[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
``PLANNING FOR A CHANGING CLIMATE AND ITS IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND
OCEANS: STATE AND FEDERAL EFFORTS AND NEEDS''; AND H.R. 4455, WILDLIFE
WITHOUT BORDERS AUTHORIZATION ACT.
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT AND
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE
AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-79
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-199 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Louie Gohmert, Texas
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Tom Cole, Oklahoma
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Rob Bishop, Utah
George Miller, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Sali, Idaho
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Lois Capps, California Steve Scalise, Louisiana
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman
HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Samoa Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Bill Sali, Idaho
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, June 24, 2008........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina, Prepared statement of......... 4
Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia...................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Arce, Juan Pablo, Director, Latin America and the Caribbean,
NatureServe................................................ 94
Prepared statement of.................................... 96
Arha, Kaush, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior........ 72
Prepared statement of.................................... 74
Ashe, Dan, Science Advisor to the Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior................... 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Brunello, Anthony, Deputy Secretary for Climate Change and
Energy, California Resources Agency, on behalf of the
Coastal States Organization................................ 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Burchfield, Patrick M., Ed.D., MSc, Director, Gladys Porter
Zoo........................................................ 90
Prepared statement of.................................... 92
Chasis, Sarah, Senior Attorney and Director, Ocean
Initiative, Natural Resources Defense Council.............. 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Clark, Jamie Rappaport, Executive Vice President, Defenders
of Wildlife................................................ 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Davidson, Margaret A., Director, Coastal Services Center,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce..................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Dillon, Thomas, Senior Vice President, Field Programs, World
Wildlife Fund.............................................. 82
Prepared statement of.................................... 84
Moritz, William, Ph.D., Director of Conservation, Safari Club
International Foundation, and Acting Director of
Governmental Affairs, Safari Club International............ 61
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Robinson, John G., Ph.D., Executive Vice President,
Conservation and Science, Wildlife Conservation Society.... 76
Prepared statement of.................................... 78
Whitehurst, David K., Director, Wildlife Diversity Division,
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries........... 45
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``PLANNING FOR A CHANGING CLIMATE AND ITS IMPACTS
ON WILDLIFE AND OCEANS: STATE AND FEDERAL EFFORTS AND NEEDS''; AND
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4455, WILDLIFE WITHOUT BORDERS
AUTHORIZATION ACT.
----------
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:14 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Madeleine Z.
Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bordallo and Wittman.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife and Oceans will now come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on two
topics. The first is efforts that are underway and that are
needed in the future for states and the Federal agencies to
plan for and mitigate the impacts that climate change is
expected to have on our oceans, our coasts and our wildlife.
The second is H.R. 4455, the Wildlife Without Borders
Authorization Act, introduced by the Ranking Member of the
Committee on Natural Resources from Alaska, Mr. Young.
The Subcommittee meets today to hear testimony on two
important issues, as I noted earlier. The first is regarding
efforts by states and the Federal agencies to plan for and
mitigate climate change impacts on our oceans, our coasts and
our wildlife. As we heard at our hearing last year and as
numerous scientific commissions have concluded, our land and
water resources are extremely vulnerable to a wide range of
effects from climate change. And some of these effects are
already occurring. And even if we were to end all emissions
tomorrow, they are still going to continue and grow in
magnitude in the future.
The effects will be broad, ranging from drought, floods,
ocean warming and acidification, and sea level rise to the
increase in disease and insect infestations, coral bleaching
and changes in the distribution of numerous fish and wildlife
species across their habitat ranges. Many of these habitat
ranges themselves will change dramatically. Despite this
urgency, a GAO report published in August of last year found
that Federal resources agencies, including NOAA, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Park Service, had not made climate
change a priority and the agencies' strategic plans did not
specifically address climate change.
In addition, resources managers within these agencies have
limited guidance about whether or how to address climate change
and were uncertain about what, if any, actions should be taken.
Nor did they have the site-specific information necessary to
plan for and manage the effects of climate change on the
Federal resources that they manage.
I am hopeful that we will hear from both the Fish and
Wildlife Service and NOAA that this situation has dramatically
improved in our resource management agencies over the nine
months since that report was issued. At the same time, I look
forward to hearing from the States of California and Virginia,
who both appear to have met the challenge of climate change
head on and are proactively planning for the impacts on their
oceans, coasts, wildlife and infrastructure. Yet, as both of
these states will point out, they cannot do it alone, and a
comprehensive and strategic effort by Federal agencies, as well
as additional resources will be needed to complement state
efforts.
Finally, the Committee will also hear testimony on H.R.
4455, introduced by our colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young, to
authorize the Wildlife Without Borders program within the Fish
and Wildlife Service. Now, the intent of this program is to
move beyond the existing species-specific international
wildlife funds previously authorized by Congress and to instead
formally authorize a program to direct the Federal Government
to address international wildlife conservation needs on a
broader landscape basis.
So I look forward this morning to hearing from our
witnesses regarding the pros and the cons of this approach and
what changes they might suggest to ensure that our approach to
international species conservation is truly comprehensive. In
light of the impacts that wildlife will experience as a result
of climate change, the consideration of conservation on a broad
landscape scale will be that much more critical.
And now at this time I would like to recognize Mr. Wittman,
my colleague from the State of Virginia, who is standing in for
the Ranking Member Mr. Brown, for any statement that he may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Bordallo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
The Subcommittee meets today to hear testimony on two important
issues, as I noted. The first is regarding efforts by states and the
Federal agencies to plan for and mitigate climate change impacts on our
oceans, coasts, and wildlife.
As we heard at our hearing last year, and as numerous scientific
commissions, have concluded, our land and water resources are extremely
vulnerable to a wide range of effects from climate change. Some of
these effects are already occurring, and even if we were to end all
emissions tomorrow, they are still going to continue and grow in
magnitude in the future.
The effects will be broad, ranging from droughts, floods, ocean
warming and acidification, and sea level rise to increases in disease
and insect infestations, coral bleaching, and changes in the
distribution of numerous fish and wildlife species across their habitat
ranges. Many of these habitat ranges themselves will change
dramatically.
Despite this urgency, a GAO report published in August of last year
found that federal resource agencies, including NO-AA, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Park Service had not made climate changes a
priority and the agencies' strategic plans did not specifically address
climate change. In addition, resource managers within those agencies
had limited guidance about whether or how to address climate change and
were uncertain about what, if any actions to take. Nor did they have
the site-specific information necessary to plan for and manage the
effects of climate change on the federal resources they manage.
I am hopeful that we will hear from both the Fish and Wildlife
Service and NO-AA that this situation has dramatically improved in our
resource management agencies over the nine months since that report was
issued. At the same time, I look forward to hearing from the States of
California and Virginia who both appear to have met the challenge of
climate change head on and are proactively planning for the impacts on
their oceans, coasts, wildlife and infrastructure. Yet, as both of
these states will point out, they cannot do it alone, and a
comprehensive and strategic effort by federal agencies as well as
additional resources will be needed to complement states' efforts.
Finally, the Committee will also hear testimony on H.R. 4455,
introduced by our colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young, to authorize the
Wildlife Without Borders program within the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The intent of this program is to move beyond the existing species-
specific international wildlife funds previously authorized by Congress
and to instead formally authorize a program to direct the Federal
Government to address international wildlife conservation needs on a
broader, landscape basis.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today regarding the
pros and cons of this approach and what changes they might suggest to
ensure that our approach to international species conservation is truly
comprehensive. In light of the impacts that wildlife will experience as
a result of climate change, the consideration of conservation on a
broad, landscape scale will be that much more critical.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I really
appreciate your holding this hearing and I appreciate your
attention to these two very important topics. First, I am glad
that we are taking the time to examine Ranking Member Young's
important bill to promote international conservation efforts,
capitalizing on a relatively small Federal investment. The
Wildlife Without Borders program has a very large positive
impact on international species management and conservation
efforts. I look forward to the committee acting quickly to mark
up this legislation.
I am also looking forward to hearing from today's panel
about the impact of changing climate on wildlife. So far
scientists are able to come to general conclusions about
climate change and using models to infer how increase in
temperatures will impact the planet. And it is important to
note how those impacts will affect wildlife and fish
populations. Our knowledge of these complex systems is far from
perfect and there are still many questions to be answered. And
we are anxious to make sure that the science dictates our
direction.
For example, some of the questions that come up based on
the science is what is the role of man versus Earth's natural
temperature cycles? How much is being caused by each? And are
there any benefits to a warmer climate? Regardless, the link
between increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and
warming temperatures are certainly cause for a concentrated
attention to this issue. Changing temperatures, weather
patterns and sea level rise have the potential to significantly
alter wildlife habitat and impact coastal communities. And
those of us from the coastal areas are now more sensitive to
that these days, especially with the things we have had to
encounter here recently.
Virginia's wide variety of wildlife and coastal ecosystems
are susceptible to rising temperatures and changing weather
patterns. Virginians living on the coast are wondering if
climate change will trigger stronger hurricanes and increase
property damage. Virginia watermen are contemplating how
climate change will impact the economic viability of crab and
shellfish populations. Additionally, growing concern among
sportsmen has led many to question how will changing
temperatures impact hunting and fishing opportunities.
As an avid waterfowl hunter and salt water angler, I am
concerned about a recent report from leading conservation
organizations entitled ``Season's End: Global Warming's Threat
to Hunting and Fishing.'' The report does a great job in
assessing the potential impacts of climate change. The report
highlights threats to Virginia's native brook trout
populations, waterfowl migration patterns, and salt water game
species.
On that note, I am very pleased to welcome David Whitehurst
from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. And
David is well known for his groundbreaking work in the area of
game management and also on knowledge of the fisheries side. So
I have worked and known David for many years and I am confident
that he will shed some very unique insights on how states and
the Federal Government can work together to ensure a bright
future for hunting and fishing in our great country.
Again thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this
hearing. And at this time I would like to ask unanimous consent
that Congressman Henry Brown's statement and the article
``Seasons' End: Global Warming's Threat to Hunting and
Fishing'' be submitted for the record.
Ms. Bordallo. No objection, so order.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Republican
Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Madam Chairwoman, I want to compliment you for holding this hearing
on H.R. 4455 and I hope we markup this legislation in the near future.
I would also like to compliment the gentleman from Alaska, Don Young,
for his leadership in introducing this important bill.
In addition, I would like to welcome Dr. Margaret Davidson to our
hearing today. Dr. Davidson has dedicated her entire life to ensuring
the health and vitality of our ocean ecosystems. For the past twelve
years, she has served with distinction as Director of NOAA's Coastal
Service Center in Charleston and prior to that as the Executive
Director of the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium.
The Wildlife Without Borders was administratively created by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service twenty five years ago. In fact, this
program was the forerunner to the first of the Multinational Species
Conservation Funds that was not created until 1988.
Since its inception, the Service has approved nearly 900 Wildlife
Without Borders conservation projects which have assisted a wide range
of important species including Amur tigers, California condors,
jaguars, snow leopards and Swainsons' hawks. While these species may
not be considered keystone, without this small investment they would be
facing extinction.
The purpose of H.R. 4455 is to establish a Congressional
authorization for this program. This will help to ensure that it is
funded in the future, that Congress can periodically review its
effectiveness and we can evaluate whether our taxpayers are getting a
fair return on their investment.
The second portion of this hearing will evaluate how fish and
wildlife can adapt to changing climate conditions. This is not a new or
radical process.
Wildlife have been adapting to the warming or cooling of this
planet for millions of years. Depending on the species, this may mean
that they hibernate during the winter, migrate to warmer climates,
increase their body weight or genetically alter their physical
characteristics. For those species that could not adapt, like the
dinosaur, they simply ceased to exist.
While the polar bear has become the poster child of global warming,
what is largely ignored in the media, is that 10,000 years ago, the
earth was much warmer, the polar caps had melted and the polar bear
survived by adapting to these warmer temperatures.
In my own Congressional District, we have a number of fish and
wildlife that have adapted extremely well including regrettably a fair
number of foreign invasive species. We also have millions of people who
travel to South Carolina each winter to enjoy our 170 miles of some of
the finest beaches in the world. I am confident that these visitors
have very little trouble adapting to our warm temperatures, crystal
clear waters, pristine beaches and delicious seafood.
Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to hearing testimony on these two
topics. I would also like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the
record the publication entitled: ``Seasons' End: Global Warming's
Threat to Hunting and Fishing.'' While I may not endorse all of the
conclusions in this report, it is certainly worth reading and it makes
a valuable contribution to this ongoing and contentious debate.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
______
[NOTE: The article ``Seasons' End: Global Warming's Threat
to Hunting and Fishing'' submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Ms. Bordallo. I wish to thank my colleague, the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Wittman, for his opening statement. And now
I would like to recognize our first panel of witnesses.
Before I do that I would like to apologize. This hearing
will be quite lengthy as we had to have three panels. There
were just so many witnesses. And normally we do not have seven
witnesses sitting at the table at one time. So we will try to
get through it. And I will mention a little bit later on about
our time limits.
But first I would like to introduce Ms. Margaret Davidson,
the Director of the Coastal Services Center for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Mr. Tony Brunello,
Deputy Secretary for Climate Change and Energy for the
California Resources Agency; and Ms. Sarah Chasis, Senior
Attorney and Director of the Oceans Initiative at the Natural
Resources Defense Council.
I would like to recognize Ms. Davidson to be the first
witness. But I would like to also remind all of you that there
is a timing light on the table that will indicate when your
time has concluded. And we would appreciate your cooperation to
comply with the minutes that have been set. There are five
minutes. And your entire statement, however, I will remind you
will be entered into the official record.
And so now I would like to recognize Ms. Davidson.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET DAVIDSON, DIRECTOR, COASTAL SERVICES
CENTER, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Ms. Davidson. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo and
Congressman Wittman, other members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. My name
is Margaret Davidson. I have had the opportunity of
contributing to several of the IPCC reports.
Ms. Bordallo. Would you move the microphone a little bit
closer.
Ms. Davidson. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Ms. Davidson.
Ms. Davidson. My background is that I have been involved in
these issues for some time, have contributed to some of the
IPCC chapters on adaptation. But I think more importantly, I am
by both birth and affinity a marsh rat and I currently live at
8.5 feet, so these issues are personal for me, Chairwoman, as
they are for you.
You have had a number of hearings on the science. I am not
actually here to speak on the science but to focus on some of
the efforts that are underway in my agency and the ways in
which we are working with state and local governments as well
as the trust resources which we manage to address the
implications of climate change.
Just want to remind you of facts that you are already aware
of, that while the coasts are but 17 percent of the land area
and 50 percent of the nation's population, they are nearly 60
percent of the nation's gross domestic product. So it is very
important that we address these issues because we can ill
afford not to since the coast is an area of extreme impact. All
of the physical changes that we are beginning to observe are
being made manifest in the ocean and along the coast.
With regard to living marine resource management, I think
one of the better examples is, as Congressman Wittman
mentioned, many of the major climate changes that are affecting
our oceans are temperature, changes in the temperature regime,
changes in the ocean acidification and other extremes, the loss
of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic. These have dramatic
impact on living marine resources. One example is that recently
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council used climate
information to adjust the Bering Sea pollock quota for 2008
with a 30 percent reduction from the 2007 levels. This was
because some of that climate information about warming
temperatures and its relationship to the reproductive cycles of
this important species led us to believe that they were going
to have a reduced capability and that we needed to throttle
back that harvest in order to ensure that the stock was
sustainable.
Besides the trust resources which we manage directly,
marine fisheries, we also have trust-related responsibility
with our state and local partners in important coastal habitat
areas. As both of you know, coastal habitats provide excellent
buffers for storm surge and flooding, as well as important
habitat for critical fish and wildlife. And, indeed, across our
country erosion alone costs us over $500 million a year. And it
is important that we recognize and understand and protect this
green infrastructure, not only for the value that it provides
for fish and wildlife habitat, but for those flood retention
values that we have come to appreciate. With the cost of
natural disasters climbing in this country I would like to
point out to you that many of the things that we need to do on
the coast to mitigate the cost of natural disasters, frequent,
more frequent storms, more intense precipitation periods, are
often exactly the same set of strategies and actions that we
would take to adapt to rising levels of sea level.
For instance, in Chesapeake Bay we have been working with
many local communities as well as the state agencies to
identify and protect and restore the near-shore oyster reefs
and sea grass beds that not only provide critical habitat but
do provide us with that storm protection value and the flood
value that I just mentioned. We have done similar efforts in
other states such as south Louisiana, which I am sure that you
are quite aware of, a state that knows a great deal about storm
damage and erosion. And in the State of Maine over the last
three years we worked with the State of Maine, the Land Trust
Alliance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and about 50 local
organizations to develop the first coastwide conservation
mapping and strategic planning initiative which we hope to
extend working with other state partners across the country.
As we look to these issues in the coastal areas in
particular it is essential that we have very good elevation
data. We need high resolution coastal elevation data, as well
as the shallow bathymetric data. And that is why we have joined
with USGS and others to put together a comprehensive ocean and
coastal mapping effort. You all are aware of some of the
efforts that we are doing far offshore, but the near-shore
efforts are particularly important to us as we begin to think
about how to identify critical habitats.
I already lost my five minutes or did it get reset?
Ms. Bordallo. You have a few seconds left.
Ms. Davidson. Great.
One of our best efforts is the Pacific climate information
services that we have actually undertaken throughout the
Pacific islands where I think you know that the actions that we
need to do to address tsunami risk are exactly the same things
that we need to do with sea level. So we are bringing together
information a bout changes, dramatic changes in precipitation,
information about the elevation of the islands, and providing
web-based tools that both the local and the regional managers
can use to understand where to locate communities and how to
address and restore critical habitat.
And I will provide some other examples for the committee.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Davidson follows:]
Statement of Margaret A. Davidson, Director, Coastal Services Center,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce
Introduction
Good morning Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee. I am
Margaret A. Davidson, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center. I had the honor of
participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
report chapter on adaptation, am an active advisory committee member
for the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and have just been
elected to the rank of American Meteorological Society Fellow. I thank
you for the opportunity to testify on the effects of climate change on
coastal communities, and to highlight how NOAA is working across all
levels of government and with other partners on planning and adapting
to climate change. Changing climate is potentially one of the most
significant long-term influences on the infrastructure and function of
coastal communities, and coastal and marine ecosystems. Therefore,
impacts must be identified and addressed in order to meet NOAA's
management and stewardship goals of ensuring healthy, resilient, and
productive coastal and ocean environments.
After all, NOAA's vision is an informed society that uses a
comprehensive understanding of the role of the oceans, coasts, and
atmosphere in the global ecosystem to make the best social and economic
decisions.
Today, I will discuss the range of risks facing coastal communities
in light of climate change. I will highlight how NOAA is working to
help communities plan and adapt by collaborating with our partners to
support the best possible science and develop appropriately scaled
products, services, tools, and training that will enable officials and
key organizations to make the right decisions to prepare and sustain
their communities. NOAA recognizes the pressing national interest in
coordination of the nation's climate adaptation efforts, through
partnerships that bridge the gap between climate science and decision-
making.
Changing Climate and its Effects on the Nation
Since the beginning of human settlements, we have chosen to dwell
where land and water meet and where our needs for food, transportation,
and waste disposal needs are easily met. More recently in the United
States and elsewhere, the rate of relative population growth along the
coast has soared as a result of an expanding coastal recreation and
tourism economic sector. In the past 50 years, the density and the
economic value of the built environment has escalated, and so have the
repetitive disaster losses. The U.S. coast comprises merely 17 percent
of national land area but supports nearly 50 percent of our population.
Coastal areas generate nearly 60 percent of U.S. gross domestic
product, and account for the most repetitive flood loss claims with
both the National Flood Insurance Program and the private casualty loss
insurance industry.
An analysis of data shows that the Earth's oceans may have warmed
almost .04 degree Celsius over the second half of the 20th century
1. These data, along with findings from the recent IPCC
assessments of 2001 and 2007 show that not only have the atmosphere and
oceans warmed, they will continue to do so during the 21st century, at
least in part due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The
2007 IPCC Working Group II report stated: ``Observational evidence from
all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are
being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature
increases.'' Along with increases in global ocean temperatures, the
IPCC projects that global sea level will rise between 7 and 23 inches
by the end of the century (2090-2099) relative to the base period
(1980-1999) (model based range excluding future rapid dynamical changes
in ice flow). It is projected that the average rate of sea level rise
during the 21st century is very likely to exceed the 1961-2003 average
rate 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ S. Levitus, J. Antonov, and T. Boyer. 2005. Warming of the
world ocean, 1955-2003. Geophysical Research Letters, 32: L02604
\2\ IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.
Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As climate changes, the effects on coastal communities and
economies is likely to grow. These include the potential for increased
flooding due to sea level rise, more severe coastal storms, drought,
increased coastal erosion due to storminess and loss of sea ice, and
accelerated decline of natural resources. These changes affect many
aspects of coastal community investments in critical infrastructure
(such as port facilities), how and where communities are built,
economic drivers (e.g., fisheries, shipping), and the social and
cultural fabric of these coastal communities.
In addition to effects on coastal communities and economies,
climate change also affects coastal ecosystems, human health, and
living marine resources. A recent study 3 by the Harvard
Medical School's Center for Health and Global Environment found climate
change will affect the health of humans as well as the ecosystems and
species on which we depend, and that these health effects will have
significant economic consequences. Some of the major climate-forced
changes are changes to the physical ocean environment (e.g.
temperatures, stratification, currents), the loss of sea ice in the
Arctic and Antarctic, ocean acidification forced by increased carbon
dioxide levels, sea level rise, changes in the incidence and geographic
distribution of disease causing organisms, and changes in freshwater
supply and quality. These climate-forced changes affect the
availability of habitat, the movements and distributions of organisms,
the timing of biological phenomena, the physiology of species, and the
productivity of individual species and whole ecosystems. All of these
factors need to be considered in management programs administered by
NOAA, other agencies and the states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Epstein, Paul R. and Mills, Evan, editors, 2005. Climate Change
Futures: Health, Ecological and Economic Dimensions, Harvard Medical
School, Swiss Re, United National Development Programme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate change information is being incorporated into living marine
resource management decisions through an increasing emphasis on an
ecosystem approach to management. Climate change is only one of a
complex set of factors (both human induced and naturally occurring),
that influence the productivity of marine ecosystems. Effective
management of resources in this complex environment necessitates
balancing many competing and simultaneous objectives. NOAA is committed
to advancing an ecosystem approach to its many stewardship
responsibilities as a way forward in striking this balance. Ecosystem
level advice (including climate conditions and potential consequences
for the living marine resources) is being integrated and made available
through publications and advisories such as the Status of the
California Current System Report, the Ecosystems Considerations chapter
of the North Pacific Groundfish Stock Assessment and Fisheries
Evaluation reports, and Ecosystem Advisories for the Northeast Shelf
large marine ecosystem.
The coastal margins are the first line of defense in tackling
escalating challenges linked to climate change and resulting threats to
coastal communities, economies, and ecosystems. Neither the federal
government, nor individual localities have thorough plans, sufficient
capabilities, or communication frameworks that address these threats.
Fragmented decision-making made by a single sector or locality will not
adequately handle these complex regional or national challenges. When
developing comprehensive action plans, partnerships among federal,
state, and local governments, regional organizations, nongovernmental
organizations, academia, and the private sector must be considered. In
addition, a Government Accountability Office report issued in August
2007 (Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing
the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources, GAO-07-863)
recommended that Federal agencies develop guidance incorporating their
best practices advising managers on how to address climate change
effects on the resources they manage. In response, the relevant
agencies agreed with this recommendation and are working to develop
such guidance.
During the past decade, the nature and urgency of these challenges
have been well documented by the IPCC, as well as in distinguished
national studies conducted by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Pew
Commission, Coastal States Organization, National Research Council,
Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce Office of
Inspector General, and others. Dozens of other specific assessments
support these studies in verifying the need for federal, state, local,
and nongovernmental organizations to address these urgent issues. NOAA
is committed to continuing our service and leadership for the nation in
developing these needed partnerships to address the challenges of
community planning and adaptation to climate change.
Understanding Climate Adaptation
A changing climate coupled with an increasing coastal population,
waterfront development pressure on natural resources, and the growing
intermodal needs of the transportation industry increases the risks to
communities, ecosystems, businesses, and critical infrastructure. This
leaves lives and livelihoods vulnerable to the effects of climate
change. If dry becomes drought, wet becomes flood, and storms become
more intense and devastating, it will be crucial for communities,
economies, and ecosystems to become resilient and learn to adapt to the
changing climate.
The IPCC defines adaptation as, ``Initiatives and measures to
reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or
expected climate change effects. Various types of adaptation exist,
e.g. anticipatory and reactive, private and public, and autonomous and
planned.'' Planned adaptation is the result of a deliberate policy
decision based on an awareness that conditions have changed or are
about to change and that action is required to return to, maintain, or
achieve a desired state. To remain resilient in the face of climate
change, coastal communities and natural resource managers should
consider the range of future climate variability and begin planning now
for their actions to have the most benefit. Actions taken now will not
only have a lasting value as effects of climate change manifest
themselves, they will also support resilient communities and ecosystems
in the short term, as the coastal regions face seasonal storms,
flooding, erosion, and other natural hazards as well as the loss and
migration of critical natural resources and living marine resources.
Adaptation is also critical to ensure continued economic vitality.
According to the Climate Change Futures report, implementing adaptation
strategies that reduce vulnerability will be particularly important to
the insurance industry to help reduce future losses. Local governments
may experience escalating costs and losses if they do not consider
potential future conditions when siting and building critical
infrastructure. For example, a recent report from the National Science
and Technology Council's Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
(Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United
States) states that municipalities will see escalating costs associated
with water treatment infrastructure due to climate change related
effects on water quality. These effects include higher temperatures and
nutrient loads.
In order to ensure social, economic, and environmental vitality
both now and in the future, coastal communities must have the capacity
to develop and implement adaptation plans that address their current
needs as well the pressures they are likely to face as climate changes.
NOAA is working every day to help these communities not only understand
the changing climate around them, but to meet our goal of providing the
tools and resources necessary to help them adapt.
NOAA Mandates Related to Adaptation to Climate Change
NOAA's overarching mission is to understand and predict changes in
the Earth's environment. NOAA operates under a breadth of mandates that
direct our efforts regarding climate prediction and adaptation,
ecosystems, safe navigation, mapping, coastal planning, resource
management, and balancing of uses. Addressing the effects of climate
change necessarily involves partnerships among federal, regional, state
and local governments, and civil society organizations. The Coastal
Zone Management Act provides a basis for NOAA to work through its
partnerships with the state coastal zone management programs and the
National Estuarine Research Reserves to improve climate adaptation
planning, including the outreach and education required to ensure that
state and local decision-makers are able to apply NOAA's information
and products most effectively.
Other congressional and presidential directives that guide our
climate-oriented activities include the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research and Control Act, the Oceans and Human Health Act, the National
Climate Program Office Act, the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act,
and the Climate Change Science Program. In executing our
responsibilities under these mandates, NOAA focuses on the needs of
local, regional, national, and international users, in strong
partnership with appropriate agencies and organizations.
In addition, numerous legislative mandates require NOAA to manage
living marine resources in a way that must take climate change effects
on these resources, and adaptation and mitigation strategies, into
consideration. These include the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Reauthorization Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Coral Reef Conservation Act,
and the Endangered Species Act. As an example, the Endangered Species
Act requires use of the ``best scientific and commercial data
available'' in making listing determinations and formulating biological
opinions. In many cases this will require the incorporation of climate
data and projections. For example, in recovery planning for Pacific
salmon and determinations of whether to list ice-dependent seals as
threatened or endangered, predictions and projections of the future
climate conditions and how these might impact the species must be taken
into account. When elkhorn and staghorn corals were listed as
threatened in 2006, the NOAA listing decision identified 13 stressors,
or specific conditions, causing adverse impacts. Among these were
several climate-related impacts including: elevated sea surface
temperatures, which contribute to temperature induced bleaching and may
exacerbate occurrence of diseases; elevated carbon dioxide levels and
associated ocean acidification, which may lead to decalcification of
coral structures; and sea level rise, which may cause present corals to
be located at less favorable depths in the future.
Developing Capacity to Anticipate and Adapt to Climate Change
Coastal resource managers at the state and local levels are
demanding information and services to prepare their coastal communities
for the effects of climate change, including the potential for
increased frequency and severity of coastal hazards such as erosion and
flooding. Nine states (California, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and Washington)
reported to the Coastal States Organization that they have begun taking
steps to plan for climate change at the state level, and Florida has
recently formed a Climate Task Force. Many of the steps include policy
changes that states and communities, through their coastal programs,
are undertaking to improve their resilience to flooding, storm surge,
and other forms of coastal inundation will also provide capacity for
adapting to accelerated rates of Sea Level Rise. Additionally, two-
thirds of the coastal states reported to NOAA (through the Coastal Zone
Management Act Section 309 assessments) that coastal hazards are a high
priority.
NOAA's products and services, such as high resolution digital
elevation models, coupled coastal inundation models as well as coastal
risk and vulnerability assessments, can help these states and their
coastal communities understand the effects of coastal hazards in the
near term, as well as the potential changing conditions with increased
sea level rise. Similarly, the protection and restoration of natural
resources that serve as buffers for storm surge and flooding, such as
wetlands, barrier islands, and mangroves, provide water quality
protection benefits can help protect communities from coastal
inundation and the future effects of sea level rise. NOAA's research on
the effects of climate change on living marine resources can help
federal and state managers make decisions about how best to protect
these sensitive species, at sea and on shore.
NOAA's Research, Models, and Observations
NOAA engages in oceanic and atmospheric research, model
development, and data collection and management focused on climate
change and adaptation. NOAA's efforts spur and enhance the development
of NOAA's products and services that provide the necessary tools and
training for effective climate adaptation planning. Some of the key
research, model, and observation projects and programs, as well as
their contributions to climate change issues, are summarized below.
Regional Research Partnership
The NOAA's Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA)
program supports research that investigates complex regional climate
sensitive issues of concern to decision-makers and policy planners. The
RISA research team includes universities, government research
facilities, non-profit organizations, and private sector entities.
Traditionally, the research has focused on the fisheries, water,
wildfire, and agriculture sectors. Recently, the RISA program has
expanded to include coastal impacts and transportation research. Of the
eight teams supported by the RISA program, the Climate Impacts Group at
the University of Washington has the strongest focus on climate and
fisheries issues, and is unique in its focus on the intersection of
climate science and public policy. The Climate Impacts Group performs
fundamental research on climate impacts on the Pacific Northwest and
works planners and policy makers to apply this information to regional
decision-making processes.
Ocean and Coastal Mapping
The mapping and charting of our coastal and marine waters,
including the Great Lakes, continues to be an activity of great
national importance especially in the face of climate change.
Partnerships, such as the Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping
initiative that was called for by the National Research Council and
identified as a priority in the President's Ocean Action Plan, can
provide the baseline geographic information needed to accurately
predict relative sea level rise. The Integrated Ocean and Coastal
Mapping effort will provide a consistent national spatial framework,
increased access to geospatial data and mapping products, and increased
inter- and intra-agency communication, cooperation, and coordination.
Ultimately, those entities dependent on maps for navigation, national
security, scientific research, energy development, location of cultural
resources, and coastal and living marine resource management will all
greatly benefit. The integrated mapping information is essential to
understanding the effects of coastal inundation, and will allow
communities to develop effective adaptation plans.
Accurate Heights and Water Levels
Accurate height and water levels are acquired through NOAA's Height
Modernization Program and Continuously Operating Reference Stations.
There are also two federally coordinated data collection efforts, the
Joint Airborne Bathymetry Lidar Technical Center of eXpertise (JABLTCX)
and the National Digital Elevation Program. In addition, relative sea
level trends, developed from years of continuous tidal monitoring
observations through NOAA's National Water Level Observation Network,
are essential for activities such as improved transportation systems,
integrated observing systems, subsidence monitoring, sea level rise
estimation, flood plain mapping, urban planning, storm surge modeling,
habitat restoration, emergency preparedness, coastal and resource
management, and construction.
A state-based example of observation work can be found in
California, where the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development,
Environment and Security is working on a ``Costs of Adapting to Sea
Level Rise'' project for the California Energy Commission. In order to
derive meaningful results, this type of climate change study requires
accurate water elevation data, which NOAA has provided to the
Institute.
Visualization Models
Visualization models are tools that help us better understand
potential effects of climate change. Working with local partners in
Charleston, South Carolina, NOAA is developing visualizations of sea
level rise to enable coastal managers to identify areas at potential
risk from rising water based on various sea level rise scenarios. A
methodology for creation of Geographic Information System (GIS) based
maps of sea level rise inundation is being developed, as well as a
comparison of high and lower resolution maps. Social and economic
metrics will be investigated, as well as ecological effects of sea
level rise as they relate to ecosystem services. Similar locally scaled
tools are envisioned as an essential component of a coastal climate
adaptation partnership.
