[Senate Hearing 110-1236]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1236
EXAMINING THREATS AND PROTECTIONS FOR THE POLAR BEAR
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
JANUARY 30, 2008
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
EXAMINING THREATS AND PROTECTIONS FOR THE POLAR BEAR
S. Hrg. 110-1236
EXAMINING THREATS AND PROTECTIONS FOR THE POLAR BEAR
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 30, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-737 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JANUARY 30, 2008
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from The State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 3
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey 14
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 148
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph., U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 148
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho.......... 150
WITNESSES
Hall, H. Dale, Director, U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service,
Department of The Interior..................................... 151
Prepared statement........................................... 154
Kelly, Brendan P., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Marine Biology,
Associate Vice President For Research, University of Alaska.... 175
Prepared statement........................................... 178
Williams, Margaret, Managing Director, Kamchatka/Bering Sea
Ecoregion Program, World Wildlife Fund......................... 183
Prepared statement........................................... 185
Glenn, Richard, Alaskan Arctic Resident, Sea Ice Geologist....... 237
Prepared statement........................................... 239
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 243
Armstrong, J. Scott, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing, The Wharton
School, University of Pennsylvania............................. 243
Prepared statement........................................... 245
Wetzler, Andrew E., Director, Endangered Species Project, Natural
Resources Defense Council...................................... 296
Prepared statement........................................... 298
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements:
Jamie Rappaport Clark, Executive Vice President Defenders of
Wildlife................................................... 340
Jack Lentfer, Alaskan Wildlife Biologist, Alaskan
Conservation Foundation.................................... 351
Mary Simon, President Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami................ 354
Artic Slope Regional Corporation............................. 358
Congressional Research Service, CRS Report for Congress, Polar
Bears: Proposed Listing Under the Endangered Species Act....... 407
Articles:
Science Direct, Polar Bears of Western Hudson Bay and Climate
Change: Are Warming Spring Air Temperatures the "Ultimate"
Survival Control Factor.................................... 421
International Arctic Research Center University of Alaska
Fairbanks: Is the Earth Still Recovering from the ``Little
Ice Age''?................................................. 433
World Wildlife Fund: Facts and Fallacies About Polar Bears... 456
National Research Council: Cumulative Environmental Effects
of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope.......... 464
Department of Interior: Five-Nation Conference on Polar Bears 467
EXAMINING THREATS AND PROTECTIONS FOR THE POLAR BEAR
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the full committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lieberman, Lautenberg,
Klobuchar, Warner, Barrasso, Craig.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Good morning, everyone. Very happy to be
here with my distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Inhofe, my
friend. We don't agree on everything, but we are good friends.
The Committee today is going to examine threats and
protections for one of the most magnificent creatures in the
world, the polar bear. I am just going to show a couple of
charts, just how beautiful this creature is, and the next one
as well, which shows the mama bear. Let's just put that up
there for a minute.
There are an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears in 19
populations in the Arctic. But scientists are greatly concerned
about their future, due to global warming and melting sea ice,
which they depend on to hunt and den. So I am going to show a
picture, this is the denning that goes on in the ice. Also, we
have a picture of the polar bear getting ready to hunt its
prey, standing on the ice and getting the necessary traction to
make his or her move.
In December 2006, George W. Bush's Interior Secretary, our
former Republican colleague and friend, Dirk Kempthorne, said
``Polar bears' habitat may literally be melting.'' So I want to
reiterate that. This is the Bush administration's Secretary of
the Interior: ``Polar bears' habitat may literally be
melting.'' And then we are going to show you what this looks
like when the ice begins to melt. If you look at the very top,
that is what is left of the ice. We start in 1980, then 2005
and then 2007. You can see the shrinking of the ice.
It is a sad statement on the health of the planet when such
a majestic species as the polar bear could be lost due to human
activities. I view this as a moral issue, because I think the
polar bear is one of God's most magnificent creatures.
Thankfully, we have an important law to help protect imperiled
species. It is called the Endangered Species Act, which helps
preserve species and the places they live. For the polar bear,
that includes the sea ice. As Secretary Kempthorne said, that
sea ice is literally melting away.
However, in general, the Endangered Species Act and its
protections begin when a species is listed as threatened or
endangered. Unfortunately, this Administration, has utterly
failed to do what it is supposed to do to save the polar bear.
I look at today as a moment of truth: are they going to do it
or not do it in time?
Unfortunately, we have seen the Administration fail to take
other steps to combat global warming. This is just one.
Oversight is about accountability. It is about seeing
whether any administration, Democratic, Republican, this one,
the next one and the ones after that, whether they are living
up to their obligations to the American people. I intend to
continue to shine a spotlight on the Administration's actions.
Director Hall, on some things we certainly do agree. On
January 17th, 2008 you said, ``We need to do something about
climate change, starting yesterday, and there needs to be a
serious effort to look at greenhouse gases.'' But sir, with all
due respect, you were also supposed to do something specific
about the polar bear yesterday. In fact, you were obligated
under the Endangered Species Act to list or withdraw your
proposed listing for the polar bear by no later than January
9th, 2008.
The Fish and Wildlife Service got off to a slow start. It
was only after being sued by conservation groups that it even
began the process of considering whether to list the polar
bear. And I want to thank those groups. Without you, we would
be nowhere.
However, I find it curious that while our agency in the
Interior Department is dragging its feet to list the polar
bear, another agency in the Interior Department is moving
quickly. The Minerals Management Service is charging full speed
ahead to allow new oil and gas drilling activities in one of
the biological hearts of the polar bear's domain, the Chukchi
Sea, and we will show you the Chukchi Sea and the neighboring
Beaufort Sea are home to nearly one-fifth of the world's polar
bears.
Despite this, nearly 30 million acres of the Chukchi Sea
will likely be opened to oil and gas leasing on February 6th.
Had the polar been listed on the day it was supposed to have
been listed, the MMS would have been required to consult with
Fish and Wildlife Service. Because the listing is already long
overdue, there should be no further delay. And I would like for
you today to give us a firm commitment to take immediate action
to protect the polar bear.
The American people want their grandchildren to share in
the wonder of the polar bear. It is our moral obligation to
protect God's creatures on earth. I look forward to hearing
your testimony and that of the other witnesses, and I hope you
will give us a really good surprise today. I hope you will say
you are ready to do this listing before this lease starts, so
that Fish and Wildlife can have input into this drilling.
Senator Inhofe.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the
State of California
Today, this Committee examines threats and protections for
one of the most magnificent creatures in the world: the polar
bear. There are an estimated 20,000-25,000 polar bears in 19
populations in the Arctic. But scientists are greatly concerned
about their future, due to global warming and melting sea ice,
which they depend on to hunt and den.
As a matter of fact, in December 2006, George W. Bush's
Interior Secretary, our former Republican colleague, Dirk
Kempthorne said: ``polar bears' habitat may literally be
melting.'' These pictures help demonstrate this more than
Secretary Kempthorne's or my words ever could. It is a sad
statement on the health of the planet when such a majestic
species as the polar bear could be lost due to human
activities.
Thankfully, we have an important law to help protect
imperiled species--the Endangered Species Act, which helps
preserve species and the places they live. For the polar bear,
that includes sea ice. And it is literally melting away.
11However, in general, the ESA and its protections begin when a
species is ``listed'' as threatened or endangered.
Unfortunately, this Administration has utterly failed to do
what it is supposed to do to save the polar bear.
Just as it has failed to take the necessary steps to combat
global warming. Oversight is about accountability; it is about
seeing whether any Administration--Democratic or Republican--is
living up to its obligations to the American people and I
intend to continue to shine a spotlight on the Administration's
actions.
Director Hall, on some things we agree. On January 17, 2008
you said: ``We need to do something about climate change
starting yesterday, and there needs to be a serious effort to
look at greenhouse gases.'' But sir, with all due respect, you
were also supposed to do something about the polar bear
yesterday--in fact, you were obligated under the Endangered
Species Act to list, or withdraw your proposed listing for the
polar bear by no later than January 9, 2008.
The Fish and Wildlife Service got off to a slow start. It
was only after being sued by conservation groups that it even
began the process of considering whether to list the polar
bear. However, I find it curious that while your agency in the
Interior Department is dragging its feet to list the polar
bear, another agency in the Interior Department--the Minerals
Management Service is charging full speed ahead to allow new
oil and gas drilling activities in one of biological hearts of
the polar bear's domain--the Chukchi Sea.
The Chukchi Sea and the neighboring Beaufort Sea are home
to nearly 1/5th of the world's polar bears. Despite this,
nearly 30 million acres of the Chukchi Sea will likely be
opened to oil and gas leasing on February 6th. Had the polar
bear been listed on the date the Fish and Wildlife Service was
obligated to list, the MMS would have been required to consult
with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Because this listing is already long overdue, there should
be no further delay. I would like a firm commitment to take
immediate action to protect the polar bear. The American people
want their grandchildren to share in the wonder of the polar
bear. It is our moral obligation to protect God's creatures on
earth. I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U. S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Before I start
my time, I have three things to put into the record. I note
that Senator Stevens, from Alaska, has been very involved in
this issue. He wanted to be here today, Madam Chairman, and
could not do it. So without objection, I would like to have his
statement in the record, and would encourage our colleagues to
read it.
Along with that, the comments I received from the American
Farm Federation and the Alaska Native Regional Corporation, all
three in the record.
Senator Boxer. We will be happy to do that at your request,
sir.
[The referenced statements from the American Farm
Federation and the Alaska Native Regional Corporation was not
submitted in time for print.]
[The referenced statement of Senator Stevens follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.158
Senator Inhofe. A lot has been said about the polar bear,
the threats it allegedly faces and what should be done about
it. In 2006, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, under
force of litigation, proposed to list the polar bear as a
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, based on
concerns over retreating Arctic sea ice. The Service asserts
that the reason for the decline in one or two bear populations
is climate change. To make that assertion, they rely on
hypothetical computer models showing massive loss of ice,
including a recent U.S. Geological Survey modeling prediction
that shrinking sea ice could eliminate two-thirds of the
world's polar bears by 2050. Now, again, these are computer
models which are constantly a problem.
This is a classic case of reality versus unproven computer
models. I look forward to the testimony of Scott Armstrong, an
Ivy League professor and the Nation's leading expert on
forecasting methodology, who along with an Arctic climate
change expert, authored a paper that challenges the USGS
modeling.
The decision on whether or not to list the bear rests
currently on computer models. Those models are invalid and any
decision based on them is not justified.
Ironically, physical observation of the bear tells a much
different story. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that
there are currently, as the Chairman said in her opening
statement, 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears. In the 1950's and
1960's, there were somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 polar
bears. So we are talking about an increase of somewhere between
doubling and four times the number of polar bears there were
just a few years ago. Canadian biologist, Dr. Mitchell Taylor,
the director of wildlife research at the Arctic Government of
Nunavut, dismisses these fears with evidence-based data on
polar bear populations in Canada, where two-thirds of the
world's bears reside.
Of the 13 polar bear populations out there, all but 2 are
either growing or are stable. And the two I think are in the
area, the western Hudson Bay area. A lot of that is due to
regulations, hunting regulations that are being changed at this
time. Just last month, researchers discovered an ancient polar
bear jaw that dates back more than 100,000 years, to a time far
warmer than it is at the present time. One award-winning
geologist and professor from the University of Iceland said
about the discovery, he said that ``Despite the ongoing warming
in the Arctic today, maybe we don't have to be quite so worried
about the polar bear.''
I would like to enter into the record actually three
things. First of all a fact sheet that I have prepared with
statements from biologists and wildlife scientists who have
taken issue with the predictions of the demise of the polar
bear. Also to put into the record separate statements from Dr.
Susan Crockford, a Canadian evolutionary biologist and Dr.
Matthew Cronin, a professor of animal genetics at the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Senator Boxer. We will be happy to put that in.
[The referenced fact sheet was not submitted at time of
print.]
[The referenced statements of Susan Crockford and Matthew
Cronin follows:]
Statement of Susan J. Crockford, Ph.D., Evolutionary Biologist/
Archaeozoologist
What we know about polar bears is fundamentally incomplete.
The nature of the beast and the habitat in which it lives
combine to make the kind of scientific study that is routinely
applied to other species virtually impossible. There is a
profound uncertainty in polar bear evolutionary history,
population numbers (both past and current), and details
regarding most life history features, not to mention the
uncertainties surrounding past, present and future conditions
of its habitat. We also know very little about its primary
prey, the ringed seal. In my opinion, these uncertainties are
not adequately acknowledged in the hypothesis currently being
used to predict a grim future for polar bear populations over
the next few decades. I contend that we do not know nearly
enough about polar bears or their environment to predict, with
any degree of certainty, precisely how they will respond to a
few degrees of warming.
What we do know, with absolute certainty, is that about
10,000 years ago the polar bear survived a period of
significant warming that lasted about 2,000 years. During that
time, temperatures in Arctic regions rose to at least 2.50C
warmer than today and sea ice above western North America
retreated much further in summer than it has even in the last
few years. There is no evidence to suggest that sea ice
disappeared entirely during this extended warm period or that
polar bears disappeared; none of the ice-dependent prey species
of polar bears, including ringed and bearded seals, disappeared
either. Present numbers of polar bears are hard proof that the
population which lived 8,000 years ago did not drop to
catastrophic levels: indeed, the archaeological record of
prehistoric peoples of the Arctic tells us that for the last
1,000 years at least, and probably much longer, polar bears,
ringed seals and bearded seals were as well distributed across
the North American arctic as they are today.
