[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FROM GRAY TO GREEN:
ADVANCING THE SCIENCE
OF NATURE-BASED INFRASTRUCTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 2, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-46
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-871 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin MIKE CAREY, OHIO
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey, Chairwoman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma,
DAN KILDEE, Michigan Ranking Member
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
C O N T E N T S
March 2, 2022
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mikie Sherrill, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Stephanie I. Bice, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 11
Written statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Witnesses:
Dr. Steven Thur, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 16
Dr. Sherry Hunt, Supervisory Civil Engineer, Agriculture Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 27
Dr. Todd Bridges, Senior Research Scientist, Environmental
Science, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Discussion....................................................... 42
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Sherry Hunt, Supervisory Civil Engineer, Agriculture Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture........................ 56
Dr. Todd Bridges, Senior Research Scientist, Environmental
Science, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.......................... 60
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letters submitted Representative Mikie Sherrill, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
Natalie Snider, Associate Vice President, Environmental
Defense Fund............................................... 64
National Wildlife Federation................................. 69
Keith Laakkonen, President, et al., National Estuarine
Research Reserve Association............................... 72
Chad Berginnis, CFM, Executive Director, Association of State
Floodplain Managers........................................ 78
FROM GRAY TO GREEN:
ADVANCING THE SCIENCE
OF NATURE-BASED INFRASTRUCTURE
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12 p.m., via
Zoom, Hon. Mikie Sherrill [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. I think we are ready to go, so the
hearing will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recess at any time. Pursuant to House
Resolution 8, today, the Committee is meeting virtually. I want
to announce a couple reminders to the Members about the conduct
of this remote hearing. First, Members should keep their video
feed on as long as they are present in the hearing. Members are
responsible for their own microphones. Please also keep your
microphones muted unless you are speaking. Finally, if Members
have documents they wish to submit for the record, please email
them to the Committee Clerk, whose email address was circulated
prior to the hearing.
Good afternoon. Welcome to today's Environment Subcommittee
hearing on nature-based infrastructure. As we face increased
risk of hazards from natural disasters, many due to climate
change, there is a growing appreciation for the short- and
long-term benefits that nature-based, or green, infrastructure
can provide.
My district in north Jersey has faced devastating
consequences of a changing climate and more severe weather
patterns. We are far too familiar with floods, from the
historic flooding caused by Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Ida
to the more regular flood events that impose frequent costs to
our communities. Like many Americans across the Nation, New
Jerseyans are increasingly looking toward nature-based
infrastructure solutions because of their wide range of
benefits and co-benefits, and their resilience in a changing
climate.
In my district, the banks of the Whippany River and Peckman
River have deteriorated badly, leading to frequent floods
during storms. We learned from events like Irene and Ida that,
in many situations, vegetation planted in the right locations
can be much more effective than rocks and concrete alone at
absorbing floodwaters and moving waters away from people and
their properties. In my recent visits with constituents
impacted by flooding in Montclair, Verona, and Morristown, I
saw how soil erosion on the riverbanks has allowed trees to
fall into the river and snag silt traveling downstream. This
decreases the depth of the river and exacerbates flooding in
nearby neighborhoods. Based on this and other flood dynamics,
our community is considering options to leverage the benefits
of natural infrastructure to protect against flooding, such as
using vegetation to reinforce riverbanks and stop chronic
riverbank erosion. I hope to hear more from today's witnesses
about how these green infrastructure solutions can help my
constituents, as well as those in other communities facing a
diverse set of natural hazards, many of which we are seeing
with greater frequency as we feel the impacts of climate
change.
But the decision whether to use nature-based infrastructure
is not always easy. Decisionmakers in New Jersey and across the
country need to consider the costs and the benefits of
traditional engineered--or gray--infrastructure, natural
infrastructure, or a combination thereof. Unfortunately,
engineers and decisionmakers often don't have all the
information that would allow for the most comprehensive
analysis. Additional research, standardization of datasets, and
long-term monitoring effects are needed to better understand
the costs and benefits of gray or green infrastructure so that
a clear comparison can be made between a range of options.
We must improve our ability to quantify the benefits of
natural infrastructure, like the reduction in flood risk or
erosion. And we must work toward improving our ability to
quantify the co-benefits of nature-based infrastructure, which
are not always easily monetized. These can include the public
health benefits of increased greenery, support for natural
habitats and wildlife, or the sequestration of vast quantities
of carbon.
Preservation of wetlands like the Great Swamp National
Wildlife Refuge in my district, for example, can avoid future
flooding by preserving natural flood storage from development
and can provide natural habitat and improved water quality. I
have worked to expand similar forward-thinking efforts like the
Army Corps' Natural Storage Preservation program that would
improve flood mitigation by acquiring 5,200 acres of wetlands
for preservation as natural storage of Passaic River
floodwaters.
And so I also hope to hear from today's witnesses both
about how communities can assess the benefits and costs of
targeted green infrastructure improvements, as well as holistic
planning that utilizes and preserves--sorry, I was trying to
look at the clock, too--utilizes and preserves existing natural
resources. Many Federal agencies are working together, and with
external stakeholders, to conduct this research. They're also
helping communities determine how nature-based solutions can be
utilized most effectively, given their local needs and local
conditions, and how they can be most appropriately be paired
with more traditional gray infrastructure.
We are fortunate to have representatives from NOAA
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers on today's panel. I'm eager to hear from our
witnesses about their work on natural and nature-based
infrastructure in coastal, rural, and urban and suburban
communities across the country, and explore what else the
Federal Government can do to support the implementation of
nature-based infrastructure. As our climate changes, so too
does the way we look at infrastructure and resilience. Nature-
based infrastructure will need to play a bigger role as we move
into the future. I hope through our conversations today, we can
better pinpoint the specific areas of research that the Federal
Government should prioritize and share with our communities.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Sherrill follows:]
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing on nature-
based infrastructure.
As we face increased risk of hazards from natural
disasters, many due to climate change, there is a growing
appreciation for the short and long-term benefits that nature-
based, or green, infrastructure can provide.
My district in North Jersey has faced devastating
consequences of a changing climate and more severe weather
patterns. We are far too familiar with floods, from the
historic flooding caused by Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Ida
to the more regular flood events that impose frequent costs to
our communities. Like many Americans across the nation, New
Jerseyans are increasingly looking towards nature-based
infrastructure solutions because of their wide range of
benefits and co-benefits, and their resilience in a changing
climate.
In my district, the banks of the Whippany River and Peckman
River have deteriorated badly, leading to frequent floods
during storms. We learned from events like Irene and Ida that,
in many situations, vegetation planted in the right locations
can be much more effective than rocks and concrete alone at
absorbing floodwaters and moving waters away from people and
their properties. In my recent visits with constituents
impacted by flooding in Montclair, Verona, and Morristown, I
saw how soil erosion on the riverbanks has allowed trees to
fall into the river and snag silt traveling downstream. This
decreases the depth of the river and exacerbates flooding in
nearby neighborhoods.
Based on this and other flood dynamics, our community is
considering options to leverage the benefits of natural
infrastructure to protect against flooding, such as using
vegetation to reinforce riverbanks and stop chronic riverbank
erosion. I hope to hear more from today's witnesses about how
these green infrastructure solutions can help my constituents
as well as those in other communities facing a diverse set of
natural hazards, many of which we are seeing with greater
frequency as we feel the impacts of climate change. But the
decision whether to use nature-based infrastructure is not
always easy. Decision makers in New Jersey and across the
country need to consider the costs and the benefits of
traditional engineered, or gray, infrastructure, natural
infrastructure, or a combination thereof.