U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS)
NOAA recognizes the importance of a national integrated ocean
observing infrastructure as a valuable tool to characterize,
understand, predict and monitor changes in coastal-ocean environments
and ecosystems. NOAA's IOOS program enhances NOAA's ability to monitor
effects of climate change, including coral bleaching and sea level
rise. A number of NOAA's IOOS multi-year, regional investments are
directed toward climate change issues. IOOS data products and services
are targeted to high-impact decision support tools, such as coastal
inundation and hurricane intensification modeling, and integrated
ecosystem assessments, which will inform the management plans and
policy decisions related to climate change. For example, the Chesapeake
Inundation Prediction System is a partnership among federal and state
agencies, industry, and academia. The System predicts inundation in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area and the tidal Potomac River, and
provides a flood forecast prototype that simulates street-level
flooding from storm events using a high-resolution circulation model
both for immediate storm response and advanced mitigation planning and
decision-making. Based on preliminary results, the tool has potential
to enhance the capability of NOAA Weather Forecast Offices around the
country to deliver more specific, and timely inundation forecasts to
local communities.
A Regional Approach Towards Leveraging Federal Climate Capabilities
NOAA actively engages in a regional approach towards leveraging
federal climate capabilities. For example, NOAA is working closely with
the West Coast Governors Agreement, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, the
Northeast Regional Ocean Council, the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration, our international partners, and others, to help coastal
states better define their needs in regards to understanding coastal
and marine ecosystems and the effects of climate change at regional
scales.
In May 2008, twelve federal agencies, representatives from seven
states, and several associations in the southeast met for a workshop
called Adapting to a Changing Climate. Sponsored by the Southeastern
Natural Resources Leadership Group and assisted by NOAA, this workshop
brought together regional federal and state executives who lead
agencies with natural resource conservation as part of their mission.
This regional leadership gathering addressed the current status of
science, knowledge acquisition, mitigation, and adaptation for a
changing climate in the southeastern United States. The workshop
proceedings will help inform the focus and needs for the development of
a broader climate adaptation strategy for the region.
A National Approach Towards Leveraging Federal Climate Capabilities
In addition to our local and regional efforts, NOAA is also
developing national tools and services that leverage federal climate
capabilities. The National Integrated Drought Information System
(NIDIS) Act of 2006 prescribes an approach for drought monitoring,
forecasting, and early warning at watershed, state, and county levels
across the United States. Led by NOAA, NIDIS is being developed through
the consolidation of physical, hydrological, and socio-economic effects
data, engaging those affected by drought; integrating observing
networks; developing of a suite of drought decision support and
simulation tools; and delivering standardized information products
through an interactive internet portal (www.drought.gov). NIDIS is a
dynamic and accessible drought risk information system that provides
users with the capacity to determine the potential effects of drought,
and provides the decision support tools needed to better prepare for
and mitigate the effects of drought.
NOAA's Sectoral Applications Research Program (SARP) is a research
service that develops the knowledge base, decision support tools,
capacities and partnerships in sectors affected by climate in a
substantial and increasingly visible way. SARP is designed to catalyze
and support interdisciplinary research, innovative outreach, and
education activities that enhance the capacity of key socioeconomic
sectors to respond to and plan for climate variability and change
through the use of climate information and related decision support
resources. The program is designed to systematically build an
interdisciplinary knowledge base and a mechanism for the creation,
dissemination, and exchange of climate-related research findings and
decision support resources, which are critical for understanding and
addressing resource management challenges in vital social and economic
sectors such as coastal resources, water, agriculture, and health.
NOAA's Tools and Information to Support Adaptation Planning
Despite a growing awareness of climate change and sea level rise,
local decision-makers often still lack the tools to examine different
management objectives (i.e., coastal hazards and conservation) in
relation to one another and to visualize alternative scenarios for
resource management that meets multiple objectives. NOAA is working in
partnership with local communities to develop a suite of tools and
information services to meet their climate change adaptation needs.
Guidebooks
Guidebooks are an instructive tool designed to assist local
communities in meeting their climate change adaptation needs. NOAA, in
concert with local partners, produced the King County (Washington)
Climate Adaptation Guidebook. The Guidebook was designed to facilitate
planning for climate effects by specifying practical steps and
strategies that can be used locally to build community resilience into
the future. The Guidebook will enable communities to integrate climate
preparedness strategies into existing hazard mitigation plans, reduce
the costs associated with disaster relief, and prioritize
vulnerabilities such as infrastructure, water supply, and human health.
In response to the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, NOAA
and the U.S. Agency for International Development created a new coastal
community resilience guidebook. The guidebook, titled How Resilient Is
Your Coastal Community? A Guide for Evaluating Coastal Community
Resilience to Tsunamis and Other Hazards, presents a framework for
assessing resilience of communities to coastal hazards. The framework,
developed in concert with over 140 international partners, encourages
integration of coastal resource management, community development, and
disaster management for enhancing resilience to hazards, including
those that may occur as a result of climate change.
Risk Management
NOAA's Pacific Risk Management 'Ohana (PRiMO) is involved in a
partnership to develop tsunami risk information for U.S. Flag Islands
outside Hawaii. The initial effort is focused on Guam and has been a
successful collaboration with participation by many PRiMO partners from
NOAA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Guam Homeland
Security Office of Civil Defense, the Guam Coastal Zone Management
Program, and Guam GIS. Modeling results are expected to be completed in
the next few months. Once complete, there will be opportunities to
integrate this risk information into projects, plans, and programs.
Regional Decision-Making
To support regional decision-making, NOAA, in partnership with
state coastal management programs, provides technical assistance and
funding to support projects to help state and local governments prepare
for and adapt to climate change and sea level rise. Climate change
related projects include creating sea level rise inundation models,
developing plans for adapting to climate change, and establishing new
regulations for dealing with sea level rise. For example,
NOAA is providing technical assistance for The Nature
Conservancy for a project on Long Island that will help coastal
decision-makers visualize, and make informed decisions about,
conservation, land protection, and coastal development. NOAA will also
work with partners to effectively incorporate project outputs into the
Digital Coast partnership pilot effort;
NOAA, along with its research partners at Cornell
University, is creating decision support tools related to east coast
winter storm frequency and effects. Researchers are developing a rating
system that quantifies the potential for coastal effects as a result of
an east coast winter storm, and investigating modifying the existing
seasonal forecast procedures to reflect the severity of impact of
coastal storms as opposed to overall storm frequency. The network of
coastal decision-makers that are accessible through NOAA and New York
Sea Grant will be instrumental in assuring the climatological tools
developed will be valued and used in decision support; and
NOAA is supporting the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission's regional planning efforts to adapt to climate
change in the bay area. This effort includes mapping shoreline areas
vulnerable to sea-level rise; organizing a regional program to address
climate change in the bay area, and updating the San Francisco Bay Plan
findings and policies to address global climate change effects on San
Francisco Bay.
NOAA's Capacity Building, Outreach, and Education
In addition to the resources and tools we develop, NOAA is also
supporting local communities through capacity building, and outreach
and education efforts. A few of these efforts include:
The RiskWise partnership network is providing an
educational approach to improve the safety and resilience of
communities threatened by coastal hazards. Through the partnership's
existing resources and programs, local decision-makers will have access
to training, tools, and networks that better enable them to increase
their resilience through community planning, economic development, and
disaster management;
The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), in
partnership with NOAA, has published the Coastal No Adverse Impact
handbook, to educate local officials and residents on the benefits of a
``do no harm'' coastal management and development philosophy;
The NOAA Sea Grant extension network of 350 agents and
specialists in 30 coastal states and Puerto Rico serve as outreach
intermediaries between NOAA's climate researchers, coastal decision-
makers, and diverse constituents helping to define and deliver NOAA's
climate tools and products needed at the local level; and
NOAA's National Marine Sanctuary Program is piloting a
climate change ``story template'' that will help each of the thirteen
sanctuary sites and the marine national monument identify what the
local and regional effects of climate change will be. This will aid in
the development of a climate change action plan for each site to help
plan and adapt to future impacts. NOAA is also developing a climate
change component to its Marine Protected Areas (MPA) management
capacity training program that will provide basic tools and procedures
for MPA managers.
Incorporating Climate Change Information into Coastal and Ocean
Resource Management
As noted previously, NOAA's work to incorporate climate change and
adaptation into our mission and activities has resulted in numerous
efforts that will assist the nation, states, regions, and local
communities. Climate change information is being incorporated into
coastal and ocean living marine resource and coastal ecosystem
management decisions within NOAA itself through an increasing emphasis
on an ecosystem approach to management.
Climate-related ecosystem level advice is being integrated and made
available through programs, publications and advisories such as the
Coral Reef Conservation Program, the Status of the California Current
System Report, the Ecosystems Considerations chapter of the North
Pacific Groundfish Stock Assessment and Fisheries Evaluation reports,
and Ecosystem Advisories for the Northeast U.S. Shelf Large Marine
Ecosystem. A short summary of other efforts include:
In 2006, NOAA and partners produced A Reef Manager's
Guide to Coral Bleaching. The guide articulates the state of knowledge
on the causes and consequences of coral bleaching and provides
information on responding to mass bleaching events, highlighting how to
develop bleaching response plans and other management strategies to
help reef managers increase the resilience of coral reefs and related
ecosystems to expected changes in the global climate system.
Climate information was used for fisheries management by
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council who decided to reduce the
Bering Sea pollock quota for 2008 by about 30 percent from 2007 levels.
Climate information supplied by NOAA indicating relatively warm ocean
conditions contributed to this decision.
The state-managed National Estuarine Research Reserve
System serves as sentinel sites to monitor the effects of change, as
well as reference sites for guiding mitigation and adaptation
strategies in larger coastal areas and watersheds. In addition, the
Reserves' education and training programs provide science-based
information to help individuals, agencies and organizations mitigate
and adapt to the effects of climate change. At the Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve in Massachusetts, staff participates on the
Falmouth Energy Committee and helped to develop the Climate Action Plan
for the town of Falmouth and have been active in getting towns on the
Cape to commit to the Cities for Climate Protection program.
NOAA is working with coastal managers and planners to
better prepare for changes in coastal ecosystems due to land subsidence
and sea level rise. Starting with southern Pamlico Sound, North
Carolina, the approach is to simulate projected sea level rise using a
coastal flooding model that combines a hydrodynamic model of water
levels with a high resolution digital elevation model. The final
products will be mapping and modeling tools that allow managers and
planners to see projected shoreline changes and to display predictions
of ecosystem impacts.
How NOAA Incorporates Climate Change Information - Ecosystem Services
Restoration and Protection
Coastal habitats provide a variety of important ecosystem services
that help protect coastal citizens and infrastructure from impacts of
storms, flooding, sea level rise and other coastal hazards.
Irreplaceable for floodwater retention, water filtration, fish and
wildlife habitats and coastal buffers, coastal wetlands, barrier
islands, mangroves and coral reefs provide a ``green infrastructure,''
helping to reduce erosion, storm surge and flooding, and provide
buffers against the onslaught of storms and wave energy. The extensive
damage caused to the Gulf of Mexico from hurricanes Katrina and Rita
was due in part to the degraded state of the wetlands and barrier
islands. Nationally, coastal erosion results in loss of coastal
structures and property valued at an estimated $500 million per year.
Protection and restoration of coastal wetlands, estuaries, and rivers
can help protect coastal communities against the onslaught of coastal
hazards, sea level rise, and other effects of climate change.
We need to fully understand ecosystem processes and interactions,
in order to predict and forecast how climate change will alter these
ecosystem processes and interactions and the vital services they
provide, and to adapt to those changes. For example, wetlands and
barrier islands provide significant flood protection benefits. Recent
research shows that each wetland alteration permit in Florida costs an
additional $1,000 in property damage per flood claim, and all permits
combined cost the state $30.4 million a year 4. We need to
understand how this value might change with increasing sea level rise
and develop strategies to ensure that the ecosystem services are
protected and maintained as the climate changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Brody, SD., Zahran S., Maghelal, P., Grover, H., Highfield, WE.
The Rising Costs of Floods: Examining the Impact of Planning and
Development Decisions on Property Damage in Florida, Journal of the
American Planning Association, Vol. 73, No. 3, Summer 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAA works with federal agencies, state and local governments,
nonprofit, and private sector organizations to help coastal communities
acquire, protect, conserve and restore coastal habitats, not only for
the aesthetic and natural habitat benefits, but also because they
provide important services to reduce the impacts of storms, flooding
and other coastal hazards. NOAA's efforts include large-scale, regional
efforts involving multiple projects, to individual, local projects to
protect or restore coastal wetlands, rivers, and other habitats. Some
key examples of projects or programs include:
In the Chesapeake Bay, NOAA and partners restored near-
shore oyster reefs and seagrass beds that reduced wave damage and
protected coastal property from erosion;
In Maine, the Land Trust Alliance, the Maine Coast
Heritage Trust, and the Maine State Planning Office entered into a
cooperative agreement with NOAA to leverage the skills and resources of
approximately 50 organizations engaged in protecting Maine's coast for
future generations. The project resulted in a coastal conservation plan
that identifies protection priorities and strategies and implements a
series of pilot projects at the local level;
In coastal Louisiana, through the Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act Program, NOAA has helped
restore barrier islands resulting in increased protection of oil and
gas infrastructure and coastal communities from risk of storm and wave
damage; and
NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
provides a tool for states to address climate change and coastal
hazards through cost-sharing land acquisition.
NOAA recognizes that it is imperative to work with states and
community partners to develop ecosystem approaches to respond to the
effects of climate change. NOAA has several successful programs that
partner with states, local communities, and non-profit organizations to
protect and restore coastal habitats. A strong planning element,
matched by determined local involvement will lead to proactive
adaptation.
Next Steps
Federal, state, and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and
the private sector continuously demand more climate information and
services to effectively address the challenge of climate change and
adaptation. NOAA is working hard to address these needs within its
current budget and programs. Climate researchers at NOAA are making
progress in matching the time and space scales of climate projections
with time and space scales relevant to coastal management, land-use
decision making, and hazard mitigation planning. We are also working to
incorporate climate observations and predictions into coastal and
living marine resource management.
NOAA looks forward to working with stakeholders to prioritize
future research efforts. Among the stated needs of stakeholders are
integrating climate information into infrastructure decisions for ports
and waterways, clarifying the mechanisms of climate impacts on coastal
and living marine resources and habitats, and assessing the
socioeconomic impacts of a changing climate on coastal communities.
Conclusion
Providing a comprehensive suite of climate products and services
that support effective adaptation planning requires a partnership
approach, particularly in the economically important and politically
challenging coastal domain. No single agency can meet all of the
nation's needs for climate services. But as the world's preeminent
source for climate data and information, NOAA is uniquely positioned to
help coordinate and provide climate information, products, and services
across the federal government to ensure U.S. citizens, particularly
those in coastal areas, have the tools required to adapt to the effects
of a changing climate. NOAA is also working to ensure climate change
information is being incorporated into living marine resource
management decisions through an increasing emphasis on an ecosystem
approach to management.
NOAA will continue to expand and improve its partnerships to meet
growing constituent demands for tools, products, and services that will
help them improve their resilience to the impacts of climate change on
coastal ecosystems, communities, and economies.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Ms. Davidson. And now I
recognize Mr. Brunello to testify for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF TONY BRUNELLO, DEPUTY SECRETARY, CLIMATE CHANGE
AND ENERGY, CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY
Mr. Brunello. Thank you. And I appreciate Margaret giving
me her time.
Chairman Bordallo, Congressman Wittman, and distinguished
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to offer testimony regarding the needs
of the states and territories to successfully respond and adapt
to the existing and future impacts of climate change along the
nation's coasts. I should also note that I think I live at 20
feet sea level.
My name is Anthony Brunello and I serve as the Deputy
Secretary for Climate Change and Energy for the California
Resources Agency. I am here today on behalf of the Coastal
States Organization which represents the interests of the
Governors from 35 coastal states and territories and
commonwealths. Over the past year, CSO's Climate Change Work
Group developed a report targeting the key research,
information, and policy needs designed to foster improved
adaptation policies. This was a collaborative process with 26
states represented and led to a climate change policy later
adopted by all 35 coastal states. During my testimony today I
will provide comments reflective of this CSO policy as well as
specific observations from climate adaptation efforts in
California.
As committee members may know, the Coastal State
Organization just released a ``Call for Action'' to identify
three critical steps necessary at the Federal level for ocean
and coastal management. One of the three issues identified was
the need for the Federal Government to assist coastal states in
efforts to adapt to climate change. The nation's coastal
states, territories and commonwealths will be the hardest hit
by climate change impacts from sea level rise, temperature
change and precipitation shifts over the next century. In
California, absent successful intervention, one meter of sea
level rise, for example, is being projected over the next
century. This would result in flooding of more than 100 square
miles of the San Francisco Bay Area, including critical
infrastructure such as the Oakland and San Francisco Airports,
and would inundate portions of the Sacramento and San Joaquin
River Delta area. The delta is California's main artery for the
state water project that provides water to more than 25 million
residents.
This is actually quite an important point that I hope we
will bring up later in the questions of how adaptation policies
and strategies must be cross cutting. In particular, sea level
rise cuts across our water sector, coastal sectors, wildlife
sectors, and so shows many of the challenges that we are
facing.
In particular, most coastal states are not prepared to
address predicted climate change impacts such as sea level
rise. States and Federal entities should assist in the
development of sector-specific climate adaptation strategies
for coastal areas and develop comprehensive cross-sector
strategies that would aim to reduce vulnerability to climate
change.
To reduce California's vulnerability to these risks, the
state is developing a statewide climate adaptation strategy in
coordination with its aggressive greenhouse gas mitigation
policies. California's commitment to reduce our greenhouse gas
emissions are clear in our 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act,
the low carbon fuel standard, our renewable portfolio standard,
and many other efforts to help reduce the long-term climate
impacts to California. However, I always mention these efforts
and the world's mitigation efforts will slow but not stop
climate impacts to California and other coastal states over the
next century. Therefore, adaptation of expected future impacts
must occur as a parallel track to mitigation.
This is why California, through the leadership of
California Governor Schwarzenegger and California Resources
Agency Secretary Mike Chrisman, is planning its first
coordinated climate change adaptation strategy effort that will
be completed in 2009. To develop California's climate
adaptation strategy, early efforts will focus on understanding
where California is most vulnerable to climate change. The
strategy efforts are already underway with different agencies
and departments responsible for identifying policy options
available to reduce California's vulnerability to future
climate change. Groups focused on oceans and coastal resources,
water, biodiversity, working lands, public health,
infrastructure and energy will identify the most vulnerable
areas in each sector and recommend policies for the state's
adaptation strategy to future climate impacts.
Finally, California is working to implement certain
adaptation strategies now that have been identified as
necessary in the short term. Some examples include the
following:
For the ocean and coastal resources sector, California is
developing coastal management planning guidance to deal with
sea level rise through its coastal management agencies and the
California Ocean Protection Council. Departments such as the
California Coastal Conservancy are changing funding guidelines
to ensure preservation of terrestrial and aquatic species in
coastal areas. And California chairs the Coastal States
Organization which is working to ensure climate change
adaptation is a priority for state and Federal partners.
For the water sector, the state Department of Water
Resources is currently updating its state water plan that will
guide water expenditures and planning for the next century and
has climate change as a major planning priority.
Concerning biodiversity conservation, the California
Department of Fish and Game has identified climate change as a
key threat in its core planning document, the State Wildlife
Action Plan, and is now working to address how the land it
manages and the species residing on those lands will be
impacted.
All of California's land management agencies are
considering how to adjust planning and expenditures based on
updated climate science. This is significant, since California
has nearly $500 million to spend per year over the next five
years on habitat conservation and restoration in the state.
A couple more points. In California, the focus on
understanding climate impacts and developing and implementing
comprehensive cross-sector climate adaptation strategies is a
useful framework for addressing climate adaptation efforts. The
same approach could be replicated in other states across the
country, as is currently happening in Florida, Washington,
Oregon, and Maine, to reduce the nation's collective future
vulnerability.
The CSO would support Federal efforts, along with
California to: [1] develop a national coastal adaptation
strategy to ensure intergovernmental coordination.
I can stop and bring those up later since that is a nice
sound.
Basically just the last points are we need more assistance
with developing a national adaptation strategy, funding new
climate change research, assisting with on-the-ground mapping
and modeling efforts that will be critical in addressing these
impacts, and also recognizing the critical role of coastal
states in adapting to climate change.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brunello follows:]
Statement of Anthony Brunello, Deputy Secretary for Climate Change and
Energy, California Resources Agency, on behalf of the Coastal States
Organization
Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and distinguished
members of the Subcommittee; thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to offer testimony regarding needs of the states and
territories to successfully respond and adapt to the existing and
future impacts of climate change along the nation's coasts.
My name is Anthony Brunello and I serve as the Deputy Secretary for
Climate Change and Energy for the California Resources Agency. I am
here today on behalf of the Coastal States Organization (CSO), which
represents the interests of the Governors from thirty-five coastal
states and territories and commonwealths. Over the past year, CSO's
Climate Change Work Group developed a report targeting the key
research, information, and policy needs designed to foster improved
adaptation policies. This was a collaborative process with twenty-six
states represented and led to a climate change policy later adopted by
all thirty-five coastal states. During my testimony today, I will
provide comments reflective of this CSO policy as well as specific
observations from climate adaptation efforts in California.
CLIMATE IMPACTS TO COASTAL REGIONS
As committee members may know, the Coastal States Organization just
released a ``Call for Action'' to identify three critical steps
necessary at the federal level for ocean and coastal management. One of
the three issues identified was the need for the federal government to
assist coastal states in efforts to adapt to climate change. The
nation's coastal states, territories, and commonwealths will be the
hardest hit by climate change impacts from sea level rise, temperature
change and precipitation shifts over the next century. These findings
were detailed in both the Bush Administration's National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC) report released last month and the U.N.
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.
Coastal and Great Lakes areas are especially vulnerable to accelerated
sea level rise, shoreline erosion, increased storm frequency and
intensity, changes in rainfall, and related flooding. Expected impacts
will vary regionally, but leading scientists tell us that many of these
events are likely to be experienced in the coming decades--regardless
of existing and proposed reductions in Green House Gas (GHG) emissions.
In California, absent successful intervention, one meter of sea level
rise is being projected over the next century. This would result in
flooding of more than 100 square miles of the San Francisco Bay Area
including critical infrastructure such as the Oakland and San Francisco
Airports and would inundate portions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin
River Delta area. ``The Delta'' is California's main artery for the
State Water Project that provides water to more than 25 million
residents (Figure 1 shows areas that could be flooded in the Bay Area
with a one meter rise in sea level).
Islands and territories are especially vulnerable to sea level rise
and extreme storm events. In fact, the IPCC found that sea-level rise
is expected to impact island states in particular by exacerbating
inundation, storm surge, erosion and other coastal hazards, in addition
to threatening vital infrastructure, settlements and facilities that
support the livelihood of island communities. Islands infrastructure is
predominantly located on the coast, including nearly all international
airports, roads and capital cities. In the Caribbean and Pacific
islands, more than 50 percent of the population lives within a mile of
the shoreline. And as Chairwoman Bordallo knows in her home of Guam,
sea level rise is a growing concern with all development there being
within 11 miles of the shoreline.
Climate change will also significantly impact coral reefs,
fisheries and other marine-based resources, while adversely affecting
human health, agriculture, and tourism, especially as it pertains to
small island communities. Other impacts include changes in the chemical
and physical characteristics of marine systems, saltwater intrusion
into groundwater aquifers and coastal rivers, increase in harmful algal
blooms, spread of invasive species, habitat loss, species migrations,
and changes in population dynamics among marine and coastal species.
DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE CLIMATE Adaptation Strategy
Most coastal states are not prepared to address predicted climate
change impacts. States and federal entities could assist in the
development of sector-specific climate adaptation strategies (i.e.,
water, oceans, infrastructure, habitat, agriculture, health, etc.) and
comprehensive cross-sector strategies that would aim to reduce
vulnerability to climate change. In developing climate adaptation
strategies in California, there are three components needed to reduce
vulnerability to future climate impacts including: (1) expanding the
understanding of climate impacts to California; (2) developing a
comprehensive cross-sector state climate adaptation strategy; and (3)
implementing the climate adaptation strategy.
The foundation for any adaptation strategy is to understand what
areas and sectors are most vulnerable to future climate impacts and
what can be done to reduce the risk, if possible, of these impacts.
Understanding climate change impacts requires downscaling large global
climate models and their results to a more state-friendly format. The
IPCC and NSTC reports mentioned provide a good starting point for
understanding the national and regional impacts, but a similar state-
oriented effort is needed. Although California is committed to this
work through the California Energy Commission (CEC), coastal management
agencies, the California Ocean Protection Council, and other sister
agencies need more technical and financial assistance from the federal
government. A clear federal strategy is needed for intergovernmental
coordination with coastal states and local governments to assist us on
coastal adaptation to climate change. A key component to this federal
strategy for coastal adaptation should be a new, stronger focus on
interagency cooperation between NOAA, state coastal management
programs, regional efforts (i.e., West Coast Governors Agreement), and
state floodplain managers. This will include assistance with mapping,
modeling, and determination of the socio-economic impacts of climate
change.
The first key component of adaptation is building the understanding
of climate impacts. Thus, coastal states need clear idea, with maps and
other tools, to identify what is at risk. It will be critical to become
more familiar with the concepts of ``vulnerability'' and ``risk
management.'' Vulnerability is the potential for a system to be harmed
by climate change, considering the impacts of climate change on the
systems as well as its capacity to adapt. Risk management is a tool to
manage uncertainty related to climate change impacts through risk
assessment, strategies development to manage it, and mitigation of
risk. Both concepts are more common in industry than government and
require new resource intensive tools based on probabilities and expert
opinion rather than historical records. Both will be necessary since,
to quote Yogi Berra, ``The future ain't what it used to be.''
The second key component for successful adaptation is developing
the strategy. This is the most challenging component since it requires:
Linking climate change vulnerability analysis to policy
and financial investment actions that can reduce these risks; and
Building political support to implement adaptation
strategies.
Because climate change impacts are multi-dimensional, strategies
must be comprehensive and cut across sectors. For example, coastal
communities such as Los Angeles will benefit from a cross-sector
analysis as they may face increased sea level, reduced water supply,
and increased health risk from rising temperatures.
The final and most important component of a climate adaptation
strategy is to implement the strategy. This is obvious, but important
to emphasize since the majority of adaptation discussions focus on
improving the science of climate change, which is necessary, but
doesn't fund nor promote actions to reduce known climate risks already
identified. Many climate change adaptation strategies will simply be
enhancing existing efforts, such as building higher and stronger flood
control levies. However others sectors may require a complete
restructuring of funding and planning efforts, such as funding habitat
for endangered species that research shows no hope of surviving future
climate change impacts.
CALIFORNIA'S ADAPTATION EFFORTS
California is already seeing significant climate change impacts now
through shifting precipitation patterns and sea level rise. Sea level
in the Bay Area has increased 7 inches over the last century, fires are
increasing in severity and duration, and snow pack is melting earlier
each year. In the future, California is expecting to see even higher
sea level, more rain, less snow, and a shift and possible reduction in
habitat and species diversity unlike any seen in the past.
California is now developing a statewide climate adaptation
strategy in coordination with its aggressive GHG mitigation policies.
State commitments in the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (to reduce
the state's GHG emissions 20 percent below its 1990 levels by 2020 and
an 80 percent reduction by 2050) along with the Low Carbon Fuel and
Renewable Portfolio Standards will help reduce the long-term climate
impacts to California. However, these efforts and the world's
mitigation efforts will slow, but not stop, climate impacts to
California over the next century; therefore, adaptation to expected
future impacts must occur as a parallel track to mitigation. This is
why California, through the leadership of California Resources Agency
Secretary Mike Chrisman, is planning its first coordinated climate
change adaptation strategy effort that will be completed in 2009.
To develop California's climate adaptation strategy, early efforts
are focused on understanding where California is most vulnerable to
climate change. The California Energy Commission (CEC), in partnership
with numerous government, academic, industry, and NGO partners, has
spent millions of dollars over the last five years on building new
climate change scenarios for California and funding in-depth studies of
impacts to energy, forestry, water, biodiversity, and other sectors.
The California Ocean Protection Council and state coastal management
agencies (California Coastal Commission and the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission) are working on targeted
analyses of coastal impacts. These studies will be complete this year,
and will be used to develop the state's climate adaptation strategy and
to better inform policy-makers and the general public.
The strategy efforts are already under way with different agencies
and departments responsible for identifying policy options available to
reduce California's vulnerability to future climate change. Groups
focused on oceans and coastal resources, water, biodiversity, working
lands, public health, infrastructure, and energy will identify the most
vulnerable areas in each sector and recommend policy for the state's
adaptation to future climate impacts. To ensure California is
coordinating with other state, national, and international efforts, the
state will develop an ``adaptation leaders'' group to link with other
climate change adaptation efforts, and provide varied public and
private sector perspectives.
Finally, California is working to implement certain adaptation
strategies now that have been identified as necessary in the short
term. Some examples include the following:
For the ocean and coastal resources sector, California is
developing coastal management planning guidance to deal with sea level
rise through its coastal management agencies and the California Ocean
Protection Council, departments such as the California Coastal
Conservancy are changing funding guidelines to ensure preservation of
terrestrial and aquatic species in coastal areas, and California chairs
the Coastal States Organization which is working to ensure climate
change adaptation is a priority for state and federal partners.
For the water sector, the state Department of Water
Resources is currently updating its State Water Plan that will guide
water expenditures and planning for the next century and has climate
change as a major planning priority.
Concerning biodiversity conservation, the California
Department of Fish and Game has identified climate change as a key
threat in its core planning document, the State Wildlife Action Plan,
and is now working to address how the land it manages and the species
residing on those lands will be impacted. All of California's land
management agencies are considering how to adjust planning and
expenditures based on updated climate science. This is significant
since California has nearly five hundred million dollars to spend per
year over the next five years on habitat conservation and restoration
in the state.
California's response to climate change is not a simple choice
between mitigating GHG emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate
change. Adaptation and mitigation are necessary and complementary
strategies for combating climate change. California's adaptation
strategy effort will provide the state's best current thinking in
determining the portfolio of solutions that will best minimize
potential risks and maximize potential benefits to the state and its
coastal areas.
MOVING TO ACTION
Reducing the United States' vulnerability to climate change impacts
should be a national priority that receives the same attention as
efforts to mitigate GHG emissions. The science is clear: coastal states
can expect significant climate change impacts in many sectors and
locations. Now is the time for state and federal policy-makers to begin
to take action.
Because the nation's coastal zone faces a number of challenges in
adapting to the effects of climate change, coastal states must be full
and equal partners in any national response. Close coordination between
the federal government and coastal states in research, development of
adaptive strategies, sharing of information, and education will be
necessary to successfully meet these complex challenges. Given the
physical and socioeconomic diversity of the nation's coastlines,
individual states are best suited to determine which adaptive
mechanisms will work best in their area. Therefore, state authority and
sovereignty should be strongly maintained in a national strategy to
adapt to climate change.
In California, the focus on understanding climate impacts and
developing and implementing comprehensive cross-sector climate
adaptation strategies is a useful framework for addressing climate
adaptation efforts. The same approach could be replicated in other
states across the country, as is currently happening in Florida,
Washington, Oregon, and Maine, to reduce the nation's collective future
vulnerability.
The Coastal States Organization would support federal efforts to:
Develop a national coastal adaptation strategy to ensure
intergovernmental coordination on coastal adaptation to climate change;
to clearly define the roles of various agencies; and to identify the
mechanisms by which federal programs will coordinate with state
partners on coastal adaptation issues. This should be an important
component in future strategies regarding the re-authorization of the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act;
Fund new climate change research, coordinate existing
climate change research, and promote the outreach of this research to
the states and territories;
Assist with on-the-ground mapping and modeling efforts
that will be critical in addressing these impacts before they occur;
and,
Recognize the critical role of coastal states in adapting
to climate change.
CONCLUSION
Thank you Chairwoman Bordallo and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today to offer
testimony on how the nation can collectively reduce the vulnerability
of coastal areas to future climate impacts. California is pleased to
serve as a resource to the Subcommittee for future adaptation planning
efforts.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Brunello.
I would like to remind the folks in the back there are
still four seats up here. And I hate to see you stand. You
know, it is almost just painful from the Chair's seat as it is
back there. So please do not be shy, come and have a seat.
There are four seats up here around the horseshoe.
All right. At this time I would like to recognize Ms.
