U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–204 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 110–1152 

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON MARINE AND 

COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS IN WASHINGTON STATE 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, 

FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 27, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

PAUL NAGLE, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST 

GUARD 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chairman 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Ranking 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 27, 2008 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Representative Inslee ....................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES

Bishop, Brett, Co-Owner, Little Skookum Shellfish Growers; on Behalf of 

the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association ............................................... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Inslee, Hon. Jay, U.S. Representative from Washington ..................................... 2 

Klinger, Terrie, Associate Professor, School of Marine Affairs; Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of 

Washington ........................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Koenings, Ph.D., Jeffrey P., Director, Department of Fish and Wildlife, State 

of Washington ....................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Miles, Ph.D., Edward L., Virginia and Prentice Bloedel Professor of Marine 

Studies and Public Affairs, School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington .................................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Ranker, Hon. Kevin, Member, San Juan County Council, State of Washington .................................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Sabine, Ph.D., Christopher L., Oceanographer, Pacific Marine Environmental 

Laboratory, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce .......................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

(1) 

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE 

ON MARINE AND COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS 

IN WASHINGTON STATE 

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, 

AND COAST GUARD, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Seattle, WA. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. at the Seattle Aquarium, 1483 Alaskan Way, Seattle, Washington, Hon. 

Maria Cantwell, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. The Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard will come to order. 

We are here today in Seattle to do a field hearing on the effect 

of climate change on marine coastal ecosystems in Washington 

State. So thank you all very much for being here, and my thanks 

to the Seattle Aquarium for their hospitality. 

Today’s hearing, as you can see, is the perfect venue for what we 

are going to be talking about, and each year, this aquarium gives 

hundreds of thousands of visitors a window into Washington’s underwater wildlife. And so, today, we get to be here beneath that to 

see and understand what we need to be doing, more importantly, 

on the issue of climate change. 

Over the last 200 years, the oceans have absorbed nearly half of 

the CO2 that basically has been emitted through combustion of fossil fuels. With the ocean’s absorption of CO2, it reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid that ends up making our oceans more 

acidic. 

What are those impacts? Well, we are going to hear in more detail from the panelists today. But the impacts are to our salmon 

and other fisheries, the threat to the entire marine food chain, the 

increased water temperatures bring about new invasive species. 

The spread of dead zones because of the lack of oxygen in the water 

are a threat to all of our marine life, and obviously, the warming 

of our oceans portend to make a rise in sea levels that could have 

devastating impacts on lowlands and wetlands here in Washington 

State and around the Nation. 

2 

So it is very important that we clearly understand the carbon 

emission impacts, what will happen in the marine environment, 

and the fact that they could be all too devastating here in Puget 

Sound. While this may not be easy to always understand the physical impacts, the warning signals are there, and we need to examine them, more importantly. 

Fortunately, we know that we can have an impact on climate 

change, and when we return to the U.S. Senate next week, we will 

be having a Senate discussion on the climate change bill on the 

floor of the U.S. Senate. We hope to pass that legislation over to 

the House of Representatives for their action. 

And just recently, last year, the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed, which set a new standard for the fuel efficiency of automobiles, more efficiency in lighting and appliances, 

and to make a mandate on alternative fuels based on a nonfood 

source. 

All these things together by 2030 would help us displace the 

equivalent of one-third of our foreign oil needs, save American consumers a half trillion dollars in energy costs, and reduce our Nation’s carbon dioxide emissions by that same amount. 

So we know we have lots of work to do. And we know that landmark legislation is needed. The reality is, though, our government 

at this point in time is ill-equipped to deal with the consequences 

of climate change. That is why I was proud to author the Climate 

Change Adaptation Act bill that would direct the Federal Government to start planning for climate change and its impact on marine 

resources. This bill has been passed out of the Commerce Committee and is now waiting for action on the Senate floor. 

We also have been working on the Federal Ocean Acidification 

Research and Monitoring Act legislation that was sponsored by my 

colleague Senator Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey and would 

establish a much-needed research program on ocean acidification. 

The time now is for the Federal Government to take the right 

steps in the right direction. I believe that these two bills are important vehicles for us to move forward on the right path in helping 

the health of our oceans. 

Planning for the future isn’t just common sense. It is responsible 

government, and this hearing is an important step in the input 

that we need to continue to take those important steps of protecting our oceans and certainly in protecting Puget Sound. 

So I want to thank my colleague, Congressman Inslee, who has 

joined me from the House of Representatives today for this Senate 

field hearing. He is a member of the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee and has 

spent many hours talking and hearing about these issues and certainly joins me in an effort to try to better understand the impact 

of CO2 on our oceans and what we need to do to protect marine 

life in the Puget Sound area. 

So, Congressman, we thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAY INSLEE, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON 

Representative INSLEE. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. 

3 

I hope people know that we have an absolute champion in the 

U.S. Senate on the energy issues that are necessary to stop this depletion of the oceans, and that is Senator Cantwell. She most recently has been a champion to adopt a package for renewable tax 

credits for clean energy sources that could help solve this problem, 

and she has been doing great work in the U.S. Senate. 

My comments, I wanted to share with you two memories—one 

piece of extremely disturbing news and one piece of good news. 

First, the memories. 

My dad was the biology teacher at Garfield High School, and 

maybe even taught Jimi Hendrix biology, I am not sure. But my 

earliest memories are being at Carkeek Park and my dad showing 

me the sea lion from the shorelines of Carkeek Park. It was an absolute thrill for me at age, I don’t know, 4 or 5 to go down there 

and see that lion. 

That life has diminished now at Carkeek Park. What I saw at 

Carkeek Park in 1956 and 1957 isn’t there as much as it used to 

be, and we are in a continuing decline for some of the reasons we 

will talk about today. 

The second memory is a picture, a movie. My favorite movie of 

my wife is when she was 10 years old catching a salmon right here 

on Old Kinder Road out at Ray’s Boathouse, if anybody is old 

enough to remember that. The best picture I have ever seen of her. 

Those are memories that we want our grandkids to have. And 

those memories today are at risk because of the constellation of 

issues that we are going to hear about. 

Now, here is the problem. We know about sea temperature rising 

due to climate change. We know about sea level rising due to climate change. We know about wind and wave patterns changing 

due to climate change. Fairly well known. 

But there has been an absolute bomb explode in the scientific 

community in the last 2 years, and that is the silent assassin of 

ocean acidification, and that is what I want to focus on today. 

In May 1996, we had a doctor named Ken Caldeira from Stanford and some of his colleagues that I invited to the House. And 

he came and dropped a little bomb in our laps, and that was that 

even if we could figure out a way to stop the climate from changing 

and could decrease the CO2, that all this was going into the oceans 

and acidifying the oceans 30 percent—30 percent more ocean acidification, 30 percent more of those ions in the ocean than in pre-industrial times. 

And he went on to explain about the calcification that occurs 

where these little tiny zooplankton and pteropods have to take calcium to form a substrate for their life. Probably 40 to 50 percent 

of the bottom of the food chain is dependent on this, and this is 

greatly threatened by ocean acidification. 

Nothing is more potentially dangerous to humanity than ocean 

acidification, I believe, as the first big problem that we are going 

to face, and that is because we receive a significant part of our protein from the ocean. And that is greatly, greatly threatened. 

So the good news is, we have some of the world’s best scientists 

today on this panel, that I am very appreciative. But there is no 

solution to this problem, except reduction of carbon dioxide. That 

4 

is the only solution to prevent us from essentially depopulating the 

bottom of the food chain in the oceans. 

I also want to say that this is not a problem for tomorrow, and 

all of this kind of thing, global warming, is a problem for the next 

several decades. It is a problem today. Almost 80 percent of the 

coral reefs in our national parks in the Virgin Islands are dead 

today because of a combination of bleaching associated with water 

temperature and perhaps ocean acidification. This is a problem 

today. 

But it is a problem that ought to unite us. You know, I hear still 

some of my colleagues in Congress that are still adopting the posture of the ostrich with their head in the sand when it comes to 

climate change. They want to say there is some debate about this. 

Well, fine. But there is no debate about ocean acidification. That 

carbon dioxide is going into the ocean. No one debates that. This 

ought to be a unifying theory on this. 

Now, we are starting to see some progress. I just want to leave 

it on a good note. Due to Senator Cantwell’s great work in the Senate, we are starting to see some progress. I passed an amendment 

to the Magnuson reauthorization bill to require study of the ocean 

acidification. A year or so ago, I sponsored a bill somewhat similar 

to Cantwell’s in the House. 

But the real work we need to do is to decarbonize the energy system of America. And when we do that, we will stop the acidification 

of the ocean, and we will build the largest economic expansion 

America has seen when we go to solar thermal power, solar photovoltaic power, wind energy, enhanced geothermal power, electric 

vehicles, energy efficient buildings. And when we do this, this is 

how we are going to solve this problem. We are going to grow our 

economy at the same time. 

So I am optimistic about doing it, and I want to thank Senator 

Cantwell for her leadership in being here today. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Congressman Inslee, for working 

with me on that legislation, including getting the energy tax credits 

passed so that we can make sure that we have a predictable tax 

law for renewable energy. 

Well, let us welcome our panel here today. Thank you. You are 

a very distinguished set of guests testifying before this Senate subcommittee. We appreciate you being here today. 

Joining us is Dr. Chris Sabine, Oceanographer with the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. Dr. Sabine is an expert on ocean acidification and the author of a recent article, ‘‘Evidence for Upwelling of 

Corrosive ‘Acidified’ Water onto the Continental Shelf.’’ Welcome. 

Thank you for being here. 

Dr. Terrie Klinger, University of Washington, Associate Professor 

at the School of Marine Affairs. Dr. Klinger is a marine biologist 

who looks at the effects on the environment of stressors, including 

climate change on marine ecosystems. 

Dr. Edward Miles, also of the University of Washington, from the 

School of Marine Affairs. Thank you very much for being here. Dr. 

Miles is the Co-Chair of the Climate Impacts Group. He performs 

fundamental research related to the implications of climate change 

for national fisheries, natural resources, and economic prospects. 

5 

He has served as Chair of the Ocean Policy Committee for the National Academy of Sciences from 1974 to 1979 and has worked with 

the United Nations UNESCO on development of various policies. 

Our next witness will be Dr. Jeff Koenings, the Director of the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Thank you for being 

here. I guess it all gets down to you as it relates to the local level 

here, or I should say at least to the State and local level. And he 

manages marine resources, land resources, including fisheries. And 

so, we appreciate you being here and your background in scientific 

study of water quality and nutrients. 

And following him will Brett Bishop, Owner of the Little 

Skookum Shellfish Growers. Thank you for representing the shellfish growers here today. I know you are going to give support testimony on the impact of a very vibrant industry for us in Washington State and how the changes in climate might impact that industry. 

And last, but certainly not least, Kevin Ranker, who is San Juan 

County Commissioner. And prior to taking office, Mr. Ranker 

worked for 15 years focusing on coastal and ocean policies being developed with local, national, and international organizations. Mr. 

Ranker currently serves as a member of Puget Sound Ecosystem 

Coordination Board. 

So thank you all very much for being here. And while this is an 

official hearing and I am not going to time you, but if you could 

keep your remarks to 5 or 6 minutes, that would help us in getting 

questions to you at the end of that time period. 

Mr. Sabine, we are going to start with you. And thank you very 

much for being here today. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER L. SABINE, PH.D., 

PACIFIC MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY, NOAA, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Dr. SABINE. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman. 

Senator CANTWELL. And you are probably going to have to pull 

that microphone a little closer to make sure we can hear. 

Dr. SABINE. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman. Can you hear 

me? 

Senator CANTWELL. A little closer. The acoustics here might be 

a little challenging. So—— 

Dr. SABINE. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Congressman Inslee. I am Dr. Christopher Sabine. I am a chemical oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory located here in Seattle. I also serve as an affiliate faculty member 

of oceanography at the University of Washington and as a senior 

fellow for the Joint Institute for the Study of Oceans and Atmosphere at the University of Washington. Thank you for inviting me 

to be a witness at this hearing. 

My colleague Dr. Richard Feely and I have conducted several research projects to improve our understanding of climate change 

and ocean acidification in open ocean and coastal waters, including 

the West Coast of the United States and the Puget Sound region. 

Today, I will focus on just one aspect of that research, the 

upwelling of Pacific waters onto the continental shelf. The results 

of this research were published last Thursday in Sciencexpress. 

6 

Over the last two decades, NOAA and the National Science 

Foundation have co-sponsored high traffic and chemical surveys of 

the world’s oceans to study the response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have confirmed that the oceans are currently absorbing approximately one-third of the carbon dioxide 

emissions from human activity. 

These studies have also documented chemical changes in seawater resulting from the absorption of this carbon dioxide, which 

are increasing the acidity of the seawater and lowering its pH, the 

scale we use to measure acidity. 

The decomposition of dead and sinking organisms naturally 

makes deep ocean waters corrosive to the shells and skeletons of 

calcium-carbonate creating organisms such as corals, clams, oysters, mussels, sea urchins, and pteropods. The depth at which these 

shells begins to dissolve is called the carbonate saturation horizon. 

The ocean uptake of manmade carbon dioxide has caused the saturation horizon to rise toward the surface by as much as 100 to 200 

meters since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. 

In the North Pacific, the saturation horizon is naturally between 

100 and 400 meters, but is getting shallower at a rate of 1 to 2 meters each and every year. Ocean model projections based on future 

carbon dioxide emission scenarios have suggested that the saturation horizon could break the surface of the North Pacific within the 

next 50 to 100 years, exposing living organisms at the ocean surface to corrosive waters. 

During the 2004 survey, which went from Japan to San Diego, 

we noticed that the corrosive waters came very close to the continental shelf of North America. To learn more about this phenomenon, we brought together regional experts such as Debby 

Ianson from the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Canada, Burke 

Hales from Oregon State University, and Martin Hernandez-Ayon 

from the University of Autonoma in Mexico to help us design a survey to run from Queen Charlotte Sound in Canada to the tip of the 

Baja Peninsula in Mexico, with the goal of evaluating the state of 

ocean acidification along the continental shelf. 

These experts helped us to determine the optimum sampling 

strategy that we needed to participate on the cruise that was conducted in May and June of 2007, last summer. I do not believe that 

any of us anticipated the results that we actually found. 

Our measurements showed that upwelling along the West Coast 

of North America is now drawing water from below the saturation 

horizon and up onto the continental shelf. This upwelling happens 

during the spring and summer months when winds push surface 

waters away from the coast and draw carbon dioxide-rich waters 

from about 150 to 200 meters depth in the open ocean to much 

shallower depths up on the continental shelf. 

In fact, we observed that some of the low pH corrosive waters 

had actually upwelled all the way to the surface off of Northern 

California. 

Our estimates of manmade carbon dioxide contributions to these 

waters suggest that prior to the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, 

the saturation horizon was too deep to be reached by coastal 

upwelling. In other words, this is a relatively recent phenomenon. 

7 

Before we started this work, no one considered that the corrosive 

offshore waters could be affecting shallower coastal ecosystems 

today. However, our findings represent the first evidence that large 

sections of the North American continental shelf are already being 

seasonally impacted by ocean acidification and that shelf organisms 

are being exposed to corrosive waters even at the surface. 

Our research focused on understanding the chemistry and did 

not directly evaluate biological impacts to these corrosive waters. 

However, the fact that extensive upwelling occurs all along the 

West Coast of North America and given the importance of fisheries, 

particularly shellfish, on the U.S. continental shelf, the potential 

biological consequences of these new findings need to be assessed 

immediately. 

Where we thought we had another 50 years to figure out the consequences of these corrosive waters reaching the ocean’s surface, 

we are finding that it is happening today right outside our back 

door. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify, and I will be happy 

to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sabine follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER L. SABINE, PH.D., PACIFIC MARINE

ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY, NOAA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Good morning, Chairman Cantwell and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 

for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today on the effects of climate 

change on marine and coastal ecosystems in Washington State. My name is Christopher Sabine, I am an Oceanographer at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Seattle, 

Washington. 

My research focuses on understanding the global carbon cycle. In particular, my 

work centers around interpreting inorganic carbon measurements in the oceans. On 

Thursday, May 22, 2008, my colleagues and I published a paper in Science Magazine entitled: ‘‘Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive ‘Acidified’ Water onto the Continental Shelf.’’ 

The absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide into the ocean lowers the pH of the 

waters. This so-called ocean acidification could have important consequences for marine ecosystems. In order to better understand the extent of this ocean acidification 

in coastal waters, we conducted hydrographic surveys from central Canada to northern Mexico. We observed seawater that is undersaturated with respect to aragonite 

upwelling onto large portions of the continental shelf, reaching depths of approximately 40 to 120 m along most transect lines and all the way to the surface on one 

transect off northern California. While seasonal upwelling of the undersaturated 

waters onto the shelf is a natural phenomenon in this region, the ocean uptake of 

anthropogenic CO2 has increased the areal extent of the affected area. 

The Science paper is appended here as the scientific basis of my testimony. 

8 

1Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory/NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 

98115–6349, USA. 2 Instituto de Investigaciones Oceanologicas. Universidad Autonoma de Baja California. Km. 

103 Carr. Tijuana-Ensenada. Ensenada. Baja California. Mexico. 3Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Institute of Ocean Science, P.O. Box 6000, Sidney, BC V8L 

4B2, Canada. 4 College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, 104 Ocean Admin. 

