2012 Public Policy Forum The Science of Ocean, Coastal and Great Lakes Restoration Summary Report
Each year, the Consortium for Ocean Leadership hosts a day-long public meeting to facilitate ocean policy discussions with representatives from Congress, the federal agencies, industry, and the academic research community. This year’s forum was focused on the science of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes restoration and offered a valuable opportunity to engage in dialogue with speakers on the three panels: The Role of Science in Restoration Planning; Lessons Learned and Challenges Facing other National Restoration Efforts; and The Future of Restoration: Gulf of Mexico Case Study.
Dr. Alan Thornhill, Chief Environmental Officer Senator Mark Begich Dr. Margaret Leinen, Associate Provost (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management) (D-Alaska) (Florida Atlantic University)
Table of Contents
Congressional Speakers
Senator Mark Begich – D-Alaska ...... 1 Senator Lisa Murkowski – R-Alaska ...... 2 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – D-Rhode Island ...... 3 Representative Bill Cassidy – 6th District, Louisiana, U.S. House of Representatives ...... 4 Representative Kathy Castor – 11th District, Florida, U.S. House of Representatives ...... 5
Featured Speakers
Robert Detrick, Ph.D. – NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research ...... 6 Margaret Leinen, Ph.D. – Florida Atlantic University ...... 8 Alan Thornhill, Ph.D. – Bureau of Ocean Energy Management ...... 9
Panel Discussions
Panel 1: The Role of Science in Restoration Planning ...... 11 Bill Boicourt, Ph.D. – University of Maryland ...... 11 Anne Guerry, Ph.D. – The Natural Capital Project ...... 11 Bob Haddad, Ph.D. – NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration ...... 13 Steve Murawski, Ph.D. – University of South Florida ...... 14 Panel 2: Lessons Learned and Challenges Facing other National Restoration Efforts ...... 15 Rich Batiuk – EPA’s Chesapeake Program Office ...... 15 Marie Colton, Ph.D. – NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory ...... 16 Curtis Tanner – Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project ...... 17 Fran Ulmer – United States Arctic Research Commission ...... 18 Panel 3: The Future of Restoration: Gulf of Mexico Case Study ...... 20 John Hankinson, Jr. – Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force ...... 20 David Kennedy – NOAA’s National Ocean Service ...... 21 R. Eugene Turner, Ph.D. – Louisiana State University...... 22
ii
Speaker Biographies ...... 24 Rich Batiuk ...... 25 Senator Mark Begich ...... 25 Don Boesch ...... 25 Bill Boicourt ...... 26 Representative Bill Cassidy ...... 26 Representative Kathy Castor ...... 27 Marie Colton ...... 27 Robert Detrick ...... 27 Anne Guerry ...... 28 Bob Haddad ...... 28 John Hankinson ...... 29 David Kennedy ...... 29 Margaret Leinen ...... 30 Steven Murawski...... 30 Senator Lisa Murkowski ...... 31 Nancy Rabalais ...... 31 Curtis Tanner ...... 31 Alan Thornhill ...... 32 Eugene Turner ...... 32 Fran Ulmer ...... 32 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse ...... 33
iii
Congressional Speaker
Senator Mark Begich – D-Alaska
Senator Mark Begich discussed emerging challenges and opportunities that climate change presents in the Arctic, particularly as they relate to harnessing and properly managing Arctic natural resources. While issues in the region often center on oil and gas development and fisheries, Begich highlighted specific navigational challenges arising in these areas. Sea ice changes in the Arctic are impacting transportation for cargo and tourism reasons. For example, traditionally, roughly 50 ships move through the Bering Strait each year; however, this year, nearly 1,000 ships are expected to move through the Bering Strait. In addition, there is rising competition for access to Arctic resources among Arctic and non-Arctic nations. He stressed that our current state of knowledge is insufficient to address and respond to these and other issues and that we must begin to deepen our understanding of the Arctic. th Senator Begich highlights important In the 112 Congress, the Senator introduced two opportunities and challenges in the Arctic. important pieces of legislation pertaining to the Arctic: the Arctic Photo Credit: Will Ramos Ocean Research, Monitoring and Observing Act and the Arctic Science Endowment Act. The goal of these Acts is to expand resources in support of ongoing work in the Arctic, as well as to enhance Arctic research. The Arctic environment and Arctic-related activities are particularly precarious, with potentially huge changes occurring in the near future. For instance, there may be access to many more barrels of oil and an opportunity to extend our continental shelf with access to additional marine resources. In fact, signing the Law of the Sea Convention would double the size of our continental shelf to an area twice the size of California. Other issues Begich discussed pertain to budgets and investments. Begich noted the U.S. Coast Guard budgeted $8 million this year for design work on a new polar class icebreaker to supplement the nation’s aging fleet of heavy icebreakers. Future years will include a total of $860 million for construction of the new icebreaker. This is a step in the right direction. The Arctic represents an increasingly important component of our national economy, which is reflected in how funds are being directed. For example, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has spent nearly $60 million in the Arctic in recent years conducting baseline studies, which was half of their national research budget. Many other organizations are spending a substantial amount of research money in the area as well. Substantial opportunities exist for moving forward in the Arctic. According to Begich, many people are beginning to understand certain issues or aspects of change occurring in the Arctic, such as ocean acidification, warming ocean waters, industrial movements or wind farms, for instance. Yet, they often do not understand the full scale of issues impacting our oceans. Begich is working with Senator John Kerry to address a variety of ocean issues and elevate discussions to a much higher level. He further stated that prioritizing existing resources and efforts will be essential under tight fiscal constraints. Long-term planning is crucial, and communicating to policymakers the long-term benefits derived from making the right decisions short- term will be an instrumental component in these efforts.
Bob Gagosian, Consortium for Ocean Leadership President and GEO, introduces Senator Begich. Photo Credit: Will Ramos
1
Congressional Speaker
Senator Lisa Murkowski – R-Alaska
Senator Lisa Murkowski opened her address highlighting the diversity of resources in Alaska. The state attracts world class research due to its geographic characteristics − 44,000 miles of coastline, proximity to the Arctic and Pacific Oceans, diverse ecosystems and natural resources − all of which benefit the economy and population. She noted that Alaska faces other environmental challenges, such as coastal erosion that has been exacerbated by warming ocean temperatures and receding sea ice. Less sea ice allows increased wave action against the shore in the winter that, in turn, is causing erosion at rates never before experienced. Alaska’s smaller population and responsible management practices place great value on natural resources. However, coastal communities continue to be vulnerable due to their exposure to winter sea storms, severe wave action and Senator Murkowski discusses existing challenges flooding from ice jams, and they are being forced to relocate facing Alaska. further inland. Murkowski noted that moving entire Photo Credit: Will Ramos communities is a costly endeavor. In 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) projected that three small Alaskan villages have between 10 and 15 years before their current locations are lost to erosion. With populations of only 300-400 each, estimated relocation costs for these three villages ranged from $200 to $800 million each. In addition, many small communities fail to meet USACE requirements for relocation studies and assistance. The Government Accountability Office released a series of reports over the past decade that identified at least 31 high-risk villages facing imminent threat from flooding and erosion. Despite the numerous federal programs, rural communities have been consistently deemed to be ineligible for these programs. In response to this, Murkowski helped to pass legislation that established the Alaska Coastal Erosion Program within the USACE to allow funding programs for relocation of these communities. Despite these efforts, she said they are experiencing shrinking budgets and dwindling funds. Alaska has further developed relationships with many groups to grapple with a variety of other issues the state is facing. For instance, some places are experiencing coastal erosion, while glaciers are rebounding and land is being added in other areas. To study the potential consequences of Alaska’s changing landscape, the Region Ocean Observation System has partnered with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the state and various industries to pursue data collection, coordination and sharing initiatives. The Senator discussed the long-term clean- up efforts from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill of 1989 and emphasized the importance of investments in oil spill prevention and response infrastructure. Murkowski closed by reflecting on the current fiscal climate. In comparison to fiscal year 2012, the National Ocean Service is experiencing a funding cut, although funds to ocean and atmospheric research programs are increasing. She emphasized that maintaining the same level of funding should be considered a success under the current economic climate. However, whether requests are actually funded is the big question, and sequestration for everybody remains the great unknown. As a result, she encouraged groups to become smarter in the ways they use federal money, increase collaboration and seek out new partnerships to address restoration.
2
Congressional Speaker
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – D-Rhode Island
The final Member of Congress to address the 2012 Public Policy Forum was Senator Whitehouse, a founding member and Co-Chair of the Senate Oceans Caucus. He framed the fight for restoration funding within the constraints of a challenging political climate and stressed that sound science is instrumental in shaping smart ocean policy. He feels that in addition to a difficult political climate, restoration efforts are also faced with a changing and challenging natural climate. Science is struggling to keep pace with changes occurring in the oceans due to climate change, development, and natural resource management. Senator Whitehouse offered several examples to demonstrate the gravity of at-risk ocean and coastal ecosystems that support fisheries, marine trade, tourism and the economy. For instance, 15 percent of our oceans are Senator Whitehouse discusses economic benefits of considered dead zones due to nutrient pollution; more than restoration projects. Photo Credit: Will Ramos half of all wetlands in the United States are destroyed; and 35 percent of the world’s coral reefs are in the critical or threatened stage. Whitehouse also alluded to a new fiscal reality. While there is an abundance of shovel-ready restoration projects, there is a lack of available funding to meet this demand. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) received $167 million for coastal restoration projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. They received more than 800 project proposals totaling $3 billion, of which NOAA was only able to fund only 50. Furthermore, the President’s 2012 budget cut funding for coastal restoration, protection, and monitoring programs. Whitehouse suggested that these programs should be maintained because federal restoration dollars are often used very efficiently to leverage additional state and private funding. Restoration projects are also providing tangible economic benefits. The average annual economic net benefit of restoring a 100-mile stretch of oyster reef in Alabama was estimated to be as high as $11.5 million each year. Whitehouse stated that NOAA’s Community-Based Restoration Program frequently leverages at least five times the federal dollars for projects in Rhode Island. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Estuary Programs leverage ten dollars for every federal dollar invested. The Senator also noted that restoration projects can engage volunteers and provide educational experiences at the local level. This is especially important at a time when environmental education programs are also struggling to find funding. Restoration also benefits the economy by creating jobs. Senator Whitehouse cited a report from Restore America’s Estuaries which states that more than thirty jobs are created for every $1 million invested in restoration. This is twice as many jobs as are created by the oil and gas and road and construction industries combined. Despite the challenging political and fiscal climate, Senator Whitehouse remains committed to supporting ocean and coastal restoration and science. He consistently supports state and community based grant programs through the appropriations process. He has also introduced legislation to establish a National Endowment for the Oceans which would support restoration, protection, and scientific study of ocean and coastal ecosystems. This legislation was included in the Senate-passed transportation legislation (MAP-21), but unfortunately was removed during negotiations with the House of Representatives. . Whitehouse closed by reiterating that scientists and politicians must work together to find science-based solutions for meeting environmental challenges and become caretakers of our vulnerable and valuable oceans and coasts. You can keep up to date with Senator Whitehouse’s work at www.Facebook.com/SenatorWhitehouse.