Statement of Matthew A. Cronin, Ph.D., Professor of Animal Genetics at
the University of Alaska, Fairbanks
1. It is critical to separate science and management/
policy. Science can tell us the status of wildlife populations,
like polar bears, and make inference regarding the causes of
impacts and predictions of change. The science presented on
both sides of the polar bear issue is generally valid. The
information presented by the field-experienced biologists in
Alaska and Canada should be given special consideration because
of their first-hand knowledge. This applies to all experienced
biologists whether they agree or disagree with an ESA listing.
However, science does not dictate policy. Science can help
achieve a given policy but does not decide what the policy
should be. Our elected representatives do.
2. Don't discredit scientists because of their funding
source or because their interpretation of data doesn't agree
with yours. This is prejudice. Be fair and judge science based
on its merit. Blind acceptance or rejection is not acceptable
in science.
3. The polar bear ESA listing is based on prediction, not
the current status of the species worldwide. It is also based
on apparent impacts to a limited number of populations. The
science documenting population status, potential causative
factors, and predicted future status has been done by qualified
scientists and has credibility. So does work presenting
alternatives.
4. It is critical to decide if the ESA is appropriate for a
threat based on predictive models. Polar bears will be
threatened with extinction if the climate, sea ice, and
population model predictions are realized. The model results
are legitimate predictions, but as predictions they should be
considered hypotheses in need of testing with data in the
future.
5. My opinion is that it is not appropriate to base an ESA
decision on predictions. I would reserve the use of ESA to
cases where threatened or endangered status is verified. If
prediction is allowed as a standard for ESA, the number of
species subject to ESA regulation will be limitless. Our entire
natural resource industry and government management system will
be overwhelmed with legal and regulatory burdens instead of
focusing efforts on practical management in the field. Consider
the extensive use of the ESA for groups that are not even
species. Subspecies and populations (which are scientifically
subjective designations) comprise more than 70 percent of the
mammals and more than 50 percent of the birds listed in the
U.S. Expanding the ESA to include populations that might be
endangered in the future seems like a additional expansion
beyond the intent and jurisdiction of the ESA.
6. The problem of human caused global warming should be
explicitly dealt with as a specific issue. Use of the ESA for
one species is not the proper way to deal with such a problem.
7. Please consider whether the polar bear ESA listing
process has complied with Executive Order 13211 of 18 May 2001,
which requires agencies to prepare ``Statements of Energy
Effects'' for Federal actions.
8. Please seriously consider the proper role of the Federal
Government as defined in the U.S. Constitution:
``The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.'' (10th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution).
I believe that wildlife management is the role of states,
not the Federal Government. I believe use of the InterState
Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify the ESA is
contrived. Regardless, polar bears occur in only one State
(Alaska) so this justification is not relevant in the case at
hand. Dealing with global climate change directly is
appropriate for the Federal Government. ESA listing of
individual species is a distraction from this critical issue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Senator Inhofe. The fact is that the polar bear is simply a
pawn in a much bigger game of chess. Listing the polar bear as
a threatened species is not about protecting the bear, but
about using the ESA to achieve global warming policy that
special interest groups cannot otherwise achieve through the
legislative process. These groups have made their agenda clear
in comments filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Greenpeace and the Center for Biological Diversity urged the
Service to force greenhouse gas-emitting projects, even those
not in Alaska, to account for potential effects on the bear
before they can go forward.
They wrote, ``It is simply not possible to fully discuss
the threat to the polar bear from global warming without
regulatory mechanism to address greenhouse gas emissions.'' But
the people who will suffer first under the ESA listing are the
local indigenous people of Alaska and Canada. For example,
Alaska's shipping and highway construction and fishing
activities will have to be weighed against the bear.
Furthermore, the decision to list the polar bear would
irreparably damage a culture. On January 14th, two groups
representing the Canadian Inuit people asserted that
``Environmental groups are using the polar bear for political
reasons against the Bush administration over greenhouse gas
emissions.'' That was a quote. According to the president, Mary
Simon of ITK in Canada, ``The polar bear is a very important
subsistence, economic, cultural, conservation, management and
rights concern. It is a complex, multi-level concern. But it
seems the media, environmental groups and the public are
looking at this in overly simplistic black and white terms.''
I would like to enter a statement into the record and I
look forward to the testimony of Richard Glenn, an Inupiaq
Eskimo Naive from Alaska, who is a sea ice geologist and a
subsistence hunter.
The bear is also being used as a tool to stop or slow
natural resource development in Alaska. Last week of the House
side, witnesses supporting the listing of the polar bear stated
that no oil and gas leases should be allowed until the bear is
listed, its critical habitat designated and a recovery plan put
in place. As we know, that could take, judging from the past, a
long, long time. We have species that have been on the ESA list
for decades and still don't have a recovery plan.
Oil and gas--this is very significant--oil and gas
exploration in Alaska accounts for 85 percent of the State's
revenue and 25 percent of the Nation's domestic oil production.
The price of crude oil is nearly $100 a barrel. Eliminating a
quarter the U.S. production could be just absolutely
devastating. I would have to ask the question of anyone who is
testifying or anyone on this panel, are we concerned at all
about the price of fuel, about the energy crisis we are under
and about the possibility of eliminating 25 percent of our
domestic production?
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Good morning. Much has been said about the polar bear, the
threats it allegedly faces and what should be done about it. In
2006, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, under force
of litigation, proposed to list the polar bear as a threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act based on concerns over
retreating Arctic sea ice.
The Service asserts that the reason for a decline in one or
two bear populations is climate change. To make that assertion,
they rely on hypothetical computer models showing massive loss
of ice, including a recent US Geological Survey modeling
predicting that shrinking sea ice could eliminate 2/3 of the
world's polar bears by 2050.
This is a classic case of reality versus unproven computer
models. I look forward to the testimony of Scott Armstrong, an
Ivy League professor and the nation's leading expert in
forecasting methodology, who, along with an arctic climate
change expert, authored a paper that challenges the USGS
modeling. The decision on whether or not to list the bear rests
entirely on computer models. If those models are invalid, then
any decision based on them is not justifiable.
Ironically, physical observation of the bear tells a much
different story. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that
there are currently 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears. In the 1950's
and 1960's, estimates were as low as 5,000-10,000 bears.
Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, the director of
wildlife research with the Arctic government of Nunavut,
dismisses these fears with evidence based data on polar bear
populations in Canada , where 2/3 of the world's bears reside.
``Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada , 11 are
stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or
even appear to be affected at present.''
Just last month, researchers discovered an ancient polar
bear jaw that dates back more than 100,000 years, to a time far
warmer than the present. One award-winning geologist and
professor from the University of Iceland said about the
discovery ``that despite the on-going warming in the Arctic
today, maybe we don't have to be quite so worried about the
polar bear.'' I would like to enter into the record a fact
sheet I prepared with statements from biologists and wildlife
scientists who have taken issue with the predictions of the
demise of the polar bear. I would also like to put in the
record separate statements from Dr. Susan Crockford a Canadian
Evolutionary Biologist and Dr. Matthew Cronin a Professor of
Animal Genetics at the University of Alaska Fairbanks .
The fact is that the polar bear is simply a pawn in a much
bigger game of chess. Listing the bear as a threatened species
is not about protecting the bear but about using the ESA to
achieve global warming policy that special interest groups
cannot otherwise achieve through the legislative process. These
groups have made their agenda clear. In comments filed with the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Greenpeace and the Center for
Biological Diversity urged the Service to force greenhouse-gas-
emitting projects, even those not in Alaska , to account for
potential affects on the bear before they can go forward. They
wrote, ``It is simply not possible to fully discuss the threat
to the polar bear from global warming without regulatory
mechanisms to address greenhouse gas emissions.''
But the people who will suffer first under an ESA listing
are the local, indigenous people in Alaska and Canada . For
example, Alaska 's shipping, highway construction and fishing
activities will have to be weighed against the bear.
Furthermore, the decision to list the polar would irreparably
damage a culture. On January 14, two groups representing
Canadian Inuit people asserted that environmental groups are
``using the Polar Bear for political reasons against the Bush
administration over greenhouse gas emissions.'' According to
President Mary Simon of ITK in Canada , ``The Polar Bear is a
very important subsistence, economic, cultural, conservation,
management, and rights concern. It's a complex and multilevel
concern. But it seems the media, environmental groups, and the
public are looking at this in overly simplistic black and white
terms.'' I would like to enter the statement into the record
and I look forward to the testimony of Richard Glenn, an
Inupiaq Eskimo native from Alaska , who is a sea ice geologist
and a subsistence hunter.
The bear is also being used as a tool to stop or slow
natural resource development in Alaska . Last week, on the
House side, witnesses supporting the listing of the polar bear
stated that no oil and gas leases should be allowed until the
bear is listed, its critical habitat designated and a recovery
plan put in place. That could be a very long time. We have
species that have been on the ESA list for decades and still
don't have a recovery plan. Oil and gas exploration in Alaska
accounts for 85 percent of the state's revenue and 25 percent
of the nation's domestic oil production. The price of crude oil
is nearing $100 a barrel. Eliminating a quarter of the US oil
production will make us more dependent on foreign sources of
oil, not less.
The bottom line is that the attempt to list the polar bear
under the ESA is not based on any current polar bear decline
but is founded entirely on computer climate models and
predictions that are fraught with uncertainties. Unfortunately,
the bear is being used as a back door to climate change
regulation. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Senator.
The early bird rule applies, so we will go to Senator
Lautenberg and then Senator Lieberman. Senator Lautenberg?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG,
U. S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I really
appreciate the fact that you do take the leadership role in
viewing and analyzing questions that are before us about in
some ways the almost very existence of the world as we know it.
When I listen to our friend from Oklahoma, who is the
skeptic here, about the things that we see in front of us,
about computer modeling, I happen to have come out of the
computer business, I spent only 30 years of my life there. But
computer modeling is what we do when we send people up in space
shuttles. We do a lot of computer modeling to see whether or
not we are prepared to do that. We use it certainly in the
military. We certainly use computer modeling in determining
what kind of medication is going to be effective against
various of the diseases and illnesses that man sees.
So with all due respect, Senator Inhofe's skepticism about
the use of computer modeling certainly presents, as far as I am
concerned, a serious challenge to what the world is right in
front of our eyes.
We see the Bush administration valuing oil over our
environmental protections for future generations. And when we
hear about the price of oil and we think about what is causing
oil prices to behave as they do, well, it is our friends in
Saudi Arabia and places like that who are engaged in a
conspiracy to raise prices to whatever they can extract from a
dependent world. And the difference is not in Alaska. That is
only a very small part of the whole thing. We in this Committee
saw first-hand on our visit to Greenland global warming already
significantly damaging our natural world. We saw green where
there was recently complete ice coverage. We are seeing that
melting trend repeat itself across the world.
I took the trouble to go to Antarctica and the South Pole
half a dozen years ago and meet with the National Science
Foundation and see what they were able to develop in terms of
warnings about ice melt. Now we see that pace accelerating. The
Arctic Ocean, for example, could be devoid of ice in the
summertime by 2040, according to the latest science. Since
polar bears are totally dependent on sea ice to live, hunt,
breed, two-thirds of the world's polar bears are on a path
toward extinction. It is a sign of things to come. It is not
only a precious species, but a harbinger of what the future
might look like. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, as
the sea ice goes, so goes the polar bear.
As most people in the room know, polar bears have been in
trouble for a long time. Between 1981 and 2004, the average
female polar bear's weight dropped from 650 pounds to 510
pounds. That is a substantial difference in the ability of the
species to adjust. During a similar period, an average polar
bear litter shrunk by 15 percent.
Science alone makes it clear that the polar bear should be
considered a threatened species and should be protected. But
our concerns are not limited to the polar bear. It is one of
the more visible examples of the toll that global warming is
taking on our whole ecosystem. Our world is changing. But
instead of listening to science, the Bush administration is
more concerned with satisfying the oil industry.
This month, despite the science, the Administration
announced that it needed more time to determine whether or not
to protect the dying polar bear. At the same time, the
Administration announced that it would allow companies to drill
in the same habitat where polar bears currently live. And I
find it hard to believe that delaying the polar bear decision
so that it occurs after the oil drilling was not simply a
coincidence. To me there is no clearer example than this of the
Administration valuing oil over existence, over life. Science
has proven that the polar bear is threatened, and instead of
acting swiftly to protect it, the Administration is promoting
the interests of the oil companies.
Madam Chairman, it is wrong. Global warming is the biggest
environmental threat our world and human existence faces. It
threatens our food supply, the air we breathe, and the well-
being of future generations. If we continue down this path as
we are, we endanger the existence of countless species and
ignore our planet's cry for help. When we saw here an example
of the change in the ecology here in the neighborhood, in the
Potomac River, when male fish carried female eggs, doesn't that
tell us all something, that this world is on a path toward, if
not reshaping, perhaps lack of existence? We dare not wait any
longer for our children and grandchildren and potentially
mankind. We must take bold and aggressive action to reduce
greenhouse gases. I am glad that this Committee and our
colleagues have taken this step to do just that.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
Before I call on Senator Barrasso, then we will go to
Senator Lieberman and Senator Craig, I wanted to place a couple
of things in the record to compete with what Senator Inhofe put
in the record. A 2007 USGS study, scientists conclude that by
2050, two-thirds of all polar bears could be lost if we don't
take protective action. Then the World Conservation Union
report of 2006, some of the premier scientists in the world and
experts from this organization say the polar bear is
threatened. These are peer-reviewed articles, so they will
appear in the record following the articles put in by my
esteemed Ranking Member.
[The referenced World Conservation Union report of 2006 was
not submitted at time of print.]
