

4 
29 

associated with flood recovery. In Florida, there are 120,000 properties at risk from frequent tidal 

flooding (NCA4, chap. 19). Current projections in Florida estimate that between $15 and $23 billion of 

existing property will likely be underwater by 2050 (Bloomberg et al. 2014, 24). This January, Florida's 

governor issued an Executive Order to create the Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection, to help 

prepare Florida's coastal communities and habitats for impacts from sea level rise. In Texas, natural 

coastal habitats protect about $2.4 billion worth of property and thousands of lives (NCA4, chap. 23) as 

well as 25 percent of the Nation's refining capacity, four crucial ports, much of the strategic petroleum 

reserves, and strategic military deployment and distribution installations. The state is planning over $12 

billion in sea level rise solutions, which include storm surge protection, drainage and erosion control, 

and flood mitigation projects.• 

Migration away from coastal cities is expected to place heavy growth pressure on inland urban centers. 

A recent modeling study suggests that 1.8 m of sea level rise [slightly more than the 0.3-1.3 m 

considered very likely to occur by 2100 in NCA4 chap. 2, but much less than the 2.5 m considered 

physically plausible but whose probability is difficult to determine in the same assessment] could cause 

Florida to lose more than 2.5 million residents, and Texas to gain nearly 1.5 million additional residents 

(Hauer 2017). Other sea level rise-impacted communities are already taking steps to leave the coastal 

zone altogether. In Louisiana, the Biloxi-Choctaw tribe has a $48 million grant from the federal 

government to develop a plan to relocate residents of Isle de Jean Charles. The island has lost 98% of its 

landmass since 1955 and has only approximately 320 acres (approximately 1/2 square mile) remaining. 

The population living on the Island has fallen from 400 to 85 people. Ad hoc migration has resulted in 

family separation, spreading individuals across southern Louisiana. In addition, the Tribe continues to 

lose parts of its livelihood and culture, including sacred places, cultural sites and practices, healing 

plants, traditional foods, and lifeways. (NCA4 chap. 19) In Alaska, the villages of Kivalina, Newtok, 

Shishmaref, Shaktoolik and others face grave risks from sea level rise and coastal erosion. 

1.2.2 Moving marine resources 

All along our coastlines, marine life is moving in response to warming oceans. There is a clear northward 

trend across 360 marine species at a speed of about 5 miles per decade on average (Pinsky et al. 2013). 

The National Climate Assessment noted that many commercially and recreationally valuable fish and 

invertebrates are moving poleward or into deeper water, from the net effect of temperature on 

productivity, recruitment, survivorship, and, in some cases, active movement to follow species' 

preferred temperature conditions (NCA4 chap. 4). Lobster harvests, for example, have shifted north 

substantially in the last fifty years, at a speed of 43 miles a decade (Pinsky et al. 2013) and 7

• Shifts in 

distributions of fisheries stocks can complicate fisheries management and place strain on fishingdependent communities. Fishermen may try to follow their target species but fishing costs, port 

locations, regulations, management boundaries, and other factors make it hard for fishers to track 

species movement (NCA4, chap. 4). 

1.2.3 Ocean heat waves 

6 https://www.estormwater.com/construction-begins-houston-flood-mjtigation-projects: 

http://www.austintexas.gov/department/creek-flooding; 

http://www.gccprd.com/pdfs/GCCPRD%20Phase%203%20Report%20-%20Recommended%20Actions.pdf 

7 https:ljwww.eurekalert.org/pub releases/2013-09/pu-mom091113.php 

5 
30 

The NCA4 provides details on how America's fisheries are also suffering from extreme heat events. A 

marine heat wave in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean in 2012, and a heat wave in the northeastern 

Pacific Ocean during the years 2014·2016, raised temperatures more than 3.6'F [2'C] above the normal 

range and lasted for several months (NCA4, chap. 19). In the 2012 event, warm temperatures in the Gulf 

of Maine caused lobster catches to peak 3--4 weeks earlier than usual. The supply chain was not 

prepared for this early peak, leading to glut of lobster and a severe drop in price. (NCA4, chap. 19) The 

Northeastern Pacific event included an extensive bloom of a toxic algae species (Pseudo-nitzschia) that 

caused mass mortalities of sea lions and whales and closed the Dungeness crab fishery. When the crab 

fishery reopened in the spring of 2016, out of step with typical Dungeness fishery open times, increased 

fishing activity during the spring migration of humpback and gray whales led to more whales becoming 

entangled in crab fishing gear. Continued warm temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska during 2016 reduced 

the catch of Pacific cod (NCA4 chap. 19). Overall, marine heat waves are remaking marine ecosystems: 

for example, warmer water has made sea stars all over the West Coast susceptible to wasting disease, 

killing the sea stars and allowing their typical prey, sea urchins, to go unchecked and consume vast 

amounts of kelp (Harvell et al. 2019). 

1.2.4. Loss of seo ice 

Warming polar oceans are melting sea ice, affecting ecosystems, the planetary heat budget, and human 

access to the Arctic. In the Arctic Ocean, annual average Arctic sea ice extent has decreased 

precipitously since the 1980s, and it is likely that there will be an Arctic summer within this century that 

is sea ice-free (NCA4 chap. 26).1ce-dependent species like Arctic cod, polar bears, and walruses are 

losing important habitat, which is expected to affect the entire Arctic marine food chain, including 

Indigenous populations that depend on marine mammals (NCA4 chap. 26). Subsistence hunting will 

become more dangerous and difficult, which threatens the food security and continuity of ways of life 

that have existed in communities for millennia. In addition, reductions in sea ice extent increase the 

Arctic Ocean's ability to absorb solar heat, creating a positive feedback that warms the ocean further 

(NCA4, chap. 2). 

Decreasing sea ice is also facilitating the growth of vessel traffic in the Arctic, including destinational and 

transarctic shipping. While increasing vessel traffic in the Arctic will bring opportunities and benefits, it 

also creates risks in this remote region. The National Climate Assessment notes that increased vessel 

traffic "would bring environmental risks to fisheries and subsistence resources" (NCA4 chap. 26). 

Transarctic shipping will also create a new avenue for the spread of invasive marine species. From a life 

and safety perspective, the U.S. Arctic currently lacks deep water ports and has insufficient search and 

rescue and environmental response capabilities for such a vast and remote region. The U.S. also lacks 

icebreaking capacity (NCA4 chap. 26)-although Congress has taken the first steps toward remedying 

that problem by appropriating funds in Fiscal Year 2019 for an Arctic icebreaker. 

1.3. Deoxygenation 

Ocean oxygen levels are declining because of ocean warming. First, warmer water holds less oxygen 

because gas solubility decreases as temperature rises. Second, ocean warming helps discourage deep 

vertical mixing by stratifying, or increasing the top-to-bottom density difference, of the ocean water 

column. Vertical mixing is the main way oxygen moves into the ocean. Warming and stratification also 

cause ecosystem changes that alter photosynthesis and respiration, further changing oxygen dynamics 

(NCA4, chap. 4). Researchers recently noted that ocean deoxygenation may cause short-term increases 

in fishery catch, as fish stocks are easier to target when squeezed into shrinking areas where oxygen 

6 
31 

levels are adequate, but ultimately ocean deoxygenation will lead to unsustainable changes as the 

suitable habitat shrinks (Breitburg et al. 2018). 

Oxygen loss from the ocean can also affect the global nitrogen cycle. As ocean oxygen declines, nitrous 

oxide production may increase. Nitrous oxide is even better than carbon dioxide at trapping solar 

energy, so an increase in nitrous oxide production would exert an intensifying feedback on planetary 

warming (CSSR). 

2. NCA4 key messages an Ocean and Marine Resources 

The 4th National Climate Assessment (NCA4) was published in November 2018. The NCA is a periodic 

assessment by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, requested by Congress, that evaluates the 

impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. It is designed to be an 

authoritative analysis of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States, to serve as the 

foundation for efforts to assess climate-related risks and inform decision making about responses. It is 

the product of more than 300 individuals from governments, indigenous groups, national laboratories, 

universities and the private sector, and which has been exhaustively reviewed by external experts, the 

general public, federal agencies, and an ad hoc committee of the National Academy of Sciences, 

Engineering, and Medicine.' My work as a Review Editor on Chapter 9 of NCA4, which examines ocean 

and marine resources, meant that I was responsible for ensuring that the author team fully considered 

and responded to the reviews provided by the NAS committee and the general public. The final text of 

Chapter 9 was organized around three key messages, quoted below. 

2.1 Key Message 1: Ocean Ecosystems 

"The Nation's ocean ecosystems ore being disrupted by increasing global temperatures, 

resulting in the foss of iconic and highly valued habitats and changes in species 

composition ond food web structure. Ecosystem disruption will intensify as ocean 

warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and other aspects of climate change increase. In 

the absence of significant reductions in carbon emissions, transformative impacts on 

ocean ecosystems cannot be avoided." 

This message is supported by the existing evidence of climate impacts on marine resources to date, and 

the complex connections within marine ecosystems that are likely to be disrupted by future climate 

impacts. Opportunities for reducing this risk include conservation measures to reduce the effect of 

human-caused stressors besides climate, but there is growing evidence that many ecosystem changes 

can be avoided only by substantial and rapid reductions in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration 

(NCA4, chap. 9). 

2.2 Key Message 2: Marine Fisheries 

"Marine fisheries and fishing communities are at high risk from climate-driven changes 

in the distribution, timing, and productivity of fishery-related species. Ocean warming, 

acidification, and deoxygenation are projected to increase these changes in fisheryrelated species, reduce catches in some areas, and challenge effective management of 

marine fisheries and protected species. Fisheries management that incorporates climate 

knowledge can help reduce impacts, promote resilience, ond increase the value of 

marine resources in the face of changing ocean conditions." 

8 https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/front-matter-about/ 

7 
32 

This message is supported by the existing impacts to marine fisheries that have been observed, and 

projected changes in fish location and effort that will follow from continued climate impacts. To 

effectively reduce risks to marine fisheries, we must take steps to quickly and significantly reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. Other opportunities for reducing risk to fisheries include instituting climateready, ecosystem-based fisheries management that anticipates changing ecosystem conditions and 

resulting changes in species diversity and relationships, detailing human community vulnerability to 

climate change and ocean acidification, seeking to diversify fisheries, and using precautionary and 

dynamic fisheries management {NCA4, chap. 9). 

2.3. Key message 3: Extreme events 

"Marine ecosystems and the coastal communities that depend on them are at risk from 

significant impacts from extreme environmental events where very high temperatures, 

very low oxygen levels, or very acidified conditions interact. These events are projected 

to become more common and more severe in the future, and they expose vulnerabilities 

that can motivate change, including technological innovations to detect, forecast, and 

mitigate adverse conditions." 

This message is supported by impacts from extreme ecosystem events to date, such as heat waves, 

regionally intense ocean acidification, and deoxygenation {Figure 4). In addition to quickly and 

significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, opportunities for reducing this risk include embracing 

technological adaptation designed to offset the most immediate impacts of extreme events {such as 

adaptations implemented by shellfish hatcheries), developing operational forecasts for ocean 

environmental conditions (temperature, acidity, oxygen level) and biological events like harmful algal 

blooms and fishery opening times {NCA4, chap. 9). 

3. Research gaps 

Our understanding of climate change in the ocean has grown vastly in the last half-century, but key 

knowledge gaps remain, and can be addressed with coordinated, transdisciplinary activities founded 

upon comprehensive monitoring, observations, and research. Detailed examinations of existing 

uncertainties and the evidence base exist in a number of recent national and international scientific 

assessments, including the U.S. National Climate Assessment's Volumes I and II {here, CSSR and NCA4), 

the 2"d State ofthe Carbon Cycle Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's S'h 

Assessment Report, its Special Report on Global Warming of lSC, its forthcoming Special Report on 

Oceans and the Cryosphere, and its 6'h Assessment Report. Some of the needs identified in these and 

other studies include the following: 

• Detecting and attributing the role of overlapping drivers, like acidification, warming, oxygen loss, 

fishing, pollution, and more, on influencing ocean species at the individual, population, and 

ecosystem levels. Tools like numerical ecosystem models, meta-analyses, mesocosms, and in situ 

studies are useful for this work, but they also require large teams and long studies, which can be 

difficult to fund. 

• Measuring the ability of species to acclimatize or adapt to ocean change {recommended in NCA4 

chap. 19). long-term evolutionary studies and "-omics" (genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, 

etc.) techniques are some of the tools being refined to study this. 

8 
33 

Identifying the most useful biological indicators of change to use as part of long-term ocean 

ecosystem monitoring. Currently, long-term ocean observing skews heavily toward measuring 

chemical and physical variables, and a full suite of appropriate biological metrics to assess the 

impacts of stressors like acidification and deoxygenation are still being developed.9 

Determining how best to incorporate ecosystem-scale information in precautionary fisheries 

management, while maintaining equitable and transparent decision making about fisheries 

resources. Fishery management councils in the U.S. are beginning to tackle this challenge, but 

need support and new tools to adapt their management practices. 

• Evaluating the multitude of non-economic ways in which human communities depend an marine 

resources. While food, energy, or natural materials resources are frequently evaluated using 

economic methods, ocean systems provide a host of additional services (e.g., carbon storage, 

temperature regulation, support of tourism, cultural meaning) that cannot be well measured 

with conventional/traditional economic techniques and require different multidisciplinary 

assessments. 

Incorporating traditional and indigenous knowledge into ocean resource management and 

decision making. Traditional knowledge often spans a longer timescale and a broader range of 

environmental conditions than contemporary scientific data, but can be captured in ways (e.g., 

language, the arts) that are not directly compatible with other data used in decision making. 

• Connecting ocean governance across geographic and jurisdictional scales to support robust, 

coordinated decision making about ocean resources. Tools such as regional ocean data portals 

and processes such as collaborative decision making are supporting inclusive, multi-sectoral 

decision making, and need to be employed in more situations. 

4. Future Opportunities 

I would like to leave the Committee with one final thought. When looking at an unsolved problem, 

scientists sometimes fall into the trap of focusing on the unanswered questions and the knowledge gaps 

where more data and research are needed in order to make informed decisions. However, as an expert 

on the ocean impacts of climate change, I am here to tell you that we already know a lot about carbon 

pollution, climate change, and the impacts they have on the ocean and on human communities. What I 

see is alarming, and it is very clear that the fundamental solution to ocean warming, acidification, and 

oxygen loss is to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide. 

Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, there are still years of "momentum" in the system, 

as the existing measure of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will continue to warm and acidify the 

ocean. As nations around the world work collectively toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there 

are also steps we can take to reduce the stress on marine ecosystems and the human communities they 

support. 

9 http://goosocean.org/index.php?option:com content&view:article&id:14&1temid:114 

9 
34 

First, we must take steps to decrease other ocean stressors. Studies show that multiple layered 

stressors on ocean ecosystems have a greater chance of acting synergistically than of counteracting each 

other (Harley et al. 2006). As a result, reducing overall stress on ocean life requires reducing ocean 

stressors. This should include combatting oxygen loss, nitrogen pollution, sedimentation, disease, and 

other types of chemical pollution (Kelly & Caldwell, 2013). Marine resource management has sought to 

reduce these problems as part of general water quality improvement for decades, with progressive 

success in doing so (Cote et al. 2017), but the need is even more pressing in the face of climate change. 

Preventing the expansion of offshore oil and gas activities, especially in sensitive or remote places where 

the risks of these activities far outweigh any potential benefits, is also an important way to decrease 

additional ocean stressors. Decreasing marine pollution and other stressors to ecosystems is a "noregrets" policy approach because of the multiple benefits that accrue-both the immediate value of 

reducing single stressors, and decreasing the likely value of reducing synergistic effects of multiple 

stressors acting together (Cote et al. 2017). 

Second, we need to support community adaptation planning. To date, ocean climate change has driven 

piecemeal adaptation. As more adaptation efforts begin, there is an increasing risk that overlapping, 

uncoordinated efforts could be at best inefficient and at worst counterproductive. Around the world, 

nations are currently planning both mitigation and adaptation actions to address climate change, but 

little guidance exists to ensure coordination and inclusion of the ocean in these activities. A similar 

situation exists within the U.S., where state and local governments nationwide are at widely different 

stages and levels of coordination in adopting ocean-smart climate policies. 

Resources and support for long-term resilience and adaptation planning are desperately needed. At a 

minimum, this should include support for regional ocean planning through tools that support 

coordinated data and management like regional ocean data portals. Comprehensive planning 

approaches underpin community and ecosystem resilience and ecosystem-based management. States 

and regional ocean partnerships across the country have found value in comprehensive planning, and 

resources should support the priorities outlined by states. Regional ocean planning should also include 

support for policies and programs, particularly those within NOAA, that support ocean and coastal 

resilience. This includes priorities such as ocean acidification monitoring and funding, ocean and coastal 

habitat and coral reef restoration, and fisheries management adaptation. In addition, there is a 

particular need to increase resilience and adaptation planning in the Arctic. Funding and support is 

needed for communities that must relocate, and there are opportunities to plan for coming changes and 

ensure that Alaskan communities, ecosystems, and economies will be resilient in a changing future. 

5. Conclusion 

Our ocean and its resources are facing unprecedented challenges. The state of ocean change science 

indicates that ocean acidification, warming, and deoxygenation are having large effects on marine 

ecosystems. As detailed by the 4'h National Climate Assessment, these changes are rippling through the 

human-ocean connection, and there are knowledge and research gaps that can be addressed to better 

help our nation respond to large-scale ocean changes. 

I believe there is an opportunity to continue American leadership on ocean science and technology, 

combining that history of excellence with a forward-looking vision to steward the main resource that 

makes life on Earth possible: our ocean. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. 

10 
35 

References 

Bloomberg, Michael R, Henry M Paulson, Thomas F Steyer, Henry Cisneros, and CityView Capital. 2014. 

"Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States," 56. 

Breitburg, Denise, lisa A. Levin, Andreas Oschlies, Marilaure Gregoire, Francisco P. Chavez, Daniel J. 

Conley, Veronique Gar~on, et al. 2018. "Declining Oxygen in the Global Ocean and Coastal 

Waters." Science 359 {6371): eaam7240. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam7240. 

Cheng, lijing, John Abraham, Zeke Hausfather, and Kevin E. Trenberth. 2019. "How Fast Are the Oceans 

Warming?" Science 363 {6423): 128-29. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7619. 

"Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume 1." 2017. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Global Change Research Program. 

https://science20 17 .globalchange.gov I chapter /front-matter-about/. 

Cooley, Sarah R., Jennie E. Rheuban, Deborah R. Hart, Victoria Luu, David M. Glover, Jonathan A. Hare, 

and Scott C. Doney. 2015. "An Integrated Assessment Model for Helping the United States Sea 

Scallop {Piacopecten Magellanicus) Fishery Plan Ahead for Ocean Acidification and Warming." 

PLOS ONE 10 (5): e0124145. https:/ /doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124145. 

Dupont, Sam, Emilie Hall, Piero Calosi, and Bengt Lundve. 2014. "First Evidence of Altered Sensory 

Quality in a Shellfish Exposed to Decreased PH Relevant to Ocean Acidification." Journal of 

Shellfish Research 33 {3): 857-61. https:/ /doi.org/10.2983/035.033.0320. 

Feely, Richard A, Christopher L Sabine, J. Martin Hernandez-Ayon, Debby lanson, and Burke Hales. 2008. 

"Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive 'Acidified' Water onto the Continental Shelf." SCIENCE 320 

{5882): 149Q-92. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155676. 

"Fourth National Climate Assessment." 2018. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Global Change Research Program. 

https :/I nca20 18.globa lchange .govhttps:/ /nca2018.globa lcha nge .gov I chapter /front -matterabout. 

Harvell, C. D., D. Montecino-Latorre, J. M. Caldwell, J. M. Burt, K. Bosley, A. Keller, S. F. Heron, et al. 

2019. "Disease Epidemic and a Marine Heat Wave Are Associated with the Continental-Scale 

Collapse of a Pivotal Predator {Pycnopodia Helianthoides)." Science Advances 5 (1): eaau7042. 

https:/ /doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau7042. 

Hauer, Mathew E. 2017. "Migration Induced by Sea-Level Rise Could Reshape the US Population 

Landscape." Nature Climate Change 7 (5): 321-25. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3271. 

Kelly, Ryan P., M. M. Foley, W. S. Fisher, R. A. Feely, B.S. Halpern, G. G. Waldbusser, and M. R. Caldwell. 

2011. "Mitigating local Causes of Ocean Acidification with Existing laws." Science 332 (6033): 

1036-37. https:/ /doi.org/10.1126/science.1203815. 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. 2019. "Report on Effects of a 

Changing Climate to the Department of Defense." 

https:// climatea ndsecu rity. files. wordpress.com/2019/01/sec _ 335 _ndaareport_effects_of_a_changing_climate_to_dod.pdf. 