3
Congressional Speaker
Representative Bill Cassidy – 6th District, Louisiana, U.S. House of Representatives
Representative Bill Cassidy discussed the unique and often opposing elements afflicting Louisiana and the broader Gulf of Mexico region: academic solutions to environmental issues and human livelihoods. It is well understood that coastal Louisiana is experiencing severe coastal erosion as a consequence of the erection of levees along the Mississippi River, sea level change, subsidence and other factors. These factors combine to create what Representative Cassidy called an ‘existential threat for the people’s homeland.’ Cassidy shared historic maps of the region showing the changing demarcation of the coastline over time, pointing out that Lafourche and Terrebonne parishes used to extend much further into the Gulf. In addition, these receding coastlines remain extremely fragile today. To complicate the issues created by dynamically changing coastlines, Cassidy explained that local citizens often Representative Cassidy speaks about the complexity perceive academic solutions to such issues as threatening to of issues facing Louisiana. their way of life. In addition, Cassidy alluded to a fundamental Photo Credit: Will Ramos conflict of interest that arises between ocean science and citizens whose jobs rely heavily on local industry. The fisheries, oil and gas, petrochemical, and boatbuilding industries are largely perceived by citizens as sustaining and improving their families and quality of life, but which are generally regarded as the antithesis of ocean sustainability. However, Cassidy suggested that these are two complimentary aspects of restoration. He illustrated this point with a quote from a local citizen: “we’ve learned in coastal Louisiana that you cannot be pro-environmental without being pro-business, and you cannot be pro-business without being pro-environmental, because one is not sustainable without the other.” Cassidy further outlined the complexity of the situation in coastal Louisiana arising from a need to achieve balance between environmental preservation and the socioeconomic viability of communities. More specifically, natural areas that are under severe threat must be preserved and restored on the one hand, but preservation must be balanced by the livelihoods of families who depend upon the use of these natural resources in ways that make their lives tangibly better. Cassidy asked that scientific concerns be addressed with these two perspectives in mind: the fragile ocean environment and the families whose lives are affected by decisions.
Chris D’Elia, Dean of the School of the Coast and Bob Gagosian thanks Senator Murkowski Environment at Louisiana State University, following her presentation. introduces Representative Cassidy. Photo Credit: Will Ramos Photo Credit: Will Ramos 4
Congressional Speaker
Representative Kathy Castor – 11th District, Florida, U.S. House of Representatives
Representative Kathy Castor discussed responses to and potential outcomes of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the importance of the scientific community in the response and restoration of the Gulf Coast region. Immediately following the oil spill, scientists were first on the scene to survey the damage, help stop the spill and mitigate damage. Before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Castor acknowledged that the Gulf of Mexico did not have the same level of restoration and leadership efforts that had been exhibited in Alaska and the Great Lakes region. In this way, the oil spill benefited the region by enhancing environmental services to address the disaster directly, while simultaneously drawing attention to other environmental issues in the region. The opportunity that lies ahead is advocating for long-term scientific research and restoration projects in the Gulf. She feels that the BP settlement, once agreed upon, may be the most historic of its kind and the most instrumental to Gulf-wide restoration efforts. Castor suggested that the development of an ocean observing system in the Gulf would be an opportune way to support a regional Gulf Coast ecosystem restoration effort.
With strong blueprints and recommendations for Gulf Coast restoration Representative Castor discusses the having already been established, scientists and research teams are well Deepwater Horizon disaster. positioned to begin restoration work in the Gulf. Castor said that Gulf States Photo Credit: Will Ramos continue to rely on the work and recommendations of scientists in the region and the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative. Castor also spoke about the work her office is doing to advocate for the BP settlement in the Department of Justice. Based on scientists’ recommendations, a detailed letter was recently written and sent to the Attorney General. The top recommendation was to establish a long-term national endowment for the oceans that would allow for the establishment of baselines, assessments and restoration planning. She requested additional input from the ocean science community on these recommendations while the Department of Justice continues to negotiate settlement terms with BP. Caster ended her address reiterating that the BP settlement can be turned into a landmark effort to restore ocean and coastal ecosystem health.
Senator Whitehouse talks with Margaret Leinen Bob Gagosian thanks Representative Castor during a break. following her presentation. Photo Credit: Will Ramos Photo Credit: Will Ramos 5
Featured Speaker
Robert Detrick, Ph.D. - Assistant Administrator NOAA’s Office of Oceanic & Atmospheric Research
An Update on NOAA Research
Recently appointed Assistant Administrator (AA) of NOAA’s Oceanic & Atmospheric Research (OAR), Dr. Robert Detrick, discussed his vision for research at NOAA over the next five years. In addition to his duties as AA of OAR, Detrick is acting as a Deputy Chief Scientist, Chair of NOAA’s Research Council and Head of NOAA’s Climate Goal. The OAR conducts long-term research that advances NOAA’s mission. Three overarching principles frame the vision for OAR research over the next five years. First, OAR will conduct long-term, applied research to innovate tools and techniques which will transition to operation and support and advance NOAA’s mission. In addition, they will apply an integrated earth-systems approach to research that also addresses human impacts on the environment. The second principle is to cultivate partnerships, particularly in light of tight budget constraints that, according to Detrick, are likely to persist in the coming years. This pertains to internal collaborations with other line organizations within NOAA and external collaborations with academic communities through cooperative institutes, Sea Grant programs, Regional Integrated Science Assessments and external grant programs. He also stressed a need to strengthen partnerships with other federal and state agencies, non-profits and the private sector to leverage investments and adapt to limited resources. The last guiding principle is embracing new technologies. Detrick expressed that NOAA and OAR must explore new ways to become more efficient and effective with fewer resources. Detrick also talked about NOAA’s challenging budget environment. Current budget challenges involve external pressures from the federal deficit and reductions in federal spending, as well as internal challenges largely related to escalating costs of NOAA’s satellite programs. In fact, he stated that the ratio of Procurement, Acquisition and Construction (PAC) costs to the overall budget have risen approximately 10% over the past three years from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013. This internal pressure is creating difficulties in balancing service costs with NOAA’s research and stewardship functions. Despite NOAA receiving an appropriated budget increase of $300 million in fiscal year 2012, most of this Figure 1: Operational tool to measure wave heights and loop increase was directed to the satellite systems and currents for oil spill response. OAR took a significant 10 percent overall reduction. However, the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget recommended a 7.6 percent increase for OAR. If enacted, this budget would help restore certain fiscal year 2012 budget cuts as well as some provide some increases to climate activities, weather and air chemistry research, and high performance computing. Detrick informed the group that NOAA has dropped its proposal for a separate Climate Service in the FY13 President’s budget. As a result, OAR will retain its goals to advance climate research and develop climate services for the Nation within its current organizational structure. Detrick provided several examples of OAR research that has been important for restoration, disaster response and environmental prediction efforts. Several projects related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill involved ecosystem and damage assessments, restoration and building baseline data. In addition, OAR’s Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (AOML) used satellite altimetry data to map sea surface heights to monitor ocean surface
6 currents and loop currents during the oil spill, which has now become an operational tool for monitoring and future oil spill response (Figure 1). NOAA’s Sea Grant program was an important partner in the oil spill response as well by helping to respond to social impacts of the spill, mitigating and stabilizing salt marshes and developing a “living shoreline restoration.” Other OAR disaster response projects include research models to improve tsunami warning and height prediction in Hawaii and Alaska, modeling the transport of radioactive particles following the Fukushima nuclear reactor explosion, and monitoring and predicting ice cover change in the Great Lakes region. NOAA’s Science Advisory (SAB) board recently launched a new review to provide advice on NOAA’s research and development portfolio. SAB established a Task Force with two primary tasks: 1) to review NOAA’s basic and applied research and development portfolio and the creation and transfer of knowledge and technology, and 2) to look at the organization and management of the research portfolio and recommend changes. Detrick noted that the external science community will play a role in reviewing the composition and management of NOAA’s portfolio. He believes the coupling of an internal strategic plan and external review process is expected to help layout a strong and clear five-year vision for OAR.
Margaret Leinen discusses the status of the Gulf of Rich Batiuk discusses pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. Mexico Research Initiative. Photo Credit: Will Ramos Photo Credit: Will Ramos
7
Featured Speaker
Margaret Leinen, Ph.D. – Associate Provost Florida Atlantic University
An Update on the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative
Dr. Leinen provided an update on the future direction of the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI). The GoMRI was formed to administer the $500 million obligation by BP to understand the fates and effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. According to BP, the Initiative was a “no strings attached” investment in independent research for a 10-year period. Awards were determined by a peer-review process through an independent National Science Board. Headed by Dr. Rita Colwell, the board consists of twenty members from research universities in the Gulf region as well as non-regional entities, including ten appointed by BP and ten appointed by the Governors of the five Gulf States. The two main goals of GoMRI are: 1) to study the effects of the Deepwater Horizon incident and associated impacts of this and similar incidents on environmental and public health, and 2) to develop improvements for spill mitigation, oil detection and new remediation technologies. Through the 2011 conference facilitated by the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, in conjunction with NOAA, GoMRI further identified five research themes: 1) physical distribution of contaminants, 2) chemical evolution and biological degradation of contaminants, 3) environmental effects and ecosystem recovery, 4) technological developments and 5) public health impacts. Grants were distributed during the first year of the program without peer reviews to allow for rapid research response for purposes of establishing baseline data for impacts as soon as possible and for subsequent research. BP provided $45 million in grants to Gulf States and to the National Institutes of Health during this first year, which resulted in money allocated to 33 institutions total. The first competitive peer review section of BP funding was a RFP that made available $1.5 million during the summer to continue sampling efforts. These samples had to be available for subsequent research. The largest pool of funds made available by the GoMRI was under RFP-I, released in April 2011, for proposals for consortia of at least four institutions to conduct interdisciplinary work on one or more of the research themes over a three-year period (Figure 2). They awarded $112.5 million to eight consortia for this three-year period. These awards included expertise from across the country, though most principal investigators were from Gulf States. A second RFP released in December 2011 focused on smaller awards in response to a large number of strong proposals that existed but that didn’t fit into the consortia criteria. These are single projects with three co- investigators in the $100,000 to $1 million range. The GoMRI received 630 letters of intent with a deadline of March 8. The Consortium for Ocean Leadership assisted with the peer review process and engaged a number of people with grant management experience in government to act as advisors to ensure it remained a competitive and transparent peer review process. Leinen discussed GoMRI’s data management Figure 2: GoMRI awards as of December 31, 2011 (RFPs I policy and principles on how they handle the vast amount and III). of new data these projects generate. For instance, they established policies for timely submissions of data to existing national databases. A portal will be placed on GoMRI’s website to funnel users to the data. GoMRI is holding an annual meeting in January 2013 in New Orleans to make investigators aware of the work being conducted and enhance communication among and between principal investigators. In the future, GoMRI will play a role in fostering clear communication between all investigators as well as with synthesizing the data.