[The referenced 2007 USGS study follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.313
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.314
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.315
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.316
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.317
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.321
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.322
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.323
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.324
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.325
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.326
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.327
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.328
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.329
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.330
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.331
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.332
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.333
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.334
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.335
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.336
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.337
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.338
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.339
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.340
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.341
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.342
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.343
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.344
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.345
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.346
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.347
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.348
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.349
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.350
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.351
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.352
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.353
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.354
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.355
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.356
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.357
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.358
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.359
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.360
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.361
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.362
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.363
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.364
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.365
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.366
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.367
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.368
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.369
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.370
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.371
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.372
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.373
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.374
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.375
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to be here today and I appreciate the witnesses
coming to testify.
I am just going to be very brief, if I could. It is just
that when we last met before Christmas for the markup of the
Lieberman-Warner bill in that long, marathon session, the final
amendment, and I think they played that on C-SPAN all over the
Christmas holidays. One night I went to bed and it was on and I
woke up and the Committee meeting was still on C-SPAN.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. It was something.
The final amendment that I offered, and we didn't get into
a discussion, had to do with if Lieberman-Warner would be tied
to the Endangered Species Act. I was assured that that was
nowhere the intention, I believed that. Then I saw an article
in the Baltimore Sun by the staff attorney at the Center for
Biological Diversity. And she writes: ``Once protection for the
polar bear is finalized, Federal agencies and other large
greenhouse gas emitters will be required by law to ensure that
the emissions do not jeopardize the species. And the only way
to avoid jeopardizing the polar bear is to reduce emissions.''
So I would ask if I could make this article from the
Baltimore Sun a part of the record, and I look forward to the
discussion. Thank you.
[The referenced material was not submitted at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. Sure, and Senator, I just would point out to
you that that is exactly what the ESA would require, it has
nothing to do with any other law that we would pass. Unless we
weaken the ESA, that may well be one of the things that is
required. But it has nothing to do with Lieberman-Warner.
Senator Lieberman, I just wanted to point out that you do
head the subcommittee that has within its jurisdiction the
protection of wildlife. You have already held hearings on this,
but I am just thrilled to have you here today.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Correct, in fact, that marathon that Senator Barrasso, at
least in the C-SPAN version, slept through, he was wide awake
when it actually happened, was preceded in the process that led
to the adoption of the Climate Security Act in December and
reporting by a majority of members of Committee to the floor
actually began at a hearing almost a year ago to this day that
Senator Warner and I convened in our subcommittee on the
impacts of global warming on wildlife.
In that hearing, we heard of the ways in which unchecked
global warming is already harming, and of course in the absence
of further action, will increasingly harm species and entire
ecosystems that are integral to our way of life and the well-
being of human societies around the world. And of course, these
species and ecosystems themselves have an inherent worth, in my
belief structure, as part of God's creation, so that the impact
on the well-being of human societies is important. But it is
important to remember that these species have value within
themselves. If I might just go on a moment, inspired, which is
to say that I was raised in a tradition that reminded us that
in the Bible, in Genesis, God says to Adam and Eve in the
garden of Eden, from which we were unfortunately banned, that
they have a responsibility to both work, which is to say enjoy,
reap the benefits of, but also to guard and protect the garden
and all that is in it, the implication being for future
generations.
We hard in that hearing nearly a year ago quite a
remarkable accumulation of testimony. In that hearing, the Fish
and Wildlife Service Director, Mr. Hall, who we are privileged
to have with us today, identified a warming climate and the
resulting melting of sea ice as the primary reason that polar
bears were threatened as a species. So we have both the
indication of a threat to the species, but also if you will,
the polar bear may be to global warming what the canary in the
coal mine has been to danger for coal miners in the mine.
I would say parenthetically that we also had riveting
testimony that day from a trout fisherman from Montana who
testified to the fact that the warming of the planet has begun
to warm the streams and waters in which the trout live, and it
has made them sluggish, because they are--forgive me for what
may be an overstatement, but I think it is not scientifically--
they are essentially suffocating as a result of the warming of
the water.
Dr. Hall, 2 weeks ago you testified before a House
committee that ``We need to do something about climate change
starting yesterday, and it needs to be a serious effort to try
and control greenhouse gases.'' I want to thank you now for
that clear statement about the urgent need to take substantive
action to address climate change, and I hope it resonates here
in the Senate.
Many of us here on this Committee, obviously, and beyond,
want to see the Service expeditiously issue the conclusion that
we personally believe science and the Endangered Species Act
dictate with regard to the polar bear. Studies commissioned by
Interior Secretary Kempthorne from the USGS concluded, as
Chairman Boxer said a moment ago, that two-thirds of the
world's polar bear population could be lost by the middle of
this century. These studies go on to State that that may in
fact be a conservative prediction as we are watching Arctic sea
ice now disappear at a faster rate than the computer models
have projected.
I think we are also, many of us, concerned by the last-
minute delay in taking final action on the listing decision.
And some, Director Hall, and I hope you will testify to this,
are troubled by the coincidence between that delay and the sale
of some drilling leases that would affect the polar bear. I
think this is an opportunity both for you, Mr. Director, to
clarify those matters, and for us to ask you further questions.
I thank you for your presence here, and again, Madam
Chairman, I thank you for convening this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows:]
Statement of Hon. Joseph Lieberman, U.S. Senator from the
State of Connecticut
Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Many here will recall that the first hearing Senator Warner
and I held in our subcommittee last February was on the impacts
of global warming on wildlife. In that hearing, we heard of the
ways in which unchecked global warming is harming and, in the
absence of action, will increasingly harm species and entire
ecosystems that are integral to our way of life and the
wellbeing of human societies around the world. We heard in that
hearing, nearly a year ago today, that Fish and Wildlife
Service Director Hall had identified a warming climate, and the
resulting melting of sea ice, as the primary reason that polar
bears were threatened as a species.
I am glad that the process that in some sense began with
that February hearing culminated last month in our committee
reporting the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act to the full
Senate. I am proud that this committee showed the leadership
take the first step toward protecting all wildlife and
ecosystems from the damaging effects of catastrophic climate
change.
Director Hall, 2 weeks ago, you testified in the House that
``We need to do something about climate change starting
yesterday, and it needs to be a serious effort to try and
control greenhouse gases.''
I want to express my deep appreciation to you now for that
clear statement about the urgent need to take substantive
action to address climate change. I hope it resonates here in
the Senate.
We are here today in part because many of us up here want
to see the Service expeditiously issue the conclusion that
science and the Endangered Species Act clearly dictate with
regard to the polar bear. Studies commissioned by Interior
Secretary Kempthorne from the USGS concluded that two-thirds of
the world's polar bear population could be lost by the middle
of this century. They go on to State that this may be a
conservative prediction as we are watching Arctic sea ice
disappear at a faster rate than models had predicted.
And, in part, we are here because many of us are concerned
by the last-minute delay in taking final action on the listing
decision, and the troubling coincidence between that delay and
the sale of some drilling leases that would affect the polar
bear. I look forward to hearing Director Hall's testimony, and
to asking him some questions.
Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Senator Craig.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Craig. Madam Chair, I will be brief.
I am just beginning to acquaint myself with this issue, and
I have not read all of these studies, to be thorough in my
examination of it. I am looking at some obvious things. And one
of the trend lines that I watch, living in the Pacific
Northwest, relates to the Marine Mammals Protection Act that we
passed in 1972 and the consequence of that. In my home area,
the consequence, of course, of seals, sea lion populations
almost exploding up and down the Pacific Coast have resulted in
where we now have seals and sea lions contributing
substantially to the depletion of salmon runs, or the damage of
young fish and all of that, because it is a natural prey base.
It is also true that during that time we did something
else. We reduced the human take of the polar bear, and numbers
within polar bear populations have moved up substantially from
1965, a guesstimated 8,000 to 10,000, to today 20,000 to 25,000
polar bears. So the polar bear itself, at least in the current
environment, is, population-wise, if these figures are
accurate, doing quite well in part because of an action this
Congress took some time ago.
I also understand the climate change movement, the emotion
involved and all that. I know that it is very difficult to
predict the future and therefore to extrapolate out of it
therefore what will become of these populations. I also have
watched over the years as different organizations have used the
Endangered Species as a wedge or a sledgehammer to change and
modify human action and/or activity within certain areas. That
is a given. If you are going to do something within an area
that is relatively pristine, you will probably get, somebody
will find a species to file to stop you. That is a new tool in
the tool kit of human interest that is a part of the public
policy we have here.
So I am here to listen and, Director, I am glad you are
with us to see where we are in all of this. I hope, as a
government, we don't rush to judgment. At the same time, I
think we are moving expeditiously now and appropriately in the
climate change area. And history will only say, was it us or
was it mother nature? Because that question still is on the
books.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you very much.
I wanted to point out that you were right about the
numbers, because we used to allow hunting of polar bears. And
therefore the----
Senator Craig. Yes, the take was down substantially.
Senator Boxer. Dramatically down. And then when we said
only subsistence, that brought them up. What we are talking
about today is not hunting, we are talking about the natural
environment.
Senator Craig. Well, we also did something else, Madam
Chair, with the Marine Mammals Act. We increased, we populated
their prey base substantially more with seals and sea lions.
Those things that the polar bear hunts, we increased those
numbers. So obviously their food base was up, their take was
down. Mother nature did the math. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you. I think we are in agreement
as to the history, which is very important. Because today we
are looking at this other threat, not the hunting threat, but
the habitat threat.
So I think everybody has spoken, so we will now go to you,
Mr. Hall. Welcome, and we look forward to your remarks.
STATEMENT OF H. DALE HALL, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Chairwoman Boxer, and Ranking Member
Inhofe, and good friend, and other members of the Committee who
are also friends.
It is really a pleasure to be here with you today and I ask
that my full written statement be entered into the record.
Senator Boxer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Hall. As you are aware, the Service proposed to list
the polar bear as a threatened species throughout its range on
January 9th, 2007. This proposal was based upon scientific
review which indicated that the polar bear populations may be
threatened by receding sea ice. Sea ice is used by polar bears
for platforms for activities essential to their life functions,
but especially hunting for ice seals, their main prey.
At the time Secretary Kempthorne announced the proposal, he
had directed us to work with USGS, the public, pertinent
sectors of the scientific community to broaden understanding of
what factors affect the species and to gather additional
information to form the final listing decision basis. To assist
in that effort, we opened a 3-month public comment period and
held public hearings in Anchorage and Barrow, Alaska, and in
Washington, DC. We then hosted a meeting in June 2007 of all
the range states around the circumpolar, with official
representatives from all the countries. The meeting provided a
forum for the exchange of scientific, management and technical
information among all the range nations.
Then in September 2007, USGS scientists supplied nine new
research reports to the Service, updating population
information on polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea of
Alaska, and provided new information on the status of two other
polar bear populations as well. USGS studies provided
additional data on Arctic climate and sea ice trends and
projected effects to polar bear numbers throughout the species
range. As a result of the new USGS research findings, we
reopened the comment period and later extended a second comment
period to allow the public time to review and respond to this
USGS science.
We expect to provide a final recommendation to the
Secretary and to finalize a decision on the proposal to list
the polar bear as a threatened species within the very near
future.
I would like to discuss current, ongoing efforts to
conserve the polar bear as well. While much attention has been
focused on the proposed listing of the polar as threatened
under the ESA, it is important to realize that the polar bear
is currently protected under a number of statutes, treaties and
agreements, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act, CITES,
or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora, under the Endangered Species Act, the
1973 agreement between all five range states, and the Inupiat-
Inuvialuit Agreement. These protections, which address take,
trade and management, remain in place regardless of the final
listing decision.
In addition, the Service has been and is continuing to work
a wide range of partners, including the State of Alaska, Alaska
Natives, the oil and gas industry and other Federal agencies,
scientific organizations, foreign countries, all within the
range of the polar bear, and the sporting and conservation
communities on a number of efforts to conserve polar bears. The
Service and its partners are working on coordinated efforts to
conserve the bear under existing authorities, even if we do not
move forward with listing. But if we do move forward with the
listing, it would be in addition to these existing authorities.
This broad, landscape level effort focuses on polar bear
management coordination, polar bear conservation planning,
range-wide implementation of the U.S.-Russia bilateral
agreement, and research and monitoring. The polar bear is a
messenger of the changing conditions in the Arctic. If we
listen and work together, we can help enhance the survival of
the polar bear for the long term.
I will also mention today, quickly, that I am sending out
today an employee's scientific code of conduct. This sets out
standards that includes me and the Fish and Wildlife Service to
follow sound scientific codes of conduct as we approach
scientific information. That will be the basis, the science in
front of us and our code of ethics to follow that science will
be the basis for the decision.
I thank you for allowing me to be here today and I would be
glad to answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.005
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Director Hall.
Did your staff present a recommendation to you on the
listing of the polar bear?
Mr. Hall. We have received the first draft and now the
second draft that we are working on that includes the staff's
recommendations.
Senator Boxer. So you have received the staff
recommendations?
Mr. Hall. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. OK, then why haven't you acted?
Mr. Hall. Because I am working with staff to get the
document in the proper mode, so that it clearly explains all of
the questions that we received. We had 670,000 comments, both
pro and con, people that argued for and against.
Senator Boxer. Right.
Mr. Hall. And it is not just making the decision. It is
being able to have the Congress and the public understand the
decision----
Senator Boxer. Right, but you do understand that there is a
timeliness associated with this because of the lease sale,
right?
Mr. Hall. Yes, ma'am, I do. And I want to say that this
delay is my responsibility.
Senator Boxer. Well, let me just say, I wouldn't want to
have that responsibility on my shoulders, to think that these
polar bears could lose a huge among of their population because
you are delaying. I just want to say this. Look at Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of EPA denied a California waiver. He hasn't given
us one ounce of paperwork to support it. He is working on it
now.