Chasis. Is that the way to pronounce your name?
Ms. Chasis. Yes, it is, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. All right.
STATEMENT OF SARAH CHASIS, DIRECTOR, OCEANS INITIATIVE, NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Ms. Chasis. Thank you so much for this opportunity to
testify on what the Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC,
sees as the expected need for Federal and state agencies to
ramp up efforts to plan for global warming and its impacts.
Global warming is contributing to higher ocean
temperatures, more extreme weather events, and rising sea
levels. In addition, the higher concentration of CO2
in the atmosphere is directly altering the chemistry of our
oceans causing the water to become more acidic. Left unchecked,
all of these changes will have profound impacts on coastal and
marine ecosystems. Rising sea levels will increase erosion of
beaches, cause salt water intrusion, inundate coastal marshes,
and make coastal property more vulnerable to storm surges.
More extreme weather events, including intense rainfall,
floods, droughts, tropical storms will alter fresh water flows
into estuaries and lagoons, exacerbate polluted run-off and
water supply problems, and damage coastal habitats and
property. Higher ocean temperatures will cause extensive coral
bleaching, enhance marine disease, alter species' ranges and
population abundances, and stress many fisheries.
Increased acidity will profoundly affect many forms of
marine life, particularly those with carbonate shells or other
exterior structures, such as tropical and cold water corals.
While daunting, these impacts must be confronted by Federal
and state governments. To prepare for sea level rise, coastal
states and the Federal Government should take steps to
implement ecologically and economically sound adaptive
strategies that discourage new development in vulnerable areas
and support efforts to site structures farther landward of
eroding shorelines. This is essential, not only to help reduce
serious risks to human safety, but also to ensure the
preservation of beaches, dunes and other natural coastal
habitats that are so important to coastal economies and quality
of life.
To deal with extreme weather events such as heavy
downpours, coastal states and Federal agencies must emphasize
the protection and restoration of shoreline and streamside
riparian vegetation and wetlands. They must upgrade and update
storm water management to take account of more frequent and
heavier rainfall events and increase water use efficiency and
opportunities for beneficial use.
To deal with warming of coastal waters it will require
strategies that increase the overall resilience of ecosystems.
It will be necessary to reduce the negative impacts of a broad
range of human-induced stressors in an effort to help coastal
and marine systems resist or recover from disturbances such as
coastal bleaching, disease outbreaks or anoxia events. Placing
greater emphasis on habitat protection and ecosystem-based
management approaches will improve the likelihood that these
systems and resources will be able to withstand the impacts of
global warming and ocean acidification.
This shift in management will require a directive to
Federal agencies and encouragement to state agencies to pursue
their responsibilities in a manner consistent with the
protection, maintenance and restoration of marine and coastal
systems. Madam Chair, Congress' enactment of Oceans 21
legislation would promote this goal. And we applaud this
Subcommittee's action in passing that legislation forward. And
we urge the full committee to take that legislation up.
Finally, to address acidification, coastal states and the
Federal Government must be leaders in efforts to minimize and
reduce CO2 emissions and, in addition, to restore
the health and resilience of marine ecosystems, particularly
coral reefs. Because ocean acidification is an emerging issue,
directed research and monitoring funds should be made available
as soon as possible.
Overall, and perhaps most importantly, in order to provide
a comprehensive approach to addressing these challenges,
Congress should enact climate adaptation legislation to direct
Federal and state agencies to develop and implement adaptation
strategies. And, and I underscore this, provide the scale and
consistency of funding to make these efforts successful.
Adaptation strategies should be coordinated at the Federal
level through the development and implementation of a
Presidential plan, and at the state level through the
development and implementation of a Governor-level plan. Plans
should be developed with input from all relevant agencies,
scientists and the public. State-level plans should be
consistent with the national strategy in order to receive
Federal funds.
These are the types of actions that are needed to help
ensure that the economic opportunities, ecological benefits and
outdoor traditions that coastal and ocean resources provide
will endure for generations to come.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chasis follows:]
Statement of Sarah Chasis 1, Senior Attorney and Director of
Ocean Initiative, Natural Resources Defense Council
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Roberta Elias, Ocean Advocate, NRDC and Lisa Suatoni, Ocean
Scientist, NRDC helped prepare this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Introduction 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This testimony is largely drawn from the guide Preparing for a
Sea Change in Florida: A Strategy to Cope with the Impacts of Global
Warming on the State's Coastal and Ocean Systems, released in May 2008
by the Florida Coastal and Ocean Coalition, of which NRDC is a member.
Patty Glick ( NWF ) was the primary author of the guide. Groups that
are part of the Florida Coastal and Ocean coalition, in addition to
NRDC, include the National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense
Fund, Ocean Conservancy, Surfrider, Gulf Restoration Network, Coastal
Conservation Association/Sea Turtle Survival League and Reef Relief.
The guide can be found at: http://www.flcoastalandocean.org/
Climate_Change_Guide_for_Florida_
Preparing_for_a_Sea_Change.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madame Chair and distinguished members of this Subcommittee, thank
you for this invitation to testify on what we see as the expected need
for Federal and state agencies to ramp up efforts to plan for global
warming and its impacts. We believe that an essential element of this
planning must be on improving the resilience of our natural systems and
their ability to withstand the ongoing and expected impacts of global
warming and ocean acidification. My testimony is presented on behalf of
NRDC, a national environmental organization with over a million members
and online activists, dedicated to the protection of the earth--its
people, plants and animals and the natural systems on which all life
depends.
Global warming is contributing to higher ocean temperatures, more
extreme weather events, and rising sea levels. We are already starting
to see its effects. For example, average surface water temperatures
have increased about a degree Fahrenheit in the California Current off
the west coast (Mendelssohn, 2005), 1.5 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the
Chesapeake Bay (Austin, 2002) and 3 degrees Fahrenheit in Florida since
the 1950s and 1960s (U.S. EPA, 1997). In addition, the higher
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is directly altering
the chemistry of our oceans, causing the water to become more acidic
(Kleypas, et al., 2005). Left unchecked, all of these changes will have
a profound impact on coastal and marine ecosystems including:
Rising sea levels will increase erosion of beaches, cause
saltwater intrusion into water supplies, inundate coastal marshes and
other important habitats, and make coastal property more vulnerable to
storm surges.
More-extreme weather events, including intense rainfall,
floods, droughts, and tropical storms, will alter freshwater flows into
estuaries and lagoons, exacerbate polluted runoff and water supply
problems, and damage coastal habitats and property. An increase in wave
height over the past 50 years has already been measured in the
Northeast (Wolf et al., 2002) and the Pacific northwest (Allen et al.,
2006)
Higher ocean temperatures will cause extensive coral
bleaching, enhance marine diseases, alter species' ranges and
population abundances, and stress many fisheries. For example,
unusually warm winters have resulted in lobster disease outbreaks in
Long Island Sound (Glen and Pugh, 2006) as well as the northward spread
of an oyster parasite, referred to as ``dermo'', from southern U.S. to
areas north of Delaware Bay (Ford and Smolowitz, 2007). This disease
has resulted in massive mortalities of the northeastern oysters in
recent years.
Changes in local and regional circulation patterns may
occur causing changes in productivity. For example, recent changes in
the timing and duration of upwelling along the Pacific coast--which are
believed to be related to changes in wind patterns from continental
warming--have triggered sea bird colony die-offs and dead zones along
the west coast of the United States over the past few years (Chan et
al., 2008).
Increased ocean acidity will profoundly affect many forms
of marine life, particularly those with carbonate shells or other
exterior structures, such as tropical and cold water corals. This
change in pH will directly affect many organisms at the base of marine
food chains as well as organisms that provide critical habitat for
other forms of marine life. Increased acidity may also have direct
physiological effects on vulnerable juvenile stages of other types of
marine organisms, such as fish and squid. Recent research shows
corrosive waters are now being upwelled onto the continental shelf off
the west coast of the United States due to ocean acidification (Feely
et al., 2008). There is significant concern of what impacts this could
have on coastal resources and ecosystems.
While it may seem daunting, state and federal agencies must
confront these problems. This work will require concerted efforts on
two important fronts: minimizing global warming by reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and preparing for related changes, many of which are
already underway.
First and foremost, the nation must work to lessen the impact of
global warming by reducing the pollution causing it. However, impacts
are already occurring and will continue to occur even if emissions are
capped (though at less dramatic levels than under a business as usual
scenario). Because of this reality and because of the already degraded
state of our ocean and coastal resources, federal and state agencies
must adjust their management and conservation strategies to maximize
resilience and to promote the ability of coastal and marine resources
to adapt to ongoing and projected impacts.
There are a number of actions that coastal state and federal
agencies can and should take to cope with the significant challenges
posed by rising sea levels, more-extreme storm events, higher ocean
temperatures, and acidification of ocean waters. Some of the
recommended actions are summarized below and discussed in more detail
later in this testimony.
Rising Seas
To prepare for sea-level rise, coastal states and the federal
government must take steps to implement ecologically and economically
sound adaptive policies and strategies that discourage development in
vulnerable areas and support efforts to site structures farther
landward of eroding shorelines. This is essential not only to help
reduce serious risks to human safety, but also to ensure the
preservation of beaches, dunes, and other natural coastal habitats that
are so important to coastal economies and quality of life.
Extreme Weather Events
To deal with extreme weather events, such as heavy downpours and
droughts, coastal states and federal agencies must emphasize the
protection and restoration of shoreline and streamside riparian
vegetation and wetlands, upgrade stormwater management to take account
of more frequent and heavier rainfall events, and increase water use
efficiency and opportunities for beneficial reuse.
Higher Ocean Temperatures
To reduce the impacts of higher ocean temperatures, coastal states
and the federal government must work across sectors and agencies to
protect and restore coastal and marine ecosystems in order to enhance
their ability to withstand the additional stresses accompanying global
warming.
Ocean Acidification
To address acidification, coastal states and the federal government
must be leaders in efforts to minimize global warming through
significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to
restoring the health and resilience of marine ecosystems, particularly
coral reefs. Because ocean acidification is an emerging issue, directed
research and monitoring funds should be made available as soon as
possible. Knowledge gained about the effects of ocean acidification at
varying carbon dioxide concentrations should be used to inform any
carbon cap set by Congress.
By implementing these and the other recommendations, coastal states
and the federal government can help ensure that the economic
opportunities, ecological benefits, and outdoor traditions that coastal
and ocean resources provide will endure for generations to come. Given
that the major threats to our oceans and coasts stem from activities
pursued on land, along the coasts, and in the water, this shift in
perspective will require a legislative directive to all agencies, not
just those specifically charged with marine and coastal mandates, to
pursue their responsibilities in a manner consistent with the
protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health and productivity
of coastal and marine ecosystem and resources
Each of these impacts associated with increased atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases ``sea level rise, extreme weather
events, higher ocean temperatures, and increased ocean acidification--
is discussed further below as well as state and federal strategies both
to minimize these impacts and to improve the ability of natural systems
and resources to adapt to related changes in conditions
II. Confronting the Impacts of Sea Level Rise
Global warming is causing sea levels to rise due to a combination
of thermal expansion of the oceans and rapidly melting glaciers and ice
sheets. The average global (eustatic) sea level rose about 6.7 inches
over the 20th century. This was 10-times faster than the average rate
of sea-level rise during the preceding 3,000 years (IPCC, 2007). In the
coming decades, the rate of sea-level rise is expected to accelerate.
The most recent estimates from the 2007 IPCC assessment show an
additional 7 to 23 inch rise in global average sea level by the 2090s
(IPCC, 2007). However, scientists are becoming increasingly concerned
that the rate of global sea-level rise in the coming decades and beyond
will be even greater than these projections, as several new studies
have determined that the ice sheets of Greenland and parts of
Antarctica are melting much more rapidly than previously estimated
(Otto-Bliesner, et al, 2006; Overpeck, et al., 2006; Rignot and
Kanagaratnam, 2006). According to Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, if greenhouse gas emissions
continue to increase on a ``business-as-usual'' trajectory, we could
ultimately see a disintegration of the West Antarctica ice sheets. This
has the potential to yield ``a sea-level rise on the order of 5 meters
this century'' (Hansen, 2007).
Sea-level rise will increase beach erosion and associated shoreline
recession and have a profound impact on beaches, the beach using
public, and the tourism industry. Beaches are important economic
engines. According to the Department of Commerce, travel and tourism is
the Nation's largest employer and the second largest contributor to the
gross domestic product--contributing over $700 billion annually.
Beaches are the leading tourist destination (U.S. Dpt. Commerce (NOAA),
2006). Beyond tourism-related revenues and employment, healthy beach/
dune systems protect upland property from storm damage. Average damage
from hurricanes is $5.1 billion and 20 deaths per year (U.S. Dpt.
Commerce (NOAA), 2006). Finally, beaches provide critical habitat for
endangered sea turtles, shorebirds, invertebrates, forage fish, and
other species.
Many of the federal and state procedures for planning and assessing
conditions for coastal and shoreline development fail to incorporate
effects of sea-level rise, global warming, and future development
associated with a rapidly growing human population. Now is the time for
coastal states and relevant federal agencies to develop a comprehensive
strategy to confront sea-level rise in a way that reduces the risks to
communities by discouraging building in vulnerable areas, and increase
the resiliency and protection of coastal habitats by a) steering away
from structural armoring of shorelines; b) avoiding beach re-
nourishment projects where especially harmful for ecosystems; and c)
restoring and protecting natural buffers.
Many coastal management and coastal development policies currently
do not pro-actively take sea-level rise into consideration. Worse yet,
the government continues to subsidize high risk coastal development.
Defying long term planning needs in the face of global warming by
allowing and encouraging high risk development is a serious mistake in
terms of the economy, the health of natural systems and resources, and
human safety.
Similarly, many federal agencies have thus far failed to
incorporate effects of accelerating sea-level rise and reasonably
foreseeable effects of global warming into their procedures, such as
incorporating likely future conditions into mapping of floodplains,
storm surge zones, or flood elevations affected by increasing
impervious development in watersheds in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and
the planning of flood damage reduction projects by the Army Corps of
Engineers (ACE). Current procedures are based almost entirely on
looking backwards at past records only, rather than incorporating
current climate science.
States and the federal government must take steps to implement
ecologically and economically sound adaptation policies and strategies
that discourage development in vulnerable areas and support efforts to
site structures farther landward of eroding shorelines. This is
essential not only to help reduce serious risks to human safety and the
well-being of communities, but also to ensure the preservation of
beaches, dunes, and other natural coastal habitats that are so
important to our economy and quality of life.
Examples of State actions to deal with rising seas:
The states should consider sea-level rise in their plans
for land use, open space, wetland protection, public infrastructure
siting and maintenance, and other relevant activities.
The states should assess, restrict, and/or reduce state
funding, tax breaks, and other incentives for private development in
coastal areas at high risk from erosion and storm surges.
States should consider the adequacy of existing coastal
setbacks and post-storm redevelopment policies in light of projected
sea-level rise scenarios and develop, assess, and implement a suite of
planning tools and global warming adaptation strategies to maximize
opportunities to protect the beach/dune system, coastal wetlands, and
other coastal resources in an era of rising seas. These tools should
include strategies to encourage the landward siting and relocation of
structures and public facilities in areas adjacent to receding
shorelines through acquisition, transfer of development rights,
stronger setbacks, and tax incentives.
States should develop wetland conservation and
restoration plans that promote designation of wetland migration
corridors for wetland migration as sea levels rise, thereby protecting
the valuable benefits they provide by buffering coasts against storms
and erosion, improving water quality, and supporting fish and wildlife.
Incentives should be provided to local governments and
private organizations to acquire and manage ecologically important
coastal lands, including upland buffers in vulnerable areas.
Acquisition efforts should be strategically targeted in order to
protect coastal resources, reduce insured risk, and reduce the impacts
of global warming on both ecosystems and communities.
Examples of Federal actions to deal with rising seas:
Congress should amend the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) to require relevant state agencies to consider sea-level rise in
coastal management programs in order to qualify for federal funding
assistance.
Congress should establish policies to restrict federal
flood insurance (via NFIP) for new construction and rebuilding in high
hazard coastal areas.
Congress should also provide increased funding and
technical support for hazard mitigation by states, communities, and
building owners through floodplain management; establishment of
greenways, open space, and building setbacks; and use of voluntary
buyouts and relocations of high risk properties, higher building
elevations, flood proofing, and other techniques.
Congress should replace economic incentives for private
development in high risk coastal areas with incentives to relocate and
build in other areas and invest in coastal land conservation, such as
by allowing tax exempt financing for acquisition of properties in
hazard areas.
Congress should resist efforts to exempt areas or roll
back protections for coastal barriers that are included in Coastal
Barrier Resources Act (CBRA). Coastal barriers designated under the act
are ineligible for direct or indirect federal financial assistance that
might support development.
III. Confronting the Impacts of Severe Weather
Global warming is disrupting the planet's climate system, causing
widespread changes in regional temperatures, precipitation, and wind
patterns (IPCC 2007). In particular, these changes are manifesting
themselves as an increase in the frequency and intensity of ``extreme''
weather events like heat waves, droughts, floods, and severe storms.
According to the IPCC, since 1950, the number of heat waves has
increased around the world, as has the extent of regions affected by
droughts due to warmer conditions and increased evaporation (IPCC
2007). Global warming is also contributing to an increase in the
frequency and number of very heavy precipitation events and flooding in
many areas, a trend that is attributed to higher levels of moisture in
the atmosphere (Diffenbaugh, 2005; Groisman, 2004; Trenberth 2003).
Several studies have also found a correlation between warmer average
ocean temperatures associated with global warming and an increase in
the intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes (Trenberth, 2007;
Webster, et al., 2005;Emanuel, 2005).
Based on this evidence, a number of scientists believe that the
trend toward more-intense storms will continue in the coming decades as
our oceans warm further (Trenberth, 2007; Oouchi, et al., 2006; Knutson
and Tuleya, 2004; Walsh, Nguyen, and McGregor, 2004). However, there
are many factors that contribute to both the frequency and intensity of
hurricanes, and some uncertainty remains about how these storms will be
affected by global warming in the future (Pielke, et al., 2005).
Regardless of whether or not global warming will have a direct impact
on hurricane frequency and intensity, there is little question that
these storms will become more destructive in the future due to a
combination of increased coastal development as well as higher storm
surges exacerbated by sea-level rise (Anthes, et al., 2006).
A general trend toward heavier rainfall events (whether or not
associated with tropical storms) will likely contribute to a decline in
coastal water quality due to enhanced stormwater runoff. This is a
problem that has already been exacerbated by the destruction of
wetlands, forests, and other natural buffers (which help store water
and trap pollutants and sediments) and expansion of impervious surfaces
associated with urban development and roads.
One of the potential impacts of additional precipitation, resulting
in additional runoff, is an increase in the duration and/or extent of
coastal hypoxia and anoxia events caused by eutrophication (excess
nitrogen and other nutrients in coastal waters from sources such as
agricultural fertilizers, sewage discharges, and septic tanks) (Justic,
Rabalais, and Turner, 2003). This nutrient loading leads to excessive
algae growth that contributes to a depletion of oxygen in affected
waters, a condition called hypoxia. Similarly, anoxia is a condition in
which all oxygen is depleted, which can lead to ``dead zones''--areas
in which most marine organisms cannot survive (Joyce, 2000).
While neither hypoxia nor anoxia are new phenomena, their
prevalence has become much more widespread in recent decades, which
scientists attribute in part to heavier precipitation flushes triggered
by global warming, causing increased nutrient runoff (Boesch, 2007;
Dybas, 2005; Kennedy, et al., 2002). In addition to eutrophication,
heavy runoff exacerbates hypoxic and anoxic conditions by decreasing
water mixing in estuaries, as less dense fresher water rides over the
top of the denser saltier water, inhibiting the replenishment of oxygen
to deep waters.
Examples of State actions to deal with the impacts of more severe
weather:
Coastal states should upgrade stormwater regulations,
taking the likelihood of more frequent heavy rainfall events into
consideration. Emphasis should be placed on natural buffers and
requiring adequate long-term capacity and infrastructure for stormwater
and sewage. Policies should also focus on implementing Low Impact
Development (LID) methods, both for new developments and retrofits in
existing developed areas.
States should enhance protection and restoration of
wetlands and riparian floodplains to help remove nutrients and reduce
eutrophication, hypoxia, and anoxia.
State water managers should: move away from relying on
historic trends to determine future water availability; place
significantly greater emphasis on reducing demand (for instance by
increasing efficiency in water delivery and water use); and fund
strategies to make better use of reclaimed water (for instance through
decentralized LID approaches).
Examples of Federal actions to address the impacts of more severe
weather:
Congress should require all federal resource-related
agencies to incorporate modern climate and sea-level rise projections
into their resource planning procedures and programs.
To reduce eutrophication (and other pollution) associated
with heavier rainfall events and runoff, U.S. EPA should revise its
stormwater management rules under the Clean Water Act to discourage
development in or near coastal and stream riparian buffers, wetlands,
and other sensitive areas.
States should be encouraged to develop and implement
long-term regional water management plans that incorporate global
warming and take a more coordinated approach to water management,
including water conservation and reuse, in order to meet the needs of
people and the fish and wildlife they depend on for food, jobs, and
recreation.
IV. Confronting the Impacts of Higher Ocean Water Temperatures
Average sea surface temperatures have increased over the latter
half of the 20th century, providing another important indication of
global warming (IPCC 2007; AchutaRao, et al., 2007). On average, the
temperature of the upper 300 meters of the world's oceans has risen
about 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1950s, a trend that scientists
have determined is a direct result of human activities (NOAA, 2000;
Santer, et al., 2006). The increase has been even greater in the
tropical Atlantic region, where the average sea surface temperature has
risen 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past three decades (Barnett, Pierce,
and Schnur, 2001).
If global warming pollution continues unabated, average ocean
temperatures are projected to rise by an additional 2.7 to 5.4 degrees
Fahrenheit before the end of the century, with potentially devastating
consequences for coastal and marine ecosystems (IPCC 2007). The primary
impacts of rising sea-surface temperatures include coral bleaching,
exacerbation of marine diseases, and significant shifts in the ranges
and population abundances of fish and other marine species.
Lessening the impacts of higher ocean temperatures due to global
warming will require strategies that increase the overall resilience of
ecosystems. It will be necessary to reduce the negative impacts of a
broad range of human-induced stressors on coastal and marine ecosystems
in an effort to help these systems resist and/or recover from
disturbances such as coral bleaching, disease outbreaks, or anoxia
events (Grimsditch and Salm, 2005). Placing significantly greater
emphasis on habitat protection and ecosystem-based management (EBM)
approaches to managing fisheries, coral reefs, and other coastal and
ocean resources will improve the likelihood that these systems and
resources will be able to withstand the multitude of stressors
affecting them, including global warming and ocean acidification.
This shift in management will require a broad directive to federal
agencies and encouragement to state agencies to pursue their
responsibilities, whether pursued under marine or non-marine mandates,
in a manner consistent with the protection, maintenance, and
restoration of the health and function of marine and coastal ecosystems
and resources. In terms of activities pursued under marine and
conservation related mandates, fish and wildlife managers and other
relevant decision makers should focus on protecting the diversity of
species across their spatial range, as well as protecting and restoring
the habitat they depend upon (Worm, 2006; Nystrom and Folke, 2001 ).
For example, a focus on diversity would lead fish and wildlife managers
to protect and restore algae-grazing fish and invertebrates known to
limit the overgrowth of harmful, opportunistic algae on coral reefs, as
a way of improving overall coral resilience (Nystrom, Folke, and
Moberg, 2000).
Examples of State actions to address the impacts of warmer ocean
waters:
States should adopt and implement policies directed to
the protection, maintenance and restoration of healthy coastal and
ocean ecosystems and resources.
States should strengthen programs that support biological
diversity among fish and wildlife species.
States should prioritize the rebuilding of depleted
coastal and ocean fish populations since depleted populations will have
a harder time dealing with additional stresses posed by global warming
and warming waters.
States with coral reefs should expand research and
monitoring of coral reef ecosystems, including ongoing assessments of
factors such as water temperatures and coral bleaching, incidence and
range of coral diseases, damage and recovery from storms, and
assessment of water quality, including the calcium carbonate saturation
state and its effects on reefs over time.
Examples of Federal actions to address the impacts of warmer ocean
waters:
Congress should enact climate adaptation legislation to
direct Federal and state agencies to develop and implement strategies
to maintain and improve the resilience of our natural ecosystems and
should provide the scale and consistency of funding to make these
efforts successful. If these provisions are included in a package that
also establishes a cap and trade system, a portion of the revenues from
the auction of carbon allowances should be directed specifically to
federal and state adaptation activities. This funding should supplement
rather than replace existing agency funding streams and should be
isolated from revenue pots that may go to other adaptation activities,
including protecting infrastructure. Recent Senate proposals--including
America's Climate Security Act (S 2191) and the Lieberman-Warner
Climate Security Act (S 3036)--contained this type of system. S 2191
would have provided an estimated $300 to $950 million in new funding to
the Department of Commerce for ocean and coastal management,
protection, and restoration in the first year of the program (2012. S
3036 would have provided an estimated $574 million per year from 2012
to 2030 to the Department of Commerce for this same suite of
activities. This scale of additional funding will be necessary in order
to address the ongoing and expected, additional strains that global
warming and ocean acidification place on our ocean and coastal
ecosystems and natural resources.
Adaptation strategies, funded by this new revenue stream,
should be coordinated at the federal level through the development and
implementation of a Presidential plan and at the state level through
the development and implementation of a governor level plan. Plans
should be developed with input from all relevant federal/state
agencies, scientists (possibly including a science advisory board
established by the legislation), and the public. State level plans
should be consistent with the national strategy and should receive
federal approval, according to set criteria, in order to receive
federal funds.
Congress should enact Oceans-21, H.R. 21, which sets out
a national policy to protect, maintain and restore marine ecosystem
health and calls on the federal government and federal/state
partnerships to implement that policy. The healthier ocean and coastal
ecosystems are, the better able they will be to withstand the
additional stresses associated with global warming and ocean
acidification.
NOAA should move expeditiously and effectively to
implement the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006 in order to
meet the deadline for ending overfishing and rebuilding healthy fish
populations. The healthier fish populations are, the better able they
are to withstand the impacts of global warming and ocean acidification.
Congress should call for and support a National Academy
of Sciences study, looking at the implications of global warming and
ocean acidification on fisheries management. The study should evaluate
management methodologies to mitigate impacts of global warming and
ocean acidification on the nation's fisheries resources. Following
guidelines recommended in the study, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should develop specific regional
adaptation strategies to enhance adaptive capacity.
V. Confronting the Impacts of Ocean Acidification
Since the beginning of the industrial age, the world's oceans have
absorbed 530 billion tons of CO2, or at least one third of
the anthropogenic CO2 (Brewer, 2007; Feely, 2004 ). This has
already reduced the pH of ocean waters by .1 units or, in other words,
has increased overall acidity by 30%. This pH change has occurred as a
result of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere mixing with ocean
waters to form carbonic acid. Under a business as usual scenario, pH
will drop by an additional .3 to .4 pH units (Caldeira and Wickett
2005, Orr et al. 2005). This degree of change has not occurred in the
past 20 million years (Feely, 2004).
This lower pH is eroding the basic mineral building blocks for the
shells and skeletons of calcareous organisms such as shellfish and
corals, as well as a number of important microorganisms that are a
foundation for marine food webs (Kuffner and Tihansky, 2008; Orr, et
al., 2005). For corals, lower calcification rates ultimately mean
weaker, slower-growing reefs (Kleypas, Buddemeier, and Gattuso, 2001).
The combination of warmer and more acidic waters means that coral
ecosystems are among the most threatened marine/coastal habitats now in
the world (Hoegh-Guldberg, 2007). Increased acidity may also have
direct physiological effects on vulnerable juvenile stages of other
types of marine organisms, such as fish and squid (Portner, 2004).
Examples of State actions to address the impacts of ocean
acidification:
Coastal States should do their part in adopting a
stringent CO2 reduction goal
States should enhance monitoring of coral reefs, oyster
reefs, and valuable shellfish such as scallops for calcification
problems.
Examples of Federal actions to address the impacts of ocean
acidification:
Congress and the administration must place mandatory
limits on CO2.
Federal agencies should invest in studies to better
understand the ecological impacts of ocean acidification, both to
inform the establishment of an appropriate carbon cap and adaptation
strategies.
Congress should enact climate adaptation legislation and
Oceans-21, as articulated above.
References
Achuta Rao, K.M., et al. 2007. ``Simulated and Observed Variability in
Ocean Temperature and Heat Content.'' Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 104: 10768-10773.
Allan JC, Komar P.D. 2006. ``Climate controls on U.S. West Coast
erosion processes.'' Journal of Coastal Research 22: 511-529.
Anthes, R.A., et al. 2006. ``Hurricanes and Global Warming: Potential
Linkages and Consequences.'' Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society 87: 623-628.
Austin H,M. 2002. ``Decadal oscillations and regime shifts, a
characterization of the Chesapeake Bay marine climate.''
American Fisheries Society Symposium 32: 155-170.
Barnett, T.P., Pierce, D.W., and Schnur, R. 2001. ``Detection of
Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans.'' Science
292: 270-274.
Boesch, et al., 2007. Coastal Dead Zones and Global Climate Change:
Ramifications of Climate Change for Chesapeake Bay Hypoxia
(Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change).
Brewer, P. Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Sequestration, and the Oceans: A
white paper for the Inaugural Solutions Summit San Francisco,
November 15, 2007
Caldeira K, Wickett M.E. 2005. ``Ocean model predictions of chemistry
changes from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and
ocean.'' Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 110.
Chan F, et al. 2008. ``Emergence of anoxia in the California current
large marine ecosystem.'' Science 319: 920-920.
Diffenbaugh, N.S., et al. 2005. ``Fine-scale Processes to Regulate the
Response of Extreme Events to Global Climate Change.''
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 15774-
15778.
Emanuel, K. 2005. ``Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones
Over the Past 30 Years.'' Nature 436: 686-688.
Feely R.A., et al. 2004. ``Impact of anthropogenic CO2 on
the CaCO3 system in the oceans.'' Science 305: 362-366.
Feely, R.A. et al. 2008. Science Express.1155676.
Ford SE, Smolowitz R. 2007. ``Infection dynamics of an oyster parasite
in this newly expanded range.'' Marine Biology 151: 119-133.
Glenn R.P., Pugh T.L. 2006. ``Epizootic shell disease in American
lobster (Homarus americanus) in Massachusetts coastal waters:
Interactions of temperature, maturity, and intermolt
duration.'' Journal of Crustacean Biology 26: 639-645.
Groisman, P.Y. et al. 2004. ``Contemporary Changes of the Hydrological
Cycle Over the Contiguous United States: Trends Derived from in
Situ.'' Journal of Hydrometeorology 5: 64-85.
Grimsditch, G.D., and Salm, R.V. 2005. Coral Reef Resilience and
Resistance to Bleaching (Gland, Switzerland: The World
Conservation Union).
Hansen, J.E. 2007. ``Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise.''
Environmental Research Letters 2: 1-6.
Harwell, M., Gholz, H., and Rose, J. 2001. Confronting Climate Change
in the Gulf Coast Region: Florida (Union of Concerned
Scientists and the Ecological Society of America).
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., et al. 2007. ``Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate
Change and Ocean Acidification.'' Science 14: 1737-1742.
IMBER 2005. ``Integrated Marine Biogeochemistry and Ecosystem Research:
Science Plan and Implementation Strategy.'' IGBP, 52
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [S.D. Solomon,
et al., eds.] (Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press).
Joyce, S. 2006 ``The Dead Zones: Oxygen-Starved Coastal Waters.''
Environmental Health Perspectives 108: A120-A125.
Kleypas, J.A., Buddemeier, R.W., and Gattuso, J.-P. 2001. ``The Future
of Coral Reefs in an Age of Global Change.'' International
Journal of Earth Sciences 90: 426-437.
Kleypas, J.A., et al. Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and
Other Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for Future Research, report of
a workshop held 18-20 April 2005, St. Petersburg, FL.,
sponsored by NSF, NOAA, and the U.S. Geological Survey.
Knutson, T.R. and Tuleya, R.E. 2004. ``Impact of CO2
``Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and
Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and
Convective Parameterization.'' Journal of Climate 17: 3477-
3495.
Kuffner, I. and Tihansky, A. 2008. Coral Reef Builders Vulnerable to
Ocean Acidification (Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey).
Mendelssohn R. et al. 2005. ``Teaching old indices new tricks: A state-
space analysis of El Nino related climate indices.''
Geophysical Research Letters 32
Orr, J.C., et al. 2005. ``Anthropogenic Ocean Acidification Over the
Twenty-first Century and its Impact on Calcifying Organisms.''
