Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. California is home to one of the most diverse coastal and ocean ecosystems in the world. With over 1,100 miles of coastline, this coast and ocean is treasured by residents and visitors. I think it's safe to say this is a part of our cultural identity, part of our California lifeblood, and it supports a marine economy of over $41 billion as of 2020.

Yet California's coast and ocean are threatened by the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, and in particular, our coastal and marine ecosystems face risk from marine heat waves, pollution and habitat destruction and loss, among other things. 30x30 is an international movement to protect 30% of the world's land and coastal waters as intact natural ecosystems by the year 2030. It's a milestone to a larger goal to protect 50% of these areas by 2050 in order to halt and reverse the world's extinction crisis.

To combat this crisis in California, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order in 2020, adopting a goal to conserve at least 30% of California's land and coastal waters by the year 2030. My Bill, SB 337, later codified this goal into law in the year 2023. The state has already made strong progress by conserving 16.2% of its coastal waters through its marine protected areas network and 24.4% of lands.

But to reach the coastal water goal, the state must act aggressively, conserving approximately 500,000 more acres of our marine environment. Last year, this Committee convened a hearing to better understand the Newsom administration's approach and progress on the 30x30 land goal. This year and today, this Committee is convening a hearing to better understand the Newsom administration's approach and progress on the coastal waters part of this goal.

This hearing will also review the performance of the State's Marine Protected Areas Network, which was established in its current form in the year 2012. This will include reviewing the findings and recommendations from this first once in a decade review of the network that was finalized last year. Finally, a goal of this hearing is to ask stakeholders and the public to weigh in on these topics. Please note that we'll be hearing all the panels on the agenda prior to taking any public comment.

The public comment will only be on the topic of today's agenda, and I will enforce that. I would like to also thank our panelists in advance for showing up this morning to share your insights and perspectives. I know you're all very busy, and your time here is very much appreciated. I know a number of our Administration Members were dealing with an oil sheen in Huntington Beach just earlier this week, or last week.

I'd like to take a few minutes to allow my Senate colleagues the opportunity to make their own opening remarks. Do any of our Members, any of the Member have any?

I think the entire rest of the Committee that's here is prepared to make some comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for having the hearing, and thanks to everybody who's getting prepared to contribute. I think, for me, a lot of this has focused on the land based part of 30x30. So I'm very grateful that the Committee is having the hearing on the ocean side of it.

And as you laid out the number of miles that exist of California coastline, and I represent just under a quarter of it and had responsibility for all of it as chair of the Ocean Protection Council for eight years. And I think that it took years to get the Marine Protected Area System up and running. Designated up and running. The first real designations happened 10 years after the act was enacted. And so it really tells the difficulty and the complexity with doing that.

And it is science based. And I love to tell the story of marching in the Science March in Santa Cruz and having everybody say, what do we want science? When do we want it? And the crowd would go now, and then the crowd would go with peer review, and it would make me crazy, because it would add a whole level of time to it when we had the political will to move before that happened.

And so the staff report is so good about the options, but some of them will take a while to get fully in order. And as we see with the current budget, you also try to get it moving when you have money and not have it finally come up when you don't. And I know that I happen to strongly support a proposed sanctuary that's off of my district.

And I know some of the advocates are here today, and it has to be coordinated with Offshore Wind, which I also support, to meet our renewable goals, which is really going to get to the issue of ocean acidification and heating of the ocean, and some of the things that are very much challenging to the ocean environment.

And so it is important that we do this in a way that people can, or those two things can coexist in a way that protects the ocean and moves us toward our client goals.

And so I really look forward to the testimony on balancing this and on a specific roadmap, because I think some of us are ready to start marching down the road with specific tasks and knowing what it is that we have to do to lead to the protection and the person that was responsible for 30x30 that's now at the Wildlife Conservation Board, who is a respected colleague and does a great job. I always pressed for where the specificity is, and it is there now.

And now we need to know, particularly in the light of our budget situation, where we can put our efforts to make sure that we move ahead and don't lose time on this. So I thank the chair for structuring this hearing, and I look forward to the testimony.

Thank you very much for your comments, Senator, and for your leadership on this topic. So we'll move now to our first panel on statewide perspectives. And we have 40 minutes for presentations followed by 15 minutes for questions. Our first panelist, we're honored to have Secretary Crowfoot, Wade Crowfoot, secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, and I understand that you'll be splitting the first 30 minutes with Deputy Secretary Eckerley and Director Bonham.

Thank you so much. Chair. Senator Laird, thank you for all of your years of work as a precursor to what we'll talk about here today when you served as secretary and Senator Min for, as you explained, codifying 30x30 as a law of the land in California. My job might be the easiest here, and that's just to provide some big picture context for the discussion we're going to have today.

As you pointed out, the Governor, the Legislature are aligned to protect 30% of our land in coastal waters by 2030. It's worth noting that three months after the Governor issued his initial executive order, President Biden, Vice President Harris, embraced 30x30, calling it America the Beautiful. And the President invoked his commitment on 30x30 as recently as the State of the Union just a few days ago.

It's also worth noting that at the end of 2022, virtually every nation in the world came together on the shared commitment to conserve 30% of the earth by 2030. And I'll say this, the world is watching California, because frankly, as I move around in these international fora, California has a more specific roadmap than almost any other place in the world around how to achieve that.

And that is our pathways to 30x30, which is, as you point out, both on the land side and on the coastal water side. And I'm proud of our progress with a lot more work ahead. I think we can also very much be proud of all of the protections and all of the work happening both on our coast and marine environment in California. We have the strongest coastal protections in the form of the Coastal Act.

We have the Coastal Commission, the Coastal Conservancy, our State Lands Commission, our Ocean Protection Council, our Maritime Division of our Fish and Wildlife Department, and all of those entities are working together to address these challenging issues. 30x30 I talk about it as a means to an end. We know that we need more conserved areas, both on land and water, but we know we also need to do a lot more.

So today we'll talk about pathways that we're exploring that would benefit our coast and oceans, that would also benefit our 30x30 goals. I think I would stress maybe just a couple of points. One is regarding our Marine Protected Area Network. I think we can all be proud of this network. 124 underwater parks people like me get to travel around the world and take credit for the hard work of others establishing this. And it's really an international model.

And as Senator Laird pointed out, it took a long time to establish because there are many communities impacted by this, our fishing community, our tribal communities, certainly our environmental conservation communities as well. And so as we consider any modifications to the marine protected area, we need to do that based on science, and we need to do it with a whole lot of thoughtful engagement with all of these communities that are impacted by any changes that we'd be making.

I'll also point out that I don't think there's any silver bullet to achieving our 30x30 in our coastal environment. And my colleague, Deputy Secretary Eckerley will talk about other pathways beyond modifications to MPAs that we're considering that could qualify under our strong definition of conserved and protected areas for 30x30. So most of all, huge thanks for your leadership and your partnership on 30x30.

I'm really motivated on the goal because it's time bound and we can hold ourselves accountable for making progress. And we are. We have t-minus six years to achieve this goal, both on the land side and on the salty side, as we say. And we're up for the task. Ask so I'll turn it over to Director Bonham now to talk more about the nuts and bolts of the work on the decade review for the marine protected areas and our work on 30x30.

Thank you, Director, Bonham. Secretary Eckerle.