Pinsky, Malin L., Boris Worm, Michael J. Fogarty, Jorge L. Sarmiento, and Simon A. Levin. 2013. "Marine 

Taxa Track Local Climate Velocities." Science 341 (6151): 1239-42. 

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239352. 

Punt, Andre E., Dusanka Poljak, Michael G. Dalton, and Robert J. Foy. 2014. "Evaluating the Impact of 

Ocean Acidification on Fishery Yields and Profits: The Example of Red King Crab in Bristol Bay." 

Ecological Modelling 285 {August): 39-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.04.017. 

Quere, Corinne le, Robbie M. Andrew, Pierre Friedlingstein, Stephen Sitch, Judith Hauck, Julia Pongratz, 

Penelope A. Pickers, et al. 2018. "Global Carbon Budget 2018." Earth System Science Data 10 (4): 

2141-94. https:/ /doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018. 

11 
Figures 

Figure 1: The dissolved carbon dioxide concentration of surface ocean water (blue) is rising at the same pace as the atmospheric carb

concentration (red). This is decreasing the pH (black) and the carbonate ion concentration (green) of surface seawater. These data are 

Hawai'l Ocean Time Series Program in the North Pacific Ocean from 1988-2015. (Figure 13.4, CCSR) 

400 , Carbon Dioxide 

375 

[ 350 c.. 

325 300 l=======;==:::::::========l- 8.15 .,, I • I . . 270 

8.10 .. .. 260 01 8.05 · .·. · P"··=··y.,..,, 25o 

::r: 8.00 240 E 

c.. 7.95 230 

7.90 220 6 

*calculated from water' sam les 0 210 u 

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 

Year 

13 
Figure 2: We have high certainty that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels drive ocean acidification, moderate certainty about how it wi

organisms and ecosystems, and the lowest certainty about the best policy options for action. (Excerpted from Figure OA-1, IPCC ARS W

(a) 

14 
Figure 3: Coastal waters become acidified through a combination of atmospheric C02, point and non point sources of pollution and ru

well as river input and upwelling (Figure from( Kelly et al. 2011). 

15 
Figure 4: Recent marine heat waves. In 2012 a North Atlantic heat wave was concentrated in the Gulf of Maine; however, shorter per

very warm temperatures extended from Cape Hatteras to Iceland during the summer of 2012. American lobster and longfin squid and 

associated fisheries were impacted by the event. The North Pacific event began in 2014 and extended into shore in 2015 and into the 

Alaska in 2016,1eading to a large bloom of toxic algae that impacted the Dungeness crab fishery and contributed directly and indirectl

of sea lions and humpback whales. U.S. coral reefs that experienced moderate to severe bleaching during the 2015-2016 global mass 

event are indicated by coral icons (NCA4 chap. 9) 

16 
40 

Cooley Bio 2019 

Sarah R. Cooley is the Director of the Ocean Acidification Program at Ocean Conservancy, in Washington 

DC. This program seeks to show that ocean acidification is an issue that is relevant to elected officials 

and their constituents, and can be acted upon by leaders, to advance this issue in a constructive, 

bipartisan frame that ultimately leads to longer-term support for action on acidification and a host of 

other ocean-related issues. Dr. Cooley has been working to incorporate science into decision making at 

Ocean Conservancy since 2014. She is currently a Lead Author on Working Group II ofthe IPCC's G'h 

Assessment Report, and has recently served as Review Editor on the 4'h National Climate Assessment, 

and Lead Author on the 2nd State of the Carbon Cycle Report, as well as the author of dozens of peerreviewed scientific journal articles in high-impact journals including Science and Nature Climate Change. 

Dr. Cooley's scholarly focus spans ocean carbon cycling, science communication, and science-based 

policy development. In her position at Ocean Conservancy, she works to educate and engage decisionmakers and stakeholders from every political perspective at regional to international levels on ocean 

acidification, identifying ways that different groups can take concrete, stepwise action on the issue. In 

her work, Dr. Cooley combines science synthesis, strategic communications, political strategy and 

advocacy, and public advocacy. 

Prior to joining Ocean Conservancy, Dr. Cooley was a researcher and postdoctoral investigator at Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHO I), as well as the ocean acidification scientist in the Ocean Carbon 

and Biogeochemistry Program Project Office. She received a Ph.D. in Marine Science from University of 

Georgia and a B.S in Chemistry from Haverford College. 
41 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you, Dr. Cooley. We’ll now hear 

from Dr. Horton. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. RADLEY HORTON, 

LAMONT ASSOCIATE RESEARCH PROFESSOR, 

LAMONT-DOHERTY EARTH OBSERVATORY, 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EARTH INSTITUTE 

Dr. HORTON. Madam Chair, Members of the Subcommittee, my 

name is Radley Horton. I’m a Lamont Associate Research Professor 

at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this important hearing. I’m going to focus my remarks today on how the 

anthropogenic activities that we’ve heard about that have warmed 

the upper oceans are causing sea levels to rise. 

So there are two primary ways that global sea level rises as a 

result of that ocean warming. First and foremost, the upper oceans 

have warmed the surface of the ocean a degree Fahrenheit since 

1900. That warming has made its way down to about 3,000 feet. 

That literally causes the ocean to stand taller. It’s called thermal 

expansion. 

The second centrally important process globally is what’s happening to land-based ice sitting in Greenland, Antarctica, and in 

high mountain glaciers. As the ocean warms, it’s literally wearing 

away at the dams or buttresses if you will that are preventing that 

ice from sliding in part into the ocean. As more and more of that 

ice on land melts and makes its way into the water, we add mass 

to the ocean, causing further sea-level rise. 

So we’ve seen about 7 or 8 inches of sea-level rise globally since 

1900. And there—importantly, there’s been some acceleration over 

the past 2 decades or so. As we look to the future, projections of 

sea-level rise for, say, 2100, we see a big range. We hear about a 

most-likely range in the last National Climate Assessment of 1 to 

4.3 feet. In my remarks I’m going to take an optimistic approach 

and just focus on what 1 foot of sea-level rise would mean, as I say, 

a very optimistic take on it. 

And really, you know, fundamentally what I want to highlight is 

that even a little bit of sea-level rise means much more frequent 

coastal flooding and much more intense and higher-magnitude 

coastal flooding whenever you’re having a storm. 

[Slide.] 

And as we can see from figure 1 here, we’re already seeing that 

nuisance or sunny-day flooding is happening far more often than 

it used to across the U.S. coastline. For many locations, a five- or 

tenfold increase just over the last two generations in how often we 

are seeing these high water levels from Miami to Norfolk, for example. These are events that flood people’s basements, make it impossible for businesses to open for normal operations, prevent people from being able to drive home along their normal coastal 

routes. When these events are rare, we can call them nuisances, 

but at what point if they’re happening more and more often do they 

become something more than that, something that impacts real estate values, the ability to fund key infrastructure? 

Now, let’s go to slide 2 and focus as we look out to the future 

at what just 1 foot of sea-level rise by 2100 could mean. 
42 

[Slide.] 

What could it mean for the really extreme high water levels that 

currently happen once every 100 years along various parts of the 

U.S. coast? These are the high water levels that determine insurance rates and zoning plans. And what we can see is across the 

whole United States, events—high water levels that used to happen once per 100 years become things that you expect during the 

lifetime of the typical home mortgage. And in many places every 

year or two you could be seeing those high water levels occurring 

that used to happen once every 100 years. Again, this is with just 

1 foot of sea-level rise and no assumption about stronger storms. 

In reality, we expect—the balance of evidence suggests that the 

strongest hurricanes probably get stronger precisely because of 

ocean warming. That would make these effects worse than what 

you see here. 

It’s not just more frequent coastal flooding, though. It’s also higher magnitudes of flooding whenever a storm happens. One recent 

study found that if the New York region had been precisely the 

same when Hurricane Sandy struck except somehow the oceans 

had been a foot lower, as they were 100 years ago, 80,000 fewer 

people would have experienced flooding in their homes. That’s the 

impact of just a little bit of sea-level rise. 

So this is also obviously a public health and safety issue. It 

means less time for people to evacuate around low-lying coastal 

areas, and for those unable to evacuate, it means greater risk of 

death, more damage to buildings as those water levels are higher, 

waves are able to penetrate further inland. 

Along our coasts are assets worth trillions of dollars: businesses, 

homes, hospitals, I–95, Amtrak, our airports. But the economic impacts are going to make their way further inland as well. U.S. taxpayers bear the brunt of the bill for these coastal flood damages, 

and our coasts are economic hubs for all activities. There are also 

national security implications that I hope we may have a chance 

to discuss. 

Far inland from our coasts, extreme weather events are impacted 

by that warming of the ocean as well. We’re loading the dice toward more heavy rain events and combinations of high heat and 

humidity that harm our most vulnerable populations and affect the 

economic productivity of our outdoor laborers as well. 

I’ve had the good fortune to learn a great deal from decisionmakers, as well as young people eager to tackle these problems and 

learn more. For example, investors are demanding now that companies disclose their exposure to sea-level rise. These experiences 

have convinced me that although we are fast running out of time, 

a window still remains open for the ultimate tipping point or surprise, specifically rapid societal action to reduce our greenhouse gas 

emissions and prepare all of us for these climate changes that are 

underway. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify, and I look forward to our 

discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Horton follows:] 
43 

Written Testimony of Radley Horton 

Lamont Associate Research Professor, Columbia University 

before the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Sea Change: Impacts of Climate Change on Our Oceans and Coasts 

February 27, 2019 

Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Radley Horton. I am a 

Lamont Associate Research Professor at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory. Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this important 

hearing on the impact of climate change on our oceans and coasts. I have served as an 

author on the 3'ct and 4th U.S. National Climate Assessments, and as a Lead Principal 

Investigator within NOAA's RISA Program. I speak to you today though in my personal 

capacity as a private citizen. 

Primarily as a result of human activities including the burning offossil fuels and land use 

change, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by more than 40 

percent since the Industrial Revolution (Wuebbles et al. 2017). For most people, 

warming of the atmosphere is probably the first thing that comes to mind when they think 

about the climate changes that have resulted from these human activities. Indeed, based 

on records going back to the 19th century, surface air temperatures the last five years have 

been the five warmest on record, and the 20 warmest years have all occurred within the 

last 22 years (Climate Central, 2019). 

It may come as a surprise therefore that since the middle of the 20th century, 93 percent of 

the excess heating associated with human activities has actually gone towards warming 

the oceans (Wuebbles et al. 2017). As a result, the surface of the ocean has warmed by 

well over 1 °F on average since 1900. The enormous energy imbalance required to heat 

the upper oceans so rapidly can only be plausibly explained by human activities 

(Wuebbles et al. 2017). 

This warming, in conjunction with related ocean acidification and deoxygenation, has 

directly affected all living organisms in the upper ocean, as other speakers today will 

describe. It is also affecting sea level, which will be the subject of the majority of my 

brief remarks today. 

We have seen about 7-8 inches of sea level rise since 1900 (Wuebbles et al. 20 17). 

Although there is a delay between carbon dioxide emissions and sea level change, 

acceleration of the rate of sea level rise has been observed during the past generation 

(Wuebbles et al. 20 17). I'd now like to briefly discuss the causes, impacts observed to 

date, and where we could be headed later this century. 

Globally, there are two predominant ways that climate change is causing sea levels to 

rise. First, as the ocean warms, it expands. Second, the ice sheets and glaciers that that 
44 

sit on land are disgorging ice and water into the oceans, thereby adding mass. Although 

the first process had a bigger impact on sea level during the 20'h century, it is thought that 

the second now rivals the first, and is set to surpass it this century. (Other drivers of sea 

level, of less importance globally, include 1) global storage of freshwater on land, 2) 

changes in local land height, and 3) regional variations in the change in ocean height due 

to factors ranging from ocean currents to the gravitational attraction of ice sheets (Sweet 

eta!. 2017.) 

But what about the future of sea level rise? It is often said that there is a lot of uncertainty 

about sea level rise, and in one sense, it is true. But it is asymmetric or 'high tail' 

uncertainty. According to Volume 1 of the Fourth National Climate Assessment 

(Wuebbles eta!. 2017): "[Global mean sea level) is very likely to rise by ... 1.0-4.3 feet by 

2100." There has been a lot of focus on whether the plausible worst-case scenario for 

2100 is 4.3 feet, six feet, or even 8 feet of sea level rise. But I would like to highlight a 

less appreciated point. Even the most optimistic scenario imaginable--of one foot of sea 

level rise by 2100--would have direct and profound impacts. I am going to focus on the 

most obvious impacts, but there will be less direct ones as well. 

Sea level rise means more frequent coastal flooding and more intense/higher magnitude 

coastal flooding (Wuebbles et al. 2017). Already we are seeing nuisance (also known as 

'sunny-day') flooding happen far more often than it used to across the U.S. coastline, as 

shown in Figure l. For some locations, the past two generations have seen a 5 to 10-fold 

increase in the number of days with nuisance flooding. (It should be noted that some of 

these places, including the Mid-Atlantic states, have had more sea level rise than the 

global average, but even for those states that have not, the trend towards more nuisance 

flooding is clear.) From Miami to Norfolk, this means for exmple: 1) more stores unable 

to open for normal business, with associated ripple effects on the economy; 2) people not 

able to drive home along their normal routes, leading to delays, and 3) more water in 

people's basements. These events perhaps deserve to be called a mere 'nuisance' when 

they only happen a few times per year-but at what point does it become something more 

than a nuisance? 

Now lets look to the future of coastal flooding. And instead of looking at nuisance 

flooding, lets look at the big coastal floods-what are colloquially known as the '1 in 100 

year' events-heights that flood insurance, and zoning decisions are made based upon 

(Figure 2). With just one foot of sea level rise, and even if coastal storms do not change 

at all, the 1 in 1 00 year high water levels of the past become events that for most of the 

U.S. coast will be experienced within the 30-year lifetime of the typical home mortgage. 

In some areas, these high water levels could happen every couple of years in the future. 

Rather than focusing on the exact numbers in any one location, I would encourage you to 

note how the statistics shift strongly across the entire U.S. And once again, this is a 

lower end sea level rise scenario of one foot, and one that includes no assumptions about 

coastal storms changing in the future. For hurricanes, this assumption is probably 

somewhat optimistic, since the balance of evidence suggests that major hurricanes will 

become more frequent and intense, in large part due to the warming of the upper oceans 

(Weubbles et al. 2017). 
45 

But sea level rise does more the just cause more frequent flooding. It means that when a 

coastal storm makes landfall, additional areas are flooded that would not have flooded 

before. And deeper floodwaters, which allow for greater wave penetration, cause more 

economic damage and loss of life. If the foot of sea level rise in the Greater New 

York/New Jersey Metropolitan Region since 1900 had somehow not occurred, 2012's 

Superstorm Sandy would have flooded the residences of 80,000 fewer people (Climate 

Central2013; Miller et al. 2013). One recent study found that three feet of sea level rise 

would inundate 2 million American's homes (Hauer et al., 2016). Globally the number 

would be approximately two orders of magnitude larger. 

The more frequent and intense coastal flooding brought on by sea level rise will impact 

all Americans. Along our coasts are assets worth trillions of dollars. From our homes, to 

critical service providers, to critical infrastructure including interstates like I-95, rail lines 

including Amtrak, airports including the 'big three' in the New York Metropolitan 

Region, and municipal water treatment plants. 

And sea level rise is also a public health and safety issue. It means less time to evacuate 

from low lying areas in advance of a coastal storm, and greater risk of injury and death 

for those vulnerable members of our communities who are unable to evacuate. Sea level 

rise also mobilizes hazardous pollutants from our soils. 

And just as all Americans suffer when the health and safety of any American is 

imperiled, so too will all Americans suffer the economic costs of sea level rise. It is after 

all U.S. taxpayers who bear much of the bill for coastal flood damages. And coasts are 

economic hubs for the entire nation. Our ports, which almost by definition are vulnerable 

to sea level rise, serve inland interstates and rail systems, as well as regional distribution 

centers. If ports are damaged or operating at reduced capacity, we therefore see supply 

chain implications, and economic disruption. 

And then there are the national security implications. From NASA's Kennedy Space 

Center on Florida's Space Coast and Johnson Space Center outside Houston, to Norfolk's 

Naval Base and shipyards, what happens along U.S. coasts can have global implications. 

Recent coastal storm damages made worse by climate change have led to billions in 

damages at an Air Force base and a Marine Corps camp. 

In my remarks, I have focused on a linear story---describing how small amounts of sea 

level rise profoundly increase the frequency of coastal flooding, and pointing primarily to 

relatively direct impacts of coastal flooding, like local damage. However, I feel an 

obligation to mention that the more greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere, the 

greater the potential for tipping points or 'surprises', such as sea level rise far in excess of 

the 4.3 feet described above. There is growing evidence from the ice sheets that further 

warming of the atmosphere and ocean could unleash positive feedbacks that lock us into 

more rapid icc sheet losses, and resultant high end sea level rise. Because extreme sea 

level rise of say 6 to 8 feet this century would be so difficult to adapt to, it follows that 

the further we increase greenhouse gas concentrations, the greater the odds of other 
46 

impact/societal 'surprises' like conflict, which would presumably make it that much more 

difficult to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the scale needed given the magnitude of 

the problem. 

While I have focused my brief remarks here on how human activities lead to sea level 

rise and its impacts, it is important to remember that earth systems are connected. On 

land, the impacts of warming oceans extend far inland. Warming oceans are loading the 

dice towards 1) heavier rain events; 2) combinations of high heat and humidity that put 

the health of our vulnerable populations, as well as outdoor labor productivity, at risk; 

and 3) all other things being equal, stronger hurricanes. And of course, these changes 

interact. For example, for a low lying coastal city, even a small increase in rainfall 

intensity, combined with a small increase in a hurricane's storm surge could lead to a 

large increase in flooding if accompanied by even modest sea level rise. 

While my training is in climate science, during the past decade I have had the good 

fortune to learn a great deal from decision-makers (including large municipalities, federal 

agencies, small communities, the private sector, and NGOs) as they devise solutions to 

climate change. These experiences have convinced met that, although we are running 

out of time, a window still remains open for the ultimate tipping point/surprisespecifically, rapid societal action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make society 

more resilient in the face of growing climate risks. 

Thank you for inviting me to testifY, and I look forward to our discussion. 
47 

References 

Climate Central, 2003. Surging Seas Sea level rise analysis by Climate Central. Retrieved 

February 25, 2019, from http://sealevel.climatecentral.org./ 

Climate Central, 2019. The 10 Hottest Global Years on Record. Retrieved February 25, 

2019, from https://www .climatecentral.org/ gallery/graphics/the-1 0-hottest-globalyears-on-record 

Hauer, M. E., J. M. Evans, and DR. Mishra (2016). Millions projected to be at risk from 

sea-level rise in the continental United States. Nature Climate Change. 

Miller, K. G., Kopp, R. E., Horton, B. P., Browning, J. V., & Kemp, A. C., 2013. A 

geological perspective on sea-level rise and its impacts along the U.S. mid-Atlantic 

coast. Earths Future, 1(1), 3-18. doi:l0.1002/2013ef000135 

Moser, S.C., M.A. Davidson, P. Kirshen, P. Mulvaney, J. F. Murley, J. E. Neumann, L. 

Petes, and D. Reed, 2014: Ch. 25: Coastal Zone Development and Ecosystems. 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, 579-618. doi:10.7930/JOMS3QNW. 

Sweet, W.V., R. Horton, R.E. Kopp, A.N. LeGrande, and A. Romanou, 2017: Sea level 

rise. In: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, 

Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, 

and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 

USA, pp. 333-363, doi: l0.7930/JOVM49F2. 

Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, B. DeAngelo, S. Doherty, K. Hayhoe, R. 

Horton, J.P. Kossin, P.C. Taylor, A.M. Waple, and C.P. Weaver, 2017: Executive 

Summary of the Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate 

Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, 

B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

Washington, DC, USA, 26 pp. 
48 

Figure 1. Tidal floods (days per year) exceeding NOAA thresholds for minor impacts at 

28 NOAA tide gauges through 2015. Source: Sweet et al., 2017. 
49 

Revised Return 

Time for Current 100-Year Event 

/~:.; •. ,·.··.· .. ·· :t .. . . 