Nature 437: 681-686.
NOAA, 2000. ``World Ocean has Warmed Significantly Over Past 40
Years.'' NOAA News Online, March 23, 2000 http://
www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s399.htm (accessed March 24,
2008).
Nystrom, M., Folke, C., and Moberg, F. 2000. ``Coral Reef Disturbance
and Resilience in a Human-dominated Environment.'' Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 15: 413-417.
Nystrom, M. and Folke, C. 2001. ``Spatial Resilience of Coral Reefs.''
Ecosystems 4: 406-17.
Oouchi, K., et al. 2006. ``Tropical Cyclone Climatology in a Global
Warming Climate As Simulated in a 20km-mesh Global Atmospheric
Model: Frequency and Wind Intensity Analysis.'' Journal of the
Meteorological Society of Japan 84: 259-276.
Otto-Bliesner, B.L., et al. 2006. ``Simulating Arctic Climate Warmth
and Icefield Retreat in the Last Interglaciation,'' Science
311: 1751-3.
Overpeck, J.T. et al. 2006. ``Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-
sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-level Rise.'' Science 311: 147-
50.
Portner H.O., Langenbuch M., Reipschlager A. 2004. ``Biological impact
of elevated ocean CO2 concentrations: Lessons from
animal physiology and earth history.'' Journal of Oceanography
60: 705-718
Pielke, R.A., et al. 2005. ``Hurricanes and Global Warming.'' Bulletin
of the American Meteorological Society: 571-575.
Rignot, E. and Kanagaratnam, P. 2006. ``Changes in the Velocity
Structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet.'' Science 311: 986-990.
Santer, B.D., et al. 2006. ``Forced and Unforced Ocean Temperature
Changes in Atlantic and Pacific Tropical Cyclogenesis
Regions.'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:
13905-13910.
Trenberth, K.E. 2007. ``Warmer Oceans, Stronger Hurricanes.''
Scientific American 297.
United States Department of Commerce: (NOAA). 2006. Economic Statistics
for NOAA; Fifth Edition.
United States EPA. 2007. Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact
Development (LID) Strategies and Practices (Washington, D.C.:
EPA 841-F-07-006).
Walsh, K.J.E., Nguyen, K.C., and McGregor, J.L. 2004. ``Fine-resolution
Regional Climate Model Simulations of the Impact of Climate
Change on Tropical Cyclones Near Australia.'' Climate Dynamics
22: 47-56.
Webster, P.J., et al. 2005. ``Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number,
Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment.'' Science
309: 1844-1846.
Woolf D.K., Challenor P.G., Cotton P.D. 2002. ``Variability and
predictability of the North Atlantic wave climate.'' Journal of
Geophysical Research-Oceans 107
Worm, B., et al. 2006. ``Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean
Ecosystem Services.'' Science 314: 787-790.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Ms. Chasis. And you were
right at the timing cutoff there.
Ms. Chasis. I worked on that.
Ms. Bordallo. Consistent with Committee Rule 3[c], the
Chairwoman will now recognize the members. And I will begin
with myself. And I would like to mention to the panelists that
Mr. Wittman went off to vote. As a territorial representative
we only vote during the committee of a whole. So I am going to
keep the hearing going and, hopefully, Mr. Wittman will be back
to ask a few questions of our first panel.
Ms. Davidson, I have a question for you. I appreciate the
efforts that NOAA has undertaken and is planning to address
climate changes and the impacts that they have on our ocean and
coastal environments. As you heard me mention at the outset,
and as you yourself mentioned in your testimony, the 2007 GAO
report recommended that Federal agencies develop guidance that
reflects best practices to explain how agency resource managers
are expected to address the effects of climate change. When
does NOAA plan to issue this guidance? And how do you expect
that it will specifically change the way resource managers at
NOAA do business?
Ms. Davidson. Chairwoman Bordallo, I think there are two
aspects to that question. The first aspect, which refers to our
management of living marine resources, I know that these
discussions are underway within my agency. I believe that I
will need to get the specifics on the details and the date back
to you. But I know that efforts are underway to provide such
guidance. And we are already beginning to incorporate them into
our decision making processes, as I referenced with regard to
the Bering Sea pollock.
With regard to the coastal management side of the NOAA
portfolio, I have cited in my testimony some examples in which
we are actually working with communities and governmental
organizations like National Association of County Officials to
provide some guidance. But I think that more formal guidance
would need to await the passage of a new Coastal Zone
Management Act. And we look forward to either receiving your
congressional directive in that bill or some other bills as
have been referenced here today and elsewhere.
Ms. Bordallo. Let me follow up. Now, you said your agency
is working on the guidance report, is that right?
Ms. Davidson. Yes, from the fisheries side. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. Now, do you have any idea then, a rough
idea of when this will be finished? You know, we----
Ms. Davidson. I will actually have to give that information
to you. I am not from the fisheries side of the agency, I am
from the coastal side of the agency so I do not have that exact
information. But I believe we can get it very shortly to you.
Ms. Bordallo. So in other words you are close to concluding
a report?
Ms. Davidson. I would have to check on that but I do know
these discussions have been underway. We have already begun
incorporating some climate information into our decision
processes.
Ms. Bordallo. You also mentioned the CZMA is a tool
available to NOAA to work with states to improve climate
adaptation, planning, including the outreach and the education
required to ensure that state and local decision makers are
able to apply NOAA's information and products most effectively.
What specifically is NOAA doing to ensure that states
incorporate climate adaptation into their coastal zone plans
and other planning?
Ms. Davidson. As mentioned by my colleague Mr. Brunello, we
work with the Coast States Organization which represents these
state-level programs. And most of the states have identified
the issues of coastal hazards and climate change as a very high
priority. We have developed a number of specific local level
demonstration activities and guide books as well as some
training programs. And we are looking to make that a much more
systematic approach over the course of the next few years. But
we have demonstration projects, if you will, on the ground at
the local and state level from which we can learn.
We are also looking at what other agencies are doing like
Fish and Wildlife and EPA and looking to derive the best
examples that are consistent with our principles of local
governance and decision making in this country.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Brunello, would you like to elaborate on
that?
Mr. Brunello. The only thing I could add from our side is,
which I did not speak enough to, is what is needed in any
comprehensive adaptation effort is looking at three key things.
One is getting the science right, second is developing some
type of strategy, and three is moving to action. All three of
those things are fundamental in anything that we do. And we
need more guidance and assistance from the Federal level.
And I would say right now what we have seen has been a
deficiency on the action side. There is a lot of effort and
bills on the science side, which is absolutely necessary and
fundamental, but it has to be all three. And so I hope that
anything that NOAA is developing that would also be promoted by
this committee takes all three into account.
Ms. Bordallo. Good. And, Ms. Chasis, would you care to
comment?
Ms. Chasis. Well, I think that, and there is a recent
report from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change which
points out that comprehensive and proactive adaptation planning
is still very much in the early stages in the states. I think
there is authority under the CZMA and other existing laws to
promote, to move things forward. But I think that having a
clear directive from Congress as well as funding to support it
will be really necessary to get this effort going. And I think
that can be done both in the individual laws like CZMA. But I
think more importantly there needs to be this comprehensive
directive from Congress to require the development of
adaptation cross-sector plans.
Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brunello, I would say it sounds like California has
taken a leadership role in developing adaptation and mitigation
strategies in response to climate change. So you mentioned that
California is working now to implement certain adaptation
strategies that have already been identified as necessary. And
I was wondering if you could elaborate on these strategies,
particularly with respect to the ocean and coastal resources
sector and the water sector?
Mr. Brunello. Concerning the ocean sector, a big part of
what we are doing on this 3-point strategy as I mentioned as we
look at how do we get the science right and how do we develop a
strategy and move to action, a lot of the effort that we are
doing at this point is looking at the science and figuring out
what are the current impacts. So we are downscaling some of the
regional or global circulation models and then bring that so
that it is more relevant to California.
One area that I can show where we are trying to push the
boundaries I am sure every state is involved with is looking at
sea level rise. For example, we wanted to look at what might be
the impact along the coast if we had a 1 to 3 meter sea level
rise along the coast. And so the first thing we did was to try
and look at what type of maps we have available along the coast
and figure out what places would be inundated. And thinking
that would be our first step in the adaptation strategy.
Well, as we try and test the boundaries of our own internal
planning processes we realized we did not have the maps. So,
internally, in wanting to make and move on action for sea level
rise, for example, we realized before strong action could be
taken, we need to get some of the information right. We can
obviously focus on some of the low-level areas but one of the
areas we have to focus on is getting the information at a
better approach.
On the water side we are currently in the process of
looking at how we transport water better in the entire state.
Looking at sea level rise again, if we had a 55 inch sea level
rise in California that would inundate our Sacramento-Delta-Bay
area. That through that area provides drinking water for 25
million people. So what we are doing right now is looking at
different scenarios as we try and look at how we might provide
conveyance systems in the state, different below ground and
above ground storage, how we can plan better for things such as
sea level rise.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
I do not want to put you on the spot but do you have any
knowledge about whether other coastal states are as far along
with developing and implementing adaptation strategies,
particularly with respect to ocean and coastal resources? To
the extent that they are or they are not, do you feel that the
greatest limiting factor at this point is technical and
financial resources? And please be very frank.
Mr. Brunello. An easy question. A couple things: one is we
are in contact with our colleagues in Florida, Washington,
Oregon, Maine, Maryland. There are states that are definitely
taking action that we have been paying attention to and working
together with.
In terms of looking at where they are and what is needed,
it is a comprehensive package, again, really takes looking at
all three efforts. Right now there has been a huge deficiency
of looking at a coordinated strategy. And that is across the
entire state. It is very complicated to start looking at one
sector. If you just go into the oceans and coastal resources
sector, as I mentioned, it gets into every sector.
We had the same issues as we looked at mitigation efforts
in the state. And we are having our large mitigation plan will
be out in about two days, what we call our scoping plan that is
produced by the Air Resources Board. But we all realize we work
in stovepipes, we work in one sector. For example, I lead our
state's forestry efforts. And we do not have the best
communication with other sectors. It is the same thing with
adaptation. This is just the way we do things.
And so I can definitely speak to the fact that having a
cross-sector approach is going to be fundamental. And again,
sea level rise is just an easy one for people to comprehend
that you cannot just look at the coastal areas when we talk
about sea level rise. When we had our water people who wanted
to just look at the Delta to understand what the impacts are to
the water system it was secondary to think about what that
might mean if you had a state directive just for our state
water system for the coastal areas.
So many of these efforts will trigger other questions. But
I think as I saw with James Hansen from yesterday, as he
mentioned, just starting is most important for us. Just getting
the process going and starting with the science is great. But
having some broad, coordinated strategy effort and then trying
to push and develop some of the early action efforts is
fundamental. And we are seeing that in all different states.
But having more support in doing that is fundamental, which is
why I am here today.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Ms. Davidson, do you have any comments on that same
question that I asked Mr. Brunello?
Ms. Davidson. I would just echo my colleague's comments.
Getting the science, the emphasis has been on the science,
putting that into an adaptation strategy I think that is where
we are as a country and in our local communities. But the
implementation challenge, even when you know what is the right
thing to do in this country we do not always do it, for a lack
of either fiscal or other sorts of capital, political capital.
And so that will be, I think, our greatest challenge over the
next decade will be how do we take some of these tools and
capabilities that we are developing and we have some
information about, there are other countries who are ahead of
us, but how do we actually pay the bill. I think that is going
to be one of our bigger challenges.
That is why I focus on the two-fer of disaster mitigation
and climate adaptation. They are very much the same. And the
temporal scale of natural disasters in this country is such
that it often takes precedence when we are coming around to
paying the check. But I think that there are things that we can
do for both the environment and for our communities, even as we
plan for and respond to and recover from increasing extreme
events: droughts, floods, tsunamis, that will enable us to
address these longer time scale issues.
Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
Ms. Chasis, do you feel that the states are moving along as
quickly as they should?
Ms. Chasis. Well, as I said before, this Pew Climate Center
Report indicates, and they have done a survey of where the
states are, that they are still at the very early stages in
putting together comprehensive adaptation plans. I think we are
seeing many more states have moved out front on the mitigation
of climate impacts but have been slow on the adaptation side.
And I think there is a lot of catch-up that needs to be done.
We have been active with a coalition in Florida and put
together this report ``Preparing for Sea Change in Florida:
Strategy to Cope with the Impacts of Global Warming on the
State's Coastal Marine Systems'' which was really the basis of
my testimony. And Florida, as an example in parallel with
California, has put together at the gubernatorial level a task
force on climate change. And one of the areas of focus is
adaptation. And they are going to be developing a comprehensive
adaptation strategy which will be part of what the Governor
acts on this November.
So we are eagerly, you know, advocating for, in Florida for
some kind of comprehensive program there. And I think though
even though some states, like California, Florida and some
others, have stepped out and begun doing comprehensive
planning, there really is a need for Federal leadership on this
issue, both from the executive but from Congress. And that is
why we have been very active in trying to make sure that
climate legislation on the Senate side, for example,
incorporates attention to the need for states to move forward
on the coastal and ocean front and that there be funding to
accompany and Federal directive. So we would certainly
encourage you, Madam Chair, and this committee to move forward
in the House on that.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Ms. Chasis. I think I have one
more question for you. Your testimony mentioned the need to
increase the overall resilience of ocean ecosystems as a means
of reducing the impact of climate change. Would you be so kind
as to elaborate on what that would entail for state and Federal
agencies as well as fisheries managers? Do you think the
fisheries councils are considering climate change in the plans
that they are developing?
Ms. Chasis. Well, one point here is that obviously the more
diversity, the more diverse and abundant fish and wildlife
populations are the better able they are going to be to
withstand the stress of climate change and the better able they
will be to adapt. So this is a very critical issue.
I think that the councils are beginning to recognize this
as an important issue, as Margaret Davidson mentioned, in the
North Pacific. But I think as a general matter a lot more
attention needs to be given to this and factored into the
setting of quotas. So, for example, and the one way this could
be done is if populations seem to be moving more northward,
more care given to seasonal closures and limits to protect the
southern portion of the populations. So there are some very
specific and concrete things that can be done which I think are
not yet really being integrated into the process. Hopefully,
the guidelines that NOAA is developing for how fisheries should
be managed will be part of that.
But I come back to the legislation which your Subcommittee
reported out, Oceans 21,----
Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
Ms. Chasis.--which I think is critical in setting out a
national policy to protect, maintain and restore the health of
ocean ecosystems, so that all agencies, not just the Fisheries
Service but the other agencies that impact coastal and ocean
resources are really committed to this notion of resiliency and
productive ecosystems.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Ms. Chasis. And just to
let you know, we are continuing to work on that legislation,
Oceans 21.
Ms. Chasis. That is terrific.
Ms. Bordallo. I want to thank all the witnesses of the
first panel. And I would like to ask if you could remain in the
hearing room. Mr. Wittman is still on the Floor voting and I
would like to give him the opportunity to ask questions. So if
you would remain in the hall, in the room.
I would like now to call upon the second panel. On our
second panel we have Mr. Dan Ashe, Science Advisor to the
Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Mr. David
Whitehurst, Director of the Wildlife Diversity Division of the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; Ms. Jamie
Clark, Executive Vice President for Defenders of Wildlife; and
Dr. William Moritz, Director of Conservation for the Safari
Club International Foundation.
I would like to welcome you all. And you have been here in
the hearing room so you know the time limitations, five
minutes. And just to remind you again that your full testimony
will be entered into the official record. At this time I would
like to recognize Mr. Ashe for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAN ASHE, SCIENCE ADVISOR TO THE DIRECTOR, U.S.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Ashe. The Service and its partners deal with water
resource allocation, species invasion, urbanization, habitat
degradation and fragmentation, pollution, wildlife disease and
trade, among many other factors. Now we are further challenged
to deal with the significantly increased complexities and
uncertainties that are raised by the scientific consensus that
there is unambiguous evidence of a changing climate system.
Hitting a baseball has been described as possibly the most
difficult feat in sports. A batter has about four-tenths of one
second to respond once the ball has left the pitcher's hand and
the bat actually makes contact with the ball only for about one
one-thousandth of a second. When he was asked what he thinks
about when hitting, the great ballplayer and philosopher Yogi
Berra said, ``Think? How the hell are you going to think and
hit at the same time?'' Obviously a baseball player thinks
about hitting. They study, the analyze and they plan, they
evaluate their hitting successes and failures but they do not
do this when they are in the batter's box and the pitcher is
winding up.
Like a batter in baseball, conservation biologists and
managers must respond quickly to changing and uncertain
conditions like global warming. We have to be nimble and ready
to respond as changing climate throws us curveballs. We have to
step up to the plate. But we will not be as effective as we can
be if we are essentially thinking and hitting at the same time.
Conservation is challenging already. Add the complexity and
uncertainty of changing climate and it is like asking a batter
to improve their average while moving pitcher's mounds closer
to home plate and raising it six inches.
In the Service, our employees are stepping up to the plate
to deal with global warming. We are using our experience, our
can-do attitude, we are building on our past successes. But
more importantly, we are outlining a multi-faceted and forward-
leaning response to global warming. We are doing this by
building a climate of awareness and a spirit of partnership.
For example, modeled on a highly successful climate change
forum for Alaska, this year each of our regions are hosting
climate workshops, bringing together partners, raising
awareness and beginning to develop a direction of change in
addressing global warming within the entire conservation
community.
We are doing this by forming an Executive Working Group on
Climate Change and just recently chartering a Climate Change
Strategic Plan team charged with outlining a service vision,
strategy and action plan. We hope to share this with partners
for broad discussion and input early in 2009. We are doing this
by beginning to take sensible and important actions like those
outlined in my testimony, slam modeling for national wildlife
refuges, helping managers understand and plan for sea level
rise, innovative new partnerships in habitat restoration and
carbon sequestration, developing a national phenology network
with the USGS, the Wildlife Society and others, reducing our
carbon footprint to establish the Service as a responsible
corporate citizen and leader. These are all crucial beginning
steps.
Most significantly, we are doing this by supporting a new
direction of change that has resulted from a cooperative effort
between the Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. This is a
framework for adaptive landscape scale conservation that we
call Strategic Habitat Conservation or SHC. Explicit population
objectives for key species and population habitat relationship
models are used to define the landscape scale ecological
conditions that must be sustained in order to achieve those
population objectives. Spatially explicit data strategically
targets conservation to site scale priorities. Monitoring is
used to evaluate success over time and adapt our strategies as
we learn more about driving forces like climate change.
Absent a structured framework like SHC, the challenge of
climate change will make conservation increasingly reactive and
rapidly overcome us as we try to think and hit at the same
time. With this framework we will be able to define and manage
toward dynamic system states, ecological conditions that will
provide representative, redundant and resilient populations of
trust species, giving them the best possible chance to adapt.
We will value the committee's advice and support as we do
this in the coming months and years. Thank you very much for
today's opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]
Statement of Dan Ashe, Science Advisor to the Director,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
Introduction
Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Dan Ashe,
Science Advisor to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service). I am pleased to be with you today to discuss the actions the
Service is undertaking and planning to adaptively and strategically
manage fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats in the face of
increasing uncertainties that are the result of a changing climate
system.
The Department of the Interior and the Service applaud the
Subcommittee's interest in this issue and your focus upon what is
happening on the ground today. Natural resource management is a
challenging endeavor. I know that the Subcommittee and Committee
Members appreciate the complexities that the Service's managers and
partners face in dealing with issues such as limited water resources,
invasive species introductions, habitat degradation and fragmentation,
and wildlife trade and disease. Climate change adds an entirely new
dimension of complexity and challenge to the stewardship of fish and
wildlife resources.
Observations of the Natural Environment
There is strong scientific consensus that the Earth's climate is
changing, and that the related changes in temperature, precipitation
and sea level will have a significant impact on Earth's natural
environment.
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
issued its Fourth Assessment Report concerning the observed and
projected changes in the Earth's climate system, the impacts of climate
change on the natural and human environment, and the capacity of these
systems to adapt. Based on observational evidence world-wide, the
Assessment concluded that ``
``Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans
shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional
climate changes, particularly temperature increases (very high
confidence). A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown
it is likely that anthropogenic warming has had discernable
influence on many physical and biological systems.''(IPCC WGII
Technical Summary).
The Assessment included the following examples illustrating the
impact on natural systems:
changes in freezing, thawing, and drainage in Arctic and
Antarctic Peninsula ecosystems, including those in sea-ice biomes that
support polar bears and walrus;
changes in the timing of ecological events (called
phenological changes--e.g., bud burst, flowering, insect emergence,
etc), earlier onset of spring vegetative growth, migration, and
lengthening of the growing season;
poleward and elevational shifts in ranges of plant and
animal species; and
poleward shifts in ranges and changes of algal, plankton
and fish abundance in high-latitude oceans.
The Service is a field-based organization, and biologists working
on-the-ground are observing changes in many of our natural systems.
Nowhere are these changes more acutely evident than in the Arctic
ecosystems. In the Service's Alaska Region, observations of Arctic
changes include diminishing sea ice, coastal erosion, shrinking
glaciers, thawing permafrost, wetland drainage, and earlier ``green-
up'' of Arctic vegetation. Related to the deterioration of glaciers, we
are seeing changes in the hydrology of glacially-fed streams. Increased
temperatures in the Arctic have also contributed to the earlier onset
of snow melt and the lengthening of the melting season, resulting in
decreased total ice cover at summer's end. To explore these changes and
begin discussions of management strategies, the Service and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) co-hosted a Climate Change Forum for Alaska,
in Anchorage, in February 2007. The forum provided the opportunity for
the Service to collaborate with USGS on recommendations for research
and monitoring priorities, management directions, and methods to
improve partner involvement.
Climate change in the Arctic will continue to affect the habitats
of ice-dependent species such as polar bear and walrus. On May 15,
2008, the Service published a final rule to list the polar bear as a
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The primary
threat to this species is loss of sea-ice habitat, particularly summer
sea ice, due to a combination of natural variation and climate change.
Sea ice is essential habitat for many of the polar bear's life
functions such as hunting, feeding, movement, and rearing cubs. To
assist the Service in the decision on whether or not to list the polar
bear, the USGS conducted research and modeling on the interaction
between changes in the polar bear's sea-ice habitat and the
distribution and abundance of bears. This decision required a level of
scientific support and scrutiny that is atypical and perhaps
unprecedented. The process of recovery planning will be immensely
challenging because, in addition to science and management, it will
require other issues, such as international diplomacy and cultural
knowledge, to be addressed. Also, there are other species involved. The
Service has been petitioned to list the walrus under the ESA while the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been petitioned to list
the ribbon seal. The NMFS is conducting a status review of all ice
seals. Changing climate is driving ecology within the entire
circumpolar arctic and our conservation efforts must address the suite
of ice-dependent species in the Arctic, and thus, will require novel
and collaborative solutions among scientists, managers, and native
peoples--solutions that are at the landscape level and address multiple
species.
Like the polar regions, the Northwest and the Mountain-West have
also been experiencing reductions in annual snowpack. According to the
USGS, climate changes over the last 50 years in these areas of the
country have led to as much as a 17 percent decline in annual winter
snowpack. 1 The result has been a decreased recharge of
ground water systems, increased stress to public water systems, changes
in the timing of river ice-outs, and reduced river flows that affect
temperature, depth, and other characteristics of spawning environments
for fish such as Pacific salmon. Snowpack declines also have been
accompanied by earlier annual peaks in river run-off, as documented in
stream gage monitoring and analyses across the lower 48 states and
throughout Alaska. As snow pack melts earlier throughout the western
United States, reservoirs designed upon 20th century hydrology may not
be able to adequately store the runoff. Predictions of less frequent,
but more intense summer storms may exacerbate storage and supply
concerns. One study predicts that if current allocations of water
persist, there is a 50 percent chance that Lake Mead will not provide
water without pumping by 2023, and a 50 percent chance that Hoover Dam
will not be able to generate power by 2017. 2 While
Departmental bureaus have previously noted before the Committee that
there is much room for improvement in the demonstrated resolution of
climate and streamflow modeling, as land and wildlife managers we have
nevertheless managed around and through weather patterns like drought
on annual to decadal scales. Now, however, managers must face the
growing reality that these recent observations may not be part of an
annual or even decadal change in weather pattern, but are possibly
linked to a long-term change in the climate system itself. If this is
the case, the implications for wildlife and fisheries management are
substantial and will require extensive changes in the design and
placement of projects to store water, protect and restore habitats, and
manage populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Statement of Dr. Thomas R. Armstrong, Program Coordinator,
Earth Surface Dynamics Program, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department
of the Interior to Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts; Hearing on Projected
and Past Effects of Climate Change: A Focus on Marine and Terrestrial
Ecosystems; April 26, 2006
\2\ Barnett, T. P., and D. W. Pierce (2008), When will Lake Mead go
dry?, Water Resour. Res., 44, W03201, doi:10.1029/2007WR006704.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from hydrological changes correlated with increased warming,
Service biologists are also noting changes in abundance and
distribution of species. These changes include the expansion of pests
and invasive species. Expansion of the mountain pine beetle into higher
latitudes and elevations--areas once too cold to support it--is well
correlated with observed temperature changes. This range expansion is
increasingly impacting our forest habitats, not just killing trees, but
making these landscapes more susceptible to catastrophic wildfires and
creating the potential to drive fundamental shifts in ecosystem
function and structure.
We know that changes in temperature and moisture will affect
species ecology. While some species will adapt successfully, and
indeed, some will likely flourish in a warming world, some will not.
The challenge for resource scientists and managers will be in
developing better capacities to model and predict these changes so that
we can develop conservation strategies that are timely and effective.
Species most at risk are those that are unable to generalize or adapt.
Long-distance migrants and birds with limited geographical ranges, for
instance, may not be able to adjust to the changes caused by rising
temperatures. Species at the end of geographical or elevational
gradients will have difficulty adapting because they have nowhere to
which they can migrate. Increased competition for habitat and the lack
of suitable or available food in new locations would mean that a shift
poleward may change the size of bird populations and composition of
bird communities adapting to climate change. Changes in ecological
communities may decouple ecological relationships among species.
Climate has influenced the development of intricate ecological
relationships that have evolved over millennia, and relatively abrupt
changes in climate may, for example, interfere with the synchrony
between the life cycle of birds, bees, or other pollinators and the
flowering of their host plants or emergence of insects they eat.
Monitoring of phenological changes is one example of a potential area
for future focus.
Other significant changes associated with increased warming include
rising sea levels and water temperatures that pose threats to marine
habitats, coastal wetlands, and estuaries which are part of more than
160 National Wildlife Refuges the Service manages along the nation's
coastline and over 50 coastal and marine parks managed by the National
Park Service. Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, part of the
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Complex along the North
Carolina coast, is losing ground annually to the Atlantic Ocean. The
projected rise in sea level over the next 50 to 100 years will likely
transform large expanses of marsh to open water, forest to marsh, and
complicate habitat conservation for species such as the federally
endangered red wolf and many other species of birds and wildlife.
Similar threats are facing other refuges like Merritt Island National
Wildlife Refuge which overlays and surrounds the Kennedy Space Center
in Cape Canaveral, Florida, and serves as a home to more than 300
species of birds. At this refuge, projected sea level rise over the
next few decades threatens to engulf much of the refuge. The Oregon
Islands National Wildlife Refuge which supports significant seabird
nesting and the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge along the Texas coast
are also expected to experience substantial impacts from sea rise and
subsequent loss of habitat for wildlife. Sea level rise will complicate
some large scale restoration efforts, such as the effort currently
underway to restore formerly diked salt ponds in the San Francisco Bay
National Wildlife Refuge. It will be essential for the Service to
understand not only the physical changes in habitat that will result
from sea-level rise in and around our refuges, but the landscape-scale
changes in population ecology that will be driven by those changes.
Increased ocean temperatures are also accelerating the intensity of
algae blooms and incidents of red tide in the Gulf of Mexico. These
increased incidents can cause significant fish kills, contaminate
shellfish and, when inhaled, can create severe respiratory irritation
to humans as well as generating more frequent and more intense events
of coral bleaching and disease which can stress and kill corals. Coral
reefs managed by the National Wildlife Refuge System, like other reefs
world-wide, are experiencing bleaching episodes--most recently the
reefs of Navassa National Wildlife Refuge demonstrated these effects
after the extreme Caribbean bleaching episode of 2005.
With the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, our oceans are
becoming more acidic. As oceans absorb more carbon dioxide, the
availability of carbonate ions is reduced. Reef-building organisms and
shellfish require an abundance of carbonate ions to build their
skeletons and shells.
As field biologists and ecologists research changes correlated with
observed changes in climate, it is becoming increasingly apparent that
those changes are widespread, and are adding increasing complexity to
the challenge of fish and wildlife conservation. For instance,
University of Texas ecologist, Dr. Camille Parmesan has done an
extensive survey of scientific literature and concludes that ``
``Ecological changes in the phenology and distribution of
plants and animals are occurring in all well-studied marine,
freshwater, and terrestrial groups. These observed changes are
heavily biased in the directions predicted from global warming
and have been linked to local or regional climate change
through correlations between climate and biological variation,
field and laboratory experiments, and physiological research.
3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Parmesan, C., (2006, Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to
Recent Climate Change, Annu. Rev. Ecolo. Evol. Syst. 37: 637-69,
doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This presents immense challenge for natural resource managers and
scientists because we are facing what author Douglas Fox has termed ``A
No-Analog Future,'' that is, a future in which climate change leads to
entirely new ecological communities for which there is no present
analog.
Creating an Atmosphere of Awareness
The Service is preparing for this no-analog future by working with
other agencies, states, and partners to understand developments as
quickly as possible and to develop the capacity to respond. Based on
the successful Climate Change Forum for Alaska, Service Director Dale
Hall instructed all Regional Directors to work in concert with their
USGS counterparts and develop a series of regional climate workshops.
These workshops, like one that is occurring today for the Columbia
River Basin, are bringing together partners from federal, state and
tribal governments, conservation organizations and universities. The
Service intends to use such information to develop our capacity to
address the impacts of a changing climate.
Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies
The Service is establishing an impressive track record of adapting
and mitigating strategies. Most noteworthy, perhaps, are our pioneering
partnerships in habitat restoration and terrestrial sequestration. In
our Southeast Region, an innovative partnership was launched eight
years ago aimed at restoring native habitats to bolster populations of
wildlife and migratory birds through a terrestrial carbon sequestration
initiative. The Service is working with The Conservation Fund, Trust
for Public Lands, and energy companies like Detroit Edison, American
Electric Power, and Entergy, adding 40,000 acres of habitat to our
National Wildlife Refuge System and reforesting a total of 80,000 acres
with more than 22 million trees that will sequester approximately 30
million tons of carbon over 70 years. This effort has been fueled by a
capacity to develop landscape-scale conservation strategies that has
been built through the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture
Partnership.
In March 2007, the Service announced a new partnership with The
Conservation Fund and its Go ZeroSM initiative that gives individuals
and organizations a way to offset their own annual carbon emissions
calculated based on daily commuting patterns, home energy usage and
other factors. The Conservation Fund then offsets the carbon footprint
by working with the Service to plant native trees on refuges. It's
voluntary, non-regulatory, and represents another example of
partnership that restores habitats, helps achieve goals in ecosystems,
and contributes towards reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The next frontier for this effort is to identify ways we can create
an incentive to more broadly engage private landowners to restore
native habitats that sequester carbon. For example, the Service is now
working with the Department of Agriculture to replicate this
sequestration initiative in other state and federal land management
agencies as well as territories.
The Service is also beginning to address the potential for
significant sea level rise. A comprehensive modeling effort using what
is called the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) has been
undertaken to determine the potential effects of sea-level rise on
coastal National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). The SLAMM model simulates the
dominant processes involved in wetland conversions and shoreline
modifications during long-term sea level rise. Map distributions of
wetlands are predicted under conditions of accelerated sea level rise
and results are summarized in tabular and graphical form. Since June
2006, SLAMM modeling has been conducted for approximately 20 NWRs and
at least an additional 26 are in the pipeline (see Table 1). The
Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) is an integral component to
SLAMM modeling because SLAMM simulations run on NWI wetlands data.
SLAMM results will be crucial elements in developing refuge and
landscape-scale adaptation strategies and in revising refuge
comprehensive conservation plans.
In addition to increased modeling and mapping efforts to better
predict and understand the consequences of sea level rise on Service
lands, we are assisting communities as they plan for potential
environmental change. Sea level rise and subsequent increases in
coastal erosion are already affecting portions of the coastline,
particularly evident in western and northern Alaska. Hardening of
shorelines and the relocation of vital infrastructure are already
underway with potentially adverse impacts to high-value fish and
wildlife habitat. In other communities, water shortages and droughts
are likely to be community concerns. Service biologists are engaging to
advise and assist communities across the country in planning for, and
adapting to, these environmental changes while also conserving high-
value fish and wildlife habitats.