Thank you so much Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Jenn Eckerle. I'm the Deputy Secretary for oceans and coastal policy for the Natural Resources Agency. I'm also the Executive Director of the Ocean Protection Council. And I want to also thank you for your leadership and your commitment to protecting California's natural resources both on land and in the ocean. So I'm going to focus on the work that we've been doing to implement 30 by 30 in coastal waters. The Ocean Protection Council is leading that effort, and it's based on a portfolio of four key strategies adaptively managing the state's MPA network, supporting tribally led conservation, including indigenous marine stewardship areas, exploring the existing spatial management measures to determine the extent to which they meet the state's definition of a 30 by 30 conserved area and strengthening biodiversity protections within national marine sanctuaries. I'm going to walk you through each of these strategies and share our progress and next steps. On MPAs, Director Bonham just provided a detailed overview of the state's MPA network and how monitoring results are showing positive outcomes for biodiversity. Our MPAs, which were created to protect marine life and habitats and improve ocean health, meet the definition of conserved in the pathways strategy because they provide durable ecosystem level protection covering 16% of state waters. California's MPA network gets us more than halfway towards our 30 by 30 conservation goal for state waters. And just a side note, I think I've been in that time machine since 2006. I'm really privileged and grateful to be here continuing this work. Adaptively managing our state's MPAs so they can continue to provide strong protections for coastal and ocean biodiversity, particularly in the face of climate change, is a key component to achieving the state's 30 by 30 target. As Chuck mentioned, any changes to the network will occur through the process currently underway with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Fish and Game Commission, and will be based on science and informed by community input. MPAs play an important role in this initiative, but they are not the only strategy for getting us to 30. Our approach also includes supporting tribally led conservation. Tribally led conservation is key to the success of the state's 30 by 30 effort, and the state has a responsibility to provide opportunities and funding to support tribes in leading conservation actions that help protect biodiversity. Creation and implementation of indigenous marine stewardship areas, as outlined in the Pathways strategy, can enhance tribal stewardship of marine and coastal ecosystems and advance biodiversity priorities shared between California American tribes and the state. The state is in the early stages of developing policies to support this concept. Last year, as sovereign nations Resugini Rancheria, Talawadani Nation, and the Sharai Heights Indian community of the Trinidad Rancheria designated the first ever indigenous marine stewardship area in the United States along our north coast to restore traditional ecological knowledge and management practices that sustained the area's natural abundance before colonial disruption. We are working in partnership with these three designating tribes on next steps for this indigenous marine stewardship area, and we have also launched a collaborative effort with the resource agency's deputy secretary for tribal affairs to initiate early consultation on tribally led stewardship, access, comanagement, and ancestral land return. Feedback received through this early consultation will inform OPC's efforts to conserve 30% of California's coastal waters by 2030, including soliciting tribal input on potential approaches for designing and comanaging indigenous marine stewardship areas. Our approach also includes exploring existing spatial management measures that currently exist in state waters. As you all know, California's coastal waters include a range of spatial management measures, including areas that were designed to protect water quality or to support sustainable fisheries management. These areas may provide conservation benefits, but they require further analysis to determine whether they contribute to our 30 by 30 goal. Last fall, OPC completed a comprehensive inventory of existing spatial management measures in state waters. We partnered with the California Ocean Science Trust to convene a technical advisory panel that are developing science based criteria to help evaluate which of these spatial management measures meets the definition of a 30 x 30 conserved area. The panel will provide guidance for translating and applying policy goals such as durability, effective management, functional ecosystems, and biodiversity protection. Draft science based criteria will be released for tribal consultation and public comment this summer, followed by a series of regional public workshops to solicit additional feedback. We anticipate finalizing this criteria by the end of this year, and once finalized, OPC will use these criteria to determine which spatial management measures in the ocean now contribute to 30 by 30 or what additional measures are needed to strengthen conservation in these areas. Our approach to counting these areas toward 30 x 30 will be modeled after the process in place for conserved areas on land. Additionally, by December, we plan to invest in key research needs to help identify areas that should be prioritized for strengthened biodiversity protections, such as areas of climate refuge. We also need to continue investing in regular monitoring and evaluation to track our progress towards meeting our biodiversity goals, leveraging existing monitoring programs, considering traditional knowledges, and filling key data gaps. And our final strategy to achieve 30 by 30 in coastal waters is focused on strengthening biodiversity protections within national marine sanctuaries. Our state is home to four national marine sanctuaries, three of which cover almost 41% of state waters. These sanctuaries were established to conserve unique natural and cultural resources, and they include areas of exceptionally high biodiversity. While sanctuaries provide an important conservation benefits for marine life and habitats, each sanctuary has different regulations and policies that need to be assessed to determine whether they meet the pathway's definition of conserved. Sanctuaries will undergo the same evaluation as other spatial management measures to determine the extent to which the areas within their boundaries are meeting the definition of a 30 by 30 conserved area. OPC will continue to work with federal partners to identify threats to sanctuary resources, such as poor water quality or whale ship strikes and opportunities to address these threats through strengthened protections. Our near term efforts for this strategy are focused on collaboration with the Greater Fairlands National Marine Sanctuary, which is currently updating its management plan to improve conservation of sanctuary resources. This update, which occurs approximately every 10 years, involves evaluation of their existing measures to protect ecological and cultural resources in the sanctuary and identify new management measures in response to updated threats and needs. It provides an ideal opportunity to align the sanctuary management plan with the state's 30 by 30 efforts for coastal waters. By the end of this year, we will present the spatial management evaluation criteria and recommendations for strengthened management measures to the Greater Fairlands Sanctuary Advisory Council. This will inform their priorities for their updated management plan, including actions to further biodiversity conservation. The recommendations and actions that arise as part of this process with greater Fairlawns will inform similar efforts in partnership with the other national marine sanctuaries in state waters. Our work to date across all of these strategies has involved extensive public outreach and engagement to share our approach and solicit feedback and community priorities. This is foundational to our success, and it will continue to be a core priority in our efforts going forward. So, in closing, as we advance our ambitious conservation goals for coastal waters, we cannot rely on just one strategy to get us there. Conserving an additional half a million acres requires a portfolio of strategies tailored with solutions that specifically address the threats facing our coastal and ocean ecosystems. Our actions must also reflect the perspectives of everyone in California who is invested in a healthy ocean, including tribes, fishermen, environmental groups, and community Members. And one final comment. We should be really proud of the work and California's leadership in this space. As Secretary Crowfoot noted, Marine conservation and 30 by 30 efforts at the national and international level are looking to California as a model. We are really grateful to the Governor, to the Legislature, and to all of our partners for prioritizing biodiversity protection and helping us continue to lead the way. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretary Eckerle. Next we'll hear from Dr. Liz Whitman, Executive Director of the California Ocean Science Trust. Welcome, Dr. Whiteman. You have 10 minutes.

Good morning. Thank you, chair Members, for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Dr. Liz Whitteman. I'm privileged to serve as Executive Director of the California Ocean Science Trust, an organization that was created by the Legislature to bring science to the decisions shaping the future of our coast and ocean. Thank you for your leadership on science. I, too, jumped into the time machine in 2006 with the opportunity to lead some of the early steps of the scientific design of the monitoring and evaluation program. I was drawn to California by this incredible opportunity from the Caribbean, where, honestly, I was quite happy. So this was a major opportunity. Building on what has already been shared in my brief remarks, I hope to really dive into some of the aspects and some of the questions about how climate change is affecting our coastal ecosystems and what science, guidance and evidence we have to lean on for effective and durable solutions. So climate it's worth noting that climate driven changes in ocean circulation, in temperature, in chemistry, have had impacts on marine ecosystems at a pace and scale that were not anticipated when the MPAs were designed over a decade ago. And it's created an urgency to understanding whether and in what ways the MPA network confers climate resilience and what other tools we might bring to bear on this challenge. So in 2021, as an early step in the decadal review of the MPA network, in partnership with Ocean Protection Council and support to support the Department of Fish and Wildlife, we convened an expert science panel to synthesize the best available science on the role of MPAs in conferring climate change resilience, the best available science nationally, internationally, but applied specifically to the cold water slow changing ecosystems in the California current. The panel's findings were really clear, and I'm going to read an excerpt from their report, a short paragraph, and then unpack it a little bit. The excerpt is compiled evidence from the California current ecosystem and beyond suggests that protections provided by MPAs, including enhancing biological attributes such as genetic diversity, maintaining intact food webs, and supporting large population sizes, are important in buffering the impacts of climate change. However, the science to evaluate and plan for, proactively plan for MPAs as a resilience management tool is not yet robust. And MPAs, even when ideally designed, are unlikely to support resilience against the full range of multiple stresses or extreme events that now are now facing coastal ecosystems. So let's unpack that in a little bit more detail and in light of new research, new findings and new work underway. Even since the release of that report in 2021, as Director Bonham already noted, after 10 years of research and data collection in the MPA network, the changes we see are also consistent with a pathway towards climate resilience, taking into account the long scales of change in these coastal ecosystems. You've already heard how long term monitoring programs have revealed changes to populations and, for some species and habitats, California's MPAs support populations of bigger or more abundant fish and invertebrates, including fish species in Southern California, such as the sheephead, kelp, bass and spiny lobster. These changes are consistent with that first part of the panel's findings that changes in MPAs can slowly accrue climate resilience. I'll also highlight here the results of a modeling study conducted by colleagues at UC Santa Cruz in which they demonstrate that the MPAs are more connected to one another and other parts of the coast than areas outside of MPAs. So the original science design of the network appears to enhance larval connectivity in MPAs across the network. And this connectivity, as has been briefly mentioned, is one of those attributes that is predicted to confer greater resilience. So if you experience a disturbance in one area, the connections mean that you can recover and stabilize across the network as a whole. Now, while it's still too early to have documented all the ways that the MPA network may confer climate resilience, as I mentioned, it will accrue slowly over time. And honestly, we don't want to wait until we have the empirical evidence from seeing the disturbances in place. The science is all clear and pointing in the same direction that California's MPA network is a critical tool in our tool belt. But we can and should look to the scientific community for recommendations on steps to strengthen it. If climate resilience is now a more prominent goal than it was in the original design, the panel that I mentioned provided some recommendations on adaptively managing the network as a whole. Things like things to monitor, pay attention to, be alerted to as climate change impacts happen guidance and policy direction supported by science on restoration and its role in actively maintaining and improving habitats. So at the scale of individual MPAs as well, bringing the best available science to bear on the suggested petitions to change the network is a critical next step. If a boundary is moved or a level of protection changed, what do we expect will happen? And what do we expect will happen? If, in the face of climate change that brings uncertainty, will the action be reasonably expected to achieve the intended outcomes? I would briefly recognize how this aligns with one of the priority recommendations in the decadal management review to measure specifically the effectiveness of management actions towards the stated goals. So the 2021 panel's advice and caution was also borne out in a scientific study published late last year. In a collaborative effort with scientists from across multiple California universities, researchers did a deep dive on the effects of the 2004 to 2014 sorry to 2016 marine heat wave on the assemblages of species, the communities of critters living in rocky shores, kelp forests, shallow reefs and deep reefs, all of which dramatically shifted and moved and changed in composition during that marine heat wave. Only in protected, rocky, intertidal habitats did community structure significantly resist the marine heat wave impacts. So again, some of that climate resilience may accrue further over time. But again, these results underscore that while the network may serve as a backbone for biodiversity conservation and climate resilience, it's unreasonable to expect them to buffer against all large scale, large magnitude climate impacts. So evaluating other tools in our toolbox is important. Building on the remarks from Deputy Secretary Eckley, we are privileged to convene the technical advisory panel for evaluating the contribution of other spatial management measures to meeting the goals of 30 by 30 in coastal waters. In short, tapping into the best scientific thinking and advice on how management designations in coastal waters, such as water quality protected areas, other fishing spatial management measures, or military use areas may play a role in affording protection to biodiversity and, over time, conferring climate resilience. This guidance will also help the state work with federal partners to strengthen biodiversity protections in the national marine sanctuaries. So at the time of MPA network and design over 10 years ago, cutting edge research was translated from the halls of academia into science guidelines or rules of thumb. This process was an amazing example of what it means to take the available, complex evidence from peer reviewed publications into a practical, decision based arena and build a level playing field from which everybody could bring their values and their interests. Today, the 30 by 30 technical panel that we are convening on behalf of Ocean Protection Council is stepping up to provide advice on how to do essentially the same thing towards the vision of 30 by 30, but this time leveraging the spatial management that is already in place in California's waters. So, in closing, as you already know, California's MPA network has achieved international acclaim as a science based and community driven network. With the 30 by 30 technical panel process underway and a science community at the ready to continue to support on adaptive management of the MPA network, we're poised to continue to strengthen how science supports responsible and durable decisions, even as we face uncertainty in our future. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Whitteman, I'm glad you joined us from the Caribbean, and thank you all for your testimony today. Really informative panel, and I now want to bring it back to the Committee for any questions. Senator Laird