8
Featured Speaker
Alan Thornhill, Ph.D. – Chief Environmental Officer Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Department of Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Marine Minerals Program Restoration Activities
Dr. Thornhill discussed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) Marine Minerals Program (MMP) and its role in shoreline restoration. The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act assigns the Secretary of the Interior the responsibility for the administration of mineral exploration and development of the OCS; the Secretary delegated this authority to BOEM. To date, BOEM has conveyed rights to about 58 million cubic yards of OCS sand for 31 coastal restoration projects in 5 states, effectively restoring more than 180 miles of the nation’s shorelines. Thornhill discussed how restoration and storm protection, in particular, impact coastlines, beaches, dunes and barrier islands. He focused on two main topics: 1) BOEM’s role in restoration of these important features of coastlines and 2) the impacts and costs of restoration. Thornhill stated that the MMP has made significant impacts to a variety of programs relevant to shoreline restoration, including projects related to launch pads, storm infrastructure, habitat restoration and beach tourism. BOEM has also been engaged in resource identification and environmental studies for several decades, specifically in the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico. Thornhill noted that the demand for beach sand and nourishment is rising dramatically. Consequently, there is a growing gap between the amount of work that the Bureau has the capacity to perform and the number of proposed projects (Figure 3). Moreover, the number of projects is expected to increase in the coming years due to changes in sea level and storm activity. Figure 3: BOEM’s history of project workload and staff history. Additionally, Thornhill reflected that wetlands and barrier island restoration projects are never actually complete; these areas are in need of continual replenishment following storms and to combat ongoing natural processes. There are several major issues the MMP must consider in relation to sand sourcing activities. Beach quality and identification of new sources of marine materials are major issues, particularly in light of increased demands. Sand management working groups were established to engage stakeholders to help identify high priority areas and grain sizes that are needed, as well as sources for these grain sizes. BOEM has historically worked collaboratively with various states under state cooperative agreements to identify and assess sand resources on the OCS. They are building Geographic Information System (GIS) layers to show sand type and quality on the OCS. Many coastal states have partnered with BOEM to prevent the need to find last-minute resources in response to disasters. Thornhill discussed that shoreline restoration can have environmental impacts, such as disturbances to natural habitat and physical coastal transport. BOEM is required to follow all laws and regulations in order to minimize the impacts to the maximum extent practicable including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106. BOEM has conducted more than 40 environmental studies focused on mitigating and monitoring impacts of dredging activities for marine minerals. He emphasized the need
9
for archaeological sites to continue being mapped and understood with consideration of exclusion zones around these areas put into place before restoration and sourcing for sand proceeds. Future challenges to coastal restoration include an increasing need for OCS materials for restoration projects, a decreasing supply of these materials in state waters and increasing sea level and storm activity. Thornhill noted that beach nourishment projects cost on the order of tens of millions of dollars for project operations, and the Nation’s ability to provide access to the sand and gravel resources will require adequate funding from appropriate sources. Thornhill stressed that since state resources are becoming depleted, sources more often come from federal waters that are further from the coast, increasing project costs. Location for source material for beach re-nourishment projects are beginning to compete with wind farm sites, representing a conflict of interest over use of the OCS in the future. Despite these challenges, Thornhill emphasized that while beach nourishment is not a permanent solution, it remains an important barrier to storm loss. BOEM is addressing many challenges in several strategic ways. They are identifying regional resources, prioritizing projects and streamlining their process using environmental studies to identify sediment resources ahead of time and fill information gaps. They are also setting up monitoring efforts. Lastly, BOEM considers multi-use issues and is working to make information on sand resources more publicly accessible. The MMP currently has several projects underway in various states, and many future projects are waiting funding, which can be viewed at: http://www.boem.gov/Non-Energy-Minerals/Marine-Minerals-Program.aspx.
Alan Thornhill discusses restoration efforts at the Bureau Bob Haddad discusses Natural Resource Damage of Ocean Energy Management. Assessment framework tools. Photo Credit: Will Ramos Photo Credit: Will Ramos
10
Panel 1: The Role of Science in Restoration Planning
Bill Boicourt, Ph.D. – Professor, Center for Environmental Science University of Maryland
Dr. Boicourt discussed the role and advancements associated with monitoring in restoration science. Monitoring programs that were initially exploratory have helped provide a type of baseline and assessment for restoration efforts. However, he cautioned that monitoring efforts are expensive and oftentimes must be justified by highlighting the benefits of monitoring. Monitoring provides continual information, which plays an important role in providing evidence that there is progression towards established restoration goals. In this way, monitoring is essential for gaining political support by showing that money is being invested wisely. He also argued that more rapid assessments are needed to address natural short-term variability. In fact, he mentioned that techniques now exist that can extract the short-term natural variability from the slower changes associated with degradation and restoration. Boicourt discussed several approaches to monitoring. First, science must be an integral component of monitoring from the beginning stages of implementation to provide continual analysis and assessments in an inherently variable ecosystem. New technologies are especially important to monitoring efforts as well, such as satellites, numerical models and robots, which are being used more operationally by the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). He further illustrated the variety of observation techniques being used in the Gulf of Mexico, ranging from ships and buoys to robots and satellites (Figure 4). These techniques highlight the cooperative response to observation in the Gulf Region, which he feels is indicative of the direction of future efforts. Other examples that illustrate the importance and benefits of Figure 4: Observation techniques are used collaboratively for monitoring include the close monitoring of loop research on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. currents in the Atlantic Ocean following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and using real-time surface temperature data as input to weather models, which were crucial in accurately forecasting sustained winds during Hurricane Irene. Biocourt’s final example was a cooperative agreement for monitoring fisheries in California coastal areas that has operated for over 60 years with huge scientific results. Boicourt suggested there must be a clear purpose for a monitoring activity to extract real benefit and value from the effort. He reiterated that a primary benefit of monitoring is being able to track and adapt restoration efforts as needed, which in turn helps justify the costs by demonstrating progress toward goals. Boicourt concluded by stressing that collaborative science is a crucial component of monitoring programs. He stated that it not only enables scientists to better detect and place fluctuations in context, but collaboration facilitates data sharing in ways never done before. He noted that through collaboration comes the benefit of monitoring.
Anne Guerry, Ph.D. – Lead Scientist, the Natural Capital Project
Dr. Guerry discussed the Natural Capital Project (NatCap) and approaches to leveraging restoration funds. Guerry identified five types of capital that exist within academic sectors: natural, financial, built, human and social. The NatCap’s aim is to develop science to support decision making, particularly developing new accounting methods and tools that include natural capital in resource decision making.
11
Guerry presented six lessons on natural capital and restoration. First, oceans and coasts provide diverse ecosystem services. To illustrate this fact, she explained that oyster reefs build habitat for fish species, filter water, remove suspended solids and nutrients from water, and provide protection from storms through attenuation of waves. Second, degraded systems offer fewer benefits. For instance, she explained that a smaller reef with fewer oysters results in fewer finfish, less submerged aquatic vegetation, lower water quality and higher risk of flooding and coastal erosion. The third lesson was that restoration brings back lost benefits. A study of 89 restoration assessments from across the world showed that restoration increased ecosystem services by 25 percent and biodiversity by 44 percent, compared to degraded states. Fourth, the value of nature’s benefits can be enjoyed in many ways. She noted that the NatCap is developing an accounting tool that provides a way to attach value on specific ecosystem services, such as through quantitative assessments (Figure 5). This tool was developed in response to the fact that the value of natural capital is often represented as a number that fails to include an actionable item; in other words, these numbers don’t Figure 5: Natural Capital’s accounting tool shows the necessarily tell the user what can be done. However, she feels multiple benefits of ecosystem services. that marginal values that indicate how certain changes in natural capital lead to certain benefits are much more useful. Another example of valuing natural capital is identifying returns on investments. The project modeled the restoration of 10 hectares of sea grass and used scenarios to determine how this restoration mitigates the impacts of major hurricanes. They found that for every $1 spent in restoration, it gave $1.83 back in protective services alone. The fifth lesson on natural capital and restoration is that restoration of coastal systems and marine systems are more expensive than terrestrial counterparts. However, under the same sea grass restoration modeling scenario, if a major hurricane strikes, they found that for every $1 spent in conservation, it gave $833 back. Thus, she stressed that investing in conservation is always a better return on investment. The sixth and final lesson was that economic benefits of restoration across sectors can outweigh costs. In a study looking at restoration of grazing lands in South Africa, restoration did not provide great returns with respect to cattle, yet it yielded large gains in tourism, water quality, carbon and water supply. Guerry highlighted examples of the multiple benefits derived from the restoration of oyster reefs. She stated that, globally, about 85 percent of oyster reefs have been lost. In the United States, opportunities for conservation exist in the Gulf of Mexico particularly. She explained that reef restoration in the United States has generally focused on hazard mitigation and short-term benefits of harvests, what some people call “put and take.” Instead, she feels the focus should be directed to rebuilding natural capital, yet this only makes sense within a long time frame to ensure the sustainability of oyster harvests. She provided an example of a project conducted through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act with NOAA that helped The Nature Conservancy rebuild oyster reefs and create marshes in Mobile Bay, Alabama. Their project used modeling design scenarios to locate the best placement of reefs, which ultimately restored three and a half miles of reefs and created ancillary benefits through yields in fisheries and improved water quality. According to NOAA, for every $1 million invested in coastal restoration through the Restoration and Recovery Act, between 17 and 30 jobs are created. Lastly, Guerry emphasized that a high demand for restoration projects exists. NOAA’s budget for coastal restoration is $680 million in requests for proposals (RFPs), yet they received $3 billion in requests. Better approaches and new sources of funding for restoration projects are needed. She concluded that smart restoration projects can indeed maximize diverse benefits and can help shift incentives to redirect existing funds. Moving forward, the focus needs to be rebuilding capital to preserve the remaining principle that exists for future generations.