Increasing Our Knowledge Base
Like the fish and wildlife populations that the Service is
entrusted to conserve, we must adapt our work in an era of changing
climate. This will require increasing ability to predict changes and
design conservation strategies at landscape scales, to implement
conservation projects, and to learn by adapting based on observed
results. Improved understanding and models of future climate change is
essential to plan for potentially significant changes. To that end, the
Service is working with the USGS to develop modeling capacity and other
research tools for assessing potential effects of climate change.
The USGS' 2009 budget proposal includes a $5 million Climate Change
initiative. This initiative will result in science and adaptive
management strategies for climate impacts and development of the
methodology to assess geologic carbon storage. Results from this
initiative will provide resource managers crucial information and tools
to develop land and water management strategies and determine adaptive
management activities in a dynamic environment affected by climate
change. The USGS is also currently conducting research into water use
and availability trends in order to examine the implications for
managing the National Wildlife Refuge System. Part of this analysis
will include projections on climate related changes in water
availability.
The Service has joined an important new partnership with the USGS,
The Wildlife Society, and others to develop a National Phenology
Network. Our hope is that this effort will fuel a new generation of
information on changes in ecological relationships in response to
climate, a new generation of citizen scientists that will create
opportunity for volunteerism, and support efforts to connect people
with nature.
Another example of USGS-Service partnership in addressing impacts
of climate change is the ongoing development of Adaptive Harvest
Management (AHM) as an objective, science-based framework for
establishing annual migratory bird hunting regulations. AHM, as a
decision-making framework, is built upon alternative models that
describe competing ideas about how hunted populations respond to the
environment and to harvest. Population ecologists have traditionally
attempted to exploit historical relationships between bird population
dynamics, environmental factors, and harvest data to predict effects of
future management decisions. Climate change has the potential to
drastically alter the way that bird populations respond to their
environment and to human activities such as hunting. This requires
consideration of alternate potential future system states in the
decisions harvest managers make today. To this end, Service and USGS
scientists are evaluating ways to incorporate the predictions of
climate models, which may suggest future conditions outside the realm
of historical experience, within the decision-making process. These
efforts represent a new scientific frontier in the general fields of
structured decision-making and adaptive resource management.
A partnership with USGS and the Environmental Protection Agency
involves the authoring of a case study on adaptation strategies for the
National Wildlife Refuge System. This case study will be published as a
chapter in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), Synthesis
and Assessment Product (SAP) SAP 4.4: Adaptation Options for Climate-
Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources (The CCSP Strategic Plan calls for
the creation of a series of more than 20 synthesis and assessment
reports. The lead agency for SAP 4.4 is the Environmental Protection
Agency.) The 3rd draft of SAP 4.4 was posted on the CCSP web site on
February 29, 2008, and the final report is scheduled to be posted in
June 2008. The final report was posted on the CCSP web site on June 20,
2008. Lead authors of the National Wildlife Refuge Chapter are J.
Michael Scott and Brad Griffith of USGS with three contributing authors
from the Service: Robert S. Adamcik, Daniel M. Ashe, and Brian Czech.
This report provides a preliminary review of adaptation options for
climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources in the United States. Other
chapters address National Forests, National Parks, Wild and Scenic
Rivers, National Estuarine Reserves, and Marine Protected Areas.
Finally, the Service is cooperating with USGS to implement a
framework for landscape scale conservation that we call ``Strategic
Habitat Conservation (SHC).'' SHC is an adaptive management framework
that begins with explicit trust resource population objectives. Because
climate change affects species and habitat change globally, the Service
needs a consistent approach to understand and address this challenge.
This direction of change is inspiring and challenging us to reshape not
just how we do the work of conservation, but how we think about
conservation. Implementation of this approach and building this
capacity will be an essential ingredient in our response to the
changing climate system.
SHC integrates five functional elements into an adaptive framework:
biological planning, conservation design, conservation delivery,
decision-based monitoring, and assumption-driven research. While
methods may vary, the essence of SHC begins and ends with explicit
trust resource population objectives for a key species or group of key
species. These objectives are met by applying predictive models and
conservation biology principles to define the ecological conditions
that must be sustained at the landscape scale and by using spatially
explicit data to strategically target conservation priorities at the
site scale. Landscape-level conservation through adaptive management
provides a habitat conservation framework within which scientists and
managers can factor in actual and projected changes in climate. Habitat
fragmentation, dispersal and migration corridors, nonlinear changes in
ecosystem response, and factors including intensified wildfires,
droughts, and storms can be more effectively addressed through this
framework. As we face the extraordinary complexity of changing climate,
the Service will need to be increasingly strategic in conservation
delivery. We must develop capacities to understand and anticipate
change on broader landscape scales relevant to the types of climate
changes likely to occur and develop new and innovative strategies such
as potential climate refugia and conservation designs that result in
landscape connectivity allowing habitat and populations to adapt as
successfully as possible.
The SHC framework has been successfully applied in key regions for
several years, most notably the Lower Mississippi Valley and Prairie
Pothole regions, and increasingly is being expanded to other geographic
areas. For example, in the plains of the Southwest, the Playa Lakes
Joint Venture followed the SHC framework to conserve habitat for the
lesser prairie-chicken and associated wildlife through strategic
enrollment of land into Farm Bill conservation programs such as the
Conservation Reserve Program. Applying the SHC framework (including a
rigorous biological planning process to identify priority bird species
in the region and habitat acres based on their potential benefit to the
prairie-chicken), Joint Venture partners determined that, in the Texas
Panhandle, 20,000 acres of CRP placed randomly on the landscape had no
noticeable effect on the chickens' numbers. CRP acres spatially
targeted and planted with native grasses, however, can support 217
prairie-chickens.
Conclusion
Critical to the Service's success in addressing these challenges
will be our ability to build the capacity to understand the changing
climate and to predict and adapt to its forcing effects on the natural
environment, and the capacity to build partnerships with organizations
like USGS, states, and other partners that have relevant expertise,
tools and information. Admittedly, there is still a lot of work to be
done, but the Service is making significant strides in developing
adaptive and mitigation responses and expanding our knowledge of
climate change trends and effects. Despite the enormity of the many
challenges associated with this issue, the Service is committed to
addressing climate change and its potential impacts on our Nation's
fish, wildlife, and habitat. We are creating an atmosphere of awareness
and an important new direction of change. We are modeling innovative
new partnerships in adaptation and mitigation. We are increasing our
knowledge and capacities to implement landscape-scale and adaptive
approaches.
We appreciate your attention to this issue and we look forward to
working with the Subcommittee, the Committee, and the entire Congress
as we all work to address this challenge in the months and years to
come.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3199.001
.eps__
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Ashe. It is my
understanding from the committee up here that you once served
as congressional staff for the Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Committee and that you have a long history on these issues. So
we appreciate your insights today and, of course, your timing
as well.
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Chairman Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. I would like to now recognize Mr. Whitehurst.
STATEMENT OF DAVID K. WHITEHURST, DIRECTOR, WILDLIFE DIVERSITY
DIVISION, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES
Mr. Whitehurst. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak to you today about state efforts to
incorporate the expected impacts of global climate change into
our wildlife management programs and to offer recommendations
regarding additional direction and resources that Congress
could provide to support these efforts.
As you have heard during previous hearings, climate change
poses an unprecedented threat to the future of human
communities, wildlife habitat, and the natural communities that
we depend on for food, our drinking water, our recreational
pursuits, the strength of our local economies and our quality
of life. The implications of climate change present critically
important challenges that must be met by state and territorial
wildlife agencies and their conservation partners using
scientific and adaptive approaches, collaboration and timely
and effective communications.
State wildlife agencies nationwide have a history of
successfully managing natural resources in the public trust,
and we can meet these new challenges given proper resources. In
2001, Congress provided a new source of appropriated funding
for wildlife conservation, the State Wildlife Grants Program.
It is now the cornerstone in many states for keeping common
species common and preventing wildlife from becoming
endangered. Resulting state wildlife action plans provide the
foundation for managing species with greatest conservation
needs.
A very successful Federal/state partnership led by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Association for Fish and
Wildlife Agencies collaborated on guidelines for the states and
territories to facilitate the development of these plans. I
participated on this team and can attest that this partnership
is one of the best that I have seen in my 40 years in the
profession. Hopefully, this successful partnership can serve as
a prototype for a cooperative planning process to develop an
adaptation strategy for climate change.
At the time that most of these plans were being written
though, most of us were focused on the more tangible threats
immediately facing us such as habitat loss and fragmentation,
pollution and invasive species, rather than the less documented
threats from climate change. As you probably know, these plans
revealed that many of the country's wildlife species are
already experiencing significant declines. State wildlife
agencies are now recognizing the needs and taking steps to
adopt wildlife management activities to address climate change
impacts on wildlife.
In Virginia, Governor Kaine established a Commission on
Climate Change and charged it with developing a Climate Change
Action Plan that will include impacts to the state's natural
resources. Our agency has established a climate change working
group and is working with the National Wildlife Federation and
the Virginia Conservation Network to adapt our state wildlife
action plan via workshops and stakeholder sessions to more
explicitly describe the effects of climate change on wildlife
and to identify actions to manage those effects. Other states
are taking similar actions, as detailed in my written
testimony.
I would like to offer several recommendations to you.
First, we need to develop a national biodiversity climate
change adaptation plan. The plan should utilize a risk
assessment approach, be developed with input from the state
wildlife agencies, and guide future funding resources.
Furthermore, this plan should lead to the development of
uniform Federal policies and interagency responses to climate
change that are well coordinated with state and natural
resource agencies.
Additional uniformity can be provided by using existing
tools such as state wildlife action plans, the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan or programs such as the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Program. These existing tools will
require an update to address climate change.
State wildlife agencies are currently addressing the
impacts of climate change with extremely limited budgets.
Congress could provide necessary adequate, dedicated funding
sources to support Federal, state and territorial efforts to
mitigate and adaptively manage wildlife populations and
habitats in response to climate change. Moreover, regional
ecosystem-based cooperative programs and partnerships among
states to implement this plan at the landscape level should be
encouraged through the creation of incentives and various
Federal funding programs.
The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies worked
closely with the hunting and fishing conservation community,
the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, and
the Defenders of Wildlife over the last year--and with the
staffs from the offices of Senator Lieberman, our own Senator
Warner, and Senator Whitehouse--to perfect the natural resource
adaptation provisions in Senate Bill 3036. The title has broad
and diverse support in the conservation and environmental
communities. Your committee staffs have been briefed on these
provisions. And we all encourage you to give serious
consideration to the Lieberman-Warner Natural Resource
Adaptation Construct, including state match requirements in any
legislative drafting you undertake.
In conclusion, climate change will fundamentally change the
way that state and territorial wildlife agencies manage
wildlife populations for the public trust. The potential
magnitude of the impact and the time frame in which they will
occur are greater than any other threat that we have faced in
the last 100 years or so. The state wildlife agencies are ready
and willing to work with this Subcommittee, the rest of
Congress, and the Federal Government to plan and adaptively
manage for the impacts of climate change on your natural
resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, Madam
Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitehurst follows:]
Statement of David K. Whitehurst, Director, Wildlife Diversity
Division, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond,
Virginia
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am David
Whitehurst, Director of the Wildlife Diversity Division of the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Thank you for the opportunity
to speak with you today about state efforts to incorporate the expected
impacts of global climate change into our natural resource planning and
management programs. I also welcome the opportunity to make
recommendations regarding additional direction and resources that
Congress could provide to assist in these efforts.
As you have already heard during previous hearings, climate change
poses an unprecedented threat to the future of human communities, fish
and wildlife habitat, and the natural communities we depend on for our
food, our drinking water, our recreational opportunities (such as
fishing, hunting, boating, and bird watching), the strength of our
local economies, and our quality of life. The implications of climate
change on our rich natural heritage present critically important
challenges and opportunities that must be met by state and federal fish
and wildlife agencies and their conservation partners using scientific
and adaptive approaches, collaboration, and timely and effective
communications.
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries is the inland
fish and wildlife management agency of the Commonwealth. The agency is
also the boating entity in Virginia. The Department's mission is:
To manage Virginia's wildlife and inland fish to maintain
optimum populations of all species to serve the needs of the
Commonwealth;
To provide opportunity for all to enjoy wildlife, inland
fish, boating and related outdoor recreation and to work diligently to
safeguard the rights of the people to hunt, fish and harvest game as
provided for in the Constitution of Virginia;
To promote safety for persons and property in connection
with boating, hunting and fishing; and
To provide educational outreach programs and materials
that foster an awareness of and appreciation for Virginia's fish and
wildlife resources, their habitats, and hunting, fishing, and boating
opportunities.
Healthy and intact ecosystems support our wildlife conservation
needs. Hunter and anglers, farmers and ranchers, hikers and bird
watchers, and citizens in all walks of life, benefit from programs at
all levels of government that support our ability to sustain not just
human life, but fish, wildlife, and the habitats upon which all of us
depend for ecosystem services such as clean air and drinking water,
recreation, and validating our natural heritage and relationship with
the land.
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries celebrated its
92nd birthday last week. State fish and wildlife agencies nationwide
have an extensive history of managing natural resources, largely guided
by the wisdom and foresight of great leaders of conservation--Teddy
Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, and Virginia's
own A. Willis Robertson, to name a few. The ``North American Model of
Wildlife Conservation,'' which is distinct from other forms of wildlife
conservation worldwide, includes, as one of its tenants, that wildlife
are held as public trust resources by the states for the benefit of all
people. Our conservation leaders have been instrumental in ensuring
that our country has a strong legacy of protecting our fish and
wildlife and the habitats upon which they depend.
In Virginia, the national parks, national forests, national
wildlife refuges, state wildlife management areas, state parks and
natural area preserves, and state forests represent a considerable
investment in lands and waters recognized for their biological,
cultural, recreational, and natural significance. The Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries owns the most public land of
any state government agency in the Commonwealth. Climate change
threatens every one of the investments we have made to date and will
have profound impacts on how we manage our lands, waters, and fish and
wildlife populations. I can assure you, too, that with a $51 million
annual budget and existing needs that go unmet each year, we do not
have the resources needed to respond appropriately to these new
threats. Like many other state fish and wildlife agencies, our wildlife
conservation programs are primarily funded by hunters and anglers.
While we are all already making investments in assessing impacts of
climate change and developing adaptive management strategies, critical
funding shortfalls hamper our efforts.
Natural resources provide enormous contributions to our state
economy. The 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation found that over 87 million Americans (38 percent
of those aged 16 and older) pursued outdoor recreation in 2006 and
spent $120 billion that year on those activities. In Virginia alone,
more than 2.9 million people participated in these activities and
generated over $2.1 billion in economic revenue that year. Natural
systems also provide significant benefits to our local communities
through the services that they provide--such as flood protection, storm
buffers, groundwater storage, clean drinking water, and clean air.
These ecosystem ``services'' can be and should be estimated in terms of
the value that they provide to human communities. For example, a study
conducted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources estimated
that the state's wetlands provide flood abatement and storage worth
$300 per acre-foot of water. The U.S. Geological Survey's National
Wetlands Research Center has estimated that Louisiana's 2.5 million
acres of coastal wetlands provide storm protection valued at between
$520 million and $2.2 billion. In Virginia, we initiated an ecosystem
services evaluation last year, led by the Virginia Department of
Forestry, and that work is still under development.
In federal FY2001, Congress provided the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the trust territories with a new source of appropriated
funding for wildlife conservation--the State Wildlife Grants program
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This program is now
the cornerstone in many states for keeping common species common and
preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. As a condition to
receiving those funds, Congress asked each state and territory fish and
wildlife agency to develop a roadmap that documented the status and
condition of fish and wildlife populations and habitats, threats to
those resources, and conservation actions that could be taken to
address those threats. These documents, known as State Wildlife Action
Plans, were all completed by the prescribed October 1, 2005, deadline
and have provided the foundation for managing species of greatest
conservation need and the habitats in which they live. A very
successful federal-state partnership, led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, collaborated
on guidelines to states and territories to facilitate the development
of these Plans. I had an opportunity to participate on this team as a
state representative and can attest that this partnership is one of the
best I have seen in my 40 years in the profession. Because this effort
resulted in strong, well-established partnerships, Wildlife Action
Plans should be used as a guiding framework for integrating climate
change considerations into wildlife management and planning. Targeting
resources to incorporate climate change into these plans will be a
cost-effective and efficient mechanism for addressing impacts of global
warming on wildlife.
At the time that most of these plans were being written, though,
many of us focused more on the tangible threats immediately facing us,
such as habitat loss or degradation, pollution, and deleterious or
invasive species, rather than the less well-documented climate change
threats to resources in our respective states. The effects of climate
change can more properly be viewed as exacerbators of other more direct
threats as mentioned previously. The Virginia Wildlife Action Plan
documents 924 species of greatest conservation need, found across
Virginia and in nearly every natural habitat occurring in the state. We
did recognize climate change as a source of stress to barrier island
and coastal marsh habitats, high elevation spruce-fir forests that are
relicts from the last Ice Age, and our coldwater headwater streams, and
the many declining or at-risk species associated with them. We were
not, however, able to identify appropriate ameliorating actions within
our sphere of influence or those of our conservation partners in the
short timeframe we had to complete the Plan.
Historical species ranges are changing and should be considered
cautiously when determining long-term management objectives and
implementation options. We recognize that the effects of global climate
change in Virginia will result in habitats and associated wildlife
species shifting northward and upward in elevation. Without
considerably greater efforts, it is likely that many of our imperiled
freshwater mussels, the Peaks of Otter salamander, and other species
found nowhere else in the world will become extinct. Some species that
are currently rare in Virginia but found elsewhere, such as the
snowshoe hare, will likely persist in more northern parts of Canada and
the United States, but will be extirpated from Virginia. We anticipate
that some species not native to the Commonwealth, such as the American
alligator and the armadillo, will expand their ranges northward into
Virginia and establish populations in our state. Finally, some species,
such as the brook trout and many waterfowl, may continue to persist in
the state, found in significantly less habitat and in lower numbers.
Reducing non-climate stressors on ecosystems (such as environmental
contaminants, habitat fragmentation, and invasive species) may help to
reduce impacts from changing climatic conditions.
Unfortunately, unlike funding provided through the Wildlife and
Sport Fish Restoration Programs (established under the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish
Restoration Act, respectively) for much of our wildlife management
activities, the State Wildlife Grants Program is currently an annual
appropriation that must be revisited each year. For federal FY 2008,
the final apportionments to states from the Wildlife Restoration Fund
is $309,686,579 and from the Sport Fish Restoration Fund, $398,337,729.
The total appropriation in federal FY 2008 for the State Wildlife
Grants Program (including funds for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
administration of the program) is only $61,522,997. The uncertainty of
annual funding and low funding levels confound our abilities to
initiate and sustain comprehensive long-term planning and management
programs to respond to the effects of climate change.
Natural Resource Planning and Management Activities
State fish and wildlife agencies across the country are recognizing
the need, and are taking steps, to adapt wildlife management and
planning activities to address climate change impacts on wildlife. In
Virginia, we have recently initiated a number of activities to help the
Commonwealth and its citizens address likely impacts of climate change.
In 2006, the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation
establishing renewable portfolio standards and directing the
development of a Virginia Energy Plan. In 2007, the Commonwealth also
joined The Climate Registry, a nonprofit partnership developing an
accurate, complete, consistent and transparent greenhouse gas emissions
measurement protocol that is capable of supporting voluntary and
mandatory greenhouse gas emission reporting policies for its Members
and Reporters.
In 2007, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine released the state's first
ever Virginia Energy Plan. This plan covers all aspects of energy
production and consumption in Virginia: fuel demand and supply;
infrastructure; impacts of energy use on the environment; and energy
research and development capabilities. The Plan identifies four overall
goals, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 30
percent by 2025, bringing emissions back to 2000 levels. This goal will
be partially achieved through energy conservation and renewable energy
actions identified in this Plan.
On December 21, 2007, Governor Kaine signed Executive Order 59
establishing the Governor's Commission on Climate Change. The
Commission is charged with developing a Climate Change Action Plan for
Virginia that identifies the additional steps that must be taken to
achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by
2025. When completed, the Climate Change Action Plan will include an
inventory of the amount of and contributors to Virginia's greenhouse
gas emissions and projections through 2025; evaluate expected impacts
of climate change on Virginia's natural resources, the health of its
citizens, and the economy, including the industries of agriculture,
forestry, tourism, and insurance; identify what Virginia needs to do to
prepare for the likely consequences of climate change; identify the
actions (beyond those identified in the Virginia Energy Plan) that need
to be taken to achieve the 30% reduction goal; and identify climate
change approaches being pursued by other states, regions, and the
federal government. The Commission is chaired by the Virginia Secretary
of Natural Resources, L. Preston Bryant, Jr., and includes
representatives from all affected interests. The Virginia Climate
Change Action Plan is due to Governor Kaine by December 15, 2008.
Through its first five meetings, the Commission has heard testimony and
public comment regarding, among many topics, the expected impacts of
climate change to forests, fisheries and wildlife, and the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem; calculating and quantifying ecosystem services; expected
economic impacts of climate change on tourism; and adaptive management
strategies, particularly in association with vulnerable wildlife.
Within the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, we
have established a climate change working group that is tasked with
synthesizing information both for the Commission and the Department.
This group has only been together for three months, and its first task
was to develop a summary of the general impacts of climate change on
natural communities and potential impacts on Virginia's wildlife and
habitats for use in policy planning.
The Department is also working in partnership with the National
Wildlife Federation and the Virginia Conservation Network to adapt our
state Wildlife Action Plan to more explicitly describe the effects of
climate change on all wildlife and to identify actions to mitigate or
adaptively manage for those effects. We are planning two workshops in
the next year--the first to be held this fall--to gather stakeholders
together, determine more specifically the projected impacts of climate
change on Virginia's wildlife populations and habitats, and identify
specific management strategies. Such efforts will likely include
minimizing the number of extinctions (which may require us to think
differently about habitats, connectivity, and species distributions);
facilitating the gradual migration of species (perhaps around human-
created barriers); and strategically planning the acquisition and
protection of future management areas that will, eventually, be
suitable for target species, all the while maximizing the efficiencies
and cost-effectiveness of our actions. More specific efforts may
involve triage, a complicated process to determine which species can be
saved with immediate action; can be saved if actions are initiated
later; and cannot be saved, irrespective of actions.
When it is possible to save species, our success or failure will
depend upon our ability to identify where habitats currently exist and
to work with landowners, municipalities, and agencies to facilitate the
migration of those habitats across Virginia. We will not have the
resources to work in our traditional ``species by species'' approach;
habitat planning and management will be more critical than ever. From a
management perspective, climate change will be the new reality, and we
will have to constantly evaluate and adapt our efforts if we are to be
successful. We will have to monitor the current situation to determine
what we have and where it occurs, initiate management efforts to
conserve species and habitats as the climate changes, monitor species
and habitats to determine if our management efforts are effective,
adapt our efforts as conditions change, and then repeat. This cycle
will occur over the course of decades. Climate change will test our
ability to think about groups of species, plan for change decades in
advance, and implement the adaptive management strategies needed to
bring plans to fruition.
It is important to realize that climate change is just one of many
issues that threaten the future of Virginia's wildlife heritage. The
Virginia Wildlife Action Plan identifies over 900 species of greatest
conservation need that currently reside in Virginia. The vast majority
of these species are being impacted by the loss and degradation of the
habitats in which they live. At the same time, conservation-related
funding programs are declining. So we have many species that are
already in trouble, many of our habitats are already degraded, and less
money is available for conservation. Success in a world and a
Commonwealth influenced by global climate change will require more
cooperation among agencies at all levels of government, non-government
organizations, businesses, private landowners, legislators (at the
state and national level), and other countries. The experiences in
Virginia are not unique, though. Throughout the country, State Wildlife
Action Plans identified many species of wildlife in serious decline due
to habitat loss and fragmentation, pollution, invasive species, and
other causes. In each state, scientists have also begun to turn their
attention to the compounding effects of climate change on these
resources.
Other states have offered information to me to help illustrate
further for you the efforts of state fish and wildlife agencies to
address climate change impacts on wildlife and habitats nationwide.
Florida's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission adopted a Global
Warming Resolution in September 2007 that specifically calls for the
Commission to ``support science and management that will effectively
assess the future effects of global climate change on Florida's fish,
wildlife and ecosystems...[and] to engage with other experts from
government, academia, industry, and conservation organizations to
develop recommendations for conserving fish and wildlife in the face of
global climate change.'' Florida is also hosting a conference entitled
``Florida's Wildlife: On the Frontline of Climate Change'' in August
2008. The conference will bring stakeholders together from across the
state to raise awareness about the impacts of climate change on
Florida's biodiversity and to identify key research needs and actions
to minimize climate change effects on fish and wildlife, which will be
incorporated into the Commission's comprehensive climate change
strategy.
Washington is one of the first states in the nation to develop a
targeted action plan to cope with the impacts of global warming,
prompted by an Executive Order from Governor Christine Gregior in 2007
as part of her Climate Change Challenge. Stakeholder-driven Preparation
and Adaptation Working Groups developed a comprehensive list of
recommendations to address the impacts of climate change in several
important sectors, including human health, agriculture, coastal
systems, forestry resources, and water resources. In addition, the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife provided supplemental
recommendations specific to state habitats and species. These
recommendations provide an important foundation for continuing work in
the coming months to enhance emergency preparedness and response;
incorporate climate change and its impacts into planning and decision-
making processes; restore and protect natural systems and natural
resources; develop and improve water supply and management; build
institutional capacity and knowledge to address impacts associated with
climate change; manage and share available data more effectively; and
educate, inform and engage landowners, public officials, citizens and
others. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife also is in the
process of updating its wildlife action plan to address climate change.
Maryland's Commission on Climate Change also organized Adaptation
and Response Working Groups. The working groups have developed a
diverse set of policy options to address climate change that the
Commission will present to the Governor. Policy options include strong
recommendations that will benefit wildlife and fisheries. For example,
one policy option calls for identifying priority areas for restoration
in the context of sea-level rise and implementing strategic management
actions to protect against sea-level rise. These actions will be
important for protecting key Chesapeake Bay habitats that support
coastal wildlife and fish species and migratory birds. Protecting and
expanding coastal forests and wetlands also will help provide wildlife
replenishment areas and movement corridors. Policy options also focus
on resource-based industries, including commercial and recreational
fishing and sportsmen activities. Policy options for commercial
fisheries include developing long-term plans that are adaptive and
management efforts that conserve diverse habitats to increase
resiliency of the system under climate change conditions.
The Nevada Department of Wildlife is working to address climate
change challenges through innovative partnerships and cross-cutting
initiatives. Together with its partners, the agency is gathering
information that enables it to better understand and predict future
changes. By taking a multi-pronged approach that includes habitat
restoration, species research and monitoring, and conservation planning
efforts, the agency is working to incorporate management strategies
that reduce the stress of climate change on wildlife populations.
Examples of actions already underway include the restoration of healthy
sagebrush habitats in northern Nevada, designed in part to stem the
invasion of non-native cheatgrass into native habitats; implementation
of discovery surveys in various areas of Nevada to better understand
the current ranges of species at risk, which will then inform more
effective management strategies; and collaboration with The Nature
Conservancy and other non-governmental organizations to develop
ecological models that predict the relative risk of Nevada's key
wildlife habitats to the projected threats of climate change.
Nebraska's Game and Parks Commission has organized an agency-wide
climate change working group to address impacts of climate change on
wildlife and the implementation of the state wildlife action plan. The
agency has also established relationships with outside partners,
including the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Nebraska at
Lincoln, to support the development of a research agenda for a possible
regional climate change research center and a degree program in
adaptive resource management through the University's School of Natural
Resources. Commission staff members are also engaging the state's
Wildlife Action Plan Partners team in a comprehensive discussion of
climate change and its impacts to wildlife populations and habitats.
The agency faces some significant challenges, however, including
increasing demands for biofuels and high commodity prices, which may
result in a significant loss of conservation reserve lands and other
grasslands to irrigated cropland. As with many other states, there is
also considerable uncertainty in the conservation community as to what
adaptation strategies are needed to offset the impacts of climate
change.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks is working with the National
Wildlife Federation to plan a workshop to begin addressing the
challenges that climate change will present for wildlife management and
conservation efforts in the state. Initial steps in this process will
focus on needed modifications in state management plans. The workshop
will serve as a model for states in the Rocky Mountain and Dakota
regions in collaboration with their state fish and game departments.
Several states in the region, such as South Dakota, already have
expressed interest in using the workshop as a model for similar efforts
in their states. In addition, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish
and Parks is working currently with the South Dakota chapter of The
Wildlife Society on climate change issues.
The Vermont Wildlife Action Plan ranks climate change as one of the
top five problems facing fish and wildlife today. Many of the actions
identified to address these impacts focus on maintaining and improving
connectivity of habitats, although reducing other stressors is also
recommended. The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department has teamed up
with the Vermont Department of Transportation over the past five years
to maintain and improve fish and wildlife habitat connectivity. Those
two agencies work with their colleagues in Maine and New Hampshire and
have created a ground-breaking transportation collaborative. The third
biennial transportation and wildlife conference, to be held later this
year, will provide further opportunities for wildlife managers and
transportation specialists to discuss regional needs and options for
addressing those needs.
Various other states also are implementing multi-sector, consensus-
building processes to develop adaptation strategies for wildlife. For
example, the California Department of Fish and Game is embarking on a
process to incorporate global warming into its activities, and the
California Resources Agency is also about to launch a process to create
a state-level Climate Adaptation Strategy which will include a
component on natural lands, habitat, and species. The state of
Wisconsin is measuring the impacts of climate change on its highly
sensitive and fragile peatlands. Scientists there are studying the
changes of the plants, insects, amphibians, and other wildlife using
the bogs by looking at peat core samples. This assessment will help
them evaluate which species are most susceptible to climate change and
determine how resource managers must counter these changes.
The states and territories are also working with the Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies to identify efficient and effective
strategies for responding to climate change impacts on fish and
wildlife habitats and populations. The Association--the organization
that represents North America's fish and wildlife agencies--promotes
sound management and conservation, and represents the collective
perspectives of the State Fish and Wildlife agencies on important fish
and wildlife issues. Through a relatively new Climate Change
Subcommittee, the Association is providing a forum through which state
fish and wildlife agencies can collaborate on the identification of key
issues and actions pertaining to climate change and engage at
international, national, regional, state, and local levels to
successfully influence policy and implement vital management response
for climate change impacts. The Association's Climate Change
Subcommittee is also preparing a document summarizing more specific
strategic and operational considerations for state agencies responding
to climate impacts, including a recommended framework for adaptation
strategies, monitoring protocols, and modeling at the local level.
Recommendations--Additional Direction and Resources
I want to ensure that the members of the Subcommittee recognize
that state fish and wildlife agencies are currently addressing the
impacts of climate change on fish and wildlife populations and habitats
with extremely limited budgets. More investment is needed to protect,
manage and restore fish and wildlife populations and habitats.
The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies worked closely with
the hunting and fishing conservation community, the National Wildlife
Federation, The Nature Conservancy, and the Defenders of Wildlife over
the last year with Senate staffs from the offices of Senator Lieberman
(CT), our own Senator Warner (VA), and Senator Whitehouse (RI) to
perfect the natural resources adaptation provisions in S3036, which the
Senate considered, but failed to act on, a couple of weeks ago. This
title, which prescribes the development of federal and state adaptation
strategies and the requirements, terms and conditions for spending
carbon-auction derived revenues under direct-spending to remediate the
effects of climate change on fish, wildlife, and their habitats, has
broad and diverse support in the conservation and environmental
communities. Association staff and representatives from these other
organizations have briefed your Committee staffs on these provisions,
and we all would urge that you give serious consideration to the
Lieberman-Warner natural resource adaptation construct in any
legislative drafting you undertake.
On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to offer some additional
recommendations for direction and resources that Congress could provide
to assist the states in addressing these impacts:
Develop a national biodiversity climate change adaptation
action plan (see the Australia National Action Plan). The Plan should
utilize a risk assessment approach, be developed based on state input,
and should guide future funding resources based on objectives developed
in the plan.
Provide uniformity to federal climate change planning
efforts by using existing tools, such as State Wildlife Action Plans,
or programs, such as the State Wildlife Grants or Wildlife Conservation
and Restoration programs. Provide expanded funding to accomplish an
update to all Wildlife Action Plans to account more fully for the
impacts of climate change on species of greatest conservation need.
Develop uniform federal interagency response to climate
change that is well-coordinate with state natural resource agencies.