Thank you. I have a brief comment and hopefully brief discussions in three areas or questions. And the brief comment is, I really appreciate Director Whitteman's comment about science on dealing with any changes in the MPA, and I myself may have got out ahead of that with one proposal for another 10 miles off of Santa Cruz that I'm not sure the science supports. And I'm working hard to figure out how to say police default to the science on that, not elected officials that write letters.

And then the three questions, and I think maybe the first one for Director Bonham, one of the things that also contributed to the development of the marine protected areas was the philanthropic involvement. And normally foundations make grants for a year or two and then toss it to people to do the ongoing costs. And this went for a decade. And they did signs, they did the iPads that the officers could take out so that they could check if somebody was already cited for this, et cetera. Has that philanthropic effort run out now or is there still money available to this process?

Well, I can't speak for any individual, foundation or donor in the private space, and Secretary Crowfoot may want to add any thoughts here. But Senator, you're correct, we wouldn't be here, but for everybody that's interested, please be involved approach through 2008, 9, 10, 11 and 12 to get to our Commission, approving the network in the 124 areas was about seven years and $38 million of a process.

I don't think we should replicate that, but I do think how to design a process that's transparent and faster, that is based on science but accounts for community engagement will be a test for our Commission when it's looking at the current 20 petitions and 86 changes.

I have not asked our leading philanthropic voices in California their interest in supporting something going forward, but they're intricately woven into the science trust to a lot of the community collaboration, the dynamics with the tribal marine Steward network, all of that is an often tried phrase, but truly a public private partnership secretary.

I would add, by agreeing with the critical importance of philanthropic funding to get us where we are today, I am hopeful and confident that given that the MPAs are now institutionalized and we have sort of an institutionalized decade review and management review process, it might be less centrally critical to have that amount of philanthropic funding, but it's entirely possible that some amount of philanthropic funding could be deployed strategically to support this process. I don't think, candidly that that conversation has happened broadly with philanthropy, Senator, but if needed, we'll be ready to have that conversation.

Senator, on that front, people like to be associated with success. I think the network to date has been successful in almost all regards. So I think it'd be reasonable to expect we have some infusion of public private partnership for whatever the next generation or error may look like on this.

Quick addition, last point is that there is ongoing funding supporting the MPA collaborative, for example, which is a community based effort supporting education and engagement on MPAs across the state. So we don't want to leave the impression that the philanthropic support has dried up, per se, but it's definitely not what it was informing the MPAs.

Thank you. And just an observation on the collaborative, since the chair happens to represent Orange County, is that when the designations were made in Northern California and certain places, governments were just in favor of this, just passed resolutions. In certain places in Southern California, there was grassroots organizing to really push. So then when there was a need for collaboratives to make sure the signage went up and everything, everybody in Southern California was ready. They were organized.

Everybody in the north had just sort of signed a letter and had to catch up. And I have always saluted the collaborative in Orange County for that effort. I'll bypass the second question, because it's a longer discussion because the tribes were raised, and I think it's going to come up in a panel, but it was initially the negotiations to honor historic takes for subsistence or ceremonial purposes in conservation areas.

And there's been some talk of comanagement, and hopefully that will come up so that specific on the next steps. The last question is, this is 30 x 30, and so the real goal is 30% in coastal waters by 2030. I know the answer to this question, but I think everybody out there needs to hear this. Does that 30% goal include places that have already been designated, like the marine sanctuaries and state waters and other things? And where are we in our goal toward 30% by 2030? With what we've done already?

It's a great question. It gets right at the crux of it. So let me take a crack, which is we were very confident in the first round of assessing conserved or protected areas, that this 16.2% of state waters that are marine protected areas fit the strong definition of conserved areas.

As deputy Secretary Eckerle pointed out, there is an effort underway to really determine what are other pathways beyond MPAs to achieve that level of protection, including stronger biodiversity protections in sanctuaries, potentially establishing other types of protective areas outside of sanctuaries or MPAs, and then institutionalizing these tribally designated protected areas. So the short answer is that the 30% doesn't have to come through the MPA system, that there are these other pathways that are evolving.

And as I said in my opening remarks, I don't think the MPAs are necessarily a silver bullet to 30 x 30. That being said, there are a number of proposals. Our Fish and Game Commission will consider them, and it very well could lead to the protected area network expanding or being amended in other ways.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Any other questions from the Committee? Senator Allen?

Well, I just want to say I've been really enjoying serving on the OPC, and I just think it's one of many examples of the really hard work that is reflected in all your presentations. I know there's just so much work that goes behind all of this, behind every comment you've made. There's a staffer out there actually doing it, naturalists and rangers and oceanographers and all the rest.

So I just want to tip my hat to the massive operation that's out there doing all of this vitally important work, and we're really hopeful to continue partnering with you. The only thing I want to just throw out there is maybe wade or any of you might want to just comment on how you see kind of the long term financing for some of this work where a potential climate resiliency bond may fit into that, given all of the budget challenges that we have.

We're about to have a really rough meeting, apparently at lunch about some of the solutions that are being discussed. And I can't help but notice, serving on sub two, that so many of the solutions are coming out of the environmental space. Can you give us a sense of where the current difficult budget situation has the challenges it creates for you and how you're navigating those difficult waters right now?

Yeah. Thanks so much. It's an important and challenging question. First of all, I would state the obvious, which is the leadership of the Governor and the Legislature over the last few years infused more funding into environmental conservation than, frankly, we could have ever imagined. And we've made significant progress on 30x30 writ large as a result of that investment.

Let me state the obvious point as well, that this budget shortfall, whatever it amounts to at the end of the day, has impact on our ability to strategically acquire established conservation easements and do the work that Director Bonham referenced in the marine environment. So there are serious headwinds to being able to implement 30x30 as a result of the current funding situation.

I will leave it to state leaders, the Legislature, and the Governor to determine what the appropriate pathway is, whether it's a general obligation bond or weathering the storm over the next few years that's ultimately above our pay grade. But I'll just be candid and point out the obvious, which is this budget challenge does limit our acceleration, our momentum achieving 30x30.

Thank you, Senator Allen, Senator Stern.

Thank you. Really appreciate the testimony. I was watching from afar multitasking here, but thank you for all the diligence and the science behind this is remarkable. I think it actually has scalability potential at a global level, especially given all the MOUs we've entered around the world. I think that we have a ways to go, but the model we're building, to me, I want to make sure it keeps being shared and new capital is coming.

It may not come in the same ways in the same form, but I think at least at a global scale, what we've seen at a lack of a vehicle or an instrument, that global financial capital actually can value the natural assets that we have, but that the demand is increasing for those kinds of assets and of rethinking. I'm wondering if you guys have given any thought to that kind of creative financing in light of the headwinds we're facing.

Are there models out across the world to look to where, say, philanthropy, conservationists, but also private capital can come in and sort of value the biodiversity in here and we can find new, even if it's only surgical in certain applications? Are there ways to leverage private or philanthropic capital here in ways that we haven't built the right vehicle yet for maybe?

I know the SCC rejected, for instance, this instrument of a natural asset corporation because Congress in our House GOP, decided that this was some kind of version of climate interventionism that they didn't want to see from the SCC and they backed off a few months ago, but those sort of new financial models still seem like there's demand out of Europe. I don't know. I just wanted to comment on that in light of your response to Senator Allen's point about bond.

And incidentally, I wouldn't say just General Fund or bond. GGRF remains a viable pathway. It is still solvent. It is still vibrant, and in fact, it is being underutilized as a resource going forward. So I'd still flag that as within our grasp, but beyond our grasp, I guess.