12
Bob Haddad, Ph.D. – Chief, Assessment and Restoration Division NOAA Office of Response and Restoration
Dr. Haddad discussed the role of damage assessments in restoration planning. Assessment tools are critical for understanding the scope and magnitude of injuries, and they feed into the remedy and ultimately the restoration. Assessments are required for a Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA), which is a legal process where trustees must prove that a release and exposure has occurred that resulted in adverse impacts (or injuries) to natural resources. Haddad explained the four main components of the NRDA framework, which are: pathway, exposure, release, and injury. Causality must be proven between exposure and injury, and baselines are key components to establishing causality. If a baseline is unavailable, he said it becomes much more difficult to make the case for causality. Haddad suggested that baseline data are particularly needed in the Arctic due to the rapid rate of change occurring in the region. Haddad described the various tools and techniques used in each of the four components of the NRDA framework. To determine a pathway to injury, mathematical models are a primary tool used to map where pollutants travel and for identifying affected areas of oil spills and other disasters. Remote sensing tools are useful in investigating exposure, including integrated satellite data and high-resolution aerial photography. When events cover large geographic areas, remote sensing is particularly useful for identifying the aerial extent of the event, visualizing the nature of the exposed area and identifying resources that are exposed. For instance, Dr. Haddad illustrated that the locations of sea turtles and marine mammals Figure 6: Remote sensing and GIS help map exposure of large-scale events. following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill were mapped using a combination of remote sensing and geographic information systems (Figure 6). Telemetry was another tool used to assess the impacts of the oil spill on marine and bird species. Marine vehicles, including ROVs, AUVs, and submarines, are used to collect samples and information on exposure. New collection techniques are being developed to obtain measurements that capture greater sensitivity. Haddad stressed that new tools and methods from across different scientific disciplines are currently being used in NRD assessments to: 1) measure exposure levels to certain pollutants; 2) identify injury from specific events; and 3) establish causality between the exposure and the injury. He provided several examples of some new tools and methods that have been used successfully to establish these causal links. These include comparing embryo development and mortality rates between oiled versus non-oiled sites, microarrays to conduct gene fingerprinting, field work to observe the animals through catch-and-release health exams, and tagging animals to track them with satellite surveillance. Toxicological evaluations of exposure include looking at endpoints that result in death or chronic disease, as well as developmental and behavioral endpoints, which are then integrated with field-derived exposure data to produce injury assessments. All of these tools provide data and a key component of rapid response injury assessment studies is the effective management of these data. NOAA is managing the large amount of data collected in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill through new techniques in data warehousing. They use business models to more effectively mine data and increase access to data for use by scientists and stakeholders. Restoration is the end goal of the NRDA process. To achieve restoration goals, Haddad emphasized a need for continued partnerships between federal agencies, stakeholders, academia, and NGOs. In addition, better tools are needed to enable more rapid approaches for collecting data and understanding events and impacts. He suggested a need for more robust models, and suggested that NOAA work with others to better understand the scientific process of modeling and model output. He closed by saying that the most difficult thing he has experienced with NRDA is bringing an ecosystem injury assessment to a judge and getting the judge to fully understand the information. More information, as well as suggestions for future restoration efforts, can be found at: response.restoration.noaa.gov. 13
Steve Murawski, Ph.D. – Research Professor, College of Marine Science University of South Florida
Dr. Murawski discussed the baseline science needed for environmental restoration of species, habitats and ecosystems. Baseline data represent an important and pivotal restoration issue. He stressed that while many restoration activities have centered on the aftermath of the BP oil spill in recent years, baselines are important to broader restoration issues. They are crucial to the environmental restoration of species, the establishment of well- developed fisheries, and recovery planning at both state and federal levels for specific habitats affected by manmade and natural disturbances. According to Murawski, baselines serve three major roles: 1) provide a scale against which we can assess injury from shock, 2) aid in setting objectives and assessing whether goals are achievable, and 3) inform choices of goals and trajectories of where to go and how to get there. The availability and reliability of long-term historical data poses particular problems when addressing chronic, long-term ecosystem loss. For example, restoration of depleted mangrove ecosystems in Florida due to development over the past century is much more difficult and speculative since data collection didn’t occur a century ago. However, long-term baselines of Louisiana wetlands and nutrient inputs are much better due to work efforts to previously establish these data. Murawski cautioned that the inherent complexities of baselines can reduce their usefulness. He referenced a study by Duarte et al. (2009) that showed that even if a baseline is selected and the proximal cause of injury is turned off, the outcome may still not be restoration to a previous or desired state. In addition, he pointed out that baselines are dynamic but do not always shift linearly, and they can exhibit odd behavior due to other environmental factors acting on the ecosystem (Figure 7). Due to the complexities involved in baselines, achieving goals and claiming success with restoration efforts can be problematic. Furthermore, Murawski stated that oftentimes restoration goals are set too low based on nominal baseline data. For instance, projections of species recovery from baseline data may not fully reflect past or future Figure 7: Shifting baselines affect restoration targets (from species populations if baseline data do not extend Duarte et al. 2009). back far enough or take into account other environmental factors or human activities. In addition, recovery of species is not always symmetrical and may be much more variable depending on a species’ life history. These complexities reflect a role for models in determining restoration projections and for adaptive frameworks to better determine whether baselines are set appropriately. Adaptive management can also help illustrate the importance of ongoing monitoring and research. Along with providing data for assessing injury, baselines are needed for investigations of topical research questions. Murawski provided an example from his own research on the aftermath of the BP oil spill to emphasize the general lack of baseline data. His research investigated whether the higher incidences of diseased fish found in the northern Gulf of Mexico is normal or the result of the oil spill. Without sufficient historic data with which to compare disease incidence rates, he said that determining the causality of these cases became (and continues to be) much more challenging. Murawski argued that these gaps make injury assessments much more complex and difficult. Closing gaps will require identifying priority regions and increasing baseline monitoring through a more robust and directive observing program.
14
Panel 2: Lessons Learned and Challenges Facing other National Restoration Efforts
Rich Batiuk – Associate Director of Science Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Chesapeake Program Office
Dr. Rich Batiuk discussed the successes and challenges of a regulatory pollution load reduction program implemented in the Chesapeake Bay region, legally called a TMDL or total maximum daily load but referred to as the “Bay pollution diet.” The Chesapeake Bay has around 11,000 miles of shoreline. Between the 1950s and 1990s, the population of the Chesapeake Bay doubled from about 8 million to 16 million and currently stands at more than 17 million. In addition, the area has roughly 78,000 farmers, 1,600 municipalities and hundreds of wastewater treatment plants. Storms that move through the region also dump debris and sediment into the Bay and surrounding waterways. In fact, he noted that the area has experienced multiple 100-year storms in the past 25 years. These characteristics make it necessary to address pollution issues across multiple scales, from the six state, 64,000 square mile watershed to the local county, city, and conservation district level. The Chesapeake Bay Program conducted collaborative effort with its state partners to determine each of the six Chesapeake Bay states’ contributions of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment pollution to the Bay and how their contributions impact shared Chesapeake Bay water quality conditions. The EPA reached agreement with the watershed states that areas of the watershed with greater pound per pound impacts on Bay water quality would take on greater responsibility to reduce their impact and limit pollution accordingly. The states then divided up their load reduction responsibilities into smaller sub-state areas to better identify where the greatest sources were located and to determine the fair share for each contributor. The program received agreement from state secretaries and various people from planning, agricultural, transportation, natural resource, and regulatory agencies. With wide support, they were able to determine how to best divide it among all the key constituents, which included roughly 1,625 municipalities. He added that this is particularly difficult because the decision-making process varies across all the local jurisdictions. Batiuk explained that restoration involves both physical and human components. For instance, communicating the science to politicians is key to successful environmental management and restoration. In addition, poor agricultural management practices that threaten natural resources continue to exist. However, Batiuk stressed the challenges involved in changing people’s behavior and convincing stakeholders who are used to their own heritage that any change is beneficial. Local solutions must be found by establishing trust with stakeholders and increasing education on the interconnectedness of activities from one place to another, specifically how poor Figure 8: Long-term pollution trends in the Chesapeake Bay choices and practices in one area can result in Watershed. adverse impacts in other areas. Projects conducted by the state-federal Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership have yielded many important lessons learned. Batiuk stated that the natural environment can be used in pollution reduction and achievement of water quality standards if given the chance. In one example, he discussed how developers often capture runoff in wet or dry ponds, then build fences around these ponds to retain the water, essentially letting the water sit without use. With population growth likely increasing development, some areas around the country are now starting to utilize runoff from development projects by keeping it on site, infiltrating and evaporating the water, and using it as a 15 particular resource. Despite known benefits, he noted that communities required further convincing to alter behaviors. The program also added a regulatory component to help fund projects. For instance, blue crab harvests were dropping below their target of 200 million adult crabs, largely due to poor harvesting approaches. However, once governors and scientists began to work together to reduce fishery thresholds, they brought the population of blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay back up above their projected target. In these ways, Batiuk showed that under smarter management approaches, natural systems are able to recover largely on their own. The Chesapeake Bay watershed is seeing positive environmental responses due to better management approaches (Figure 8). Some of these responses were not immediate, however, and it has taken 20 to 30 years to fully reap the benefits. The important thing is that the response is there and adaptive management is working.