State fish and wildlife agencies should encounter consistent policies
when engaging federal agencies on climate change issues.
Establish national climate change information centers in
all major regions of the country. Existing federal research centers
could be leveraged to provide this expertise.
Identify and commit to a direct spending, dedicated
funding source that will support state and territorial efforts to
mitigate and adaptively manage wildlife and fish populations and
habitats in response to climate change. Include funding of education
and nature-based recreational activities to more comprehensively
address climate change impacts.
Ensure future federal climate change funding is not
difficult to match at the state level. Many state fish and wildlife
agencies already have trouble meeting the 50/50 match requirements of
the State Wildlife Grants program when traditional wildlife
conservation funding sources have a match requirement of 75/25. Given
the magnitude of the issue, and the speed with which it must be
addressed, it would be preferable if match was at 90/10 as was
identified in the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.
Encourage regional, ecosystem-based cooperative programs
and partnerships among adjacent states to address conservation issues
affected by climate change at the landscape level through the creation
of incentives in various federal funding programs.
Support the identification and quantification of natural
ecosystem services so that they are considered in climate change
policies and included in the carbon marketplace.
Develop robust climate change awareness activities.
Create funding opportunities for climate change educational outreach
programs for states and regions.
Develop additional incentives that promote sustainable
technologies and low-impact development.
Continue to support and strengthen programs that
implement habitat conservation on private lands (e.g., Conservation
Reserve Program; Landowner Incentive Program).
Create innovative federal programs that assist landowners
in restoring cropland back to wetlands in floodplains and further
``upslope'' as sea levels rise due to global warming.
During the rule-making process for the Farm Bill
Conservation title, seek opportunities to make greater use of
conservation programs to lessen the impacts of climate change on
wildlife.
Conclusion
Global climate change will fundamentally change the way that state
fish and wildlife agencies manage fish and wildlife populations and
habitats for the public trust. The potential magnitude of the impacts
and the timeframe in which they will occur are greater than any other
threat we have faced in the last 100 years or more. The resulting
impacts on our air and water--no doubt on our overall way of life--are
staggering. I urge Congress to work together on global warming as their
top priority. The states are ready and willing to work with this
Subcommittee, the rest of Congress, and the federal government to plan
and adaptively manage for the impacts of climate change on our natural
resources. Only through such collaboration can we conserve our natural
heritage for future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today, and I look forward to your questions.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Whitehurst, not only
for your thoughtful testimony about the efforts of the State of
Virginia but for taking the time to gather information from the
other states as well.
And I now recognize Ms. Clark for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMIE RAPPAPORT CLARK, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
Ms. Rappaport Clark. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman and Mr.
Wittman, on behalf of our over one million members and
supporters across the Nation thank you for holding today's
hearing on what we believe is the most important conservation
challenge that we face today, the impact of global warming on
wildlife. As a wildlife biologist working for many years for
the National Guard Bureau, the Department of Army and then the
Fish and Wildlife Service, I worked for most of my Federal
career with the assumption that the climate and the way species
and ecosystems functioned were relatively constant.
Well, global warming has unequivocally changed all of that.
It will literally shuffle the deck of existing ecosystems and
reorder assemblages of wildlife and habitats. Consequently, we
need a new paradigm. While we must act immediately to
substantially reduce emissions of greenhouse gas pollution, we
must also assist wildlife to survive and adapt to the impacts
of global warming already taking place today.
Though many Federal programs currently exist to protect and
restore fish and wildlife habitat, they are not primarily
designed to address the wildlife adaptation challenges posed by
global warming. They can and must, however, be used more
effectively to minimize and offset future impacts to global
warming, of wildlife and habitats. Natural resources agencies
must make greater use of their existing authorities to address
global warming, and they must be given additional direction to
consider these impacts in program planning, land and water
management, and environmental analyses.
Equally important, new governmental processes and
structures need to be explored. While each agency should
develop measures for protecting wildlife from the effects of
global warming, it is insufficient and ineffective for
individual agencies to contemplate and plan strategies purely
on their own. The problem is simply much too complex. And
effective response to the impact of global warming on wildlife
requires the kind of comprehensive and coordinated measures set
forth in the Global Warming and Wildlife Survival Act which was
adopted by the House in July of 2007 as part of the
Comprehensive Energy Bill. This legislation is included in
large measure in the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Security
Act recently considered in the Senate, indicating the strong
policy consensus emerging on the subject.
The Survival Act provides for dramatically enhanced Federal
scientific capacity to address global warming and wildlife, a
coordinated national strategy to ensure that wildlife impacts
spanning government jurisdictions are effectively addressed,
and a commitment of Federal funds sufficient to carry out
measured implementing the national strategy. I would like to
briefly address these measures.
First, we must have increased Federal scientific capacity
to address wildlife adaptation to global warming. The
scientific capacity of Federal agencies is woefully inadequate
to address the magnitude of wildlife adaptation needs today. We
must have a solid foundation of knowledge as well as a system
of monitoring to determine changes in species' numbers and
distribution or declines in ecosystem structure and function.
Researchers can then propose new tools, practices and
strategies to assist wildlife and habitat adaptation.
Building rigorous scientific inventory and monitoring
programs within each Federal land management agency is also
essential to manage wildlife in its habitat in a world
undergoing continual change due to global warming. Congress
recognized this urgent need by initiating through
appropriations last year the establishment of a new National
Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center within the U.S.
Geological Survey. Once fully established and funded, this
national interagency scientific support center will conduct
research, develop monitoring protocols and models, and directly
support land management and wildlife agencies in responding to
global warming.
Second, a national strategy for addressing the impact of
global warming on wildlife must be developed. This complex
threat to wildlife requires strategic planning on a national
scale to ensure common tools and approaches at Federal, state
and local levels are coordinated and that funds provided for
wildlife adaptation to global warming are spent strategically
and effectively. State wildlife adaptation strategy should
build on the great existing state wildlife action plans and
they should be coordinated with the national strategy.
Third, Congress must increase appropriations for Federal,
state and tribal conservation efforts and allocate substantial
dedicated funding to address the immediate and severe harm
global warming is causing to wildlife and natural resources.
Because a responsible national response to climate change must
both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the impacts of
global warming, a portion of the revenue generated from any
cap-and-trade system for auctioning greenhouse gas emissions
credits should be dedicated to programs to assist wildlife
adaptation. In the long run this will benefit not only wildlife
but people and communities which derive economic benefits and
ecosystem services from conservation of wildlife and its
habitat.
In conclusion, global warming truly is the conservation
challenge of our time. The success of our efforts to conserve
and recover fish, wildlife and other natural resources for
future generations will depend on how well we respond to this
challenge. We look forward to working with you to meet this
challenge so that our children and our grandchildren will be
able to enjoy the abundance, diversity and wonders of nature
that we have enjoyed.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rappaport Clark follows:]
Statement of Jamie Rappaport Clark, Executive Vice President,
Defenders of Wildlife
Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, I am Jamie
Rappaport Clark, Executive Vice President of Defenders of Wildlife.
Founded in 1947, Defenders of Wildlife has over 1 million members and
supporters across the nation and is dedicated to the protection and
restoration of wild animals and plants in their natural communities.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing on what Defenders
believes is the most important conservation challenge we face today,
the impact of global warming on wildlife. With the recent listing of
polar bears as a threatened species, even the Bush administration has
grudgingly and belatedly recognized the reality that wildlife and
wildlife habitat are being harmed due to global warming. Unfortunately,
the Bush administration is still trying to avoid actually doing
anything to help polar bears or other wildlife survive the impacts of
global warming. For that reason, I am pleased that this subcommittee
has chosen a better path, focusing attention on the issue by holding a
hearing last year, on April 17, 2007, on the impacts of global warming
on wildlife and habitat, and, today, holding a hearing on the even more
difficult question of what should be done to help wildlife survive
global warming.
As you know, at the subcommittee's hearing in April 2007, Dr.
Christopher Haney, Defenders of Wildlife's Chief Scientist, testified
on the myriad impacts of global warming on America's fish, wildlife,
and habitats. Rather than repeat what Dr. Haney said then, I will
simply incorporate it by reference in my testimony today. I will focus
my testimony today on what must be done by Congress and the Executive
Branch to meet this critical conservation challenge.
Responding to Global Warming: A New Paradigm for Wildlife Conservation
Global warming increasingly will present unprecedented challenges
to existing federal, state, tribal, local and private programs for
conservation of wildlife, fish, plants and their habitats. Our system
of conservation programs, ranging from land management and acquisition
to regulatory and grant making programs, evolved with an assumption
that the climate and the ways species and ecosystems functioned were
relatively constant. Wildlife conservation efforts now must adopt a new
paradigm, with new approaches and innovative strategies to manage the
broader landscape, as well as wildlife populations, if we are to help
species survive and adapt to these changes. Because impacts on wildlife
and habitat from global warming already are here and will continue to
grow, we must act boldly and immediately in order to help wildlife
survive.
Our national approach to combating the impacts of global warming on
wildlife must consist of two key approaches. First, we must take
immediate steps to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to
address the root cause behind climate change. Second, we must craft
responses now to help wildlife navigate through a looming bottleneck of
complex effects caused by global warming which are already occurring
and will continue to occur for a century or more. These two approaches
are usually referred to as mitigation and adaptation. Both approaches
are absolutely essential for our nation to frame its policy response as
we build a comprehensive strategy to protect fish, wildlife, and other
natural resources. Some ways to address wildlife adaptation are
suggested in the following pages of my testimony.
1. A Coordinated, Interagency Response is Essential for Wildlife
Adaptation
The effects of global warming on wildlife, fish, plants and
associated ecological processes will challenge current institutional
structures and policies because these effects will occur at large
scales and across jurisdictional boundaries. Global warming will
literally ``shuffle the deck'' of existing ecosystems, reordering the
assemblages of wildlife and habitats that comprise ecosystems. Species
that exist together now will not necessarily do so in the future as
habitats change in response to global warming and species move or
become extinct in response to those habitat changes. The location of
some crucial fish and wildlife habitats will likely shift over time in
ways that are not currently predictable and opportunities to maintain
these habitats may decline. Landscape scale planning, timely action and
future human adaptation to changing patterns of wildlife and fisheries
use will be increasingly important to protect crucial habitats and to
prevent foreclosing options to conserve habitats that may become
crucial.
Climate change is, and will continue to have profound impacts on
how wildlife managers at the state and federal levels manage our
nation's wildlife populations. However, federal agencies have been slow
to include climate change's impacts in their management planning and
decision-making. A report released in September 2007 by the Government
Accountability Office, Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance
for Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources, found
that federal land and wildlife management agencies currently lack the
capacity and guidance to effectively respond to the impacts of global
warming on our federal lands and wildlife. There is, thus, an urgent
need to guide agencies' efforts through the development of climate
change adaptation strategies at the federal and state levels and to
provide significant resources to implement these strategies.
Many federal programs currently exist to protect and restore fish
and wildlife habitat. These programs are not primarily designed to
address the challenges posed by global warming; however, they are
essential tools that need to be used more effectively to minimize and
offset future impacts of global warming on wildlife and habitats.
Federal land management agencies must make greater use of their
existing authorities to address the wildlife impacts of global warming,
and they must be given additional direction to consider these impacts
in program planning, land and water management, and environmental
analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act, the National Park Service Organic Act, and other
relevant laws. Though the brunt of some global warming impacts may not
be fully felt for a number of years, planning to address and ameliorate
those impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat must begin now.
Equally important, new governmental processes and structures need
to be explored that will themselves be resilient and adaptive to the
threats from global warming. While it is important for each federal
agency to develop measures for protecting wildlife from the effects of
global warming, it is insufficient for individual agencies, or even
individual federal land units, to contemplate and plan strategies
purely on their own. The problem is simply too complex.
An effective response to the impact of global warming on wildlife
requires the kind of measures set forth in the Global Warming and
Wildlife Survival Act, introduced as H.R. 2338 by Representatives
Dicks, Inslee and Saxton and as S. 2204 by Senators Whitehouse and
Boxer. The provisions of H.R. 2338 were included in Title IV of H.R.
2337, the Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act, introduced by
Chairman Rahall, and passed by the House in July 2007 as Title VII of
H.R. 3221, the comprehensive energy bill. Though subsequently dropped
from the energy bill in conference with the Senate, the principal
provisions of the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act and the robust
funding needed for implementation were also included in S. 3306, the
Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act recently debated in the
Senate. Additionally, recently introduced climate change legislation in
the House--Representative Doggett's Climate MATTERS Act (H.R. 6316) and
Representative Markey's iCAP bill (H.R. 6186) incorporate the Survival
Act's policy foundation and dedicate funding to address climate
change's impacts on wildlife and its habitat. However, Defenders
believes the iCAP bill does not provide a sufficient level of
investment to soundly implement these provisions. Nevertheless, the
similarity of the policy prescriptions contained in these many bills
indicates the strong policy consensus emerging on this subject.
The Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act provides for dramatically
enhanced scientific capacity, a coordinated national strategy to ensure
that wildlife impacts spanning government jurisdictions are effectively
addressed, and a commitment of federal funds sufficient to carry out
measures implementing the national strategy by federal, state, and
tribal authorities. I will address below the need for, and purpose of,
each of these measures.
A. Enhanced scientific capacity is essential.
The scientific capacity of federal agencies is, at present,
woefully inadequate to address the magnitude of wildlife adaptation
needs, due, in part, to the unprecedented nature of the global warming
challenge and, unfortunately, to short-sighted cuts in science budgets
and staffing. Effectively assisting wildlife adaptation in a changing
climate requires first and foremost that adequate species and habitat
data are available and that we understand the fundamental ecosystem
processes that occur on the landscape.
From a research and management perspective, the way forward must be
built upon a solid foundation of species and ecosystem inventories, as
well as a system of monitoring to determine changes in species numbers
or distribution, or declines of ecosystem structure and function. The
coverage of biological inventories across federal, state and private
lands is insufficient in many areas, but it provides a baseline to
build upon.
Inventory and trends analyses generated through a comprehensive
monitoring program can be applied to analytical and predictive models.
Based on trends and predictions, federal and collaborative researchers
can then propose new tools, practices, and strategies on a limited
pilot or experimental basis to help identify promising approaches to
assisting wildlife and habitat adaptation to global warming. In
addition, building rigorous scientific inventory and monitoring
programs within each federal land management agency to evaluate the
effects of management decisions and to adapt management responses
accordingly is essential to successful management of wildlife and its
habitat in a world undergoing continual change due to global warming.
Last year, Congress recognized this urgent need for enhanced and
coordinated scientific capacity to assist in addressing the impacts of
global warming on wildlife and in developing effective measures to
respond to those impacts by initiating, through appropriations,
establishment of a new National Global Warming and Wildlife Science
Center within the U.S. Geological Survey. Once fully established and
funded, this national, interagency global warming scientific support
center will conduct research, develop monitoring protocols and
downscale models, and directly support federal land management and
wildlife agencies in responding to global warming. The National Global
Warming and Wildlife Science Center is to be responsive to the research
needs of federal and state agencies in conducting scientific research
on national issues relating to the impact of global warming on wildlife
and wildlife habitat and mechanisms for adaptation to, mitigation of,
or prevention of global warming impacts. A key function of the Science
Center, integrated with climate change research programs throughout the
federal government, is the detection of changes in wildlife abundance,
distribution, and behavior related to global warming.
The Science Center will play a pivotal role in many wildlife
adaptation responses to global warming that have been identified by the
scientific community, including the protection and restoration of
habitat corridors to assist species in shifting their ranges and the
protection of climate ``refugia,'' areas that are not as vulnerable to
the effects of a changing climate and are better able to preserve
biodiversity in the face of climate change. Implementation of these and
other strategies will require the assistance and direction of the
Science Center in collecting and integrating many types of data, such
as current native species distributions, behavior, and habitat
requirements, regional estimates of how the climate will change, as
well as estimates of how native species and habitats will respond to
changing climate. The Science Center also will assist in development of
downscaled climate-change projections--critical for land managers'
decision making--that will be needed to predict shifts in vegetation
and individual plant and animal species distributions in response to
global warming.
B. A national strategy for wildlife adaptation to global warming must
be developed.
A national strategy for addressing the impact of global warming on
wildlife must be developed, with the express purpose of helping
wildlife navigate the bottleneck of global warming impacts over the
next century and beyond, until the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
pollution and, consequently, global warming, are fully realized. The
complex threat to wildlife from global warming requires strategic
planning at a large scale. It makes little sense for each coastal
national wildlife refuge or national park or state wildlife area, for
instance, to develop in isolation its own strategies for assessing and
adapting to rising sea levels. Instead, it would be much more effective
and efficient to assemble a framework that considers the national
picture of our changing climate, to ensure common tools and approaches
at state and local levels are coordinated and meaningful and to ensure
that funds provided for wildlife adaptation to global warming are spent
strategically and effectively. An interagency national strategy for
assisting wildlife in adapting to global warming will deliver this
coordination.
This national strategy should examine management issues common to
geographic areas and threat type (e.g. coastal habitats, sea level
rise, increased hurricane frequency and intensity; arctic habitats,
melting pack ice; desert habitats, shifts in precipitation patterns).
It should ensure that federal agencies develop and implement plans to
reduce the impact of global warming on wildlife and habitat by
including prioritized goals and measures to--
Identify and monitor wildlife populations likely to be
adversely affected by global warming;
Identify and monitor coastal, marine, terrestrial, and
freshwater resources and habitat at greatest risk of being damaged by
global warming;
Assist species in adapting to the impacts of global
warming;
Protect, acquire, and restore wildlife habitat to build
resilience to global warming;
Provide habitat linkages and corridors to facilitate
wildlife movements in response to global warming;
Restore and protect ecological processes that sustain
wildlife populations vulnerable to global warming; and
Incorporate consideration of climate change wildlife
adaptation strategies into the planning and management of Federal lands
and waters.
State wildlife adaptation strategies are also needed. Every state
has already completed a wildlife action plan, which identifies at-risk
habitats and species that need special conservation attention. State
wildlife adaptation strategies should build on, and be incorporated
into, those set forth in state wildlife action plans to address global
warming impacts on wildlife, and they should be coordinated with the
national strategy. Individual federal and state agencies and land
management units could then coordinate their management activities with
these national and state strategies.
Coordination among federal, state, and tribal natural resource
agencies is essential in planning and carrying out strategic, watershed
and landscape scale adaptation activities to maintain or re-establish
connectivity. Wildlife adaptation activities should be conducted in
accordance with the national strategy, state adaptation strategies and
wildlife action plans, and other fish and wildlife conservation
strategies, including the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act, Partners in Flight plans, coastal
zone management plans, regional fishery management plans, and recovery
plans for threatened and endangered species.
C. Adequate funding to address global warming's impacts on wildlife
must be provided.
Development and implementation of a national strategy to address
global warming's impacts on wildlife, providing the necessary science
to underpin that strategy, and taking action to reduce other stressors
on wildlife will require substantially more money than is currently
provided for natural resources conservation. With many of the federal
land management agencies already facing a fiscal crisis, Congress must
increase appropriations for federal, state, and tribal conservation
efforts, and allocate substantial dedicated funding from the sale of
greenhouse gas pollution allowances to federal, state, and tribal
conservation agencies, in order to meet the challenge posed by global
warming.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has lost nearly 800 staff
from 2004-2007, an 8 percent reduction. Another 250 staff may be cut
from the Refuge System alone in the next few years if substantial
increases in funding are not available. Many wildlife refuge biological
programs have been reduced or cut altogether, staff has been eliminated
from entire refuges, and over 200 refuges have no biologists on staff.
The National Forest System has lost 35 percent of its staff,
including a 44 percent reduction in inventory and monitoring staff and
a 39 percent reduction in biologists and biological technicians. Almost
half of the Forest Service's budget is now consumed by wildfire costs,
which will only be exacerbated by global warming. Restoring forests
ecosystems to reduce fuel loads will be increasingly important to
protect wildlife habitat and human communities. However, the Forest
Service estimates that 132 million acres of national forests alone are
in need of restoration, at a cost of billions of dollars.
A 2000 report estimated that the cost to acquire inholdings in
national parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands was $10
billion. Since then, national real estate values have climbed 72
percent. Climate change will require additional land protection
efforts, including partnering with private landowners on term easements
and leases outside existing federal lands boundaries and will cost
billions of dollars.
As Congress develops legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions,
it is likely to create a system of emissions credits that can be
traded. In the process, there is an opportunity to auction these
credits, producing substantial revenue for the federal Treasury.
Because a responsible national response to climate change must both
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the impacts of global
warming, a portion of the revenue generated from the auction of
emissions credits should be dedicated to federal, state, and tribal
programs to assist wildlife adaptation to global warming. In the long
run, this will benefit not only wildlife, but also people and
communities which derive economic benefits and ecosystem services from
conservation of wildlife and its habitat. Special emphasis should be
given to providing funding to address federal responsibilities for
wildlife and land conservation in the face of global warming. In the
absence of a new revenue source, however, Congress should increase
appropriations to agencies to address the threats of global warming to
wildlife and habitat.
2. Federal Agencies Can Act Now to Address Wildlife Adaptation to
Global Warming
Even while Congress works toward enactment of comprehensive global
warming legislation, including enactment of the measures contained in
the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act, there is much that federal
agencies can and should be doing using their existing authorities to
address wildlife adaptation to global warming. As many businesses are
now doing, federal agencies should conduct a top to bottom assessment
of federal resources at risk of adverse impacts from global warming.
Agencies should use this assessment to establish priorities for
maintaining their mission and protecting federal assets. While much is
still unknown, there are still concrete actions each agency can take.
The assessment of risks and potential conservation problems is
already generally required of each federal land management agency in
developing land use plans, and agencies should begin addressing the
risks of global warming in those plans now. Unfortunately, few federal
land units, including national wildlife refuges, are addressing this
serious issue. For example, national wildlife refuges are currently
developing comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs). Defenders of
Wildlife conducted exhaustive, site-specific scientific literature
reviews of the impacts of global warming on wildlife and habitat on and
surrounding particular national wildlife refuges developing CCPs.
Defenders synthesized this information for FWS and developed
recommendations for each of these refuges to address the impacts of
global warming in their CCPs.
One of the refuges Defenders addressed, the Merritt Island National
Wildlife Refuge in Florida, is one of the few refuges with a draft CCP
that mentions climate change and associated impacts. The refuge is an
overlay with NASA's Kennedy Space Center and protects low-lying coastal
marshes as well as beach property. Yet the threat of global warming is
given only scant treatment in the plan. The CCP states briefly that sea
level rise could negatively impact the refuge with increased flooding,
beach and dune habitat loss, saltwater intrusion into freshwater
habitats, and inundation and accretion deficit, as well as exacerbate
erosion and transform upland areas into coastal wetlands and high marsh
into low marsh. Yet, the CCP proposes no actions to address this
threat. The CCP does not recognize other impacts of global warming
beyond sea level rise including the spread of invasive species, the
range shift of terrestrial habitats, the increased risk of red tide
algal blooms, and the risks of increased temperatures on the breeding
success of endangered sea turtles and other reptiles.
As an example of the types of activities and strategies that
individual land units should now be including in their land management
plans, Defenders provided the following recommendations regarding the
land management plan for Merritt Island Refuge:
The impacts of global warming on the refuge's wildlife
and habitat must be included throughout the land management plan.
The FWS should consider the present and future impacts of
global warming when developing objectives and management actions in the
land management plan. In the face of uncertainty, the FWS should build
natural resilience to global warming by focusing resources to reduce
non-climate related ecological threats.
FWS should convene a panel of experts to assist Merritt
Island NWR and other coastal refuges in developing adaptation
strategies for coastal marshes and other habitats.
FWS should establish a sea turtle monitoring and research
network with other Atlantic coast refuges and other agencies to detect
population changes associated with global warming.
The FWS land management plan for the refuge should
include comprehensive research on, and monitoring of, the impacts of
global warming and their relation to non-climatic stressors to
ecological systems and management actions, including:
Upland habitat shifts
Changes in fire regime
How fresh and saltwater marshes respond to global warming
Changes in seagrass habitat and the relationship to
manatee populations
How southeastern beach mouse responds to sea level rise
Changes in the timing of ecological events, including
horseshoe crab spawning and shorebird migration.
Global warming should be incorporated into refuge
infrastructure design and planning.
Global warming should be incorporated into the refuge's
environmental education and interpretation programs.
While these and similar measures are examples of steps national
wildlife refuges and other federal land management agencies can take
under existing law to address wildlife adaptation to global warming,
they are not enough. As set forth in the Global Warming Wildlife
Survival Act, a coordinated national strategy among federal, state, and
tribal conservation agencies; expanded, coordinated science capacity at
the federal level; and adequate dedicated funding for federal, state,
and tribal measures to assist wildlife adaptation to global warming are
critically important.
Conclusion
Global warming is the conservation challenge of our time. The
success of our efforts to conserve and recover fish, wildlife, and
other natural resources for future generations of American citizens
will depend on how well we respond to this challenge. We must act
immediately to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions to halt
and eventually reverse the changes we are causing to our planet from
global warming. At the same time, we must take immediate steps as set
forth in the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act and which I have
outlined here today in order to assist wildlife to survive the now
unavoidable impacts of global warming.
Madame Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of
Defenders of Wildlife, thank you for the opportunity to share our
perspective on this critical issue. We look forward to working with you
to meet the challenge of reducing global warming's impact on wildlife
and wildlife habitat so that our children and grandchildren will be
able to enjoy the abundance, diversity, and wonders of nature that we
have enjoyed.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Ms. Clark, for your
testimony.
Now I would like to recognize Dr. Moritz to testify for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MORITZ, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION,
SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION, ACTING DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Moritz. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on behalf of Safari Club International and Safari
Club International Foundation. Safari Club protects the freedom
to hunt and promotes wildlife conservation worldwide. And
Safari Club International Foundation funds and manages
worldwide programs dedicated to wildlife conservation, outdoor
education, and humanitarian services.
The most important point that we would like to make today
is that wildlife and their habitats are critically important
considerations in a discussion of potential implications of
climate change, as many of the other speakers have noted.
Although Congress has learned the difficulty of finding common
ground in the climate change debate, we believe that most
citizens would agree that the fish and wildlife resources are
vital to the health and well-being of the Nation and the world.
The needs of the world's fish and wildlife should be considered
when determining policy direction.
Emotions have run high when discussing the potential
impacts of climate change. We encourage Congress to use science
rather than emotion in developing policies to respond to
climate change questions and to create appropriate funding
mechanisms to ensure researchers are able to address critical
gaps in our current understanding of the possible impacts of
climate change on fish and wildlife.
Since our understanding of climate change relies heavily on
scientific modeling, SCI and SCIF recommend that adequate time
and resources be allowed to enhance climate change models to
minimize the amount of uncertainty that is associated with the
input variables and the predictions that come forth.
The hunting community has always been and will continue to
be an integral part of wildlife conservation, nationally and
worldwide. Sport hunters have a long and proud tradition of
supporting wildlife conservation, including the enforcement of
hunting seasons and quotas for harvest. Through the Pittman-
Robertson Act in the United States, revenue from hunting
licenses and Federal excise taxes on equipment paid by hunters
have been distributed to all 50 states for more than 70 years.
Funds used by the states for matching grants under Pittman-
Robertson are largely funded by license fees. However, support
from the broader public community will be needed to adequately
manage the potential impacts of climate change and ensure
states have the necessary resources to monitor and manage fish
and wildlife.
Although there is no analogue to the Pittman-Robertson
program in any other country, the money spent by sport hunters
goes to provide operating funds for wildlife agencies in many
countries. Perhaps more importantly, the benefits of sport
hunting that flow to local people provide incentives for them
to value wildlife and to help sustain wildlife populations.
These benefits include: jobs, direct payments to villages, the
provision of funds from hunting for civic projects in rural
villages, and the provision of meat from game animals. As human
populations increase and more pressure is placed on wild lands
from a variety of sources, it will be critical to emphasize the
value of wild lands and wildlife when compared to alternative
land uses. Whether future impacts are caused by climate change
or other stressors, sport hunting will continue to advance
sound conservation measures in countries around the world.
In recognition of the role of sport hunting in wildlife
conservation, Safari Club International Foundation was recently
granted non-government observer status by the U.N. and by the
United National Economic and Social Council. We also
participate in the deliberations on CITES, as well as the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
Let me end by reiterating our main points: wildlife and
wildlife habitats are essential components in the debate about
climate change policy. Hunters will promote science-based
conservation program that ensures wildlife populations are
sustained for future generations. Climate change policy needs
to be based on sound science. And funding for conservation that
has historically come from hunters will need to be enhanced by
broader support in order to ensure fish and wildlife
populations are sustained.
SCI and SCIF, in partnership with the hunting community,
thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important
conversation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moritz follows:]
Statement of Dr. William Moritz, Director of Conservation, Safari Club
International Foundation, and Acting Director of Governmental Affairs,
Safari Club International
Key points:
1. Wildlife and wildlife habitat are essential components in the
debate about Climate Change policy.
2. Hunters will be part of the solution.
3. Climate Change policy needs to be based on sound science.
4. Funding for conservation has historically come from hunters but
more support is needed to ensure fish and wildlife populations are
sustained.
Good morning. My name is Dr. William Moritz, Director of
Conservation for Safari Club International Foundation (SCIF) and acting
Director of Governmental Affairs for Safari Club International (SCI).
SCI protects the freedom to hunt and promotes wildlife conservation
worldwide. SCIF funds and manages worldwide programs dedicated to
wildlife conservation, outdoor education and humanitarian services.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today on their behalf.
Mr. Chairman, the most important point that we would like to make
to the Committee is that wildlife and their habitats are critically
important considerations in the discussion of potential implications of
climate change. Although Congress has learned the difficulty of finding
common ground in the climate change debate, we believe that most
citizens would agree that fish and wildlife resources are vital to the
health and wellbeing of the nation and the world. The needs of the
world's fish and wildlife should be considered when determining policy
direction.
Emotions have run high when discussing the potential impacts of
climate change. We encourage Congress to use science rather than
emotion in developing policies to respond to climate change questions,
and to create appropriate funding mechanisms to ensure researchers are
able to address critical gaps in our current understanding of the
possible impacts of climate change on fish and wildlife. Since our
understanding of climate change relies heavily on scientific modeling,
SCI and SCIF recommend that adequate time and resources be allowed to
enhance climate change models to minimize the amount of uncertainty
that is associated with the predictions and input variables.
The hunting community has always been and will continue to be an
integral part of wildlife conservation, nationally and worldwide. Sport
hunters have a long and proud tradition of supporting wildlife
conservation, including the enforcement of hunting seasons and quotas
for harvest. Through the Pittman-Robertson Act in the United States,
revenue from hunting licenses and federal excise taxes on equipment
paid by hunters have been distributed to all fifty states for more than
seventy years. Funds used by the states for matching grants under
Pittman-Robertson are largely funded by license fees. However, support
from the broader public community will be needed to adequately manage
the potential impacts of climate change and to ensure states have the
necessary resources to monitor and manage fish and wildlife.
Although there is no analogue to the Pittman-Robertson program in
any other country, the money spent by sport hunters goes to provide
operating funds for wildlife agencies in many countries. Perhaps more
importantly, the benefits of sport hunting that flow to local people
provide incentives for them to value wildlife and to help sustain
wildlife populations. These benefits include: jobs, direct payments to
villages, the provision of funds from hunting for civic projects in
rural villages, and the provision of meat from game animals. As human
populations increase and more pressure is placed on wild lands from a
variety of sources, it will be critical to emphasize the value of wild
lands and wildlife when compared to alternative land uses. Whether
future impacts are caused by climate change or other stressors, sport
hunting will continue to advance sound conservation measures in
countries around the world.
In recognition of the important role of sport hunting in wildlife
conservation, Safari Club International Foundation was recently granted
non-government observer status by the United Nations and the United
Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). SCIF also participates in
the deliberations of the CITES treaty on wildlife trade and the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
Let me end by reiterating our main points: Wildlife and wildlife
habitats are essential components in the debate about Climate Change
policy. Some groups will try to convince you that hunting will
exacerbate the problems of climate change. But the truth is that
hunters will promote science based conservation programs that ensure
wildlife populations are sustained for future generations. Climate
Change policy needs to be based on sound science. Funding for
conservation has historically come from hunters, and we will continue
to contribute, but more support is needed to ensure fish and wildlife
populations are sustained.
SCI and SCIF, in partnership with the hunting community, thank you
for the opportunity to contribute to this important conversation.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Dr. Moritz, for
appearing here today and offering your testimony and your
insights.
At this time as Chairwoman I would like to recognize our
Ranking Member, the Acting Ranking Member Mr. Wittman who would
have questions I am sure for this panel. And if you do have
questions for the first panel I would like to--do you have some
for the first panel?