I'll set up Secretary Crowfoot with two quick first remarks. And I know your questions are about the current challenging times looking ahead, but let me give you a specific example of how your leadership, looking backwards, has made a difference in marine protected areas. Five years ago, maybe six years ago, our Department of Fish and Wildlife had no dedicated marine patrol boat between San Francisco. And at the time, I would say our most northern patrol boat was probably the Eureka area.

Because of your one-time funding thoughtfulness with our Governor, we're bringing on a patrol boat in Fort Bragg. That'll help on marine protected areas and many other things in the ocean space. So you've made a difference. And then when you turn and look forward, I personally think there are plenty of ways to bring private capital into the ecosystem services world. I'll just take it, for instance, and speak personally. I'm a surfer, love to surf.

That industry has a vested interest in climate resiliency and preservation of our ecosystems off our shore. I can see all kinds of partnerships in the future. And as you know, because Secretary Stern, with Secretary Crowfoot and others, you're on the international stage, there's a long-running discussion about how we're going to finance a global investment in preventing species extinction. I think the private sector is all about competitive advantage. Capitalism is a fine thing, and it can be applied in this space as well.

That's my own view. Over to you, Secretary.

Yeah, I mean, I would just say, most broadly, ecosystems are life systems. So protecting ecosystems, restoring ecosystems, is fundamental to our own species' survival. I think most would agree on that. But it's important to point out that this biodiversity, healthy ecosystems, isn't a nice to have. It's a have to have. Unfortunately, as we know, it's been externalized out of our current financial system.

So bringing it in and understanding how we make these investments, ultimately to protect ourselves, to protect our communities, to protect our future, is critical. We spent a lot of time in conversations internationally around this point, and I think we're just at the inception of this, but California stands ready to pilot in any way possible on this, particularly on the coast.

We're seeing some of this in the wildfire space, which is really exciting, where private capital is being brought to bear to make upfront investments in building wildfire resilience. And I'm really excited about the prospect of finding the right private partners to pilot with to do this in the maritime environment.

Dr. Whiteman, did you have a comment?

I was just going to briefly add from a science perspective that there's a lot of interest in exploring ways to bring science to bear on the design of climate financing. I mean, I won't comment on its relevance to California, but, for example, coral reefs have recently been designated by the Federal Government as infrastructure, which opens up new lines of revenue to support them. Similar lines of inquiry could be pursued for the West Coast.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I had a few questions as well. I'll try to make it a couple, actually. And I just wanted to thank you for your testimony. Very informative, nice storytelling. And taking us back to the time machine was very cool.

And I just wanted to note, I appreciated the points about collaboration with the tribes and the outreach that you're doing, some of the points you made around the take and the yields, because I know that's an important issue to a lot of commercial fishermen out there. And I think, Dr. Whiteman, you addressed very clearly some of the impacts that climate change is having. So those were a lot of the questions I had.

I wanted to bring it back briefly to the question around how much is this going to cost. Because you'd mentioned, I think, Secretary Crowfoot, that this had costed us $38 million over seven years to get to this point, what's it going to cost us when we talk about the amount of money to get another 500,000 acres protected, what's the ballpark figure on what we're going to need here?

It's a fair question. I think it's very different in the maritime environment from the land environment, because so much of our focus on conserving land can be quantified, primarily because we're getting a lot of that conservation through acquisitions and easements, which are financial transactions in the marine space. It's different because it's really a regulatory designation, whether it's modified MPAs or enhanced biodiversity protection and sanctuaries, or institutionalizing tribal marine steward networks or something else.

So, to colleagues, how would you quantify costs on sort of this assessment of regulatory standards, strengthening, or different designations? I think, frankly, Chair it's a bit tricky.

I assume some of this is ongoing as well. But if we're talking about for the next seven years or six years to get to 2030 to expand out to another 500,000 acres, I'm just looking for a ballpark figure. Whether it's on an ongoing basis or as a one-time figure, what are we looking at in this budget-constrained environment?

Go ahead.

I won't give you a specific figure. I'd like to think about the question more, but I can tell you on our narrow component related to the pending 20 petitions in front of our Fish and Game Commission, it will not cost the $38 million in seven years. I think what we predict is, for those petition changes that are more minor, we can run through this process in a matter of months to the end of the year.

For those that may be more complicated to decide upon, a couple of years. And those are costs we're accounting for and we're well underway on that process.

Gotcha. And then I know we just received a lot of money that can be allocated for climate-related purposes from the Federal Government, from IRA, BIF, and other budgetary items that were passed. Is any of that money repurposable for preserving, expanding our open spaces here?

Go ahead.

I think that remains an open question. We are very focused, as you know, on securing federal funding for habitat improvements, primarily on the aquatic side, really on river restoration and habitat expansion, so impacting a lot of species that use the ocean, including salmon, but more on the freshwater side. We haven't focused as much as bringing in funding on the salty side, but that is an area of ongoing discussion.

Got it. Thank you. I'm sorry go ahead.

Thank you. I just wanted to add that to put a finer point on something Secretary Crowfoot said earlier about the fact that we've institutionalized our marine protected areas into the state's governance. That includes this huge leadership partnership across agencies, the collaboratives, academic partners, and others, to stand up the ongoing management of our MPAs. And so what that brings us is power in numbers and ability to leverage expertise and resources. We have an action plan that directs the work, the collaborative work, together.

So it's really about building on the incredible strength of the work in California and developing. We're in the process of looking at the next monitoring program, and how do we do that in a way that is efficient and cost-effective, that answers questions and collects data so that we can continue to adaptively manage the network in a way that addresses the questions that are still outstanding. And then one final comment.

I see 30x30 as kind of a rallying cry for the good work and conservation that we're doing in the ocean. And so it is an umbrella under which we can embed the conservation work to protect against climate, to advance equity, to support biodiversity, and to support the sustainable economy. And so we have sources of funding at OPC and at our sister agencies and with the Federal Government that can be leveraged to support all of this work.

And I see the monitoring piece, which is already really built out for our MPA network, as a launch pad to connect to all of the other monitoring programs and really build out. So we're getting the data we need, and we're not reinventing the wheel or spending more money than we need to.

I concur, and I confess this is an instantaneous thought. So, danger, on the land front, as Secretary Crowfoot mentioned, the funding question example, I think, is well captured in acquisition or easement, some sort of land legal instrument that ensures the achievement of conservation. That's a financial transaction. It's well understood and monetized.

I don't see a one-to-one, apple-to-apple analogy, but if there were an analogy, I would encourage us to think about monitoring as the most perhaps easily monetized aspect of what needs to happen, and something you can put a price on more easily, because there's no analog of acquisition in the ocean.

That's helpful. Thank you, Director and Director. I wanted to take it also back. If we think about what's going to happen by the year 2030, we've also got a number of other moving parts here, including an aggressive mandate to try to build out a lot of offshore wind. I know that a number of desalination plants are being considered around the state, a whole bunch of other building projects near and on the coastline. And I guess I'm wondering how you balance.

So your spatial management piece of this is important, but how do you manage some of these other priorities and goals and some of the externalities that they bring to bear, whether it's noise pollution, actual pollution, or otherwise? We've got Director Bonham, you just came back from Huntington Beach, and it looks like that might have been a false alarm. But we know that a lot of these offshore drilling platforms are potentially sources of major oil pollution and leaks and spills.

How do we balance those considerations into the 30x30 goal?

Yeah, it's an excellent question. And the answer, I think, is very carefully. We have to do many things at once, including more than double the size of our energy grid with 100% clean energy both in the ocean and on the land. We also have this spatial planning challenge on the land, and we're trying to protect habitat and habitat connectivity while at the same time bringing on more renewables, more energy storage. We can do both, both on land and in ocean. In the ocean. You're absolutely right.

The Governor, the Legislature are very focused on West Coast offshore wind, and for good reason. Our grid needs it. But we need to do that in a way that fully understands potential impacts and then avoids, minimizes, or mitigates those impacts, not only environmental impacts, but critically important cultural impacts for coastal tribes. So that question is being asked and answered in real time.

And I think to the extent that you can hold us accountable for ensuring that as we advance offshore wind, we do so recognizing that the co-equal goal of protection and restoration of our maritime environment is going to be essential.

Senator, two thoughts on your question. First, there are more risks to ocean conservation than just fishing. Your reference to the oil sheen event starting last Thursday, carrying through to this morning off Newport Beach and Huntington Beach, is but one example. I don't think it was a false alarm as much as you personally, our Governor, Secretary Crowfoot, several years ago had to deal with a much more significant and disastrous spill. We learned lessons from that.

And the response over the last several days between the U.S. Coast Guard, Orange County, including its public health, all of its City Beach patrols, and our Department's Office of Spill Prevention and Response were on it fast, dealt with it, and cleaned it up both in the marine and on the shoreline environment at over 80% cleanup. We learned lessons, but it's a risk which leads me to the balancing part of my answer.

I'd be remiss if I didn't say on behalf of our Department, our fishing communities up and down the coast, people still make a hardworking living on our seas, catching food for our dinner plates. We ought to honor that. They're facing tough times up and down the coast. So when we go through the question of analyzing our marine protected area network, considering whether it should be expanded or amended, there needs to be room for their voices in the discussion as well.