Marie Colton, Ph.D. – Director NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
The panel moderator, Dr. Colton, opened up the discussion by reviewing restoration efforts in the Great Lakes region. Colton illustrated the importance of the Great Lakes as a vast natural resource. The area contains an enormous amount of coastline that is comparable in length to the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. This freshwater ecosystem serves as the primary source of drinking water for roughly 30-40 million people on any given day, and access to this supply of surface water is crucial in light of water scarcity issues globally. She noted that these factors make the politics and management of Great Lakes resources particularly complex and challenging. Colton described legislative efforts to help initiate restoration implementation and activities. She noted that major legislative activity has led to collaborative action in the Great Lakes region, particularly the Clean Water Act and Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972. More recently in 2009, President Obama signed the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) to move planning efforts into action. In its first year, the GLRI was budgeted at $475 million with the aim of putting $1 billion every five years into Great Lakes restoration activities. With a short timeframe for defining how the $475 million was to be spent across all major topical areas (habitat, toxics, invasives, nearshore and accountability), she said it became unclear how to address science within an action-oriented approach. As such, NOAA created four main guiding principles for the GLRI, which are to: 1) build on successes using national programs with histories of effectiveness; 2) develop high-quality decision support tools and forecasts; 3) provide sound science to evaluate restoration; and 4) create jobs and partnerships. Colton explained the GLRI is funded under the Congressional Appropriations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which gives the EPA authority to move funds around as necessary. Guidance is provided at the executive level by the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and a Regional Working Group. The interagency agreements dictate how each agency spends its money, which confounds the process of moving money around. Colton stated that while there were limited national funds through the Recovery Act, the establishment of the GLRI resulted in acquisition of funds for programs that were unavailable through the Recovery Act. To date, the GLRI has managed $35 million in awards for habitat restoration programs, which make up the majority of their portfolio (Figure 9). Habitat projects are distributed across 43 main areas Figure 9: The Great Lakes Research Initiative’s funding of concern in the Great Lakes. Several fishways and management structure. rivers have been successfully restored in the region with local participation who support ongoing restoration work. Colton emphasized that restoration challenges involve many unknowns with both physical and social components. These include managing the presence of invasive species, diseased fish, loss of property, loss of interest among locals and permitting restrictions. In addition, the integration of scientific priorities and the human 16
dimensions represents other key challenges. To address this issue, the EPA science advisory board called for a science plan early on in a project and a standing science panel outside of the restoration activity. In addition, metrics should be developed to measure progress based on the underlying science, and a holistic approach to science should be used to deal with multi-stressor issues. Colton identified several lessons learned through restoration in the Great Lakes. She reiterated that a key challenge is establishing effective decision-making processes for managing large amounts of money in short time frames and making these decision-making processes more transparent. Additional challenges exist in the areas of communication, funds management, measuring success and issues of scale. She suggested these challenges yield an opportunity to integrate science with public policy to influence social dynamics and eventually become more adaptive and predictive in the management of resources.
Curtis Tanner – Project Manager Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project
Mr. Curtis Tanner discussed lessons learned from restoration efforts in Puget Sound. The Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project is a general investigation study co-sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The project was developed in response to USACE’s new mission for ecosystem restoration, which generated new restoration projects considered to be of national interest, cost effective and socially feasible. The project brought together state agencies, NGOs, academic institutions, private industry and tribal governments to find comprehensive solutions to restoration in Puget Sound. Its main goal was to identify nearshore ecosystem problems and develop a portfolio of solutions to protect and restore the area. Tanner provided a brief history of the development of Puget Sound that illustrates the unique processes that make up the ecosystem. He explained the area was developed over sequential periods of glaciation that carved deep north-south oriented troughs that eventually formed an inland sea or fjord that we call the Puget Sound today. Other major forcing factors are the rivers from the west and mountains to the east, as well as glacial till that comprise the beaches and bays. He stressed the strong relationship between these physical forcing factors and the abundance of biodiversity and ecological response in the Sound. Tanner defined nearshore ecosystems as the ecotones across which materials and energy are exchanged. This encompasses the shallow Figure 10: Areas that make up nearshore ecosystems. waters of estuarine deltas and shorelines, rivers, tides, the coastal bluffs that bring materials to the water, and nearshore waters to the depth at which light penetrates to support marine life (Figure 10). The Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project began ten years ago and brought together expertise in various areas to develop an approach for analyzing change in the Sound. The team developed a geographic information system (GIS) for the entire 2,500 miles of Puget Sound and classified the area using a geomorphic typology. GIS was also used to consider anthropogenic stressors and the conditions of the watershed. Their analysis helped form a clear set of problem statements to work with. For instance, about 60 percent of former estuaries, wetlands and mudflats are now developed areas and considered lost to the system. Many of its coastal embayments or pocket estuaries that are vital refuge and food resources for migratory species are now gone or paved over. In addition, about a third of the beaches have been armored and the source of the material that normally builds the beaches are now isolated from them. With about 15 percent of the overall length of the Sound lost and simplified 17 in more artificial ways due to development and other activities, there is less to work with in terms of restoration. Finally, the project has identified problems with cumulative effects, with at least two or more stressors having affected about 80 percent of the segments of Puget Sound. The project used these problems to develop a set of restoration objectives in the USACE program. The first objective involved reconnecting large river deltas to tides and freshwater. Secondly, they restored beaches and spits by removing those barriers to allow sediment input and transport to the beaches. Third, they removed constrictions to the coastal hydrology to restore vital coastal embayments. Fourth, they aimed to reassemble a mosaic of diverse landscapes by restoring habitats and connectivity. Tanner noted a particular challenge in taking a process-based approach to restoration and communicating the linkages between the benefits of ecosystem processes to the things people actually care about. They have been able to screen several hundred projects brought to the program by the local restoration community. Tanner explained they have developed strategic approaches for engaging partners. He also stressed that scientists and stakeholders are beginning to better understand the value of using strategic approaches in ways that shift the focus from the restoration of structure or habitat to the underlying processes that would give rise to a sustainable ecosystem, particularly by removing certain stressors so that ecosystems can naturally restore themselves. They are ultimately working towards a Water Resource Development Act authorization. In the process, however, Tanner explained that having stakeholders at the table allowed them to more easily identify more immediate and tangible benefits of their information and products. These products have informed ongoing regional restoration programs, fund allocations and local shoreline management approaches.
Fran Ulmer – Chair, United States Arctic Research Commission
Fran Ulmer’s discussion focused on the natural and industrial changes rapidly underway in the Arctic and their impacts on restoration. She highlighted several factors that make restoration activities in the Arctic particularly challenging. The Arctic is geographically vast with a multitude of ecosystems, climates, cultures and economies. Arctic air temperatures are warming twice as fast as they are globally, resulting in retreating and thinning ice, as well as subsequent changes to the ecosystems. For instance, thawing permafrost is leading to the release of methane and increased erosion. In addition, the retreat of sea ice, which normally helps to mitigate impacts from storms by acting as a blanket over waves, is accelerating erosion rates and increasing storm damage. In addition to environmental variations, rapid changes are occurring due to the industrialization of the Arctic, including oil and gas development, shipping, tourism and mining. The opening of the ‘fifth ocean’ for longer time periods will introduce access to new resources and navigation routes. This will lead to increased human activities and impacts in the coming years. To this end, Ulmer expressed an urgent need to better understand Arctic ecosystems and how they will likely be impacted by increased human activity. In fact, only seven percent of the Arctic Ocean has been mapped to modern standards. Figure 11: Increasing oil and gas development Ulmer placed particular attention on oil and gas development. in the Arctic. According to Ulmer, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates a great potential for significant and undiscovered oil and gas findings in the region. She agreed that increased oil and gas exploration is likely imminent. The Chukchi and Beaufort Seas have already been opened for lease sales and the Department of the Interior is reviewing and potentially permitting activity in these regions as early as Summer 2012 (Figure 11). The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Commission created by President Obama to investigate the underlying causes of the spill and make recommendations on safer oil and gas drilling prompted the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC) to address these same issues in the Arctic. 18
The USARC began with an analysis to identify the type of research that is most needed. Two research themes stemming from these efforts were prevention and adverse impacts, which include environmental and societal impacts. She explained that indigenous peoples of the far north are still heavily reliant on subsistence lifestyles, making them particularly vulnerable to degrading natural ecosystems. In addition to threats to subsistence culture, other challenges they identified were gaps in baseline data, cumulative impacts, shipping impacts and disaster response capabilities in challenging climate conditions. A number of Arctic marine ecosystem research projects are already addressing some of these issues; however, more work is needed in the areas of oil spill response and ice. She explained that many of the tools used in response to the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills are inadequate for the Arctic. To this end, research is needed on oil spill response technologies in ice-covered water, oil spill trajectories in cold water and ice, mechanical response tools that are operable in ice, and tools for detecting and mapping oil in and beneath ice and snow. She suggested these issues represent challenges for all Arctic countries proceeding with development plans in the region. The Arctic Council, which is made up of eight Arctic nations, is working on some of the key issues that can be addressed collectively, including oil spill response efforts. Ulmer offered several takeaways as primary foci for all constituents in the Arctic. The first is to develop a U.S. Arctic strategy to complement and effectuate Arctic policy. Ulmer said the strategy should balance conservation values with development. The second is to expand the Arctic Observing Network to enhance research and monitoring of changing conditions. A Polar Code should be developed to improve shipping safety in the Arctic to align investments with training of pilots and mariners. She reemphasized the need for research on oil spills in icy conditions, both at the agency and industry levels, and further suggested conducting oil spill response drills in the field to better train response teams. Lastly, she said that thinking internationally and learning from other Arctic nations is important, particularly by moving forward with ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Ulmer closed by suggesting that the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 underscores the importance of prevention and preparedness moving forward in such a geographically challenging region. The trust fund that resulted from the $900 million settlement from Exxon Valdez litigation allowed for the restoration of Prince William Sound. This money was spent on habitat protection, public information, sound science and scientific management that continue today. It enabled research not only on the immediate impacts of the spill but its long-term implications. The establishment of the trust fund also led to long-term monitoring and continued attention on restoration. In these ways, the trust fund serves as a model for how restoration should be done elsewhere. Additional information about the state of Arctic research and issues in the Arctic are available on the USARC website at www.arctic.gov.