The fact is, it is not unprecedented. So it seems like when
it is a delay, that allows special interests to move forward,
there is a delay. But when it is the reverse, we don't get the
paperwork.
According to Bruce Woods, an agency spokesman in Anchorage,
Alaska, the completed work on the decision by the polar bear
scientists in the Alaska field office was sent to headquarters
December 14th. What was the conclusion of the listing
recommendation that was transmitted from the Alaska field
office on December 14th?
Mr. Hall. Madam Chair, it would be inappropriate for me to
share recommendations internal until the Secretary has made a
final decision. Then all of that is part of the public record
that would be available. But in the internal workings, the
recommendations is to me, then I put together my recommendation
for the Secretary and then we move forward from that.
Senator Boxer. But you do understand the timeliness?
Mr. Hall. Yes, ma'am, I do.
Senator Boxer. You do understand that there is a lease
sale? You do understand that that is going to move forward, and
you do understand that you are late under the law in this
decision?
Mr. Hall. Yes, ma'am, I do.
Senator Boxer. The Endangered Species Act allows for a
delay in noticing a listing beyond the 1-year deadline only in
situations of substantial scientific uncertainty. Am I correct
that you have not filed a notice with the Federal Register that
this is the reason for your delay?
Mr. Hall. That is correct.
Senator Boxer. What is the reason for your delay?
Mr. Hall. The reason for the delay really started back when
we received the USGS reports and we went out for public review.
I alerted the Department at that time that it was quite
possible that our staff would not be able to work through all
of that volume of information and put the packages together to
get all the information----
Senator Boxer. So your delay is because there was a lot of
public comment?
Mr. Hall. The delay is because of not just the public
comment. It is the quality of the answer that is important,
too. We received public comments and we owe those public
comments the opportunity to really be evaluated and then
reported back on.
Senator Boxer. Was there an overwhelming feeling in those
public comments whether to list or not list?
Mr. Hall. The public comments are really to ask about the
science. And there was good support, I don't have a percentage
breakdown, but the vast majority of the support of the comments
came in, supported the science that would support a listing.
Senator Boxer. I understand. So there weren't that many
diverse views expressed in the public comments? They
essentially fell under the category of list it because the
science is on your side to do so?
Mr. Hall. We did not believe that, referring to your first
question, we did not believe that there was ample scientific
disagreement to warrant using that clause of the Act.
Senator Boxer. But you do understand that what you are
doing is outside what the law requires you to do. And you do
understand that there are many people who suspect some kind of
situation going on here between MMS. Have you been in
communication with anyone at the White House about the listing
rule, anyone at all?
Mr. Hall. No, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. Has anyone contacted you about the timing of
your decision from the White House or the Vice President's
office?
Mr. Hall. No, ma'am. I notified the Secretary, the
Secretary notified the White House that we were going to be
late. And that was the extent of the comments.
Senator Boxer. Director Hall, is it true that as of today,
it has been 630 days since Fish and Wildlife Service has listed
a single species in the U.S. under the Endangered Species Act?
Mr. Hall. I don't have that number in front of me, so I
don't know.
Senator Boxer. That is our understanding. And if that is
correct, it is the longest delay in the history of the Act. You
are delaying the listing of the polar bear, saying there is
more work to do. You have legal obligations to protect
imperiled natural heritage. So again, I don't quite get it. I
appreciate your taking blame for the delay. But your answer is
disturbing. Because while you say you care about the science,
it looks like there is a lot of science.
I just put in the record USGS report, peer-reviewed. And as
a result of your delay, this isn't just, oh, you know, I will
wait for a sunny day to make my decision. There is going to be
a drilling in an area where 20 percent of these magnificent
creatures reside.
So again, I would hope that you would reconsider this.
Because everything we do has consequences. And this consequence
is something that is going to be pretty disastrous for all of
us.
Mr. Hall. Please understand, Madam Chair, I do not take
this lightly. But I am committed to having a quality decision
out that answers all of the questions. Because this is a very
high profile decision. And we will move as fast as we possibly
can. But I don't want to over-push our staff. And that is an
honest answer.
Senator Boxer. Can you do this before February 6th?
Mr. Hall. That is the projected date that--we had a press
conference and said it would probably take us in the
neighborhood of an additional 30 days, and we are still pushing
to make that.
Senator Boxer. Can you do it by February 6th?
Mr. Hall. The only answer I can give is that we are pushing
to try and get there.
Senator Boxer. Well, I would urge you, because even if you
have to work overtime, and I will be happy to, if you needed
some staff assistants who would work, this Committee would help
you, if you needed just some more hands to do this.
It would mean a lot to me as Chairman and I know to many of
my colleagues as well.
Mr. Hall. Our staff has worked very, very hard.
Senator Boxer. I understand, and we are willing to give you
more resources if you need those.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Let me first of all exchange Scriptures with my good
friend, Senator Lieberman. It is Romans 1:25, ``Who exchanged
the truth of God for a lie and worshiped the creation rather
than the Creator.''
Senator Lieberman. Well, I was about to say amen, brother,
but I think this may lead to a longer theological discussion.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. I will accept the amen.
Senator Lieberman. I think we honor the Creator by honoring
and protecting His creation. But I am glad to be engaged at
this level of dialog. It is a good one. Good source.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Administrator Hall, there seems
to be a lot of concern about the halting of gas production and
all that. You heard my opening statement.
In your proposal to list the polar bear, the Fish and
Wildlife Service found no impact on polar bears, due to oil and
gas activities. Now, I can remember so well back in the old
Alaska Pipeline days when they said the effect this was going
to have on the caribou. It has been my experience, particularly
in the summer months when I go up there, that the caribou are
using the pipeline as the only shade around. So would you
elaborate on why these activities would not affect the polar
bear, oil and gas production?
Mr. Hall. In our proposed rule of January 9th, 2007, we go
through the five-factor analysis. There are five factors in the
Endangered Species Act that start with habitat and go down to
other man-made or natural causes. One of those activities that
we reviewed was oil and gas operation on the North Slope. We
looked back over 30 years of operation up there. And especially
since the implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
regulations, and about 1993, we have been able to document no
mortality of the polar bears as a result of oil and gas
operations.
So our conclusion in that draft was that oil and gas
operations was not in and of itself a significant factor
threatening the species.
Senator Inhofe. That is good. I read that, and it is much
more. So I would like to ask you to elaborate on that for the
record and get into some more of the details. That is very
good, I appreciate it.
Now, there is a great deal of concern about the
ramifications of the listing on activities elsewhere in the
Country. For example, could the emissions of a new power plant
in my State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, contribute to sea ice
decline in the Arctic and therefore harming the bears' habitat.
The environmental groups have made it clear that they want to
force these associations so that they can regulate greenhouse
gases elsewhere.
In last week's House hearing, you disputed that. Could you
kind of walk us through that one?
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Senator, because this is one of those
areas that I believe that there is some misunderstanding about
what the law can and cannot do. When I say the law I mean the
Endangered Species Act.
When we talk about consultation between two Federal
agencies under Section 7, the first question that is asked is,
and the agency does this, is may this, the proposed action, may
it affected a listed species. And if the answer is yes, and
that determination is usually made by the action agency. Then
the next question that they have to ask is, is it likely to
adversely affect the species. And if the answer to that
question is yes, then that leads you into formal consultation,
as most people understand it.
The problem that we face, and Madam Chair was correct a
while ago in saying that if you have the scientific evidence
then you would have to consult. The issue here, though, for the
Endangered Species Act, is both in law and in science. In order
for, and I will go with the law first, both the Supreme Court
of the United States in the Sweet Home case, and the Ninth
Circuit flowing that and the Arizona Cattle Growers Association
case, directed that yes, we may implement take for the
destruction of habitat. Take means to harm a species, and we
have to authorize that.
But in doing so, we must make, as Justice O'Connor called
it, the proximal cause case. We must be able to say that this
action leads to this take. And but for that action, take would
not have occurred. That is a burden that is on us in regulating
under the Endangered Species Act. And the Ninth Circuit told us
that we could not speculate, that we clearly had to have that
chain of evidence that led from this particular action to this
particular take.
Now, with that said about the law side, the science today
as we know it would not allow us, it doesn't allow us to
segregate out specific point source emissions of greenhouse
gases and track those to a specific take of a polar bear. And
that is the problem that we face in the presumption that is out
there, that we would be able to regulate all of this and tie it
to the polar bear.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. And I appreciate that, I am sorry to
rush you. I do have one more question. It appears to me, and I
hate to interject logic into this, but it would seem to me that
if we were not to be able to have this, if the connection were
made between a power plant in Oklahoma City, therefore
something would happen that would be, to halt it in some way,
then we would be more dependent upon China and places where
they don't have the controls that we have.
Last, and if it is all right, Madam Chairman, since we will
take the time off from our scriptural exchange----
Senator Lieberman. But I thought it was timeless.
Senator Inhofe. Very good.
This is a quote: ``There is no evidence to suggest that ice
in the Arctic Basin disappeared entirely during either of these
two warming periods.'' Now, the two warming periods we are
talking about were the Glacial Maximum, about 8,000 to 9,000
years ago in the mid-Holocene warm period, 10,000 to 11,000
years ago. In any of these warming periods, which were of equal
or greater warming than predicted by the IPCC's climate warming
modelers, nor did any ice-dependent species become extinct.
Will this factor into your decision?
Mr. Hall. We are factoring in all historic data that we are
able to calculate, including the speed of the warming, along
with the end result of the warming temperature. Because we are
analyzing for a species, for a living animal and how it might
or might not be able to adjust to that. And there are
differences in the length of time that it took for the warming
to occur in those earlier periods than the length of time that
it appears to be taking today.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg?
Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman, it feels like we are on
the precipice here, it feels like we are on the edge of the
precipice, the race between getting the protection for the
polar bear in place and the rush to start the process for
drilling. I would like to see if we can't make certain that the
drilling permits are contingent upon the outcome, Mr. Hall, of
the report that you have on polar bears.
I heard some exchange between you and the Chairman, have
you said that February 6th is not possible?
Mr. Hall. I have not said that.
Senator Lautenberg. I heard the language, but I didn't
understand the outcome.
Mr. Hall. No, sir. I have said that on January 7th, when I
came out and had the news release and alerted people that it
would take us approximately another 30 days, my answer is that
that is still my goal. That is still the effort that I want to
meet.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, why couldn't you issue a report
that says whatever delays you might have in front of you, that
no drilling, that your recommendation, there is no process that
begins the drilling exercise should take place?
Mr. Hall. I am not aware that what has come up with MMS is
a drilling. It is a lease sale exercise. So----
Senator Lautenberg. It is not an insignificant exercise.
Mr. Hall. No, sir, I am not trying to say that it isn't.
But under that exercise, our staff in Alaska did work with the
Minerals Management Service using the guidelines of the Marine
Mammal Protection----
Senator Lautenberg. I heard you say that.
Mr. Hall [continuing].--to make sure, which, the Marine
Mammal Protection Act is actually a little more stringent in
the take prohibition than the ESA is. But they did work with
them on that.
Senator Lautenberg. Right. But I want to get down to the
nub of things and ask, you are a person of some significant
respect in the community, the environmental community. Why we
can't get an assurance from you that delays that you generously
took responsibility for says to me that the Department is not
equipped, I mean, you are not the person who is doing the work,
you have a team there.
So for whatever reason, you are not guaranteed a finish by
February 6th. And I would urge you to use the influence that
you have as the Director of Fish and Wildlife to say, you
recommend that nothing be done in that area, that you are close
to having a report delivered and you would like the opportunity
from the other agencies to hold up on anything until we
complete. Is this an important study that we are looking at?
Mr. Hall. The important study being?
Senator Lautenberg. On the polar bear, on the important
species.
Mr. Hall. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. OK.
Mr. Hall. It is an important study.
Senator Lautenberg. So if you could give us the assurance
that some of us are looking for, that you understand that what
you are doing will make a difference in the way we approach the
leases. We need your help.
Mr. Hall. I understand your concern.
Senator Lautenberg. You have taken responsibility boldly
for the delay, so we need your help now to protect the
situation as we would like it done.
Now, you said before that you introduced a new code of
conduct for the scientists on your staff?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir. It is not new, it is a followup to the
Office of Management and Budget encouragement that we establish
scientific codes of conduct.
Senator Lautenberg. And what did we do before this? Was the
conduct arbitrary, left to the individual?
Mr. Hall. What this one does is it clearly identifies who
is in the scientific arena and who isn't.
Senator Lautenberg. Was that a question?
Mr. Hall. There were questions in the past about
involvement and discussions, and the Secretary wanted to make
clear that, I am one of those oddities. My job requires that I
have scientific credentials and fish and wildlife experience,
so that I am a scientist. At the same time, I am the first leg
of the policy development within the Department. So I wanted to
make sure, this is something personally important to me, that
we make sure that everyone understands that whatever you see
coming from the Fish and Wildlife Service is of the highest
scientific regard and as much as possibly be done without
emotion.
Senator Lautenberg. That was not clear before, apparently,
otherwise it wouldn't need a review and a restatement?
Mr. Hall. There is also question about our scientific
findings.
Senator Lautenberg. Last question, please, Madam Chairman.
Could an oil spill in that area, what would the effect
perhaps of an oil spill in the region that we are talking about
the polar bear, do you have any view of what kind of a
condition might result to the bear population?
Mr. Hall. In my discussion with our polar bear experts, it
is expected that if a polar bear were to get oiled, that
mortality would occur because of the natural grooming, the
conditioning that the bear goes through, it would ingest the
oil. And our polar bear experts assumed that any single bear
that would be oiled would likely end up in mortality.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Director Hall, thank you very much for being here today. I
will get to the polar bear in a second. I wanted to first,
there was a letter that the Wyoming delegation sent to
Secretary Kempthorne in December. One has to do with the sage
grouse. We felt that the right decision was made when it chose
not to list the sage grouse. Subsequently, the people of
Wyoming, who have always been interested in protecting the sage
grouse and its habitat, have formed working groups, developed
and implemented community-based plans to work with the sage
grouse, and with habitat. The game and fish department has
limited the hunting season, doing the kinds of things we want
to do to help with recovery.