\i 

100-year event return time (years) 

• • • 0 • • • • 

' "\. <r:> ~ ~ !\;)~ <r:>~ '\<r:> ~~ 

Figure 2. The amount of sea level rise (SLR) by 2050 will vary along different stretches 

ofthc U.S. coastline and under different SLR scenarios, mostly due to land subsidence or 

uplift. This figure shows how a 1.05-foot SLR by 2050 could cause the level of flooding 

that occurs during today's 100-year storm to occur more frequently by mid-century, in 

some regions as often as once a decade or even annually. All estimates include the effect 

of land subsidence. Source: Moser et al., 2014. 
50 

Radley Horton 

Lamont Associate Research Professor, Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory 

Radley Horton is a Lamont Associate Research Professor at 

Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. His 

research focuses on climate extremes, sea level rise, tail risks, climate 

impacts, and adaptation. Radley was a Convening Lead Author for the Third National Climate 

Assessment. He currently Co-Chairs Columbia University's Climate Adaptation Initiative, and is 

Principal Investigator for the NOAA-Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments-funded 

Consortium for Climate Risk in the Urban Northeast. Radley is also the Columbia University 

lead for the Department oflnterior-funded Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center. He has 

served on numerous national and international task forces and committees, including the Climate 

Scenarios Task Force in support of the 2018 National Climate Assessment. Radley teaches in 

Columbia University's Sustainable Development department. 
51 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you, Dr. Horton. We’ll now hear 

from Dr. Frazer. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS K. FRAZER, 

PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF NATURAL 

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 

Dr. FRAZER. OK. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of 

the Committee. So my testimony is a little longer than 5 minutes, 

so I think I’ll cut right to the meat of it. 

My background is in marine ecology and fisheries science, and I 

draw on my academic training and other professional experiences 

to provide here some examples of how and where investments in 

science would yield substantial value. 

Wild-caught fisheries yield approximately 90 million metric tons 

of fish and shellfish per year. However, this bountiful natural resource is already threatened with about 1/3 of global fish stocks 

classified as overfished. And changing climate introduces new challenges. Among those challenges are changes in the ranges of exploited species, both expansions and contractions, and changes associated with alterations to habitats. As sea surface temperatures 

increase, some warm water species can expand their ranges northward, but some colder water species will be forced to contract their 

ranges. 

As global climate changes, we will also see changes in habitats. 

These changes range from shifts in major ocean currents that will 

alter patterns in movement and recruitment to potential loss of 

inshore structural habitats such as seagrass meadows that provide 

food and shelter for a large number of exploited fishery species. 

In response to such challenges, managers will have to adapt their 

strategies with the key thrust being a commitment to ecosystembased fishery management, as proposed by NOAA Fisheries. For 

example, managers will need to be able to differentiate between 

range expansions driven by increased stock abundances that result 

from effective management actions and range shifts driven by 

changes simply due to water temperatures and ocean currents. 

Fisheries managers will also need to factor habitat and other environmental variables into stock assessments and stock projections 

because altered habitats appear to be an inevitable consequence of 

climate change. 

Overall, managers will need to move from harvest quotas established primarily on the basis of historical landings to quotas that 

account for a changing or nonstationary environment. In addition, 

managers will need to consider ways to help, potentially even fund, 

adaptation by the recreational and commercial fishing industry 

such as moving access points in wholesale and retail outlets. Without such adaptations, we in the United States stands to lose a substantial portion of more than 1.7 million jobs, more than $212 billion in sales, and $100 billion in gross domestic product generated 

by these industries. 

Science comes into play because it is the best base for designing 

and implementing the necessary adaptations to existing management of our Nation’s fisheries. One way that science can help us 

by providing timely and accurate information on the status and 

trends of stocks and habitats. A second way that science can help 
52 

us is to transform the tools and techniques needed to mitigate undesirable changes in fish stocks or the habitats that support them. 

Given the time constraints imposed on this hearing, I will focus 

on one example in mitigating loss of habitat: Rehabilitating coral 

reefs. Coral reefs occupy a relatively small proportion of the ocean 

realm, but harbor more than 25 percent of marine biodiversity. 

Coral reefs also support important recreational, commercial, and 

subsistence fisheries around the globe. In fact, coral reefs yield approximately 25 percent of the total fish catch in developing nations 

and contribute substantially to the economies of more than 100 

countries that promote reef-related tourism, including our own. 

They are, however, one of the most imperiled habitats on the planet due to nutrient pollution, physical damage, overfishing, and 

other local stresses. 

Global climate change only exacerbates this problem. Managers 

must continue to address local stresses and, as already indicated, 

we need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to address global 

stresses. Regardless of our efforts, nearly all coral reefs will be 

threatened by conditions generated from existing levels of climate 

change by the year 2050. In fact, managers should prepare to mitigate both existing damage and the damage that will occur from the 

inevitable changes in global climate that have already been initiated. 

Rehabilitating and restoring damaged and degraded reefs will require transformational innovations and advancements based on 

sound science. Key questions to be addressed are included in my 

written testimony. Answering those questions and transferring the 

new knowledge into effective and efficient innovations and investments will take time and a consistent stream of resources. In fact, 

it is an investment that we should begin now. 

In conclusion, I reiterate my agreement with much of what you 

have heard from others. Climate change poses significant threats, 

and now is the time to begin addressing the human activities that 

drive it. My goal today was to introduce a potentially new topic, the 

need for consistent investment in science that will support incremental adaptation to the effects of climate change and build the 

basis for transformational change in mitigating existing and future 

effects. My hope is that this initial contribution might persuade 

you and the Committee Members to include discussion of the risk 

and rewards associated with long-term investments in science in 

your future deliberations. 

I will close by saying that I am happy to participate in those discussions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Frazer follows:] 
53 

Statement of 

Thomas K. Frazer 

Professor and Director, School of Natural Resources and Environment 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences 

University of Florida 

before the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

February 27, 2019 

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for affording me this 

opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Tom Frazer. I am a Professor and Director of the 

School of Natural Resources and Environment in the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences 

at the University of Florida. 

I understand, based on the background information provided by staff, that the committee has 

received substantial testimony focused on the causes of climate change, as well as its 

consequences, both realized and potential. You have heard from internationally renowned scholars 

and experts that climate change is real and that humans are responsible for it. I agree. You have 

heard also that marked reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions are essential and urgently 

needed to stabilize the earth's climate and avoid significant detrimental effects. Again, I agree. In 

fact, l would argue that the substantial, long-lasting opportunity costs associated with delaying 

reductions in greenhouse emissions outweigh any short-term benefits. The climate-related 

challenges that we face today are certainly not going away in the near future, and they will only 

be exacerbated by further increases in greenhouse gas emissions 1

•

2• For example, if current 

conditions were stabilized, we will still see a 1.1 °F (0.6°C) increase in global temperatures over 

the next century 2

, and a scenario with continuing increases in emissions and no mitigation yields 

a 5.0° 10.2°F (2.8° 5.7°C) increase during the same time frame 2• Given these projections, 

1 
54 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions and staying on that course for the foreseeable future should be 

major investments. 

With that said, we also should be compelled, as a society, to invest aggressively in the science 

needed to inform effective adaptation and mitigation. Reducing emissions is key. It is essentially 

the equivalent of feeding, clothing and housing your children today. Investing in science, on the 

other hand, is equivalent to saving for their college education. In fact, consistent, long-term 

investment in science makes the most sense because many valuable insights can only be gained by 

observations and experiments conducted over time. In other words, good science can take a while 

to come to fruition. 

The science I am talking about is needed to incrementally adapt existing management to the new 

norm so that we are able to conserve and safeguard natural resources that sustain livelihoods and 

economies of communities in the United States and around the globe. In addition, science drives 

technological innovation and advancement or transformational change, and given the challenges 

that we will experience due to past actions and potential challenges that depend on current and 

future actions, I suggest to the committee that the call for transformational change has never been 

as strong as it is today. 

My background is in the arenas of marine ecology and fisheries science, and I draw on my 

academic training and other professional experiences to provide here some examples of how and 

where investments in science would yield substantial value. 

Wild caught fisheries yield approximately 90 million metric tons of fish and shellfish per year, 

with the bulk of this production being consumed by people, including those who have little access 

to other sources of protein 3

• However, this bountiful natural resource is already threatened, with 

about one-third of stocks classified as overfished 3

, and changing climate introduces new 

challenges. 

Among those challenges are changes in the ranges of exploited species, both expansions and 

contractions, and changes associated with alterations to habitats. As sea surface temperatures 

increase, some warm-water species can expand their ranges northward, but some cold-water 

species will be forced to contract their ranges. As global climate changes, we will also see changes 

in habitats. These changes range from shifts in major ocean currents that will alter patterns in 

2 
55 

movement and recruitment to potential Joss of inshore, structural habitats, such as seagrass 

meadows, that provide food and shelter for a large number of exploited fishery species. As a less 

drastic, but still significant example, a "flashier" environment caused by more frequent, and larger 

storm events can alter the salinity regime in estuaries, which could make them less hospitable for 

juveniles of many fished species. Furthermore, warmer temperatures have added stress to the 

world's coral reefs, which were already challenged by coastal development and associated human 

activities (I' II talk about this in more detail in just a minute). 

In response to such challenges, managers will have to adapt their strategies, with the key thrust 

being a commitment to ecosystem-based fishery management as proposed by NOAA Fisheries 4

• 

For example, managers will need to be able to differentiate between range expansions driven by 

increased stock abundances that result from effective management actions and range shifts driven 

by changes in water temperatures and ocean currents. Fisheries managers will also need to factor 

habitat and other environmental variabhis into stock assessments and stock projections because 

altered habitats appear to be an inevitable consequence of climate change. Overall, managers will 

need to move from harvest quotas established primarily on the basis of historical landings to quotas 

that account for a changing or non-stationary environment. This flexibility is not explicitly 

articulated in the current version of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and 

Management Act. In addition, fisheries managers will need to consider ways to help, and 

potentially even fund, adaptation by the recreational and commercial fishing industries, such as 

moving access points and wholesale and retail outlets. Without such incremental adaptations, we, 

in the U.S., stand to lose a substantial portion of the 1.7 million jobs, $212 billion in sales and $100 

billion in gross domestic product generated by these industries 5. 

Science comes into play because it is the best base for designing and implementing the necessary 

adaptations to existing management of our nation's fisheries. One way that science can help is by 

providing timely and accurate information on the status and trends of stocks and habitats. Our 

existing monitoring of recreational and commercial catches and our tracking of critical habitats are 

insufficient, and we will only fall further behind given the pace of change we will experience in 

the coming decades. In addition, our understanding of the interactions between fished species and 

their habitats and our ability to employ models to provide early warnings of detrimental 

consequences are inadequate. A second way that science can help is to transform the tools and 

3 
56 

techniques needed to mitigate undesirable changes in fished stocks or the habitats that support 

them. Given the time constraints imposed as part of this hearing, I will focus on one example of 

mitigating loss of habitat, rehabilitating coral reefs. 

Coral reefs occupy a relatively small proportion of the ocean realm, but harbor more than 25% of 

marine biodiversity. Coral reefs also support important recreational, commercial and subsistence 

fisheries around the globe. In fact, coral reefs yield approximately 25% of the total fish catch in 

developing nations and contribute substantially to the economies of more than 100 countries that 

promote reef-related tourism 6• They are, however, one of the most imperiled habitats on the planet 

due to nutrient pollution, physical damage, overfishing and other local stresses. Recent reports 

suggest that greater than 60% of the world's reefs are threatened due to these stresses and climate 

change only heightens this percentage 6

•

7

• 

Managers must continue to address local stresses, and, as already indicated, we need to reduce 

emissions of greenhouse gases to address global stresses. Regardless of our efforts, nearly all coral 

reefs will be threatened by conditions generated from existing levels of climate change by the year 

2050 6

, In fact, managers should prepare to mitigate both existing damage and the damage that will 

occur from the inevitable changes in global climate that already have been initiated. 

Rehabilitating or restoring damaged and degraded reefs will require transformational innovations 

and advancements based on sound science. Key questions to be addressed include the following: 

• How do we create a supply chain for coral reef rehabilitation that does not consist solely 

of transplanting survivors? 

• Can we identify and culture genotypes that exhibit increased resistance and resilience to 

local or global stressors? 

• Can we identify genes that encode increased resistance and resilience in the symbiotic 

algae that sustain reef-building corals and what are the risks and rewards associated with 

manipulating those genes? 

• How might we increase survivorship of transplanted corals? 

• What characteristics do rehabilitated reefs need to possess to ensure they provide most if 

not all of the ecosystem services derived from natural coral reefs? 

4 
57 

Answering these questions and transferring the new knowledge into effective and efficient 

innovations and advancements will take time and a consistent stream of resources. In fact, it is an 

investment that we should begin now. 

In conclusion, I reiterate my agreement with much of what you have heard from others. Climate 

change poses significant threats, and now is the time to begin addressing the human activities 

that drive it. My goal today was to introduce a potentially new topic: the need for consistent 

investment in science that will support incremental adaptation to the effects of climate change 

and build the basis for transformational change in mitigating existing and future effects. My hope 

is that this initial contribution might persuade you to include discussions of the risks and rewards 

associated with long-term investments in science in your future deliberations regarding the 

essential and urgently needed efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I will close by saying 

that I am happy to participate in those discussions. 

REFERENCES 

1. IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II 

and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 

151 pp. 

2. USGCRP, 2017. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, 

Volume I[Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. 

Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp. 

3. FAO, 2018. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018- Meeting the sustainable 

development goals. Rome. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 !GO, http://www.fao.org/state-offisheries-aguaculture 

4. Public Law I 09-497: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as 

amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization 

Act, 2007. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-policies/policy-directive-system 

5. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2018. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2016. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SP0-187, 243 pp. 

6. BurkeL, Reytar K, Spalding M, Perry A., 2011. Reefs at risk revisited. World Resources 

Institute, Washington, DC. I 15 pp. 

5 
58 

7. Pandolfi JM, Bradbury RH, Sala E, Hughes TP, Bjomdal KA, et al., 2003. Global 

trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science 301: 955-958. 

6 
59 

Thomas K. Frazer is a Professor and the Director of the School of Natural Resources and 

Environment at the University of Florida. Dr. Frazer holds a Bachelor's Degree in Fisheries 

Biology from Humboldt State University and a Master's Degree in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

from the University of Florida. He earned his Ph.D. in Biological Sciences from the University of 

California, Santa Barbara. His research addresses contemporary and emerging environmental 

issues, and it is, by nature, interdisciplinary. His work involves collaborators from disparate 

disciplines, and it includes sampling and experiments conducted across a wide range of spatial and 

temporal scales. During his tenure at the University of Florida, Dr. Frazer has garnered substantial 

research funding to address topics pertaining to water quantity and quality, nutrient dynamics, 

biogeochemical processes, fish population dynamics, food web interactions, and ecological 

restoration of degraded ecosystems. He has conducted field research in both freshwater and marine 

systems around the globe, and he is intimately familiar with a broad suite of environmental and 

natural resource issues (e.g., eutrophication of fresh, estuarine, and coastal waters; invasive 

species; and the ecological impacts of contemporary environmental change, including coral 

bleaching, ocean acidification, and sea level rise). Dr. Frazer has authored and/or co-authored more 

than 175 peer-reviewed publications, technical reports, and book chapters. He serves as Chief 

Specialty Editor for the Coral Reef Research section of Frontiers in Marine Science, currently 

holds an at-large seat on the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and is a member of 

APLU's Board on Oceans, Atmosphere and Climate. 
60 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you, Dr. Frazer. We’ll now hear 

from Ms. Pilaro. 

TESTIMONY OF MARGARET A. PILARO, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC COAST SHELLFISH 

GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. PILARO. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for having me 

here today. 

I am—as the Director of the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, I am extremely proud to represent some of the hardestworking women and men on the West Coast. Shellfish farming, 

which employs thousands of people in rural economies on the West 

Coast, depends on the tides, with the most rigorous work occurring 

at low tide, which half the year falls during the winter months. 

And as a bit of a cruel joke from Mother Nature, those tides occur 

during the middle of the night. 

There is both significant amount of pride and responsibility 

among shellfish growers because most of the members of my organization are second-, third-, and fourth-generation farmers, all of 

which depend upon a healthy environment to farm, and therefore 

are avid protectors of coastal and marine ecosystems. 

Shellfish farming began commercially in the mid-to-late 1800s, 

and we know that oysters fueled the California gold rush. In the 

1920s the native oyster populations along the West Coast became 

depleted from overharvesting but also due to poor water quality, 

and this was one of the first periods of adaptation that growers 

faced. 

The shellfish industry turned west to Japan and brought over 

the Pacific oyster, which naturalized well. However, in part because of natural reproduction of that oyster was not robust enough 

to support the growing demand, the industry in the 1970s moved 

to hatchery production for larvae and seed, or baby oysters. The 

largest of these hatcheries at the time was Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery in Oregon. It’s a family run business to this day, 

which at that time supplied over 70 percent of the West Coast 

farms with seed. The predictability of hatchery seed allowed the industry to flourish well beyond Oregon and Washington and now to 

California, Alaska, and Hawaii, and beyond oysters to now clams, 

mussels, and a large West Coast burrowing clam called the 

geoduck. 

In 2007, Whiskey Creek stumbled upon the next chapter in shellfish farming’s path of adapting when the hatchery witnessed a 70 

to 80 percent mortality of oyster larvae. They immediately tried to 

determine the cause, looking to natural bacteria and disease, but 

in consultation with researchers at the University of Washington 

understood that the issues related to acidic water, or low pH, and 

carbonate concentration. 

Buffering the water, Whiskey Creek Hatchery and a second 

hatchery experiencing the same fate had begun to do, had been a 

solid fix, although somewhat temporarily. A longer-term adaptation 

needs to be considered and is necessary, especially since oceanographers tell us that this change in pH is due to older water, which 

has been absorbing the Earth’s carbon emissions for a century and 

that even stopping the carbon emission inputs today would mean 
61 

30 to 50 years of acidic waters in the future. It also means issues 

not just for oysters but for all marine organisms. 

During the past 10 years, we are beginning to learn that other 

climate-related changes impact the growth and health of shellfish 

beyond the hatchery and onto the beaches of farms. We are experiencing hypoxic periods, increasing temperatures, a decrease in 

available food in the water column, an increase of disease and 

harmful algal blooms, changes in growth patterns for the shellfish 

such as yield, size, and the way in which they grow generally. One 

specific example is that we are seeing impacts to the abyssal 

threads of mussels. These threads are what allows mussels to attach to structure for them to grow. Without healthy abyssal 

threads, mussels cannot grow. We are also seeing a decrease in resistance to shellfish predators, such as oyster drills, and an increase in intensity and frequency of storm events. These are all 

things to which the industry must adapt. 

Real-time oceanography data collected by the Integrated Oceanographic Observing System, or IOOS, plus the guidance of NOAA’s 

Ocean Acidification Program have been essential to the industry. 

Shellfish farmers who had just been used to consulting tide books 

are now looking at real-time temperature, salinity, and carbonate 

data on their phones while they are on the beach working. In addition, the industry on both coasts. The industry on both coasts takes 

advantage of discussions at local universities, nonprofits, and governments in finding ways to help. 

We need more. We need to better understand the interactions of 

shellfish and other organisms such as kelp and grasses. We need 

to look into genetics to see if there are families much better suited 

to survive these changes, much like we’ve done in the wheat and 

grain industry. We need to understand how rising sea levels will 

impact where and how shellfish will grow. We’re in exciting times 

of technology, and shellfish farmers are not easily discouraged because if they were, they wouldn’t get out of bed each morning. But 

we need help in policies and leadership to allow the tradition of 

shellfish and the families that have been farming shellfish for generations to continue long into the future. 

Thank you very much for inviting me here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pilaro follows:] 
62 

Margaret A. Pilaro 

Executive Director, Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association 

Written Testimony 

Congressional Committee of Science, Space and Technology 

"Sea Change: Impacts of Climate Change on our Oceans and Coasts" 

February 27,2019 

Oysters have been grown commercially on the West Coast since the mid-to-late 1800s, thriving 

in the brackish water found in the shallow, cool estuaries along the Pacific Coast. By the 1890s, 

oystermen were pulling 200,000 bushels a year out of the Puget Sound. But the boom was 

followed by bust, as over-harvesting and declining water quality decimated the native population 

of Ostrea lurida, or Olympia oysters. In the 1920s, as a way of saving their industry, the West 

Coast oyster growers began importing Crassostrea gigas, or Pacific oysters, from Japan. The 

Pacific oysters thrived, and oyster farmers began growing the species in large numbers. The 

shellfish industry continued to grow- beyond Washington, into Oregon, California, Alaska and 

Hawaii and in coastal areas around the US. It also grew beyond oysters to include clams, 

mussels, scallops, and geoduck. 

Shellfish aquaculture provides economic opportunities for rural and coastal communities through 

harvests of healthy seafood products. Farming mussels, clams, oysters, and geoduck provides 

invaluable ecosystem services in coastal waters by improving water quality, removing excess 

nutrients, providing critical habitat for juvenile fish and invertebrates, and sequestering nitrogen. 

The most recent Census of Agriculture identified over 1700 shellfish farms - 240 along the West 

Coast and 1500 on the East Coast- producing nearly $300 million in annual sales and employing 

1000's of people in mainly rural economically depressed counties. 