Unfortunately, engineers and decision makers often don't
have all the information that would allow for the most
comprehensive analysis. Additional research, standardization of
data sets and long-term monitoring efforts are needed to better
understand the costs and benefits of gray or green
infrastructure so that a clear comparison can be made between a
range of options. We must improve our ability to quantify the
benefits of natural infrastructure, like the reduction in flood
risk or erosion. And we must work towards improving our ability
to quantify the co-benefits of nature-based infrastructure,
which are not always easily monetized.
These can include the public health benefits of increased
greenery, support for natural habitats and wildlife, or the
sequestration of vast quantities of carbon. Preservation of
wetlands like the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in my
district, for example, can avoid future flooding by preserving
natural flood storage from development and can provide natural
habitat and improved water quality. I have worked to expand
similar forward-thinking efforts like the Army Corps' Natural
Storage Preservation program that would improve flood
mitigation by acquiring 5,200 acres of wetlands for
preservation as natural storage of Passaic River flood waters.
And so I also hope to hear from today's witnesses both about
how communities can assess the benefits and costs of targeted
green infrastructure improvements as well as holistic planning
that utilizes and preserves existing natural resources.
Many federal agencies are working together, and with
external stakeholders, to conduct this research. They're also
helping communities determine how nature-based solutions can be
utilized most effectively given their local needs and local
conditions, and how they can be most appropriately paired with
more traditional gray infrastructure. We are fortunate to have
representatives from NOAA, the Department of Agriculture, and
the US Army Corps of Engineers on today's panel. I am eager to
hear from our witnesses about their work on natural and nature-
based infrastructure in coastal, rural, and urban and suburban
communities across the country, and explore what else the
federal government can do to support the implementation of
nature-based infrastructure.
As our climate changes, so too does the way we look at
infrastructure and resilience. Nature-based infrastructure will
need to play a bigger role as we move into the future. I hope
through our conversations today, we can better pinpoint the
specific areas of research that the federal government should
prioritize and share with our communities.
Chairwoman Sherrill. The Chair now recognizes Ranking
Member Bice for an opening statement.
Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, and thank you to
our entire panel of witnesses for appearing before the
Subcommittee and sharing their expertise with us this
afternoon.
Infrastructure is often--an often-mentioned topic that
traditionally comes with bipartisan support and agreement. We
all understand that America's infrastructure has been slowly
deteriorating over the last few decades and requires
significant investment in nationwide projects to avoid existing
structures from crumbling entirely.
But today's hearing is about a side of infrastructure that
might not be as popular or even entirely understood: nature-
based or green infrastructure. While most people understand
infrastructure as the manmade roads, buildings, and structures
we see every day, infrastructure can also include natural
systems in nature like wetlands, green roofs, or bio wells--
bioswales.
While there are varying different definitions for this
specific area and what is included for today's hearing, I am
going to refer to it as green infrastructure and focus on
projects that intentionally align natural and engineering
processes by combining traditional infrastructure with nature-
based solutions. That alignment is important because while
nature and nature-based solutions can be effective, sustainable
and resilient on their own, most communities face persistent
hazards like erosion, storm surges that require components of
traditional infrastructure to ensure the maximum safety of the
community.
So, to me, green infrastructure should always be a hybrid
approach that combines the best of both worlds: environmental
components that are naturally occurring or mimic nature and
long-lasting, effective manmade components. That is the most
reasonable way to build and--or restore high-quality, low-cost
resilient communities.
I am particularly pleased to welcome Dr. Sherry Hunt as a
witness to testify on her extremely valuable work. She's based
in Stillwater, Oklahoma, and like me and Ranking Member Lucas
is a proud graduate of Oklahoma State University, go Pokes. But
more importantly, as an ag engineer working on the USDA Ag
Research Service, Dr. Hunt's work has led to the development of
designs and methodologies being used to rehabilitate thousands
of dams across the country. Her research focuses on aging and
weakened dams, something that Oklahoma knows a little bit
about, many of which are in remote or rural communities, and
her designs, methods, and simulations can safely extend the
service life of these dams to protect life and property. That
is extremely important to the communities that might not be
high on a priority list for Federal assistance.
But as we discuss the benefits of natural infrastructure,
it is important we keep all options on the table and understand
it is not a one-size-fits-all approach. As Dr. Hunt will tell
us today, it is not as easy as just planting trees on the bank
of a river or slowing water flow with logs and branches like
beavers. Long-term, safe solutions require manmade structures
like the roller-compacted concrete she used for a spillway over
the top of dams near areas with increased population growth. I
look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses on how ARS
(Agricultural Research Service) and Dr. Hunt's research can
contribute to the broader conversation of green infrastructure.
Although it might seem untraditional, we should encourage
collaboration and data-sharing between research agencies like
NOAA and regulatory agencies like the Department of Ag. NOAA is
undoubtedly well-equipped to research coastal management
issues, but that work may not necessarily apply to inland or
rural communities like we have in Oklahoma. Therefore, it is my
hope that today's hearing will--cannot only identify research
gaps but also ways agencies can come together to address the
full range of communities seeking to improve their
infrastructure with nature-based solutions.
Again, I want to thank the witnesses for being here this
afternoon, and I look forward to your testimony. Madam
Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Bice follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, and thank you to our entire
panel of witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee and
sharing their expertise with us this morning.
Infrastructure is an often-mentioned topic that
traditionally comes with bipartisan support and agreement. We
all understand that America's infrastructure has been slowly
deteriorating over the last few decades and requires
significant investment in nationwide projects to avoid existing
structures from crumbling entirely.
But today's hearing is about a side of infrastructure that
might not be as popular or even entirely understood: nature-
based or green infrastructure. While most people understand
infrastructure as the manmade roads, buildings, and structures
we see every day, infrastructure can also include natural
systems and nature, like wetlands, green roofs, or bioswales.
While there are varying definitions for this specific area
and what is included, for today's hearing, I'm going to refer
to it as ``green infrastructure'' and focus on projects that
intentionally align natural and engineering processes by
combining traditional infrastructure with nature-based
solutions. That alignment is important because while nature and
nature-based solutions can be effective, sustainable, and
resilient on their own, most communities face persistent
hazards like erosion and storm surges that require components
of traditional infrastructure to ensure the maximum safety of
the community.
So to me, green infrastructure should always be a hybrid
approach that combines the best of both worlds: environmental
components that are naturally occurring or mimic nature, and
long-lasting, effective manmade components. That is the most
reasonable way to build or restore high quality, low cost,
resilient communities.
I am particularly pleased to welcome Dr. Sherry Hunt as a
witness to testify on her extremely valuable work. She's based
in Stillwater, Oklahoma, and like me and Ranking Member Lucas,
is a proud graduate of Oklahoma State University! Go Pokes! But
more importantly, as an agricultural engineer working in the
USDA's Agricultural Research Service, Dr. Hunt's work has led
to the development of designs and methodologies being used to
rehabilitate thousands of dams across the country.
Her research focuses on aging or weakened dams, many of
which are in remote or rural communities, and her designs,
methods, and simulations can safely extend the service life of
these dams to protect life and property. That is extremely
important to communities that might not be high on the priority
list for federal assistance. But as we discuss the benefits of
natural infrastructure, it's important we keep all options on
the table and understand it's not a one-size-fits-all approach.
As Dr. Hunt will tell us today, it's not as easy as just
planting trees on the bank of a river or slowing water flow
with logs and branches like beavers. Long-term, safe solutions
require manmade structures like the ``roller compacted
concrete'' she used for a spillway over the top of dams near
areas with increased population growth. I look forward to
hearing more from all of our witnesses on how ARS and Dr.
Hunt's research can contribute to the broader conversation on
green infrastructure. Although it might seem untraditional, we
should encourage collaboration and data sharing between
research agencies like NOAA and regulatory agencies like the
Department of Agriculture.
NOAA is undoubtedly well equipped to research coastal
management issues, but that work may not necessarily apply to
inland or rural communities like we have in Oklahoma.