There has been a lawsuit, the Western Watersheds Project,
and a court ruling. And we understand that requests for
documents have been made. The Wyoming delegation has, in this
letter, asked that we could please get copies of all the
documentation used to support these decisions. We have not
received those yet, it has been about 6 weeks. I am just asking
that if you could make a note of that and get a look, and we
can get a copy of this letter to you again requesting some of
those helpful documents.
Mr. Hall. OK.
Senator Barrasso. But we appreciate the decision that was
made regarding this and agree with it. We just want to make
sure that we get to see what else is going on there, because we
are doing everything we can as a State to help protect this.
Mr. Hall. And the States are doing a very good job of
working with us on this, and we do appreciate it.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
With regard to the polar bear, and Senator Inhofe had a
question about a hypothetical case of what the impacts would be
if there is a project in Oklahoma, we have similar questions in
Wyoming; how far does this go with potential greenhouse gas
emissions and what impact they may have in contributing to
these issues. If we are building a road and that is going to
allow more cars to be driven with emissions, how far does this
go and what can the impact be with all activity which may
contributing to the issues of global climate change?
Mr. Hall. How far it goes, in my narrow view of the world,
in implementing the Endangered Species Act, I have to stay
within those legal decisions that I cited a minute ago. We have
to stay within the strength and the maturity of the science.
As I was explaining earlier, I don't believe that it is
possible for us to meet the legal standard of having the
proximal cause, cause and effect to reach take for emissions
done somewhere else on the globe and be able to use the science
that cannot make that connection for us. Right now, the
greenhouse gas concentrations discussions are really
discussions from all sources. They do talk about general
breakdowns.
But to be able to track something from the action, which is
what we must analyze for an agency, to a point of effective, we
have to have the science that makes that clear bridge and
tracks that there. My response is, we can't get there today
with the level and maturity of the science that we have.
So when you reach out into CAFE standards or into industry
or other things, other aspects, including our own homes, we
don't know yet how to break that down and make that connection
and have that be responsible for the loss of polar bears, or
any other species that we might have listed. That is the
requirement under the law for us to be able to do that.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Director Hall. Thank you very
much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Thanks, Mr. Hall. It strikes me, I don't know whether we
should put this in the record, but you are a career Fish and
Wildlife Service person. You come to the directorship from
that. So you have spent your life in this work, and I
appreciate that. To me, that gives you some credibility as you
testify before us.
I mentioned in my opening remarks the study commissioned by
Senator Kempthorne from the U.S. Geological Survey that
concluded that two-thirds of the world's polar bear population
could be lost by the middle of this century. I just want to ask
you, not at great length, but generally, whether you viewed the
USGS survey as a credible survey?
Mr. Hall. We do view the USGS science as credible science.
And the prediction that they made in that science was not
necessarily that two-thirds of the polar bears would be gone,
but that two-thirds of the habitat that they need to survive
would be gone.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Mr. Hall. That was the prediction they made there. And then
they stepped that over into other studies and talked about the
bear population.
Senator Lieberman. Got it, OK. I appreciate that. So it has
some credibility. We had a series of questions about the timing
of the oil and gas leases and the Chukchi Sea, as related to
the decision about whether to list the polar bear in the ESA. I
just wanted, for the record, to ask you if you would describe
the additional, to the best of your ability in this testimony,
the additional steps the Federal Government would need to take
in examining the proposed Chukchi Sea lease sale, if the polar
bear were first to be listed as a threatened species under the
ESA. I understand, as you alluded to earlier, that there are
other laws, notwithstanding the ESA, that require some steps to
be taken with regard to wildlife.
But what additionally would be required if the ESA listing
occurs?
Mr. Hall. The only thing additional that would be required
would be a formal Section 7 consultation that would be added to
the Marine Mammal Protection Act consultation and the OCS Act
requirements. If the lease sales went forward, then the next
steps would be industry proposals. And they start to get very
specific. Then we would consult under each of those laws again
for each of those steps along the way.
So the only additional thing would be a Section 7
consultation on top of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and on
top of the other things that are there.
Senator Lieberman. Right. Just briefly, what does the
Section 7 consultation involve?
Mr. Hall. The Section 7 consultation is under, obviously,
Section 7 of the Act that requires that no Federal agency
undertake an activity that might jeopardize the continued
existence of a species.
Senator Lieberman. OK, that is important. Finally, the work
done by the Minerals Management Service in considering the
Chukchi Sea leases included some environmental impact
statements. In the EIS that the MMS obtained, there was a
recognition that there was a 40 percent chance of a large crude
oil spill, 26 percent for a pipeline spill and 19 percent for a
platform spill as a result of the Chukchi Sea activities. The
Minerals Management Service acknowledges that, predicts, I
suppose, that between 750 and 1,000 oil spills are likely from
its proposal to open up the Chukchi Sea to oil and gas
development.
The reason I mention this is that while, in my opinion,
clearly the most significant threat to the existence of polar
bears today is the loss of the sea ice habitat and as has been
said, access to prey, it does seem to me that the oil and gas
development that were being, or leases that were being talked
about and relevant development, is also a source of some danger
of a different sort to the polar bears. Would you agree?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Dale, again, thank you very much for your
testimony. This is one Senator that is not going to ask you to
rush the science. Get it right, as best you possibly can. I am
amazed that there is even an implication or a suggestion by any
Senator that the science ought to be rushed. Because we have
questioned the science of your agency over time. Was it
political science or was it good biological science?
I am also always a little disturbed when U.S. Geological
gets into the biological business instead of the geological
business as to their credibility. Your credibility is important
here, and the work you do is important. I recognize you and the
Secretary for establishing a protocol for your science and
reinforcing it. Credibility in that process is very, very
important.
So get the science right. I don't want to use it as a
block, I don't want you to rush it to stop a lease sale,
because you have just mentioned to Senator Lieberman the
process. And there is a process. Because it is clearer that
there are some Senators who want to use this as a blocking
tactic. That is pretty clear by the line of questioning that
has gone on here today.
Once the lease sale is released and leases are bought,
there is a process, the application for a Federal permit to
drill. That is where Section 7 comes into play, it is my
understanding. And everything must be done within that process
by the company to meet the standards that you set down in that
process, to mitigate as best they can against any degradation
to the environment and/or to the species that might be
involved, is that not correct?
Mr. Hall. It is, sir, and it happens at each step, from the
seismic activity to the expiration to the development.
Senator Craig. In other words, all human activity that
might result from a lease sale in the Chukchi Sea would require
that kind of process, would it not?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir, at each step of the way.
Senator Craig. Would your agency, during that process, have
people in place to observe and to participate in those
activities, if a lease sale went through, if a permit to drill
were allowed, and if those standards were developed, how would
you monitor those?
Mr. Hall. Historically, and we have worked with the
National Marine Fisheries Service for observers to be present
in areas where we had overlapping jurisdiction, in this case
marine mammals. The National Marine Fisheries Service has most
of the marine mammals and we have four or five of them. So the
National Marine Fisheries Service does generally have observers
out on ships for fishing and we would expect that there may be
that case here for oil and gas development.
Senator Craig. You would expect that that might be the
case, or you would believe that that would be the case?
Mr. Hall. I don't know the answer to that yet. We would
have to wait until, as we move forward into the process.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Chair.
It is good to see you again, Director Hall. I thank you for
traveling to Minnesota on a very cold day to attend our
national Pheasants Forever convention. We were excited to have
10,000 people there. I spoke, I think you spoke.
Mr. Hall. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Klobuchar. It was very good.
I was actually also surprised at the number of hunters and
wildlife people there that mentioned climate change to me. As
you know, I talked about cellulosic ethanol in my speech, and
our concern about the effect that the changing world is having
on our lands and their sport. So I just wanted to mention that
for the record as well.
But today we are talking about the polar bear. I will say I
am concerned, having not been here for too long, but realizing
that the first petition to list polar bears was made in
February 2005. And here we are, 3 years later, now still being
told that a decision is in the future. With the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicting a total
loss of summer sea ice in as soon as 30 years, the USGS study
mentioned by Senator Lieberman, which is predicting a loss, as
you clarified, of habitat by two-thirds, I just don't think we
can afford to keep delaying.
My questions are about, first of all, the listing. Some
people claim that a threatened listing for polar bears would
create some kind of patchwork of regulation, when taken
together with the Marine Mammal Protection Act and
international agreements on polar bear conservation. What are
your views on this? Are there ways to simplify this? I am just
trying to figure out why this would create a problem.
Mr. Hall. I think the way I would like to answer that,
because I am not exactly sure of the patchwork, but let me just
say that the standards for marine mammals, under both the
Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act for
the protective standards are very close. And as a matter of
fact, in some cases, the Marine Mammal Protection Act that is
in place is more protective.
So obviously, if a species were listed, that is a marine
mammal, if it were listed under the Endangered Species Act, one
of the first things we would want to do is synchronize the
Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act
operations and reviews so that----
Senator Klobuchar. Would there be additional protections
that would come into effect if you were to list it?
Mr. Hall. I am not sure. And the reason that I say that is
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the standard, for
example, the oil and gas operations that were just being talked
about, the standard under the Marine Mammal Protection Act is
no negligible harm. And under the Endangered Species Act, an
agency would be able to move forward and avoid jeopardizing the
species. Those standards are obviously very far apart.
So in that regard, the Marine Mammal Protection Act is far
more protective.
Senator Klobuchar. Could you describe the impact that this
polar bear listing, if it happens, will have on Federal and
State climate change initiatives? The argument has been made
that if a listing compels the Government to protect habitat and
the habitat loss has been caused by global warming, then a
listing might compel Government to take action. Do you think
that is true?
Mr. Hall. I think that the polar bear, as I said in my oral
comments as I opened, is that the polar bear is a message for
us here. But I think it would be a mistake to hang too much on,
even if we list or don't list, it's too much to hang it on any
given species. If climate change is an issue that we want to
address, and I believe that all Americans want to make sure
that we don't do something that we can't reverse, that will
leave harm for our future generations, then I think we need to
address it as a societal world issue as well.
Symbols like the polar bear help to galvanize and help to
get people to understand the significance. But the Endangered
Species Act simply is not the vehicle, I do not believe, to
reach out and demand all the things that need to happen after a
good, common discussion about what should happen.
Senator Klobuchar. Our State doesn't have a lot of polar
bears, but we have trout and other freshwater fish that, I
think there are some good arguments to be made, are going to be
threatened by climate change. Is there work being done to look
at other animals and fish that may be affected by this?
Mr. Hall. Yes, ma'am. Senator, it is a very good question,
I am glad you brought it up. Because it does tend to get lost
in the discussion. I think most Federal agencies, almost all
State agencies, game and fish agencies that I am aware of, and
a lot of foreign nations that we work with are all trying to
address the issue of climate change and not tie it to a
species, but tie it to a complete type of ecosystem.
For example, I firmly believe that we should be looking at
the Arctic as an ecosystem and what will happen? There will be
winners and there will be losers as ecosystems change. How do
we deal with that? And coming down into the sub-Arctic, but it
sure felt like I was in the Arctic when I was in Minnesota, but
when you come down into those areas, all of us are working to
try and understand much larger questions than a species. I
think if we are going to make real progress, that is the way we
have to look at it, what can we really learn that will help us
understand how species and whole ecosystems will respond to
these changes. I really believe that is where the effort should
be.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. I noted that we have been joined by Senator
Warner, who is Ranking Member of the subcommittee that deals
with wildlife. I wonder if you would like to make an opening
statement and ask Mr. Hall some questions before we move to our
next panel.
Senator Warner. Thank you. I would just like to be listed
as one supporting listing as an endangered species, and let's
get on with it. I will just put a short statement into the
record. I am very envious of the job you have, which is about
the only job I would take in trading this one.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner was not submitted
at time of print.]
Senator Boxer. This could be very exciting.
Mr. Hall. Our staffs are still trying to figure out how to
get us fishing together, Senator.
Senator Warner. That is correct, we had that fishing trip
planned. Thank you very much.
Senator Craig. Come to Idaho, will you two come to Idaho
and fish? I'll take you fishing, how is that.
Senator Boxer. Senators, thank you very much.
What I want to do, just in concluding this, is to put a few
things in the record and also give to my colleagues a picture
that I won't put up here, because it is a very sad picture of a
starving polar bear. There are many of us who believe if we
don't take action, this is what we will be looking at instead
of these magnificent pictures that we have shared today.
So this is what I want to do, I want to put into the record
and I want to clear the record on something as well, your
mission statement, sir. The mission of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect
and enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for
the continuing benefit of the American people. So I think
focusing on the ethics, the science and your mission, I think
is very, very important.
[The referenced material follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.419
Senator Boxer. I also, because one of our Senators told
you, do not rush, I have to take issue with that. There is a
law, and the law says you must act. This isn't about one
Senator saying, I think this is really important, this isn't
about one Senator saying, don't rush or rush. This is about the
law. The law says that you needed to act by January 9th of this
year. You took full responsibility for the delay, which I
appreciate, I really do. You didn't blame anyone else. But the
fact is, you didn't file the appropriate papers you were
supposed to under the Act.
So you are not obeying the law. That is serious. SO it is
not a question of rush or don't rush. You need to obey the law.
And as Chairman of this Committee, I urge you to obey the law.