But unlike the native Olympia oyster, the Pacific oyster was never able to reproduce quite as 

successfully in the wild-so in the 1970s, the shellfish industry began installing hatcheries along 

the Pacific Coast, in order to supply oyster farmers with the seed needed to sustain their 

businesses. In 1978, the Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery set up shop next to Netarts Bay, five 

miles southwest of Tillamook, Oregon. A family-run business, it eventually grew to supply 

Pacific oyster larvae to 70 percent of the West Coast's oyster farms stretching from Canada to 

South America. 

In 2007 two of the three largest shellfish hatcheries along the west coast, including Whiskey 

Creek Shellfish Hatchery, witnessed 70-85% mortality of oyster larvae. Hatchery employees 

immediately sought to determine the reason for these unimaginable results. They turned to 

bacteria or disease then learned of a research out of the University of Washington which linked 

changes in climate on coastal marine organisms. It became clear the carbonate 

concentration, compound essential for shell growth, was severely out of balance. High levels of 

COz in water are correlated with developmental abnormalities, reduced fertilization success, 

slowed growth, and the precipitation of weaker thinner shells. 

Shellfish farmers witness, first hand, the changing environmental conditions and weather 

patterns. They also encounter the related impacts to shellfish farming. All of these threats to the 

industry create hardship for shellfish farmers; added expense in equipment, additional testing, 
63 

uncertainty of harvest, and consumer confidence. The increase in frequency and duration of 

storms impacts the amount of time farmers can safely work on the water and increases 

challenges with maintaining gear. The increase of shellfish-related disease is also linked to 

changing climate, specifically rising temperatures. As the temperatures of coastal waters rise, 

harmful algal blooms (HABs) are more likely to occur. These blooms produce marine biotoxins 

that are poisons. Shellfish ingest the biotoxins, which remain in their systems, causing illness in 

humans who consume the infected shellfish. As shellfish adjusts to different conditions, it 

becomes stressed and more susceptible to naturally occurring bacteria, such as Vibrio, and 

shellfish-related disease such as MSX, Denno, and Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome (POMS). 

Shellfish growers are also starting to examine how increases of shellfish predation and increasing 

populations of organisms that prey on shellfish are to climate; and how shellfish may respond to 

growing at different depths and substrates if sea-level rise estimates are realized. 

Today's shellfish farmer has incorporated review of real-time oceanographic data collected by 

NOAA's Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) at its dozens of monitoring buoys and 

stations along the coast of the US. In addition to tides, farmers now base activities and farm 

management on salinity, temperature, and carbonate chemistry of the water. 

The industry is also hoping to address climate-related impacts through genetics. Shellfish 

farming is a relatively new enterprise and it is based on stocks that have not been subject to 

intensive, long-term genetic improvements, like we have for wheat and cattle. With the 

assistance of genetics research programs at Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, University of 

Rhode Island, University of Washington, and Oregon State University, the industry is hopeful to 

that genetics can play a critical, long-term, solution to developing disease-resistant lines. 

Submitted as part of written testimony for Margaret Pilaro, February 27, 2019 
64 

Published in Read the Dirt 

January 2012 

info@readthedirt.org 

Oysters and Ocean Acidification 

by: Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association: Margaret Barrette Postedon:January06,2012 

By Margaret Pilaro Barrette, Executive Director for the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers 

Association 

Editor's Note: The Executive Director for the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association takes 

us through her realization of the harm Ocean Acidification is doing to the oceans, shellfish 

populations, and a way of life for shel?fish growers. Yet another reason to check our unfettered 

consumption of fossil fuels. 

Submitted as part of written testimony for Margaret Pilaro, February 27,2019 
65 

I am not a physical scientist. It's not that I don't "get" science, or that my palms get clammy 

when I hear about the scientific processes. I'm one of those people who when faced with 

something very scientific, is more interested in the "So what's that mean?'' or "How's that going 

to impact people?" rather than the "Hey, how'd that happen?" I guess that makes me more of a 

social scientist. 

About 18 months ago, I left my position at the WA Department of Natural Resources and began 

working as the Executive Director for the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association 

(PCSGA). This organization has been around for over 80 years and is made up of shellfish 

farmers who produce oysters, mussels, clams and geoduck in Washington, Oregon, Alaska, 

California and Hawaii. 

Within my first few weeks on the job, I attended the Association's annual conference -the first 

day of which was entirely dedicated to the topic of"Ocean Acidification". I was struck by all the 

long faces. I needed to learn more. 

The learning process took me knee-deep into science. When water absorbs C02 from the 

atmosphere, the C02 is converted to carbonic acid. I learned that the water along the Pacific 

Coast is layered. The top layer is made up of "newer water", which comes from fresh water 

inputs like rivers and runoff. "Older water" is deeper in the water column and because of its age 

has absorbed more C02 and carbonic acid making it acidic or corrosive, with a lower pH. During 

certain weather events, such as a north west wind, the older water "up-wells" or rises towards the 

surface, bringing with it higher concentrations of C02 and acidic water. 

At one time the oceans were thought to be essential in helping us deal with the rise of carbon 

dioxide in the atmosphere- capable of storing large amounts of C02. Now we realize that the 

ocean's ability to store C02 is impacting those that live within it. In the case of oysters, 

corrosive water makes the shells of oyster larvae dissolve faster than they can form. Oyster 

larvae need that early shell development in order to grow into a baby oyster "seed" and live a 

healthy life. 

The folks at Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery in Netarts Bay, Oregon first drew attention to 

this issue in 2007. At first they thought it was due to bacteria. Finding nothing, they turned to the 

pH levels of the water. 

We now know that acidic water, with a low pH, is responsible for a significant decline in oyster 

larvae production at west coast shellfish hatcheries. It's also likely responsible for the lack of 

natural oyster recruitment in the Willapa Bay region, as spawning events have not naturally 

occurred there in the past six years. This change in the water is clearly responsible for all the 

long faces and defeated spirits I witnessed at my first shellfish growers conference. 

The oyster industry contributes over $270 million to Washington's economy and supports 3,200 

jobs. When places such as Willapa Bay don't experience naturally occurring oyster spawning 

events for six years, those working in the industry as well as all who enjoy eating shellfish, lose. 

Shellfish is a high-quality protein that is sustainably produced under the most comprehensive 

environmental laws in the world, such as the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act. The 

Submitted as part of written testimony for Margaret Pilaro, February 27, 2019 
66 

demand for Washington-produced shellfish far exceeds the supply and as we've seen with other 

American-produced products, foreign competition from China and New Zealand are standing by 

ready to fill the need. Importing foreign shellfish ignores the issue of Ocean Acidification, 

reduces jobs in rural communities, and introduces seafood into our markets that is produced 

without high standards for environmental sustainability or human health. 

Acidic water (with low pH) kills Phytoplankton, a staple in the marine food chain and a major 

component of juvenile salmons' diet. Other marine organisms such as crabs, corals, and shellfish 

depend upon carbonate to build skeletons and protective shells. As the amount of available 

carbonate in marine waters declines with acidity, the health of these species is compromised. 

We're also learning that certain types of harmful algae blooms thrive in acidic waters. During 

such a bloom, the algae release toxins that can kill fish, mammals, and birds and can cause 

human illness. Impacts to marine species also translate to impacts to the overall health of the 

marine environment. Bottom line- Ocean Acidification is bad news for everyone. 

Researchers and shellfish hatchery operators on both the east and west coast are trying to 

understand and adapt to the changing conditions. Thanks to funding obtained by the Pacific 

Coast Shellfish Growers Association, monitoring stations exist at the Whiskey Creek Hatchery 

as well as in Bellingham, Dabob Bay, Gray's Harbor and Willapa Bay. Among other things, 

these sites monitor for pH, temperature, salinity, and bacteria levels. By knowing the 

composition of the chemistry of the water, hatchery operators and shellfish farmers can adjust 

their schedules to work around times of low pH. 

Unfortunately, Ocean Acidification can't be addressed through a single piece of legislation. In 

fact if we were to stop emitting carbon into the atmosphere today, we'd still experience acidic 

ocean water for decades. But we can bring attention to the issue and demonstrate the related 

impacts. Last spring, PCSGA hosted a Congressional Briefing on the issue of Ocean 

Acidification. We were joined by our colleagues from Maine to express need for continued 

research funding and support of federal programs that conduct marine monitoring. 

Turns out you don't need to be a lab coat scientist to understand the basics of Ocean 

Acidification. You also don't need to be a social scientist nor a shellfish consumer to appreciate 

why it's bad. Chances are if you appreciate sustainably produced food, species diversity, and the 

many other values the marine environment provides, you probably want to pay attention to 

Ocean Acidification. 

For more information visit NOAA's webpage and search "ocean acidification" or visit the 

following links: 

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/oceans/ocean-acidification/index.html 

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification 

Also, to learn more about how University of Washington is playing a role go to: 

Submitted as part of written testimony for Margaret Pilaro, February 27, 2019 
67 

http :I I depts. washington.edulcoenv lnews-blog/20 11 I I! 1231featured-video-oyster-standoff-withocean-acidification-uw-3601 

P.S. from the Editor: 

For more on Ocean Acidification and its impact on the Great NW see the Sightline Institute's 

report on Northwest Ocean Acidification. 

2 Responses to "Oysters and Ocean Acidification" 

G'day Margaret Simplified the story of Ocean Acidification very nicely. I take issue to 

your implied comments on New Zealand's shellfish produced without high standards for 

environmental sustainability or human health. I'm an Aussie so its unusual I'd be sticking 

up for the Kiwis, but their environmental systems of production, and human health are 

world class, and having just finished visiting the US, Canada and Europe looking at 

shellfish production, I'd make the comment that this issue of Ocean Acidification and 

environmental influences on shellfish production is one that "we" as a global industry 

should be standing shoulder to shoulder on. The PCSGA does a great job uniting your 

growers together, and informing the public about the issues. Keep up the good work. 

Regards Ian Duthie 

by: Ian Duthieon: Tuesday 6th of November 2012 

Science Daily (May 12, 2008)- For members of the multimillion-dollar West Coast 

shellfish industry, their world is the oyster. Unfortunately, the oyster industry's ability to 

meet rising demands is hampered by two species of burrowing shrimp. So Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS) scientists are collaborating with colleagues from Washington 

State University and Oregon State University to develop sustainable shrimp-control 

strategies. Ghost shrimp and mud shrimp inhabit the tideflats in estuaries where West 

Coast oysters are raised. The shrimp burrow into the estuaries, making the intertidal mud 

soft and unstable. As a result, oysters and other shellfish can sink beneath the silty 

surface and suffocate. Brett Dumbauld, an ARS ecologist stationed in Newport, Ore., and 

his colleagues are uncovering information about the shrimps' habitats, life history and 

natural predators-information that can be used to help develop new methods to protect 

oysters from pests .... http:llwww.sciencedaily.com/releasesl20081051080509112525.htm 

by: Danon: Wednesday 28th of November 2012 

Submitted as part of written testimony for Margaret Pilaro, February 27,2019 
68 

Impacts of Ocean Acidification on United States West Coast Shellfish Aquaculture and 

Adaptation Responses 

Bill Dewey, Apri12017 

Oyster growers from Alaska to California on the west coast of the U.S.A. have struggled in recent years 

to find seed and oysters to keep their businesses viable. Scientists from the National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and various Universities have linked the oyster seed losses to 

ocean acidification. Shellfish growers' understanding of what has caused these oyster seed shortages and 

their response to the issue have evolved in recent years through sea water monitoring and collaborative 

research. 

From 2007 to 2009 U.S.A. West Coast shellfish growers experienced a severe oyster seed shortage. 

Oyster larvae production at two of the four major seed producing hatcheries declined by approximately 

75% during this period. In addition to the drop in hatchery production there was no significant natural 

recruitment oflarval oysters in Willapa Bay from 2006 through 2012. Willapa Bay is one of the largest 

oyster producing estuaries in the country and many oyster growers there rely on natural recruitment of 

Pacific oysters to seed their beds. These seed production failures had a real and profound effect on 

shellfish production. 

In 2012, Washington State's Governor appointed an Ocean Acidification Blue Ribbon Panel to develop a 

response for the state. This diverse group of shellfish growers, business representatives, politicians, 

scientists and environmental nongovernmental organizations arrived at 42 recommendations for the state, 

which the Governor memorialized in an Executive Order for implementation. This response garnered 

international recognition as one of the first to address ocean acidification. In December 2015, through an 

effort of the Pacific Coast Collaborative the International Alliance to Combat Ocean Acidification (OA 

Alliance) was launched. The OA Alliance is providing collaboration and tools for countries and affiliates 

to combat changing ocean conditions. 

Due to these initiatives, the West Coast oyster seed situation has improved. The outstanding response 

from policy makers and an unprecedented collaboration between University, agency and industry 

scientists has advanced knowledge of the problem dramatically in a very short period of time. Created by 

the Washington State Legislature in 2013, the Marine Resources Advisory Council is overseeing 

implementation of the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendations. Also created by the Legislature in 2013, 

the Washington Ocean Acidification Center at the University of Washington is studying the effects of 

ocean acidification on the state's marine resources. Today, U.S.A. West Coast shellfish hatcheries have 

sophisticated monitoring equipment deciphering seawater chemistry as it is drawn from the ocean and 

automated systems treat the water to make it more conducive to oyster larvae survival. 

In addition to the monitoring systems in the hatcheries equipment has been added to several buoys that 

are part of NOAA's Integrated Ocean Observation System (!OOS). This allows shellfish growers and 

scientists to understand changes in the ocean's carbonate chemistry around the hatcheries and farms. Five 

of the IOOS regions in the Pacific Ocean have linked to provide one data portal (IOOS Pacific Region 

OA data Portal - www.ipacoa.org) that serves data from all five regions. This data portal streams live 

real-time data from various government, academic and Native American facilities and buoys including 

five major West Coast shellfish hatcheries. Beyond the outstanding monitoring collaboration in the 

United States the Global Ocean Acidification Observing Network (GOA-ON, http://www.goa-on.org/) is 

working to gather and exchange ocean acidification data internationally. 

Submitted as part of written testimony for Margaret Pilaro, February 27, 2019 
69 

As a result of these responses the production has improved, at least temporarily for shellfish growers. 

Hatchery production has largely recovered and ocean conditions have resulted in some limited natural 

oyster seed recruitment in Willapa Bay since 2012. While oyster seed supplies have improved, they are 

still not adequate to meet all growers' needs. 

What do West Coast shellfish growers know about ocean acidification that they didn't a few years 

ago? 

Initial efforts to determine the causes of oyster larvae losses focused on the naturally occurring bacteria 

Vibrio coralliilyticus (initially misidentified at V. tubiashi). As it turns out these bacteria thrive in the 

water conditions created by upwelling off the West Coast. Filtration systems were designed and installed 

to eliminate the bacteria only to find the oyster larvae were still dying. In 2008 NOAA ocean 

acidification experts informed shellfish growers that the likely cause of the oyster larvae deaths was 

changing seawater chemistry resulting from the ocean absorbing anthropogenic carbon dioxide. 

The ocean absorbs approximately 30% of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. 

This results in the formation of carbonic acid which reduces the ocean pH making it more acidic. Since 

the industry became aware that ocean acidification may be the cause of the hatchery issues operators with 

the help of university scientists have identified the availability of carbonate ions as most critical. They 

are the building blocks for the oyster shells and carbon ion availability diminishes as the ocean acidifies. 

The carbon dioxide from 250 years of burning fossil fuels has made the ocean surface waters 30% more 

acidic and reduced the availability of carbonate ions by 16%. By the end of this century scientists predict 

the acidity ofthe ocean surface waters will have increased by 100-150% and reduced carbonate ion 

availability by 50%. A more troubling message for shellfish growers from the experts studying ocean 

acidification is that the water currently upwelling off the U.S.A. West Coast is 30-50 years old. So even 

if carbon dioxide emissions were curtailed today the waters along Washington State's coast will continue 

to get more acidic for decades to come because of the residual effects of carbon dioxide already absorbed 

by the Pacific Ocean. 

Shellfish growers have now come to understand through monitoring and research that natural factors 

associated with summer upwelling off the U.S.A. West Coast can result in ocean chemistry conditions 

detrimental to the development and growth of oyster larvae. Research suggests these conditions occurred 

about 11% of the time prior to the industrial revolution. Corrosive events for oyster larvae are now 

happening an estimated 33% of the time and are more severe when they occur. 

Taylor Shellfish Farms has a second hatchery in the State of Hawaii where they haven't experienced the 

same ocean acidification related problems. As an additional adaption response to larval failures in their 

Washington State hatchery the company has expanded production capacity at the hatchery in Hawaii. In 

2012 another Washington State shellfish farming business, Goose Point Oyster Company started up a 

hatchery in Hawaii in also in response to the West Coast oyster seed shortage. 

Currently West Coast shellfish growers seem to have found a temporary solution to the impacts of ocean 

acidification by treating hatchery water to restore larval production. Juvenile and adult oysters on farms 

in the estuaries have not yet been visibly impacted. Growers expect under worsening ocean conditions 

that shellfish in the nurseries and on beds will eventually be impacted as well. Unlike in the hatcheries 

there is no way to control the seawater chemistry over thousands of acres of beds in the ocean. To 

address this vulnerability the University of Washington and Oregon State University are working with 

shellfish growers to determine if selective breeding may yield oysters that can tolerate reduced levels of 

carbonate ions. Research is also underway to see if culturing seaweed together with shellfish or culturing 

Submitted as part of written testimony for Margaret Pilaro, February 27, 2019 
70 

shellfish in or around seagrass beds be may provide refuge for the shellfish in an increasingly acidic 

ocean by naturally reducing carbon dioxide concentrations and increasing carbonate ion availability. 

All these actions demonstrate ways in which the shellfish industry is adapting to changing seawater 

chemistry. 

What can be done to improve the environment for the shellfish industry? 

As mentioned above, the response from policy makers and scientists to date has been proactive 

and effective. Washington State's Governor and Legislature continue to fund the Marine 

Resources Advisory Council and the University of Washington's Ocean Acidification Center. 

The science on ocean acidification is rapidly evolving and having a coordinated review and 

response by the Marine Resources Advisory Committee is critical. Efforts to expand this 

coordination throughout the West Coast are underway and similar efforts are being undertaken 

on the east coast of the United States. Continued monitoring and the development of predictive 

models is also key for managing the adaptation response. 

It is important to remember the impacts of ocean acidification extend well beyond shellfish. 

They are just one of many calcifying organisms in the ocean likely being effected by changing 

ocean chemistry. In addition, scientists are finding other detrimental impacts beyond 

calcification. The governance, coordination and adaptation responses for the west coast shellfish 

industry1 can be applied to other aquaculture ventures and fisheries that face similar climate 

change impacts. 

Bill Dewey is Director of Public Affairs for Taylor Shellfish Farms. Based in Shelton, Washington USA, 

Taylor is the largest producer of farmed shellfish in the United States. Mr Dewey also owns and operates 

his own clam farm in Washington. He served on governor Gregoire's Ocean Acidification Blue Ribbon 

Panel and serves today on Governor Ins lee's Marine Resources Advisory Council which advises 

Washington State's ocean acidification response. 

1 To learn more about Washington State's response to ocean acidification go to: 

http:Uwww.ecy.wa.gov/water/marine/oceanacidification.html. To learn more about what individuals 

can do in response to ocean acidification go to: http:ljwsg.washington.edu/our-northwest/oceanacidification/ 

Submitted as part of written testimony for Margaret Pilaro, February 27, 2019 
71 

Margaret A. Pilaro 

Executive Director 

Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association 

120 State Ave. NE, #142 

Olympia WA 98501 

360-754-2744 

margaretpilaro@pcsga.org 

Margaret Pilaro joined the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association (PCSGA) as the 

Executive Director in 20 I 0. She brings to the position experiences in both local and state 

government - working primarily on aquatic resources issues, community planning and public 

involvement. PCSGA represents over I 00 shellfish companies who sustainably produce mussels, 

oysters, clams and geoduck in the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii. 

Pilaro received both a Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts in Marine Affairs from the University 

of Rhode Island. She is also an alumni of the National Fisheries Institute's Future Leaders, class 

of2012. 

While in Rhode Island, Pilaro worked as a municipal planner and dealt with storm and waste 

water issues as they related to a city-wide effort to restore the local Quahog (mercanaria 

mercanaria) fishery. She also led the city's harbor management planning process. Prior to 

joining PCSGA, Pilaro was with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, where 

she served five years as the Constituent Relations Manager for the Commissioner of Public 

Lands and 7 years as a planner in the Aquatic Resources Division. Some of her projects 

included: Columbia River Estuary Management Plan, the development of both the Aquatic 

Reserves and Conservation Leasing Programs for state-owned aquatic lands, Sustainable 

Recreation, Forest Land Planning, and managing the agency's public involvement and 

constituent relations activities. 
72 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you, Ms. Pilaro. 