Bldg., Corvallis, OR 97331–5503, USA. 

ATTACHMENT

Sciencexpress—Report—22 May 2008 

EVIDENCE FOR UPWELLING OF CORROSIVE ‘‘ACIDIFIED’’ WATER ONTO THE

CONTINENTAL SHELF

Richard A. Feely,1 Christopher L. Sabine,1 J. Martin Hernandez-Ayon,2 Debby Ianson,3 Burke Hales 4

The absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide into the ocean lowers the pH of the 

waters. This so-called ocean acidification could have important consequences for marine ecosystems. In order to better understand the extent of this ocean acidification 

in coastal waters, we conducted hydrographic surveys from central Canada to northern Mexico. We observed seawater that is undersaturated with respect to aragonite 

upwelling onto large portions of the continental shelf, reaching depths of approximately 40–120 m along most transect lines and all the way to the surface on one 

transect off northern California. While seasonal upwelling of the undersaturated 

waters onto the shelf is a natural phenomenon in this region, the ocean uptake of 

anthropogenic CO2 has increased the areal extent of the affected area. 

Over the past 250 years the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from industrial and 

agricultural activities has resulted in atmospheric CO2 concentrations that have increased by about 100 parts per million (ppm). The atmospheric concentration of CO2

is now higher than it has been for at least the last 650,000 years, and is expected 

to continue to rise at an increasing rate, leading to significant changes in our climate by the end of this century.1. Since the beginning of the industrial era, the 

oceans have absorbed approximately 127 ± 18 billion metric tons of carbon as carbon 

dioxide from the atmosphere, or about one-third of the anthropogenic carbon emissions released.2 This process of absorption of anthropogenic CO2 has benefited humankind by significantly reducing the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere and 

minimizing some of the impacts of global warming. However, the ocean’s daily uptake of 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide is significantly impacting its chemistry and biology. Recent hydrographic surveys and modeling studies have confirmed 

that the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the oceans has resulted in a lowering of 

seawater pH by about 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial revolution.3-7 This 

phenomenon, which is commonly called ‘‘ocean acidification,’’ could affect some of 

the most fundamental biological and geochemical processes of the sea in the coming 

decades and could seriously alter the fundamental structure of pelagic and benthic 

ecosystems.8

Estimates of future atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide concentrations, based 

on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) CO2 emission scenarios 

and general circulation models, indicate that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels 

could exceed 500 parts per million (ppm) by the middle of this century, and 800 ppm 

near the end of the century. This increase would result in a surface water pH decrease of approximately 0.4 pH units, and a corresponding 50 percent decrease in 

carbonate ion concentration by the end of the century.5,9 Such rapid changes are 

likely to negatively impact marine ecosystems, seriously jeopardizing the multifaceted economies that currently depend on them.10

The reaction of CO2 with seawater reduces the availability of carbonate ions that 

are necessary for calcium carbonate (CaCO3) skeleton and shell formation for a 

number of marine organisms such as corals, marine plankton, and shellfish. The extent to which the organisms are affected is largely dependent upon the calcium carbonate (CaCO3) saturation state (Ω), which is the product of the concentrations of 

Ca2∂ and CO3

2– divided by the apparent stoichiometric solubility product for either 

aragonite or calcite: 

Ωarag = [Ca∂2] [CO3

–2]/K’sparag (1)

Ωcal = [Ca∂2] [CO3

–2]/K’spcal (2)

where the calcium concentration is estimated from the salinity, and the carbonate 

ion concentration is calculated from the dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and total 

alkalinity (TA) measurements.11 In regions where Ωarag or Ωcal is > 1.0 the formation of shells and skeletons is favored. Below a value of 1.0 the water is corrosive 

9 

and dissolution of pure aragonite and unprotected aragonite shells will begin to 

occur.12 Recent studies have demonstrated that in many regions of the ocean the 

aragonite saturation horizon shoaled as much as 40–200 m as a direct consequence 

of the uptake of anthropogenic CO2.3,5,6 It is shallowest in the northeastern Pacific 

Ocean, only 100–300 m from the ocean surface, allowing for the transport of undersaturated waters onto the continental shelf during periods of upwelling. 

In May and June of 2007, we conducted a North American Carbon Program 

(NACP) West Coast Cruise on the Research Ship Wecoma along the continental 

shelf of western North America, completing a series of 13 cross-shelf transects from 

Queen Charlotte Sound, Canada to San Gregorio Baja California Sur, Mexico (Fig. 

1). Full water column conductivity-temperature-depth-rosette (CTDR) stations were 

occupied at specified locations along each transect (Fig. 1). Water samples were collected in modified Niskin-type bottles and analyzed for DIC, TA, oxygen, nutrients 

and dissolved and particulate organic carbon. Aragonite and calcite saturation, 

pHSW, and pCO2 were calculated from the DIC and TA data.11

Fig. 1. Distribution of the depths of the undersaturated water (aragonite saturation < 1.0; pH 

< 7.75) on the continental shelf of western North America from Queen Charlotte Sound, Canada 

to San Gregorio Baja California Sur, Mexico. On transect lines 5 the corrosive water reaches 

all the way to the surface in the inshore waters near the coast. The black dots represent station 

locations. 

The central and southern coastal region off western North America is strongly influenced by seasonal upwelling which typically begins in early spring when the 

Aleutian low pressure system moves to the northwest and the Pacific High moves 

northward, resulting in a strengthening of the northwesterly winds.13,14 These winds 


527SABIN1.eps
10 

drive net surface water Ekman transport offshore, which induces the upwelling of 

CO2-rich intermediate depth (100–200 m) offshore waters onto the continental shelf. 

The upwelling lasts until late summer or fall when winter storms return. 

During the cruise, various stages and strengths of upwelling were observed from 

line 2 off central Vancouver Island to line 11 off Baja California, Mexico. We observed recent upwelling on lines 5 and 6 near the Oregon-California border. Coincident with the upwelled waters, we found evidence for undersaturated, low pH seawater in the bottom waters as depicted by Ωarag values < 1.0 and pH values < 7.75. 

The corrosive waters reached mid-shelf depths of approximately 40–120 m along 

lines 2–4, and 7–13 (Fig. 1). In the region of the strongest upwelling (line 5), the 

isolines of Ωarag = 1.0, DIC = 2190 and pH = 7.75 closely followed the 26.2 potential 

density surface (Fig. 2). This density surface shoaled from a depth of ∼150 m in the 

offshore waters and breached the surface over the shelf near the 100 m bottom contour, approximately 40 km from the coast. This shoaling of the density surfaces and 

CO2-rich waters as one approaches land is typical of strong coastal upwelling conditions.15-18 The surface water pCO2 on the 26.2 potential density surface was about 

850 μatm near the shelfbreak and higher inshore (Fig. 2), possibly enhanced by respiration processes on the shelf.17 These results indicate that the upwelling process 

caused the entire water column shoreward of the 50 m bottom contour to become 

undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a condition that was not predicted to 

occur in open-ocean surface waters until 2050.5 On line 6, the next transect south, 

the undersaturated water was close to the surface at approximately 22 km from the 

coast. The lowest Ωarag values (< 0.60) observed in the near-bottom waters of the 

continental shelf corresponded with pH values close to 7.5. Since the calcite saturation horizon is located between 225–400 m in this part of the northeastern Pacific,19

it is still too deep to shoal onto the continental shelf. Nevertheless, the calcite saturations values drop in the core of the upwelled water (Ωcal < 1.3). 

Fig. 2. Vertical sections of: (A) temperature, (B) aragonite saturation, (C) pH, (D) DIC and 

(E) pCO2, on transect line 5 off Pt. St. George, California. Note that the potential density surfaces are superimposed on the temperature section. The 26.2 potential density surface delineates 

the location of the first instance of the undersaturated water being upwelled from depths of 


527SABIN2.eps
11 

150–200 m onto the shelf and outcropping at the surface near the coast. The black dots represent sample locations. 

As noted, the North Pacific aragonite saturation horizons are among the 

shallowest in the global ocean.3 The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 has caused these 

horizons to shoal by 50–100 m since pre-industrial times so that they are within 

the density layers that are currently being upwelled along the west coast of North 

America. Although much of the corrosive character of these waters is the natural 

result of respiration processes at intermediate depths below the euphotic zone, this 

region continues to accumulate more anthropogenic CO2 and, therefore, the 

upwelling processes will expose coastal organisms living in the water column or at 

the seafloor to less saturated waters exacerbating the biological impacts of ocean 

acidification. 

Based on our observed O2 values and estimated O2 consumption rates on the same 

density surfaces,20 the upwelled water off northern California (line 5) was last at 

the surface about 50 years ago when atmospheric CO2 was about 65 ppm lower than 

today. The open ocean anthropogenic CO2 distributions in the Pacific have been estimated previously.19,4,21 By determining the density-dependence of anthropogenic 

CO2 distributions in the eastern-most North Pacific stations of the Sabine et al 21

data set, we estimate that these upwelled waters contain approximately 31 ± 4 umol 

kg–1 anthropogenic CO2 (fig. S2). Removing this signal from the DIC increases the 

aragonite saturation state of the waters by about 0.2 units. Thus, without the anthropogenic signal, the equilibrium aragonite saturation level (Ωarag = 1) would be 

deeper by about 50 m across the shelf, and no undersaturated waters would reach 

the surface. Water already in transit to upwelling centers is carrying increasing anthropogenic CO2 and more corrosive conditions to the coastal oceans of the future. 

Thus the undersaturated waters, which were mostly a problem for benthic communities in the deeper waters near the shelf break in the pre-industrial era, have 

shoaled closer to the surface and near the coast because of the additional inputs of 

anthropogenic CO2. 

These observations clearly show that seasonal upwelling processes enhance the 

advancement of the corrosive deep water into broad regions of the North American 

western continental shelf. Since the region experiences seasonal periods of enhanced 

aragonite undersaturation, it is important to understand how the indigenous organisms deal with this exposure and whether or not future increases in the range and 

intensity of the corrosiveness will affect their survivorship. Presently, little is known 

about how this intermittent exposure to corrosive water might impact the development of larval, juvenile and adult stages of aragonitic calcifying organisms or finfish 

that populate the neritic and benthic environments in this region and fuel a thriving 

economy. Laboratory and mesocosm experiments show that these changes in saturation state may cause significant changes in overall calcification rates for many species of marine calcifiers including corals, coccolithophores, foraminifera and 

pteropods, which are a significant food source for local juvenile salmon.8,22-30 Similar 

decreases in calcification rates would be expected for edible mussels, clams and oysters.22,31 Other research indicates that many species of juvenile fish and shellfish 

of significant economic importance to coastal regions are highly sensitive to higherthan-normal CO2 levels such that high rates of mortality are directly correlated with 

the higher CO2 levels.31,32 While comprehensive field studies of organisms and their 

response to sporadic increases in CO2 along the western North American coast are 

lacking, current studies suggest that further research under field conditions is warranted. Our results show for the first time that a large section of the North American continental shelf is impacted by ocean acidification. Other continental shelf regions may also be impacted where anthropogenic CO2-enriched water is being 

upwelled onto the shelf. 

References and Notes 

1. U. Siegenthaler et al., Science 310, 1313 (2005). 

2. C.L. Sabine, R. A. Feely, in Greenhouse Gas Sinks, D. Reay, N. Hewitt, J. Grace, K. Smith, 

Eds. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire, UK (2007). 

3. R.A. Feely et al., Science 305, 362 (2004). 

4. C.L. Sabine et al., Science 305, 367 (2004). 

5. J.C. Orr et al., Nature 437, 681 (2005). 

6. K. Caldeira, M.E. Wickett, Journal Of Geophysical Research-Oceans 110 (2005). 

7. R.A. Feely et al., PICES Press 16(1), 22 (2008). 

8. J.A. Kleypas et al., Impacts of Increasing Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for Future Research, report of a workshop held 18–20 April 2005, St. 

Petersburg, FL (2006), pp. 90. 

9. Solomon, S. et al., Eds, in Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, and 

New York (2007). 

12 

10. Royal Society, ‘‘Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide’’ (The 

Royal Society, 2005). 

11. The details of the analytical methods and calculations for the carbonate system and anthropogenic CO2 are given in the supporting online material. 

12. R.A. Feely et al., Mar. Chem. 25, 227–241 (1988). 

13. B. Hickey, in The Sea, A. R. Robinson, K.H. Brink, Eds. (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., vol. 

II. (1998). 

14. J.T. Pennington, F.P. Chavez, Deep-Sea Res. II 47, 947 (2000). 

15. A. van Geen et al., Deep-Sea Res. Part II 47, 975–1002 (2000). 

16. G.E. Friederich, P.M. Walz, M.G. Burczynski, F.P. Chavez, Progress in Oceanography 54, 

185 (2002). 

17. D. Ianson et al., Deep-Sea Res. Part I, 50, 1023–1042 (2003). 

18. B. Hales et al., Global Biogeochemical Cycles 19, doi: 10.1029/2004GB002295 (2005). 

19. R.A. Feely et al., Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16, art. no. 1144 (2002). 

20. R.A. Feely et al., J. of Oceanography 60(1), 45–52 (2004). 

21. C.L. Sabine et al., Global Biogeochem. Cycles 16, 4, 1083, doi: 10.1029/2001GB001639 

(2002). 

22. M.A. Green, M.E. Jones, C.L. Boudreau, R.L. Moore, B.A. Westman, Limnology And 

Oceanography 49, 727 (2004). 

23. J.M. Guinotte et al., Coral Reefs 22, 551 (2003). 

24. C. Langdon, M.J. Atkinson, Journal Of Geophysical Research-Oceans 110, art. no. C09S07 

(2005). 

25. H.J. Spero et al., Nature 390, 497 (1997). 

26. U. Riebesell et al., Nature 407, 364 (2000). 

27. I. Zondervan et al., Global Biogeochemical Cycles 15, 507 (2001). 

28. B.A. Seibel, V. J. Fabry, Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science 4, 59 (2003). 

29. B. Delille et al., Global Biogeochemical Cycles 19, GB2023 (2005). 

30. A. Engel et al., Limnology and Oceanography 50, 493 (2005). 

31. F. Gazeau et al., Geophys Res Lett. 34, L07603, doi: 10.1029/2006GL028554. (2007). 

32. A. Ishimatsu et al., Journal of Oceanography 60, 731 (2004). 

33. We thank Captain Richard Verlini and the crew of the R/V Wecoma for logistics support. 

We also thank Dana Greeley, David Wisegarver, Paul Covert, and Sylvia Barry for the DIC and 

TA measurements. Financial support for this work was provided by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s Global Carbon Cycle Program and the National Aeronautical and 

Space Administration Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry Program. 

Supporting Online Material 

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1155676/DC1/2 

Materials and Methods 

Figs. S1 and S2 

References 

25 January 2008; accepted 13 May 2008 

Published online 22 May 2008; 10.1126/science.1155676 

Include this information when citing this paper. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Sabine. 

Dr. Klinger, thank you very much for being here, and we look 

forward to hearing your testimony. I know we have some excited 

school children here, but that is what we want. We want them to 

be excited about the oceans. We want them to be healthy in the future so that they can continue to be excited. 

So you might have to—I think if you pull the microphone directly 

in front of you, if you can, and read your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF TERRIE KLINGER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF MARINE AFFAIRS; ADJUNCT 

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF AQUATIC AND 

FISHERIES SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON 

Dr. KLINGER. Good morning, and thank you, Senator Cantwell 

and Congressman Inslee, for holding this hearing on this important 

and emerging issue. Thank you also for offering me the opportunity 

to testify today. 

My name is Terrie Klinger, and I am an Associate Professor in 

the School of Marine Affairs and Adjunct Associate Professor in the 

School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences at the University of Washington. My area of expertise is marine ecology and the application 

of natural science to policy and decisionmaking. 

13 

I serve as the Chair and Research Representative of the Olympic 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, as Governor 

Gregoire’s representative on the Straits Commission, and as a 

member of the San Juan County’s Climate Task Force. 

The issue of climate change as it impacts marine ecosystems is 

large and difficult, and it is made more challenging by the recent 

recognition that much of the carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere ends up in the ocean where it causes changes in ocean chemistry, and it profoundly influences the structure and function of 

marine ecosystems. 

The projected chemical changes are likely to interact with other 

stressors—for example, increasing temperature and low dissolved 

oxygen—to produce ecological effects that are larger and less predictable than the effects of any single stressor alone. 

In my testimony today, I want to do three things. I will describe 

a few of the ecosystem changes that are likely to occur, using examples from Puget Sound to illustrate these changes. I will then 

articulate some of the pressing research needs and will suggest 

some of the management and policy responses that could be made 

at a national level. 

I have submitted written testimony that develops each of these 

points more fully. I want to give you the sense of the scope of the 

problem and the urgency with which action must be taken in order 

to minimize risk to social, economic, and ecological systems. 

Changes in seawater chemistry caused by ocean acidification will 

make it more difficult for organisms to form skeletons and shells. 

Organisms are likely to grow more slowly, produce fewer offspring, 

suffer greater mortality in an acidified ocean. Calcareous organisms are particularly at risk, but other organisms are also vulnerable. 