Therefore, it is my hope that today's hearing can not only
identify research gaps, but also ways agencies can come
together to address the full range of communities seeking to
improve their infrastructure with nature-based solutions.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today
and I look forward to each of your testimony. Thank you,
Chairwoman Sherrill, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, for holding this important
hearing today.
Monday's IPCC report on climate impacts, adaptation, and
vulnerability underscored the worsening climate crisis and need
for immediate action.
Many of the climate impacts described in the report cannot
be avoided regardless of our mitigation efforts.
That is why it is essential that we ramp up climate
adaptation in parallel with mitigation efforts.
Nature-based infrastructure is a crucial component of these
climate adaptation efforts.
Federal agencies play an important role in conducting the
research and development necessary for effective implementation
of nature-based infrastructure. They evaluate ecosystem
services of living shorelines.
They assess the benefits of increased urban greenery to
stormwater management and to public health. And they study the
ability of vegetation to reduce pollutants from wildfire smoke
or to sequester carbon.
However, there remains a need to further coordinate and
collaborate these federal efforts with a diverse set of
stakeholders. Opportunities to implement nature-based
infrastructure must be inclusive and accessible to all
communities. This means improving federal communication and
engagement with underserved and front-line communities.
For communities to comprehensively consider opportunities
for nature-based solutions, we must better quantify their
benefits and co-benefits. We must also develop more consistent
valuation methods that can be used across communities in
different regions of the country.
Potential negative impacts of traditional ``gray''
infrastructure can also be compounded in frontline and
underserved communities. It is time that the combined co-
benefits of ``green'' infrastructure are realized in those same
communities.
The federal government has a crucial role to play in making
natural infrastructure solutions accessible for all
communities.
Agencies like NOAA, USDA, and the Army Corps of Engineers,
conduct and support nature-based infrastructure research. These
also play a critical role in providing communities and decision
makers the support and technical assistance needed to implement
these projects.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses how Congress
can enhance their agencies' research and development activities
for nature-based infrastructure. With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Thank you for holding today's hearing, Chairwoman Sherrill.
Natural infrastructure, while not a frequent topic of
discussion, is nevertheless important to our communities.
Traditionally, we think of infrastructure as the roads,
bridges, and power grids that keep our country functioning.
They're the physical framework of our society. While most of
that infrastructure is manmade, we also have naturally
occurring landscape features which can help lessen the impacts
of weather events such as flooding or droughts.
That's right--nature IS infrastructure.
When Oklahomans consider practical examples of natural
infrastructure, they don't need to look far. Oklahoma is home
to more than 2,100 earthen dams, which are managed by local
communities with assistance provided by USDA's Natural
Resources Conservation Service. These dams are so common, in
fact, that 90% of Oklahomans live within 20 miles of a dam.
These dams are very effective at limiting the potentially
devastating impacts of flooding, which could wipe out a
season's worth of crops in the blink of an eye.
But like a lot of our nation's infrastructure, these dams
are showing their age. Nationwide, more than 5,000 of these
dams are nearing or have exceeded the end of their functional
lives and are in need of repair. It is because of this great
need that I authored the Small Watershed Rehabilitation program
more than two decades ago.
Through this program NRCS has extended the service life of
hundreds of these important structures across the state of
Oklahoma.
This work is even more urgent now because as our climate
changes, we are seeing more frequent and more costly extreme
weather events each year. In addition to improving near- and
longer-term weather forecasting to understand when and where
these events will occur, this Committee must carefully consider
how we adapt to these occurrences to minimize damage to life
and property.
It is appropriate that USDA has a leading role in the
maintenance and repair of these dams. After all, America's
farmers and ranchers have always led the way in managing land
use to reduce environmental impacts from agriculture production
while also protecting against extreme weather events. Small
steps taken by these producers, such as planting buffer strips
along water streams, are an effective means of reducing the
impact of flooding and nutrient runoff.
Our panel of witnesses represents a number of agencies
across the federal government who utilize natural
infrastructure to mitigate the effects of extreme weather
events. I am pleased we will hear from Dr. Sherry Hunt, who is
based at USDA's Agricultural Research Service lab in
Stillwater, Oklahoma, about her important research in this
area. Her work examines ways we can use natural methods to
extend the lives of the dams which are so important to these
rural communities.
I thank our witnesses for sharing their expertise with us
and I look forward to a productive discussion. Thank you and I
yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. At this time I'd like to
introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Steven Thur.
Since 2017, Dr. Thur has been the Director of NOAA's National
Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS). Dr. Thur oversees
NCCOS's, NCCOS, four primary research areas: coastal change,
marine spatial ecology, social science, and stressor impacts of
mitigation.
Our next witness, as we heard, is Dr. Sherry Hunt. Dr. Hunt
is the Supervisory Civil Engineer of the Hydraulic Engineering
Research Unit at the Agricultural Research Service of the
United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, in Stillwater,
Oklahoma. Dr. Hunt is an internationally recognized authority
in physical modeling of hydraulic structures and embankment
breach.
Our final witness today is Dr. Todd Bridges. Dr. Bridges is
the U.S. Army Senior Research Scientist for Environmental
Science. Dr. Bridges' responsibilities include leading
research, development, and environmental initiatives for the
U.S. Army and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have five
minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will
be included in the record for the hearing. When you all have
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions.
Each Member will have five minutes to question the panel. We
will start with Dr. Thur.
TESTIMONY OF DR. STEVEN THUR,
NATIONAL CENTERS FOR COASTAL OCEAN SCIENCE,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Thur. Good afternoon. Chairwoman Sherrill, Ranking
Member Bice, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Dr. Steven Thur, and
I'm the Director of the National Centers for Coastal Ocean
Science at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
I appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in exploring nature-
based infrastructure and associated research gaps. My testimony
today will highlight how NOAA is supporting research on the
effective use of nature-based infrastructure as a means to
enhance coastal resilience.
The evidence is clear. Weather and climate disasters are
already devastating our communities, and we must prepare
ourselves for the unavoidable impacts to come. In 2021, there
were 20 billion-dollar disasters in the United States, and
total damages were approximately $145 billion. Along the coast,
sea-level rise, hurricanes, harmful algal blooms, flooding, and
other ocean-related climate risks increasingly threaten people
and infrastructure. At the same time, coastal ecosystems that
provide natural protection from coastal flooding and erosion
are shrinking and degrading due to coastal development, warming
waters, and more.
The use of nature-based infrastructure offers the potential
for scenarios with multiple benefits. For instance, it is
possible to design nature-based features that are as or more
effective than traditionally engineered gray solutions in
reducing the flood risk to nearby communities. Both nature-
based and traditional solutions may satisfy risk reduction
requirements. However, nature-based solutions may also enable
the same funding to advance multiple objectives holistically
such as endangered species recovery, fisheries production,
climate adaptation, and access for recreational use.
Some of these natural infrastructure solutions may involve
an increase in the cost of the project relative to what would
be strictly necessary for just the flood risk reduction
benefits. Such modifications and potential increased
expenditures may be a more efficient use of Federal funding
overall to yield the maximum net benefit for society. Single-
purpose coastal projects have been the primary approach for the
past half-century for both water management and environmental
programs. For the next half-century, nature-based
infrastructure projects provide an opportunity to
simultaneously address multiple priorities.
I would like to highlight three categories of research
needs. First, we need to assess the performance of nature-based
infrastructure. There are perceived uncertainties in the
performance of nature-based infrastructure, and these are often
cited as a barrier to implementation. To address this research
gap, NOAA is partnering with Federal and State agencies to
evaluate the less-understood aspects of their effectiveness.
NOAA's National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science will soon
start evaluating how some existing nature-based infrastructure
projects have evolved since their initial construction. In our
experience, most of these projects may not have extensive
monitoring data but comparison of current conditions to as-
built conditions will allow for an assessment of how the
features performed and evolved over time.