At this point we will begin our first round of questions. And the 

Chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes. 

So I want to ask a general question to everyone on the panel. It 

seems that—to us that the scientific consensus that we’ve heard in 

this hearing this morning and in our full Committee hearing is 

pretty solid, but on the state of the oceans it seems that there are 

major challenges to being able to understand because of the 

breadth and the scope of the research left to do. 

There have been some major advances in our understanding of 

how carbon emissions impact the oceans and coasts through ocean 

warming, acidification, deoxygenation. But I think there’s still a lot 

that we understand is unexplored, inaccessible, and expensive to 

study. 

So my question, if each of you could share with us your thoughts 

on what the biggest challenges to studying these changes are and 

what are the ways that the Federal Government can help in exploring these and addressing the challenges that you experience in 

your research? 

Dr. COOLEY. I would say that one of the biggest challenges is the 

ocean is vast. And as you note, it’s very difficult to be everywhere 

and understand all the processes. There have been substantial advances in the last decades on remote observing systems where autonomous devices can go out through the ocean and measure different variables and then send back the data to researchers on 

land. That’s only one piece of it, though. We have satellites that 

can help as well with that same type of work. However, bringing 

that information together and making sure that there’s no drift in 

the instruments still requires some individuals to be out there sampling. 

So I think an integrated viewpoint of how to inquire what is happening in the ocean is important to keep in mind. You know, no 

one is more excited than oceanographers about cool devices that go 

through the ocean, but we realize that there is—there needs to be 

sort of a network to bring that information together and put it to 

work. 

Dr. HORTON. Another piece I might highlight is the modeling 

component, greater resources, and supercomputing that leverages 

some of those observations and helps us understand processes at 

various scales in the ocean, but also as we think about some of the 

tail risks that I didn’t have a chance to talk about, why we might 

get more than a foot of sea-level rise, for example, to really understand those risks, we have to understand the interaction of things 

like changes in ocean currents with loss of Arctic sea ice, what 

might that indirectly mean for the Greenland ice sheet, for example, and how could changes in that ice sheet feed back on ocean circulation? Those are where we start to see the uncertainties, and 

the further we push greenhouse gas concentrations, the bigger the 

risk of unpleasant surprises, so we need models to help us understand those risks more fully. 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thanks. 

Dr. FRAZER. I would agree with what I just heard. Data are key, 

and there are certainly observing systems that are becoming better 

and better all the time. I think we need to continue to improve on 
73 

those and develop the technologies that will allow them to advance 

further. Again, I come from a fisheries background, right, and data 

in that regard, real-time data collection or near real-time data collection is super, super important. Right now, we assess stocks 

based on data that might have been collected 5 years ago, but 

things are changing much faster than that, and so we need to probably incorporate a more regular sampling of fishes, to get the data 

that we need to make good assessments to inform the industry as 

to what they can do. 

And I would agree also that modeling is key. Modeling integrates 

all of that information and helps us to make predictions so that we 

can adapt in a timely manner. Thank you. 

Ms. PILARO. Well, I will agree with everything else that the panel 

has said. I will emphasize the relationship between species is important, how does shellfish interrelate to other organisms in the 

ocean? 

Funding is harsh. There’s a lot of competition for small amount 

of funds. And getting the data, the information, the output from 

models, all of what was mentioned into the hands of someone who 

really can use it like the shellfish growers is beneficial because: A) 

they’re using it to solve real-world problems, and B) it brings attention to the applicability of the data and research, which then hopefully will reinforce the need and the acceptance of funding these 

important activities. 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you all. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I now recognize Mr. Marshall for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARSHALL. All right. Thank you, Chairwoman. 

I’m going to ask you all about innovation. I want you to think 

about what’s out there, the greatest, latest, don’t be afraid if it’s 

a crazy idea. Think outside the box. What’s going on in the world 

that’s innovative? I’m particularly interested in phytoplankton 

farming or kelp farming, and I think about, you know, the shellfish 

industry. Maybe we should be trying to grow more kelp than worried about the genetic editing of oysters or something like that. So 

maybe, Ms. Pilaro, we’ll start with you and go backward. Maybe 

take 30 seconds. What’s out there that’s great and late in innovation? 

Ms. PILARO. Well, I agree with you that there is some really 

great innovation in kelp farming, and the relationship between 

kelp and shellfish is fabulous. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Right. 

Ms. PILARO. Multi-trophic farms, where shellfish and kelp are 

growing together, have been difficult to permit. So when we talk 

about policies, this is something that we’ll need to talk a little bit 

more about. 

Also, to make a connection with your amber waves of grain, I 

think there’s a lot of fabulous genetics work for wheat and grain 

that can also be applied to shellfish, which is a fairly new approach, compared to other agriculture crops. We’re not looking to 

alter the organisms genetically, rather finding families that are 

more resistant to some of these challenges. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Great. If you can get to us your—what you need. 

You mentioned some type of—some processes or—that would help 

you to do more of the kelp farming. Let us know. And, by the way, 
74 

I think the Department of Agriculture would do a great job overseeing the gene editing compared to the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration), just an aside. Dr. Frazer, you’re up. 

Dr. FRAZER. Great, thank you. So I would agree as well. I think 

that there are certainly molecular advances that we can employ to 

help identify more resilient strains of particular organisms and to 

focus on perhaps using those in mitigation efforts. 

I’m interested in your phytoplankton and kelp question. I agree 

with you there that phytoplankton and kelp take up and assimilate 

a large amount of CO2, and so do other things such as seagrass 

beds. And I think what we should try to do is safeguard those habitats so that they can continue to perform like they’re supposed to. 

The issue of actually trying to increase their abundance or grow 

them, I think we do face some challenges right now with regard to 

scalability, and it’s something that—— 

Mr. MARSHALL. Are people doing it? Are people researching it? 

Is University of Florida leading the charge? Who’s leading the 

charge on it? 

Dr. FRAZER. I think there’s—universities are—certainly the University of Florida is doing some of that, and other universities 

around the Nation are trying to invest to figure out how to increase 

the capabilities of autotrophs, including phytoplankton, and other 

organisms to grow, and sequester that carbon. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thanks. Yes, Dr. Horton. 

Dr. HORTON. Yes, I like how your question about innovation references both the potential for greenhouse gas mitigation, measures 

that could take carbon out of the atmosphere but also adaptation 

and resilience. I think we really do need both. By reducing emissions, we can buy ourselves time for some of these technologies to 

come into play with the right kind of investments, as you say. 

I guess one other quick thing to highlight within the adaptation 

space is, again, from a modeling perspective, can we test out some 

of these solutions, things like storm surge barriers, dredging, so we 

can better understand costs and benefits associated with those activities? There might be an obvious benefit of preventing a storm 

surge, but what could be some of the potential downsides? And 

some of that gets into the social science, that sort of moral hazard, 

what if a barrier fails? I think those are a whole bunch of social 

science questions involved in those living at the coast, how they 

perceive some of these emerging hazards, potential changes in real 

estate value that are maybe sort of outside the realm of the science 

component but deep social science questions that we are engaging 

with communities and as they sort of lead the charge in thinking 

about these resilience issues. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thanks. Yes, Dr. Cooley? 

Dr. COOLEY. I think it’s a great question. Innovation is so important, but technology and devices is just one piece. So the other 

piece is innovation and decisionmaking and how we put that information to work. You mentioned that you work in healthcare. 

You’ve gotten a great front seat to what innovation has done. What 

we see there is that new devices have given more information for 

better patient care and better collective decisionmaking. We’re 

learning a lot more about how to do that in the ocean environment. 
75 

The example that Ms. Pilaro outlined in the West Coast has been 

a great example of how better technology for shellfish growers has 

led to a better regional outcome. And I think we need to take the 

best lessons from that and learn how to apply it to the ocean common resources that we want and care about. 

Mr. MARSHALL. All right. I’m going to go over my time here, so 

I better yield back since this is a new Chairwoman in charge here. 

I’ll yield back. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you, Mr. Marshall. 

I’ll now recognize Ms. Bonamici for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Chair Fletcher and Ranking Member 

Marshall. And thank you to our witnesses. I’ve been looking forward to this hearing, and I’m really glad, Mr. Marshall, to hear 

you’re excited about science. And this is an important issue even 

for our colleagues and constituents who do not represent coastal 

areas because, as we’ve heard this morning and we know, the 

health of our oceans reflects the health of our planet. 

Oregon’s economic vitality is dependent on the health of the Pacific Ocean and the lower Columbia River estuary. We’re very vulnerable to the effects of climate change, especially ocean and coastal acidification. As Co-Chair of the House Oceans Caucus, I know 

that the health of our natural resources and marine resources is 

critical, and I’m advocating for investments in research to predict 

and adapt these challenges. 

I recently reintroduced the bipartisan Coastal and Ocean Acidification Stressors and Threats, or COAST, Research Act, with Representative Young, also the other Co-Chair of the Oceans Caucus, 

Representative Pingree, and Representative Posey to expand the 

scientific research and monitoring to improve our understanding of 

ocean and coastal acidification. The bill would improve research on 

ocean and coastal acidification in the context of environmental 

stressors, assess adaptation and mitigation strategies, and designate NOAA as the lead Federal agency responsible for implementing the Federal response. 

Additionally, the bill would increase our understanding of the socioeconomic effects of ocean acidification and coastal acidification in 

estuaries. It would engage stakeholders, including the commercial 

fishing industry, researchers, and community leaders through an 

advisory board, and provide for the long-term stewardship and 

standardization of data on ocean acidification from different 

sources, including the National Centers for Environmental Information and the Integrated Ocean Observing System. These efforts 

will help identify risks and inform vulnerable communities, industries, and coastal and ocean managers on how they can best prepare and, when possible, adapt to changing conditions. 

Dr. Cooley, I appreciate in your written testimony you discuss 

some of the research gaps. Thank you for that. You also discuss 

how the fundamental solution to ocean warming, acidification, and 

oxygen loss is to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, emphasizing 

the connection between ocean acidification and greenhouse gas 

emissions. And I think we heard that from everybody on the panel 

today. 

How do you—Dr. Cooley, how do human-caused greenhouse gas 

emissions change seasonal upwelling, when the winds cause nutri-
76 

ent-rich deeper water to rise from below, especially on the Pacific 

coast? 

Dr. COOLEY. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman, and 

thank you for your leadership on introducing the COAST Research 

Act. 

The action of atmospheric warming tends to change or enhance 

upwelling favorable winds. Winds that come from a certain direction along the coastline will drive upwelling naturally, and that can 

be enhanced when those winds become stronger. And that allows 

deeper waters to move up along the coast and reach coastal resources and fisheries decades sooner than they would be expected 

to. 

So in the Pacific Northwest, as Ms. Pilaro highlighted, shellfish 

growers were experiencing waters that upwelled 50 to 100 years 

earlier than expected, and they were carrying water that had an 

extra enhanced amount of carbon dioxide in it from being exposed 

to the atmosphere this century. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. I want to get two more questions in. 

Dr. Cooley and Dr. Horton, how can Congress best support adaptation and mitigation strategies to address the socioeconomic effects? 

And if you could answer briefly because I really want to get in a 

question for Ms. Pilaro. 

Dr. COOLEY. I think probably the most important piece is to support structures that involve multiple stakeholders and set a collective vision. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Great. Dr. Horton? 

Dr. HORTON. I would agree with that. Vulnerable communities, 

just to give one example. When we think about the combination of 

high temperature and high humidity, that’s going to affect the elderly, those with pre-existing health conditions. It’s not one-sizefits-all. We need science to help us understand how different communities differ in their vulnerability and in the adaptation strategies that make the most sense for them because ultimately these 

are about long-term decisions that are good for all of society. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And, Ms. Pilaro, at Oregon State University Dr. Burke Hales developed the Burke-o-Lator, a device the 

size of a piece of carry-on luggage that can analyze when the shellfish growers across the Pacific Northwest should grow larva based 

on the acidity and effects of calcium carbonates needed for the shell 

formation. As you discuss in your testimony, the shellfish hatcheries, especially Whiskey Creek Shellfish in my home State of Oregon, have been on the frontlines of responding. Why are Federal 

investments in tools like the Burke-o-Lator and the data from the 

Integrated Ocean Observing System necessary for our fishers and 

the shellfish industry? 

Ms. PILARO. It’s critically necessary because some of these impacts are happening regardless of where the shellfish farming happens and where hatcheries are, so it’s not bound by a State, it’s not 

bound by a region. And so having that Federal commitment and 

input is vitally important. We don’t want to be in a situation where 

a private entity builds something and then keeps it to themselves. 

It would be helpful to have something that all of the folks who are 

interested in harvesting from the sea, whether it’s kelp or shellfish 
77 

or anything else could use. Any other fisheries resource can gain 

access to that information and that technology. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And, Chair Fletcher, I apologize for 

going over time, but as I yield back, I request unanimous consent 

to add several letters from ocean stakeholder groups to the record 

in support of the COAST Research Act. Chairwoman FLETCHER. Without objection. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. I will now recognize my colleague from 

Texas, Mr. Babin, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. And thank 

you, witnesses, for being here as well. 

Dr. Horton, many of the Green New Deal proponents are suggesting that greenhouse gas emissions are at a catastrophic level, 

some of which are claiming that we have 12 years left. Do we have 

12 years in your opinion? 

Dr. HORTON. So—— 

Mr. BABIN. Just keep it as brief as you can if you don’t mind. I’ve 

got some other questions, too. You need to turn on your microphone. 

Dr. HORTON. The further we turn up the dial on greenhouse gas 

emissions, the greater the risk of potential surprises that are very 

hard to predict. 

Mr. BABIN. So it’s—we’re getting close to that point then in other 

words? And also, do you think it’s responsible for some of our Nation’s leaders and the media to suggest that certain doom will arrive unless we adopt the Green New Deal policies? 

Dr. HORTON. I can’t speak to the specifics of Green New Deal 

policies. What I can say is that to the extent that it represents an 

appreciation of the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I agree that’s something that we really do need to do, given 

the hazards I described in my testimony. 

Mr. BABIN. OK. Thank you. Because some of these policies may 

cost some jobs, and some of the costs that we’ve heard have been 

stunning. 

And, Dr. Cooley, do you think that the Green New Deal should 

be passed into law? 

Dr. COOLEY. Well, I’m not here to talk about the Green New 

Deal, but what is—— 

Mr. BABIN. Do you think it’s a good idea that we—that it’s been 

put forward—— 

Dr. COOLEY. The Green New Deal has started a conversation 

about details, which we haven’t had before. We’re having discussions across the aisle about the future we want and the specific 

ways we can get there, and that is incredibly inspiring as a scientist who’s interested in details and solutions. How do we get 

from here to there? 

Mr. BABIN. OK. 

Dr. COOLEY. That’s a really tough question. 

Mr. BABIN. Yes, thank you very much. 

Dr. COOLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. BABIN. And, Dr. Frazer, what are some of the solutions that 

you think will aggressively target climate change that might not 

hurt American families or the economy? Because some of the pro-
78 

ponents of the Green New Deal have put forward these provisions 

that would absolutely hurt my District 36 in Texas and much of 

the economy. Give me some ideas that you have of what might be 

some of these solutions that wouldn’t be so hurtful because of my 

constituents—concerns for my constituents? 

Dr. FRAZER. Well, as I said in my testimony, I think that there 

are lots of vulnerable habitats out there, for example, that are affected by a large number of stressors. And if we could make sure 

that we manage and maintain those habitats, they would continue 

to play a role in ameliorating some of the risk associated with climate change but not entirely. So I would pay attention on proper 

management of the habitats so they don’t continue to degrade. 

Seagrass, this would be one of those, kelp habitats, and others. 

Mr. BABIN. Absolutely. Thank you. 

And, let’s see, Dr. Frazer, one more. If the United States does implement the Green New Deal, how would we keep American jobs 

here? In your opinion would costs rise as much as some of these— 

we’ve looked at $93 trillion of costs to the American taxpayer. In 

your opinion, would that—is that true? We’ve seen time and again 

that green companies take their production overseas for cheaper 

cost and production, so how do we address this, you know, when 

the American taxpayer is expected to foot the bill for some of the 

biggest polluters in the world, and China being one of them? It 

doesn’t seem fair. What is your opinion there? What are your 

thoughts? 

Dr. FRAZER. So, again, I—what I would say is that what we’ve 

heard today is that there’s an investment that needs to happen 

with regard to data collection, and it’s all kind of data collection 

from innovation and technologies, modeling, and real-time data collection. 

With regard to the area that I’m mostly involved in, fisheries, 

that increased data collection actually increases the certainty by 

which we can estimate the stocks that we can access, and by increasing that certainty, we can actually exploit more fishes. And 

that actually ends up being an economic benefit. So sometimes in 

order to make money, you have to pay money, right—— 

Mr. BABIN. Sure, yes. 

Dr. FRAZER [continuing]. And so I think what we should be 

thinking about is making wise investments and getting good return 

on those investments. 

Mr. BABIN. Do you think the Green New Deal is a good thing and 

should be passed into law? 

Dr. FRAZER. I’m not going to speak specifically to the Green New 

Deal because I don’t—I haven’t read it. I apologize. 

Mr. BABIN. OK. All right. Well, Madam Chair, I think that finishes me up. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you, Mr. Babin. 

I’ll now recognize Mr. Crist for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CRIST. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Marshall, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report 

that came out last year states that coral reefs are projected to decline by an additional 70 to 90 percent with an increase in global 

temperatures of 1.5 °C. A 99 percent loss would be experienced 
79 

with an increase of 2 °C. Florida, where I live, which is home to 

the fourth-largest barrier reef in the world, the Florida Keys reef 

system, is already experiencing an unprecedented coral disease outbreak. 

Dr. Cooley, can you discuss in more detail how global temperatures increases to impact our coral reefs and what this means for 

places like Florida that rely on these oceans and coastal resources? 

Dr. COOLEY. Thank you for that question. Coral reefs are extremely sensitive to temperature, and when they receive too much 

of a heatwave effect or too much intense heating in a short period 

of time, they will lose the cells that live inside the corals that help 

them produce food. And so the corals are without resources at that 

point. That’s a coral bleaching event. That can quickly lead to coral 

death. And at the same time acidification is sort of decreasing the 

ability of those corals to recover because it’s decreasing the net 

growth rate of corals. So when corals experience bleaching or 

breakage, they’re less able to recover. And that really is a one-two 

punch. It’s very, very serious for corals. 

Mr. CRIST. Thank you. My next question is addressed to all of 

the panelists. What can we do to preserve our coral reef systems 

overall? Whoever wants to go first. 

Dr. FRAZER. I’m happy to field that one for sure. I mean, there’s 

a tremendous amount of local pressure on coral reefs. There’s eutrophication that’s a consequence of increased nutrient delivery. 

There’s physical damage, again, due to anchoring and other activities. There’s sedimentation due to coastal development. All of those 

types of things contribute to the degradation of coral reefs, and 

they make them more vulnerable obviously to the stresses that are 

associated with increasing warming temperatures. So I think you 

need to pay attention to both the local stressors and certainly continue to increase the greenhouse gas emissions problem. 

Mr. CRIST. Anyone else? 

Ms. PILARO. I would just add I’m not a scientist but one of the 

things that’s important in a situation like this be it coral reef reduction or shellfish larvae mortality, is education is education and 

communication and sharing that information with a wide variety 

of people. To a certain extent, it affects everybody, and you need 

to find the right message, the right way to tell that story to as 

broad a population as possible. 

Dr. HORTON. So maybe this is a window to talk a little bit about 

correlation across different types of extreme events and sort of 

compounding factors. So for those reefs if we’re seeing even just a 

little bit of an increase in rainfall and more runoff as a result and 

if we’re seeing just a little bit stronger storms as those oceans 

warm, once we couple that with sea-level rise, we see nonlinear 

combinations now where suddenly there’s a lot more standing 

water, a lot more runoff, and maybe some unpredictable effects on 

coral reefs related to that sort of linking of the global and more 

local scales. So those are the kind of hazards we need to understand better, and we need science to do so. 

Mr. CRIST. Great. Thank you. Dr. Frazer, as a fellow Floridian, 

I know that you’re extremely familiar with the red tide outbreak 

that Florida suffered this past year. One thing that struck me 

about the outbreak was the lack of information as to why the—it 
80 

was so severe this past year. Do you have any suggestions as to 

that? 

Dr. FRAZER. Again, I—I’m super familiar with that as well, and 

I—and one of the things that we don’t understand about red tides 

is why they actually establish themselves. And it gets to this issue 

that we talked about earlier about data acquisition, right? And we 

need to make sure that we have the data collection systems in 

place so that we’re not behind the eight ball in this particular case. 

So that’s my answer. 

Mr. CRIST. OK. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you, Mr. Crist. 

I now recognize Mr. Gonzalez for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 

Marshall, for holding the hearing today. I also want to thank the 

witnesses for being here. I know it takes a lot of prep and can be 

stressful, so I appreciate your participation. 