In Puget Sound, it is likely the following species, such as oysters, 

clams, mussels, crabs, salmon, and kelp all will be negatively impacted, and it is conceivable that we will lose some of these species 

entirely over the next century. Species of concern are also at risk 

such as the non-calcifying organisms. Changes in the food web 

structure are likely, and essential habitats provided by invertebrates and mollusks. 

We urgently need strategic policy-relevant research to help us 

understand the changes that are likely to occur. Only through direct experimentation will we be able to parameterize models to 

forecast ecosystem change and to guide strategies to mitigate impacts on human health and the environment. 

Research priorities include improved capacity for monitoring 

chemical and biological changes, experiments to determine the 

range of physiological responses, and the potential for biologic adaptation and experimentation to determine the food web and other 

ecosystem impacts. 

To perform such research, we quickly need to build capacity and 

ocean monitoring in experimental facilities. For example, the establishment of the Friday Harbor Laboratories as a sentinel site for 

time series measurements, combined with the creation of a new experimental facility there, could serve the Nation as a center for research on ocean acidification and temperate ecosystems. 

14 

Substantial funds are required to support ocean and coastal monitoring, the development of experimental facilities, and the performance of the research itself. The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act is a critical first step in providing the 

requisite funding, but additional funds must be allocated to the research community to perform the work necessary to address this 

problem in an effective and timely manner. 

The research performed must guide management and policy. For 

this to occur, processes that integrate science into decisionmaking 

must be developed and implemented. Key management responses 

are likely to be more conservative harvest limits, greater consideration of food web effects, reductions in other human-induced 

stressors, and preservation of biological diversity and the capacity 

for biological adaptation. 

In summary, the challenges posed by climate change and ocean 

acidification are unprecedented. Serious sustained effort must be 

made to provide policy-relevant science and to implement policies 

that are reflective of this science and are sensitive to the rates and 

magnitudes of environmental change. Substantial new funding directed to universities and Federal agencies is required to support 

essential scientific investigation. 

Creation of a strategic national research and implementation 

plan constitutes a critical first step that must be followed by Federal investment that is sufficient to support the informational 

needs of this serious threat to social, economic, and ecological systems. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Klinger follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERRIE KLINGER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF

MARINE AFFAIRS; ADJUNCT ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF AQUATIC AND

FISHERIES SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

1. Statement of Problem 

Industrial and agricultural releases of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere 

have accelerated over the past 250 years, with the result that levels of CO2 in the 

atmosphere now are higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years (Feely et 

al., 2008, and references therein). The oceans absorb about 30 million metric tons 

of this atmospheric CO2 daily. Dissolution of atmospheric CO2 in seawater causes 

the pH of seawater to decline (become more acidic) and reduces carbonate saturation 

levels. Temperate upwelling systems, high-latitude systems, and urbanized coastal 

areas all are likely to be substantially impacted by changes in pH and carbonate 

saturation within the next few decades. Concerted, sustained efforts must be made 

now to improve the state of the science and to incorporate science into decisions that 

will minimize risk to social, economic, and ecological systems. 

2. State of the Science 

The biological and ecological impacts of declining pH and carbonate saturation 

(jointly referred to as ‘‘ocean acidification’’) in temperate and high-latitude ecosystems are poorly known but are predicted to affect biological processes and ecological interactions across multiple scales of time and space (e.g., Hutchins et al., 

2007; Riebesell et al., 2007; Engel et al., 2005; Delille et al., 2005). Ecologically important species (e.g., keystone species, foundation species, ecosystem engineers) are 

likely to be negatively impacted, causing unforeseen and undesirable changes in marine ecosystems and in the provision of goods and services to humans. Commercially 

important species are among the species likely to be negatively impacted, influencing rates of harvest among wild and cultured species, ultimately reducing the 

availability of human food provided from the ocean. 

Biological responses to ocean acidification will vary by species. Although calcifying 

organisms (algae and animals with calcareous shells or skeletons) are considered to 

be particularly vulnerable to ocean acidification, non-calcifying organisms also will 

15 

be affected. Negative impacts are likely to include reductions in growth, reproduction, survivorship, aerobic capacity, thermal tolerance, and disease resistance. Direct 

lethal impacts will cause mortality in some marine organisms. Other organisms will 

experience sub-lethal impacts that could have substantial negative ecosystem effects. For example, sub-lethal responses that have been observed in recent experiments include but are not limited to: 

• Changes in size: sea urchins reared under high-CO2 conditions were smaller 

than urchins reared in normal sea water (G. Hofmann, UC Santa Barbara, unpublished data) 

• Changes in morphology: calcified larvae of sand dollars showed subtle changes 

in morphology when reared under high-CO2 conditions. The observed morphological changes impaired larval swimming behavior, suggesting that survivorship and recruitment of larvae could be reduced (T. Clay and J. Kershner, University of Washington, unpublished data) 

• Reduced thermal tolerance: calcified larvae of sea urchins were able to build 

skeletons but were less tolerant of thermal stress when reared under high-CO2

conditions (G. Hofmann, UC Santa Barbara, unpublished data) 

• Reduced growth rates: microscopic stages of two kelp species exhibited slower 

growth when grown under high-CO2 conditions. Although preliminary, this result suggests that kelps and other non-calcified algae could be negatively impacted by ocean acidification (T. Klinger, unpublished data) 

3. Ecosystem Impacts 

Ecosystem impacts of ocean acidification are difficult to predict given the current 

state of the science. Likely impacts include: 

• Changes in food web structure and function (e.g., changes in the distribution 

and abundance of prey species and their predators; increased vulnerability of 

prey species due to slower growth and reduced calcification) 

• Changes in species assemblages. Species that respond negatively to ocean acidification are likely to be replaced by others that are less sensitive to changing 

ocean chemistry. New assemblages are unlikely to provide the same goods and 

services that we rely on now. 

• Changes in the distribution and abundance of biologically-formed (biogenic) 

habitat. Early evidence suggests that reef-forming organisms, especially those 

with calcified skeletons, and canopy-forming kelps could be negatively impacted 

by ocean acidification, with consequences for other organisms such as fish that 

utilize or depend on such habitats. 

4. Fisheries Impacts 

Impacts of ocean acidification on commercial and recreational fisheries are poorly 

known. Impacts are likely to be mediated through effects on growth and survivorship of larvae and juveniles and through prey availability for all life history stages. 

Likely impacts include: 

• Changes in the distribution and abundance of target species 

• Changes in the size and condition of harvested fish and shellfish 

5. Synergistic Effects 

The biological and ecological effects of ocean acidification are likely to be exacerbated by increasing ocean temperature, declining concentrations of dissolved oxygen, 

and other physical stressors such as ultraviolet radiation. Synergistic effects can 

lead to unpredictable ecological responses such as non-linear dynamics, thresholds, 

and tipping-points. 

6. Biological Adaptation and Evolutionary Potential 

The potential for biological adaptation to ocean acidification is poorly known. Populations with diversity in genes that regulate response to pH and carbonate saturation are more likely to persist over time than are those with little genetic diversity. 

Because we do not yet know which species or populations exhibit such genetic diversity, it is essential to maintain evolutionary potential by conserving both species diversity and genetic diversity. The potential for biological adaptation will be constrained by loss of biological diversity and by the rapid rate at which environmental 

change is occurring. 

16 

7. Gaps in Knowledge 

Although there now exists compelling evidence that the pH of the ocean is changing due to absorption of anthropogenic CO2, our understanding of local and regional 

conditions and impacts is limited. Among the existing gaps are the following: 

• Status and trends in seawater chemistry (pH, carbonate saturation, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and other water properties) at spatial and temporal 

scales relevant to regional research, management, and decision-making 

• Status and trends in local populations vulnerable to ocean acidification and the 

combined effects of multiple stressors 

• Range of responses among key ecosystem elements and commercially important 

species 

• Potential for biological adaptation; evolutionary potential 

• Non-linear dynamics, thresholds, and tipping-points in ecological responses to 

ocean acidification and multiple stressors 

8. Research Needs 

The state of the science necessitates that new research be conducted. Only 

through direct experimentation will we be able to adequately parameterize models 

to forecast ecosystem change in the ocean and guide strategies to mitigate impacts 

on social, economic, and ecological systems. Effective research will require that investigations be conducted across multiple scales of organization, from genes to ecosystems, and at appropriate time scales. Satisfying these research needs will require 

that substantial new funds are made available to the research community. Research 

priorities include but are not limited to: 

• More intensive and extensive monitoring of seawater chemistry and associated 

physical properties to detect physical change as it occurs 

• Improved baseline biological data to detect ecological change as it occurs, and 

to link ecological change to chemical change 

• Establishment of chemical and biological time-series at sentinel sites 

• Experimentation to characterize physiological responses and differential gene 

expression under changing conditions and to determine the potential for biological adaptation 

• Experimentation to determine the range of biological responses among key ecosystem elements and species of commercial importance 

• Experimentation to determine interactions between species, including food web 

interactions, under conditions of ocean acidification and multiple interactive 

stressors 

• Investigations to identify species that are: (1) particularly vulnerable, (2) less 

vulnerable, or (3) capable of rapid adaptation to the combined effects of acidification and associated stressors. Such investigations could help guide strategies 

to shift human uses of living marine resources to species that are less vulnerable or more resistant to projected changes in seawater chemistry. 

Seven national research priorities were identified by participants in a workshop 

sponsored by NSF, NOAA, and USGS in April 2005 (Kleypas et al., 2006). These 

priorities, paraphrased here from the original report, are as follows: 

• Determine the calcification response to elevated CO2 in benthic and planktonic 

calcifiers 

• Discriminate mechanisms of calcification and responses to changing seawater 

chemistry across taxonomic groups 

• Determine the interactive effects of multiple variables that affect calcification 

and dissolution in organisms 

• Establish clear links between laboratory experiments and the natural environment, by combining laboratory experiments with field studies 

• Characterize diurnal and seasonal cycles in the carbonate system 

• Monitor in situ calcification and dissolution of calcifiers, with better characterization of key controls on biocalcification 

• Incorporate ecological questions into observations and experiments, e.g., individual survivorship, population growth rate, community structure, and ecosystem function. 

A subsequent workshop was convened at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography 

in October 2007 by the Ocean Carbon and Biogeochemistry Program with sponsorVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:41 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75204.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
17 

ship from NSF, NOAA, NASA, and USGS. The purpose of the workshop was to further refine scoping for research investigations of ocean acidification. Important research themes were phrased as questions of importance (paraphrased here): 

• What are the temporal and spatial scales of change in the carbon system of the 

global oceans and what are the impacts on biological communities and ecosystems? 

• Will marine organisms adapt or evolve to tolerate elevated CO2 and temperature? If so, how? 

• How does elevated CO2 influence calcification, respiration, reproduction, settlement and recruitment, and remineralization in marine organisms? 

• What are the effects of high CO2 on processes affecting ecosystem response and 

global feedbacks? 

9. Implications for Marine Resource Managers 

Projected changes in seawater pH and carbonate saturation, combined with increasing temperature and declining levels of dissolved oxygen, will require the attention of marine resource managers. Effective management requires that processes 

integrating science into decision-making be developed and implemented. Key management responses are likely to include: 

• More conservative limits on commercial and recreational harvest to compensate 

for losses due to acidification and associated stressors 

• Greater consideration of food web effects (e.g., consideration of the abundance 

and distribution of prey species) in setting harvest limits and establishing rebuilding and recovery plans 

• Preservation of species diversity and genetic diversity to provide functional redundancy and to enhance the capacity for biological adaptation to changes in 

ocean chemistry 

• Protection and restoration of essential habitat features and processes to compensate for habitat losses due to acidification and associated stressors 

• Alleviation of other human-induced stressors (pollution, eutrophication, shoreline development, habitat modification) to the maximum extent possible to reduce the effects of multiple interactive stressors and the likelihood of non-linear 

dynamical responses 

10. Conclusion 

Carbon emissions are causing changes in seawater chemistry that are unprecedented in the modern era. Ultimately, carbon emissions must be curbed. At the 

same time, serious and sustained efforts must be made now to reduce risks associated with changing ocean chemistry. Effective strategies will: (1) provide policy-relevant science regarding the effects of ocean acidification and associated stressors on 

marine organisms and the ecosystems they comprise; (2) implement policies that are 

reflective of this science and are sensitive to the rates and magnitudes of environmental change; and (3) adjust policies as new information becomes available. Substantial new funding directed to universities and Federal agencies is required to 

support essential scientific investigations. Creation of a strategic national research 

and implementation plan constitutes a first important step that must be followed 

by Federal investment that is sufficient to support the informational needs of this 

serious threat to social, economic, and ecological systems. 

11. Biographical Sketch 

Terrie Klinger is Associate Professor of Marine Affairs and Adjunct Associate Professor in the School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences at the University of Washington and an active researcher at UW’s Friday Harbor Laboratories. She obtained 

an A.B. in Biology from the University of California, Berkeley in 1979, a M.Sc. in 

Botany from the University of British Columbia in 1984 and a Ph.D. in Biological 

Oceanography from Scripps Institution of Oceanography in 1989. Her research focuses on ecological and policy issues in nearshore areas of the Pacific Northwest and 

Gulf of Alaska. She serves as Chair of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, is the Governor’s representative to the Northwest Straits 

Commission, and is a member of San Juan County’s Climate Change Task Force. 

12. Literature Cited 

Delille, B. and others (2005) response of primary production and calcification to 

changes of PCO2 during experimental blooms of the coccolithophorid Emiliania 

huxleyi Glob. Biogeochemical Cycles 19: GB2023. 

18 

Feely, R.A., Sabine, C.L., Hernandez-Ayon, J.M., Ianson, D, Hales, B. (2008) Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive ‘‘Acidified’’ Water onto the Continental Shelf. 

Science Express/Page 1/10.1126/science.1155676 

Engel, A.. and 17 others (2005) Testing the direct effect of CO2 concentrations on 

a bloom of the coccolithophorid Emiliania huxleyi in mesocosm experiments. Limnology and Oceanography 50: 493–507 

Hutchins, D.A. and 7 others (2007) CO2 control of Trichodesmium N2 fixation, 

photosynthesis, growth rates and elemental ratios: Implications for past, present 

and future ocean biogeochemistry. Limnology and Oceanography 52: 1293–1304. 

J.A. Kleypas et al., (2006) Impacts of Increasing Ocean Acidification on Coral 

Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for Future Research, report of a workshop held 18–20 April 2005, St. Petersburg, FL pp. 90 

Riebesell, U., and 10 others (2007) Enhanced biological carbon consumption in a 

high CO2 ocean. Nature 450: 545–549. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Dr. Klinger. 

Dr. Miles, thank you very much for being here as well. I know 

that you have played a long role in this area of research, and we 

greatly appreciate your position on these issues and your testimony 

today. 

And again, we are trying to get a microphone arranged there 

while you take a seat. If you can speak directly into the microphone, that will help us today. Thank you, Dr. Miles. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD L. MILES, PH.D., VIRGINIA AND PRENTICE BLOEDEL PROFESSOR OF MARINE STUDIES 

AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, SCHOOL OF MARINE AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON 

Dr. MILES. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your leadership, 

and Congressman Inslee—— 

Senator CANTWELL. Move it directly—right in front of you. It is 

a little hard—— 

Dr. MILES. All right. Is that better? 

Senator CANTWELL. Yes, thank you. 

Dr. MILES. My name is Edward L. Miles, and I am the Virginia 

and Prentice Bloedel Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs in the School of Marine Affairs at the University of Washington. I also serve as Co-Director of the Center for Science in the 

Earth System of the Joint Institute for the Study of Oceans and Atmosphere, or JISAO, where I am the team leader of the Climate 

Impacts Group, the first of NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences 

and Assessment, or RISA, teams. Our Climate Impacts Group was 

created on July 1, 1995. 

In my—in what I have to say in the short time available, I agree 

that the major lever of solution to the problems we face lies in fundamental changes to our energy systems and energy policy. But 

even if you were to bring that feat about tomorrow morning in 

Washington, D.C., we will have to try to manage the consequences 

of what we have created for several centuries. And that is the focus 

I want to take. 

I think we cannot afford to focus just on ocean acidification, as 

massive and as shocking as it is. I believe these problems are best 

dealt with by looking at them as a suite of multiple stressors so 

let me at least list them. 

The fact is that unprotected fossil fuel emissions since they were 

introduced have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by 100 parts per million, and this rate and magnitude is 

higher than any experienced on Earth for at least the last 650,000 

19 

years. As a result, as has already been mentioned, ocean pH has 

been reduced by about 10 percent. But much more is implied in the 

future as a result of the total commitment of greenhouse gases to 

the atmosphere and the time scale of the exchanges between the 

ocean and the atmosphere. 

We also know, as has been pointed out, that ocean acidification 

impacts the health of calcareous life forms, and this will affect the 

web of life in the ocean, causing changes to be felt all the way up 

the food chain and also in the other relations. 

But we move on to other massive changes. Significant thermal 

increases in the surface and subsurface deep in the world’s oceans, 

which will produce large-scale biogeographical shifts in the distribution of the most important species which are targeted by global commercial fisheries on which humans depend as a source of 

animal protein. 

There is also the significantly increased melt rates of polar ice 

shields in the summer as a result of the unexpected feedback between the subsurface heat increases and the subsurface ice, which 

produce the increased probability of intensified stratification in the 

water column. Stratification means a less biologically productive 

ocean. 