Now, you are delinquent, but the quicker you act now, and
again, if you need to work overtime, a lot of us will help you
with, go through these comments, whatever it is you need, we
will make available to help you.
But I think it is really key, and I want to put into the
record the citing of this section of the law that requires you
to act. It is the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6).
So again, if you or I broke the law outside of this, just a law
outside of the Senate, there would be consequences. We wouldn't
just sit there and say to the judge, I am sorry, I am not
obeying the law. There would be consequences.
Now, the consequences for taxpayers is, you are going to be
sued. There has already been an intent filed, because you
didn't follow the law. So I think this is key.
And then just to lighten it up a little, I thought I would
put into the record another very interesting quote, made in the
year 500 A.D. in a commentary on Genesis. One of the great
rabbis said, ``See my handiwork, how beautiful and choice. Be
careful not to ruin and destroy my world, for if you ruin it,
there is no one to repair it afterward.''
So I think this is something that we all feel strongly
about. Now, we may come at it in different ways. But I think we
all feel strongly about it. I think this has been a very
important hearing. Mr. Hall, I just want you to know, I am
completely at your disposal to help you move forward on this.
Was there anything else?
Senator Craig. Madam Chair, in a sense of fair play, may I
take just a moment?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Craig. Certainly when I suggested to the Director
that he get the science right, I was not suggesting and I must
ask that the record show that he violate the law to do so. You
implied that I might be suggesting that by your statement. I
did not do that.
I believe that when we do good science, then we can create
good policy. And if this is a question of getting it right, get
it right. But it was not my intent, Madam Chair, to suggest
that he violate the law to do so. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Well, I am really glad, because you did say,
``don't rush.'' And the point is----
Senator Craig. And then I said, ``Get the science right.''
Senator Boxer. Yes, well, we all want that.
Senator Craig. Thank you. Let's keep it in context.
Senator Boxer. No, no, no. I am very happy you clarified
it. I just wanted to make the point that there is a date
certain. Mr. Hall took responsibility for the delay. I am
encouraging him to use whatever resources at his disposal to
save this creature. And I think it is very important, because
while we are delaying here, we are rushing on a lease sale
here. There is, in many people's minds, a connection to the
two.
Thank you very much. We are going to move forward. Yes, of
course.
Senator Warner. I won't take but a minute. Any of us who
were fortunate to raise a family of young children, as I did,
know that at some point in their life, the house is scattered
with panda bear toys. In a way this is the panda bear for the
Atlantic region, count it on down. There is a great fascination
about this magnificent beast.
I would just ask, are there other things we could do, apart
from putting it back on the species list, or keeping it on,
whatever the case may be, are there other Federal policies that
could be invoked to help?
Mr. Hall. Well, sir, as I alluded to a minute ago----
Senator Warner. Well, if you have already covered it----
Mr. Hall. No, no, I only alluded to it with the other
question. And that is that this is a much larger issue. The
bills that you have in Congress looking at ways to approach
greenhouse gas management and making sure that we are doing
what we can to control, those are larger issues than the
Endangered Species Act. That was really the point that I wanted
to try and make, is that to rely on the Endangered Species Act
to make those kinds of decisions, in my opinion, takes it out
of the realm of this discussion, where it really needs to be.
Senator Warner. Last, are there any other species of
animals that are similarly in peril in the Arctic region?
Mr. Hall. We will be looking at the Arctic. There are
questions about the movements there as well. But climate change
has regional impacts. It may be sea level rise on the Gulf
Coast and in your part of the world. It may be droughts in the
Southwest. It may be floods in other areas and rain instead of
snow in the mountains for that summer water that is so
important out west.
We need to address this, I believe, on a regional basis,
working together.
Senator Warner. I thank the witness and thank the Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. Yes, we thank you, sir. We will
be in close touch.
We will call up panel two, Margaret Williams, Director,
Bering Sea Ecoregion and Russia projects, from the World
Wildlife Fund; Andrew Wetzler, Director, Endangered Species
Project, from the NRDC; Brendan Kelly, Ph.D., Associate Vice
President for Research, University of Alaska; Richard Glenn,
Alaskan Arctic resident and sea ice geologist; J. Armstrong,
Ph.D., Professor of Marketing, The Wharton School, University
of Pennsylvania.
We welcome all of you. I know you have been very, very
patient. We really are happy, and we are going to start right
in, if you can take your seats quickly.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to ask you to do what we
didn't too well here, which is to keep your opening remarks to
the 5-minutes. My Ranking Member, I really want him to be here
to question, and he has a tight schedule.
So we will start with you, Dr. Kelly. We are very happy you
are here representing the World Wildlife Fund.
STATEMENT OF BRENDAN P. KELLY, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
MARINE BIOLOGY, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH,
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
Mr. Kelly. Thank you. Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe,
members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to share
with you my assessment of the threats posed to polar bears by
climate change.
The Fish and Wildlife Service brings bad news that none of
us wants to hear. I must confess that when I was asked to
review their proposed listing and the supporting documents, I
was looking forward to finding some critical flaw in their
analysis or the conclusions. That is not what I found, however.
Instead, I found that they have carefully assembled the best
available information and conducted a thorough and thoughtful
analysis.
For over 30 years, I have studied the marine mammals that
inhabit Arctic seas. During those three decades, I have
witnessed dramatic changes in the sea ice environment that
provides essential habitat to seven species of seals, to
walruses and to polar bears. Most dramatic has been the decease
in the seasonal duration and extent of sea ice. I have seen in
the graphic--can we put that graphic back up that shows the ice
retreat? As seen in this graphic, the summer ice extent has
been reduced almost by one half. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, the American Geophysical Union and the vast
majority of sea ice physicists predict that there will be no
summer sea ice in the Arctic within this century, possibly
within 30 years.
The loss of over 8 million square kilometers of summer sea
ice will endanger many plants and animals that are adopted to
that once extensive habitat. Polar bears will be especially
negatively impacted, as they are adapted to a narrow niche;
namely, hunting seals on sea ice.
Polar bears began to separate from the brown bear
population several hundred thousand years ago. Eventually, and
I stress eventually, that new line of bears began to specialize
on hunting seals and walruses that were abundant on the Arctic
sea ice.
A key feature of that specialization was the evolution of
teeth specialized for meat-eating, quite different from the
brow bear's teeth, which reflect a more generalist diet. Thus
polar bears, like the seals they prey upon, and many Arctic
organisms, are specifically adapted to the sea ice environment.
In the absence of summer sea ice, such specialized species will
be threatened by competition from other species, by the
disappearance of prey, by the loss of breeding habitat and by
potential hybridization or inter-breeding with other species.
Without summer sea ice, polar bears will overlap for longer
periods with brown bears in habitat to which brown bears are
better adapted, putting the polar bears at a competitive
disadvantage. Food will be less available to polar bears, as
populations of their ice-associated prey decline. Their main
prey, the ring seal, depends on spring snow cover to
successfully raise their pups. And increasingly early snow
melts associated with climate change are exposing those seal
pups to predation at extreme temperatures.
Emergence of female and young polar bears from dens in the
spring coincides with the seals' birthing season and the newly
emerged bears depend on catching and consuming young seals to
recover from months of fasting. The match in timing between
polar bear emergence and the availability of young seals may be
disrupted by changes in the timing and duration of snow and ice
cover.
The polar bear's ability to capture seals depends
critically on the presence of ice. Hunting on the ice, bears
take advantage of the fact that the seals must surface to
breathe in limited openings in the ice. They have evolved
complex behaviors for locating and capturing the seals on the
ice.
On the open ocean, however, bears lack a hunting platform.
Seals are not restricted in where they can surface, and
successful predation is exceedingly rare. Only in ice-covered
waters are bears regularly successful at hunting seals. When
restricted to shorelines, bears feed little, if at all.
The most obvious change to the breeding habitat is the
reduction in snow cover on which successful denning depends.
Female polar bears hibernate for four to 5 months each year in
dens in which they give birth to cubs, each weighing about one
pound. Those small cubs depend on the snow cover to insulate
them from the cold.
Some criticisms of the proposal to list polar bears as
threatened reflects misconceptions about the predictions of
climate models and the predictions of population models. There
are fewer and fewer serious critics of climate models, and that
is not surprising when you consider the marked consistency of
the 23 major models and their abilities to reconstruct past
climates.
While models developed in different laboratories vary from
one another in terms of the exact amount of warming predicted
in the coming century, they all predict warming. None predict
cooling or even a stable climate. The reliabilities of the
models is also seen in their tremendous power to accurately
reconstruct global temperatures for the past 750,000 years, as
recorded in ice cores. Models that can accurately hindcast for
a million years are a good bet for forecasting. Thus, it is the
that pronounced future climate warming and melting of ice is
the overwhelming consensus view in the scientific community.
While climate models can be validated in using temperature
records and ice cores, population models do not have a
comparable record for validation.
Senator Boxer. Sir, you are going to have to finish,
because you are going way over time.
Mr. Kelly. OK. I will just finish by saying that the
approaches used by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the USGS
have been well tried and evidence their efficacy in other
species. I don't think we need to wait for a body count to know
that these reductions are happening. The most recent IPCC
reports that the resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be
exceeded by the year 2100.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.010
Senator Boxer. We're going to have to stop you there.
Because we just told everyone to stick with 5 minutes.
So next is Margaret Williams, of the World Wildlife Fund.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET WILLIAMS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAMCHATKA/
BERING SEA ECOREGION PROGRAM, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND
Ms. Williams. Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the
Committee. It is an honor to speak to you on the subject of
protecting polar bears and their habitat.
My name is Margaret Williams, and I represent the World
Wildlife Fund, WWF, an international conservation organization
with 1 million members in the U.S. and 5 million members
worldwide. For more than 20 years, World Wildlife Fund has been
an active player in the Arctic, and polar bears and other
Arctic species have been a major focus of our work.
I have submitted my full written testimony for the record,
but in the next few minutes, I would like to speak about the
history of polar bear protection and recommend actions to
protect the species. Many of those who oppose the listing of
the polar bear under the ESA, the Endangered Species Act, State
that polar bears today are more numerous than they were 40
years ago. That is correct. This is because polar bears were
over-harvested by trophy hunters into the middle of the 20th
century, when numbers dipped to the low thousands.
Fortunately, the U.S. took action with the passage of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972. A year later, the U.S.
took further action for polar bears, signing on to the
International Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears,
committing our Nation to ``take appropriate actions to protect
the ecosystems in which polar bears live.''
The U.S. is also party to another international treaty,
which is aimed specifically at conserving a polar bear
population which we share with Russia, the Alaska-Chukotka,
also known as the Chukchi population. While the MMPA and these
international agreements provide an important framework for
conservation, today more is needed to protect polar bears. The
leading threat to the species is climate change, and we have
heard a lot of the data this morning. In the last three
decades, the Arctic has undergone a major transformation.
Arctic summer sea ice has shrunk by approximately 10 percent
per decade since 1979, the equivalent of the area the size of
California and Texas combined.
For a species whose life cycle entirely depends on the ice,
this means less time to hunt and eat, leading to declines in
body condition, reproduction and ultimately declines in
survival. These facts have been well documented in hundreds of
peer-reviewed scientific papers, including a report by the
Nobel prize-wining Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
A compelling body of work explaining the relationship of
polar bears to sea ice was complemented last fall by a series
of comprehensive reports by the U.S. Geological Survey. And
again, we have heard it, the USGS shows that two-thirds of the
world's polar bears, including America's two populations, could
be lost by mid-century. Based on this unequivocal science and
based on the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, the
polar bear must be listed as threatened.
While climate change is the primary threat, other factors
must also be considered. As the health of the species is
compromised, we must eliminate other sources of stress and
disturbance. One such factor is oil and gas development,
concern over which was expressed by the Polar Bear Specialist
Group in 2001, and this is the world's preeminent body on polar
bears, when it reported that industrial development of oil and
gas resources and consequent increases in shipping are major
concerns as future threats for polar bears and their habitats.
The issue is now very pertinent, because in 2 weeks, the
Minerals Management Service, MMS, will conduct a lease sale for
oil and gas in 29 million acres in the Chukchi sea, the home
range of a species whose future is already tenuous. MMS has
acknowledged a huge lack of information about the wildlife in
this marine area, home not just to polar bears, but seals,
whales, walrus, and remarkable numbers of birds. In fact, MMS
ignored the advice of the National Marine Fisheries Service,
which recommended removing the Chukchi Sea entirely from the
MMS 5-year program.
In regard to the delay----
Senator Boxer. Say that one more time.
Ms. Williams. The National Marine Fisheries Service
recommended removing the Chukchi Sea from the MMS 5-year plan
on oil and gas development, the plan from 2007 to 2012, which
just went into effect in July.
In regard to the delay in its decision on listing the polar
bear, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service explained that
additional time was needed to conduct necessary data analyses.
Yet MMS is not following the same example, instead, rushing
forward for no clear reason on the Chukchi sale. Just as the
U.S. took action 30 years ago to help the polar bear, we must
do the same today. In addition to listing the species under the
ESA on a global scale, this means drastically reducing CO2
emissions and other greenhouse gases and on a regional scale,
delaying the lease sale on the Chukchi Sea until there is
adequate information and until adequate measures have been put
in place to protect polar bears and their habitat.
In closing, I would like to say that on nearly a daily
basis I am in contact with scientists and conservation
colleagues from around the Arctic. They are eagerly waiting to
see how and whether the U.S. will protect polar bears and their
Arctic habitat. Indeed, the world is watching us. I urge the
Secretary of Interior to do the right thing for the polar bear
and for the planet. I applaud this Committee's attention to
this important species.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.062
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Margaret. You were right
on target, you made all your points. Very good.