Dr. Marie Colton opens the second panel discussing Curtis Tanner discusses the Puget Sound Nearshore restoration activities in the Great Lakes. Ecosystem Restoration Project. Photo Credit: Will Ramos Photo Credit: Will Ramos
19
Panel 3: The Future of Restoration: Gulf of Mexico Case Study
John Hankinson, Jr. – Executive Director Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
Mr. John Hankinson discussed the establishment of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and the progress of restoration activities underway in the Gulf. The Task Force was established in 2010 through an executive order to address the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and other chronic issues afflicting the region. The Task Force is chaired by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, Lisa Jackson, and is made up of members from 11 federal agencies and the five Gulf States. Hankinson noted that the Gulf of Mexico is a tremendous economic region with job creation, tourism and recreational benefits. It represents one-third of seafood production in the continental U.S. and more than 90 percent of the nation’s offshore crude oil and natural gas. In fact, if the economy of the five Gulf States was a separate economy, he stated it would be the seventh largest economic engine in the world. The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force used current research to identify the most important stressors to focus their Gulf restoration efforts. These include wetland loss, erosion of barrier islands and coastlines, degradation of coastal estuarine habitat, endangered fisheries, hypoxia and climate change. Hankinson stressed that wetland loss is particularly salient in coastal Louisiana where the Mississippi River delta has been disconnected from the delta-building sediment processes due to navigation and flood control structure activities. In addition, he explained that commercially and recreationally important finfish species are threatened due to overfishing and contamination. Hypoxia is particularly problematic off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. He stressed that this is the largest hypoxic zone in the U.S. (Figure 12). In December 2011, the Task Force released the Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy to address these issues. Their strategy was to pull from existing plans and studies to help steer restoration efforts. They were involved with significant and constructive engagement with citizens. The strategy’s four main goals parallel those established by the Gulf of Mexico Alliance. The first is to restore and conserve habitat. This involves reconnecting wetlands to their sources of sediment, addressing issues with natural river processes and enhancing conservation efforts. The second goal is to restore water quality, with a primary focus on nutrients. The third goal is to Figure 12: Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico caused by excess nutrient replenish and protect living coastal and marine pollution from Mississippi River drainage. resources. This includes offshore environments, oyster and coral reefs and other species. The last goal is to enhance community resilience. To this end, they recommended embracing a more comprehensive approach to working and planning that involved all stakeholders to address not just storm damage attenuation but also the importance of natural systems. The Task Force worked with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other agencies to establish an adaptive management framework for their strategy, which entailed developing a Gulf of Mexico modeling network, ecosystem services and benefit analyses, integrated decision support tools and a Gulf-wide progress report. Hankinson outlined the next steps for the Task Force moving forward. He noted that the BP settlement and legislative action on the Restore Act are essential to future activities. They will continue to create an interagency climate for good restoration moving forward to look for data needs and monitoring efforts to support continued learning and effective restoration. In addition, they expect to define restoration goals and milestones to measure progress toward their goals. Efforts will focus on identifying ways to make implementation more effective and efficient. Lastly, they expect to continue strong public and local stakeholder engagement to inform their restoration efforts and cultivate a supportive community. 20
Hankinson explained that the work conducted by the Task Force prompted the creation of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Gulf of Mexico Initiative (GoMI). The Initiative focuses on reducing water quality impacts to rivers and streams that flow into the Gulf of Mexico in seven Gulf Coast river basins. GoMI also works to enhance water conservation and wildlife habitats in the region. With a budget of $50 million, Hankinson expressed that it represents an extraordinary increase in financial assistance for watershed studies in the Gulf region. Hankinson ended by reflecting on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and how it helped restoration efforts by increasing restoration projects in conjunction with response and assessment activities in the aftermath of the spill.
David Kennedy – Assistant Administrator NOAA National Ocean Service
Mr. David Kennedy discussed the role of the National Ocean Service (NOS) in response to oil spills, and particularly to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He said the NOS responds to roughly 150 oil spills each year. They conduct science on the spills and determine whether damage assessments are needed. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was a unique and complex event in many ways. First, the site and depth at which the spill occurred made response and combatant efforts particularly difficult. Second, the Gulf’s diverse resources, habitats and high human use value added to the complexity of the situation. Kennedy explained that they operate under NOAA’s Natural Resource Damage Assessments (NRDAs). The main goal of NRDAs is to provide restoration for injuries, with injury being a measurable adverse change or impairment of a natural resource service, including human uses. Primary NRDA authorities include the Oil Pollution Act, the Clean Water Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act and others. Under the Oil Pollution Act and NRDA framework, they focus on all four components of a spill event: release, pathway, exposure and injury. More broadly, this work involves a pre-assessment screening that identifies the extent of the pathway and exposure and how well equipped they are to deal with an injury assessment. The next component is the restoration planning, which involves field studies, data evaluation and modeling to establish scoping projects and final plan development. The outcome of the NRDA is restoration. The NDRA is also a cooperative and legal process. An assessment is effectively building a case to establish causality from exposure to injury. Ultimately, the polluter pays for the damage and restoration, making the legal process a very important part of NRDA. The Deepwater Horizon Trustee Council is made up of the Navy, five federal agencies and five state trustees. These groups often operate under different priorities with conflicts of interest, making the Council’s goal of working cooperatively particularly challenging. Kennedy illustrated the scale of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill assessment activities and reiterated the complexities that were unique to this spill, such as the vast area covered by oil, the rich and diverse resources of the Gulf, the deepwater release, and additional issues that had to be addressed in the Figure 13: Locations of NOS’s Phase I early restoration projects. open water and nearshore areas. Injuries in terms of human impact were also addressed by looking at the number of lives that had been dramatically altered as a result of the spill. Kennedy provided a summary of the current status of the NRDA of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. While the majority of cleanup efforts were completed by the end of the first summer, cleanup continues today. Damage assessment groups are in the process of completing fall and winter field sampling activities, with a focus over the coming months on synthesizing, analyzing and interpreting these sampling data. Damage assessment groups have also been part of determining phase one projects and how the $1 billion will be divided among federal and state trustees. There is roughly $54 million in the first phase, which includes early restoration projects in Alabama, 21
Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi (Figure 13). While they are ready to move to the next phase and get these projects underway, he stressed that identifying the right projects and ensuring that BP and other industries are involved is a major undertaking. He provided additional sources for status information and data, including the NOAA’s assessment and restoration website: www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov, the ERMA mapping portal: www.restorethegulf.gov, response information site: http://deepwaterhorizon.noaa.gov, and the Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant: http://gulfseagrant.tamu.edu/oilspill/index.html.
R. Eugene Turner, Ph.D. – Professor, Department of Oceanography and Coastal Studies Louisiana State University
Dr. R. Eugene Turner discussed background processes driving future research efforts and priorities amongst the Gulf of Mexico scientific community. Turner began by quantifying how much habitable land there is - only four acres per person in the world, and about 5 acres in the Gulf of Mexico. This is all the area that we have to sustain healthy human systems. Therefore, Turner argued that the once-in-a-generation money arising from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement needs to be invested in restoring the Gulf’s ecosystems in order to build sustainable human-environmental systems, and to buffer the impacts of the unidentified and unexpected stressors that lie beyond our usual attention spans. The amounts could be $400 for each person in the five states, and $950 for each person in the coastal zone. Turner presented a framework that identifies four components for restoration research in the Gulf. The first is that restoration research must consider the fact that resilience has been compromised by a number of factors that predate the oil spill, e.g., hurricanes, dead zones, sea level rise and coastal land loss. Second, unknown future stressors must be considered in restoration research. Third, the Gulf must be treated as an interconnected set of systems. The last component is that research efforts must address how both human and ecosystem productivity in the Gulf are integrated and interdependent. Turner suggested that the decision matrices that exist are fragmented and that organizational needs will likely get larger as the problems become more complex. The result is that communication amongst experts and within society becomes much more difficult. Turner discussed three aspects of the complexities in restoration research that will become more important within the academic and extramural research communities. The first pertains to baseline shifts. He stressed that baseline shifts occur continuously, which makes it important to establish what the baseline data is and to clearly identify measurable restoration goals. The second aspect is to base restoration on natural systems near where restoration will occur. He explained that the Gulf of Mexico region was underpopulated with reference sites and protected areas, and that the Gulf residents do not have sufficient engagement with K-12 education programs. Texas, for example, established its first National Estuarine Research Reserve within the last few years, and Louisiana, which has 40% of the coastal wetlands in the US, has none. States need to use existing Federally- Figure 14: The relationship between the area of fertilized farmland and government subsidies for 29% of the coterminous U.S. (from funded programs more effectively to establish Broussard et al. 2012. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, protected areas, educational opportunities, and 158: 103-109). reference sites. A third complexity is related to the fact that all Gulf States are negatively affected by nutrient over- enrichment. Turner explained that nitrogen loading from land to estuaries is usually proportional to human activity and population density. Nutrients arising from agricultural land use in the Mississippi River watershed, for example, contribute to coastal wetland. Dead zones, toxic algal blooms and submerged grassbed losses are caused by nutrient 22
enrichment of coastal water bodies. Turner noted that reducing nutrient loading is a governance issue more than a scientific one. He argued, for example, that even though subsidies from Farm Bill are a small percentage of the gross income for farms, they can be a large percentage of the net profit. And so it should be no surprise that these subsidies drive agricultural land use (Figure 14) which affects water quality in the Mississippi River at New Orleans. This means that food security, agricultural trade, and other issues are linked to the efficacy of restoration in the Gulf. He suggested addressing this issue by establishing demonstration watershed sites large enough to engage the whole system – systems that include the subtleties of regional differences in social, economic, governance, cultural and natural systems. Funding to establish and maintain 5 of these demonstration watersheds could come from the BP settlements. About 10 percent of these funds spread over 20 years would be enough for each system to learn and develop, essentially establishing “living laboratories.” for agriculture and Gulf restoration.
R. Eugene Turner discusses extramural research in John Hankinson listens as David Kennedy discusses the Gulf of Mexico. the oil spill response. Photo Credit: Will Ramos Photo Credit: Will Ramos
23
Speaker Biographies
Don Boesch from the University of Maryland Center for John Hankinson provides an update on restoration activities Environmental Science introduces the third panel. in the Gulf Region. Photo Credit: Will Ramos Photo Credit: Will Ramos
24
Rich Batiuk
Rich Batiuk is the Associate Director for Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program Office located in Annapolis, Maryland. In his 27 years with EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership, he has led the integration of science into multi-partner decision-making. On a daily basis, Rich is responsible for providing basinwide monitoring network coordination, model simulation and analysis, information technology and data sharing, web-based and geographical communication, programmatic implementation effectiveness and efficiency evaluation, and watershed implementation plan programmatic and technical support to the Bay Program partners and stakeholders. This work is accomplished through multiple teams of very talented and extremely dedicated colleagues at the Bay Program Office. He is now focused on helping lead efforts to use EPA’s December 2010 publication of the watershed-wide Bay TMDL pollution diet to help state and local partners accelerate on-the-ground implementation of the nutrient and sediment reduction actions to restore local waterways and the Bay. He received his B.S. in Environmental Science from the University of New Hampshire in 1984 and his M.S. in Environmental Toxicology from American University in Washington D.C. in 1985.