So this suite of five new problems, combined scientifically with 

two old problems which we haven’t solved—that is, that those are 

the increased intensities of land-based pollution of the coastal region and the weakened condition of commercial fish populations, 

very significant levels of overfishing have occurred. 

So nobody alive is able to deal with this suite of seven stressors 

simultaneously. But a group of us in the community have decided 

to try to merge our capabilities to focus on at least two of the big 

ones, ocean acidification and changing ocean thermal structure. 

And together, with a colleague in the School of Oceanography, 

Professor Chris Sabine, and Dr. Richard Feely from NOAA PMEL, 

we have decided to put together a larger group, a panel launched 

on April 23 and 24, 2007, where we came to complete agreement 

on the research which encompasses both the natural science and 

the policy and management issues. 

The assets we are combining consist of NOAA PMEL, the Northwest Fishery Science Center, the Alaska Fishery Science Center, 

the School of Oceanography, School of Aquatic and Fishery 

Sciences, School of Marine Affairs at the University of Washington, 

the Center for the Study of Earth Science at the University of 

Washington, and Friday Harbor Labs, and the National Conservation Biology Institute. 

Our first step is to design a mesocosm, an experimental facility 

at Friday Harbor Lab, and to offer it as a national facility. And Dr. 

Klinger will design a workshop, which will be held this summer in 

late August, and that is supported by the Educational Foundation 

of America and the Dean of the College of Aquatic and Fishery 

Sciences and Government. 

We have begun a fund-raising effort for the construction of the 

mesocosm by doing the substantive research and for conducting a 

public education program. We cannot solve this set of problems by 

focusing only on the Northeast Pacific, and so we hope to relate our 

20 

efforts to those in the North Atlantic, the Northwest Pacific, and 

elsewhere. 

As for global and national focus, we are also involved with the 

Heinz Center in Washington, D.C., and the Joint Global Change 

Research Institute at the University of Maryland. 

Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Miles follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD L. MILES, PH.D., VIRGINIA AND PRENTICE

BLOEDEL PROFESSOR OF MARINE STUDIES AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, SCHOOL OF

MARINE AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

My name is Edward L. Miles and I am the Virginia and Prentice Bloedel Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs in the School of Marine Affairs at the 

University of Washington. In addition, I hold a joint appointment in the Evans 

School of Public Affairs and an Adjunct Appointment in the School of Aquatic and 

Fisheries Sciences. I also serve as Co-Director of the Center for Science in the Earth 

System (CSES) of the Joint Institute for the Study of Oceans and Atmosphere 

(JISAO), where I am the team leader of the Climate Impacts Group (CIG), the first 

of NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences Assessment (RISA) teams. The CIG was 

created on July 1, 1995. 

The Committee has asked me to address the following issues: 

1. Summarize the work of the Climate Impacts Group and explain how this 

work enables an understanding of climate change and its effects on Washington’s marine and coastal ecosystems. 

2. Discuss the integrated approach that interest groups in Washington have 

taken to understand and adapt to climate change. 

3. Describe specifically how the University of Washington, the Pacific Marine 

Environmental Lab, the state of Washington, and local communities are working together to address climate change issues. 

4. Discuss the implications of climate change for coastal and ocean resource 

managers and the needs of managers to effectively respond to the resulting impacts. 

Since it will not be possible to respond to all these questions orally in the time 

allotted to me, I shall respond in my written statement provided in the record and, 

for my oral presentation, I shall present the challenges which climate change poses 

to the region’s oceans and coasts and focus on the new and very serious problem 

we now face in the world ocean as a whole. This is the problem of ocean acidification 

combined with a changing ocean thermal structure. 

The Work of the CIG 

The CSES consists of the Climate Dynamics Group (CDG) and the CIG as a completely integrated ‘‘one-stop-shop’’. The CDG studies the physical climate system relevant to the Pacific Northwest and the CIG examines the impacts of climate variability and change on the Pacific Northwest, and produces climate information products and derived predictions (e.g., streamflow forecasts) for a large set of local stakeholders. 

Formed as a spin-off of Miles’ experience in the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1994–1995, the CIG focuses on 

developing climate impacts science as the study of how climate, natural resources, 

and human socio-economic systems affect each other. This requires the integration 

of physical and social science research, as well as the integration of stakeholders’ 

perspectives (Federal, state, tribal, local, private sector, and NGO’s). 

With core support from NOAA, we focus on four sectors: the regional hydrology/ 

water resources management, forest ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems (primarily 

salmonids and the ecosystem structures and fisheries of Puget Sound and the 

Northern California Current System, including the coastal zones of Washington and 

Oregon). We study the dynamics of climate variability as a basis for making projections of likely scenarios of climate change. 

The Emerging Integration of Interest Groups in Washington in 

Understanding and Adapting to Climate Change 

How we got to where we are now can be described as a series of steps. It is an 

evolutionary unfolding rather than the result of a deliberate strategic plan. 

21 

1. We began with an initial focus on understanding climate variability in the 

PNW and impacts across the four sectors. We shared the results of our investigations with stakeholders from 1995–1997 in general annual meetings of declining utility. 

2. 1997–1998 was a year of transition defined by two major experiences. These 

were the First National Assessment of climate change impacts on the U.S., conceived and implemented in the Clinton Administration by then Vice President 

Al Gore, and the most intense El Nin ̃ o of the 20th century. The latter event 

generated intense interest in climate which was sustained by widespread media 

coverage. With combined additional investment from NOAA and UW to expand 

the outreach capacity of the CIG, we hired Dr. Philip Mote to be our 2nd climate dynamicist, focused on the general circulation models (GCMs) of IPCC and 

CIG specialist in charge of outreach. In addition, we shifted to custom-made 

workshops for interest groups across the four sectors. CIG emphasis was then 

equal between climate variability and climate change; currently we place a 

heavier emphasis on issues related to climate change. Between 2000 and 2005 

we expanded our contacts with stakeholders and deepened our connections to 

those who had joined us early. 

3. A new threshold was crossed as a result of increasingly observed effects of 

climate change combined with exercise of leadership by NE states, California, 

the Chief Executive of King Co., the Mayor of Seattle, and the Tri-State Governor’s Initiative involving California, Oregon, and Washington by 2004. In 

2005 we participated in a highly successful collaboration between King Co. and 

the CIG in the form of a workshop for >700 people in Quest Field covering eight 

sectors of the PNW. Collaboration with King Co. continued in the design and 

preparation of an adaptation Guidebook for Local Governments and on joint research projects. Research results began to support policy development at this 

stage. 

4. In 2007–2008 collaboration occurred between the CIG, the Washington Legislature, and the Governor’s Initiative on Climate Change. Agreement converged 

on an eight-sector assessment of likely climate change impacts (H.B. 1303 and 

2860). This initiative is overseen jointly by the Division of Community, Trade, 

and Economic Development (CTED) of the Office of the Governor and Washington Dept. of Ecology. An increasingly close and very effective collaboration 

between CIG and Ecology has emerged across all areas. 

Collaboration between UW, NOAA/PMEL, NMFS Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, and Local 

Communities to Address Climate Change Issues 

The University of Washington has very great strengths in the earth sciences and 

particularly so on matters related to climate dynamics, climate impacts, and climate 

change. This expertise is distributed across the following units: 

1. The Program on Climate Change (PCC) combines as core units the School 

of Oceanography, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, and Dept. of Earth and Space 

Sciences. The principal foci are research, education, and outreach. PCC also involves the Quaternary Research Center, the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), 

JISAO, the CIG, and NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 

(PMEL). http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/ 

2. JISAO is a ‘‘center of excellence’’ fostering collaboration between NOAA and 

UW on research themes which are allied with NOAA’s strategic plan. These include climate, environmental chemistry, marine ecosystems, and coastal oceanography. http://jisao.washington.edu The CSES/CIG is also based in JISAO. 

http://cses.washington.edu 

Examples of the ways in which these organizations combine and recombine to deal 

with problems of climate impacts would include collaboration between CSES and 

the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center on the investigation of harmful algal 

blooms in Puget Sound; on improving rebuilding plans for overfished West Coast 

rockfish stocks through inclusion of climate information; on modeling studies to support conservation planning for Pacific Salmon; on developing quantitative tools for 

evaluating the effects of climate change on the population dynamics of Pacific salmon; and on predicting the responses of wild Pacific salmon to climate change. 

Another area of activity which was launched in April 2007, concerns the comprehensive investigation of the impacts of changing ocean thermal structure and increasing acidification in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. This effort integrates the efforts of CSES, UW School of Oceanography, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences 

(SAFS), School of Marine Affairs (SMA), and Friday Harbor Laboratories (FHL) 

22 

with NOAA/PMEL, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, the Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center, and the Marine Conservation Biology Institute. The workshop established a priority for building a mesocosm at FHL as a national facility for the 

purpose of conducting experiments on the impacts of ocean acidification and agreed 

on a Steering Committee to move the programming forward. Since then the Steering 

Committee has secured a grant from the Educational Foundation of America combined with a contribution from Dean Arthur Nowell to hold a workshop to produce 

a detailed design for the mesocosm. The Steering Committee is currently engaged 

in developing a fundraising effort for constructing a mesocosm as well as for beginning a substantive research program, the first steps of which have been outlined. 

These investigations will be conducted in an ‘‘end-to-end’’ mode involving fundamental and applied science connected to identification and evaluation of alternative 

approaches to mitigation of and adaptation to the combined problem drivers of acidification and changing ocean thermal structure. 

Linked to, but going substantially beyond the acidification problem is an activity 

that combines the strengths of NOAA/PMEL with APL at UW and King County to 

determine a regional carbon budget for the Seattle area. A comprehensive plan is 

now being developed in the form of a White Paper. However, even before the plan 

is finished, NOAA/PMEL has collected carbon samples from a winter cruise conducted by the PRISM Program at UW. More samples will be collected this summer 

to get a first look at the carbon budget of Puget Sound. As a first step in the implementation of a continuous monitoring system, PMEL has emplaced a CO2 mooring 

off Aberdeen, WA, for the purpose of measuring surface water and atmospheric CO2. 

This mooring has been operating for the last 2 years. These tentative steps are very 

important for a number of reasons. As local governments seek to reduce their emissions of CO2 they will need to develop the capability to verify that policies enacted 

are reducing emissions as intended. This capability requires an in-depth understanding of sources and sinks of the gases which are targeted for reduction. That 

understand would be substantially enlarged by a monitoring system such as the one 

being designed in the collaboration between NOAA/PMEL, UW/APL, and King Co. 

Of the eight sectors identified in the H.B. 1303 investigation, two involve ocean 

problems. These are Coasts, Estuaries, Harbors, Salmon and Marine Ecosystems. In 

the former category, the legislation requires CIG and its partners to estimate to 

what extent rising sea levels and ocean temperatures will impact the coasts, estuaries, and harbors of the State of Washington through inundation, increased flooding, and/or erosion. In the latter case, the legislation requires assessment of the extent to which climate change will alter the state’s streams for salmonids, and where 

and under what conditions is salmonid habitat most vulnerable to direct (rising 

water temperatures) and indirect (habitat) effects of climate change. 

The Implications of Climate Change for Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Managers and the Needs of Managers to Respond Effectively to the 

Resulting Impacts 

Challenges Posed by Climate Change in the Pacific Northwest: 

1. Changing ocean thermal structure (increasing surface and sub-surface heat) 

inducing large-scale biogeographic shifts of ecosystems, including commercial 

fisheries. 

2. Increasing ocean acidification in both the North Pacific Ocean and particularly in the coastal ocean off the West Coast of North America with negative 

results for all species requiring calcium carbonate for building their skeletons 

and unknown effects for fisheries. 

3. Increasing stratification of the water column as a result of changing ocean 

thermal structure, accentuated by increased input of freshwater from melting 

glaciers. 

4. Expanding areal extent of oligotrophic gyres (i.e., waters rich in dissolved oxygen, but lacking nutrients and plant life). 

5. Salmon, and salmon restoration programs affected by multiple stresses connecting both terrestrial and marine dimensions of the life cycle from watersheds 

to the open ocean. 

6. Harmful algal blooms. 

7. Coastal hypoxia. 

8. Changes in the frequency and predictability of fisheries recruitment events 

as a result of cascading changes in the marine environment. 

9. Very complex, but largely unknown, changes in nearshore structural algae 

(eelgrass, kelp) as habitat for a wide range of coastal fish species. 

23 

10. Changes in the magnitude and type of coastal hazards generated by varying 

levels of sea level rise and the ways these changes will impact coastal development and public infrastructure. 

Managerial Needs: 

1. Increased information derived from expansions in monitoring capacity in the 

open and coastal ocean and Puget Sound. 

2. Research and assessment tied to policy development. 

3. Systematic evaluation of potential alternative suites of policy options to respond effectively to severe problems of multiple stresses in a changing environment. 

In summary, over the past 13 years the CSES has engaged in a wide range of 

issue-driven scientific research and outreach related to the coasts and marine 

waters of the Pacific Northwest region. The region’s needs for improved information 

and decision-support tools for managing marine resources is great, and threats 

posed by future climate change and ocean acidification will likely amplify existing 

decision-support needs in the very near future. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, thank you, Dr. Miles. 

Dr. Koenings, I want to thank you for being here, and we look 

forward to hearing your views. Thank you for representing the 

State of Washington. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY P. KOENINGS, PH.D., DIRECTOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, 

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Dr. KOENINGS. Thank you very much. Good morning, Senator 

Cantwell and Representative Inslee. 

I am Dr. Jeff Koenings, Director of the Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife. I also wear a variety of other hats as Chair 

of the National Pacific Salmon Commission and a Council Member 

of both the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 

I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you on the impact of climate change on Washington State’s marine ecosystems. For resource managers, I can sum up this topic with one word, and that 

word is ‘‘uncertainty.’’ 

When we embark on a discussion of global climate change impacts, let us first acknowledge that we are heading into uncharted 

territory. Unlike other areas of natural resource science and management, we have no body of research to guide us, no historic models to foreshadow the shape of things to come, no proven formulas 

to follow. 

As a natural resource manager, I depend on science to guide my 

decisions, and in this arena, the science is just beginning to be developed. All this translates to the need for precautionary resource 

management. The climate change is, indeed, upon us all. 

What we do know is that climate change has the potential for 

enormous direct impact on delicate coastal ecosystems, as well as 

leaving them more vulnerable to secondary stressors. Changing 

ocean water temperatures, currents, stratification patterns, acidification can lead to other changes we are only beginning to contemplate. 

With so much unknown, we must gather intelligence from a 

growing number of the abnormal and even bizarre events that signal the natural and economic catastrophe climate change could 

bring. A growing oxygen-depleted dead zone has appeared in the 

24 

ocean off our coast. Non-native species, such as the giant Pacific 

squid, make sudden appearances in our waters, and this year, entire salmon runs have collapsed in Oregon and California. 

We need no crystal ball to see the economic toll the salmon fishery collapse has taken on the West Coast. An unprecedented $60 

million in Federal funds has been distributed since last summer to 

some 1,200 commercial fishermen in Oregon and California. The 

shadow cast on coastal communities, on operators of hotels, restaurants, charter boats, convenience stores, and supply shops is 

even wider. 

Here in Washington State, our severely constrained fishery is 

projected to eat away nearly $14 million from the sport fisheries, 

$15 million from the other salmon-related businesses, and another 

$7.2 million in direct losses to commercial fishers. 

This year, the Chinook salmon disaster offers a window on how 

the destruction of a single species, much less entire ecosystems, reverberates through our communities. It sounds like an extreme 

wake-up call for us all. 

I would like to briefly outline three ways marine areas could be 

particularly affected by climate change—first, through ocean dead 

zones; second, through non-native invasive species; and third, from 

the cumulative impacts to salmon and steelhead. 

Scientists have yet to determine how closely ocean dead zones 

are linked to climate change, but we do know the oceanic and atmospheric conditions that create these areas are consistent with 

climate change predictions. In recent years, these zones of oxygenstarved water off the coast of Washington and Oregon are persisting longer and becoming more severely with depleted oxygen. 

By last year, the coastal dead zone had spread from Washington 

coast to the California border. 

Even absent the great uncertainties of climate change, non-native, potentially invasive species dispersed by ship ballast water 

are among the top threats to the world’s marine ecosystems. With 

the emergence of modern shipping, the natural barriers have been 

broken down, allowing the introduction of alien species that upset 

the equilibrium of native ecosystems. Climate change could usher 

even more invasive animals and plants into our marine waters. 

I am pleased to report that Washington State enforces ballast 

water management requirements. Improper ballast water discharge 

in State waters is subject to civil penalties. And, yes, we have invoked those penalties a half dozen times over the past few years. 

The passage of Federal ballast water legislation with necessary 

standards will greatly help these efforts. 

Besides the general threat from ballast water, we are also aware 

of specific invaders that threaten wide-scale havoc in our marine 

ecosystem and our economy. Just two invasive species, the green 

crab and the Chinese mitten crab, could overrun our native Dungeness crab, thus disrupting the State’s most lucrative coastal fishery. 

In no area of State fishery management are the potential effects 

of climate change more sobering than for salmon and steelhead. 

That is because these species move throughout our entire ecosystem to complete their life cycle, making them particularly vulVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:41 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75204.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
25 

nerable to flood events, competing water demands, and temperature changes, all expected to increase with the changing climate. 