I am happy to call on Richard Glenn, an Arctic resident,
Alaskan Arctic resident and a sea ice geologist. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD GLENN, ALASKAN ARCTIC RESIDENT, SEA ICE
GEOLOGIST
Mr. Glenn. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator
Inhofe and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide comments.
My name is Richard Glenn, and I am the board present of the
Barrow Arctic Science Consortium. This is an organization
dedicated to bringing visiting researchers together with Arctic
residents. I am an officer of the Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation, which is a corporation for the Native people of
Alaska's North Slope. I am here today as an Alaskan resident
who studies sea ice, as a subsistence hunter, a whaling crew
co-captain and a geologist. This issue is very important to me.
I have only 5 minutes an my oral comments will summarize
the most important points of my more detailed written
testimony. I have studied sea ice for university-level work and
have assisted many others in the sea ice environment. We
Inupiaq hunters hunt on the ice each year, and our lives depend
and the safety of our people depends on our knowledge of
changing ice conditions.
Along with many of our people, I am concerned about
changing sea ice conditions. However, I question whether the
loss of multi-year sea ice equals the loss of polar bear
habitat. The most prominent point made by the Fish and Wildlife
Service is about receding multi-year sea ice cover and its
equivalence to the loss of polar bear habitat. There is little
mention of the marginal ice zone, that area of ice that freezes
and melts within a given year, mixed with open water and older
ice. It is in this area that it grows at the expense of the
loss of multi-year ice.
The polar bear does not live only on the multi-year ice
pack. Polar bears thrive in many settings. In late spring,
polar bears come to the near-shore land-fast ice to hunt
newborn seal pups located in dens beneath snow drifts. In
summer, we observe polar bears hunting farther offshore in the
marginal ice zone. Other polar bears will stay on the coast,
not trapped there by the absence of sea ice, but to feed on
living or dead animals along the shoreline. Groups of bears
have even been seen by our villagers establishing an over-
wintering circle around a carcass, such as dead gray whale.
My point is, none of the above hunting environments is on
the multi-year ice pack. There is a year-long and varied cycle
of habitats for polar bears. It is wrong to ignore them and
focus only on how far the ice has receded. To do so is to
ignore the polar bear's use of other habitats. Even the Fish
and Wildlife Service study acknowledges that the increase of
marginal ice cover may be beneficial for ice seals and polar
bears.
The proposed listing is not based on polar bear population
levels or trends. There is not enough observational data for a
listing. Polar bears are hard to count, and ice conditions are
not so easy to predict form models or satellites. The proposed
rule correlates a decline of sea ice cover with a decline of
ring seals. The data is insufficient to support even this
conclusion. Right now, in the Chukchi Sea, the satellites will
tell you that our ocean is covered with new, young ice, and not
the multi-year ice pack. Nevertheless, our hunters are
reporting abundant and healthy ring seals as well as polar
bears.
There are many international mechanisms set up to conserve
and protect the polar bear. In moving to the Endangered Species
Act, let us not ignore those, such as the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. If we really want to protect the species, let's
do something about poaching, poaching by other countries.
Alaskan Inupiaq people annually take about 45 to 50 bears from
the Chukchi stock. Yet the same stock is suffering from
poaching on the Russian side, with catch numbers around 200 per
year.
Our traditional knowledge is built upon thousands of years
of experience in the Arctic environment. I encourage Congress
to use our experience and science before taking action to list
the polar bear as threatened. This is common sense and required
by law.
Senator Boxer. You have more time, if you want to go on.
Mr. Glenn. Oh, I heard a buzzer. I thought you were----
Senator Boxer. Not at all. You have another 45 seconds. Go
right ahead.
Mr. Glenn. A threatened listing for the polar bear, Madam
Chair, will do little to aid the polar bear's existence. It
will not create more sea ice cover. It will not change their
ability to locate dens or prey. But it will disproportionately
affect the lives of Inupiaq Eskimos who live along the Arctic
coast. While America sleeps better at night falsely believing
they have assisted this iconic species, they will still fly
planes, drive cars and power their homes. We are very concerned
about changes in climate changes in the Arctic, and have more
reason than others to be aggressive. The proper methods to
address those issues are to deal with climate change causes
directly and not twist the Endangered Species Act listing of
the polar bear into action directed at climate change.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glenn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.066
Response by Richard Glenn to an Additional Question
from Senator Boxer
Question. The Committee has received a statement for Ihere
cord from groups representing Canadian Inuit peoples indicating
that Ihe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has failed to
sufficienlly consider Inuit Traditional Knowledge of Ihe polar
bears during Ihe rulemaking process. They also state that USFWS
does not consider or even examine the polar bear's abilily to
adapt to changing and ice-free conditions. Do you agree that
the USFWS is relying too much on computer models to determine
the behavior, movement and overall health of polar bear
populations? Could you provide some additional comment on this
from the Alaska Inupiaq perspective?
Response. In large part, the Canadian and Alaskan Inuit are
in agreement. As I spent time in our villages discussing this
issue with residents, I was repeatedly asked, ``Why doesn't
Fish and Wildlife come to our villages and ask us?'' Inupiat
hunters, our experts in the ice and animal sciences, have not
been consulted throughout this process-specifically the USFWS
has not sought our input or expert observations.
The policymaking arm of the USFWS has little regard for
input from the Native traditional knowledge. USFWS scientists
have worked, over time, in places with local Native experts in
very field-specific expeditions such as at Barter Island and
Barrow. However, USFWS fail to incorporate traditional
knowledge when they take their field research and attempt to
synthesize it into publications that have far-reaching
interpretations.
Further, USFWS substitutes polar bear researchers for ice
experts when talking about the future of the Arctic Ocean ice
environment.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir. Right on the nose.
Dr. Armstrong, we welcome you. You are a Professor of
Marketing at the Wharton School. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF J. SCOTT ARMSTRONG, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF MARKETING,
THE WHARTON SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank the
Committee for hearing me today.
My name is Scott Armstrong, I am a Professor at the Wharton
School at the University of Pennsylvania.
As stated, the primary problem we are looking at today is
what might happen to polar bears in the future. So I am
addressing this Committee as an expert on forecasting. I have
been working in the field for 48 years now.
Please direct your attention to Exhibit 1. It is also in
the report at the end. It is an unlabeled exhibit. The dots
represent data points. As you look at that, assume you had the
forecast for the rest of the 21st century. Is it going up,
down, staying the same, or what is happening? I will come back
to that later in the talk.
In the mid-1990's, I started a project, the Principles of
Forecasting Project. The idea was to summarize all of the
knowledge that we had about forecasting and transform these
into scientific principles. Here is an example. Be conservative
in situations involving uncertainty. The project led to my
handbook, ``Principles of Forecasting,'' in which 39 authors
and 123 reviewers participated.
Along with Dr. Kesten Green and Dr. Willie Soon, I examined
two of the reports we have been talking about today. These are
the reports by Amstrup and Hunter. We looked at those, because
they are the ones most closely related to forecasting. We
asked, ``Did the authors' procedures follow scientific
principles?'' We made independent ratings, discussed them over
followup rounds and reached agreement.
Here is an example: keep the forecast independent of
organizational politics. We all rated that as a contravention
of the principle. Why? Because if you look at the front page of
all these reports, they say that the purpose of the report is
to support the polar bear listing decision.
The reports involve a complex set of assumptions. In
effect, they made assumptions where they should have made
forecasts. The assumptions lacked validity, and we judged the
reports to be invalid on that basis.
But we went further. We said, what if all those assumptions
were true? Did they at least use the proper methods to arrive
at a polar bear forecast?
I would like you to look at Exhibit 2. This shows the
results of our audit. We found that the Amstrup report
contravened 41 of the principles, the Hunter report contravened
61, and so on down the line. What is most important to look at
is how many principles did they really follow? And it turns out
that they properly applied, in the case of Amstrup, 17, and in
the case of Hunter, 10.
Now, on a percentage basis, that means they followed 12
percent of the relevant principles. I wonder how many
occupations there are in our Country where you can follow only
12 percent of the recommended policy and procedures?
The forecasts in those reports rested heavily on unaided
judgment. By unaided, expert judgment, I mean unaided by
scientific principles. Now, consider this. Unaided experts'
forecasts are of no value when the situation is complex and
uncertain. It is an astounding finding. I will repeat: unaided
expert forecasts are of no value when the situation is complex
and uncertain. I ran across this in my long-range forecasting
book in 1978. Dr. Tetlock recently came out with a massive 20-
year study supporting this. His study involved over 80,000
forecasts.
Please look again at the original unlabeled graph. I am now
going to show you how the administrative report forecast that
polar bear population would decrease rapidly. The graph relates
to ice-free days and it comes from one of the Administration
reports. They forecasted a sharp increase in ice-free days. How
is that possible from the data? It is not possible. It only
happened because they ignored the data. Instead, they relied on
climate models.
The climate models do not provide forecasts. They provide
so-called scenarios. Now, let's examine the graph with labels.
The filled-in dots that you will see show the data that were
used to determine the relationship between ice-free days and
the polar bear population, 5 years. Now, is it possible to
estimate this causal relationship with 5 years of observations?
The answer is no.
The above analysis indicated contraventions of principles
such as, use all available important data, use the most recent
data, use simple forecasting methods and be conservative in
cases of high uncertainty.
I would like to end on a very positive note. We know how to
approach this problem in a scientific way.
Senator Boxer. OK, but you have to be positive in just a
few seconds. But go ahead.
Mr. Armstrong. I have six recommendations for approaching
this in a scientific matter.
Senator Boxer. Just give one sentence for each one of them,
and then you have gone over.
Mr. Armstrong. Use a variety of forecasting methods;
generate a list of alternative solutions and prepare forecasts;
commission forecasts by independent teams; promote
collaboration among polar bear climate experts along with
forecasting experts; require forecasts be based on audited
methods and don't tolerate any contraventions; combine all
forecasts based on procedures that pass the audit.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Armstrong follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.116
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
And now, last but not least, by any means, is Andrew
Wetzler, Director, Endangered Species Project for the Natural
Resources Defense Council. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW E. WETZLER, DIRECTOR, ENDANGERED SPECIES
PROJECT, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Mr. Wetzler. Thank you for having me, Madam Chairman, thank
you, members of the Committee.
You have my written statement, and rather than reiterating
it now, I thought that I could just briefly respond to three of
the points that we have heard in testimony from panelists, and
I think questions from the Senators throughout the day.
The first is with regard to the role of modeling. Now,
modeling is obviously a very important part of the Fish and
Wildlife Service's conclusion that polar bears are threatened
with extinction because of global warming. But it is not by any
means the only basis. In fact, there are two separate,
empirical, peer-reviewed bases for coming to that conclusion.
First are literally dozens of published papers observing
behavioral and population changes in polar bear populations
around the world. These include population declines, increased
pup and young polar bear mortality, starvation in some
populations, male polar bears turning to cannibalism in some
populations, an increase in spike in drownings during storm
events, and alterations in essential polar bear behavior, such
as the location of maternal dens.
Now, all of those empirical observations are completely
consistent with and indeed, are predicted by the decline of sea
ice caused by global warming.
Second, a lot of the declining sea ice, as has been pointed
out, and as is illustrated by the exhibit showing the decline
of sea ice from 1980 to 2007, is in fact empirical. Those
pictures are not forecasts, they are not models. That is
observed sea ice loss. That is a sea ice loss that represents a
million square miles of polar bear habitat. That is six
Californias.
The second point I wanted to make very briefly was to
respond to some of the testimony that we have heard about the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. Now, there is no doubt that the
Marine Mammal Protection Act is an important, landmark law in
protecting marine mammals around the world. But the suggestion
that the Endangered Species Act does not provide any additional
or special protections for the polar bear if the polar bear was
to be listed I think is just false.
And just very briefly, there is no equivalent of the
Section 7 consultation procedure that we have heard so much
about today in the Marine Mammal Protection Act. There is no
requirement in the Marine Mammal Protection Act to protect
habitat essential to the conservation of the species. That is
an explicit requirement under the Critical Habitat Provisions
of the Endangered Species Act. And there is no requirement in
the Marine Mammal Protection Act which is present in the
Endangered Species Act to prepare a recovery plan for a
species, which would be a very important part of saving the
polar bear in the long term, as the obligation under the
Endangered Species Act to prepare a recovery plan for the polar
bear.
Finally, I just wanted to briefly address, I think, the
coincidence and timing between the delay that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service took, the extra legal delay, and the proposed
lease sale that is going to go forward in the Chukchi Sea on
February 6th. Senator Boxer, I think that you were right to
point out that this has raised suspicions in many people's
minds. I think given the history of this Administration, those
suspicions are well-founded.
But even if we want to give Director Hall the benefit of
the doubt, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and assume that
the delay was simply caused by bureaucratic reasons, I think it
is essential to recognize that there is absolutely no reason on
the other side of the equation, on the Minerals Management
Service side of the equation, to move ahead with this lease
sale now. There is nothing preventing the Secretary of the
Interior form simply reopening the decision to proceed with the
lease sale and hold it in abeyance until the Fish and Wildlife
Service makes a considered decision about whether or not to
list the polar bear. At a minimum, I would urge the
Administration to take that very common sense step, which I
think would defuse a lot of these suspicions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wetzler follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.152
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Wetzler.
I am going to have my Ranking Member question first,
because he needs to leave, and then I will finish up. But I did
want to recognize students in the back there from James Logan
High School, Union City, California. I am very proud that you
came in and that you care about the environment. We are very
pleased that you are here.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Dr. Armstrong, when you were talking, this chart up here,
first of all, did you say that you had a paper that you wrote
in 1978?
Mr. Armstrong. I was writing books on long-range
forecasting then.
Senator Inhofe. You were writing books in 1978?