Second, we need to quantify the ecosystem benefits of
nature-based infrastructure. There is limited empirical data
quantifying the benefits of some nature-based features beyond
their primary purpose for flood risk management such as
providing habitat and carbon sequestration. NOAA entered into
an interagency agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
through which we are monitoring newly installed Corps projects
collecting empirical data on long-term effectiveness of nature-
based features and improving ecosystem services.
And third, we need to employ social science techniques to
value benefits and address public perception of nature-based
infrastructure. New research is starting to put a dollar value
on the risk management benefits provided by nature-based
infrastructure. We need further study to value all ecosystem
services of nature-based infrastructure so that this
information can be appropriately factored into benefit-cost
analyses and associated decisions on coastal infrastructure
investment. Understanding and addressing perceptions about the
effectiveness of nature-based solutions is needed in parallel
with valuation studies. As green infrastructure has been used
less commonly than traditionally engineered coastal projects in
recent decades, there is sometimes hesitancy to use nature-
based solutions because they are less familiar. Social science
research is a current gap that must be addressed to enable
decisionmakers to effectively communicate and overcome such
hesitancy.
In conclusion, nature-based solutions have a significant
role to play. Our national discussion on infrastructure
investment must incorporate elements of sustainability to
provide fully for the health, welfare, economic vitality, and
socially just climate resilience of our communities. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Thur follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Wow, that was exactly five minutes.
Thank you very much, Dr. Thur, and a wonderful presentation.
Next, we'll hear from Dr. Hunt.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SHERRY HUNT,
SUPERVISORY CIVIL ENGINEER,
AGRICULTURE RESEARCH SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Dr. Hunt. Chairwoman Sherrill, Ranking Member Bice, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
provide testimony on this important topic. I'm Dr. Sherry Hunt,
Supervisory Civil Engineer of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service, Hydraulic
Engineering Research Unit, in Stillwater, Oklahoma. I also
serve as our agency's dam safety officer and have been a
Federal researcher for nearly 22 years.
The Hydraulic Engineering Research Unit is a one-of-a-kind
facility that relies on gravity flow water for testing small to
prototype-scale models of channels and hydraulic structures,
including earthen dams, spillways, and grade stabilization
structures. Today, the Hydraulic Engineering Research Unit's
mission is to develop criteria for the analysis and design of
conservation structures and channels for the conveyance,
storage, and measurement of runoff waters.
For more than 80 years, ARS scientists have been central to
providing research support for the USDA's Small Watershed
Program. This program combines conservation practices in the
watershed with earthen multipurpose dams on tributary streams.
The design standards developed by our scientists contributed to
the construction of nearly 12,000 dams and associated
conservation practices in more than 2,000 watershed projects,
encompassing 160 million acres in 47 States. These dams provide
the United States an estimated $2.3 billion in annual benefits
through flood protection, rural and municipal water supplies,
water for agricultural and energy production, recreation, and
tourism.
ARS scientists remain committed to providing research
support for these aging dams. ARS scientists developed
standardized dam rehabilitation design criteria for routing
floodwater around or over these dams impacted by the transition
from rural to urban settings. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service expects to apply this design criteria to
approximately 1,200 program-funded dams with an anticipated
construction cost savings of up to $1.2 billion.
In addition, ARS scientists conduct research to quantify
and predict erosion processes to improve design and analysis
tools for earthen dams. I collaborate with a diverse group of
stakeholders representing Federal agencies, State dam safety
offices, private consultants, and national and international
scientific peers for developing and implementing evolving
technology like the physically based simplified earthen dam
erosion and failure prediction model wind dam. Our design
standards, engineering tools, and models have been successfully
adopted by our collaborators like the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Climate and environmental change and human activities are
threatening water and land resources and economic growth across
America because of the aging dam infrastructure. It should be
noted that approximately 76,000 dams on the U.S. national
inventory of dams are earthen, which are more susceptible to
these threats. But ARS is committed to addressing these
challenges as we collect larger volumes and more complex data.
But this too brings challenges in data acquisition and
management, as well as how we share data. For instance, current
dam monitoring systems available have drawbacks as they don't
provide data on water quality or quantity for real-time use by
emergency managers, irrigation districts, and farmers and
producers. These data, coupled with decision-support tools like
smart applications, will improve the sustainability of
agricultural production for a growing population in the United
States.
ARS scientists are committed to taking a holistic approach
that engages collaborators through our Partnerships for Data
Innovations, PDI for short. PDI is a field-engaged effort to
innovate the way we collect, handle, store, use, and serve
data. Leveraging public and private partnerships will create
customized solutions to reduce the time researchers spend on
data management so we can focus more time on the science.
In closing, the question that comes before us today is how
do we address the challenges that affect the sustainability of
our agricultural production, water resources, and our economic
growth that these dams provide? The answer is simple, through
collaborative partnerships and a holistic science-based
approach to develop cloud-based technologies and engineering
tools for standardized data collection and management,
dissemination of data for aiding sustainable resource
management and precision agriculture, and decision-support
tools for assessing the social and economic benefits of our
water and land resources. ARS is committed and poised to be the
global leader in agricultural discoveries through scientific
excellence. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hunt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you, Dr. Hunt. And as a point of
personal privilege, I just want to ask, is that the Hydraulic
Engineering Research Unit behind you in the picture that you
have up on your screen?
Dr. Hunt. It is. It is. That is an earthen dam back there.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Oh, great. Thank you so much. Sorry, I
muted myself.
Finally, we will hear from Mr. Todd Bridges.
TESTIMONY OF DR. TODD BRIDGES,
SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE,
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Dr. Bridges. Chairwoman Sherrill, Ranking Member Bice,
Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and Members of the
Committee, I'm honored to testify before you today. I am the
Army Senior Research Scientist for Environmental Science at the
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. And among
other responsibilities, I serve as the National Lead for the
Corps of Engineers Engineering with Nature Initiative that is
working to support sustainable, resilient infrastructure
systems for the 21st century.
In the United States we are blessed with an abundance of
natural capital, 3,000 miles of barrier islands along our
coastlines, thousands of miles of mainland beaches and dunes,
and 100 million acres of wetlands in the lower 48 States alone.
Wetlands along the Northeast Atlantic Coast helped to avert
$625 million of flood damage during Hurricane Sandy, and the
500,000 acres of mangroves around Florida helped to avert more
than $1.5 billion in flood damages during Hurricane Irma in
2017.
In our work, nature-based solutions refers to the
intentional and substantial use of natural systems to support
water resources solutions. The Corps has made significant use
of such approaches for decades, and in 2010 the Corps
established the Engineering with Nature Initiative to advance
integration of human engineering and natural systems.
We've published two volumes of Engineering with Nature: An
Atlas. These books showcase 118 examples of constructed
projects around the world that illustrate what Engineering with
Nature practice looks like, along with the economic,
environmental, and social benefits they produce. Fifty of these
projects were built by the Corps of Engineers. Example projects
include Horseshoe Bend Island in the Atchafalaya River of
Louisiana that was constructed through beneficial use of
sediment dredged from the navigation channel. And that island
has provided 80 acres of habitat in addition to engineering
benefits. Hamilton and Sears Point wetland projects in
California are restoring 1,500 acres of wetlands while
supporting coastal resilience with respect to sea-level rise in
San Francisco Bay.
Our work on Engineering with Nature over the last decade
has allowed us to identify many of the key enablers for
advancing Engineering with Nature, including developing new
science and engineering practice, fostering creative planning
and design, documenting the diverse benefits of nature-based
solutions, communicating widely to facilitate progress,
preparing practitioners through education and training, and
leveraging the power of collaboration across organizations and
sectors to innovate.
And likewise, we've recognized that challenges exist.