Given the uncertainty of what lies ahead, the common denominator in all these concerns is the need for precautionary resource 

management. Faced with great unknowns, our best hope is to take 

the best possible care of the resources we still have. 

It is difficult to consider climate change impact without becoming 

overwhelmed. However, we can find some cause for optimism in an 

evolving spirit of cooperation as we face our shared burden, and 

you see some of that in front of you today. 

There are also very collaborative people behind me that are here 

attending this hearing. [Inaudible] All are involved in a collaborative effort to address ecosystem problems we have here in the 

State of Washington. 

But first, I would like to share one recent example of collaborative effort. Just days ago, the United States and Canada reached 

agreement on a new salmon harvest plan under the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty. Over the next 10 years, this ground-breaking agreement 

will return a million more salmon to Northwest waters. This treaty 

offers a unique opportunity to pursue precautionary resource management on a far-reaching and long-lasting scale. 

The kind of large-scale commitment and cooperation exemplified 

in the Pacific Salmon Treaty among nations, among agencies, and 

among citizens must be the cornerstone for any concrete effort to 

tackle climate change. In this arena, the past is not served but is 

a prelude to the future. Instead, we are faced with unknown challenges of monumental proportions. We must move forward with 

only the tools that offer hope—our shared concern, our willingness 

to collaborate, and our combined commitment to conservation. 

Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Koenings follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY P. KOENINGS, PH.D., DIRECTOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, STATE OF WASHINGTON

Good morning, Senator Cantwell and honorable Committee members. I’m Dr. Jeff 

Koenings, Director of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you on the impacts of climate change on Washington State’s marine ecosystem. I can sum up this topic with one word—uncertainty! 

When we embark on a discussion of global climate change impacts, let’s first acknowledge that we are heading into uncharted territory. Unlike other areas of natural-resource science and management, we have no body of research to guide us, 

no historic models to foreshadow the shape of things to come, no proven formulas 

to follow. 

Given this uncertainty, Washington state has embarked on several collaborative 

efforts to assess and begin planning for the potential impacts of climate change. The 

University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, part of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessment (RISA) 

network, the Western Governor’s Association Climate Initiatives work group and the 

Washington State Climate Challenge all offer the kind of broad-based forums that 

will be required to respond to climate change. 

We do know that climate change has the potential for enormous direct impact on 

delicate coastal ecosystems, as well as leaving them more vulnerable to secondary 

stressors. Changing ocean water temperatures, currents, and stratification can lead 

to other changes we are only beginning to contemplate. As you know, impacts associated with climate change and climate variability are difficult to distinguish from 

other forces that stress the marine ecosystem. 

With so much unknown, we must gather intelligence from a growing number of 

abnormal, even bizarre, events that signal the natural and economic catastrophe cliVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:41 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75204.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
26 

mate change could bring to our waters. Since 2002, a growing, oxygen-depleted 

ocean ‘‘dead zone’’ ocean has appeared and grown off our coast. Periodically non-native species such as the giant Pacific squid make sudden appearances in our waters. 

And this year, entire salmon runs have collapsed in Oregon and California. 

We need no crystal ball to see the economic toll the salmon fishery collapse has taken on the West Coast. An unprecedented $60 million in Federal funds has been 

distributed since last summer to some 1,200 commercial fishermen in Oregon and 

California. The shadow cast on coastal communities—business lost to hotels, restaurants, charter operators, convenience stores and supply shops—is even wider. 

And even though we in Washington state are fortunate to have some fishing opportunity this year, our severely constrained fishery is projected to eat away nearly $14 

million in revenues from sport fisheries, $15 million in lost revenue to businesses 

that provide goods and services that support fisheries, and another $7.2 million in 

direct losses to commercial fishers. 

This year’s chinook salmon disaster offers a window on how the disruption of a 

single species reverberates throughout our communities. It also sounds a wake-up 

call. Because as difficult as this year’s events are for our West Coast neighbors, this 

state, with its miles of complex marine coastline—bays, estuaries, great coastal rivers and, of course, Puget Sound—is potentially even more vulnerable to climate 

change. 

I’d like to briefly outline three ways our marine areas are particularly vulnerable 

to climate change—first, through growing, oxygen-deprived ocean ‘‘dead zones;’’ second, from the appearance of non-native, invasive species; and third, from cumulative 

impacts to salmon and steelhead as they move throughout freshwater and marine 

ecosystems to complete their life cycle. 

Scientists have yet to determine how closely oxygen-deprived ocean dead zones 

are linked to climate change. But we do know the oceanic and atmospheric conditions that create these areas are consistent with climate change predictions. These 

zones of oxygen-starved water—historically found only on the sea floor and the outer 

areas of the continental shelf—in 2002 began appearing much closer to the coasts 

of Oregon and Washington, persisting longer, and becoming more severely oxygen 

depleted. We also know that the longer they persist, the greater the impact on fish, 

crab and other marine life. By last year, the coastal dead zone that appeared only 

in 2002, had spread to extend from Washington to the California border. 

Even absent the great uncertainties of climate change, non-native, potentially 

invasive species dispersed by ship ballast water discharges are among the top 

threats to the world’s marine ecosystems. For thousands of years, marine species 

could spread only by drifting on current or debris. With the emergence of the modern shipping and growing trade between nations, natural barriers have been broken 

down, allowing the introduction of alien species that upset the equilibrium of native 

ecosystems. A recent report by the Environmental Protection Agency calls on states 

to consider the effect of climate change on the already-challenging issue of aquatic 

invasive species, to identify ecosystem vulnerabilities, and to evaluate and improve 

controls. 

Although there is much to be done to meet this growing challenge, I’m pleased 

to report that Washington state has enforced ballast water management requirements on all vessels of three hundred gross tons or more, domestic or foreign. Vessel 

operators are required to ensure that ballast water is exchanged at sea or treated 

before it is discharged into state waters, and to report discharges. Improper ballast 

water discharges into state waters are subject to civil penalties. And yes, we have 

invoked those penalties a half-dozen times in the past several years. 

Besides the general threat from ballast water, we are also aware of specific invaders that threaten wide-scale havoc in our marine ecosystem and our state’s economy. 

Just two invasive species—the green crab and the Chinese mitten crab—could overrun our native Dungeness crab, disrupting this state’s most lucrative coastal fishery. 

In no area of state fishery management are the potential effects of climate change 

more sobering than for salmon and steelhead. That’s because these iconic Northwest 

species move throughout our entire ecosystem—beginning life in inland spawning 

streams, migrating down major river systems, sheltering along estuaries and coastlines, finally heading out to sea and then repeating their journey homeward—to 

complete their life cycle. With such a wide range, they are particularly vulnerable 

to flood events, competing water demands and temperature changes—all expected 

to increase with a changing climate. Because salmon and steelhead rely on clean, 

cool water for survival, and require undisturbed streambeds to produce offspring, 

entire runs can be threatened by water flow disruptions. Those disruptions include 

flooding such as we’ve seen this past winter and the one before it, as well as warm 

season low flows that can strand young fish en route to the ocean, or block the return of adult salmon headed back to their native streams to spawn. This year’s colVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:41 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75204.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
27 

lapse of California’s Sacramento River and Oregon’s Klamath River salmon runs 

may offer the most detailed picture to date of the consequences of water-supply disruption. 

Given the uncertainty of what lies ahead, the common denominator in all these 

concerns is the need for precautionary resource management. Faced with great unknowns, our best hope is to take the best possible care of the resources we still have. 

It’s difficult to consider climate change impacts without becoming overwhelmed. 

However, we can find some cause for optimism in an evolving spirit of cooperation 

as we face our shared burden. I’d like to share one recent example. Just days ago, 

the United States and Canada reached agreement on a new salmon-harvest plan, 

under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Over the next 10 years, this groundbreaking 

agreement will return a million more salmon to Northwest waters. For example, the 

annual catch of chinook in southeast Alaska will be reduced by 15 percent. Off the 

west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia will lower its annual chinook harvest by 30 percent. Many of the salmon spared will return to Washington waters, 

furthering the recovery of fish populations listed for protection under the Federal 

Endangered Species Act. 

I can assure you that with this conservation-based agreement we are making a 

substantial down payment toward recovery of Washington’s weak, wild, chinook 

salmon populations. This is a unique opportunity to pursue precautionary resource 

management on a far-reaching and long-lasting scale. 

We can find other models of the kind of all-hands work needed to take on climate 

change issues. Right here in the Puget Sound region, a partnership established by 

Governor Gregoire is bringing governments on all levels together to restore the 

health of the Sound within a decade. On another front, my agency is working with 

scientists, tribes and legislators to completely retool our state’s aging hatchery system—one of the world’s largest—to support wild salmon recovery. 

The kind of large-scale commitment and cooperation exemplified in the Pacific 

Salmon Treaty—among nations, among agencies, among citizens—must be the cornerstone of any concrete effort to tackle the sweeping challenge of climate change. 

Unlike so many other concerns of government where the past is prelude to the future, in this arena we are faced with unknown challenges of monumental proportions. We go forward with the only tools that offer hope—our shared concern, our 

willingness to collaborate, and our combined commitment to conservation. 

Thank you. If there are any questions, I’ll be happy to try to provide you with 

a concise answer. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Dr. Koenings. 

Now I think Mr. Bishop maybe will elaborate a little bit more on 

how those invasive species are impacting a very vital industry in 

Washington State, obviously in the shellfish industry. Thank you 

for being here. 

STATEMENT OF BRETT BISHOP, CO-OWNER, LITTLE SKOOKUM 

SHELLFISH GROWERS; ON BEHALF OF THE PACIFIC COAST 

SHELLFISH GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BISHOP. You are welcome. Good morning. I am honored and 

surprised to be here. I am a clam digger and oyster picker. My 

name is Brett Bishop, and today I am representing commercial 

shellfish growers from Alaska to California to Hawaii. 

Washington State produces 85 percent of the shellfish grown on 

the West Coast, and we in Washington State are now the largest 

producer of farmed shellfish in the United States. 

My family’s farm is on Little Skookum Bay. We are a traditional 

family farm, with tides. Mom and dad live next door. Mom is 91. 

Dad is 93. They still take care of themselves, but I do the driving 

now. My two teenage boys are the sixth generation in our family 

to live on the homestead and grow clams and oysters in Skookum 

Bay. We would like to keep that going. 

We are typical of other shellfish farmers, and we are all facing 

problems that appear to be related to a warming climate and 

28 

greenhouse gases. We have a current crisis in several of the larger 

shellfish hatcheries. It is a new bacterium called Vibrio tubiashii, 

and it interferes with the reproduction of oysters and clams when 

they are in the larval stage, less than 1 millimeter. 

In the hatcheries, it is devastating. The largest hatchery we have 

is in Whiskey Creek, Oregon, in Netarts Bay, and this year, they 

shut their doors and laid off employees. What they have been doing 

is retooling their facility. They have added ultraviolet filtration and 

protein skimmers, and they have shown some early success. But in 

the marine environment, particularly in the coastal bays such as 

Willapa and Grays Harbor—well, in Willapa Bay, they are in year 

three of little or no natural oyster setting. So they now have to rely 

on hatcheries, and the hatcheries have this problem. They are in 

dire straits. 

Even if we fix the problem in the hatcheries, it still leaves unresolved the ability of oysters to reproduce in the wild. We need to 

be clear about this. The current situation puts not just the shellfish 

grower, but the entire marine ecosystem in extreme jeopardy. I am 

scared. 

A problem of even greater magnitude is this acidification of seawater that we have heard about. I heard about it last week, and 

I haven’t forgotten about it for a moment since. This acidity dissolves calcium carbonate, which is the thing the shells are made 

out of. And if diatoms, corals, or clams and oysters succumb to this, 

it not only wipes out the shellfish industry, but potentially the entire marine food chain. 

I know that is a dark and gloomy picture we have been painting 

for you today. So, as a counterpoint to that, let me tell you something else. Shellfish growers are perhaps the only category of humans that might actually benefit from climate change. Here is how 

it might work. 

Instead of having to mow my front lawn once a week, as sea levels rise because of melting ice caps, I might be able to grow clams 

and oysters in the front lawn. Of course, we have to survive as a 

business to reap the benefit from that future date. I am not so sure 

we are going to. 

Shellfish perform vital ecosystem functions as they filter-feed. 

Just about every human activity that takes place on the uplands 

contributes nutrients to the marine environment, and when the 

shellfish is harvested, it represents one of the very few human activities that actually withdraw nutrients from the marine environment. So all the oceans need filter-feeding shellfish, whether it is 

my family growing them or not. 

From the perspective of the Bishop family, it looks like this. We 

have invested everything that we have and everything that we are 

on our farm. We have a mortgage with Farm Credit Services. We 

employ 27 people year round, gross sales of about $2.8 million a 

year. If we can’t grow our shellfish, the bank will foreclose on the 

mortgage, we will lose our farm, our homes, and six generations of 

hopes and dreams and investment, which is just about everything 

that we hold dear. 

We do not intend to be passive witnesses to our own demise. 

Growers have thoughts. With electricity, we have boats and people 

out on the beach at every low tide. We are ready to supply physical 

29 

locations, telemetry, and field work at no cost to researchers, who 

are helping us figure out our common problems. If science can supply the intelligence, we will help with the means. Please use us. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRETT BISHOP, CO-OWNER, LITTLE SKOOKUM SHELLFISH

GROWERS; ON BEHALF OF THE PACIFIC COAST SHELLFISH GROWERS ASSOCIATION

My name is Brett Bishop and today I am representing commercial shellfish growers on the Pacific Coast from Alaska to California. For the record, 85 percent of all 

shellfish produced on the West Coast are grown in Washington, where we’ve farmed 

shellfish for 150 years. We’re actually the largest producer of farmed shellfish in the 

entire United States. 

My family’s farm is on Little Skookum Bay in Mason County. We are a traditional 

family farm, with tides. My parents live next door, Mom is 91 and Dad is 93. My 

two teenage boys are the sixth generation to live on the old homestead and grow 

clams and oysters in Little Skookum Bay. 

We are typical of most other shellfish growers, and we are all facing unprecedented problems that appear to be linked to warming oceans and low oxygen conditions. The ‘dead zone,’ identified in 2002 off the coast of Oregon, has now been observed by researchers all the way up into Canada. We’ve been able to correlate the 

dead zone and upwelling events with the presence of a marine bacteria, Vibrio 

tubiashii, in many of our growing areas and hatcheries. Vibrio tubiashii thrives in 

low oxygen (hypoxic) and no oxygen (anoxic) conditions. 

In the wild, it kills oyster larva and seed up to at least 1 mm. which has interrupted the natural cycle of propagation, resulting in little or no ‘‘natural set’’ in the 

bays and estuaries where we make our living. While many growers in Puget Sound, 

Oregon and California depend primarily on hatchery-produced seed, many growers 

in Willapa Bay, which produces almost 60 percent of Washington State’s oysters, 

continue to depend on natural set seed. Growers there are reporting that they are 

now experiencing their third year with virtually no seed set. This forces them to rely 

on hatchery production of juvenile shellfish to assure adequate crops, but Vibrio 

tubiashii has infected most of our West Coast hatcheries. Our largest producer of 

larvae, Whiskey Creek Hatchery, has in fact had to close their doors temporarily, 

and lay off staff, while they retrofit their operation with a series of filtration systems in an attempt to keep the Vibrio tubiashii out of the water they are pumping 

into their facility from Netarts Bay in Oregon. Growers have been donating funds 

to Whiskey Creek, to aid them in their research into solutions for hatcheries. If a 

way is found to rid the hatcheries of Vibrio tubiashii, and a system can be engineered that allows us to grow seed up to at least 1 mm in size, we may be able 

to save our shellfish farmers. 

Left unresolved is the ability of oysters to reproduce in the wild. 

I need to be clear about this; the current situation puts both the marine eco-system and shellfish growers in extreme jeopardy. Diminished natural reproduction 

coupled with failing hatcheries puts us in a position where we stand to lose it all. 

A problem of even greater magnitude is the acidification of seawater. A NOAA 

researcher, Richard Feely, reports finding levels of acidity along the Pacific Coast 

of North America that were not predicted until 50 to 100 years from now. This acidity dissolves calcium carbonate, the stuff that shells are made of. If diatoms, corals 

and shellfish succumb to this, it might collapse not only the shellfish industry, but 

the entire marine food chain. Life as we have known it might soon change. 

It is a dark and gloomy picture that I just painted. In counterpoint to that, let 

me tell you something else; shellfish growers might be the only category of people 

who stand to benefit from the effects of climate change. As polar ice melts and sea 

levels rise, our front yards and lawns may become suitable places for growing clams 

and oysters. 

Of course, our businesses would have to survive financially to reap any benefits 

from that future day. This is why we need to solve the problem in the hatcheries 

now, and address the acidification of the oceans. 

Our shellfish crops perform vital eco-system functions as they filter-feed. Just 

about every human activity that occurs on the uplands contributes nutrients to the 

marine environment. When a clam or oyster is harvested, it becomes one of the very 

few human activities that result in a withdrawal of nutrients from the water. Clean 

and healthy oceans need filter feeding shellfish, whether it’s my family that’s growing them or not. 