I'll remind you in my opening remarks, the data is showing, notwithstanding, the network catch and opportunity is remaining strong. So we have a social dynamic that needs to include us having those voices in our discussion on marine protected areas. Thanks for your time.

Thank you, Director, Dr. Whiteside.

Just briefly add that the monitoring data has been deeply analyzed for the purposes of the decade or management review. It doesn't mean it's done. We have it.

It's an asset that we can re-examine, ask new questions of, and explore things like at the moment we were looking at, take the Larval Connectivity Model, are the MPAs connected? But we can also use that same set of data and the model to say where would we get the maximum value from additional protected areas or leveraging the existing spatial management so we can expect more return on the investment in our research and monitoring.

Thank you. Dr. Do you have comments, Secretary? Well, thank you very much for your testimony. Very, very informative. Appreciate your time. I know you're all very busy and I guess we'll move on to our next panel then. I appreciate your time today. We'll hear from members of our second panel next on Native American and stakeholder perspectives and so on this panel each presenter will have nine minutes and there will be around 15 minutes hopefully for questions after everyone has presented.

So if the panelists come on up, that'd be great.

And our first panelist today will be Ms. Gianna Patchen of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, and you can proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Can you hear me?

Coming in clear.

Good morning, Senate Committee and attendees. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to be here today. My name is Gianna Patchen. I am the Campaign Manager for the proposed Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. I'm here on behalf of Chairwoman Violet Sage Walker of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council. She extends her gratitude for this opportunity to share the Northern Chumash Tribal Council's work on the proposed sanctuary campaign.

I brought visuals so you'll see those on the computer screens behind me, and there are also some maps available in your packets. These are the final months for the sanctuary campaign with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration targeting a mid 2024 designation decision. I'm here to share the story of the sanctuary campaign as well as the urgency to designate this campaign by mid 2024. The proposed Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary is the first tribally-nominated sanctuary in the United States.

This campaign is led by Chairwoman Violet Sage Walker of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, a Central Coast California tribe. It is a Chumash belief that the ocean is grandmother and all of her inhabitants are relatives, guided by the deep obligation to take care of all relatives. This Chumash legacy of stewardship is at the core of this sanctuary campaign.

Ten years ago, Chair Walker's father, the late Chief Fred Collins, nominated the sanctuary, supported by a local grassroots coalition. Chair Violet Sage Walker now carries her father's legacy in each day of our work. The proposed sanctuary lies on the Central Coast of California in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. The Northern Chumash Tribal Council nominated over 7,500 square miles of ocean spanning 156 miles of coastline.

This is a really exciting opportunity to add to the state and federal 30 by 30 goals and to implement adaptive management of our ocean with tribal collaborative management from the very start. This stretch of ocean is vital and vulnerable. She is grandmother ocean, bringing sustenance, spirituality, community, joy, and so much more. These waters are also a key part of the Pacific Ocean food web, home to a globally significant transition zone, unique deep sea upwelling, and abundant biodiversity.

This area is also currently a gap in a long stretch of California marine sanctuary protection. It has been a target of industrialization and exploitation, including offshore oil expansion, seismic testing, and untreated discharge dumping. Designating the Chumash Sanctuary would close the gap and connect the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary to the north with the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary to the south. This connectivity is key. It has been a long road towards sanctuary designation with over 40 years of advocacy from local Central Coasts.

It finally moved forward in 2015 when NOAA accepted the Northern Chumash Tribal Council's nomination. Community support is essential for a nomination, and over the ten years, the sanctuary campaign has garnered support at every single step of the way.

After the nomination was accepted, the sanctuary sat in NOAA's inventory for five years, triggering a 2025 year review where we had to continue to demonstrate this public support. And we did. The Chumash Sanctuary got over 14,000 comments and 99 percent support. In November 2021, NOAA officially initiated the designation process. This multistep process began with a public scoping comment period so NOAA could collect input from the general public. And again, we helped get over 22,000 comments and another 99 percent support.

NOAA then took these comments and prepared the draft documents. In August of 2023, NOAA finally released the draft documents for the sanctuary. This included an environmental impact statement, management plan, and proposed rule, which included a draft tribal collaborative framework, proposed regulations, and five different boundary alternatives for the sanctuary. In this comment period, there was overwhelming turnout with over 110,000 comments and again over 99 percent support, and the vast majority asked for the biggest original boundaries. A diverse array of communities were represented here.

Tribes, businesses, scientists, faith communities, fishermen, youth organizations, coalitions, local to federal governments, and so much more. Thank you to everyone in this room who participated throughout this process and continues to participate both publicly and behind the scenes. We couldn't do this without you. Now NOAA is preparing the final documents. These documents will eventually have an interagency review, a congressional review, and a California Governor review.

NOAA is targeting mid 2024 for the designation decision, and we do not want it to be delayed or pushed off to the next Administration. Time is a big concern. Another challenge is the boundaries, but it is also an opportunity. When NOAA released their draft documents, there were various boundary options outlined, and NOAA's preferred agency alternative boundary, which you can see up here, included a cut 2,000 square miles of ocean from the sanctuary, including the northern stretch from Cambria to Los Osos, reducing that connectivity.

The primary reason was to accommodate the new Morro Bay 399 offshore wind area's transmission cables, which will connect the lease area to land. The offshore wind development, as many of you know, is still in early stages, and it's not known exactly where or how many cables are needed. In this bigger map, you will see the blue lease area, the triangle to the northwest, and these maps are also in your folder.

The Northern Chumash Tribal Council does not want to see renewable energy and conservation pitted against each other. Both are essential to combat the climate crisis. This sanctuary is an opportunity for the United States and California to show that renewable energy and conservation can and must work together. The Council and our supporters want the largest contiguous boundaries, and we want a clear permitting pathway for future offshore wind cabling. NOAA's draft environmental impact statement noted that the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries could authorize other agency permits.

This ONMS authorization would allow other agencies to have primary permitting authority for cables throughout the proposed sanctuary, while still giving the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries the ability to impose conditions to protect our ecological resources. This allows a clear permitting pathway for offshore wind cables that reduces the leaseholders' concerns and ensures ecosystem protections. We are really excited about this solution. California's pathways to 30 by 30 report has ambitious goals to support biodiversity, mitigate the climate crisis, and protect California's biocultural places.

The proposed Chumash Sanctuary would go a long way to fulfill the federal and state 30 by 30 goals by adding marine protections in federal and state waters while creating collaborative pathways with local tribes and with offshore wind development. I'm excited to also say that this sanctuary would provide over 375,000 acres of state water protection. We are looking forward to see the Chumash Sanctuary designated this year.

It will be a shining example for how we can and must work together to mitigate the climate crisis and create a thriving future for all. Thank you for your time and your work today. I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you. You're almost exactly nine minutes, so thank you for that. Next we'll hear from Ms. Karla Garibay Garcia, Oceans Consultant for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Welcome, Ms. Garcia. You have nine minutes.

Thank you, Chairman, Committee Members, and staff, I'm Karla Garibay Garcia, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council. Thank you for the invitation to share NRDC's perspective on 30 by 30 implementation in coastal waters. Science has been at the forefront of NRDC's advocacy. The 30 by 30 goal seeks to address the degradation of our lands and ocean, which is destroying the plan's ability to support life.

Decades of scientific research has shown that when well-designed and well-managed MPAs that remove the greatest amount of pressure are some of the most effective tools to protect and restore marine ecosystems. The strategy is simple: reduce or eliminate the cumulative impacts of ocean-based industries in discrete areas so that marine ecosystems can function unimpaired in those locations. Individually, MPAs can mitigate local harms, but as a connected network, they can help guard against regional or large-scale stressors like climate change.

This is why the MLPA Master Plan called for strong protections, like our state marine reserves to be the backbone of the MPA network. As Director Bonham mentioned, the DMR noted positive signs that California's network is promoting ecosystem health by supporting biodiversity and providing refuge for more, bigger, and older fish, as well as showing attributes of climate resilience. NRDC's efforts in the adaptive management process have focused on expanding and strengthening the MPA network and defending against efforts to weaken it.

NRDC submitted two petitions to designate new fully and highly protected MPAs, one of which seeks to advance tribal access and co-management. Around 16 petitions before the Fish and Game Commission aim to strengthen the network, and if accepted, we've roughly estimated that the petitions could contribute a modest 2.5 percent toward 30 by 30. A few petitions seek to weaken the network by opening up SMRs to different forms of fishing.

Removing protections in this way could undermine ecosystem recovery, a process that can take decades and would be short-sighted, especially as climate change causes our ocean ecosystems to become less predictable and hospitable to marine life. A decision to open up our SMRs through state marine reserves to extractive use would not only be unprecedented and send a dangerous signal globally, but it would simply be premature. NRDC is concerned that the potential of this strategy to achieve 30 by 30 in coastal waters may be constrained.

Early signals from the Commission suggest that only minor tweaks to the network will be given serious consideration through the near-term adaptive management. The process for future or ongoing adaptive management is still a little bit unclear. The state has made it clear that the adaptive management process will not be driven by the state's 30 by 30 initiative, and we understand this.

But we hope that this does not mean that California will close the door too early on potential biodiversity and climate benefits that could result from strengthening and expanding the network. A second strategy identified by the state is the strengthening of national marine sanctuaries. However, one challenge is that sanctuaries do not currently meet the state's definition of concerned due to their low levels of protection.