So I do believe climate change is real and global industrial development has been a contributing factor, but I also believe that the 

proposals that we’ve seen in the Green New Deal quite frankly 

would devastate my community. I’m from northeast Ohio, think 

steel country, a lot of manufacturing, a lot of agriculture, these 

kind of energy-intensive businesses if you will, and the proposals 

being presented would raise our energy cost to such a level that I 

can’t help but think that our citizens, my constituents, would be 

making tradeoffs between things like fueling up their car or putting food on the table. And I think that is just fundamentally 

unsustainable. That makes no sense. 

But, again, the problem is real, and I’m committed to finding a 

broad basket of market solutions to tackle the challenges of the 

present and future. What I believe is that we need to focus on technologies that are going to make consumers and industry essentially 

neutral when it comes to the energy source. And the only way we 

can do that is by making our energy sources affordable and reliable. We ignore the reliability part but—too often, but the Green 

New Deal and all those proposals kind of ignore it, and I think 

that’s wrong. So I believe we need to focus on technology solutions 

that we can export abroad that are going to make energy cheap 

and reliable, bottom line. 

And so I represent, as I mentioned, a non-coastal district located 

in northeast Ohio. We don’t have an ocean reef or coastal beaches. 

So my first question will go to Dr. Frazer or anyone on the panel. 

But, you know, when I’m educating my constituents on why this 

challenge, specifically the one we’re here to address today, affects 

them, what—you know, what would you say for somebody from my 

district? 

Dr. FRAZER. Well, I’m again going to speak about fisheries, 

right—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes. 

Dr. FRAZER [continuing]. And there’s—people tend to think of 

fisheries as being a coastal resource, but those fisheries products 

are—serve the Nation in its entirety, right? There is a supply chain 

there. There are businesses, retailers, wholesalers, restaurants, 

and I’m pretty sure that in Ohio people eat lots of seafood. And so, 
81 

again, it’s something that—it’s not just a natural resource 

issue—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, right. 

Dr. FRAZER [continuing]. It’s a food security issue as well, right? 

So that’s why you should care. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We have the best walleye in the world by the 

way. 

Dr. FRAZER. Excellent. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. So, again, Dr. Frazer, you discuss the importance 

of long-term investment in science and state good science can take 

a while to come to fruition. And again, that’s kind of where I think 

we need to be headed is technological innovation that’s going to 

bring cost down and reliability up. In this instance how do you suggest we as Congress differentiate between good science and bad 

science, and how do we make sure the science is robust enough? 

Dr. FRAZER. I think that Congress—well, let me step back a 

minute and say that we have organizations in the United States, 

the National Science Foundation, for example, and NOAA that are 

in the business of evaluating science in a peer-reviewed process. I 

think you would—should depend on that. The priorities can be established elsewhere, and they certainly involve tradeoffs. And I 

think that’s something that’s best in the hands of the policymakers. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. OK. And then where—and this is for anybody if 

anybody wants to jump in. Where are we seeing the most promise 

from a technological standpoint? Where is the research saying, hey, 

you know, if we could double down on this set of activities, I think 

we could really make some headway? Anybody, feel free. 

Ms. PILARO. One way in which I think—and I spoke to it earlier 

in Mr. Marshall’s question is, in looking at how animals respond 

to these climate-related changes and what genetic traits they carry 

that make them more resistant to some of the stressors that they 

are experiencing. As things are changing, we need to better understand the physiology of the animal and what they have. Growing 

shellfish with native eelgrass is something that’s been happening 

for a long time and is a symbiotic relationship for both of those species, but, as I mentioned earlier, with cattle and grain they’ve 

looked at those families and their genetic make-up which allows 

them to be more commercially viable under certain conditions. This 

approach for fisheries is fairly new and for shellfish it is very new; 

both of which would benefit from additional work. The Animal Research Service under the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) 

is the most appropriate and would be a fabulous place to invest 

some—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Great. 

Ms. PILARO [continuing]. Funds. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you. I’ll now recognize Mr. 

Casten for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASTEN. Thank you, Chair—Chairwoman. The—I’d like to 

ask some questions of Dr. Horton, and I wanted to follow on—you 

described in your testimony a delay between CO2 emissions and 

sea-level rise, and given how rapidly we are—on an unprecedented 

basis we’re increasing CO2, you can appreciate that that makes me 

a little nervous. How far back in the geologic record do you have 
82 

to go to find CO2—atmospheric CO2 levels of where they are right 

now? 

Dr. HORTON. Literally millions of years. 

Mr. CASTEN. And if you look back in that time, do you have any 

sense of what the temperature was then relative to what it is now? 

Dr. HORTON. Well, our understanding is that, you know, as we 

look back at sort of the deep paleo climate, especially times when 

the planet was a little bit warmer, it—a couple things appear clear. 

One, sensitivity—temperature sensitivity to CO2 appears to be 

higher than it might seem if we just looked at the climate models 

of today. And furthermore, sea-level rise sensitivity over long 

timescales appears to be very sensitive to even, say, 1 degree of 

global warming. So I think consistent with your point, when we 

look at deeper history, we can find times when it was a degree or 

two warmer maybe, sea levels were tens of feet higher in some 

cases. And likewise, when it was a little bit cooler, times when sea 

level was far lower, not a little lower. So that suggests some of 

these kinds of powerful positive feedbacks. 

Mr. CASTEN. So if we were to look at the—you know, the empirical data that we have and recognizing that the climate models get 

better and better but are still models, the—what is a reasonable 

assumption to make about where we might equilibrate on an empirical basis at current CO2 levels with respect to both temperature 

and sea levels? 

Dr. HORTON. So I guess to be clear, equilibration we mean over 

the long timescale, multi-centuries, maybe even out to 1,000 years 

potentially. Those numbers I think are disturbingly, disturbingly 

high. I mean, one key question is what carbon dioxide levels, concentrations would we assume as the equilibration? I mean, even if 

we could somehow turn off greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, not 

reduce emissions but turn them off, we’d still be stuck with greenhouse gas concentrations close to the levels they’re at now for decades to centuries. So even without future emissions, you know, as 

we’re starting to get out into multiple centuries out, you see continued large amounts of sea-level rise. But of course we need to not 

have those greenhouse gas emissions so that we avert the risk of 

some of these tail responses, rapid change in the ice sheet—— 

Mr. CASTEN. So—— 

Dr. HORTON [continuing]. But we don’t know exactly where those 

thresholds are. 

Mr. CASTEN. So when you talk about being—having, you know, 

potential risk of 8 feet of sea-level rise, am I understanding you 

correctly to say that it actually could be higher than that if we— 

if we’re sitting at current sea levels and saying if we look at the 

historical record, where were those sea levels in prior periods? 

Dr. HORTON. It depends on the timescale. In my personal opinion 

sort of worst-case scenario for the year 2100 might be about 8 feet. 

I can’t say if it’s a low—a little lower or a little higher. That is not 

the most likely outcome. That’s a low probability but extremely 

high-consequence outcome should it happen for society. So my personal opinion and also the opinion of the last National Climate Assessment is that 8 feet by 2100 is about the worst-case scenario 

with big uncertainties on both sides. There’s much less uncertainty 
83 

in that sort of lower end, 1-foot level that I highlighted and showed 

how even that would have such a big impact on coastal flooding. 

Mr. CASTEN. And does the 8 feet assume that we actually take 

meaningful efforts to slow CO2 now or does that assume a business 

case as usual? 

Dr. HORTON. For the most part, it assumes continued greenhouse 

gas emissions at a relatively high level. The RCP (representative 

concentration pathway) 8.5 scenario, if you’re familiar with that, 

high greenhouse gas emissions, but especially as those concentrations get up higher and higher, we run the risk that the ice sheets 

could give up a lot of ice even if we then were to reduce our emissions. But for the most part those 8-foot type scenarios do assume 

continued high increases in greenhouse gases. 

Mr. CASTEN. OK. My final question, and, Dr. Cooley, you may 

have some thoughts on this as well. And I’m leaving this hearing 

to go question Jerome Powell about our—among other things, our 

housing policy. Talk to me about what housing in the United States 

looks like over the realm of 30-year mortgages in a world with 3- 

to 8-foot-level sea-level rise. 

Dr. HORTON. So talk about sort of unanswerable questions, but 

I think the key point I’d say there is, is it really safe to assume 

that property values don’t start to drop before the water arrives? 

You know, if people are sort of waiting on this assumption that we 

have enough time until the water actually gets there, given what 

we’ve been talking about how we’re sort of locked into additional 

sea-level rise, you know, that’s an assumption that could be questioned. And I think, you know, I can’t tell you exactly when, but 

towards your point, I think there are a lot of assets potentially at 

risk, whether it’s homes, whether it’s the ability to fund—underwrite certain types of infrastructure. And if people start to move 

away from some of these communities, who gets left behind? What 

happens to the tax bases there? We’re really opening Pandora’s box 

the further we increase greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. CASTEN. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you. Thank you. The Chair will 

now recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, ma’am. Dr. Frazer, south Texas has 

some of the best fishing in the world. Pardon me. I was listening 

to your discussion with Dr. Babin, and you talked about getting 

more data to exploit more fishes. I thought that was an interesting 

choice of words, exploit. How about enjoy? Would that be better? 

Dr. FRAZER. Either one would work. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. Well, I’d like to request unanimous consent to 

change that word in the record. I—no, I just want to make sure 

that we have a lot of good fishing and that we do enjoy those, and 

we do protect those fisheries. 

Dr. FRAZER. Can I explain that further? Would that be all right? 

Mr. WEBER. I’m dying to hear. 

Dr. FRAZER. OK. So what happens is when we do a stock assessment, there’s some uncertainty surrounding that assessment. And 

increased data collection allows us to increase the certainty, right? 

And when we increase the certainty, it’s possible that we can adjust the quotas such that you can actually harvest or enjoy more 
84 

fish. And so it’s a case where increased data collection or an investment yield a positive economic benefit. 

Mr. WEBER. I get it. That’s the most egregious word you could 

use to encourage that data collection. We’re all adults here. And 

that’s fine. 

But I have a question for all the witnesses. I’m from the Gulf 

Coast of Texas. Galveston and Freeport, Texas are both cities in 

my district with economic ties to shipping industries. The ports located there are important to both our local and national economy. 

We move 95 percent of the Nation’s LNG (liquified natural gas). 

We produce 65 percent of the Nation’s jet fuel, 20 percent of the 

Nation’s gasoline east of the Rockies. And that doesn’t include the 

Port of Houston. So we’re a huge energy district. 

Now, some of my colleagues like the gentleman to my right, Mr. 

Posey in Florida, face a different challenge in adapting to this rise 

when compared to the ports and the tributaries I represent in some 

of our—in our areas, some of our district. Ports would actually benefit from increased water levels. 

So I guess my question to each of the witnesses is, how could a 

more localized approach to mitigation help protect our economy and 

better prepare individual communities? Should there be a Federal 

role in helping communities prepare and address these issues, and 

if so, what is it? How can we better address local communities 

should there be a Federal role in doing this? And if so, what is it? 

And Dr. Cooley, I’ll start with you. 

Dr. COOLEY. Well, I think we know beyond a shadow of a doubt 

that effects of climate change are regionally variable. And so 

there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. As you noted, your region is 

going to have a different set of needs than Congressman Posey’s 

district. There are best practices, however, that emerge from handling a particular issue, adapting to a particular issue, type of 

issue, for example. For example, we’ve learned quite a lot from the 

example of the shellfish growers in the Pacific Northwest. Those 

growers are now sharing their knowledge with growers in Maine, 

on the Gulf Coast so that American aquaculture can thrive and 

grow with the benefit of foresight. So I think that’s one thing the 

Federal Government can absolutely facilitate. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you for the short answer. Dr. Horton, you’ve 

got a hard act to follow. 

Dr. HORTON. Yes, I think a blend of scales, as we heard. Each 

community is going to have unique solutions. But similarly, some 

solutions are going to need to operate at scales far beyond what a 

local community could afford, so I think we do need consistent policies in that regard. We also just more practically need to make 

sure that different adaptation strategies across, say, different agencies or different communities aren’t operating at cross purposes, 

right? The sort of superficial example would be if one community, 

you know, builds a seawall, does that increase the flooding for the 

nearby community? That’s sort of an oversimplified example, but I 

think it’s emblematic of why we need coordination—— 

Mr. WEBER. Let’s jump to Dr. Frazer. He seems to be the fishing 

expert except for his one faux pas of exploit. And that would be— 

oystering is huge in my district, so CO2 levels—and I read some of 

the testimony on the Japanese oysters that were brought over and 
85 

how they’ve suffered some setbacks and stuff. So, Dr. Frazer, for 

you, for my Gulf Coast district in Texas, what needs to be specifically aimed at the Gulf Coast there? 

Dr. FRAZER. So I’m going to say that the Federal Government 

could invest in the science that’s going to allow us to take some of 

these global-scale models and be able to downscale them so that we 

can make predictions about specific regional areas like yours. 

Those predictions would allow us perhaps to develop the infrastructure that we need to deal with increased flooding, for example, or 

other storm-related events. 

Mr. WEBER. Now, is it Pilaro? Is that how you say that? I’m a 

little over time, but you’ve got 30 seconds with the indulgence of 

the Chair, thank you. 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Without objection. 

Ms. PILARO. Well, Texas oysters are great. We’d like to have 

them around for a long time because I think with anything, diversity in the market is wonderful. And the—— 

Mr. WEBER. You can stop right there, you know. 

Ms. PILARO. I think I will. I’ll yield the rest of my time. Thank 

you. 

Mr. WEBER. No, go ahead and say the rest of what you were 

going to say. 

Ms. PILARO. I think, and as Dr. Cooley said, some of the lessons 

learned from how shellfish are responding to these changes in the 

Northwest is applicable to what you might be seeing in Texas. And 

as people are seeing something that’s different than what they’ve 

experienced, they should be encouraged to ask more questions to a 

broader audience because it might be just the variability of something localized or it might be something grander with some oceanographic element that’s happening. So I think it’s really important 

to look carefully and ask lots of questions about what might be 

happening there. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, ma’am. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you, Mr. Weber. 

I will now recognize Mr. Posey for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the 

Ranking Member and the Chair for inviting me to participate here 

today. 

I live upon the Atlantic shores of the Florida peninsula. My constituents understand in a very deep way the economic and environmental importance of our oceans. We also have an estuary. It’s one 

of those special places, as you all know, where the rivers meet the 

seas. And ours is named the Indian River Lagoon. And it has been 

identified as the most diverse estuary in the country. This is one 

of the important reasons that I co-founded a congressional Estuary 

Caucus with Chairwoman Bonamici, and we have re-chartered a 

caucus again for this session. 

I also want to thank the panel obviously for showing up and say 

a special hello to Dr. Frazer from our University of Florida. 

In addition, I want to acknowledge the work of the Florida Institute of Technology (FIT) on the ocean and estuary issues, and I 

have received a statement from Dr. Robert Weaver, Director of Indian River Lagoon research at FIT on matters we’re discussing 

today, and I ask unanimous consent to that entered into the record. 
86 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Without objection. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. I’m also proud to be a co-sponsor of the 

National Estuary Acidification Research (NEAR) Act. The bill has 

the objective of focusing acidification research on the impacts of our 

estuaries as well. 

I’m also pleased to be a co-sponsor of the Coastal and Ocean 

Acidification Stressors and Threats Research Act, and you all are 

familiar with that as well. I won’t describe that for the record. 

I just make those points leading up to the questions that are 

very vital to all of us in this Committee and everyone—single one 

of my constituents, and that is how we solve the problems that we 

have. And, you know, first and foremost, we talk about our estuary, 

and I’ve always said that the answer is very simple as two steps. 

One, stop putting bad stuff in it; and two, start removing the bad 

stuff that is already there. And a lot of people are offended by that, 

but that’s the top line. 

It only gets confusing when you start delving into the details of 

how to do that. There are so many different options to do it, and 

it’s one of those cases where it seems everybody in the room knows 

how to make a baby stop crying except the person holding it. And 

it’s very hard to get a consensus on the order and the way to do 

it. There are so many variable solutions, and I’m guessing there’s 

over 100. We could probably list 100 different solutions. And I just 

wonder if there’s ever been any research that would quantify all 

the different potential solutions for cleaning it up and, you know, 

the cost roughly per the benefit or the amount of clean water in 

each of those. 

If any of you are aware of any research on that or a source, I 

would really like to have your comments on it generally speaking. 

Start with Dr. Cooley. 

Dr. COOLEY. Thank you. And thank you for your leadership on 

the NEAR Act as well. That is—that solution—or assessment of the 

solutions that we have is critically needed. I—having been participating in the National Climate Assessment, I’m a big believer in 

the process of scientific assessment where all of the information is 

gathered and assessed as one to look at risks and likelihoods. We 

have much fewer research studies looking at the impacts of solutions partly because they take a long time to apply—— 

Mr. POSEY. Yes. 

Dr. COOLEY [continuing]. And then even longer to measure how 

well they’re doing. But I think that is a key knowledge gap that 

this Committee can turn to and begin to address. 

Dr. HORTON. Very quickly, I’d second that. Evaluating adaptation 

strategies but all—in the context of a changing climate, but also 

the nuts and bolts of implementation, right, working with the existing agencies, existing funding cycles, bringing all that together to 

come up with solutions that work for all. 

Mr. POSEY. Dr. Frazer? 

Dr. FRAZER. Thank you. I would agree with you. The problem is 

complex, right, and there are certainly lots of issues that we have 

to consider simultaneously. With regard to the issue in your own 

backyard, I would point you to the TMDL process and what that 

is is the total maximum daily loads, and that incorporates input 

from all of the stakeholders and people that might be involved in 
87 

the way to identify what are the sources of pollutants into the estuary and how can they collectively reduce those inputs. 

Ms. PILARO. I agree we need to be working toward a solution, 

and in the process of doing that, we need to really keep this communication and collaboration open and engaged and robust. We’ve 

learned quite a bit from our experience in the Northwest. We have 

valuable information to exchange, and one of the things that is 

happening that I think is most important, and perhaps most exciting, is that we’ve got nonscientists thinking about science and 

we’ve got nonfarmers thinking about farming. In that, there is a 

wonderful opportunity for all of us. 

Mr. POSEY. Right. Another moment? You know—— 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Sure. 

Mr. POSEY [continuing]. If somewhere there could just be just, 

say, given a certain level of pollution, you know, or certain measurements that you’ve taken, and here is a list of every single thing 

from oyster beds to oxygenating to on down the list, and then, you 

know, here’s the cost of cleaning up 10 gallons of that water with 

this method and that method just as a baseline so that, you know, 

there’s just not such a food fight over evaluating the different 

methods, that somewhere there’s a legitimate method of determining an economic return or priority, which of these is most effective. 

So anyway, I hope somebody will start that research sometime. 

I’d be glad to help you pursue it and beat on doors and raise money 

or whatever it takes. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you, Mr. Posey. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. I’ll now recognize Mr. Beyer for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, thank you very much. Let me just 

begin. Since entering Congress, I’ve been working with Senator 

Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island on building up our ocean 

resilience capacity. Following my dear friend, Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici, who’s been leading ocean acidification for years 

and years, the concern about it. And we’ve been working both 

through the Regional Coastal Resilience Grants and with the National Ocean and Coastal Security Fund, which have now been 

combined into the National Coastal Resilience Fund. It’s obvious 

with climate change we need much more resilient communities 

with increasing storms, incessant flooding worsened by continued 

sea-level rise. I think Northrop Grumman has a chart that shows 

Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia will be underwater 50 percent of 

the year by 2050. 

This means ensuring that our fisheries are healthy, that we’re 

adapting as those fisheries adapt to changing ocean conditions, and 

it certainly means taking advantage of the offshore wind potentials, which Virginia is moving forward on right now. 

Dr. Cooley, the Washington Post recently reported that the 

White House is planning to create its own panel to, quote, ‘‘reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the 

planet.’’ Apparently, the President had not read the Fourth National Climate Assessment before it came out. 
88 

And with Dr. Horton, you are contributing authors of previous 

National Climate Assessments. How much concern do you have 

that Dr. Professor William Happer is going to lead this, one of the 

very few scientists who believes that most of the warming is due 

to national—natural causes, that he disagrees with the scientific 

consensus that—he wrote a paper called, ‘‘In Defense of Carbon Dioxide,’’ that it’s a boon to planet life. 

Dr. COOLEY. Well, what’s interesting about the National Climate 

Assessment is that it qualifies as a federally defined highly influential scientific assessment. And so, as such, it is required to go 

through a thorough review process. And it needs to meet the standards of the Information Quality Act. These rules have been in place 

for nearly 20 years to ensure scientific accuracy, and so really review and assessment—review of this assessment has been baked in 

all throughout its creation. There were stakeholder engagement 

conversations, there were expert reviewers at every step, there 

were Federal agencies reviewing this report. And so really any reassessment of this report with a small panel is bound to be narrower than what it’s been through already. 