Mr. Armstrong. Well, I have been in this field for 48 years
now.
Senator Inhofe. Wow. I thought maybe I heard wrong. You are
the forecasting expert, I recognize that.
When I saw this before your testimony, the fact that
they're using the 5-years, it is my understanding that three of
those years showed normal sea ice coverage with high numbers of
polar bear births and only two showed receding with a slightly
less births. But the USGS used the 2-years. Is this correct? Or
is my information wrong?
Mr. Armstrong. I know there are a lot of questions about
the quality of the data. My major point is, you cannot possibly
use 5 years of data to estimate a causal relationship.
Senator Inhofe. But even with those 5 years of data, you
cherry-picked the two worst years, that would be even more
egregious?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. And I want to get back with another
question. Richard Glenn, it is kind of interesting, your
background, I understand you were at the University of Alaska
and University of Nebraska, San Jose State and also a
subsistence hunter. So you have been on the ground for quite
some time.
In your testimony, you take issue with the FWS focus on the
multi-year pack ice, and their neglect of the bears' activity
on marginal ice. You also discuss how polar bears travel great
distances to move between populations. Could you elaborate a
little bit on that, why that is significant?
Mr. Glenn. The polar bear is an opportunistic hunter. It
will follow its nose wherever it can find food. And the
scientists have documented, for example, a polar bear denning
in the Beaufort Sea, in the central Beaufort Sea, and that
polar bear then drifting with the ice pack as far as the
Wrangell Island area. Then as soon as the polar bear gave
birth, the mother and cubs made a beeline back to the Beaufort
Sea.
Now, this shows that polar bears can migrate between what
you see as wedges on the map as population stocks. And it shows
that part of their lifestyle is to move great distances. So how
do you count polar bear population stocks when you have this
flux between these different areas?
Senator Inhofe. That is interesting. In the testimony, and
I don't remember whose it was, we talked about the number of
things that are there for protection today, the Marine Mammal
Act has been referred to several times, there are several
international conservation agreements, educational outreach
efforts. What are some of the ways in which the bear is
protected already, and do you think we really need this ESA
listing in addition to those that are already in place.
Mr. Glenn. Right, thank you. Several of the presenters
today have talked about the various agreements and acts that
are currently in place for protection of the polar bear. And
they include the organizations of the Native people across the
circum-Arctic and agreements that they have made about the
harvest. What is lacking, though, is the ability, for example,
to stop the poaching of polar bears by the Russians, where so
many of the bears that live in our area are suffering from
today. The agreements in place today are doing things like
limiting to sustainable numbers the number of polar bears that
are taken by subsistence hunters, by my people, the people that
live along coastal Alaska and Arctic Canada.
So the list is long. There is the Alaska Chukotka polar
bear population studies, United States-Russian Polar Bear
Conservation and Management Act, there is of course the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.
Senator Inhofe. You think those are adequate, that are
there right now?
Mr. Glenn. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. And Dr. Armstrong, in your, well, first of
all, you probably don't know this, I have been critical of
computer modeling for quite some time and the deficiencies that
are there, not just insofar as polar bears are concerned, but
insofar as anthropogenic gases and what effect they actually
have on climate change.
In your testimony, you point out that the USGS study
included various assumptions. Can you briefly outline those
assumptions?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes. There were five assumptions. The first
assumption is that global warming will occur. The second
assumption is that polar bears will obtain less food by hunting
from reduced sea ice platform. The third is that bears will not
be able to adequately obtain supplementary food, using other
means from other sources.
Four, the designation of polar bears as an endangered
species will solve the problem and will not have any
detrimental effects. And five, and I think probably the most
important one, is that there are no other policies that would
produce a better outcome than those based on the endangered
species classification.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I might disagree, I think your first
one is more significant. But that is fine.
I appreciate that very much. I regret that I won't be able
to stay afterwards, to come and thank you individually for
coming. But you have come a long way, and I appreciate all five
of you being here and your testimony. Thank you for allowing me
to go first, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you so very much.
Well, I think if we heard some of this testimony way back
when from people like Dr. Armstrong and Mr. Glenn, we never
would have saved the bald eagle. And I am going to pursue that.
Mr. Glenn, you said in your statement that you are an
officer of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. And I read
what that organization does, so I think we will put it in the
record. The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation is committed to
developing the resources and bringing to market, meaning oil,
gas, coal and base metal sulfides. And bringing them to market
in a manner that respects the Inupiaq subsistence values while
ensuring proper care of the environment.
I think it is important to note that everybody who comes
here has a certain background. When you come to this table to
come to the polar bear and you belong to a corporation that
wants to develop the resources, I just think it needs to be
placed in the record. So I am going to place in the record what
this Arctic Slope Regional Corporation does.
[The referenced material follows:]
Senator Boxer. Now, Dr. Scott, you are a Ph.D. in what? Dr.
Armstrong.
Mr. Armstrong. I went to MIT, so I basically had three
areas, one was economics, another was social psychology and the
other was marketing.
Senator Boxer. Economics, social psychology and marketing.
Are you a biologist?
Mr. Armstrong. No.
Senator Boxer. Are you a polar bear expert?
Mr. Armstrong. No.
Senator Boxer. Are you an expert in wildlife of any sort?
Mr. Armstrong. No.
Senator Boxer. Are you an ecologist?
Mr. Armstrong. Pardon me?
Senator Boxer. Are you a climatologist?
Mr. Armstrong. No, I am not.
Senator Boxer. So you are bringing your marketing
experience here.
Mr. Armstrong. No, I am bringing my forecasting methods
experience.
Senator Boxer. But you are not, I just want to say for the
record, an expert on the polar bear, you have never studied the
polar bear, you have never gone out to see what is going on.
Have you read the USGS report that talks about the polar bear?
Mr. Armstrong. That is what we analyzed. But I think that
is an advantage for me----
Senator Boxer. Whoa, whoa, whoa. No, no, no. I am not
asking what you analyzed. I am asking you if you read the USGS
report on the polar bear----
Mr. Armstrong. Well, we read----
Senator Boxer [continuing].--before you made your statement
that there is a high degree of uncertainty? Did you read the
USGS report that says that two-thirds of the world's current
polar bear population will be gone by mid-century if the ice
continues to be lost at the rate it is now?
Mr. Armstrong. That is what we did our audit on. That was
what I reported on.
Mr. Armstrong. I did. It is all marked up here.
Senator Boxer. You did. OK, very good. So I would like to
ask Dr. Kelly and the other members of the panel, Mr. Wetzler
and Ms. Williams do you feel that there is a high degree of
uncertainty or instability about the information you are
looking at on what is happening with the polar bears? I will
start with Dr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. No. It is a remarkable amount of information on
those populations, due to the efforts, primarily, of USGS
biologists over a number of years. There are always
uncertainties in any kind of data. I think it is important to
recognize that there is a bit of a culture difference, I think,
going on here between the way social scientists approach
modeling and the way biologists and ecologists do.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Mr. Kelly. I was a dean for several years in a school of
arts and sciences. I struggled regularly with this difference
in culture and language between economics and natural
scientists. They both have their developed theories and
approaches to modeling. As Senator Lautenberg so well put it,
models are valuable and used in many, many different arenas.
But there are these different disciplines that use them
differently, they have different languages and they typically
don't talk together very well.
So if you go through the literature in ecology, you won't
find a lot of references to Dr. Armstrong's book and that
approach, which isn't to say it is not a good approach.
Senator Boxer. OK, so just to sum it up, because we don't
have a lot of time to have professorial back and forths, you
find the information not to be confusing in terms of the
threats? You don't find it to be uncertain at this point? Your
research shows that the polar bear is threatened and will
continue to be if the ice loss continues, is that correct?
Mr. Kelly. That is correct.
Senator Boxer. OK. Do you agree with that, Ms. Williams?
Ms. Williams. Yes, Senator Boxer, we are fortunate to have
had several major reports in the last few years published that
show great certainty on changes in the ice, on changes in the
climate. These include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, they all show
tremendous changes, increases in temperature, loss of sea ice,
and the Arctic is changing at the fastest rate. The Arctic is
the most vulnerable to climate change impacts throughout the
world.
I also want to bring attention to a series of reports that
the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group has been issuing on a
regular basis. In 2004 and 2005 and 2006, IUCN, again, the
world's preeminent body of polar bear specialists, have drawn
attention to their concern on the future of the polar bear. In
2005, IUCN reclassified, actually it was 2006, the polar from
least concern to vulnerable. In 2004, Andy Derocher, one of the
leading polar bear scientists from Canada, said that
predictions are uncertain, but we conclude that the future
persistence of polar bears is tenuous.
So for years now, we have been hearing the concerns of
people who are out there studying and observing the changes in
body condition, and there is empirical evidence and it is quite
certain that polar bears are suffering as a result of lost time
on the sea ice.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Wetzler, I assume you agree with that. I
do have a question about the drilling. There is a report I am
going to place in the record published by the National
Academy's Press called Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil
and Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope. In there, in that
report, and it is done with a whole consortium of groups, they
say climate warming at predicted rates in the Beaufort Sea
region is likely to have serious consequences for ring seals
and polar bears, and those affects will accumulate with the
effects of oil and gas activities in the region.
And therefore, when you raised the issue of this lease
sale, I understand, as representing the Endangered Species
Project of NRDC, you see that this has a consequence and you
are concerned, as I am, about this situation where we see a
rush to a lease sale and a delay to a listing. I wanted you to
expand on that.
I feel very strongly that when bureaucrats break the law,
there ought be consequences. I think the consequences should be
a lawsuit, and I am wondering whether you have heard if there
would be that possibility. Because this thing is a nightmare.
Suppose they issue this lease and it has no conditions to
protect the polar bear and the lease is good for many years. We
know how that goes. And then we find out 2 weeks later that in
fact, there is a finding made that this is true, that there is
in fact a connection. It would be a disaster, and we would have
to now go, I guess you would, I would try to overturn it
legislatively, that is hard. You would try to overturn it, I am
sure, in a lawsuit. But what are the chances that we could see
some lawsuits here because of this outrageous missing of the
deadline, and then this strange, miraculous timing of this oil
lease?
Mr. Wetzler. I think, Senator, you are very like to see
lawsuits on both issues. The Natural Resources Defense Council
and the Center for Biological Diversity and Greenpeace have
already informed Secretary Hall that if he does not rectify his
illegal action by missing the deadline, we are going to sue
him. We have to wait 60 days before we can file that lawsuit.
But in the first week of March, if there is not a decision, we
are going to take him to court.
And as far as the lease sale goes, I think that there will
also be legal action by a broad coalition of groups in Alaska
who are opposed to the lease sale, which is not just
conservationists, but also Native groups and some government
groups as well.
Senator Boxer. Well, I think that is very important.
Because, and I just want to say to the environmental
organizations who are here or who may be in the audience or
supporters, you are really the wind at my back. I don't know
what I would do with this Administration and this tough Senate
right now in terms of living up to the letter of the law. This
is not a question of oh, gee, I will wait until tomorrow. The
law says the decision should have been made, and there is this
connection.
So in closing, I want to take another look at the polar
bear in all its glory and just say, this is pretty
straightforward deal here. I guess, Mr. Glenn, when you say the
polar bear can live on thin ice, which is essentially what you
are saying, because if you go back to the loss of ice, I don't
think anyone here is disputing, I don't even think Dr.
Armstrong or Mr. Glenn are disputing the fact that the ice has
been lost, but Mr. Glenn says, oh, the polar bear can live on
this thin ice.
I guess I would like to ask you, Mr. Wetzler, since you are
in charge of this project, what your response is to that. Can
this polar bear live the way this polar bear has lived on thin
ice that may or may not come back because of the climate 1 year
or another?
Mr. Wetzler. If I can answer that by saying, and this goes
back to your earlier question that, I have reviewed a lot of
Endangered Species Act petitions and a lot of decisions by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species
Act. This petition is remarkable for the unanimity and the
strength of the scientific evidence supporting it. I don't
think that there is any scientific question that the polar
bears are endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
I think to answer your specific question about the
difference between seasonal and permanent ice pack that Dr.
Kelly would be a more appropriate person to ask.
Senator Boxer. OK, I will ask Dr. Kelly that question. The
difference between the permafrost, or the living on the sea
ice, the thin ice that might come 1 year or the next for the
polar bear.
Mr. Kelly. Well, the question is not just a matter of the
thickness, but it is also the regional extent. And the ice is
retracting such that their habitat is shrinking at an alarming
rate and will be gone during the summer before the century is
over.
Senator Boxer. So let's take a look at the polar bear on
the thick snow there, just looking to go in to get its prey, is
what we pretty much think is happening, that one, yes. And I
think we should keep this in our mind. I think that we all
believe, because we are at the top of the chain, that nothing
else matters. That is not true. And we all know this is not
true. And we could have so much hubris that at the end of the
day, we are the ones who are threatened.
I feel my work is not only about saving God's creation, but
also about protecting human beings. Because at the end of the
day, it is just all connected.
So I just want to thank all of our witnesses, regardless of
their perspectives, for coming here today. And this Committee
is dedicated to dealing with the issue of global warming. We
are having a very important briefing this afternoon. Everyone
is invited to come. We have the chair of the IPCC who will be
before us, and he is going to go into what the IPCC has found
about this.
So we really appreciate your being here and we stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.399
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.400
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.401
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.402
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.403
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.404
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.405
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.376
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.377
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.378
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.379
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.380
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.381
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.382
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.383
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.384
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.385
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.386
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.387
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.388
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.389
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.390
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.391
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.392
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.393
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.394
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.395
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.396
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.397
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.398
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.406
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.407
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.408
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.409
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.410
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.411
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.412
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.413
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.414
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.415
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.416
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.417
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2737.418