Senator Mark Begich
Senator Mark Begich was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2008 after serving as the Mayor of Anchorage since April 2003. This is his third year representing Alaska in the U.S. Senate. Born and raised in Anchorage, Senator Begich's priorities include focusing on a national energy policy that includes Alaska's oil and gas resources, an Alaska natural gas pipeline and the many renewable resources in Alaska. He was recently named chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and the Coast Guard, under the Senate Committee on Science, Commerce and Transportation, which has broad jurisdiction over important Alaska issues. With Alaska at "ground-zero" of global climate change, he has introduced the Inuvikput Package, seven pieces of legislation designed to help Alaska and the nation adapt to new challenges and opportunities due to the diminishing polar ice pack. A businessman for more than 20 years, Senator Begich is bringing his business acumen to the work in the Senate. His extensive experience in public office, along with service to dozens of non-profits and community groups, all add to his know-how and ability to get things done.
Don Boesch
Dr. Boesch is the current President of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (CEES), where he is also a Professor of Marine Science and Vice Chancellor for Environmental Sustainability for the University System of Maryland. Dr. Boesch is also a member to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, appointed by President Obama. Additionally, he is the present Chair of the National Research Council's Ocean Studies Board. Dr. Boesch is active in extending knowledge to environmental and resource management at regional, national and international level, and has served as a science advisor to many state and federal agencies and programs. He is internationally known as a marine ecologist who has conducted research in coastal and continental shelf environments along the Atlantic Coast, in the Gulf of Mexico, eastern Australia and the East China Sea.
25
He has published two books and more than 50 papers on a variety of marine science and policy topics including oil pollution, estuaries and wetlands. Presently, his research focuses on the use of science in ecosystem management. In 2010, Dr. Boesch received the Outdoors Maryland Award for Stewardship of the Environment from Maryland Public Television. A native of New Orleans, Dr. Boesch received his B.S. from Tulane University and Ph.D. from the College of William & Mary. In 1980 he became the first Executive Director of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium while a Professor at Louisiana State University.
Bill Boicourt
Dr. Boicourt is a professor at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Sciences Horn Point Laboratories. His areas of research expertise include physical oceanographic processes, continental shelf, and estuarine circulation. He received his B.A. Degree in Physics from Amherst College in 1966 and in 1968 he was a Summer Student Fellow at WHOI. He later earned a master's degree in 1969 and a doctorate in 1973 in Physical Oceanography from Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Boicourt is author and co-author of numerous papers, articles and books that focus primarily on estuaries and the continental shelf. He is also the distinguished recipient of the Bostwick H. Ketchum Award, an endowed lectureship administered by the WHOI Coastal Research Center. He is a member of the MARACOOS Board of Directors, and started the Chesapeake Bay Observing System (CBOS). CBOS makes data collected from instrumented buoys in the Bay available in real-time via the internet. Data and information from all of these remote sensing programs assist managers in gauging progress in improving water quality of the Bay and continental shelf. He has also been a member of other advisory boards, including the Environmental Protection Agency's Ocean Disposal Program Review Committee and the U.S. Congress' Task Committee on Chesapeake Bay.
Representative Bill Cassidy
Congressman Bill Cassidy is a representative for Louisiana’s 6th Congressional district. Cassidy is a lifelong public servant and physician. As an associate professor of medicine with Louisiana State University, Bill has provided care for uninsured patients and taught doctors in training at Earl K. Long Hospital in Baton Rouge for the last twenty years. Bill co-founded the Greater Baton Rouge Community Clinic, a clinic providing free dental and health care to the working uninsured. Bill also created a private-public partnership to vaccinate 36,000 greater Baton Rouge area children against Hepatitis B at no cost to the schools or parents. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Bill led a group of health care volunteers to convert an abandoned K-Mart building into an emergency health care facility, providing basic health care to hurricane evacuees. Before his election to serve Louisiana's Sixth District in the House of Representatives, Bill served in the Louisiana State Senate. In the U.S. House, Cassidy serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee and its subcommittees on Health; Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade; and Environment and the Economy. He also serves as an Assistant Whip for the House Republican Conference. His legislative focus is health care and energy. He received a B.A. from Louisiana State University and his M.D. from Louisiana State University Medical School. Dr. Cassidy is married to Dr. Laura Cassidy, who is a retired general surgeon specializing in breast cancer, and they have three children.
26
Representative Kathy Castor
Kathy Castor is a third-term representative for Florida’s 11th Congressional district, which includes parts of the Tampa Bay area along Florida’s Gulf Coast. Castor is a member of the House Budget Committee and the Committee on Armed Services. Castor has introduced “H.R. 480, Gulf of Mexico Economic and Environmental Restoration Act of 2011” to provide for restoration of environment and economy of the Gulf Coast after the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. She is also opposed to new drilling off of Florida’s coast, as it can pose a threat to the economy, jobs, and the environment of the state. Castor received her Bachelor’s from Emory University and her Law degree from Florida State University College of Law. Prior to election to Congress, Castor served as a Hillsborough County Commissioner, and was chair of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission. She was named as the 2005 “Woman of the Year” in government by the Tampa Bay Business Journal.
Marie Colton
Dr. Colton is currently the Director of NOAA’s Office of Atmospheric Research’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL). In this capacity she oversees and directs nearly 100 employees who conduct research in fresh water resources, ecosystems, and modeling of the Great Lakes region from their Ann Arbor, MI location. GLERL also operates several large research vessels based in Muskegon, MI, which support long-term ecosystem observations of the Great Lakes and serve as platforms for new technologies. In her career with the federal government Dr. Colton has held a variety of positions serving multiple agencies including NOAA’s National Ocean Service and National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service; the Navy at the Office of Naval Research and the Naval Research Laboratory; and NASA at NASA headquarters, the Kennedy Space Center and the Goddard Space Flight Center. A native of Illinois, Dr. Colton attended Northwestern University and received the B.A. and M.S. degrees in physical oceanography from Florida Institute of Institute of Technology, Melbourne. Dr. Colton received her Ph.D. degree in physical oceanography from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, completing a study in which she used tower-mounted radars in Lake Ontario to examine the influence of surface wave and atmospheric effects on remotely-sensed radar measurements of wind velocity.
Robert Detrick
Robert Detrick, Ph.D, a marine geophysicist, was named the new assistant administrator of the NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) on Feb. 13, 2012. Before coming to NOAA, Detrick had been director of the National Science Foundation’s Division of Earth Sciences since November 2008, while on leave from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). At WHOI, he was a senior scientist for more than 20 years and vice president for Marine Facilities and Operations. Dr. Detrick’s research focused on aspects of marine geology. He lists more than 100 scientific publications on the seismic structure of mid-ocean ridges and oceanic crust, properties of ridge crest magma chambers; and the nature of mantle flow beneath mid- ocean ridges. A Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, Detrick received the A.G. Huntsman Medal in 1996. He was co-principal investigator for WHOI's ocean bottom seismic instrumentation laboratory. Dr. Detrick has served on and chaired committees and panels for various international and national organizations including the RIDGE Steering Committee (chair from 27
1992-1995), the Joint Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling Executive Committee of the Ocean Drilling Program (chair from 1996-1998) and the NSF Geosciences Advisory Committee (chair 2004-2005). He was a member of the Board of Governors of Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI) (1995-2007) and chaired the JOI Board from 2002-2004. He is a past president of AGU's Tectonophysics Section and is chair of the International Continental Drilling Program Assembly of Governors. A native of Pittsburgh, Pa., Dr. Detrick holds a bachelor's degree in geology and physics from Lehigh University (1971), a master’s degree from the University of California, San Diego in marine geology (1974), and a doctorate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology/WHOI joint program in oceanography (1978).
Anne Guerry
Dr. Anne Guerry, is Lead Scientist for the Natural Capital Project (NatCap). NatCap aims to align economic forces with conservation and is a joint venture among Stanford University, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and the University of Minnesota. At NatCap, Anne is overseeing the development and application of marine InVEST, a software tool for modeling, mapping, and valuing nature’s benefits. She and her team are working closely with decision-makers on the ground and in the water to inform a wide array of management decisions (e.g. marine spatial planning, climate adaptation planning) on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, Canada; in Belize; and in a number of US locations (Monterey Bay, Galveston Bay, Puget Sound). Prior to joining NatCap, Anne was a National Research Council post-doctoral research associate at the NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle. She received her PhD in Zoology from Oregon State University, an MS in Wildlife Ecology from the University of Maine, and a BA in Environmental Studies and English from Yale University. She has a lifelong love of the sea and believes that making explicit connections between human activities and their impacts on the full suite of nature’s benefits can inform management decisions and yield better outcomes for the environment and for society.
Bob Haddad
Dr. Haddad earned his Ph.D. in Chemical Oceanography at UNC, Chapel Hill with a focus on sedimentary organic geochemistry. Following post-doctoral fellowships at NASA and at Stanford University, he joined Unocal’s Petroleum Geochemistry Research Group and provided in-house company-wide consultation on petroleum exploration and environmental liability issues. While at Unocal, Dr. Haddad also provided expert witness support in Forensic Geochemistry and technical leadership for Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) in Unocal’s worldwide emergency response organization. After leaving Unocal, he was responsible for strategic and technical leadership on NRDA cases under OPA, CERCLA, and CWA as West Coast Regional Risk Manager for ENTRIX, Inc. and then as a Vice President for ARCADIS-JSA. Prior to joining NOAA, Dr. Haddad was President and Principal Scientist for Applied Geochemical Strategies, Inc. In this role, he provided strategic and technical liability consulting for clients (OPA and CERCLA NRDA and non-NRDA issues) and expert witness testimony in various aspects of forensic geochemistry. For the past 5 years, Dr. Haddad has been the Chief of the Assessment & Restoration Division within NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R). In this position, he also co-leads NOAA’s Damage Assessment Remediation & Restoration Program (DARRP). As part of his current responsibilities at NOAA, Dr. Haddad is leading NOAA’s injury assessment efforts as part of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment currently being conducted for the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.
28
John Hankinson
John H. Hankinson, Jr. is the Executive Director of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, a state/federal entity established by President Obama to pursue ecosystem restoration i of the Gulf of Mexico. Offices for the task force are located in Washington, D.C. and in Mississippi. As the executive director of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Hankinson, who reports directly to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, coordinates interagency efforts, oversees staff and outreach efforts in developing and implementing a science based regional ecosystem restoration strategy. John is a Florida native trained in environmental law who has worked for 30 years on environmental issues in the private, public, and non-profit sectors. He has brought together industry, government and stakeholder groups to form partnerships to restore ecosystems across the southeast. He has worked with the national estuary program offices in the Gulf of Mexico, and provided leadership in the restoration of the St. Johns River system and the Florida Everglades. He also directed development and implementation of a water quality protection plan for the Florida Keys National Marine, from Sanctuary. John also served as a Regional Administrator of EPA Region IV in Atlanta from 1994-2001; and prior to EPA, ten years as Director of Planning and Acquisition for the St. Johns River Water Management District in Palatka, FL.