And, you know, I think it’s just—it’s not going to be as transparent because we know that process is not subject to the same reporting rules that the NCA has already been subject to. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you very much. Dr. Horton. In Dr. Cooley’s 

testimony, she wrote something I had not really focused on before, 

that the oxygen loss from the ocean will affect the global nitrogen 

cycle and that since nitrous oxide production is actually a worse 

greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, a lot of the predictions we’ve 

been making we’re underestimating. And this ties in with your 

comment about tipping points, about something James Hansen has 

warned us about for years and years at NASA. Can you talk about 

what some of the surprises are? 

And I say this having just come back from the Northern Triangle 

of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador where they say one of the big 

reasons why they’re moving from Guatemala to our southern border is because of the extreme drought, extreme heat, and climate 

change, one of those surprises. 

Dr. HORTON. Absolutely right. I think there are really three 

types of surprises. There’s climate change happening faster than 

we thought, right, so a greater sensitivity to greenhouse gases than 

we thought. Then there’s society being more vulnerable to a given 

amount of warming than we thought, which you just alluded to. 

And then hopefully maybe some potential for surprises where we 

as a society move quickly to deal with this problem. 

In terms of physical hazards, some of the tipping points that are 

getting so much attention, marine ice cliff instability, this idea that 

perhaps paradoxically as you move inland in parts of Antarctica 

the land actually slopes downward due to the incredible weight of 

all that accumulated ice. If you start that process of water beginning to make its way down due to warming and melting, over long 

timescales it can be a runaway. That’s one tipping point. 

Arctic sea ice, we’ve lost more than 50 percent of the volume of 

late summer sea ice in the last 35 years or so, another possible tipping point because there’s a feedback there, right, where you remove that white surface, dark surface that absorbs more sunlight 
89 

and causes more warming. Those are just a couple of them that we 

worry about. 

But I like how you highlighted the sort of impact side, too. You 

know, what if we’re underestimating how sensitive our crops might 

be to real extreme temperatures, our vulnerable populations to 

combinations of heat and humidity, the potential for conflict 

around the world as sea levels rise. Could we lose control of this 

narrative, the ability to even deal with the problem in a collective 

way? That’s another risk the further we push the system I think. 

There are also these possibilities for tipping points on the solution side, too. I think, you know, we have to keep hope because we 

can’t rule out the extent to which, for example, young people may 

really sort of rise up and demand that their institutions address 

these hazards. And they pick the companies they want to work for 

ultimately, the businesses they want to invest their money in. They 

may be looking to see which companies are disclosing their vulnerability to the risks and the extent to which they are contributing 

to some of these problems, too. 

Mr. BEYER. Great. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FLETCHER. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. 

And before we bring the hearing to a close, I want to thank all 

of my colleagues for their questions, their thoughtful questions, and 

especially Ranking Member Marshall for his opening the hearing 

with our shared value that we all want to leave the world better 

than we found it. And I think we all agree on that, and we have 

a lot of work ahead of us. 

So I appreciate the witnesses coming today to testify before the 

Committee and also for submitting their written testimony. 

The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional statements from the Members and for any additional questions the 

Committee may ask of the witnesses. 

So I thank you all for your time here today, for your valuable 

contributions and look forward to working with the entire Committee and with you as we move forward. The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(91) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
92 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Sarah Cooley 
93 

the state of existing knowledge in a complex ocean region, and 2) outline research gaps that could be closed to 

improve our understanding of coastal acidification. Coastal regions are immensely complex systems, where 

influences converge from human and natural processes spanning the land, the coastline, and the shelf seas. It is 

well established that there are numerous chemical, physical, and biological processes in the coastal zone that 

affect acidification. 2 Attributing observed conditions in the coastal region to specific processes therefore 

remains challenging and just a few studies have been able to do this.' Simply measuring acidification accurately 

across the entire inland-to-offshore salinity gradient is technically challenging and not possible by most water 

quality measurement campaigns. Moreover, the interaction of coastal seawater pH and carbonate chemistry 

with coastal ecosystems and species Is a developing focus of study. There is some suggestion that acidification 

may enhance harmful algal blooms, which plague coastal areas In many parts of the United States, and 

understanding the interactions and implications of acidification, HABs, and other coastal concerns is of critical 

importance for making strong resource management decisions. The sort of study outlined in the NEAR Act will 

help outline future directions for ocean and coastal acidification research that can be pursued, helping ensure 

that resource management in the coastal oceans is holistic and ecosystem-focused, and uses the most complete 

information about acidification and its interaction with other drivers. 

Dr. Cooley, in your testimony you discuss how interactions between different environmental stressors will change 

the ecosystem of our oceans. Why is it important to understand the interactions between ocean acidification, 

worming, and deoxygenation? 

Ocean water is warming, losing oxygen, and acidifying all at once because of rising atmospheric C02 and 

planetary warming. In the laboratory, rigorous experimental design requires individual variables, like ocean 

acidification, be isolated for study. But in the ocean, local biological, physical, chemical, and geological 

characteristics ensure that different areas experience a different simultaneous mixture of acidification, oxygen 

loss, and warming. This means that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to protect ocean systems from 

acidification (and other ocean changes). It also means that ocean ecosystems experiencing multiple drivers 

including acidification, warming, and oxygen loss will have many hard-to-predict outcomes, because different 

species within the ecosystem will have different tolerances to each type of ocean change, and will thrive 

differently. Ecosystem models4 are being used now that simulate competitive, predator-prey, and other 

interactions within a specific ecosystem. Ocean changes like acidification, warming, and oxygen loss can be 

imposed on the model ecosystem to determine possible outcomes. This is developing a much more nuanced 

view of how ecosystems will respond to ocean change, and holds great promise for informing resource 

management in the future. 

2 RP Kelly et al., 2011. "Mitigating Local Causes of Ocean Acidification with Existing Laws." Science. 332(6033): 1036-1037; 

SC Doney, 2010. "The growing human footprint on coastal and open-ocean biogeochemistry." Science. 328(5985):1512-

1516; CM Duarte et al., 2013. "Is Ocean Acidification an Open-Ocean Syndrome? Understanding Anthropogenic Impacts on 

Seawater pH". Estuaries and Coosts. 36(20):221-236. 3 AJ Sutton et al., 2016. "Using present-day observations to detect when anthropogenic change forces surface ocean 

carbonate chemistry outside preindustrial bounds." Biogeosciences. 13(17):5065-S083; RA Feely et al., 2010. "The 

combined effects of ocean acidification, mixing. and respiration on pH and carbonate saturation in an urbanized estuary." 

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 88:442-449. 4 OS Busch eta., 2013. "Potential impacts of ocean acidification on the Puget Sound food web." ICES Journal of Marine 

Science. 70(4):823-833; IC Kaplan et al., 2010. "Fishing catch shares in the face of global change: a framework for integrating 

cumulative impacts and single species management." canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 67(12):1968-

1982; G Fay et al., 2017. "Assessing the effects of ocean acidification in the Northeast US using an end-to-end marine 

ecosystem model." Ecological Modelling. 347:1-10. E Olsen et al., 2018. "Ocean Futures under Ocean Acidification, marine 

Protection, and Changing Fishing Pressures Explored Using a Worldwide Suite of Ecosystem Models." Frontiers in Marine 

Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00064 

2 
94 

Dr. Cooley, what further steps con Congress take to address the socioeconomic effects of ocean acidification and 

coastal acidification? How would the advisory board established in the COAST Research Act help increase 

partnerships with stakeholders affected by lack of sufficient action to address ocean acidification? 

Congress' support of socioeconomic studies by NOAA's ocean acidification program (OAP) is an excellent first 

step to address acidification's effects. As researchers develop a clearer understanding of the ways in which 

human communities can be affected by losses or changes in marine resources, this information can guide 

community planning to strengthen coastal communities. Frequently, the roots of human community 

vulnerability lie in factors well outside of ocean systems: overall economic opportunity, health and wealth of 

residents, and strength of governance. By better connecting how human vulnerability can be addressed by 

communities, coastal communities will be stronger overall. 

The advisory board established in the COAST Research Act would help extend and formalize the very successful 

engagement on ocean acidification across many sectors of society that exists already. In my written testimony, I 

noted "Engagement of multiple sectors, including university and federal researchers, the shellfish aquaculture 

community, resource managers and more has been a hallmark of the particularly successful work of adapting to 

ocean acidification in the U.S. to date." The rapid development of adaptations that are assisting the U.S. shellfish 

industry today has come directly from these partnerships and engagement.' Although acidification has not 

arrived as a clear and present danger for every U.S. shellfish grower yet, the industry is paying close attention to 

the issue among their other concerns, and the advisory board would help share knowledge of options and 

successes from areas that have acted to other areas where knowledge, inspiration, and advice are needed. It is 

well proven that multi-stakeholder processes for decision making lead to more lasting outcomes, and the 

advisory board model provided for in the COAST Research Act will take advantage of that by ensuring federal 

scientific activities focused on OA are carried out with a clear focus on the resources and communities affected. 

Dr. Cooley, what role do the regional coastal acidification networks play in assessing changes in ocean health 

regionally? Why is it important to integrate the efforts of the coastal acidification networks and the Integrated 

Ocean Observing System into the federal response to ocean acidification? 

The regional ocean acidification networks, often called the coastal acidification networks, or CANs, supported by 

NOAA and the IOOS system help integrate ocean acidification observations and monitoring into existing sensor 

networks and ongoing studies. This places ocean acidification data into local context, where specific circulation, 

biogeochemical, or human characteristics affect the development or impacts of acidification. Because the IOOS 

networks have strong community ties and high reputations for disseminating quality science, they are trusted 

entities to help convene key stakeholders whose points of view are important for planning future studies or 

managing resources. The CANs provide a wonderful regional foundation to support the development of the 

stakeholder advisory board in the COAST Act, and a vehicle to disseminate information from NOAA's centralized 

program. They serve to broaden NOAA's reach, and strengthen its community ties and heighten its regional 

relevance. 

Dr. Cooley, is there o need or opportunity for federally funded research on ocean acidification mitigation 

strategies? What should Congress be doing to support these efforts? 

The fundamental solution to ocean warming, acidification, and oxygen loss is to decrease greenhouse gas 

emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide. Mitigating ocean acidification equates to decreasing the availability of 

carbon dioxide in the ocean, either by removing it from the ocean or from the atmosphere. There is a good deal 

of interest in locally mitigating ocean acidification via technological advances, but methods are still in 

development or early testing. For example, pilot studies culturing marine plants such as kelp or seagrass are 

under way because this represents a low-regrets opportunity that has other ecosystem (and likely economic) 

5 AS Barton et al., 2015. "Impacts of coastal acidification on the Pacific Northwest shellfish industry and adaptation 

strategies implemented in response." Oceanography. 28(2) 146-159. 
95 

benefits beyond mitigating OA. Some have theorized that ocean acidification could be mitigated by distributing 

minerals like limestone or olivine in the ocean," but, like other fertilization-type intervention methods proposed 

for climate, side effects are wholly untested and cost of implementation appears high.' Another recent proposal 

involves strategically timed air bubbling around acidification-sensitive systems like corals.' Supporting research 

into these and other technological intervention methods is essential for two reasons: 1) the safety of different 

interventions must be understood, and 2) the effectiveness of interventions in terms of acidification reduction, 

net carbon footprint, and cost must be measured. However, it is foolish to hope that new technological 

interventions will solve acidification if they are implemented without also reducing carbon dioxide emissions. 

Thank you for your questions. 

Respectfully, 

Sarah R. Cooley, Ph. D. 

Ocean Acidification Program Director 

' Rau, G. H. 2008. "Electrochemical Splitting of Calcium carbonate to Increase Solution Alkalinity: Implications for Mitigation 

of Carbon Dioxide and Ocean Acidity." Environmental Science & Technology 42, 8935-8940); P Kohler, et al. 2010. 

"Geoengineering potential of artificially enhanced silicate weathering of olivine." Proc Nat/ Acad Sci US A 107:20228-20233; 

LDD Harvey, 2008. "Mitigating the atmospheric C02 increase and ocean acidification by adding limestone powder to 

upwelling regions." Journal of Geophysical Research 113: doi:10.1029/2007jc004373. 7 R Albright, SR Cooley. In revision. "A review of interventions proposed to abate impacts of ocean acidification on coral 

reefs." Regional Studies in Marine Science. 8 DA Koweek, et al. 2016. "Bubble Stripping as a Tool To Reduce High Dissolved C02 in Coastal Marine Ecosystems." Environ 

Sci Techno/50:3790-3797. 

4 
96 

Responses by Ms. Margaret A. Pilaro 

What support does the shellfish industry need to better respond to harmful algal blooms and hypoxic 

events? -Submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici. 

Response provided by Ms. Margaret Pilaro, Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association 

An early-warning system for hypoxic events and the conditions that stimulate harmful algal blooms 

(HAS's) would allow shellfish growers to plan farming activities, and gain important insight on when 

harvest should occur in advance of a closure. Shellfish growers would also benefit tremendously by 

having adequate funding to support consistent monitoring of marine waters for the conditions 

conducive to HABs. Often these programs are cut from state programs where competition for limited 

funds is strong. In some states, shellfish growers currently have to pay for testing out of their pocket. 

Further research in both HABs and Hypoxia in our marine waters is imperative. There's much we don't 

know about why these events occur and even less on how marine organisms respond over the longterm. As we learn more, we need to ensure forward-thinking policies are in place to allow shellfish 

growers, and others dependent on a healthy marine ecosystem, to explore options to increase survival. 

For example, if it takes years to obtain a permit to grow shellfish on a parcel of tidelands, could that 

permit offer enough flexibility to explore growing shellfish in different areas within that parcel, or with 

different methods, to determine if impacts to shellfish may be lessened? Currently, and depending on 

the jurisdiction, flexibility within one's permit requires significant additional review. 
(97) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
98 

LETTERS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE SUZANNE BONAMICI

0 

<i> 

b 

~ 

March 1, 2019 

The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici 

2231 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Congresswoman Bonamici: 

On behalf of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership (COL), which represents 

our nation's leading ocean science, research, and technology organizations 

from academia, industry, and aquariums, ! am writing to express support for 

the Coastal and Ocean Acidification Stressors and Threats (COAST) Research 

Act (H.R. 6267). America relies on our ocean and coastal communities for our 

basic individual needs as well as our overall security and prosperity. Keeping 

these environments, and therefore their communities, safe from the myriad 

threats associated with ocean acidification is paramount to our ocean 

security. COl applauds the COAST Research Act in its mission to strengthen 

existing ocean acidification initiatives and introduce new strategies to better 

understand and manage this environmental stressor. 

Ocean acidification, which occurs as the ocean absorbs higher concentrations 

of atmospheric carbon dioxide, threatens the health of the entire ocean. As 

corals, shellfish, and many types of plankton struggle to create and maintain 

their shells or exoskeletons in more acidic waters, ocean food webs are 

disrupted. This, in turn, threatens the crucial balance in many ecosystems, as 

well as our own food security, and jeopardizes the stability of those whose 

livelihoods depend on a healthy ocean. Combatting the causes and mitigating 

the effects of ocean acidification requires sustained congressional support 

and interagency collaboration, as well as engagement from stakeholders in 

the private sector and academia. I strongly commend the COAST Research 

Act's commitment to advancing ocean acidification research and monitoring 

efforts, as well as promoting cooperation among stakeholder groups. 

I offer my sincere thanks to you, Congresswoman Bonamici, along with 

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree and Congressmen Don Young and Bill Posey, 

for your bipartisan efforts to help us better understand ocean acidification 

and improve overall ocean health by strengthening federal investments in 

the research and increasing monitoring of changing ocean conditions. Our 

lives and our future may well depend on it. 