Conventional engineering in nature-based solutions may not
align with the community's vision. All solutions, whether
conventional or nature-based, require land to build the
solutions at the scale the problems require, and hesitancy
regarding new engineering practice.
We're fueling our progress through collaboration and
partnering. The Corps of Engineers established the Network for
Engineering with Nature with the University of Georgia in 2020
to engage across sectors and universities around the country,
including the University of Oklahoma, Arizona State University,
the University of Florida, the University of Delaware, among
others. And we're partnering with other government agencies at
the Federal and State level such as NOAA, including Dr. Thur
and his colleagues at NCCOS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the National Park Service, the California Department
of Water Resources, among others.
The Corps has established national Engineering with Nature
practice leads for coastal and river applications to complement
the leadership being provided by the six Engineering with
Nature proving grounds at our district offices across the
Corps. For example, we're working with Galveston District on
nature-based coastal resilience across Texas, with Philadelphia
District on Back Bay nature-based solutions in New Jersey, and
with St. Louis District at the intersection of river and
agricultural landscapes.
Dialogue and collaboration with the private sector,
nonprofits, and financial institutions is helping us understand
the business case for nature-based solutions. We're
collaborating with organizations across the Department of
Defense to support mission resilience at installations through
Engineering with Nature. With the Department of the Army, with
the Navy, with the Air Force and its $5 billion rebuild of
Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida following Hurricane Michael,
and with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or
DARPA, and its reef fence program.
Nature-based solutions are being built around the world as
standalone projects and, importantly, in combination with
conventional engineering to produce multipurpose benefits. I'd
like to thank you again for the invitation to testify before
the Committee, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bridges follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much, Dr. Bridges.
Before we proceed, I would like to bring to the
Subcommittee's attention four letters for the record from
organizations that engage in nature-based infrastructure. These
include submissions from the Environmental Defense Fund, the
National Wildlife Federation, the National Estuarine Research
Reserve Association, and the Association of State Floodplain
Managers. These letters highlight research gaps with respect to
nature-based infrastructure and support additional Federal
investment in this research.
Without objection, I am entering these documents into the
record.
At this point, we will begin our first round of questions.
The Chair recognizes herself for five minutes.
In my opening remarks, I told you about my visits to
waterways in my northern New Jersey district. One of the
problems I've heard about from my constituents is that
historically deeper waterways have seen their depths reduced
from the buildup of silt. For example, along the Whippany River
in Hanover, New Jersey, I'm told sections that used to be
twenty feet deep are only four feet deep now due to the silt
buildup. This dramatically reduces the capacity of the river to
handle increased water flow from heavy rain events, resulting
in waters overtopping the riverbanks and flooding nearby
communities.
Dr. Bridges, I understand that part of the solution in such
instances is to remove obstructions in and along the river and
increase the channel depth. But I'm interested in hearing about
how nature-based improvements can be a sustainable part of the
solution. Can you tell me about the Army Corps' projects where
measures like replanting vegetation along eroding riverbanks
and de-snagging have reduced long-term flooding?
Dr. Bridges. Thank you for the question, Chairwoman. I
think there are a whole range of opportunities. You've
mentioned a few of them, including riparian-zone restoration.
Soil that is eroding off of the landscape, you know, is ending
up in waterways and creating this enhancement in sedimentation,
which we then have to, if you will, artificially or through
engineering means correct through dredging, for example.
I would mention again this Horseshoe Bend island project
that I mentioned. I know it's a completely different system.
But one of engineering benefits we derived there is that when
this 88-acre island was built with sediment that we dredged
from the navigation channel, the hydraulics of the system
changed such that now that portion of the river actually moves
sediment more efficiently and effectively than it did before so
that we now save about $4 million in less dredging costs at
that portion of the navigation channel because of that island.
And that island is natural. We provided the sediment to the
river. The sediment built the island--I mean, the river built
the island. It is in a sense a nature-based river training
structure. And so we're getting engineering benefits from
nature at the same time that we're getting environmental, as
well as social benefits.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And are there other natural
infrastructure ideas that can be used to reduce stormwater
runoff into these waterways?
Dr. Bridges. Your question is for me again? I think there
are a whole range of them. When we can control overland flow of
water using such features as green infrastructure and bioswales
and detention areas, we can--it also provides an opportunity to
control the flow of soil or sediment into systems. And I think
it's a combination of these kinds of measures, including
natural measures but also by restoring landscapes where we have
serious runoff.
I'm actually borrowed--borrowing an office at Marine Air
Station Yuma in Yuma, Arizona, right now, where we're having a
3-day workshop on the application of nature-based solutions in
arid climates. And soil movement during storms and flooding
events in the desert is a very serious problem and moves a lot
of sediment, especially after wildfires. But we have to take
care of the landscape. If we can take care of the landscape, we
can reduce the sediment loadings into our river and stream
systems.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Well, thank you. And I'm sorry to be
picking on you, Dr. Bridges, but my district in North Jersey
was devastated by Hurricane Ida, and increased rainfall due to
climate change will continue to be a significant burden to my
constituents. I'm encouraged by the potential of nature-based
infrastructure solutions to help mitigate the effects of severe
rainfall and flooding, and this Committee has already passed my
bill, the PRECIP Act, which directs NOAA to update
precipitation estimates, and I expect to have a full House vote
on it soon.
I'm wondering if you or Dr. Thur know how that will--how
improved precipitation estimates will help support the
strategic implementation of natural infrastructure.
Dr. Thur. If I may? So understanding and predicting the
flow of water is critical to most of our economic activity, and
NOAA has a huge role to play in that. And I recognize Ranking
Member Bice mentioned inland areas in her opening comments as
well. So NOAA may not have a direct role in encouraging natural
infrastructure inland. Our trust resources are along the coast.
However, our science can provide support to those that do have
that implementation role. And so we are attempting to model and
understand how severe will precipitation events be in the
future, so what are the inundation pulses that our natural
infrastructure components need to be designed to handle. And so
we're providing science solutions and precipitation modeling to
our partners, including the Army Corps and localities in inland
areas.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Well, thank you. I'm afraid my time is
up. This has been very interesting. And so I am now going to
turn it over and recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Mrs. Bice, for five minutes.
Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill.
My question--the first question is directed to Dr. Hunt.
You're currently undertaking a pretty unique project related to
developing cloud-based data base networks within the ARS. As
Dr. Thur can attest, over the last few years, NOAA has also
been working on a similar transition for their models from data
to cloud. I want to start by asking about the effort, the
challenges you're facing, and if there are any ideas or
suggestions on how NOAA or possibly DOE (Department of Energy)
with their advanced computing power may be able to help you in
this effort. And, Dr. Thur, you're also welcome to chime in
there.
Dr. Hunt. Thank you, Ranking Member Bice, for your
question. Yes, we are getting heavily involved in the area of
big data both historic and real-time through our Partnerships
in Data Innovations, partnering with a number of other ARS
scientists, as well as Federal agencies to pull in data such as
the climatology, meteorology data that can be used to support
the design of these infrastructure.
And so some of the areas that we are looking and starting
to develop is low-cost sensor networks, using and deploying
unmanned aerial vehicles to help us assess these dams and other
hydraulic infrastructure so we can have a better understanding
of their performance and how they react to changing climate for
instance. And so, yes, we are very heavily involved in this
area and look to partner with other Federal agencies, as we
already have.
Mrs. Bice. Dr. Thur, would you like to comment on that?
Dr. Thur. Thank you, ma'am. I would briefly. I would say
that NOAA is constrained in our supercomputing capacity. And
for weather forecasting in particular, we have about a 1:1
ratio between the supercomputing power allocated to operational
models for forecasts and research modeling, so that's the R&D
(research and development) side. Other locations, including the
European Center, have a 10:1 ratio, research-to-operations. And
so we look forward to working with the Department of Energy for
the supercomputing capacity that they may have that we can
bring to bear on natural infrastructure, as well as other
challenges.