30 

From the perspective of the Bishop family it looks like this: we have invested everything we have and everything that we are in our farm. We have been growing 

as we could afford to for the last one hundred and twenty four years. We have a 

mortgage with Farm Credit Services. We employ 27 people year-round with gross 

sales of $2.8 million. 

If we can’t grow our shellfish, the bank will foreclose on the mortgage, we will 

lose the farm, our homes, and six generations of our hopes and dreams and investments. That is most of everything that we hold dear. 

This is what I am reporting to you folks today. 

I thank you for your attention. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Bishop, and thank you for 

being here. Very much appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. Ranker, welcome to the Committee hearing. Thank you for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN RANKER, MEMBER, 

SAN JUAN COUNTY COUNCIL, STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. RANKER. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Cantwell and Congressman Inslee, for your incredible leadership with regard to 

coastal issues, policy, and restoration and conservation for your 

tenures in Washington, D.C. 

For the record, I am Kevin Ranker. I am a member of the San 

Juan County Council. I am also the chair of the Coastal Counties 

Caucus, which represents the 14 coastal counties in Washington 

State. I also co-chair the Salmon Recovery Council for the Puget 

Sound, and I am a program officer for the Ocean Foundation. And 

last, I serve on the Ecosystem Coordination Board for the Puget 

Sound Partnership. 

I want to touch on some of the ecosystem impacts, simply to 

bring it down to a local level in my testimony today, so I will summarize my written comments that you have already received. 

The effects of climate change are dramatic for a Pacific Rim 

state, such as Washington State, and particularly dramatic for the 

coastal communities along our 2,300 miles of coastline. 

I want to quote from the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group paper, ‘‘Uncertain Future: Climate Change and the Effects on Puget Sound.’’ They wrote, ‘‘Changes caused by global 

warming are likely to reverberate across the Puget Sound ecosystem in complex and unpredictable ways, disrupting crucial 

interactions between plant, animal, and human communities.’’ We 

are talking about an ecosystem problem here. 

Some of the specific impacts that we will see in the future and 

that we are already seeing, we have heard about some regarding 

acidification and other issues. We are also seeing significant impacts to the snow-fed water supplies for Washington State, which 

will have a dramatic impact on our rivers, streams, lakes, and 

drinking water for millions of Washington citizens. 

We have heard about sea level rise. We will continue to see sea 

level rise impacts. And as a coastal-elected official, those impacts 

are very significant. When the sea level rises, we talk about millions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades, millions of dollars in impacts to coastal development, to say nothing of the changing planning and allotting for our communities. 

We will see increased and are seeing increases in air temperature and water temperature. We have heard about the impacts on 

31 

salmon. This will also dramatically impact our other commercial 

and recreational fisheries. 

We are also already seeing stronger and more frequent winter 

storms in the Northwest. I was elected to the San Juan County 

Board of County Commissioners in 2004. When I was elected, we 

had not declared a state of emergency in San Juan County in several decades. In 2006 and 2007, we had three major storms and 

had to declare emergency situations in San Juan County in a 2- 

year period. We had no power. We had snow and no water for our 

elderly out in the rural areas for several days. 

These sorts of trends, and what we are reading in the research 

and data that have been compiled, will continue. 

We have also seen increased and will continue to see increased 

flooding in Washington State in our watersheds. Recent flooding in 

southwest Washington, and particularly the Skagit, has cost 

human lives. It cost thousands in dead cattle and other livestock, 

millions of dollars in damage, and significant long-term community 

impacts. 

There are also, as we have heard, significant economic impacts 

associated with these changes, with the shellfish industry, with 

commercial and recreational fishing, with coastal development and 

infrastructure. And also something that we don’t always think 

about with regard to climate change is the direct relationship between a healthy and beautiful natural environment in Washington 

State and our tourism economy. Tourism in 2006 raised $13.9 billion—that is billion with a B— 

dollars for our state economy and employed 146,000 people. In San 

Juan County, in my district, $121 million and employed 1,700 people. This is a very important piece of our economy that will also 

be dramatically impacted. 

And I raise that just to point out kind of the—I don’t necessarily 

want to go crazy here—but the trickle-down effect of this situation 

throughout our economy and throughout our environment. 

Here in Washington State, under the leadership of Governor 

Gregoire, we have made some local and state-based changes that 

are very significant and need to be pointed out today. One is with 

regard to emissions reduction. By 2020, having cars down to 1990 

standards, green car initiative standards by 2009, energy efficiency 

standards for appliances, and green building standards are all 

things that have been advocated by our Governor. 

The larger issue, however, as Dr. Miles stated, is that we have 

an ecosystem problem. For an ecosystem problem, we must have 

ecosystem solutions. 

I want to spent the last few minutes of my comments today talking about ecosystem-based management and why it is so very important to start looking in that direction when we face climate 

change issues. 

There are several examples of this here in Washington State. 

One is the recently established—and Congressman Inslee is very 

involved in this—the Puget Sound Partnership. The Puget Sound 

Partnership is taking a look at ecosystems from the snowcaps to 

the whitecaps. And when we have an ecosystem problem, such as 

climate change, we must begin to manage our resources and our 

human activities in an ecosystem perspective. 

32 

The Puget Sound Partnership has six ecosystem goals—human 

health, human quality of life, species biodiversity and the food web, 

habitat and land use, water quality, and water quantity. These are 

critical issues. We cannot continue to manage our resources on a 

habitat by habitat, species by species, or in my case, as a locally 

elected official, individual lot by individual lot perspective. We 

must take an ecosystem focus. 

In San Juan County, we launched the San Juan Initiative. We 

brought together the heads of all of our state resource agencies— 

thank you, Dr. Koenings, for participating—the heads of all of our 

Federal agencies for the region, and tribal and local leaders to 

begin addressing how we can actually do this on a local level. 

The recommendations of the San Juan Initiative will be completed this year. Those recommendations will go to our state and 

Federal and tribal partners with regard to specifically how we can 

begin to look at climate change and other ecosystem problems facing us. 

On a Federal level, something else that is very important to pay 

attention to when it comes to these issues is the Federal Joint 

Ocean Commission Initiative. That body is providing coordination 

for state efforts, such as the Puget Sound Partnership, local efforts 

such as the San Juan Initiative. On a national perspective, we 

must have a coordinated approach to these issues so that we can 

generate these wonderful successes on a local level that can be replicated on a national or statewide perspective. 

Specific recommendations, in my conclusion here, we are aware 

that the Federal Government has some recommendations on what 

needs to be happening. First of all, continued support for NOAA, 

academic institutions such as the University of Washington, nongovernmental organizations, which provide research and modeling, 

is critical to addressing these issues—critical for myself as a locally 

elected official, critical for State managers and Federal managers. 

Without that data, we cannot plan appropriately. 

We also must formally recognize and support local efforts, such 

as the San Juan Initiative, State-based efforts such as the Puget 

Sound Partnership, and regional and national efforts of coordination such as the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. 

And last, we need your colleagues to step up the way you have 

and be true champions with regard to these issues. What we sorely 

need is a renewal of the kind of leadership commitment, and innovation at the Federal level that in the past defined the United 

States as a leading force in the protection of our environment and 

our planet. I hope that as we move forward, we can work together 

to regain that position. 

And the last comment I will make is, Congressman Inslee, you 

mentioned the next generation. I have a 5-week-old daughter. I 

have thoroughly enjoyed my times on the Puget Sound and my 

memories playing with my father and my grandfather on the 

beaches and on Orcas Island. And it is not a choice, but an absolute mandate, that we must take these actions now for my daughter and my daughter’s generation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ranker follows:] 

33 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN RANKER, MEMBER, SAN JUAN COUNTY COUNCIL, STATE OF WASHINGTON

Introduction 

Thank you, Chairman Inouye and Senators, for the opportunity to testify today. 

Welcome to Washington State. I am so glad to see that Chairman Inouye continues 

his legacy of supporting Washington State as he did in the Magnusson/Jackson era 

now during the Murray/Cantwell era. Senator, we have something in common we 

both live on islands and therefore our constituents could be the most affected by sea 

level rise and climate change. 

For the record, I’m Kevin Ranker. I’m a San Juan County Council Member (and 

Chair of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council, the Washington Coastal Counties Caucus, Pacific Region Program Officer of the Ocean Foundation and a member 

of the Ecosystem Coordination Board of the Puget Sound Partnership, which is taking an ecosystem-based approach to restoring and protecting our jewel, Puget 

Sound, by the year 2020). 

The 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

says it best: 

‘‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow 

and ice, and rising global average sea level.’’ 

Based on 20 years of research and thousands of published, peer-reviewed reports, 

the IPCC concluded that it is more than 90 percent likely that the accelerated 

warming of the past 50 to 60 years is due to human contributions. 

Scientists also tell us that Washington State is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. 

As a Pacific Rim state, sea level rise associated with temperature rise is a concern—especially for all of the communities along our 2,300 miles of shoreline. 

• A study released in January concludes that sea levels in Puget Sound are likely 

to rise a half a foot by mid-century. The study (Sea Level Rise in the Coastal 

Waters of Washington State, 2008), conducted by the University of Washington’s 

Climate Impacts Group and the state Department of Ecology, factored in global 

warming as well as local weather patterns and geology. 

• Under its worst-case scenario, regarded as unlikely, but still a possibility, sea 

levels in Puget Sound could rise more than 4 feet by 2100. 

Also making Washington especially vulnerable to climate change are our snowfed water supplies. Snowmelt feeds rivers and streams, providing essential support 

to all kinds of ecosystems, salmon and other wildlife as well as critical aquifer recharge for drinking water for millions of Washington citizens. 

The impact of these changes will also be widespread and devastating to numerous 

sectors of our economy. While obvious economic impacts due to climate change have 

been raised, such as the loss of coastal development, rebuilding of infrastructure or 

impacts to commercial fisheries, impacts associated with the relationship between 

a healthy environment and a healthy economy are less frequently discussed. Tourism for example, depends a great deal on a healthy Puget Sound and surrounding 

natural environment. In 2006 Washington State tourism revenue was $13.9 billion 

and created 146,500 jobs. In San Juan County during the same year tourism revenue topped $121.1 million and created 1,780 jobs. The economic impact of losing 

key ecosystem services will be severe and widespread throughout our statewide 

economy. 

Impacts of Climate Change on Puget Sound 

Another study (Uncertain Future: Climate Change and Its Effects on Puget Sound, 

2005) by the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group concludes that ‘‘profound changes have occurred in the Puget Sound over the past century and the next 

several decades will see even more change.’’ 

‘‘Changes caused by a warming climate are likely to reverberate across the Puget 

Sound ecosystem in complex and unpredictable ways, disrupting crucial interactions 

between Puget Sound plants and animals—and their environment.’’ 

Projected changes include: 

• Continued increases in air and water temperature. Air and water temperatures 

have risen more here than in other parts of the world. 

» Increased air temperatures have reduced spring snowpack, produced earlier 

spring snowmelt, increased winter flow and decreased summer flow—which 

can lead to altered habitat for fish and other species. 

34 

• And even the lowest estimated warming could change the Northwest’s 

climate significantly more than the warming of the 20th century. 

» Warmer water temperature has the potential to put many species at risk, including plankton, the foundation of Puget Sound’s food web. 

• Continued alteration of river and stream flows. With decreased snowpack and 

earlier snowmelt, Western Washington’s low summer stream flows are likely to 

be further reduced, while winter stream flows rise, altering the timing of freshwater inputs to marine waters. 

• Increased flooding in Puget Sound watersheds. Recent flooding has cost human 

lives, hundreds of cattle and other farm animals, and millions of dollars in property damage, to say nothing of the years of recovery for the local communities 

that were impacted. Projections show that this trend will continue. 

• Accelerated rates of sea level rise are likely to increase both the pace and extent 

of erosion and nearshore habitat loss already affecting Puget Sound shorelines. 

The slightest changes in average sea level can dramatically impact the existing 

fragile nearshore ecosystems of the Puget Sound. Further, as the Puget Sound 

rises, the impact on coastal development increases. This trend leads to increased coastal armoring which devastates nearshore habitats. The nearshore 

ecosystems of the Puget Sound provide critical habitat for numerous species 

currently listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

• Salt marshes at risk. Projected changes in water temperature, water salinity 

and soil salinity could change the mix of plant species in salt marshes and the 

viability of invertebrates that play a key role in the health of salt marsh systems. 

• Increased likelihood of algal blooms and low oxygen concentrations in bottom 

waters. Increased algal productivity would lead to a further depletion of oxygen 

at depth. 

» Puget Sound is one of the largest shellfish-producing regions in the United 

States; and Puget Sound shellfish are vulnerable to contamination by the 

toxics produced by harmful algal blooms. 

Effects of Climate Change on Salmon 

Salmon are fundamental to Pacific Northwest ecology, culture and economy. 

Unfortunately, in most river basins, wild populations are severely depleted. Several stocks have been listed or are being considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

Salmon depend on both freshwater and marine habitats. They need: 

• Clean, cold water; well-connected rivers; and reliable stream flows for spawning, 

rearing and migration; 

• healthy estuaries where juveniles can adjust to ocean conditions, and adults can 

rest before spawning upstream; and 

• productive ocean conditions, with abundant food sources and optimal temperature regimes. 

And climate change is taking its toll on salmon, too. 

• More rain and less snow have led to a major change in hydrograph: higher high 

flows, lower low flows. This both increases the vulnerability of their eggs to flood 

wipe out and decreases the rearing capacity of rivers to support juvenile salmon. 

• Because less snowpack feeds the rivers, water temperatures are warmer in the 

summer, which lowers the survival of rearing juvenile salmon. 

• Warmer summer temperatures increase the mortality of holding adult salmon 

(particularly spring and summer Chinook and summer steelhead—as they enter 

rivers many months before spawning). 

• Warmer summer temperatures increase the prevalence of certain parasites, which 

increases in-river mortality of return adults. (This has been a problem with Fraser River sockeye in recent years and has been noted in Puget Sound rivers, 

like the Stillaguamish.) 

• Modeling suggests that global climate change will modify circulation patterns 

resulting in microclimate changes. For example, more rainfall is likely to occur 

in lower valleys making less precipitation available for upper watersheds. This 

will exacerbate the effects on lower summer flows and higher temperatures, further reducing the capacity of rivers for species such as steelhead and spring Chinook, which depend on upper watershed rearing. 

35 

• Sea level rise will completely modify lower main stem, estuarine and nearshore 

rearing habitats, which have been identified as key habitats for some species/ 

stocks (e.g., Skagit and Snohomish Chinook salmon). This means that habitat 

restoration and protection actions will likely be less effective than modeled. 

• Climate change is associated with broad changes in ocean circulation patterns. 

The tendency is likely more toward the El Nin ̃ o-like years, meaning less 

upwelling, less productivity and poorer salmon survival in the ocean. 

• As noted earlier, higher average ocean temperatures will alter the marine food 

web and reduce survivability of salmon. 

What Washington Is Doing to Adapt to Climate Change 

Thanks in large part to the leadership of Gov. Chris Gregoire and the state legislature, Washington is taking bold steps to address climate change. 

In Washington, nearly 50 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions come from 

cars, trucks, planes and ships. With this in mind: 

• Emission reduction. In 2007, emission-reduction goals were established. In 

2008, the goals were replaced by statewide emission limits: 

» To return to 1990 emission levels by 2020. 

» To reduce emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 

• Emissions disclosure. To assist consumers in making informed decisions about 

greenhouse gas emissions when buying a vehicle, starting in 2010, disclosure 

labels will be placed on new passenger vehicles. 

• Clean cars. Beginning with model year 2009, new cars sold in Washington must 

meet the clean car standards adopted by California and 16 other states, which 

will help significantly reduce air quality pollutants. 

Energy efficiency avoids the need to increase power generation, which can avoid 

increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Along those lines: 

• Energy efficiency standards. Washington has adopted strong energy efficiency 

standards for new appliance products. 

• Green building standards. Washington became the first state in the Nation to 

require that state buildings be built to LEED silver certification. 

Ecosystem-Based Management in Washington 

Puget Sound Partnership: Another testament to the Governor’s leadership and 

concern for the environment came last year, when she and the legislature created 

the Puget Sound Partnership to restore and protect Puget Sound. 

Puget Sound’s beauty belies its problems: 

• Puget Sound orcas are the most contaminated marine mammals in the world. 

• Shellfish beds are closed because their harvests are unsafe to eat. 

• Beaches are closed because they are unsafe for swimming. 

• The list of Puget Sound species that are threatened or endangered is long and, 

without action, likely to grow. 

And a projected population growth of some 1.5 million people by 2020, which will 

put more stress on the Sound, only increases the urgency to act now. 

The Puget Sound Partnership, which I have the pleasure to be involved with, is 

different from previous cleanup efforts in many respects. 

• Its work is based on science. 

• It will hold entities charged with the tasks accountable for results. 

• And, it is charged with looking at the entire ecosystem—from the snowcaps to 

the whitecaps. 

In developing its Action Agenda for a restored Sound by 2020, the Partnership 

is considering 6 ecosystem goals: 

• human health; 

• human quality of life; 

• species, biodiversity and food web; 

• habitat and land use; 

• water quality; and 

• water quantity. 

36 

This ecosystem-based approach will be essential to turning around the fate of the 

Sound—a task only made more difficult by climate change. 