David Kennedy
David M. Kennedy is the Assistant Administrator for NOAA's National Ocean Service. Previously, Mr. Kennedy served as the Director of NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM). In this position, he oversaw efforts to develop a scientifically-based, comprehensive national system of marine protected areas (MPAs) in conjunction with state and territory coastal resource managers. Prior to OCRM, Mr. Kennedy served as Director of NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, where he directed a multi-disciplinary program to reduce risks to coastal and marine resources from environmental threats. He has more than 20 years of experience leading hazardous materials management and response efforts, including coordinating federal scientific response to more than 100 oil and chemical spill incidents. In October 2009, Mr. Kennedy’s was recognized with the prestigious Presidential Rank Award. Further in, November 2009, Mr. Kennedy was recognized in a group award for strong leadership and innovation in completion of the environmental cleanup and historical preservation of the Pribilof Islands. Mr. Kennedy was a U.S. delegate to the International Maritime Organization’s Conference on Oil Pollution Preparation and Response, chaired the Washington State Legislative Committee on Oil Spill Response, and was a member of the 1990 Program Committee of the National Oil Spill Conference. He founded the Islands Oil Spill Association, a non-profit oil spill response cooperative. He is a graduate of the University of Northern Colorado (1969).
29
Margaret Leinen
Dr. Margaret Leinen is the Associate Provost of Florida Atlantic University and Executive Director of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute. She is also the founder and President of the Climate Response Fund, a non-profit organization that works to foster discussion of climate engineering research to increase awareness and efficiency. Previously, she spent two years as the Chief Science Officer of Climos, Inc. Prior to working in the non-profit and private sectors, Dr. Leinen served at the National Science Foundation (NSF) as Assistant Director for Geosciences and Coordinator of Environmental Research and Education. She provided executive leadership for one of the seven units of the NSF, oversaw a budget of $700 million, led government-wide planning for climate research and co-led government planning for ocean research. Much of her work at the NSF involved identifying major new research infrastructure needs, advancing those needs and successfully defending $1 billion in initiatives to the National Science Board for subsequent funding by Congress. Dr. Leinen has also been in academic leadership positions at the University of Rhode Island, serving as Vice Provost for Marine and Environmental Programs and as Dean of the Graduate School of Oceanography. She received her doctorate in oceanography from the University of Rhode Island, her master's degree in geological oceanography from Oregon State University and her bachelor's degree in geology from the University of Illinois.
Steven Murawski
Dr. Steven Murawski is a Population Dynamics/Marine Ecosystem Analysis Professor and the St. Petersburg Downtown - Peter Betzer Endowed Chair in Biological Oceanography at the University of South Florida’s College of Marine Science. Dr. Murawski is currently engaged in research contributing to improved understanding of the impacts of human activities on the sustainability of ocean ecosystems. He serves as Director and Principal Investigator of the Center for Integrated Modeling and Analysis of Gulf Ecosystems (C-IMAGE), a consortium investigating the Gulf oil spill impacts. His current specific research includes understanding the prevalence of fish diseases in relation to the Deepwater Horizon spill, and work on new assessment techniques for Gulf reef fishes. From 2005 to 2010, Dr. Murawski served as the Director of Scientific Programs and Chief Science Advisor for NOAA Fisheries Service. In addition to these duties, he was also the NOAA Ecosystem Goal Team Lead. As Goal Team Lead, he was responsible for out-year strategic planning and budget development for all of NOAA's ecosystem activities which amount to $1.2 billion in 2008. Prior to this, he was the Director of the NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology and served as Chief Stock Assessment Scientist for the Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts (1990-2004). During his career, Dr. Murawski has been a key representative on several national and international committees and councils. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst in 1984.
30
Senator Lisa Murkowski
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is a third-generation Alaskan who has served in the U.S. Senate since 2002. Murkowski is the Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and also serves on the Committee on Appropriations. Within the Committee on Appropriations, she is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies. Murkowski earned her B.A. in Economics from Georgetown University in 1980, and her J.D. from Willamette University in 1985. Prior to serving in the Senate, she practiced commercial law in Anchorage and served for 4 years in the Alaska State House of Representatives. While Murkowski is a strong supporter and sponsor of energy efficiency efforts and the development of alternative energy technologies, she also believes in developing the nation’s traditional energy resources. She has introduced legislation to promote development of oil and natural gas in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as well as America’s outer continental shelf.
Nancy Rabalais
Nancy N. Rabalais, Ph.D., is a Professor and Executive Director at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium in Cocodrie, LA. Dr. Rabalais' research interests include the dynamics of hypoxic environments, interactions of large rivers with the coastal ocean, estuarine and coastal eutrophication, and science policy. Dr. Rabalais is currently serving as a Member of the NRC Committee on the Mississippi River and the Clean Water Act and the Committee on the Effects of the Deepwater Horizon Mississippi Canyon-252 Oil Spill on Ecosystem Services in the Gulf of Mexico, and recently the NRC Committees on the Evolution of the National Oceanographic Research Fleet and Review of Water and Environmental Research Systems (WATERS) Network. She is an elected member of the Board of Trustees for the Consortium on Ocean Leadership, the Council for the University National- Oceanographic Laboratory System, Chair of the National Sea Grant Advisory Board, President of the Southern Association of Marine Labs, Vice President of the National Association of Marine Labs, and Member of the Board of Directors for GCOOS the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System. Dr. Rabalais received her Ph.D. in Zoology from The University of Texas at Austin in 1983.
Curtis Tanner
Mr. Tanner is with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program in Olympia, Washington. He has spent over 20 years working on coastal habitat restoration and protection issues in Puget Sound. He is currently on assignment to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, where he is serving as the Local Project Manager for the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) General Investigation study. PSNERP is a partnership between federal, state, local, and tribal governments, as well as non-governmental organizations, academia, and others. PSNERP partners are working to deliver a comprehensive understanding of the nearshore ecosystem restoration and protection priorities for Puget Sound, and the capacity to deliver solutions to the region. Curtis has a B.S. in Aquatic Science from Cornell University, and a Masters of Marine Affairs from the University of Washington.
31
Alan Thornhill
Dr. Alan Thornhill is the Chief Environmental Officer for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), a position that was established in BOEM as part of the Interior Department's structural reform of offshore energy oversight and is designed to advance applied science in offshore energy and to ensure decision-making is based on sound research and information. In this position, he is responsible for directing BOEM's programs for studying the offshore environmental issues necessary to support responsible decision-making about resource development, managing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, and developing national priorities for scientific research relating to the oceans. Dr. Thornhill joined BOEM in March 2010 to serve as science advisor to the director and was the leading author of the Department of the Interior's Scientific Integrity Policy. Previously, from 2001-2010, Dr. Thornhill was the first Executive Director of the Society for Conservation Biology, where he launched the executive office, oversaw the development of a professional staff, and initiated programs that saw the global membership triple in seven years. Other experience includes, the Director of Learning and Communications for the Science Division at The Nature Conservancy, and Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Rice University in Houston, Texas. For the past six years, Dr. Thornhill has taught in the Master’s Program in the College of Natural Resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Dr. Thornhill earned his Bachelors and Ph.D. degrees in Ecology from the University of California, Irvine.
Eugene Turner
Dr. Turner is a professor and Distinguished Research Master of Louisiana State University (LSU). His current research interest include: biological oceanography, conservation, environmental management, fisheries ecology and wetlands. Dr. Turner’s has published numerous books and scholarly articles and has been the recipient of a number of research grants including studying the effects of the Macondo Oil Spill on coastal ecosystems, Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, and the effects of stressors on coastal wetlands. Among his many accolades, in 2010 Dr. Turner was awarded the Distinguished Faculty Award from LSU. Prior to this he was honored with the Environmental Science & Technology Top Paper Award in 2009, the Blasker Award for Environmental Science and Engineering, shared with N.N. Rabalais, in 1999, and the National Wetlands Award - Science Research in 1998. Dr. Turner received his B.A. in Zoology from Monmouth College, an M.S. from Drake University, and his Ph.D. from the University of Georgia.
Fran Ulmer
Fran Ulmer is chair of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, where she has served since being appointed by President Obama in March 2011. In June 2010, President Obama appointed her to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. From 2007 to 2011, Ms. Ulmer was chancellor of Alaska’s largest public university, the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA). Before that, she was a Disti nguished Visiting Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Institute of Social and Economic Research at UAA. She is currently serving as Resident Scholar on Arctic Research at the University of Alaska. She is a member of the Global Board of the Nature Conservancy and on the Board of the National Parks Conservation Association. 32
Ms. Ulmer served as an elected official for 18 years as the mayor of Juneau, a state representative and as Lieutenant Governor of Alaska. She previously worked as legal counsel to the Alaska Legislature, legislative assistant to Governor Jay Hammond and Director of Policy Development for the state. In addition, she was the first Chair of the Alaska Coastal Policy Council and served for more than 10 years on the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission. She has served on numerous local, state and federal advisory committees and boards. Ulmer earned a J.D. cum laude from the University of Wisconsin Law School, and has been a Fellow at the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School of Government.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) and Budget Committees, and a sailor and diver, has been active in addressing global climate change and its threat to ocean and coastal ecosystems. He authored an amendment to support investments in America’s oceans and coasts as part of the Senate’s FY09 and FY10 budget resolutions, and fought successfully to make sure climate change legislation passed by the EPW committee in 2008 and 2009 included protections for coastal communities, wildlife, and land and marine ecosystems. Whitehouse, who traveled to Greenland in the summer of 2007 to see firsthand the effects of climate change on its massive ice cap, has worked closely with Rhode Island’s environmental community to raise awareness of the potential impact of global warming on the Ocean State. In August 2008, he held an official field briefing of the EPW Committee at the University of Rhode Island’s Bay Campus to examine global warming’s impacts on Narragansett Bay, including sea level rise, warming waters, and ocean acidification. Whitehouse has also been a champion for coastal and estuarine habitats, successfully fighting to reauthorize the Estuary Restoration Act (ERA) in 2007 and leading the effort to secure annual funding for EPA’s National Estuaries Program.
33
2012 Public Policy Forum Consortium for Ocean Leadership Capital Visitors Center March 7, 2012
Bob Gagosian, Consortium for Ocean Leadership President and CEO, provides closing remarks. Photo Credit: Will Ramos
34