Mrs. Bice. Thank you for that. And to followup, Dr. Thur,
in your testimony you said that single-purpose coastal projects
have been the primary approach for water management and
environmental programs. I understand that your expertise is in
coastal science, so this question might quickly move out of
your range of knowledge. But on the coast it's easy to see how
green infrastructure can be multiuse, reduces flood risk and
restores fisheries, for example. But I have a feeling it is
maybe not that easy for inland States like Oklahoma, which also
have water management needs. Can you talk about the potential
multiuse projects that NOAA can assist with that are not on the
coast and what research is needed for these projects to yield
the maximum net benefits for communities they're located in?
Dr. Thur. Thank you for the question. I can provide an
example. It is not from Oklahoma. It is from a riverine system
in Oregon. It may be applicable. There in Tillamook we had a
project that was primarily focused on restoring habitat for
threatened salmon. However, that project also involved
providing flood storage capacity by bringing down earthen
levees and restoring the river's access to its historic
floodplain. That worked for the salmon to provide additional
habitat, but it also, in a 443-acre parcel, reduced flood
damage to 4,800 acres in the nearby community. It just so
happened we completed the project in 2017 there was a flood in
that same year, and there was a dramatic decrease in damage to
the infrastructure. And so as an example of riverine project we
were involved with because of an endangered species that could
be used in inland areas such as Oklahoma.
Mrs. Bice. Perfect. I think for Congressman Feenstra and I,
who are inland, these types of projects are much more sort of
applicable to where we are.
And finally, Dr. Bridges, in your testimony you mentioned
the Army Corps has established a Network for Engineering with
Nature in 2020 and you're going to be partnering with the
University of Oklahoma, among other institutions. Can you
briefly talk about the partnership and the potential benefits?
Dr. Bridges. Yes, thank you very much, Ranking Member Bice.
Collaboration is key to innovation. I mean, it is. And the
inland heartland of our country has substantial need and I
think substantial opportunity for nature-based solutions. I did
a 5,000 mile road trip this summer visiting all sorts of
projects and different landscape contexts where I talked about
nature-based solutions. I'm going to be in Oklahoma in 2 weeks
meeting with folks at the University of Oklahoma, and one of
the first products we're going to generate for this
collaboration is a nature-based solutions playbook for the
Great Plains.
Mrs. Bice. Wow.
Dr. Bridges. So how can we across the entire landscape from
rivers and reservoirs and upland areas identify nature-based
solutions that could be used in combination again with
conventional engineering to provide engineering benefits for
flood management, drought management, and everything in
between, as well as the broader array of benefits, including
recreational benefits, as well as environmental benefits that
we can achieve? But I firmly--am firmly committed to the idea
that the heartland and the inland, there are many opportunities
and needs that we need to satisfy with these approaches.
Mrs. Bice. Perfect. Well, Dr. Bridges, I look forward to
maybe connecting with you on that specific project.
And Madam Chairwoman, my time has expired, so I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. I'm now going to defer to
Committee Counsel for the order of recognition.
Staff. Mr. Casten is recognized.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee
Counsel. And thank you to all our speakers. I really appreciate
your time here.
My home State of Illinois has done some really innovative
things around cover crop incentive programs and we're working
to try to see if we can build some national legislation that
would build on this. The--as I don't need to tell you
witnesses, there's a ton of benefits from different cover crop
practices and increasing soil carbon retention. I think the
NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) found that every one
percent increase in soil or organic matter leads to 20,000
gallons of water per acre more water retention in soils, which
of course helps with droughts. I'm also consistently intrigued
by this--I think it was a National Academies of Science
analysis that found that we can store an extra 250 million
metric tons of carbon in our soils with better soil management
techniques. And there's a whole litany of things we can do
about that, but I am hard-pressed to think of any other
negative emissions technology that actually grows our economy
and helps for climate disaster.
Dr. Hunt, I want to start with you. Can you give us a
little bit of color on ARS's cover crop and healthy soil
research platforms, how they can help us better understand the
ability of cover crops to mitigate climate risk? And if you
can, my legislative push has been on cover crops. Are there
other soil management techniques we should also be thinking
about to increase the ability of our soils to hold more carbon?
Dr. Hunt. Very great question and a little bit outside my
area, so that's likely a question for the record that I'll get
back to you with from my staff. But what I can tell you is that
the research that we provide on infrastructure for instance
provides many benefits, including irrigation. And I know that
isn't necessarily something that's traditionally done in your
State, but that's one of the benefits that will help in
drought-prone areas. We also have other ARS scientists working
in various areas, and that's one thing great about ARS as a
whole. It's a scientific organization where we coordinate our
research and work together to answer some of these bigger
problems like you have brought up.
Mr. Casten. OK. Well, I would love to--if you have some
thoughts, let's followup off the record because it really is
important. I mean, you know, I've said for a long time there's
only three things we need to do to avert climate disaster. We
need to double our energy efficiency, we need to figure out how
to decarbonize our hard-to-decarbonize industries, and then we
need to stop CO2 emissions by about 1992 because
we've already overshot and these negative CO2
technologies like in agriculture can help with that.
The--I want to shift if I could to Dr. Bridges. The--
there's a company in my district called Profile Products that
specializes in nature-based options for soil and erosion
control products, and they're trying to be directly responsive
to some concerns that the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources has raised about that plastic netting that we always
see on the sides of--you know, on the sides of roads when we're
doing soil retention that can present a hazard to humans and
wildlife, you know, these microplastics that degrade and go
into the soils.
I'm curious, Dr. Bridges, as you look nationally, what
are--what practices can you tell us about for regrowing
vegetation as a part of soil erosion for control of levees,
dams, water-authorized projects? And when complying with these
environmental standards, is the Corps looking specifically at
environmentally sustainable technologies when selecting
materials and techniques for these projects?
Dr. Bridges. Thank you, sir, for the question. I would
first like to, you know, say amen to your emphasis on soils.
Plants and soils are so key not only to the carbon cycle but
also to the hydrologic cycle. And our ability to kind of invest
in plant soil systems, we can solve multiple problems at the
same time, including the points you were making with respect to
carbon sequestration. But, as you say, as you increase the
carbon content of soils, that soil is also able to take on more
water, so less flows over the surface and potentially streams
into rivers that generate floods. So these things are all
connected together.
And I think it's one of the benefits of nature-based
solutions is that they offer, you know, twofers and threefers
and fourfers, you know, that we can get several different
problems and challenges with the same investment. We've been
making investments in plant systems. In fact, we've published
one book on Engineering with Nature with native plants, how
plants themselves are, you know, eco-engineers, and we need to
figure out ways to use them more effectively for systems like
sand dunes and stabilizing--making sand dunes along our coast
more resilient but, as you point out, levees as well as other
landscape features. And we're open and very interested in
collaborating with private sector to advance more sustainable
practices in regard to soil retention and plant systems
overall.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, and I yield back.
Staff. Mr. Feenstra is now recognized.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill and Ranking
Member Bice, and thank you to all our witnesses for your
testimony and sharing your extensive experience today on this
subject.
Dr. Hunt, I have the pleasure of serving on the House
Agricultural Committee, so I am happy for the opportunity to
talk to folks from the USDA. Similar to your home State of
Oklahoma, Iowa has a large number of small watershed projects
and several earthen dams. We have learned how to fortify these
structures dramatically over time thanks to the research done
by the USDA. Moving forward, what other areas do you think we
should direct USDA research to help ensure that we can get the
maximum use out of our natural infrastructure for generations
to come?