San Juan Initiative: In San Juan County, we have a local effort that will recommend changes to how local government and state and Federal agencies protect 

the remaining high quality habitat of the Islands and by extension, all of Puget 

Sound. The San Juan Initiative’s assessment of protection effectiveness will mostly 

demonstrate that parcel-by-parcel protection has not worked to protect what we care 

about. The Assessment points out that the way forward is through ecosystem or 

reach level management that engages the community in finding ways to manage collective resources together, insuring that the values of the community are expressed 

in protection efforts. 

The San Juan Initiative will be completed this year and will point out where our 

combined local, state and Federal efforts are working to protect the environment, 

address climate change impacts and where they need to be strengthened to fill the 

gaps. The process will engage citizens and governments so that the recommendations are ground-truthed and commitments are secured for actions necessary for immediate implementation. 

The San Juan Initiative’s model for improving protection is the best way to begin 

preparing for climate change at the local level. The effects of climate change will 

require new ideas and local solutions that change our management approach to 

focus less on the parcel and more on the scale of ecosystems. 

Federal Support Needed for Better Understanding, Response to Climate 

Change’s Effects on Washington’s Marine, Coastal Ecosystems 

In the interest of time, I will limit my remarks about necessary Federal support 

to salmon, as they are an excellent indicator of ecosystem health and our Northwest 

culture. 

Perhaps Jim Martin, former Chief of Oregon Fisheries and Salmon Adviser to Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, says it best in the ‘‘Light in the River’’ report on the effects of climate change on Columbia and Snake River salmon: 

‘‘Whether salmon can recover in the Columbia and Snake Basin depends primarily on Federal policy. Will it keep backing into the future with eyes on the 

past? Or will it turn forward, scout the changes coming fast and act strategically?’’ 

The report recommends a restoration strategy with 4 primary features: 

• Immediate actions to reduce the impacts or buffer salmon against them, with 

a priority focus on: 

» reconnecting salmon to headwater habitats; 

» protecting headwater flows and temperatures; and 

» reducing mainstem Columbia and Snake River mortalities to adult and especially juvenile salmon. 

• Population-specific analyses and actions as precise as possible to the status, life 

histories and warming effects on each species. 

• Assured feedback so that research and evaluation of effects on species of both 

chose actions and warming impacts loop back quickly and certainly to modify 

and add actions, on an annual or biennial basis. 

• Assured commitment to the precautionary principle under the Endangered Species Act—which, requires human actions, not salmon, to bear more of the risks 

from global warming uncertainties and unknowns. 

Conclusion 

It is critical that the Federal Government be a leader in the efforts to address 

the effects of climate change on the marine and coastal ecosystems of Washington 

State and elsewhere in the Nation. Congress must provide increased support to 

NOAA, academic institutions and non-governmental organizations who are conducting important research and modeling that will be critical to coastal states and 

local communities as we develop strategies to address these issues. Congress must 

also provide more support for the state, regional and local programs already underway in Washington and elsewhere in our Nation. These ‘‘bottom-up’’ ecosystembased efforts are developing local solutions and management strategies while engaging citizens at a level they understand. They will be incredibly valuable models for 

replication as the effects of climate change become more apparent over the coming 

years. 

Lastly, I want to emphasize that financial support is not enough. What we sorely 

need is a renewal of the kind of leadership, commitment and innovation at the FedVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:41 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75204.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
37 

eral level that—in the past—defined the United States as the leading force in protecting the environment and the planet. I hope that as we move forward we can 

all work together to regain that position. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Ranker. Thank you for being 

here, and congratulations on that newborn daughter. And I am 

sure, along with Mr. Bishop, you are working hard to preserve 

Puget Sound and our oceans for the next generation. 

Well, thank you all for your testimony. It has been very helpful. 

This is obviously part of the official record for the Senate Commerce Committee, and certainly to have a perspective from the 

Puget Sound, the Northwest, and the West Coast is, I think, particularly important for the Nation. 

So I want to start, Dr. Klinger, with you on this point. Are we 

seeing—we certainly are seeing more of an impact in the West, on 

the West Coast of climate change in the sense of higher temperatures than in other places. So are we seeing the same impacts on 

the acidification? Are we at a higher rate of acidification on the 

West Coast? And if so, what are we seeing in Puget Sound specifically? 

Dr. KLINGER. We know very little about the biological effects of 

acidification on the West Coast. But work by Dr. Feely and Dr. 

Sabine and others have demonstrated that there will be early and 

strong effects of acidification in coastal ecosystems in the Northwest and in the high-latitude systems. 

So that this area—the chemistry suggests that this area is particularly vulnerable. We do not yet have the biological or ecological 

data to link the chemistry to the biology. 

Senator CANTWELL. Explain that. Explain why the chemistry 

puts us in the Northwest at greater risk on this issue of CO2 in 

the oceans. 

Dr. KLINGER. In nearshore areas, there was a recent paper by 

Scott Doney and his colleagues that suggest that not only due to 

the absorption of CO2, but also to other greenhouse gas emissions, 

urban areas such as the Puget Sound urban estuary is more vulnerable than open ocean areas to acidification. But there are other 

reasons, and those have to do with the age of the water and the 

circulation of it that make this region particularly vulnerable. 

Dr. Sabine is actually more of an expert on circulation than I am. 

Senator CANTWELL. Dr. Sabine, do you want to comment on that? 

Are we in the West at greater risk, or are we seeing a more rapid 

acidification than in other waters across the Nation? 

Dr. SABINE. Certainly. As I mentioned previously, the deep 

waters of the open oceans naturally have much higher CO2 levels 

than surface waters. And as the waters circulate from the North 

Atlantic, where they sink from the surface, down around through 

the Antarctic and back up into the North Pacific, we are basically 

the end of that conveyor belt that is moving water from the North 

Atlantic into the North Pacific. 

During that whole transit, which takes about 1,500 years, the 

oceans are accumulating CO2 from all the dead organisms falling 

into the ocean. What that means along our coast here, the corrosive 

waters are the shallowest that they are anywhere else in the world. 

So when you then add on top of that the anthropogenic CO2 that 

38 

is coming in from the surface that combines with those naturally 

acidic waters, that makes our waters much more prone to the impacts. 

Senator CANTWELL. So you are saying that shallow water and 

runoff are combining? Is that what you are saying because we live 

in an urban area and have more? Is that what you are—— 

Dr. SABINE. No, ma’am. In the open ocean, the waters from the 

deep Pacific that are coming up have—are naturally very acidic. 

That is just the natural inversion of CO2 across the ocean, the 

interface of those two waters make it more corrosive toward the organisms. 

And then what we are seeing from our most recent research is 

that water is now being drawn up onto the continental shelves, and 

that is what we are concerned about. We didn’t expect for these 

levels of corrosive waters to get shallower for another 50 years. 

But, in fact, it is kind of a double whammy where adding CO2 to 

the oceans is bringing the saturation horizon shallower. Now they 

have moved into the zone of waters that are being upwelled onto 

the shelf, so that they are physically being dragged up to the 

shallower depths more so than we expected in the past. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, Mr. Bishop brought up not wanting to 

sound so gloomy about this. But I do think it is important to understand unabated where we are going as it relates to the food chain 

and the Puget Sound, particularly as it relates to the impact on 

salmon and to our orca population. And I don’t know if you could 

comment on where you think this current trajectory puts us on as 

it relates to the food chain and the availability. 

Dr. SABINE. The oceans are absorbing about 2 billion metric tons 

of carbon each year. That is a natural process. Whenever you increase CO2 above any liquid, it will absorb that CO2. That is what 

the oceans are naturally doing. But that is changing the chemistry. 

And as long as CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere, the 

oceans will continue to absorb that. 

We are seeing these corrosive waters in the open ocean naturally 

getting shallower by about 1 to 2 meters each year. Every year, it 

is getting shallower and shallower and shallower until it eventually 

breaks the surface. That is going to continue basically no matter 

what. So what we are seeing is only going to get worse over time. 

Senator CANTWELL. Dr. Klinger, would you like to comment on 

food chain and the impact on the food chain? Was it Dr. Koenings 

saying how it relates to salmon and the orca population? We are 

already obviously seeing impacts on both these species and moving 

a lot in these areas to try to recover and save these species. So 

what is the impact of this acidification, what is the trajectory we 

are on right now? 

Dr. KLINGER. That is a very difficult question. Dr. Koenings 

spoke to the uncertainty on this issue, and I—there is no science 

that can inform that—an answer to that question at this time. 

There are concerns. There are early responses—sadly, responses, 

for example, in the very small stages of fish and invertebrates that 

could easily be impacted. 

We would see impacts in those young recruits before we actually 

see impacts on adults. And what that would perhaps promise is reduced recruitment or a recruitment failure so that absence of new 

39 

recruits to populations, it could apply to fish populations and to 

shellfish populations. 

But as I said, we don’t know at this point what the impacts will 

be. The food web effects could be very large. In my own opinion, 

they are very unpredictable at this point. 

Senator CANTWELL. Dr. Koenings, do you just want to comment 

on that? 

Dr. KOENINGS. As a resource manager that takes science and 

builds the management decisions that affect people’s lives, it is a 

very difficult period for us to go through right now in terms of 

management of natural resources. I think we are seeing some very 

definite changes in our salmon populations in particular. 

The synchronicity of the fresh water phase, the marine phase is 

no longer as tight as it used to be, i.e., the young fish coming down 

from the fresh water hitting the ocean. That survival phase is not 

as great as it used to be. We are seeing a lot of changes in the fishing patterns of our fleets. We base our models that we use for management these days on historic fishing patterns. 

Those historic fishing patterns are basically not catching the 

same fish that they caught before because thermal routines are 

changing, and we haven’t been able to keep up with those kinds 

of changes in our mathematical models that we rely on so heavily. 

So there are a lot of changes that are going on that we are already 

seeing that management has to respond to. 

And one way of responding to them is simply saying in light of 

all this uncertainty, we just need to cool it. We need to cut the harvest, for example, in certain species down to a level that we think 

is sustainable. Harvest rates on salmon that maybe in the past 

years were sustainable at 60 or 70 percent harvest level, probably 

are now in the 20 or 30 percent harvest level today simply because 

of productivity of those stocks aren’t as good as it used to be, and 

I think that trend is going to continue for a number of years. So 

until we can solve—— 

Senator CANTWELL. When you say ‘‘productivity,’’ you are referring to—? 

Dr. KOENINGS. The productivity, the number of, let us say, the 

number of salmon produced per generation, i.e., you have 1,000 fish 

in this generation, you expect 3,000 or more of the next generation. 

Right now, we are getting maybe harvest rates a little bit higher. 

One thousand is producing 1,000. So we are seeing the harvest has 

to respond to that. 

So the productivity isn’t as high as it used to be. And we have 

to respond as resource managers. So there are definitely changes 

going on, again, that I referred to as sort of bizarre in terms of 

their perspective. 

Senator CANTWELL. Mr. Ranker, do you want to comment on 

this? 

Mr. RANKER. Just specifically, with regard to the food web effects, as we see alterations in—the research is suggesting, we see 

alterations in estuaries and nearshore environments, and we need 

not only focus on the individual salmon and the out-migrating juvenile salmon which use those areas for foraging, but also the foraged 

fish, the herring. These small fish represent a significant majority 

40 

of the salmon’s diet, and then the salmon represent a significant 

majority of the southern resident orca whale population’s diet. 

So, again, when we are looking at individual alterations and specific habitats, we need to recognize that there is impact on the food 

source going all the way up to the orca whale. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I think this is exactly what we are seeing already. Yes, we are seeing a major impact on the food source 

for both of those species. 

So, Dr. Miles, I am saving all my questions for you as to the solutions. But for now, I am going to turn it over to my colleague, Congressman Inslee, and allow him to ask a few questions. 

Representative INSLEE. Thank you. 

You know, this is very disturbing because, unfortunately, it has 

confirmed what I have been hearing since May 5, 1996, when we 

brought these scientists up and really dropped this bomb on Congress. And Mr. Bishop, you have been worried about this for a couple of weeks. I have been worried about it for a couple of years 

now, and the news gets worse. 

Basically, nature is seriously out of whack is what you are telling 

us. From an acidification standpoint, the ocean is on fire, and we 

need to respond as if there is a fire and we are not responding as 

if there is even a drizzle. And that is why I am hopeful that with 

your testimony, Senator Cantwell and I can make sure that others 

hear about it. It is very, very disturbing. 

Several things I want to make sure that people understand is 

clear, is it not, that climate change is separate from acidification? 

In other words, even if the Flat Earth Society is right and there 

is no climate change going on or if it is not caused by humans— 

even if the Flat Earth Society is right—still we would have this 

clearly scientific consensus that the oceans are becoming significantly more acidic because of human-caused CO2. Does everybody 

agree on that? Everybody agrees on it. 

I want to give people a sense of how significant that is. pH, the 

acidic scale, is a logarithmic scale which is designed to trip up 

sophomore physics students. But I have been told, I was looking at 

the NOAA literature, and it says—make sure that I read this right. 

The NOAA fact sheet on this says that the oceans have absorbed 

50 percent of human-caused carbon dioxide. And it says, ‘‘This has 

caused an increase in hydrogen ion acidity of about 30 percent 

since the start of the industrial age through a process known as 

ocean acidification.’’ 

Now could somebody just briefly describe if there is a 30 percent 

increase in acidification, the ions that are associated with acidification, why does it only show a tiny little change in the logarithmic 

pH of the ocean? Just very briefly so that the Flat Earth Society 

can get this. 

Dr. SABINE. Why is everyone looking at me? OK. As you said, the 

pH scale is logarithmic. pH 7 is neutral. Numbers larger than 7 are 

bases like sodium hydroxide or Alka-Seltzer. Those are basic compounds. Numbers less than 7 are acidic like acids, hydrochloric 

acid, or lemon juice is acidic. 

But it covers such a wide range that this logarithmic scale explains it. It is the concentration of hydrogen ions that actually affects the chemistry, and so it depends on where you start. The 

41 

oceans are actually slightly base. They had a pH—in the pre-industrial period, they had a pH of about 8.1. Now they have got a pH 

of about 8.0. So that is about 0.1 of a pH. But because of the logarithmic scale, that represents about a 30 percent change in the actual concentration of hydrogen, the individual hydrogen ions. 

Representative INSLEE. Now, as a layperson, if you are going to 

have a 30 percent change in the significant part of the acid-base 

relationship of the water, it would shock me if there wasn’t very 

significant changes in the biology of the ocean. I want to ask you 

about what we know about that. 

In the NOAA material and other material, I have read that we 

do know that at twice pre-industrial levels, if we get to parts per 

million of twice pre-industrial levels, which we are clearly headed 

to in this century if things don’t change, and more, that there 

would be as much as an 80 percent reduction in calcification in 

some coral species and 5 to 50 percent reduction in calcification, 

the ability to form calcium, the structural part of these organisms 

associated with this? Are those about the right numbers? 

Dr. SABINE. Yes. 

Representative INSLEE. So if I told you that humans were going 

to have an 80 percent reduction in our ability to form bones, the 

calcification process, I think that would be pretty disturbing to people if that happened within this century. 

Isn’t it fair to say from the science we know today, that is a distinct possibility for the organisms that live in the sea? 

Dr. SABINE. For the organisms that specifically produce calcium 

carbonate skeletons, yes. Now—I am sorry. 

Representative INSLEE. Yes. So here is what is disturbing, the 

most disturbing thing to me in all this. With all due respect to 

clams and oysters—and I can see—around clams and oysters—the 

very basic bottom of the food chain are zooplankton, pteropods, and 

the like. All the life in the ocean is based upon this bottom life in 

the food chain. 

And I am told that something like 40 to 50 percent of all those 

little organisms that are the basis, eventually up to the blue whale 

and orcas, have some calcification process involved in their system 

that could be disrupted by the somewhere 50 to 80 percent reduction in calcification. Is that right? 

Dr. SABINE. Yes. 

Representative INSLEE. Now, to me, that just scares the living 

heck out of me. We get 7 to 10 percent of our protein from the 

oceans. And from that, it seems to me that from what you are telling us, there is a significant chance of a collapse in the food chain 

in the oceans. Is that what we are looking at as a possibility? 

Dr. SABINE. If I could just give you an example? We did a study 

a while back where we took living pteropods, these little marine 

snails that float around in the ocean, living pteropods out of the 

North Pacific and placed them into waters that coincidentally were 

very similar to the waters that we saw being upwelled off of the 

northern California coast this last summer. So, high CO2 waters, 

and we actually saw the shells dissolving off of these living organisms. They were dissolving off of the pteropods as they were 

swimming around. 

42 

These pteropods have been shown to comprise as much as 40 percent of Pacific pink salmon diet. So, yes, if we don’t know exactly 

how all the ecosystems are going to respond because there is a 

complex assembly to all kinds of different types of organisms. Some 

of them do not produce calcium-permeable skeletons. But we certainly will change the ecosystem structure, and that will have impacts on our food chain. 

Representative INSLEE. Dr. Klinger? 

Dr. KLINGER. I would like to add, in response to your question, 

that it is not just a problem of calcification or lack of calcification. 

As we change the concentration of hydrogen ions in the water, in 

the surface waters, and as we change the concentration of calcium 

ions that we haven’t really talked much about that yet, that has— 

well, it could have profound effects on the physiology of calcified 

and non-calcified organisms. 

So ion flux across membranes could disrupt basic biological functions even in non-calcified organisms, and this is an area of research I think we really need to pursue actively. 