A review of the most recent condition reports of California's four national and marine sanctuaries shows that 70 percent of habitat and wildlife conditions received a poor or fair rating, indicating that the majority of resources within sanctuaries are experiencing measurable, severe, and widespread degradation. Rather than evaluating an entire sanctuary as meeting or not meeting the definition of conserved, NRDC recommends a tailored approach that layers additional protections in select areas to deliver meaningful biodiversity outcomes.

We urge the state to address top stressors identified in each sanctuary as they review management plans with additional protections and bring sanctuaries closer to full or high levels of protection. We also urge the consideration of new fully or highly protected areas within sanctuaries, in part because measures targeting a single species or stressor alone are insufficient for maintaining and restoring ecosystem function and biodiversity.

The current process to update the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan is a great opportunity for the state to pilot its efforts to enhance protections within state waters of national marine sanctuaries. A third strategy for achieving 30 by 30 is through other effective area-based conservation measures or OECMs. To explore this strategy, OPC developed the inventory of existing spatial management measures and state waters that will soon be evaluated by the 30 by 30 Technical Advisory Panel.

We applaud the state's commitment to a science-based approach to 30 by 30 and believe that all the strategies that Deputy Director Eckerle mentioned will benefit from having clear scientific criteria to evaluate what counts as conserved and to address related data gaps.

To ensure California remains at the leading edge of effective conservation governance, the ultimate determination of what counts as conserved should be held to a high standard and based on the best science available, including existing long-term monitoring projects that demonstrate positive conservation outcomes at an ecosystem level and to ensure that management addresses all existing and reasonable foreseeable threats. Global standards, specifically those developed by the International Union of Conservation of Nature, exist for OECMs, and thus California does not need to reinvent the wheel to determine which areas should be conserved.

From NRDC's perspective, OECMs should complement highly and fully protected MPAs rather than divert resources from the creation, management, or monitoring of protected areas. We will not save our biodiversity and adequately respond to climate change by simply relabeling areas. Protecting nature is different from using nature for other ends, such as sustainable exploitation. This must be recognized by the process that the states adopts for this strategy.

NRDC has not engaged in the establishment of indigenous marine stewardship areas or IMSAs, as we do not represent nor speak for tribes. However, we fully support tribally-led conservation and sovereignty through IMSAs and believe that the recent designation is a great opportunity for indigenous traditional knowledge to shape the management and protection of our coastal waters.

NRDC's advocacy has embraced equity principles in Governor Newsom's 30 by 30 Executive Order and the Pathways document that prioritize the need to center BIPOC communities in decision-making, address the racial and economic inequities associated with conservation, and enhance equitable access to our coastal waters. We applaud the state's commitment to improve coastal access, but we encourage 30 by 30 implementing agencies to think holistically about equitable access. Historically, there has been a tendency by some to view access as only access to fishing.

California's 30 by 30 implementation must acknowledge that access embodies a broader suite of activities than fishing alone and that strong marine protections are compatible with many forms of access. Well-managed and enforced protections often result in positive visitor experiences and tourism benefits. Researchers estimate that Californians take more than 109 million trips to the coast, and most come to simply experience being by the sea. Furthermore, MPAs benefit extractive users through the replenishment of fish populations, resource spillover, and enhance ecological resilience.

This phenomenon is especially pertinent to equitable access for historically marginalized communities who may need to partake in subsistence harvesting from the shore. Access to popular fishing sites such as piers that are proximate to strongly protected MPAs will likely benefit from MPA's existence. California is a global conservation leader. 30 by 30 is an opportunity for California to continue to lead by example and establish a high standard that yields tangible conservation benefits and enhances equitable access.

NRDC believes that California can accomplish this only by reaching beyond the low-hanging fruit. But to do so, at the very least, implementing agencies need sufficient staffing and consistent funding. NRDC hopes that the state will prioritize funding to strengthen marine protections and for the management actions identified in the DMR and by the agencies I spoke before you today. We'd like to thank this Committee and the hardworking agency, department, and commission staff for your continued efforts. We look forward to collaborating toward the most inclusive, science-based 30 by 30 implementation. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms. Garcia. You came in under nine minutes, so I appreciate that brevity. Finally, last but not least, we have Ms. Lisa Damrosch, Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. Thanks so much for being here. Ms. Damrosch, you have nine minutes.

Thank you. I think I'm close, but I'll do my best. Thank you, Members of the Committee. My name is Lisa Damrosch. I very recently became the Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, also known as PCFFA. Commercial fishermen are organized through port associations up and down the West Coast, and PCFFA is an association of these associations of commercial fishermen from Southern California to the Oregon Border.

Commercial fishing members of the organizations we represent have diverse business models, operate with various gear types in many different fisheries in both state and federal waters. PCFFA has been around for nearly 50 years, focusing on preserving commercial fishery access to healthy fish stocks to feed our communities, and advocating for the vibrant future of the commercial fishing industry.

We've engaged in the halls of Congress, on docks and in boardrooms and in panels like this to share the perspective of this very important food producing industry that is such a rich part of California's history. I would venture to say that commercial fishermen are the ultimate ocean stewards. They depend on the ocean for their lives and livelihoods and have more incentive than almost anyone to conserve our ocean resources.

I've always known fishermen to be resilient and brilliant problem-solvers that have an inherent ability to adapt to changing conditions on the ocean and on land. Tapping into this spirit and ensuring that their voices are amplified is my overarching goal at PCFFA. Now, while I am new to PCFFA, I am not new to commercial fishing. My great grandfather bought his first boat in Half Moon Bay in 1918.

My son, who is here with me today, started his full time commercial fishing career in the same waters 102 years later. In between, my grandfather, father, and brother have grown and diversified the family business. As the girl in the family, it took me a bit longer, and it was not until the land support needed to manage the complexities reached a point that it required someone to focus on just that that I got involved.

And honestly, that suited me just fine because the few times I went out with my grandfather and father, I didn't feel so well. And the rule when leaving port is always there's no coming back until the work is done. So it didn't take too many trips for me to be certain my future was on land. In the last 30 years, my brother has gone from a high school deckhand to managing an incredibly complex business.

So many things are unrecognizable from the early days of even--or even from just a decade ago, and yet, at the core, so much is the same. My grandfather would tell stories of fishing with just a compass and a wristwatch, and how in his day he marveled at the new technologies of radar and LORAN. Now we have technology in our pockets and mapping software and reporting devices that ensure fishing activity is conducted only where allowed.

I laugh when I think of what my grandfather would think of checking the weather forecast on a phone rather than by looking out at the horizon. Before Half Moon Bay had a harbor, he would feel the wind coming and go to the beach in the middle of the night, row out to his 36 foot wood boat on a dinghy that he then released to the surf to wash back ashore and make a run for San Francisco before the southeast winds got too strong.

At times, this wasn't possible, and he would have to ride out the storm at sea, sometimes for many days. Much has changed, and our vessels can safely tie to the dock in bad weather, but my brother looks at the horizon, too, and while he has a wheelhouse filled with technology, he also has a wristwatch and a compass, and he knows how to use them. And he's taught my son to use them, too.

He's also taught him, as he was taught, that to work these waters requires immense respect for the ocean and all that she provides. Commercial fishermen know better than anyone that the ocean gives us life and that she can also take it away. I share this to highlight the important heritage and culture of commercial fishing in California. Commercial fishing stories like this have been written and rewritten up and down the coast. Some began generations ago, like mine, and some are just beginning.

But our commercial fishing culture and heritage is woven into the fabric of our California history and hopefully our future. And this is often overlooked and underappreciated. Recent generations are facing many new storms. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council meeting held last week spotlighted complex issues restricting salmon harvest opportunities that may be leading to another closed season. We are expecting another early closure of another late beginning Dungeness crab season and climate change, offshore wind, and many more brewing storms threaten the future of commercial fishing.

And again, the future of commercial fishing isn't just a concept, it's my son sitting right over there and many more like him. These storms are not only a threat to our culture and way of life, but to wild food production for our communities and beyond.

In an interview my grandfather gave in 1970 when asked about evolving catch methods and equipment, he explained the need to adapt to catch fish other than just by hand in order to meet the demand for local, healthy protein by the community and California businesses. Over the years, we've fed restaurants, prisons, military bases, schools, hospitals. Now we live in a world where consumers are incentivized to buy less healthy farmed fish that can damage our ecosystems rather than healthy wild protein that is traceable and fished sustainably right here.

We eat seafood products that are caught in California, shipped overseas for processing, and back to California for consumption, and somehow justify the carbon footprint cost of that journey rather than processing California seafood in California works out. Ironically, these very practices contribute to the climate change that ultimately adds to more fish enclosures. So more storms for us to navigate. All of this contributes to reduced harvest, which is economically damaging to the fleet and the businesses that depend on it.

And further, this is not fair to the general public because ocean resources ultimately belong to them, and they should have the right to enjoy healthy, sustainable, harvested seafood and know where it comes from. And I know Director Bonham mentioned that the catch rates are the same, but just looking at only commercial landing data that was recently released by the Department, 2023, there were almost 111 million pounds of seafood landed for a value of 161 million dollars, and ten years ago, those number were 364 million pounds landed and 259 million dollars.