Mr. Wittman. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. Would the, Megan, would you see that the
first panel people are placed around the table. There are a
couple of chairs there. We just need one more chair. Unless you
can sit on each other's lap.
All right, please proceed, Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
A question for Mrs. Davidson. You had given quite an
extensive overview about the potential impacts of climate
change. In that assessment is there going to be an effort to
try to estimate the cost of these adaptation strategies? And
also, looking at also what the impact is on the value that we
place in our fish and wildlife populations, and obviously they
are in a lot of different levels of value, but in other words
to try to look at what those costs are versus the value?
Ms. Davidson. I believe you actually asked three different
questions, Congressman. On the value of our fish and wildlife
populations, at least the coastal component of that, I do
believe that there are some efforts underway to do that on a
more comprehensive basis. We usually tend to do that almost on
a species by species basis.
And I would submit that actually I would need to get with
my colleagues at this table and elsewhere to address that
question. We have, NOAA funded something called the National
Ocean Economics Program for the last five years but it does not
focus on the fish and wildlife so much as the 2-legged critter
side of coastal ecosystems.
On your second question you asked about the cost of
implementation. While you were out of the room making the vote
we discussed actually at my panel the importance of the 3-prong
strategy: the science, the development of the strategic plans,
and then getting to the action. And we do not yet have an idea
of the cost of action because we do not yet have at all levels
of government comprehensive strategies. It is in the developing
of those strategy plans at all levels of government that we
could actually begin to have an idea of what the actual costs
of action or implementation might be.
I do know in a recent informal conference call in which we
discussed the importance of quantifying these issues we did
talk about we thought at least from a coastal perspective
entirely, developing coastal adaptation plans that we were
probably back of the envelope talking about something on the
order about $60 to $70 million just to develop the basic
frameworks. And again, the cost of actually implementing that
would depend upon the content of those plans.
But if you were to give the Feds $60 million I think we
could get on that comprehensive adaptation planning process
right away.
Mr. Wittman. Would that be $60 million to NOAA or $60
million to the agencies across the board?
Ms. Davidson. Well, I am afraid it was kind of a NOAA-
centric conversation.
Mr. Wittman. I just wanted to make sure I was clear.
Ms. Davidson. No, I think it is an important question to
ask. And one that I think that the interagency community should
actually take up as soon as possible.
Mr. Wittman. Let us say in a perfect world that $60 million
were available do you know the time frame in which you could
put together this implementation strategy or when that would be
ready for you to, or if you were to have the dollars how long
would it take you from that point to have an implementation
strategy that you would be ready to go ahead and place some
costs around to recommend what should be done?
Ms. Davidson. Well, let me say, as you know from working on
the committee, the more people you have around the table the
more complex it is to come to a resolution. But we do have some
good examples on the ground, both Fed, state and local
examples. So I am just going to take a flyer on this. If the
money were there I think we could probably see a comprehensive
coastal strategy, now again speaking just from a coastal
management standpoint, I think we could probably do that within
a matter of a few years. By a few years I mean less than five.
Now, getting from the planning process to making things
happen, getting folks to relocate physical infrastructure,
getting people to strategically acquire and create habitat in
areas where we will need them in a few decades, that could take
a little bit longer. And I would at least have to discuss with
Mr. Ashe in order to discuss how we could bring together, for
instance, the Community Restoration Programs of Interior and
NOAA to work in a more strategic way.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
Mr. Whitehurst, if you could talk a little bit about what
you think the level of Federal assistance that is necessary to
assist states that have primary responsibility over all
resident wildlife, if you could give us an idea about what
level of assistance you believe that you would need in order to
make sure that that responsibility is fulfilled over all
resident wildlife in relation to coping with climate change and
adaptation?
Mr. Whitehurst. Congressman Wittman, that is a very good
question. I think the first and most important thing that
Congress, the direction that Congress needs to provide is to
direct that a national adaptation strategy be developed. That
is critical. And I use as a parallel, but on much less
challenging terms, was the state wildlife action plans.
Congress gave the states direction to develop those action
plans. They gave us three years to do it. It took every bit of
three years to do it. It was quite a challenge but it was led
by a very successful collaborative effort between the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the state wildlife agencies.
Something, that type of approach is needed for this issue
but it is much, much larger than anything that we have ever
looked at before. So I think that is the direction that we
need.
Another observation is, you know, now we are in the stage
of trying to implement these wildlife action plans, and while
we have had great reaction from the Federal agencies, including
a very strong endorsement from the Director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, it is very interesting to see, you know,
while the agencies are turning toward these plans they are not
turning fast enough. As Mr. Brunello said earlier, everybody
goes back to their stovepipe. So we really need to have an
adaptation policy strategy that cuts across all different
aspects of Federal Government and state government because we
need to focus in a way that we have never focused before. And,
you know, the Federal Government is a large ship to turn, and
50 states and six territories also a large ship to turn.
So we have to turn together and provide the focus that we
have not done before. We were facing a crisis in wildlife
before we recognized climate change. That crisis is much more
challenging now. And we need to have leadership that we had
with President Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot and those at the turn
of the last century to meet this challenge.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you. An additional question.
The Virginia Wildlife Action Plan that you had mentioned
identifies 900 species in need of increased conservation
efforts. Can you tell us how many of these species are
imperiled by climate change and what other factors are
threatening these species in addition to or exacerbated by
climate change?
Mr. Whitehurst. Well, climate change is affecting most or
all these species in one way or another. However, the primary
stressors for most of them are habitat loss, habitat
fragmentation, and degradation of habitat through pollution,
through introduction of non-native species. So that is really
what we are facing. You know, while we are growing at
exponential rates in terms of population we have been using the
land at a much faster rate than population growth. And we just
really need to look at our consumption land and we need to
develop new land use policies that will help us manage for
these habitat needs.
And I think that is one point that we need to understand,
we have to have the localities at the table, at attention and
helping with this because, as you know, Congressman Wittman,
most land use decisions are made at the local level. And we
will need to have some new land use planning to address this
problem.
Mr. Wittman. You had spoken about non-native species and I
just wanted to get your estimation about how you believe warmer
temperatures affect the spread of non-native or invasive
species?
Mr. Whitehurst. Well, you have quite an effect. You are
seeing across Virginia and with Zebra mussels which we did
successfully eradicate, snakehead fish. We are looking to see
alligators get to our southern border before long, armadillos,
probably fire ants. We have now got didymo, which is actually a
cooler water species. But we are facing tremendous challenges
from invasive species. But we are facing tremendous challenges
from invasive species. And as climates warm these species have
advantage, competitive advantage; as native species are
stressed out and declining it creates an avenue for invasive
species to attack, so to speak, and they do. And we need to
look very seriously at tightening our controls on the transport
of non-native invasive species into this country and across
state borders.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
A question for Ms. Chasis. By the year 2012, China and
India will build some 800 new coal-fired power plants that will
emit approximately 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere. What is the likely impact of these plants on fish
and wildlife species residing in the U.S.? And how should the
international community respond to this issue? I am sorry,
Chasis.
Ms. Chasis. Chasis. That is OK.
Mr. Wittman. My apologies.
Ms. Chasis. Thank you very much, Congressman.
I do not know that I am really in a position to answer that
in full detail. I can certainly consult with my colleagues on
that. But I do know that what happens in China and India has
tremendous impacts on the resources in this country. I mean, a
lot of the climate change impacts that California, for example,
is experiencing are directly attributable to what is going on
in China. And actually, our organization has an office in
Beijing which we opened two years ago for the very purpose of
providing technical assistance and advice to the Chinese
government to help in the reduction of greenhouse gases in that
country and to import some of the lessons learned in this
country about energy efficiency and the promotion of renewables
and try to encourage the promulgation of policies there to that
end.
But internationally certainly in terms of our oceans, you
know, we already, as you know, are seeing tremendously stressed
ocean fish populations as a result of a variety of factors:
over-exploitation, habitat degradation, pollution from land-
based sources principally. And our firm belief is that if these
stressed, already stressed populations are going to be able to
handle the increased impacts of climate change and ocean
acidification which is a very serious problem, we need to
really promote the resilience and restoration of those.
And while you were out taking a vote, I pointed to the
legislation that this Subcommittee reported out, Oceans 21, as
an important step in the direction of promoting the resilience
and health of ocean systems. So I think that is one very
important step that this committee could take to help fish and
wildlife populations deal with the impacts of climate change
and ocean acidification.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Ms. Chasis.
Mr. Ashe, when developing comprehensive conservation plans
are national wildlife refuges considering the potential impact
of climate change? And if so, what are some of the things that
they have in mind in order to, again, develop these adaptive
management strategies?
Mr. Ashe. I think that I will maybe lean on David
Whitehurst's response to say that as managers are developing
comprehensive conservation plans for our national wildlife
refuges they are considering a variety of factors that are
driving wildlife population response. And for the most part
those are things that we, that like habitat fragmentation, like
pollution, like invasive species. And climate change is
certainly an emerging factor that managers are considering.
The managers that are now in the midst of completing
comprehensive conservation management plans, for instance on
the Upper Mississippi River, have been working on those for
probably four, three to four to five years in duration. So
would I say that they have adequately, you know, considered
climate change in the context of those plans based on what we
know today? No, I do not believe they have.
Are they taking steps to consider and deal with climate
change more effectively today than they were three or four or
five years ago? I think, yes, they are by looking at things
like sea level rise, by beginning to think about at least what
we know at the broad scale in terms of temperature and
precipitation change. And managers like Mendel Stewart at San
Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge are thinking about
climate change as they plan large scale restoration projects.
So there is a direction of change that is occurring with
the organization. If we look at comprehensive conservation
management plans that had been developed over the last ten
years since the Refuge Improvement Act was passed, I would say
most of those do not address a changing climate. But that in
itself is changing now.
Mr. Wittman. Ms. Clark, I would like to ask if you could
give us maybe your perspective on that question and how the
development of those conservation plans have an impact and what
your thought is on that?
Ms. Rappaport Clark. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Wittman.
I would in essence agree with Dan generally. When I was at
the Service not that long ago--seems like a long time ago, but
not that long ago--we were dealing, we were confronting, you
know, serious and complex challenges to wildlife in this
country that extended beyond refuge boundaries, working with
the states to deal with issues like habitat, invasive species,
pollution, water shortage. And while, you know, climate change
was in our rear-view mirror it certainly did not have the
visibility and the recognition of its impact that it is now
rightfully enjoying today.
So the plans that came into being post-Refuge Improvement
Act really did not consider that. And the ones in the pipeline
are not considering it to the degree they need to. The
development of comprehensive conservation plans for refuges
also need to be better integrated with the work being done by
the states, the state wildlife action plans, and the planning
work that is being done by the Forest Service and the Park
Service. And so because wildlife certainly do not recognize
borders, as a Federal government the challenge of integrating
the land planning work of the different agencies in concert
with the state action plans and Indian Country, frankly, is
extremely critical.
But I think Dan very tactfully acknowledged that the refuge
system plans have a long way to go. Which needs, frankly, I
think a lot of the challenge, I mean the folks in the Fish and
Wildlife Service are working and doing the best they can with
incredibly limited resources. And the budget cuts over the past
few years and the reduction and compromise to their scientific
capacity I think has really challenged their ability to do what
they know they have to do.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
Dr. Moritz, wildlife has been adapting to various climate
changes for millions of years. And can you tell us a little bit
about what your perspective is about today's wildlife that may
in any way impact its ability to adapt to changes in
temperature that we are seeing today or, actually, the
increases in temperature that we are seeing today?
Mr. Moritz. Well, there will be many species that have
enough mobility in order to adjust their distributions if
indeed their habitat types shift as well. The question will be
primarily on the sufficiency of those habitats as they move up,
down or north and south, depending on where you are at. There
has been a fair amount of concern that that ability of the
species themselves to adjust will not be sufficient. So that
really complicates the issues of the borders of Federal
property or states' properties on whether or not they are large
enough to maintain the habitat types that will be used by these
species.
It really brings to the point something that I have not
heard mentioned yet, and that is that much of the land in the
United States is in private ownership. And those individuals,
individual private owners will need to be involved in this
conversation to a large extent because a great deal of wildlife
is on that private land. There are plenty of incentive programs
in a variety of places for private landowners. I will just use
the conservation title of the Farm Bill as one example. The
state wildlife action plans are another place where there is
tremendous opportunity with partnerships on private landowners.
But because of the concerns with shifting distribution of
habitat types we need to make sure those folks are involved.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, that is all the
questions I have at this time.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Wittman. And I do have just a couple of questions before we go
on with the third panel. Mr. Ashe, I recognize that you are
with the Service and not the department, but perhaps you could
help me with a matter very relevant to today's hearing.
In February, Deputy Scarlett advised the committee that the
department had convened three working groups which prepared
recommendations on steps the Department of Interior could take
to prepare for and address climate change. Notwithstanding
promises from the Deputy Secretary, these reports still have
not been posted on the department's website nor will they share
them with GAO. Do you know when they will be available? And
more importantly, do you know when these recommendations will
actually be incorporated into the Department of Interior
planning efforts?
Mr. Ashe. Chairman Bordallo, I would say first I would want
to take just a moment to commend Deputy Scarlett, Deputy
Secretary Lynn Scarlett for her leadership in convening the
Department of the Interior Task Force on Climate Change. And I
was a member of the DOI Task Force and I sat on one of the
three subcommittees. The subcommittees were Legal and Policy,
Land and Water Manager, and Science. And I sat on the Science
Subcommittee along with a number of colleagues. And I would say
that each of the subcommittees has submitted a report
separately and those three reports are now with the Steering
Committee which consists of bureau directors and assistant
secretaries.
And so that is where the reports are at this point in time.
I do not know when they----
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Ashe, do you have any idea when we will
be able to see the reports?
Mr. Ashe. I do not, Chairman Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. My next question then is to Mr. Whitehurst.
You specifically mentioned the strong state/Federal partnership
that resulted in the development of the state wildlife action
plans and your belief that the wildlife action plans should be
used as a framework for integrating climate change into
wildlife management and planning, saying that it would be the
most cost effective and efficient mechanism. Can you talk more
about why you think this is the best approach?
Mr. Whitehurst. I think for the first time ever all 50
states and the territories have a blueprint for what we need to
do for wildlife management. As stated earlier, climate change
is in many ways an exacerbater to many of the stresses that are
currently being placed on wildlife. Those plans do require us
to identify threats and to develop actions to address those
threats, to monitor and to adapt over periods of time. Those
are the same processes that we need to use in any type of
strategy to deal with climate change.
So I think it is a very good framework. There is nothing
like it in the history of wildlife management to my knowledge.
So I think it does serve as a wonderful body of knowledge that
can be used to address probably the greatest challenge that we
have seen to wildlife in history.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, sir, for that comment.
And I do want to commend members of the panel, you know,
when they say states and territories. That pleases me because
in many instances we are not mentioned.
My third question is to you, Mr. Ashe--or, I am sorry, Ms.
Clark. You point out, as did the GAO and a new report issued
this week by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program that few
Federal land units are addressing the threats of climate change
and incorporating it into their planning. The refuge system
seems to be a prime example of this. And why do you think that
is and what can we do about it in the short term to kick-start
this effort?
Ms. Rappaport Clark. Well, the easy answer is money. But
let me elaborate. The refuge system is really kind of a
fantastic suite of lands that were set aside where wildlife
comes first. So one could argue they should be a great kind of
foundational anchor for work on wildlife and climate change
adaptation. The fact of the matter is, though, the budget for
the refuge system while it has been increasing is woefully
inadequate to address the demands of wildlife and conservation
challenges facing this nation. And, indeed, we have watched the
kind of decline in biologists and certainly the decline in
scientific capacity in that agency.
That is serious. It is not lack of will, it is lack of
capacity. And so the ability to lift up and take it beyond just
individual units and look at a national strategy, it is a
national wildlife refuge system made up of five hundred and
something plus units that should feed into a national strategy.
This will become very cost ineffective and inefficient for
wildlife if we reinvent the wheel over and over and over, which
is why there has been a lot of discussion about the need for a
national conservation strategy that guides all of our work,
Federal work, state and territory work, and the private
initiatives dealing with global warming.
Ms. Bordallo. You also mention the need for a Global
Warming Science Center. Now why would that be necessary when
all the agencies are working on research?
Ms. Rappaport Clark. Well, I think it is a stretch to say
all the agencies are working on research. Though it----
Ms. Bordallo. Well, the majority maybe.
Ms. Rappaport Clark. OK. There is a fair amount of science
going on. But if you were to kind of look at the science
capacities of these bureaus in the Federal Government today
they are incredibly unbalanced. And while I might show some
bias to the Fish and Wildlife Service for obvious reasons, the
science capacity, Dan notwithstanding, the science capacity of
the Service is not anywhere near equipped to meet the
challenges of the work necessary to support the management and
policy decision making of these wildlife biologists.
A National Science Center I think we believe is also
extremely important and would be helpful to provide a
foundation of knowledge and monitoring inventory protocol kind
of opportunity for the states and territories that too are
evolving and working on their plans as it relates to climate
change.
Having a central repository focuses budget, focuses
outcomes and ensures collaboration and coordination.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, I do agree with you, I believe in
centralization you know, and if we are all going in different
directions, so it makes sense to me.
And I want to thank all of the witnesses on the second
panel. And we will now invite the third panel to come forth.
I would like to welcome the third panel at this morning's
public hearing, The Honorable Kaush Arha, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, United States
Department of the Interior; Dr. John Robinson, Executive Vice
President for Global Conservation Programs at the Wildlife
Conservation Society; Mr. Tom Dillon, Senior Vice President for
Field Programs at the World Wildlife Fund; Mr. Patrick
Burchfield, Director of the Gladys Porter Zoo; and Mr. Juan
Pablo Arce, Director of Latin America and the Caribbean
Programs for NatureServe. I would like to welcome all of our
witnesses this morning, and thank you very much for being here
with us.
And, Mr. Arha, you will be the first one we will hear from.
And congratulations on your new position. Please begin. And
remember, gentlemen, the timing, five minutes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF KAUSH ARHA, PH.D., DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Arha. Well, good morning and thank you, Madam Chair. I
am Kaush Arha, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife
and Parks for Department of the Interior.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R.
4455, to present the Administration's strong support for the
legislation. I offer my deep appreciation to the Chair and
Subcommittee members for their continued leadership on
international conservation programs, and to Congressman Young
for introducing H.R. 4455.
This committee and the Congress have led the way in
directing our nation's invaluable efforts in international
wildlife conservation. The citizens of the United States and
the world are the beneficiary of your leadership on this issue.
Secretary Kempthorne and Assistant Secretary Laverty
appreciate your leadership and have placed a high priority on
international wildlife conservation and Fish and Wildlife
Service's Wildlife Without Borders program. Secretary
Kempthorne has been personally engaged in our Wildlife Without
Borders initiative and has just returned from a visit to
Tanzania where he saw firsthand the real impact of our
programs. I was with him, Madam Chair. And while we were there
we had a chance to visit with the President of Tanzania, Mr.
Kikwete. And he told us and asked for the assistance from the
Secretary on the anti-poaching program that they are trying to
put forth in that country.
We met with the Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism
and she asked for assistance on developing tourism for that
country which is now the number one industry in that particular
country and Americans are the biggest sort of group that are
the tourists in Tanzania.
We met with the Director of Wildlife Division of Tanzania
and they sought our assistance in working with wildlife
corridors between the parks and how we can help them.
And then we went down to the conservator of the Ngorongoro
Conservation Authority and he thanked the Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife Service providing them with the night vision
goggles that helps all the rangers who are 24 hours protecting
the 19 black rhinos that we have in that crater at the moment.
So we look forward to working with our Tanzanian colleagues
on all those fronts.
Madam Chair, I wanted to introduce our Wildlife Without
Borders Programs with this Tanzanian episode. And I am proud to
be here and state that that program is working and working very
well and following your lead in international conservation as
we go forth. It is a program that has developed over the last
30 years and complements the direction that the Congress and
this committee has provided with the multi-national species
conservation programs in protecting African rhinos, African
elephants, Asian elephants, tigers, great apes and marine
turtles.
Let me give you a good example of how this program
complements those. While I was in Africa in Arusha I went to
Mawaka where there is a college, African College for Wildlife
Conservation and Management. And I met very young, fine
wildlife managers from four countries, from Rwanda, from
Southern Sudan, from Kenya and Tanzania. And these fine young
people are fighting one of the biggest issues that is
confronting Tanzania and Africa which is bush meat, illegal
trading and practice of bush meat.
And it is very funny, back in 1900 we had a similar
situation here. We used to call it market hunting before we
came up with the Lacey Act and tried to address it. Similar
challenges are being faced by these people and there is no
other country and there is no other service that is better
positioned to address these because Fish and Wildlife and we
have been at it for the last 100 years and have the rich
experience of learning from our mistakes and sharing those so
others do not have to repeat it.
The Wildlife Without Borders program, as I mentioned, has
started off and come to age over the last 30 years. It provides
a comprehensive and strategic view of addressing the pressing
wildlife conservation needs that are there. And the way we do
it is a 3-pronged strategy. We focus on the species, under your
leadership again, on the species that we have the fund on. And
we complement that with broad regional and national programs
through the regional, national and also global programs. I
think since 1995 we have given or awarded grants in excess of
$18 million under this program. Now, those $18 million have
leveraged in excess of $54 million. So we are talking about a
match in the leverage of more than 1 to 3 of a ratio. In short,
I think we are delivering one of the most cost-effective, on-
the-ground conservation efforts with our Wildlife Without
Borders program.
Now, having said that one has to make the case, and I am
here to do that, that this program has earned its reputation
and deserves your recognition as it goes forward. And if it got
your recognition it will be the better for it, and so will be
the countries that benefit from this particular program.
I would shortly also mention that in my humble opinion we
are talking about wildlife conservation overseas
internationally, and we look at what the challenges are. We
have gone through a phase of developing and marking protected
areas and national parks. We have gone through a phase after
that in working with our community natural resources to work
with the communities around these protected areas. But the
challenge we face now is to work with wildlife and humans where
they coexist. This is the land between the protected areas
where a lot of wildlife is, and a lot of these big animals like
the elephants, like the rhinos, like the tigers need to go
through from one protected area to another. And that is the
issue that we have confronting and a challenge we need to face.
I come from Wyoming. Where is the wildlife in this great
nation that we have? We have one of the greatest wildlife
resources of anywhere in the world. But most of that is not in
our parks or our refuges, most of them are out there on private
lands or in the multi-use public lands, Forest Service lands or
BLM lands. When I drive from Cheyenne to Cody that is where
most of the deer and antelope in Wyoming are, not in
Yellowstone Park. That is the challenge we have in these
countries like Tanzania, India and Latin American countries.
And nobody else has managed this wildlife over multiple
jurisdiction lands where human beings and their activities are
given due and equal consideration as wildlife than the United
States has, both at the state and Federal level. That is what
we have to offer as we go forward.
One other thing I will mention before I conclude. One of
the great things that our Wildlife Without Borders program does
is grow leaders. It grows young leaders in these places that
can go forth with wildlife management. I have behind me sitting
Dr. Herbert Rafael. He started the first Master's program in
Latin America. Today there are 500 graduates from that program
having a Master's Degree in wildlife. And I have one of the
theses in my hand that talks about how best to sustainably
harvest whistling duck eggs so that you can preserve the
population and also use the eggs at the same time.
We started the Wildlife Institute of India, developing all
the wildlife leaders in India that came out of that particular
program. And I talked to you about the mentor program early on.
So I would conclude by saying it is a good program. We
appreciate your support. And we can do a lot more as we go
forward. Thank you again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arha follows:]
Statement of Dr. Kaush Arha, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of the
Assistant Secretary, Fish, Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the
Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Administration's views
on H.R. 4455, the Wildlife Without Borders Authorization Act. The
Administration would like to express its support for this legislation.
H.R. 4455 recognizes the crucial role that the United States plays in
the conservation of wildlife and natural resources around the globe.
Wildlife and natural resources are under pressure from growing
human populations and corresponding changes in land use, pollution, and
consumption of natural resources. The complexity and diversity of these
challenges require a coordinated approach led by skilled natural
resource managers. Unfortunately, many countries containing the highest
levels of biodiversity are faced with a shortage of wildlife
professionals who have the capacity to lead multifaceted strategies to
address the most pressing threats to wildlife.
Protection of domestic wildlife also requires internationally
coordinated actions. Many migratory species in the United States,
including 340 species of migratory birds, rely on foreign soils to
complete some part of their seasonal cycles. In fact, approximately 30
percent of the species covered by the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
occur primarily outside of the United States. In addition, our native
animals are increasingly exposed to the possibly devastating effects of
zoonotic diseases that can be introduced through trade and human
travel. These problems are best addressed in the countries where they
begin.
Long-term, sustained wildlife management, capacity building,
endangered species conservation, strategic habitat conservation and
environmental outreach, education, and training are tools that can
address emerging issues in wildlife conservation. The United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is in a strong position to
influence and shape the outcome of wildlife conservation abroad, using
expertise in management of refuges, fisheries, endangered species as
well as employment of law enforcement techniques and the best available
technologies.
Since its inception, the Wildlife Without Borders program's goals
have been to initiate, facilitate, and promote meaningful conservation
efforts across the globe to help ensure conservation of the world's
diverse species. The first conservation grants issued under the program
were awarded through the Wildlife Without Borders-Latin America and the
Caribbean program, to implement the Convention on Nature Protection and
Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere and to provide
expertise in wildlife and habitat conservation throughout the region.
Since that time, the program has supported more than 800 conservation
projects around the world.
Wildlife Without Borders projects provide critical capacity
building to participants from small grassroots organizations to high
level government officials. Through the Wildlife Without Borders
program the first Masters level graduate program in conservation in
Latin America was created and has since graduated over 400 students.
Similarly, in India, Wildlife Without Borders financially and
technically supported the creation of the Wildlife Institute of India,
which trains all of the nation's wildlife resource managers. The
program also created RESERVA, the first regional program for training
protected areas managers of Latin America and the Caribbean.
Wildlife Without Borders also serves a key role within the Service
in facilitating bilateral and multilateral dialogues through
organization of fora such as the United States-Russian Federation Joint
Committee on Cooperation for Protection of the Environment and Natural
Resources; the Western Hemisphere Migratory Species Initiative; and the
US-Mexico-Canada Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem
Conservation and Management. These fora offer government
representatives from various countries opportunities to share
experiences, develop best practices and coordinate international
wildlife conservation efforts. The Service, through participation in
such meetings, has developed an understanding of techniques used around
the world and can better facilitate technology transfer, making
wildlife conservation more efficient and effective.
H.R. 4455
H.R. 4455 would codify the Wildlife Without Borders Program,
incorporating various activities of the Division of International
Conservation, such as the Multinational Species Conservation Funds and
the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, into a more unified and cohesive
Wildlife Without Borders program. This should provide a coordinated
approach toward existing and emerging international threats to wildlife
and natural resources at varying scales.
H.R. 4455 creates three sub-programs that will operate in concert
with one another to address threats at the appropriate level. The
Wildlife Without Borders Species program will implement the
Multinational Species Conservation Acts and their associated grants
programs. The Species Program currently allows specialists to share
information, conduct research, and implement management activities on a
species by species basis.
The Wildlife Without Borders Regional Program will address grass-
roots wildlife conservation problems from a broader, landscape
perspective using capacity building and institutional strengthening as
primary tools. It will also take the lead in providing assistance to
and coordinating with other Service programs in conducting
international activities. While the Service is already involved in such
efforts, H.R. 4455 will provide additional flexibility in establishing
conservation partnerships.
As noted above, under H.R. 4455, the Wildlife Without Borders
Global Program will implement global habitat and conservation
initiatives such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and the
Convention for Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the
Western Hemisphere. This program will assist the Service in addressing
threats to wildlife that are global in nature, such as the spread of
invasive species and wildlife disease.
The Service has actively cultivated strong relationships with other
Federal agencies, states, foreign governments, academic institutions
and non-governmental organizations around the world. The three-pillared
approach formalized in H.R. 4455 will allow the Service to support
these relationships in a holistic and comprehensive manner.
H.R. 4455 also authorizes additional components that could
strengthen the role of the Service in international conservation, such
as advisory committees that could help ensure that all Wildlife Without
Borders activities are strategically developed and implemented. These
committees could also provide a venue for information sharing and gap
analysis to help ensure that the Service's International Conservation
program remains effective and complementary to the work of other
federal agencies, state and foreign governments, and outside
organizations.
International conservation of natural resources is a complex task.
H.R. 4455 creates a balanced approach to addressing serious global
wildlife conservation problems while strengthening the Service's
ability to effectively partner with institutions involved in
international wildlife conservation. This approach will support
efficient use of human and financial resources, development of
effective conservation strategies and sustained commitment of partners
in maintaining wildlife resources. For these reasons, we support the
legislation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4455. I would be
happy to answer any questions at this time.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Arha, for
very interesting testimony. And your complete testimony will be
entered into the official record.
I please remind the panelists because of the hour in the
day that we stick to the five minute time.
Our next speaker will be Dr. Robinson to testify for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ROBINSON, PH.D., EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
GLOBAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY
Mr. Robinson. Madam Chair, Congressman Wittman, thank you
very much for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4455. I am
John G. Robinson, Executive Vice President of Conservation and
Science with the Wildlife Conservation Society which is
headquartered at the Bronx Zoo. Over our more than 100 year
history we have established some or helped establish some 150
national parks, and today help manage scores of others. We work
to save some of the world's most iconic wildlife species across
their whole geographic range. Accordingly, we have a keen
interest in Wildlife Without Borders Act.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service International Program is
really a leader in the conservation of global priority species.
The Service's cost-efficient programs have built technical and
management capacity, they have leveraged private and corporate
philanthropy and engaged other Federal agencies in efforts to
conserve wildlife species. The impact of the Service has been
enhanced with the multinational species conservation funds
which have funded the protection of tigers, rhinoceros, great
apes, elephants and sea turtles.
I would like to offer three brief points on these funds.
The first is to stress that the enactment of the Wildlife
Without Borders Act should not replace the U.S. Government's
commitment to these species funds.
The second is a plea to increase budget allocations to
these funds which are authorized at about $30 million. But only
appropriations in Fiscal Year 2008 have reached about $8
million.
And third, the Wildlife Conservation Society urges
augmenting these single species efforts with a comprehensive
approach to conserve flagship or priority species. And I joint
with my colleague from World Wildlife Fund in submitting to the
record a joint statement to that effect. The United States has
a longstanding commitment to assist other countries with the
conservation of global priority species through the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. And this regional program has trained
wildlife professionals around the world in the skills necessary
to manage their resources.
Kaush has mentioned some of these and I will mention some
of them again. I have a personal involvement over the years in
the establishment and support of the training programs in Costa
Rica, Brazil, Venezuela and Argentina. I have worked with the
programs in India. The International Program was responsible
for the establishment and support of the Wildlife Institute of
India, among other initiatives.
The Wildlife Conservation Society would recommend
continuing to support the successful grant program in Africa,
maintaining the effective regional programs in Mexico and Latin
America. And we are starting the Asia program, especially in
India. In Asia, burgeoning populations and expanding economies
lead to dwindling natural resources. And the Asian traditional
trade does prey on bears for their gall bladders, tigers for
their bones, and rhinos for their horns.
In order for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
effectively administer these regional programs our
recommendation is the authorized funding level should be at
least $30 million.
In addition to these regional programs, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's global programs have strong capacity to
develop strategies to address global threats to conservation
like climate change, invasive species, emerging wildlife
diseases and wildlife trade. Let me comment on some of these.
Wildlife disease spreads as natural habitat is destructed
and there is increased contact between wildlife and domestic
animals. The great risk to wild populations from emerging
diseases spread through the trade is evidence in part by
disease-related declines in 43 percent of all amphibian species
worldwide. Perhaps 60 percent of these emerging diseases are
zoonotic diseases that pass from animals to people: Asian
influenza, HIV/AIDS, Ebola, West Nile Virus.
Second, the illegal wildlife trade and unsustainable
hunting of wildlife poses critical threats to biodiversity
around the world. A voracious appetite for almost anything that
is large enough to be eaten, potent enough to be turned into
medicine, or lucrative enough to be sold is stripping wildlife
from wild areas.
Climate change, as we have already heard today, directly
threatens wildlife species. Up to 10 percent of the world's
biodiversity may be directly threatened with extinction over
the next 100 years.
So the Wildlife Conservation Society recommends that this
act can help build capacity for wildlife disease monitoring and
surveillance, that the Service also has the capacity to
coordinate the U.S. Government's initiatives toward illegal
wildlife trade and coordinate efforts to mitigate impact on
climate change.
The U.S. Government invests significantly in global
biodiversity conservation through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, through the U.S. Agency for International Development
and the like. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
International Program is ideally positioned to help develop new
relationships and strengthen existing ones among U.S.