In regard to your comment about collapse of food chains, my own 

opinion is that we won’t see a total collapse of food chains, but we 

will see substitutions, changes in the—we may end up with food 

chains or food webs that are highly undesirable and are not productive for the needs that we use them today. 

Representative INSLEE. I can tell you that my constituents do not 

relish a sport season for jellyfish as a substitute for a sport season 

for salmon. So I share your sentiment. 

Dr. KLINGER. That is right. So the food webs could be radically 

different. 

Representative INSLEE. Well, I could tell you if Al Qaeda had 

some bomb that could cause a potential collapse of the food chain, 

the U.S. Congress would be active. And I hope that we start to act 

on this. I have much more questions, but I will defer to the Senator. 

Senator CANTWELL. Dr. Miles, let us talk a little bit about a solution as it relates to just the fisheries management side of the equation. And obviously, there are many elements to this. But you 

touched on a little bit in your testimony about specific challenges, 

what should we do to start managing our fisheries different relative to ocean acidification? 

Dr. MILES. Four things I can think of. Biology is the big hole at 

the moment with respect to the acidification problem. We know 

very little. In specificity, we know a few things. But there needs 

to be a really major research effort on this particular problem, looking at it in whole regional ecosystem context. And I think that is 

the objective behind the initiative of the National Research Council 

to produce a research agenda to respond to this problem. Congressman Inslee is aware of that, which is great. 

In the meantime, we can’t wait for that to happen. Adopt, as Dr. 

Koenings said, adopt a risk management approach to managing 

fisheries, and there are a number of ways that one can adopt a risk 

management approach, and I am not going to try to sell you on any 

single approach here. But when you look at the combination of 

multiple stressors, the decisions that will have to be made will 

43 

have adverse effects on the way fisheries are currently—commercial fisheries are currently organized. 

The third thing is reduce stressors. Take, for instance, you asked 

about salmon in Puget Sound. Well, we know that they will face, 

as a result of shoaling, an undersaturated horizon during the 

upwelling period, say, between April and September. That is not 

the only major challenge. Climate change is, (a) increasing the temperature of the streams and, (b) is reducing the water, the stream 

flow that they require. So that by August, September, they are in 

trouble. How do we deal with that problem, which is a very serious 

problem in Washington State, the future of the streams for migrating salmon in the summer. 

Then they will get to the Sound in, say, from May to June, and 

they will meet additional stressors, and we have to regard then 

land use planning as a little different part of fishery planning. So 

you look at the population growth rates for some of the time, and 

you look at the way the coastal development is proceeding, that is 

another problem with salmon and other species. 

Senator CANTWELL. You are saying land use planning as it relates to pollutants, stressors? 

Dr. MILES. And things like temperatures will be what we, you 

know—all of those things will really matter. The last thing we need 

to do is—— 

Senator CANTWELL. So things of that nature that will allow 

water to flow directly back into? 

Dr. MILES. —and the last thing we have to do is to monitor so 

that we know what is happening as it is happening. And the initial 

attempt to monitor with respect to carbon in the Puget Sound is 

collaboration between Mr. Sabine’s group, the lab at the University 

of Washington, and some others. But that is just the beginning. It 

didn’t exist before. 

We have to do this systematically. It is risk management, multiple stress, awareness on action, and yes, ecosystem risk management. But we have to worry about the rate of change, and it may 

be as Dr. Klinger implied that the ecosystem we have now is not 

the ecosystem we will have 10 years from now. 

Senator CANTWELL. And then when you are talking about risk 

management strategies, just—and I know you didn’t want to focus 

on any one in particular, but what is different in that scenario than 

what we are doing today? 

Dr. MILES. Oh, take, for instance, the Germans, they have proposed, their scientists have proposed a system of guardrails. 

Senator CANTWELL. Of what? 

Dr. MILES. Guardrails. 

Senator CANTWELL. OK. 

Dr. MILES. These are quantitatively defined standards that set 

the picture from—that imply what changes we have to make to 

prevent the increase in the global climate, global temperature, prevent that exceeding, say, 2.5 degrees centigrade. Whatever it takes 

to do that, you have to do to get—— 

Senator CANTWELL. So a much higher standard than what we 

have been talking about as far as they had legislation—— 

Dr. MILES. —then they have calculated what it will take to prevent the increase of acidification beyond certain levels in an annual 

44 

range, and that would be another one. And there are three or four 

of these examples, but that is one approach to managing. 

Senator CANTWELL. —guardrails sounds like a good idea to me. 

We should at least be pursuing that strategy as it relates to impact 

and evolving the legislation. 

One area we haven’t talked about yet in much detail is obviously 

the impact of the warming of our oceans and waters and the actual 

sea level rise and the impact that it could have on lowlands and 

wetlands in Washington State. Now there are some projections 

here for the size of the rise in the next 20 to 30 years. 

Dr. Koenings, we have something—I don’t know if this is your 

expertise, or I am not sure who on the panel has the answer to this 

as it relates to the impact for us as a region? What are some of 

the things that we should be undertaking now? 

Dr. KOENINGS. Well, I think there will be some drastic impacts. 

For example, the agriculture industry would be susceptible to 

large-scale changes in water fluctuation and water levels. Myself, 

I took it seriously. I bought at home a 50-[inaudible] tank. So I am 

pretty safe on that. But it is not really my area of expertise in 

terms of going into the actual dynamics of what a sea level rise 

may be other than backing up the areas. 

But if I could make one comment on some previous testimony? 

The big fear that I have as we go into this whole reaction to the 

acidification, global warming changes, et cetera, is you get into the 

paralysis by analysis. There isn’t enough connection. There isn’t 

enough certainty. There isn’t enough data populating our models to 

make accurate predictions of what may, in fact, be in front of us. 

But yet we are already, I think, seeing changes that are going 

on that lead us to believe that we need to take action. That is what 

I said before. We need to be really precautionary in terms of our 

resource management because we don’t know what the future has 

in front of us. But we do know something is going on, and we can’t 

wait to take action until our models are populated, until we validate our predictions and those kind of things. 

That is a hard thing for people to accept. It is a hard thing to 

make change when you don’t have the basic science to say that 

here is the causal connection. 

But yet things are happening that lead us to believe we have got 

to take the steps, and that is one thing that the government wants 

us to do is to go ahead and make sure there is environmental sustainability here in Washington for the future by being bold and 

taking those steps. 

Senator CANTWELL. Dr. Klinger, Dr. Sabine, do you want to comment on sea level rise or what we need to do to plan for that? And 

obviously, we have quite a few areas here in Washington State that 

would be impacted. 

Dr. KLINGER. I am not an expert on the sea level rise. From a 

biological standpoint or an ecological standpoint, it is likely that we 

will see a shift in nearshore habitats and in the distribution of 

those habitats. Those—at least some of those shifts are likely to 

negatively impact communities—marine communities that we 

value. 

So I think we have to be smarter. I think we have to engage in 

protection of the habitats that we have now. And we may have to 

45 

come up with some really innovative restoration strategies that are 

sort of more forward-thinking than those that we have implemented so far. 

Dr. SABINE. I am also not an expert on sea level rise, but I would 

just like to add the fact that the oceans actually contain the majority of the heat at the surface of the Earth. The increasing temperatures, most of that heat is being absorbed into the oceans, and the 

oceans have tremendous momentum. 

So even if we were to make changes today that would change the 

temperature of the planet, there is so much momentum in the absorption of the heat and consequences of that are thermal expansion—the expansion of the oceans, which increase the sea level— 

that the ocean sea levels will continue to rise over centuries to perhaps millennia as a result of what we are doing right now, today, 

even if we were to stop it. 

So I think we need to study and evaluate what the consequences 

of this will be because there is such a tremendous momentum that 

once you have got that ball rolling, once sea level is rising, it will 

continue, and you can’t stop it. 

And I just also would like to comment on the previous statement 

about the acting while we still have large uncertainties. And that 

is just to reiterate the point that I believe you made, Congressman 

Inslee, that while there are many uncertainties associated with the 

ecosystem responses to ocean acidification, ocean acidification is a 

very clear consequence of rising atmospheric CO2. And the chemistry is irrefutable. 

We are measuring those changes, and we know that they are 

happening and that will also continue as long as CO2 is. So that 

is not really a matter for debate. 

Senator CANTWELL. But then we should be planning appropriately and particularly you are saying no matter what we do, if 

sea level rises, the temperature is going to continue, I don’t know. 

Some statistics I have seen say 40,000 to 50,000 Washingtonians 

could be displaced by this, to say nothing of the impact it could 

have on Mr. Bishop and other shellfish growers in the industry. 

But it seems to me if that is inevitable, no matter what we do moving forward, we ought to have better plans in place to address that. 

Dr. SABINE. That is right. But I also go back to what Dr. 

Koenings pointed out, which is the rate of change is also critically 

important here. That while we can’t at this point stop the sea level 

rise, and it is likely to take a long time to deal with rising CO2, 

that even just reducing the rate at which we are changing can have 

a tremendous impact on the resulting consequences. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Congressman Inslee? 

Representative INSLEE. Mr. Ranker, do you have something more 

to add? 

Mr. RANKER. Just very quickly, specific to your original question, 

Senator Cantwell, regarding the impact of sea level rise, something 

that we haven’t discussed as much that was mentioned briefly in 

a couple of testimonies is the changes in fresh water flows which 

dramatically impacts our aquifer recharge. So when we start looking at sea level rise, there are two other impacts that we need to 

consider and consider very seriously. 

46 

One is the ability of our fresh water systems from our snow 

packs, rivers, and lakes with regard to aquifer recharge, which is 

the drinking water supply for most Washington citizens. The other 

thing that we are experiencing in the San Juan Islands now is the 

very harsh reality of salt water intrusion on our wells. Except for 

central Puget Sound, the majority of our homeowners have their 

own wells, and in south Sound, north Sound, and particularly out 

on the open ocean coast. And if you see even the slightest sea level 

rise, you significantly raise the chances of salt water intrusion on 

your wells. 

As a past member of my county board of health, the harsh news 

is if you go above a certain percentage regarding salt water intrusion, you have got to shut down. There is not an alternative, except 

for the bottled water and bring it in. We have some people on the 

outer Sound who are doing that by the truckload. It is costing them 

29 cents a gallon for their own water. So that is another impact 

that hasn’t been touched on today. 

Representative INSLEE. Thanks. I am reading a book called ‘‘The 

Most Important Fish in the Sea.’’ It is about the collapse of the 

Manhattan stocks in the Atlantic. And it was pointed out that New 

York Harbor used to have a really productive—biologically, it was 

very, very productive. All kinds of, I think there were—— 

And listening to these multiple stressors, increased temperature 

in our streams and the Hood Canal dead zone, increase in acidification, changes in the hydrological cycle, if things do not change, if 

we continue on this course of acidification, the warming, changes 

in our hydrological cycle, would there come a point or could there 

become a point where we suffer the same biological decline as New 

York Harbor, eventually? 

Dr. KOENINGS. I think that is a very good question, and that is 

one of the things that certainly we here in the State of Washington 

are trying to avoid by setting up a whole new agency dealing 

with—under Governor Gregoire’s leadership, a whole agency that 

deals with Puget Sound. And you are very familiar with that. You 

are one of the leaders of that as well. 

So one of the things we are trying to do, of course, is to set up 

so we avoid that kind of fate, and we somehow can restructure, reshape, and reform what we do in Puget Sound so that we don’t get 

into the fix that we are in in terms of the New York Harbor and 

some of the other industrial areas around the country, the Chesapeake Bay, down in Florida, Louisiana, California. They have all 

suffered sort of the same kind of fate. And we are determined here 

in Washington to avoid that. 

Representative INSLEE. We appreciate the Governor’s leadership 

on that. I want to talk about on a larger basis what we have to 

do to skin this cat. I really appreciate that you have very prudent 

resource management. We have got to guard against uncertainty. 

But I am going to lay the cards on the table. As long as we are 

putting out megatons of carbon dioxide, we are just sort of doomed 

in these biological systems no matter how good a job we do in the 

fishery and the management and the like. 

And I just want to talk about what we have to do to solve this 

problem. I had said earlier that we could have an 80 percent reduction in calcification if we get to twice the parts per million as in 

47 

pre-industrial times. That is about 450 parts per million, which we 

are headed to in this century if things do not change. 

I have been told that to stop at that level, to stop the rise at 

twice the pre-industrial levels, we in the industrialized world have 

to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by about 80 percent per capita simply to stop the runaway freight train before we are past the 

point of twice pre-industrial levels that we know is going to have 

adverse consequences. 

And so, I mean each of us have to reduce our carbon footprint 

by four-fifths by the year 2050 to prevent going past twice pre-industrialized levels. Is that a fair assessment on what we need to 

be shooting at to really solve this problem, or should we have different targets of emission? 

Mr. BISHOP. Trying to come to grips with this huge problem of 

ocean acidification strikes me is like trying to fight a beach ball 

that is so big you can’t get a grip on it. You likened it to a bomb. 

The knowledge of what is coming is like a bomb. The old saying 

is that the pen is mightier than the sword. I would like to think 

that ideas can be more powerful than laws. This is how it would 

have to work. 

Shellfish growers measure progress on design, and that is the 

way this problem has to be dealt with—land use regulations, daily 

behavior changes. We have to grind away at it. You have to know 

what you are doing and which direction you are going to go, but 

it can’t be solved in one fell swoop. 

What it means to me personally is that we have 7 years left on 

our mortgage. I would like to be able to grow shellfish for at least 

7 more years. 

Representative INSLEE. Anyone else? Dr. Miles, are those numbers about right? 

Dr. MILES. Yes, but a world of 500 ppm is a world of enormous 

environmental disruption. 

Representative INSLEE. So even if we reduce our emissions by 80 

percent by 2050, we are still going to suffer significant environmental damage? Is that right? 

Dr. MILES. Yes. Yes. 

Representative INSLEE. Which, to me, is not a reason for inaction, it is a reason for hastening the action. The fact that we are 

in difficult straits means that we should be acting sooner rather 

than later. And I can tell you that I am optimistic in our ability 

to do that. 

I have been working on something called New Apollo Energy 

Project, which basically says that we need a new technological base 

rather than our carbon-based system. I believe we can achieve that. 

Senator Cantwell has been doing incredible work in the Senate to 

develop one. 

And if we do that, if we use the optimistic attitude of Americans 

and the intellectual capital that is available to us, we are going to 

solve this problem. I believe that. If the U.S. Congress acts. And 

I just want to thank you for your efforts. We are going to share this 

information as widely as possible. We will get that Flat Earth Society to wake up yet. 

Thank you. 

Somebody wants to—Dr. Klinger? 

48 

Dr. KLINGER. I would just like to comment. Dr. Sabine brought 

up the concept of rate and rates of change, and although we can’t 

likely reverse the changes that we have set in motion, if we slow 

the rate at which we are changing the environment, then we give 

the organisms a chance to evolve and adapt to those changes. 

So adaptation may be a potential where genetic evolution is very 

rate dependent. The slower you go, the more likely we are that 

some organisms may be able to adapt and adjust to these new environmental conditions. So rates are important, and we should slow 

down. 

Representative INSLEE. So our theory or our sort of motif should 

be give the clams a chance. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I would thank again the staff of the 

aquarium and John Braden for hosting us being here, and obviously my colleague, Congressman Inslee, for being here and adding 

his expertise and knowledge to this. And certainly, this information 

is free to be shared with the House of Representatives as well. 

And I want to thank the Commerce Committee staff for traveling 

here and staffing the hearing this weekend. As you can see, we produced a little Northwest sunshine as part of that. 

I want to thank the witnesses especially. Thank you for illuminating this issue, which for many people today have been hearing about the impacts of global warming and the climate change, 

and yet I feel that the oceans have been missing in the discussion 

or at least not in the limelight that they really need to have, given 

the significant impact and damage that has already been done 

today, the challenges that that puts forth in front of us to save 

these various fisheries and to save the health of our oceans. 

So I want to thank you for being leaders in your fields and helping us illuminate this issue. Mr. Bishop and Mr. Ranker, thank you 

for your uniquely local perspective. I know these are big challenges. 

I know that given the consequence of what could happen to our 

oceans’ food chain, what could happen to the health of the oceans 

overall, it does seem quite daunting. 

But, Mr. Bishop, you remind me, we had an FCC Commissioner 

who just died recently, Newton Minnow, who, when he was taking 

John Kennedy around NASA, the President said to him, ‘‘how come 

we aren’t launching men into—astronauts into orbit instead of satellites?’’ And Mr. Minnow said, ‘‘well, we are launching the satellites because ideas last longer than people do.’’ 

And I think your notion that there are ingenious ideas that could 

help us and that we have to put the American scientific community 

to task at that, I think, is really the focus of this hearing. 

While we have introduced legislation on adaptation, on acidification, and we will be having a debate next week when we come back 

on global climate change and legislation moving forward, I think 

that the health of our oceans are in such peril that it takes much 

more aggressive action than we have currently put forth in the 

U.S. Senate. 

So I thank the Northwest for helping me to paint a picture of 

this that is very clear and very challenging, but we are a place of 

ideas, and we should not be daunted by this task. We look forward 

to working with all of you in the future. 

49 

And again, thank you for being here to testify in this important 

Subcommittee hearing. 

This Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