~ CONSORTIUM FOR 

Ocean Leadership 

1'..L • Jonathan W. Whtte, RADM (Ret.), USN 

~ President and CEO 

~~~Consortium for Ocean Leadership 

IS'~ 

'1+o ~Q •.qcl', 1

0N 

1201 New York Avenue, NW • 4th Floor • Washington, DC 20005 P. 202.232.3900 • F. 202.462.8754 • www.Oceanleadershlp.org 
99 

March 5, 2019 

The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici 

2231 Rayburn House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington DC 20515 

Dear Congresswoman Bonamici, 

JQR§ 

ASSOCIATION 

On behalf of the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Association and its national 

network of eleven coastal observing systems, I write to support the Coastal and Ocean 

Acidification Stressors and Threats (COAST) Research Act. 

NOAA's Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) links together Federal agencies and 

eleven Regional Associations (RAs) to design and to operate regional observing systems to 

provide timely and reliable data and information on our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. 

Coastal acidification is becoming an even more pressing concern for many of our 

stakeholders and users, such as shellfish growers, shellfish harvesters, fishermen, resource 

managers, and coastal communities. 

The impacts of coastal acidification vary, and each system must be tailored to the unique 

situation of the region. The IOOS RAs work closely with NOAA's Ocean Acidification 

Program to understand the regional context, to deploy and operate sensors, support the 

data that can detect and monitor acidification to support and improve warnings and alerts 

and to provide for the sharing and integration of data. 

The COAST Research Act will enhance these and other efforts to understand, monitoring 

and manage the nation's ability to respond and adapt to ocean acidification. The Act does 

this be expanding the Advisory Board to include representatives of the variety of industries 

and stakeholder impacted by ocean acidification, expanding the strategic plan for research 

and monitoring, and expanding the role of the Federal agencies for addressing ocean 

acidification. 

Sincerely, 

t-/1(( _s Gu,w t-L~I 

Ella (Josie) Quintrell 

Director 

SuppOFting the need for timely and reliable information about our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes 

The Integrated Ocean Observing System (1008) Association 

www.ioosassociation.org 
100 

Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems 

7 March 2019 

The Honorable Suzanne Bonamci 

2231 Rayburn House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington DC 20515 

Dear Congresswomen Bonamici, 

As the Director of the Northwest Association of Ocean Observing Systems (NANOOS), I write in support 

of the Coastal and Ocean Acidification Stressors and Threats (COAST) Research Act. 

NANOOS provides access to near-real time observations, forecasts, and other tools that can be used to 

observe water properties in the Salish Sea and the coastal waters off Washington and Oregon. NANOOS 

can only serve our stakeholders via NOAA's Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), which links 

together Federal agencies with our collective of local universities, government agencies, tribes, nonprofits, and industry organizations who collect quality oceanographic and meteorological data from 

moorings, buoys, and satellites from across the Pacific Northwest region. But our resources are limited 

and this COAST Research Act would help to highlight the payoff investments can make. 

In the Pacific Northwest, we know that ocean acidification is an issue already, as witnessed by the 

difference that monitoring water chemistry has made to shellfish growers. We know that impacts from 

ocean acidification may affect shellfish harvesters, fishermen, resource managers, and tribal and other 

coastal communities. NANOOS' work with 1005 and NOAA's Ocean Acidification Program have been 

instrumental in aiding adaptation. 

The COAST Research Act will enhance these and other efforts to understand, monitor, and manage the 

nation's ability to respond and adapt to ocean acidification. NANOOS will be better able to meet the 

needs of our stakeholders if this Act is passed. 

My thanks for your leadership and insights. 

Sincerely, 

Jan Newton 

NANOOS Executive Director 

Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Obsetving Systems 

Applied Physics Laboratmy, Univers<yofWashington; 1013 NE 40th Street; Seattle, WA 98105 
101 

March 10, 2019 

The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2231 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Bonamici, 

From coast to coast, ocean acidification is having a broad range of impacts on the health of our 

ocean and coastal communities. Coastal industries are continuing to face the reality of an 

increasingly acidic ocean. In 2017, researchers at Oregon State University recorded some of the 

highest levels of ocean acidification in the world off the coast of the Pacific Northwest. 

Additionally, 63% of test sites on the west coast experienced levels of acidification known to 

cause commercial oyster production failures. 

Our Pacific Northwest economies, our recreational and commercial fishing, and shellfish 

industry as well as our great northwest tourism economy- all depend on a healthy ocean. And 

because we are already seeing the effects of ocean acidification, we support your efforts and we 

support H.R. 1237, the Coastal and Ocean Acidification Stressors and Threats (COAST) Research 

Act of 2019. 

Much of our knowledge and understanding of ocean acidification that has emerged in the last 

decade can be credited to the federal funding authorized by Federal Ocean Acidification 

Research and Monitoring (FOARAM) Act of 2009. FOARAM established the federal government's 

work on ocean acidification by creating the NOAA Ocean Acidification Program and an 

interagency working group on ocean acidification. FOARAM's authorization expired in 2012. The 

COAST Research Act amends FOARAM to further improve our ability to understand acidification 

in the open ocean as well as in the coastal zone. 

We support the COAST Research Act and believe it will help our coastal communities better 

prepare for the effects from ocean and coastal acidification. Thank you for your leadership to 

strengthen the nation's focus and investment in oceans and coastal acidification. 

Sincerely, 

Lyf Gildersleeve, Owner, Flying Fish Company- Sustainable Seafood 

Grant Putnam, President, Northwest Guides and Anglers Association 

Liz Hamilton, Executive Director, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association 

Joseph Bogaard, Executive Director, Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition 

Greg Block, Executive Director, Sustainable Northwest 

David Moskowitz, Executive Director, The Conservation Angler 

Kurt Beardslee, Executive Director, Wild Fish Conservancy 

Guido Rahr, Executive Director, Wild Salmon Center 
102 

1300 19th Street NW 

8th Floor 

Washington DC 20036 

February 27, 2019 

The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2231 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Bonamici, 

~ ~~ ..,, ..... ~ 

~lk,~f 

Ocean Conservancy 

202,429.5609 Telephone 

202.872.0619 Facsimilie 

www.oceanconservaney.org 

On behalf of Ocean Conservancy, please accept this letter of support for H.R. 1237, the Coastal and Ocean 

Acidification Stressors and Threats (COAST} Research Act of 2019. Americans depend on a healthy ocean, and 

ocean acidification threatens millions of jobs and livelihoods, cultures, and ways of life, from the Pacific 

Northwest's shellfish industry to Florida's coral reef tourism. We believe the COAST Research Act strengthens 

our nation's investments in ocean and coastal acidification, and we are proud to offer our support for this 

legislation. 

From coast to coast, ocean acidification is having a broad range of impacts on the health of our ocean and 

coastal communities. Coastal industries are continuing to face the reality of an increasingly acidic ocean. In 

2017, researchers at Oregon State University recorded some of the highest levels of ocean acidification in the 

world off the coast of the Pacific Northwest. Additionally, 63% of test sites on the west coast experienced 

levels of acidification known to cause commercial oyster production failures.' From the Atlantic to the Pacific, 

ocean and coastal acidification has had extensive biological and socioeconomic impacts. 

In 2009, Congress recognized the urgent need for federal investments in ocean acidification research and 

monitoring, and subsequently passed the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring (FOARAM) 

Act of 2009. FOARAM established the federal government's work on ocean acidification by creating the 

NOAA Ocean Acidification Program and an interagency working group on ocean acidification. Much of our 

knowledge and understanding of ocean acidification that has emerged in the last decade can be credited to 

the federal funding authorized by FOARAM. The law's authorization, however, expired in 2012, and there are 

changes that can be made to further improve our ability to understand acidification in the open ocean as well 

as in the coastal zone. 

We believe the COAST Research Act will help our nation and coastal communities better prepare for the 

effects from ocean and coastal acidification. Thank you for your leadership on this issue, and we look forward 

to working with you to craft solutions for our changing ocean environment. 

Sincerely, 

s~c~1 Sarah Cooley, Ph.D. 

Director, Ocean Acidification Program 

Ocean Conservancy 

1 https:Utoday.oregonstate.edu/archives/2017 /may/acidified-ocean-water-widespread-along-north-americanwest-coast 
103 

Date: March 8"', 2019 

The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici 

2231 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Oregon Coordinating Council on 

Ocean Acidification and Hypoxia 

Re: Coastal and Ocean Acidification Stressors and Threats (COAST) Research Act 

As the Co-Chairs of the State legislatively mandated, Oregon Coordinating Council on Ocean Acidification 

and Hypoxia (or "Oregon OAH Council"), we appreciate the opportunity to provide you with a letter of 

strong support for the Coastal and Ocean Acidification Stressors and Threats (COAST) Research Act. 

Addressing intensifying ocean acidification (OA) conditions here in Oregon, as well as across the United 

States, is critical to our Nations understanding of larger impacts from C02 emissions. 

Oregon is among the first places in the world to observe direct impacts of ocean acidification and 

hypoxia (OAH), due to our unique geographic and oceanographic context, putting our fragile marine 

ecosystem at risk. Our coastal economies rely on our vibrant marine ecosystem. Our nearshore waters 

are home to sport and commercial fisheries, all of the State's mariculture operations, and contain critical 

nursery grounds for economically important species including rockfish, oysters, salmon, pink shrimp, 

and Dungeness crab. Oregon is not alone in experiencing the impacts from OA or hypoxia. Through 

actions such as those in the COAST Research Act we must act together as Americans to develop 

solutions for our coastal communities, economies, and ecosystems to prepare for future conditions. 

In the coming years, the Oregon OAH Council will continue to take a thoughtful, collaborative, sciencebased approach to developing recommendations to address OAH in our state and beyond. Through 

further investments and initiatives, Oregon and the United States will benefit from adaptation and 

mitigation measures and will model to the world how to develop actionable solutions for OA adaptation 

and mitigation. 

The Oregon OAH Council has identified three urgently needed strategic actions1

, which directly align 

with objectives within the COAST Research Act. 

(1) Monitoring of key oceanographic and biological indicators of impacts from OAH. 

At the same time that OA has been impacting our coasts, oxygen-depletion is on the rise; Oregon and 

much of the West coast has seen several seasons in a row with extended periods of hypoxia in our 

coastal waters. The Oregon OAH Council is encouraged that the COAST Research Act identifies the need 

1 The Oregon Coordinating Council on Ocean Acidification and Hypoxia. First Biennial Report. September 2018. 

https:/lwww.oregonocean.info{!ndex.php/ocean-documentsfoah·!wpox/oah-councU-lst-biennial-reoort/1766-oah-councll-lst-biennfal-report-sept-lSth-2018-llfi!e 
104 

to strengthen investments in OA research and monitoring in the context of other environmental 

~ Ocean acidification and hypoxia are compounding stressors for a wide range of marine 

animals, and as such must continue to be studied together. Through the COAST Research Acts 

reauthorization of funding of NOAA, NSF, and NASA, much needed resources will be made available to 

researchers across the United States to continue to expand our knowledge of OAH. The Oregon OAH 

Council also supports the initiative of the COAST Research Act to create data processing, storage, and 

archive facilities to provide for the long-term stewardship and standardization of data. By creating a 

central repository for OAH data it provides governments, scientists, and industry better access to the 

information need to inform their mitigation and adaption planning. Only by maximizing our current data 

and filling our knowledge gaps of OAH, can we as a Nation begin to be able to piece together for 

solutions for our coastal communities. 

(2) Projects or programs that promote coastal economic and ecosystem resilience to OAH. 

Fisheries and aquaculture are central to our history, are enjoyed by Americans across the nation yearround, and remain key to many of Oregon's coastal economies today. Yet, the future sustainability of 

these marine resources and communities' ability to rely on them, are uncertain in the face of significant 

ocean changes, including OAH, and uncertain in the face of our current state of preparation to adapt to 

those changes over time. This is why the Oregon OAH Council supports activities and initiatives that 

promote resilience to increased OAH conditions, for both human communities and ecosystems. The 

COAST Research Act also stresses the importance of increasing our understanding of the socioeconomic 

effects of OA by expanding federal research to assess adaptation and mitigation strategies. There will be 

costs of inaction relative to co, mitigation and the United States has an obligation to relieve these costs 

wherever possible for our citizens. 

(3) Tools and strategies to increase awareness of OAH science, impacts and solutions. 

As the impacts of OA intensify, it is going to be vitally important for our Nation to identify and advance 

opportunities to raise awareness of and communicate OAH science, impacts, and mitigation solutions. 

This is why the Oregon OAH Council is encouraged by the fact that the COAST Research Act recognizes 

the need to address the effects of OA on estuaries and integrate research, monitoring. and adaptation 

strategies. By integrating OA causes and effects, it better demonstrates the complexity of this climate 

issue, and provides a dearer message to communities. The Oregon OAH Council also supports the 

COAST Research Act establishment of an Advisory Board to increase coordination among stakeholders, 

including members of industry, to work with State and Federal governments to improve coordination. 

Recognizing the importance of a broad membership, our Oregon OAH Council includes members from 

industry, academia and state government agencies. For the benefit of our marine ecosystem and the 

human communities that rely on a healthy marine ecosystem, the Nation's adaptation and mitigation 

approaches to OA should include successful communication of new science, monitoring, and adaptation 

strategies. 

As Co-Chairs of the Oregon OAH Council, we appreciate the opportunity to provide you with a letter of 

strong support for the COAST Research Act. The strategic investment and coordination opportunities 

outlined in this act are meaningful and will make a difference in our understanding of OAH science, 

impacts, and solutions. Through passage of this Act and the subsequent investment in science, 

adaptation and communications, the United States will demonstrate meaningful action in fighting OA 

and the global challenges of climate change, and preparing our citizens and economies for the changes 

ahead. 
105 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 

Sincerely, 

John Barth, PhD ~ t\. ~ 

Co-Chair, Oregon OAH Council 

Executive Director. 

Marine Studies Initiative 

Oregon State University 

Caren Sraby, PhD ~ 

Co-Chair, Oregon OAH Council 

Marine Resources Program Manager 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
106 

Oregon State 

University 

8 March 2019 

The Honorable Suzanne Bon amici 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2231 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: H.R. 1237- The COAST Research Act of 2019 

Dear Representative Bonamici: 

Office ofthe Provost and Executive Vice President 

624 Kerr Administration Building 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, Oregon 97331 

oregonstate.edu 

We write to offer Oregon State University's strong support for H.R. 1237, the COAST Research Act 

of 2019. 

As marine habitats face new and daunting pressures threatening their sustainability, the COAST 

Research Act identifies the growing need for strategic and robust investments in ocean 

acidification (OA) research, monitoring and stakeholder collaboration. 

Oregon State University is committed to interdisciplinary approaches to address the national and 

global challenges facing our oceans and coast communities. OSU has a deep history of global 

leadership in oceanography and engages in nationally ranked oceanographic monitoring programs 

and world-leading OA research. Further, the university recognizes that Oregon's estuaries and 

coastal regions are home to some of the world's most productive ecosystems and economically 

vital shellfish farms. 

The university is encouraged that the COAST Research Act expands the definition of OA to include 

coastal and estuarine systems, and identifies OA as being affected by a combination of factors, 

including hypoxia. The university believes that by expanding federal definitions of OA and by 

increasing funding opportunities, researchers and managers will be able to best utilize resources 

to find solutions to address OA. 

The university also is encouraged that this legislation recognizes the need for federal engagement 

to continue important investments. Doing so will enhance the integration of OA research, 

monitoring and adaptation strategies across principal federal research agencies, including the 

National Science Foundation, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

Oregon State University understands that effective and collaborative partnerships and 

communication are essential for our state and nation to find adaptive and mitigation solutions to 

address OA. For example, the proposal to establish an Ocean Acidification Advisory Board will be 

essential for facilitating the important work still to be done. 

The world's ocean belongs to everyone, and ocean health is critical to our future. In the coming 

decades, it will be essential for the nation and its universities to work collaboratively to improve 
107 

and sustain the health of our oceans. Doing so, we will assure human well ness, environmental 

health and economic prosperity for future generations. 

In closing, Oregon State University believes that the COAST Research Act proposes new strategic 

tools to expand understanding and address the problems facing our oceans and coastal 

communities. 

Si~ 

Edward Feser 

Provost and Executive Vice President 

lrem Turner 

Interim Vice President for Research 

The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici 

Re: H.R. 1237 ~ The COAST Research Act of 2019 

Page I 2 
108 

March 9, 2019 

The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici 

US House of Representatives 

2231 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington DC 20S15 

Dear Representative Bonamici, 

PCSGA 

PACIFIC COAST SHEllFISH GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

On behalf of the members of Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association (PCSGA), I am submitting this 

letter of support for H.B. 1237, the Coastal and Ocean Acidification Stressors and Threats (COAST) 

Research Act of 2019. Shellfish growers were the first community to call attention to the problems 

associated with ocean acidification when, in 2007, they experienced sever oyster larvae mortality in two 

out of three major west coast shellfish hatcheries. Since then, PCSGA has engaged in several local, state, 

and federal efforts and initiatives to ensure a future for this historic industry. 

Shellfish farming on the west coast began in the late 1800's, fueled the California Gold Rush and was· the 

reason for the development of many coastal towns. Today, PCSGA proudly represents 120 shellfish 

farms in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii which farm mussels, clams, oysters and 

geoduck. Our members not only produce sustainable, healthy, food, but also provide significant 

ecosystem services such aquatic habitat and water filtration, and support thousands of family-wage jobs 

within rural coastal communities. 

For nearly a decade, the shellfish industry has benefited from NOAA's Ocean Acidification Program and 

the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), both of which relate to the Federal Ocean Acidification 

Research and Monitoring (FOARAM) Act of 2009. These programs and the directives within FOARAM 

have influenced the way shellfish growers operate their farms among the uncertainty of changing ocean 

conditions. Historically, growers only consulting their tide charts. Now, growers rely upon a variety of 

real-time data and tools to understand the ocean changes and adapt methods and practices which 

allow them to continue farming in a productive and profitable manner. There much work ahead of us 

and much yet to learn. COAST Research Act provides an essential pathway forward. 

We are excited by the intent of COAST Research Act and the opportunities it provides. Not only is it a 

reasonable follow up to FOARAM but it also allows us to continue asking questions and seek innovative 

approaches to mitigate the impacts related to ocean acidification. 

Thank you very much for your leadership on this and for your commitment to ensuring the long-term 

health of our coastal and marine areas upon which shellfish growers depend. 

Respectfully, 

Margaret A. Pilaro 

Executive Director 
109 

March4,2019 

PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION 

205 SE Spokane Street, Suite 100 - Portland, Oregon 97202 

PHONE (503) 595-3100 FAX (503) 595-3232 

website: www .psmfc.org 

The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Bonamici: 

The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Conunission has a standing resolution adopted by the 

Commissioners to support and encourage new funding should be identified to augment coastwide research and monitor changing ocean conditions, harmful algal blooms, and ocean 

acidification. 

We have had an opportunity to review the Coastal and Ocean Acidification Stressors and 

Threats (COAST) Research Act. The bill would reauthorize the Federal Ocean Acidification 

Research and Monitoring Act to continue funding research through the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation. The bill would designate 

NOAA as the lead federal agency in the coordination of the federal response to ocean 

acidification. The bill also broadens the program to include marine estuaries. 

The bill, as introduced, strengthens the federal research programs that focus on ocean 

acidification. West Coast and Alaska ocean stakeholders are already feeling the socioeconomic 

impacts of ocean acidification. We view ocean acidification research as an important ongoing 

federal responsibility in seeking to address the negative impacts to these stakeholders. Pacific 

States therefore supports the your efforts and that of other Members of the Ocean Caucus in 

seeking to expeditiously move the Coast Research Act through the House of Representatives. 

"To promote the conservation, development and management of Pacific Coast 

fishery resources through coordinated regional research, monitoring and utilization" 
110 

March 7, 2019 

Honorable Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici 

439 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

SURFRIDER 

FOUNDATION 

RE: Support for Coastal and Ocean Acidification Stressors and Threats (COAST) Research Act 

Dear Honorable Congresswoman Bonamici: 

On behalf ofSurfrider Foundation's 160 Chapters and student clubs and our 250,000 supporters, activists 

and members worldwide, we write to express our enthusiastic supports for Coastal and Ocean 

Acidification Stressors and Threats (COAST) Research Act. The Surfrider Foundation (Surfrider) is a 

non-profit grassroots organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of our world's oceans, waves 

and beaches. 

As climate change continues to impact our ocean and coast, local communities need to plan ahead to better 

understand and plan for a changing climate. Ocean acidification (OA) is particularly concerning for 

Surfrider. The current understanding of ocean acidification impacts on ocean and estuarine ecosystems is 

inadequate and must be improved to fully prepare for and adapt to changing environmental conditions and 

manage our natural resources in nearshore locations. In addition, more integration and coordination is 

needed between local, state, and national entities to ensure adequate scientific research and investments in 

related topics such as nutrient loading, hypoxia, ocean acidification, and harmful algae bloom research and 

other observational systems are targeted to meet coastal communities' needs. 

Surfrider is particularly pleased to see the legislation focuses on adaptation strategies for ocean acidification 

and expands the definition of ocean acidification to include estuaries. In addition, we are pleased to see that 

the bill would expand the Interagency Working Group's strategic research plan to also address 

socioeconomic effects of ocean and coastal acidification and assess adaptation and mitigation strategies. 

Furthermore, establishing an Advisory Board to increase coordination among stakeholders, and requiring 

NOAA to facilitate an Interagency Working Group's strategic research plan, that coordinates monitoring and 

research efforts among federal and local agencies and stakeholders is critical to ensure success of this 

important piece oflegislation. 

Thank you for introducing such important legislation. 

Sincerely, 

~...ot ~~QW~ Stefanie Sekich-Quinn 

Surfrider Foundation 

Coastal Preservation Manager 

San Clemente, CA 

Charlie Plybon 

Surfrider Foundation 

Oregon Policy Manager 

Newport, OR 

P.O. Box 73550. San Clemente. CA 92673 1 info@surfrider.org 1 949.492.8170 J surfrider.org 
111 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BILL POSEY

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson 

Chairwoman 

House Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology 

2306 Rayburn Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Lizzie Fletcher 

Chairwoman 

Subcommittee on Environment 

1429 Longworth HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

Florida Institute q{Technology 

College of Engineering and Science 

Department of Ocean Engineering and Marine Sciences 

February 25,2019 

The Honorable Frank Lucas 

Ranking Member 

House Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology 

2405 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Roger Marshall 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Environment 

312 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, Chairwoman Fletcher, and Ranking 

Member Marshall, 

On behalf of the Florida Institute of Technology (Florida Tech), a national research 

university in Melbourne, Florida, please accept our appreciation of the House Science, Space, 

and Technology Committee and the Subcommittee on Environment for investigating solutions to 

the impacts of climate change on our oceans and estuaries. As the Director of the Indian River 

Lagoon (IRL) Research Institute at Florida Tech, I write to express my support for public policy 

advancing research into coastal and ocean acidification. 

Environmental impacts related to abrupt climate change pose some of the greatest threats 

and challenges to our society. Increasing temperatures and C02 in the oceans and atmosphere 

results in rising sea levels~ increasing storminess, changes in weather patterns, and changes in 

ocean chemistry. With much of our nation's population and critical infrastructure near the coast, 

realized risk of flooding from sea-level rise and extreme storm events may ultimately result in 

significant dollar damages and displacement of residents. Increased temperatures and C02 along 

with the excess nutrients entering the coastal waters are changing the chemistry of our estuaries 

and oceans on which habitats and economies depend. The effects of changing chemistry on 

estuarine habitat is still not well understood. 

My primary role in suppcrting my colleagues at the Florida Tech IRL Research Institute is 

to investigate causes and develop engineering solutions for our impaired coastal waters. All of 

my educational, training and research activities continues to re-emphasize the following 

principle: sound science must be the framework on which our engineering solutions are built. By 

basing our solutions on scientific research, we reduce the likelihood of unintended consequences 

from the solutions proposed by experts. 

150 West University Boulevard, Melbourne, FL 32901-6975 • (321) 674-8034 • Fax: (321) 674-7212 
112 

Æ 

Page 2 

It is our duty as citizens, scientists and engineers to address the issues of climate change 

head on. We have identified several paths to move forward: 

First, we must strengthen our investment in researching technologies and methods for 

mitigating the effects of climate change. This includes funding fundamental research into the 

causes and effects of climate change (e.g. sea level rise, acidification, eutrophication, habitat 

loss, etc.). There is opportunity for the United States to lead a worldwide economic market in 

high-tech carbon reduction and sequestration, clean renewable energy, coastal hardening 

methodologies and low impact technologies. 

Second, we must work to reduce our impact on the coastal ocean. There are promising 

mitigation projects focusing on utilities and infrastructure: septic-to-sewer conversions, 

wastewater retrofits and upgrades, storm water management, and water control structures. 

Third, we must work to restore the natural filtration systems of our estuaries which provide 

habitat for marine life and the economic livelihood for millions of Americans. Restoration 

includes removal of the legacy loading of nutrients and fine sediments that was the result of 

decades of inadequately managed land development. Restoration also includes the 

reintroduction of critical habitat in the regions where that habitat has disappeared. 

We thank the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and the Subcommittee on 

Environment for investigating solutions to the impacts of climate change on our oceans and 

estuaries. Florida Tech will continue to participate in the development of solutions to global 

climate change issues and improve the quality of life for our citizens. 

Sincerely, 

Robert J. Weaver, Ph.D. 

Director Indian River Lagoon Research Institute 

Associate Professor of Ocean Engineering 

Department Ocean Engineering & Marine Sciences 

Florida Institute of Technology 

RJWeaver@FIT.edu 

321.674.7273 

cc: The Honorable Bill Posey 

2150 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515