Dr. Hunt. Thank you for your question. That is a very good
question and part of the reason that we are spreading out into
monitoring and assessing dam performance outside of our
traditional physical modeling. But, you know, we learn
something every day. One thing I know is that I work with many
States like Iowa. And recently, they reached out to me about
the use of new metal products in pipes for these dams and how
that would affect the hydraulic performance of these
structures. And this was in partnership with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service where they had these questions.
And so we can look back in our research but also it's important
to recognize these new products are being developed that are
being used that still need to be researched to ensure that they
are performing as they should.
But again, back to the monitoring, that is one aspect that
we are truly starting to expand our research on so we can
provide this data and share this data so irrigation districts
can use the information to know how much water is available in
the reservoir, for emergency managers to know how to mitigate
possible flooding downstream. And so that is one area of
research that is growing.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Hunt. Thank you
very much.
Dr. Thur, this is sort of going down the same vein as
Congresswoman Bice. In your written testimony, it heavily
focuses on NOAA's work on the coastal mitigation, particularly
as it relates to the sea rise. Although my district is not near
the coastal bodies of water, our lakes, watersheds, and rivers
are of great importance. The Missouri River is a great example
as it borders six of my district's most expansive counties. Can
you explain how this research might benefit my constituents?
Dr. Thur. I can, sir. Thank you for the question. As Dr.
Bridges has mentioned, there are applications of specific
techniques that may be appropriate for both coastal and
riverine systems, and so I do think there is some
transferability of research that's done on natural-based
infrastructure along the coast that can be transported inland
to riverine systems.
I would also add that NOAA has an interest in nature-based
solutions in freshwater inland areas because of the impacts
downstream to our agency's trust resources. So I sit on the
Hypoxia Task Force, which is focused on reducing excess
nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico, Mississippi River and work
directly with State Departments of Agriculture to try to do
that. The environmental challenge we're addressing there is a
zone of low oxygen water in the Gulf of Mexico that prevents
most life. Locally, those excess nutrients harm the waterways
that you're talking about. So to the extent that natural and
nature-based infrastructure can reduce excess nutrient
pollution to our local waterways that flow downstream to NOAA's
area of trust resources, we have significant interest there.
Mr. Feenstra. Wonderful, wonderful. And I think I got just
a few more seconds to ask my last question. Dr. Bridges,
considering the durability and resilience of infrastructure
projects over the long term, it is important to recognize that
these nature-based infrastructure features are often paired
with traditional infrastructure. For example, in Iowa we have a
revolving loan fund that pairs these two approaches to improve
water quality. The Army Corps of Engineers implements this
approach as well. Do you agree that it is important to evaluate
the pros and cons of different project features over the long
term when it comes to cost-effectiveness and durability? And
I've got about 15 seconds.
Dr. Bridges. Yes, thank you, Congressman, for the question.
Of course it's important to compare the costs and the benefits.
I think one--one of the things that we're seeing happen in the
emerging science with regard to nature-based solutions is how
do we evaluate costs and benefits in a comprehensive fashion as
opposed to a narrow view of costs and benefits. And there's a
lot of progress being made on this front. And Dr. Thur referred
to the importance of the social science in respect to this.
I was actually in Iowa this summer on my trip, and I
actually put my feet on the ground on some nature-based
solutions in the form of what we call in the Corps of Engineers
levy setbacks along the Missouri River where we're restoring
floodplain, increasing potential for flood storage, and
importantly relieving pressure on the conventional
infrastructure that's being challenged by high flows. So there
are tremendous potentials in States like yours to do this and
to capture these costs and benefits in the broadest possible
way.
Mr. Feenstra. Well, thank you, Dr. Bridges. And I'm glad
you had your two feet in heaven there. With that, I yield back.
Staff. Mrs. Fletcher is recognized.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, and thank you to
Chairwoman Sherrill and Ranking Member Bice for holding this
hearing today. And thanks to all of our witnesses for taking
the time to testify. I've enjoyed all the testimony. It's been
very helpful.
Dr. Bridges, I couldn't help but notice in your testimony
you mentioned your work on a project in my region, your work
with the Galveston district of the Army Corps of Engineers on
the Texas Coastal Spine Project. And for those less familiar
with the project, this project includes both hard and nature-
based infrastructure along the Texas coast to protect the
coast, including, importantly, the Houston-Galveston Bay area
to protect us from storm surge and flooding relating--you know,
rising during hurricanes. And it includes the restoration and
creation of marshes and dunes and reefs and breakwaters and a
lot of really innovative and important projects that I know our
constituents are very excited to see get done. The Chief's
report was just published last fall, and so it is now time for
Congress to authorize it this year.
Nature-based solutions are very important to my
constituents in Houston. We see it in the Texas Coastal Spine
Project, we see it in the Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries
Resiliency Study. These are issues--these are things that my
constituents want to see us doing more of. And it's important
to us in our area where we have had repeated flooding and storm
surge affecting our whole region.
We--as my colleagues on this Committee I think know by now,
we had three 500-year floods three years in a row, one of which
was the result of Hurricane Harvey, which was the most
significant tropical cyclone rainfall event ever recorded. It
dropped nine trillion gallons of water along the Texas coast,
and it caused more than $125 billion in damages. So these
issues are top of mind for my constituents all the time.
Now, what we hear, the scientists who've come before this
Committee ever since I've been in Congress have told us that
storms like these will be more frequent and they will be longer
in duration because of climate change.
And so with that in mind, I want to direct really two
questions to you. I'm going to start with Dr. Bridges. Just
how--can you talk a little bit about how the Corps in the
projects that you work on take into consideration that the
conditions will change over time because of climate change? And
certainly, we've seen that again this week with the most recent
reports. So how do you take that into consideration as you're
working on these nature-based projects in particular? And then
I have a question for all of our witnesses after that.
Dr. Bridges. OK. I'll try to be brief and to say I think
it's increasingly important that when we do planning for
projects of the scale of the one you mentioned along the coast
of Texas that we consider in an imaginative way the scenarios
that could play out that our infrastructure is going to be
challenged by. Because if you were to ask anybody the months
before Hurricane Harvey whether or not Houston was going to get
50 inches of rain in 10 days, everybody would have said no. So
we have to be creative and imaginative if we want to develop
resilient systems. Both words are very important, resilient
systems.
And resilient systems I think can be developed,
importantly, by trying to leverage what nature and what the
landscape in that area can provide and support. And that's the
work that we're doing with our Galveston district. And they're
very much on the forefront. They're leaning forward in doing
this kind of work. And I think the rest of the Corps has an
opportunity to learn from them and their work in Texas, and
we're happy to support them by bringing in elements to help
create this more--this broader imagination for what our systems
are going to be challenged by in the future. Thank you.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thanks so much for that. And I agree
with you on the strength of the Galveston district in
particular of the Corps. They've got great leadership, and
they've really been very good partners as we address these most
pressing issues for our communities. So I appreciate your
answer there, and I do think it was unimaginable to us as well.
And we in Congress and in the government need to do that
imagining. We need to think about all of the things that can
happen, especially as we talk about what could happen in our
communities as a result of climate change.
And so that was my--my next question is kind of for
everyone, anyone who wants to take it. Just wondering what
additional types of research and development at the Federal
level, whether it's at the Corps or whether it's at NOAA or
another agency, what would be most helpful to you in providing
the best options to protect the Texas coast but coastal areas
all across the country in light of rapidly changing climate?
Dr. Thur. If I may?
Mrs. Fletcher. Yes.
Dr. Thur. Thank you for the question, ma'am. There are a
wealth of projects that are being implemented along our coasts
and in inland areas that are using nature-based features. There
are at least a dozen or more programs that are funding those.
The vast majority of those are focused solely on
implementation. There are relatively few programs dedicated to
long-term monitoring and research so that when our Nation
reinvests in nature-based infrastructure following the next
Superstorm Sandy or with the next Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act, we have the knowledge we need to develop these more
effectively. And so I would identify for you there is a
potential gap in the research mandate and potentially funding
along with these large implementation projects that we have had
authorized.