So fisheries are incredibly complex. These numbers don't show the whole picture, but from the commercial fishing perspective--and maybe this is the disconnect--but it doesn't feel like things are growing. Feels like things are heading in the wrong direction for commercial fishing. And this is not a resource problem. Director Bonham can also attest that our fish stocks in California are some of the healthiest and most sustainable resources in the world. But what we often lack is consistent access.

Fishing areas are shrinking, and our seasons have become incredibly unpredictable. This uncertainty creates conditions for diminishing opportunity. And speaking of access, that's of course our biggest concern to the commercial fishing industry in the 30 by 30 process because access equals opportunity and opportunity equals hope. In preparation for this hearing, I did a lot of reading, and I was not involved. I was not in the time machine. I guess I'm just getting on board.

And yesterday there was a very well-done webinar put on by very well-informed OPC staffers. And the presentations are hopeful and exciting. And I saw a sentence in the background document that you have--I think it's on page seven--that jumped out at me, and my heart did a little jump for joy because it said, 'Pathways state that MPAs are not the only way to achieve conservation in coastal waters.' And this is the best part.

'The state does not consider sustainable, commercial, or recreational fishing to necessarily be incompatible with conservation of the state's coastal and marine biodiversity.' I read that so many times because I was so excited to see it there because that's what fishermen have been saying for years. Sustainable fisheries should not be viewed as incompatible with conservation. More than anything, fishermen want to trust this statement and want to engage in this process. This is where we're starting from.

And if, as was presented by OPC yesterday and presented by everyone today, we can expect a transparent and robust process driven by what science says and what communities need, then the fishing industry in general and PCFFA in particular is greatly looking forward to productively engaging in this process. But I have to say this trust doesn't come easy based on history. So I noticed in the documents and Director Bonham referenced the commercial fisherman's distrust and dislike for the MPA and the MPA process.

Again, I was not directly involved at the time, but PCFFA and commercial fishermen did participate and there's many stories, but organizers came to each port and visited vessels and maps were laid out in front of the fishermen, and each fisherman was given a handful of pennies. They were told to spend their pennies wisely and put them on the areas of the map that reflected the fishing grounds most important to them.

They did this in good faith and continued the process, giving their time, attending many other meetings, all while being thanked for their input and led to believe they would not lose access to these very important and productive fishing areas. However, at the end of the day, many of these places where the pennies were placed were in fact closed. They still joke that they should have put the pennies where they didn't want the closures to be.

Now, I don't tell this story to point fingers or cast a negative shadow on the current process or anyone involved in it. This was a long time ago. But I do think it's important to learn from the past and understand why there may be some trepidation and disconnect on the part of industry. But we also appreciate the opportunity to be here and we want to be considered an important partner to the network of people working on this project and others that impact our oceans.

Looking at the 30 by 30 option strategies, we are looking forward to the Marine Resource Committee next week and stand ready to engage with the Department in the review process of the pending MPA petitions and providing commercial fisheries input wherever we can. We also have PCFFA fishermen that currently sit on sanctuary, on sanctuary boards, and we are looking forward to participating in that process through the sanctuaries as well. So we're supportive of the process and stand ready to participate in any way we can.

Thank you very much, Ms. Damrosch. I appreciate your testimony. I want to now bring it back to the Committee. Do any of my colleagues on the Committee have any questions for the panel? Senator Laird.

I just have a very brief comment. First, I totally appreciate the testimony and with regard to the proposed Chumash Sanctuary--because I'm one of those 22,000 and participated in the workshop and other things--that there has been a difference over the boundary of the sanctuary.

And I just wanted to acknowledge that I support and I believe we should get to the broadest boundary. Yes, it raises some issues about naming, but we should resolve those issues. We should not lessen the boundary because those issues don't seem to be resolvable. I just think that's a very important thing in all this, and I am long enough involved that I was an activist in the designation of the Monterey Marine Sanctuary. And the great part of that was there was incredible unity.

And the thing we're making up for here is the recognition and appreciation of tribal history. And so I just think it is so important, and I too believe it needs to be done while the Biden Administration's first term is still there. So it's one of those things that when people want extensive extra process, it's working against that goal. And so we need the broadest boundary and we need to have it designated by the end of the year and I think that it's good that you educated people here about it. So thank you.

Thank you. Senator Allen.

Yeah. Associate myself with my colleague's comments, and I just want to throw out, I was kind of hoping to bring this up to the last panel, but I know we've been so pressed for time, but maybe some of you have thoughts on this. Obviously, the focus here is on ocean. Where are rivers and streams fitting into this conversation? Yeah, let me throw that out there.

I can just really quickly say that from a commercial fishing perspective, the rivers and streams are extremely important to wild salmon, which is extremely important to our oceans, which is extremely important to our food production, so there's a lot of work that's being done. PCFFA has been long engaged in that arena. I'm not sure how it fits into 30 by 30. That I'm not privy to, but they are connected greatly to our ocean resources for commercial fishing as well.

Yeah. Love to hear from you.

I was just going to mention that as I understand it, rivers and streams are being considered under the land side, but like was mentioned before, all the agencies are coordinated on efforts, and so what happens between the land and sea connection is super important, and so I think efforts in rivers and streams will be very well connected to--

And are they definitionally excluded from a national marine sanctuary?

I can touch on that a bit. So rivers and streams are not within the jurisdiction of a sanctuary directly, but there are indirect relationships that sanctuaries bring to our rivers and streams, one of which a big thing sanctuaries bring is water monitoring.

So seeing the downstream effects of what happens upstream and then often implementing what are usually voluntary programs to help make sure that our agriculture techniques are done in a way that mitigates the amount of runoff and that creates connections between upstream communities and ocean communities and that adaptive management, making sure those voices and relationships are represented in sanctuary management.

Gotcha. Okay.

Thank you, Senator Allen. Any other questions from the Committee? Senator Limon?

Thank you, and I just want to thank you all for the conversation. I think locally--I represent Ventura, Santa Barbara, and hopefully soon a little bit of San Luis Obispo County--and so these conversations, while you are here at the Capitol and you're sharing with us in the form of a hearing, are very much happening in our community in meaningful ways.

And so I know that I've had conversations with many of folks about this and what the healthy, appropriate, and right direction is, reflecting on our past and our history, but also where we're going in light of some of the transition we're making also around energy. So I appreciate--these have not been easy conversations. You are all doing it today with the smile. I love the all-women panel, by the way, but they have been difficult conversations.

And I just want to recognize that they've been difficult conversations and that we have more conversations pending locally, and I know many of our local elected officials and agencies there are also having these conversations, but I very much appreciate that there is a willingness to engage because I think that that's what's needed. So thank you all.

Thank you, Senator Limon. Any other questions? Okay. Well, I want to thank you all for a great presentation, and I just had a couple questions here for Ms. Patchen. I guess I'm wondering, in an ideal world, what would you see as the tribe's role in managing tribal coastal sanctuaries?

That is a great question. I am not a member of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council. I am one of their employees, so that is a key distinction to make. I can't fully speak for the tribe in exactly what they want to see, but meaningful--not just inclusion--but collaboration and leadership is something that I've heard from most, if not all, the Central Coast tribes. And that is difficult because we only have one federally-recognized tribe on the Central Coast and about ten non-federally-recognized tribes.

So that is talking about how does a federal agency move towards equitable collaboration of all tribal voices that, luckily, we have adaptive management of a sanctuary, and what I've heard from NOAA is an intent to incorporate a tribal collaborative framework that can be adaptive to meet needs and continue to grow and become better as the sanctuary continues forward. So that is really exciting.

And the other thing is that, again, there's over ten tribes on the Central Coast, and there is difference in opinion on who wants to be involved in what aspects, who has capacity to be involved in which aspects. But I think across the board, indigenous communities and tribes want to be part of leading and not just given a stakeholder seat at the table, but be seen as collaborative leaders with NOAA in this process.

Great. Thank you very much for that. For Ms. Garcia, what types of protections do you think the state should seek in national marine sanctuary areas for our goals, 30 by 30 here? What do you see as the state priorities vis-á-vis federal?

Thank you for that question. So some of the management actions or examples of enhanced protections within sanctuaries could be mandatory vessel speed rules that simultaneously reduce noise pollution as well as vessel strikes for marine mammals or for example, ropeless fixed gear pilot projects.

But really just the big picture is taking a look at specific areas within the sanctuaries and figuring out how to address the stressors specific to those areas if at all possible, and then counting those areas toward 30 by 30 as opposed to just deeming the entire sanctuary as meeting the definition of conserved.

A little bit more detailed. Appreciate that. And then finally, Ms. Damrosch, appreciate your testimony. I love to eat fish. I just had a ton of ahi poke last weekend because I was in Hawaii, but obviously we are facing an extinction crisis right now, and that's obviously what 30 by 30 is meant to address, and I guess I heard conflicting testimony and I guess I was wondering if you could elaborate on two things.

You kind of described the gross catch from like 20 years ago versus today, but how are we seeing--are you seeing a differential in catch between the MPAs and the non-MPAs, as Director Bonham described?

And I guess the second part of that question is to the extent we're trying to balance the livelihood of commercial fishermen, Californians who love to eat fish, but also trying to make sure that we're bolstering biodiversity, that we're thinking about the long run here and not just with overfishing but with the climate crisis and the effects of that, which we heard detailed testimony on, what do you see as the right balance?

That was a big question. Thank you for the question. So the first part you were asking about sort of the catch.

Yeah. Because you described, I think, in your testimony that we are seeing, on average, decline in yield, but that could be for a lot of reasons, right, including, I think a lot of people believe climate change is contributing significantly to the decrease in biodiversity generally. Presumably that would impact your yield.

But are you seeing, as Director Bonham described, I think, in some detail, that there's a larger catch in yield--and I don't know all the terminology here--in the MPAs that we're seeing? In other words, success there in bolstering fish populations? Is that something that you could speak to?

Sort of. We are seeing a decline overall in commercial fish landings in California. I'm not saying that is because of the MPAs. That is just a general number. I think the MPAs have restricted, from the fishing perspective, have restricted access. I think the numbers that Director Bonham is looking at don't include just commercial landings. Likely there's recreational--commercial fishing is not allowed in many of the MPA areas, so we wouldn't have a direct correlation there.

So I was merely speaking to the generalities of commercial fishing landings and food production in the State of California around that. I think overall, the MPAs, I don't think that we have--I mean, some fishermen do have a negative view of it because there's less areas that they used to be able to fish that they cannot--but overall, we've adapted to that.

I think the way to balance what you were discussing in terms of the balance of our biodiversity is there were a lot of places where there weren't pennies that could have been closed in that previous process that were chosen not to be, for whatever reason.

There seems to be, just from looking at the paperwork that's involved in this process, that the pathways, the sanctuary information, that there is a lot of places where there's biodiversity, already some level of conservation where commercial fishing is happening or maybe isn't happening, that we could hit that 30 percent goal without reducing any commercial fishing opportunities. That's my hope from looking at everything that we've looked at, and that way we can maintain our culture, maintain food production.

And these are also an economic drivers in our port communities and in the State of California. It's not just the commercial frishing fleets, the money in the fishermen's pockets. It's about all the supporting businesses that we're losing. We're losing infrastructure. There's critical work being done on port infrastructure, but what do you need port infrastructure for if there's nothing coming into the ports? So there's a whole lot that's of economic drivers that are attached to this as well.

So I'm hoping the balance is that we can get beyond 30 percent--it looked like from some of the numbers in the documentation--and continue to produce wild seafood.

Well, thank you for your testimony, and I appreciate you being here. I hope we continue to have you as part of those discussions, those keys discussions with the Administration, but with that, thank you, panelists, for your time today and your testimony and your expertise. It's now time to invite public comment. So for everyone who would like to provide public comment, please line up at the front. And just given our limited time today, we have 15 minutes. I'd ask that those testifying here in person limit your comments to one minute each. Thank you. May proceed.

Thank you, Chairman, for a very interesting and insightful set of panels and conversation. I'm Jennifer Fearing. I'm here today on behalf of Pew Charitable Trusts. I want to thank you and others who are contributing to California's ongoing collaborative leadership pursuing durable protection and management of the state's land and waters through 30 by 30 and other initiatives. Pew hopes that 30 by 30 in California will seek to mitigate the threats most impacting conserved lands and waters.

CNRA, while tasked to implement 30 by 30, will absolutely rely on the coordination and accountability from other agencies in order to meet the goals. California's estuaries provide a good example of this need. Bridging land and coastal waters, land-based impacts, including development and water pollution, among others, pose major threats to tidal wetlands, eelgrass meadows, and overall estuary health, oftentimes impacts that are more significant than come from fishing, as was mentioned.

Additionally, sea level rise means tidal wetlands need room to move if they are to continue providing co-benefits to people in nature, including carbon storage and flood protection. To design for these types of challenges, the 30 by 30 effort must tap the expertise and experience of folks like the State and Regional Water Boards and local governments. State funding to support the work, collaboration, and co-management with tribes and your continued legislative engagement are all needed.

And just lastly, I want to applaud Senator Allen's leadership and the Central Coast Caucus's support for a climate bond and echo the need for funds to implement 30 by 30 coastal resilience and environmental justice priorities. And we're proud to stand with the more than 150 organizations who are backing a robust and equitable climate bond to send to voters this November. So, as always, Pew seeks to be an ally to you in this work, and we appreciate the conversation today. Thanks.

Thank you, Ms. Fearing. Next. You may proceed.

Morning, Senator Min and Committee Members. Wayne Kotow with the Coastal Conservation Association of California. We represent the recreational angling community. The enemy to our coastal ecosystem biodiversity are humans. We're the ones that are causing the pollution that's hurting our coastline right now. The agriculture runoff, sewer runoff, raw sewage releases are hurting the whole coastline. They need to be curbed. If we don't do something about it, the biodiversity that we're trying to protect with 30 by 30 or MPAs isn't going to happen. We're polluting the water.

The water is so important to the ecosystems. Fishermen are not without fault in what we do, but we continue to work with everybody: the community, scientific community, federal and state partners. You heard about people going to the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the federal agency with NOAA. We were just there for six days over the weekend working on groundfish and salmon and other species. We take this very seriously. We are conservationists. We're here to conserve our resources so we still have access to them.

As far as things that are going on, we participate in the sampling projects. We work with every agency, council, commission, department on trying to find real solutions to what is plaguing our coastline, our ecosystems, and our habitat. We believe in the premise of everything that's going on with 30 by 30. But we have a problem when it comes down to access without scientific proof for necessity. That's our biggest problem. If we're going to shut things down, that's great.

If there's scientific proof that says it's necessary, our relationship and focus to work together in finding solutions to the real problems that are science-based and have never been better with all of these groups--

If you could wrap up, that'd be great. Thank you.

Director Bonham talked about the licensing, sales, and angler participation. That is true. It's up. But don't take it out of context because what's happening is we've had access to better fish, but we're having to go farther to get them.

Thank you very much for your comments.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Gracyna Mohabir with California Environmental Voters. We appreciate the Committee holding this hearing. I'm here to urge your support for funding the implementation of California's 30 by 30 initiative. In the face of an environmental crisis, it's imperative that we're taking bold action to protect our planet and its biodiversity. By conserving at least 30 percent of our land and our oceans by 2030, we're not only safeguarding countless species and ecosystems, but also fortifying our resilience against the impacts of climate change.

Achieving these goals is not just about preserving nature, it's about equity and justice. By investing in conservation efforts, this ensures that all Californians, regardless of zip code, have lasting access to green spaces as well as clean air and water. Prioritizing the funding for the implementation of the 30 by 30 initiative is an absolute necessity for us to achieve the state's coastal water goals. We need to take this opportunity to protect our coastal waters, uplift marginalized communities, and build a more sustainable future for generations to come. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, Committee Members. My name is Rachel Lucine. I'm the Ocean Conservation Associate with Environment California. First, I want to thank OPC for spearheading the creation of the 30 by 30 Technical Advisory Panel. Their dedication to assembling a group of experts is fundamental in guiding our state toward effective strategies for achieving this ambitious conservation goal. One key avenue for realizing the 30 by 30 vision is through the establishment and enhancement of marine protected areas.

These designated zones serve as sanctuaries for marine life, allowing ecosystems to thrive and regenerate. We have an incredible opportunity to strengthen our MPA network through adaptive management, ensuring these areas are not just static, but evolve with the changing needs of our oceans. There are 17 proposals under consideration right now at the Fish and Game Commission that would make a meaningful step towards this goal, and we urge the Legislature and the Administration to actively support these efforts.

In our pursuit of 30 by 30, the state is also exploring various strategies, including national marine sanctuaries and OECMs. It is crucial, however, that when deciding what qualifies as conservation towards the 30 by 30 goal that we adhere to highest standards. We must prioritize strong protections that deliver tangible conservation benefits and safeguard the ecological integrity of our coastal waters. As we move forward, it is imperative that the Legislature remains engaged and motivated to push the Administration to reach the 30 percent target with a commitment to robust protection standards.

By doing so, we are not only fulfilling our responsibility to future generations, but also contributing to a healthier, more resilient marine environment for all Californians. Thank you for your time and dedication to this critical issue.

Thank you. Next.

Hi. My name is Angela Georgens, and I'm a third-year undergrad at UC Davis as well as an intern with Environment California. As someone born and raised in the coastal City of Encinitas, California, I grew up dolphin spotting with my parents and taking class field trips to the tide pools. California's ambitious 30 by 30 goal is crucial to protecting our state's coastal biodiversity and ensuring future generations can enjoy all the same experiences that I have.

One of the most direct ways to achieve 30 by 30 is to strengthen and expand California's existing network of marine protected areas, which serve as crucial places of refuge for marine life. In particular, the current decadal review of the MPA network provides a rare opportunity to make substantial progress towards 30 by 30.

In light of this, I ask that the Legislature please continue to push for increased marine protection in our waters and uphold the state's pledge to maintain the beauty of our coastline for generations to come. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else out there, I just want to remind the public that you're welcome to submit written comments to the Committee, and all comments submitted this way will be part of the public record for this hearing. Seeing no other witnesses here, I want to thank the panelists who testified today and to all the individuals who provided public testimony.

If you're not able to testify in person, again, you can submit comments or questions or suggestions in writing to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee or visit our website by the end of the week. Your comments and suggestions are important to us, and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you all, and we appreciate your participation, patience, and cooperation. We've concluded the agenda, and the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee is adjourned.