Mrs. Fletcher. OK. Thank you so much for that. I have now
exceeded my time, but I think that's very helpful guidance for
our Committee as we look at how we can best support this work.
So with that, Chairwoman Sherrill, I yield back, and thank you
again for holding this hearing.
Staff. Mr. Gonzalez is recognized.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill and
Ranking Member Bice for holding the hearing and to our
witnesses for joining us.
Dr. Thur, I'm going to jump right in and touch specifically
on the Great Lakes. I'm from northeast Ohio, have enjoyed the
Great Lakes for my entire life. And as I'm sure you know, they
are experiencing record high water levels and severe storm
surges that continue to significantly erode many bluffs and
beaches across the shoreline and put more and more communities
at risk for flooding and water quality impacts, something I'm
seeing every single year. And as a kid I don't remember ever
seeing this much flooding or hardly any flooding at all.
Although nature-based infrastructure presents a promising
solution to an increasingly difficult challenge, which I just
highlighted, its use remains quite limited in the Great Lakes
due to limited funding opportunities and general uncertainty
and performance. Can you expand on the current state of
performance research and perhaps where Congress can be more
helpful with respect to funding opportunities?
Dr. Thur. Thank you for the question. I can provide a
response in a couple of ways. So NOAA has a Regional Integrated
Science and Assessment Program that works regionally with
States. And in the Great Lakes specifically they have worked
with 12 cities within the Great Lakes broader watershed to
coproduce municipal vulnerability assessments. They are
attempting to use both Federal resourcing, technical skill, as
well as funding and local knowledge to determine what can be
done to manage stormwater through, among other things, nature-
based infrastructure. And one of those municipalities has been
successful in issuing the first--the largest environmental
impact bond for $54 million for natural infrastructure within
their city. And so I think that's an example of how to use
science and local knowledge to leverage additional non-Federal
resources through the bond issuance.
I would also state that in terms of the research gaps, the
answer that I provided to the previous question, we are funding
a fair amount of infrastructure investment, but we are not
coupling that with a mandate to conduct long-term research of
those projects.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. And obviously the long-term
research component is critical, I think critical, frankly, to
solving most of our science-based problems. We can't have this
uncertain funding stream, but to have long-term funding in
place I think gives your community and everyone a fighting
chance at solving some of these challenges.
Dr. Thur, I'm going to stay with you and again focus on
performance. One of the hurdles facing nature-based
interventions is the lack of indicators and metrics for
measuring effectiveness because each project has different
context-specific factors that can fluctuate over time such as
financial capital, frequency and intensity of natural hazards,
and what the local communities themselves consider effective.
Would simple standardized metrics of nature-based interventions
help alleviate this problem? Is that even possible given the
dynamics? And if not, what other alternatives should we
consider?
Dr. Thur. Yes, thank you for the question, and it is a
great one. And it is an area of active research. I think Dr.
Bridges has mentioned both Atlas and produced some guidelines
along with many other partners that help practitioners
understand where--Engineering with Nature solutions may be most
effective. It is true that there is complete local context for
the use of these features, but I think it is also the case that
there can be some specific measures that are incorporated that
give indications of appropriateness, habitat type or nature-
based feature type. And so I do think it is always going to be
a combination of higher-level guidance that has some loosely
used standards, I will say, and some local context and
implementation because, as you indicated, the contexts are so
individual-specific.
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, thank you. Well, a unique set of
challenges for sure, but I want to thank you again and the
Chair for holding this hearing and all of our witnesses and
look forward to supporting your work. Thank you.
Staff. Chairwoman Sherrill, all Members present have
completed their first round of questions, so we shall begin a
second round. And Chairwoman Sherrill, you are recognized.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. I asked for a second round
of questions because I do have one burning question that always
plagues me in these hearings. As we heard--we've heard some
fantastic ideas, some actual projects that have taken place
that sound like they could be very helpful in some of the towns
in my district. And I just, as I sit here, wonder, it seems so
difficult for my local mayors and the local town engineers to
get access to this information, understand how to implement
some of these programs, understand the cost-benefit analysis
that we've been talking, you know, of some of these programs.
And that's partly why we're holding this hearing, because while
we've heard some of the green infrastructure can be utilized
quite well and certainly in a place like New Jersey, the most
densely populated State in the Nation, we're very careful about
our land use now and conserving our land and determining the
balance because of course we always have a lot of development
going on as well and how we best do that.
But getting this access to this information and
understanding how to balance the decisions sounds--it seems
like my mayors don't have access to this or my town engineers
don't have access to this. Do any of you have a sense of how
they might get that access and what we might do better--how we
might do better to help them?
Dr. Hunt. I can take this question. Currently, through our
Partners in Data Innovations with ARS, we are working to not
only grab that monitoring data information but bring it into
our servers and stand it up through a decision-support
informatics platform where we can easily share this
information, this data, bring in other data from other
resources, couple it and integrate real-time data with historic
data that will be accessible to scientists, to stakeholders
like you mentioned, emergency managers where we can share
models, where they can ask the expert, for instance. And so,
yes, ARS is heavily involved in that, and that's a lot of what
we're doing through collaborations with other Federal agencies,
with our State dam safety officials, academic institutions to
bring this to fruition.
Dr. Thur. If I may----
Dr. Bridges. [inaudible].
Chairwoman Sherrill. I think we've lost Dr. Bridges for----
Dr. Bridges. [inaudible]----
Chairwoman Sherrill. Dr. Bridges, we've lost your feed a
little bit. You're in and out.
Dr. Bridges. [inaudible]----
Chairwoman Sherrill. Darn it. Dr. Thur, do you want to go
and maybe we'll try again with Dr. Bridges right after.
Dr. Thur. Thank you, ma'am. I would say we recognize that
there are certain things us as a Federal agency are well
equipped to do, conduct some research, fund some direct
implementation. We also recognize there are things we may not
be best positioned to do, and community outreach may be one of
those. And so within NOAA we fund specific programs that at the
State level employ specific individuals to do that connection
to the science at the local level. These include our Sea Grant
Program, which are present in all of our coastal and Great
Lakes States, the Regional Integrated Science and Assessment
Program I mentioned earlier, and even the Coastal Zone
Management Programs. And so these are State or university
employees providing--provided funding by NOAA to do just what
you were asking about.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And finally, Dr. Bridges,
do you want to try again?
Dr. Bridges. Can you hear me now?
Chairwoman Sherrill. I think so.
Dr. Bridges. Can you hear me now?
Chairwoman Sherrill. Yes.
Dr. Bridges. OK. Well, I was emphasizing we made a big
investment in our public-facing website for Engineering with
Nature, and using that website actually is a broad repository
for information about nature-based solutions. We actually
launched a podcast for engineering you can--you know, you can
[inaudible] laypeople audiences so that they can be more aware
of the options that are available to them. And we get a lot of
feedback. I've been contacted by city engineers before because
they listened to a podcast that we had.
So [inaudible] we do need to invest in outreach and be very
deliberate about that and to share this information to the
local, regional level. Thank you.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Well, thank you. And I hear you're in
God's country, but I don't know which part of New Jersey you
visited on your trip.
But without further ado, I will yield to our Ranking Member
Mrs. Bice.
Mrs. Bice. Madam Chairman, I don't have any additional
questions for the witnesses.
Chairwoman Sherrill. All right. Well, thank you all for
indulging me, a fantastic conversation, and I really appreciate
all of your time. It's been really a wonderful discussion.
So before we bring the hearing to a close, I want to once
more thank everybody for your testimony. The record will remain
open for two weeks for additional statements from the Members
and for any additional questions the Committee may ask of the
witnesses. So the witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now
adjourned. Thank you all so much.
[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]