Government agencies.
I appreciate the opportunity to come before you to share my
perspective. And the Wildlife Conservation Society appreciates
the continued support provided by the U.S. Government to
wildlife conservation. And we strongly support the
reauthorization of the Wildlife Without Borders Act.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]
Statement of Dr. John G. Robinson, Executive Vice President,
Conservation and Science, Wildlife Conservation Society
Madame Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you very much
for the opportunity to testify on the H.R. 4455, Wildlife Without
Borders Act. I am Dr. John G. Robinson, Executive Vice President,
Conservation and Science with the Wildlife Conservation Society, which
was founded with the help of Theodore Roosevelt in 1895 as the New York
Zoological Society. Headquartered at the Bronx Zoo, WCS seeks to
conserve wild lands and wildlife, and we operate in 64 countries around
the world. Over our more than 100 year history, we have helped
establish more than 150 national parks, and today help manage scores of
others. We work to save some of the world's most charismatic wildlife
species across their whole geographic range. Accordingly, we have a
keen interest in the Wildlife Without Borders Act.
The Wildlife Conservation Society would like to thank Don Young (R-
AK), the Ranking Member of the Full Natural Resources Committee for
introducing this piece of legislation and the Subcommittee Chair,
Congresswoman Bordallo (D-GU) and the Members of the Subcommittee for
recognizing the need and urgency expressed in the Wildlife Without
Borders Act. The Act will provide additional support for global
priority species and landscape level conservation beyond our own
borders, and recognizes the sentiments of the American people about the
desperate urgency to conserve the last remaining wildlife and wild
places of our planet. The Wildlife Without Borders Act both strengthens
in-country wildlife management and global initiatives to address key
threats to species conservation, such as climate change, emerging
wildlife diseases, human wildlife conflict, and the impact of
extractive industries on wildlife habitats.
Congressional authorization for the Wildlife Without Borders
program affirms the leadership of the U.S. Government within the
international community, underscoring our commitment to our
international wildlife treaty obligations, and encouraging coordinated
international efforts to save wildlife species. Passage of this
legislation supports the objectives of species conservation and
capacity building of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
We should conserve wildlife species because they are integral to
the functioning of the ecological systems upon which we all depend,
they are prized across most cultures, and they are critical to many of
the economic relationships that link people with nature. Species are
threatened by deforestation, habitat loss, over hunting and fishing,
emerging diseases, and the dislocations wrought by climate change. Many
of the most critically threatened species are found in the developing
countries of Africa, Asia and South America, and as citizens of the
world, we have a collective duty to protect this planet's biological
richness. The passage of this legislation will take us a step closer in
that direction. The Wildlife Without Borders Act will complement
existing species and landscape-based initiatives and strengthening
partnerships between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and local
governments, conservation organizations, other federal agencies
mandated to assist with global biodiversity conservation
My testimony recognizes that the Wildlife Without Borders Act will
backstop existing U.S. Government commitments to the Multinational
Species Conservation Funds through the support of programs of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to strengthen management capacity in
countries with globally important species. That capacity is essential
if we are to address global threats to wildlife species.
Wildlife Without Borders Program--Species Program
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service International Program is
recognized as being a leader is the conservation of global priority
species, those species which are biologically, culturally, and socio-
economically important, and which are subject to both anthropogenic and
natural threats. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has provided both
funding and technical support to countries around the world. Its cost
efficient programs have built technical and management capacity,
leverage private and corporate philanthropy, and engaged other federal
agencies in efforts to conserve wildlife species.
The impact of the USFWS International Program has been enhanced
with the Multinational Species Conservation Funds, which, starting in
1990, has funded successful programs for the protection of tigers,
rhinoceros, great apes, elephants and sea turtles. Thanks to the
support of Chairwoman Bordallo (D-GU), Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM) and Rep.
Henry Brown (R-SC) the House of Representatives has passed a bill just
last month to develop another species program for great cats and rare
canids.
With your permission, I would like to offer three brief points on
the Multinational Species Conservation Funds. The first is to make
clear that the enactment of the Wildlife Without Borders Act should in
no way impact the implementation or limit or reduce the authorization
levels of the existing and pending species funds. The second is a plea
to increase budget allocations for these funds. Existing Multinational
Species Conservation funds have authorized funding levels totaling $30
million, but only recently have reached $8 million in the FY08 Interior
Appropriations Act. Actual funding levels for existing programs need to
be at or near authorized levels. And third, the Wildlife Conservation
Society urges a more comprehensive approach to species conservation,
augmenting single species or single taxa efforts, with a flexible
approach to conserve ``flagship'' or priority species. I know that with
an appropriate commitment of staff and resources a science-based
strategy for prioritizing conservation funding for global priority
species and the cross-cutting threats to conservation, including but
not limited to climate change, emerging wildlife disease and wildlife
trade, can be developed.
Wildlife Without Borders Program--Regional Program
The United States has a long-standing commitment to assist other
countries with the conservation of global priority species. Training
wildlife professionals with the skills necessary to manage these
resources is a hallmark of science-based conservation. The Wildlife
Without Borders Act emphasizes the focal role capacity building in
foreign countries plays in promoting conservation action.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service International Program, beginning
in the 1980s, helped establish and support, both technically and
financially, graduate training programs in wildlife conservation in
Costa Rica, Brazil, Venezuela and Argentina. These programs have
provided the foundation for the growing management capacity in Latin
America. In India, the International Program was responsible (through
its management of India's repayment in rupees of PL 480 humanitarian
assistance) for the establishment and support of the Wildlife Institute
of India, as well as conservation assistance to local non-governmental
organizations, state governments and private entities. Strong national
programs for the conservation of such species as the tigers, Asian
elephants, and Asian lions, were the direct result of this support.
The Wildlife Conservation Society has a long history of working
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service International Program. Let me
give one recent example. The northern part of Guatemala, an area known
as the Peten, is home to the multi-use Maya Biosphere Reserve,
established in 1990 to protect approximately 16,000 kilometers of
Guatemalan forests. This is the largest protected area in Mesoamerica,
and home to more than 95 species of mammals and 400 species of birds.
WCS has worked with local partners for over 15 years to protect the
wildlife and forests of northern Guatemala from a wide range of threats
such as forest fires, unsustainable agricultural expansion, wildlife
poaching and poorly planned large-scale development projects. With the
help of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, WCS has been able to: (1)
plan and monitor the sustainable extraction of non-timber forest
resources, including local wildlife management initiatives; (2) train
local people in field research, fire fighting and vigilance skills; and
(3) monitor populations of key wildlife species.
The Wildlife Without Borders Act should continue to support a
successful grant program in Africa, a continent characterized by
stunning wildlife species living in a huge range of ecosystems, but
where many governments lack the capacity to steward their natural
resources. The result is that pressures for short-term results to
improve living standards often trump sustainable management options.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service International Program has used its
limited resources wisely to increase human and institutional capacity,
mitigate the impact of extractive industries, address issues of the
illegal trade in bushmeat, and develop species specific conservation
programs.
The Wildlife Conservation Society would recommend restarting the
regional program in Asia, which closed with the exhaustion of PL 480
funds in 2002. Across Asia, ancient cultures and religions evolved with
a deep respect for, and dependence on, the natural world. Many of
Asia's border regions run along the ridges of some of the world's great
mountain ranges--the Himalayas, Pamirs, Tien Shans, Karakorams, and
Hindu Kush. These ranges serve as both some of the last great wild
places left on earth and home to some of the most majestic wildlife.
The continent contains the last great temperate grasslands left on
earth--the great steppes of the Central Asian states, Mongolia, China,
and Russia--as well as significant tropical forests in South Asia,
South East Asia and Indochina. Everywhere, burgeoning populations and
expanding economies lead to dwindling natural resources. The Asian
medicine trade preys on bears for their gall bladders, tigers for their
bones, and rhinos for their horns. Logging demands destroy forest
habitats that are home to countless rare wildlife species, and local
agriculture draws from watersheds, sucking them dry. And wildlife
markets in Asia have helped spawn emerging diseases, such as SARS, that
represent a global threat to public health, food security, as well as
to conservation itself.
Let me draw on two examples, where the Wildlife Conservation
Society is especially active. An expansion of the Wildlife Without
Borders Regional Program could support institution and capacity
building to help save the unique Pamir Mountains--called ``the roof of
the world''--shared by Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and China.
This region is renowned for spectacular scenery, diverse cultural
traditions, and a great variety of plants and animals. The snow leopard
and the Marco Polo sheep--both symbols of this mountain world--wander
across international borders from one country to another, visible
symbols of a common resource. A regional program could also contribute
to saving Central Asia's great steppes, which represent the last intact
temperate grassland remaining on earth. Here, huge herds of Mongolian
gazelles still number in the millions, moving across the landscape (and
across borders) in a manner comparable to the migratory spectacle of
Alaskan caribou or Serengeti wildebeest. Yet for species like the saiga
antelope, threats have reduced herds once numbering in the millions by
97% in only 15 years.
In order for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service International
Program to effectively administer its Regional Program with the
recommended growth areas in India and Asia the authorized funding level
would need to be at least $30 million or roughly $5 million per
Regional Program.
Wildlife Without Borders Program--Global Program
In furtherance of its mission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
implements initiatives through a variety of domestic laws,
international treaties, and voluntary agreements, and build global
partnerships critical to benefit international wildlife and wildlife
habitat conservation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service International
Programs also works in partnership beyond formal treaties and
agreements to address cross-cutting threats such as emerging wildlife
diseases, climate change, invasive species, wildlife trade, and human-
wildlife conflict. While the section of the bill entitled ``Global
Program'' is crafted in general terms with little criteria, I suggest
that congressional authorization would allow the agency to address
these types of threats with increased capacity and flexibility. Let me
elaborate on three threats in which the USFWS International Program has
a special capacity.
Wildlife Diseases
As natural habitat is disrupted, and there is increased contact
between wildlife and domestic animals, disease have increasingly
threatened wildlife species. The great risk to wild populations from
emerging diseases spread through trade is evidenced in part by the
declines of 43% of all amphibian species worldwide, with one major
cause being Chytridiomycosis, a fungal disease believed to have been
spread by the international trade in African Clawed Frogs. Avian
Influenza threatens a wide variety of different species, often
dramatically. For instance, an estimated between 5% and 10% of the
world population of the barheaded goose (Anser indicus) perished in an
avian influenza outbreak at China's Qinghai Lake in spring 2005. Many
of these emerging diseases (and perhaps 60% of the 1,400 known
infectious diseases) are zoonotic--diseases that can pass from animals
to people. Avian influenza, HIV/AIDS, SARS, Ebola, monkey pox and West
Nile virus are just some examples of the link between the health of
people, domestic animals, wildlife and the environment. More than 35
new infectious diseases have emerged in humans since 1980--one new
infectious disease in humans every 8 months. Consequences of new, more
virulent and mutating pathogens can be devastating for humans and
animals. An estimated 40 million people worldwide live with HIV/AIDS, a
disease that came from wild primates and spread to people through the
consumption of primates, with 3 million AIDS-related deaths reported in
2006. Infectious diseases affect food production, food security and
impact virtually every major global industry--including financial,
travel, trade, and tourism sectors worldwide. In the current avian
influenza crisis, with hundreds of millions of domestic fowl culled to
date, direct economic costs are already in the tens of billions of
dollars.
Emerging wildlife-related disease threats, including but not
limited to those arising at the wildlife / livestock / human interface,
should be addressed at national, regional or global levels as needed
through adequate surveillance, science-based policy and
interdisciplinary response to reduce the risk of negative impacts on
wildlife conservation, livestock agriculture, and/or public health. The
Wildlife Conservation Society recommends that the Wildlife Without
Borders Act strengthen increased capacity building for wildlife
diseases monitoring and surveillance activities and lay the foundation
for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a comprehensive
worldwide wildlife health surveillance system to enhance preparedness.
We believe that the Service is strongly placed to coordinate
interactions and dialogue between other U.S. government agencies,
multilateral institutions, national governments, conservation
organizations, veterinary and medical schools, and other partners.
Illegal Wildlife Trade
The illegal trade and unsustainable hunting of wildlife pose
critical threats to biodiversity around the world. While ecologically
rich tropical forests tend to be the genesis for most of global
wildlife trade, the practice has become extremely pervasive with
illegal wildlife and wildlife products being traded in markets around
the world and often transported to countries such as the United States
in large quantities. The problem has escalated dramatically in recent
years with depleting forests and massive economic development
manifested through construction of roads that have opened up forests to
loggers and other resource extractors. Hunting rates by local people
rise as they hunt increasingly for sale as well as for subsistence, and
as new roads facilitate access to better hunting technologies.
The result is that, across the landscape, both inside and outside
parks and reserves, people are harvesting wild species at ever-
increasing rates. A voracious appetite for almost anything that is
large enough to be eaten, potent enough to be turned into medicine, or
lucrative enough to be sold, is stripping wildlife from wild areas--
leaving empty forests and an unnatural quiet. This not only is a
conservation crisis but also remains a key issue of global health and
security as wildlife and animal products transported around the world
could potentially can transmit serious diseases.
Due to existing U.S. Government and international investment such
as the Coalition Against Wildlife Trade (CAWT) and the Convention on
International Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) a
global effort to curb illegal wildlife trade is currently underway. WCS
recognizes the leadership of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
addressing this crisis through the existing species funds and the
regional programs. I urge this panel to ensure that illegal trade of
wildlife and wildlife products remain a priority concern for the
Wildlife Without Borders Act and support to curb these activities
continue to be funded at maximum levels.
Climate Change
Recent estimates suggest that up to 10% of the world's biodiversity
may be directly threatened with extinction over the next 100 years by
global warming. Mitigating the impact of climate change on wildlife
species will require the maintenance of connectivity across the
landscape. Global warming is a threat equal to deforestation and
habitat loss in many areas. Species living in high latitude and high
altitude environments will be the first to see rapid changes in their
habitat. The iconic Polar bear is just the harbinger of a wider problem
that is already directly affecting the health and persistence of many
species. And of course as climate changes, so does the distribution of
pathogens and the vectors that carry them, reinforcing the importance
of emerging and resurging diseases to conservation, agriculture, and of
course human health and well-being.
Climate change related legislation proposed in both the House and
the Senate have included provisions for wildlife adaptation. Strategies
to direct general revenue generated from the sale of emission
allowances to a Wildlife Adaptation Fund should include both wildlife
in the United States as well as global priority species around the
world. In 2007, WCS joined 20 other member organizations of the
Multinational Species Conservation Funds Coalition to urge Chairman
Rahall to include wildlife adaptation funding though the New Direction
for Energy Independence, National Security and Consumer Protection Act
to benefit key programs administered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
International Program. I include a copy of this letter in the appendix
section of my testimony. Such wildlife adaptation set asides are likely
to generate significant new resources for wildlife related programs,
and I encourage this panel to ensure that programs administered by the
USFWS International Program and outlined in the Wildlife Without
Borders Act continue to be considered in these strategic investment
decisions.
In order for the USFWS to effectively administer its Global Program
with the recommended growth areas to address cross-cutting threats
related to climate change, emerging wildlife disease and illegal
wildlife trade the authorized funding level would need to be at least
$50 million or such sums as are necessary.
Strengthening Coordination of U.S. Government Investment in Wildlife
Conservation
The U.S. government invests significantly in global biodiversity
conservation, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service International
Program, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. State
Department and other agencies. Such investment is important for (1)
directly supporting the conservation of biological diversity, globally
important wildlife species, and significant wild lands and ecosystems,
(2) promoting good governance and management capacity in countries
around the world, and (3) supporting peace and security initiatives.
Supporting and promoting transparent and equitable resource governance
systems has beneficial social, economic, and environmental
consequences, and is an important pathway towards democracy at local,
regional, and national levels.
The success of the Wildlife Without Borders program has
traditionally been in providing support for capacity building, long-
term in-country wildlife management, endangered and migratory species
conservation, strategic habitat and natural area conservation, and
environmental outreach, education and training. Leveraging funds
granted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service International Program has
been one of the hallmarks of the department's success. Since 1990, the
Multinational Species Conservation Funds has provided $73 million in
grants for programs in Africa, Asia and Latin America and leveraged
$225 million in partner contributions. Wildlife Without Borders has
made $18 million in grants and generated $54 million in matching funds.
Grants from the U.S. Government funds can also amplify fund raising
opportunities for other organizations. For example, funding from the
Rhino-Tiger Conservation Fund has been instrumental to the Wildlife
Conservation Society in the development and on-going implementation of
tiger conservation projects across the range of the species. The funds
have directly leveraged private support from the Save the Tiger Fund of
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation which receives funds from
ExxonMobil. In addition, early support from the U.S. Government has
helped WCS develop our Tigers Forever initiative which, in turn, has
garnered commitments of $10 million over the next decade. Leverage can
also be measured through long-term sustainable partnerships. Our
experience working in partnership with implementing agencies of the
Congo Basin Forest Partnership and the Amazon Basin Conservation
Initiative have led us to believe that a coordinated effort in
cooperation with other federal agencies, foreign governments,
international institutions and non-governmental organizations ensures
the maximum utilization of limited financial resources. The Congo Basin
Forest Partnership and the Amazon Basin Conservation Initiative--made
up of a consortium of international institutions, national governments
and international NGOs--has leveraged millions of dollars and has
institutionalized the protection of valuable tropical forests.
Because of the pivotal and catalytic role played by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service International Program, I am confident the Wildlife
Without Borders Act will help develop new relationships and strengthen
existing ones through increased collaboration among U.S. Government
agencies. I also urge the Subcommittee to take note of the success in
leveraging private donations, matching grants and in-kind contributions
by conservation groups, corporations and other private entities.
Conclusion
I appreciate the opportunity to come before this distinguished
panel to share my experiences and expertise on global wildlife
conservation. The Wildlife Conservation Society appreciates the
continued support provided by the U.S. Government to wildlife
conservation, and we strongly support the reauthorization of the
Wildlife Without Borders Act. We also urge that you consider
authorizing a budget of between $30 and $50 million, which would allow
strengthening Regional Programs in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and
develop Global Programs that would be able to address cross-cutting
global threats such as emerging wildlife diseases, the illegal trade in
wildlife species, and climate change. I would be happy to answer any
questions
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Dr. Robinson.
And now, Mr. Dillon, I want to thank you for being here
today to testify on H.R. 4455.
STATEMENT OF TOM DILLON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, FIELD PROGRAMS,
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND
Mr. Dillon. Madam Chair, Representative Wittman, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Tom Dillon, I
am the Senior Vice President at World Wildlife Fund for Field
Programs. For more than 45 years, WWF has been protecting
nature throughout the world. We work in about 100 countries
with the support of six million members worldwide.
Let me begin by recognizing your leadership, Chairwoman
Bordallo, as well as that of Ranking Member Brown, in raising
the profile of species conservation throughout the 110th
Congress. With the series of hearing sand legislation that this
Subcommittee and the Committee as a whole have considered
during this Congress, I think you have done a tremendous job in
advancing U.S. efforts in international species conservation.
From my own observations from spending most of my career
working in international conservation and living outside of
this country I have seen a lot of great examples of the
multinational species funds working. I think one of the
astounding ones, for instance, is Cambodia where tigers are
coming back to eastern Cambodia which is an area that suffered
from 50 years of civil war and strife and which while the
habitat was still there all the mammals basically were killed
off. And they are returning. And that is the Fish and Wildlife
Service support is critical for that.
There are a lot of other examples I could give, some of
them are in my written testimony.
I think the regional program also fulfills a critical need
by providing flexible international conservation funding that
is not targeted at a single species. And it has been really
successful in capacity building. And I think that that was
pointed out well by Dr. Arha in terms of the, for instance, the
mentor program in Africa.
WWF reads this legislation to take the three programmatic
areas of the Fish and Wildlife Service International Program
and place them under one heading of the Wildlife Without
Borders programs. And we see great value in doing that in that
it will foster greater synergy among these programs and greater
consolidation.
While we do not read the bill as subsuming or superseding
the independent authorized levels of the specific species
bills, we hope that there is not any confusion on that point.
We understand the resources provided by this bill to be
additional to those resources. And that they would also not
supersede the baseline funding the Fish and Wildlife Service
receives, that this would be outside of the international
affairs administrative budget.
We think that the $5 million proposed though is far too
low. The $30 million as proposed by Dr. Robinson I think would
be much, much more appropriate. And that most of the new
funding should go into the regional and global programs.
The global program, however, that is proposed in this bill
I think needs more specific language. It appears to be very
useful in terms of providing flexibility to the Fish and
Wildlife Service and to programs that are not already covered
but its language I think needs greater elaboration on scope,
description of activities, priority setting for potential
funding. The language establishing the global program could,
for instance, address some of the global crises we are seeing,
such as the one discussed in the last panel, the climate change
and how it is affecting species.
I think that the disease issue that Dr. Robinson brought up
is also highly, very important. And it ties into a lot of other
issues outside of the environmental field such as national
security when you think about diseases such as Ebola and the
potential for them to reach the U.S. And we can be dealing with
this through species conservation, in fact they are making
efforts to do that already.
So we consider the global program to be a useful addition
to the current Fish and Wildlife Service suite of programs but
not an adequate response. What is needed probably is a new
paradigm for international conservation. And this program could
be considered, the one we are talking about today, a place
holder potentially for further congressional direction and
funding on addressing the current extinction crisis that is
taking place across the planet. But we believe that a broader
approach is necessary and ought to be discussed. WWF would be
very happy and prepared to work with the Subcommittee and
Committee on discussing best ways to address these broader
needs. We would support a separate hearing on a global approach
to species conservation with the goal of developing legislation
consistent with the attachments to this testimony that I have
provided.
In conclusion I would like to thank you for the opportunity
to testify today. My organization would like to endorse this
bill with the suggested changes that I mentioned. There is much
to be gained in authorizing the international conservation
programs of the Fish and Wildlife Service and creating one
umbrella to promote synergies, efficiencies and coordination.
We think it is an important step toward redefining the approach
to international species conservation.
Madam Chair, I cannot emphasize how important your work has
been in protecting some of the world's most endangered and
iconic species. We look forward to working with you and other
members of the Subcommittee and your respective staff on these
most important efforts. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dillon follows:]
Statement of Thomas Dillon, Senior Vice President for Field Programs,
World Wildlife Fund
Madam Chair, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Thomas
Dillon, and I am the Senior Vice President for Field Programs at the
World Wildlife Fund (WWF). For more than 45 years, WWF has been
protecting the future of nature. Today we are the largest multinational
conservation organization in the world. WWF's unique way of working
combines global reach with a foundation in science, involves action at
every level from local to global, and ensures the delivery of
innovative solutions that meet the needs of both people and nature. We
currently sponsor conservation programs in more than 100 countries,
thanks to the support of 1.2 million members in the Unites States and
more than 5 million members worldwide.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss H.R. 4455, the bill being
considered by the Subcommittee that would improve the Wildlife Without
Borders Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
International Affairs Office, and to discuss international species
conservation more broadly.
Let me begin by recognizing your leadership, Chairwoman Bordallo
and Ranking Member Brown, in raising the profile of species
conservation throughout the 110th Congress. With the series of hearings
and legislation that this Subcommittee and the Committee as a whole
have considered during this Congress, you have done a tremendous job in
advancing U.S. efforts in international species conservation. This
includes enactment into law of bills to reauthorize the Rhinoceros and
Tiger Conservation Act and the African Elephant Conservation Act (H.R.
50), sponsored by Rep. Young, as well as to reauthorize the Asian
Elephant Conservation Act (H.R. 465), introduced by Rep. Saxton. It
also includes House passage of the Great Cats and Rare Canids
Conservation Act (H.R. 1464), introduced by Rep. Tom Udall and the co-
chairs of the International Conservation Caucus, as well as the Crane
Conservation Act (H.R. 1771), introduced by Rep. Baldwin, both of which
have moved to the Senate for its consideration. This success would not
be possible without the strong bipartisan support within the Congress
that these programs enjoy, and the exemplary management of these
programs by the FWS. I would also like to take a moment to commend the
staff of the Subcommittee and Committee members for their dedicated
work.
My testimony today will discuss: (1) the overall importance of H.R.
4455 and the Wildlife Without Borders Program; (2) WWF collaboration
with the FWS as a partner in the WWB Program; (3) some specific
comments on the legislation; and (4) lastly, our recommendation that
the Subcommittee begin to consider a new paradigm in international
species conservation, modeled on the existing multinational species
conservation programs, and incorporating the elements of the WWB
program, but on a scale that seeks to address the magnitude of the
extinction crisis now taking place around the world.
The Wildlife Without Borders Program
The Wildlife Without Borders (WWB) Authorization Act, H.R. 4455,
defines the purpose of the bill as:
``to provide capacity building, outreach, education, and
training assistance in endangered species and strategic habitat
conservation to other nations by providing international
wildlife management and conservation programs through the
Wildlife Without Borders Program''.
The WWB Program brings three elements of the FWS international
programs together under a single title. It incorporates the
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF), benefiting African
elephants, rhinoceros and tigers, Asian elephants, great apes, marine
turtles, and potentially soon great cats and rare canids, and cranes.
These programs are referred to as the Species Programs. It also
incorporates the Wildlife Without Borders regional program, which helps
strengthen local wildlife management capabilities and provides
flexibility to FWS in regions not covered by the species programs.
These programs are referred to as the Regional Programs. A third
category addresses the Service's support for international conventions
and treaties, and provides a vehicle for addressing cross-cutting
issues that are not covered by the previous two programs. These
activities are referred to as the Global Programs.
Species Programs. The five mammal and turtle programs of the
Multinational Species Conservation Funds (MSCF) provide funding for
grants to support law enforcement, mitigate human-animal conflicts,
conserve habitat, conduct population surveys, and support public
education programs. The first of these species programs was authorized
in 1989 when Congress passed the African Elephant Conservation Act to
help protect African elephants from rampant poaching for ivory.
Subsequent programs were added as Congress saw the need to protect
other keystone species that were threatened by poaching, habitat
destruction, civil strife, or demand for bushmeat in impoverished
areas.
Since 1990, Congress has authorized five programs at a total of $30
million, while appropriations in Fiscal Year 2008 were $7.9 million.
These programs have an excellent record of leveraging additional funds
from public and private partners. Total funding for the MSCF from FY
1990 to FY 2007 totaled $52 million, and was supplemented by $128
million in matching contributions, a ratio of 2.5 to1. Partners have
included other developed countries, such as Holland, Germany, France,
UK, and the European Union, private corporations like Exxon-Mobil and
Disney, non-government organizations, and host country agencies.
These funds provide critical assistance to struggling species.
Tigers are seriously threatened in India, where populations have fallen
from an estimated 3,600 animals in 2002 to 1,400 today, and in Sumatra,
where poaching and open sale of tiger products continues unabated. In
China, the government is considering lifting the ban on internal trade
in tiger parts to accommodate tiger farmers, an action that would
unleash another round of poaching pressure on these great cats in
neighboring countries.
Asian elephants face ongoing difficulties in South and Southeast
Asia, where reduced habitat and human-animal conflicts over cropland
threaten remaining wild populations. FWS has worked with its partners
to develop innovative solutions--such as the use of domesticated
elephants to guard plantations in India and Indonesia and the use of
chili peppers as a deterrent to elephant depredations around cultivated
areas--which have succeeded in reducing deaths of both animals and
humans. In South Sudan, crucial support from the African Elephant
Conservation Fund allowed for aerial surveys of this war-torn region,
revealing large herds of elephants and migrations of antelope that
rival the Serengeti. The promise of future tourism will contribute to
greater economic security for an area that has seen much civil strife.
This year, the Marine Turtle Conservation Fund (MTCF) is expected
to receive almost 100 qualified proposals totaling more than $5
million, far surpassing the available funding. These projects relieve
pressure on turtles and their eggs on nesting beaches by guarding
against poaching and supporting turtle-based tourism as an alternative
source of local employment. The Great Apes Conservation Act has made
critical contributions to the control of bushmeat hunting and the
spread of wildlife diseases like ebola to humans.
Regional Programs. The Wildlife Without Borders Regional Programs
have focused largely on capacity-building and training to augment
conservation management capabilities in developing countries. The
Regional Programs were initiated in 1995 and have largely benefited
Mexico, Latin America and the Caribbean. Smaller programs in Russia,
China and India have recently been joined by a regional program for
Africa. These programs not only complement the species programs by
providing capacity-building, they also provide added flexibility to the
FWS when conservation needs arise outside the habitat of species
covered by the MSCF. The WWB Regional Programs have enjoyed a
corresponding record of leveraging additional funds from external
partners, having awarded a total of $18 million and generated more than
$54 million in partner contributions.
Global Programs. The third set of programs managed by the USFWS are
the Global Programs, which currently include support for United States
involvement in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the RAMSAR Convention on
Wetlands of International Importance, the Western Hemisphere Migratory
Species Initiative, and other international treaties and conventions.
Participation in these accords provides opportunities for the United
States to exercise leadership in shaping international conservation
policy.
Up until now ``Wildlife Without Borders'' has generally referred to
the Regional Programs of FWS International Affairs. H.R. 4455 would
expand the definition of ``Wildlife Without Borders'' to encompass all
of the international programs of FWS--the Multinational Species
Conservation Funds, the Wildlife Without Borders Regional Program, and
several cross-cutting global initiatives.
Given these distinct responsibilities, we see H.R. 4455 as an
effort to bring the three functions together under a single title, to
supplement existing sources of funding for these activities, to codify
the Regional Programs as a grant program distinct from the
administrative functions of the International Affairs Division, and to
set the stage for a broader global program that would provide greater
flexibility for FWS to respond to conservation needs that are outside
the realm of the species programs or the regional programs.
WWF Collaboration with FWS International Programs
Before commenting on specific aspects of the legislation under
consideration, I'd like to speak for a moment about some of the
partnerships between WWF and FWS through its international programs, in
particular WWF's experience working in collaboration with the
individual species programs and the WWB regional programs.
The grants for individual species conservation come through a
number of separately authorized funds, and while these grants can be
modest in size, their focused nature and their proven ability to
leverage private funding (on the order of 2.5 to 1) has made them
highly effective programs for supporting targeted programs in priority
areas. Through the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, WWF has
partnered with FWS on a number of projects to protect tiger populations
in Asia, including work to update information on populations and
habitat in order to determine what areas will be able to support viable
tiger populations in the future. Particular effort has been focused on
the Indonesian province of Riau on the island of Sumatra, which
supports one of the last remaining habitats for the critically
endangered Sumatran tiger. There were once two other subspecies of
tigers on the Indonesian islands of Bali and Java, but these
populations were driven to extinction over the course of the 20th
century. The last observation of a Javan tiger was recorded in 1976.
Sumatra is now the last stronghold of tigers in Indonesia, and their
future there is uncertain as well, with the Sumatran tiger now
numbering fewer than 400 individuals in the wild.
The main drivers of species loss in this instance are rapid
deforestation and rampant poaching. A recent survey found that tiger
body parts--including teeth, claws, skin, whiskers and bones--were
available for sale in 10 percent of the 326 retail outlets surveyed in
28 cities and towns across Sumatra. These body parts are sold for use
in traditional Chinese medicines and as souvenirs and decorative
pieces. The problem is largely one of law enforcement, with a need for
much more vigorous anti-poaching efforts on the part of Indonesian
authorities. WWF has partnered with FWS to provide accurate and up-to-
date data on tiger distribution and ecology while building local
capacity for tiger conservation. We have also been working to raise
awareness among local communities about the need to protect the last
populations of these great cats before they are gone for good.
Through the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund, WWF has also
partnered with FWS to protect populations of Asian elephants in a
number of priority regions. In Cambodia, WWF has engaged in protected
area management and law enforcement patrols, as well as monitoring and
research in areas containing important elephant populations. At the
same time, WWF has worked to build local capacity for these elephant
conservation efforts. In Nepal's Terai Arc region, WWF has used money
provided by FWS to restore transboundary biological corridors between
Nepal and India, helping to improve elephant habitats, address human
and elephant conflicts in the corridor areas, and increase awareness in
local communities--an important step to prevent such conflicts from
arising. Also in Nepal, WWF has used funding from FWS to treat park
patrol elephants for tuberculosis, which can appear in captive
elephants and subsequently put wild populations at risk of
transmission.
Through the Marine Turtle Conservation Fund, WWF has worked with
FWS to study and protect vulnerable turtle populations in Mexico, the
Caribbean and East Africa. The work undertaken through this Fund has
helped to support community-based conservation projects that strengthen
local capacity for marine conservation as well as local livelihoods.
Some of this funding has also gone towards studying climate change
impacts on marine turtles.
WWF has been a partner with Wildlife Without Borders Regional
Programs on a number of initiatives. Through the WWB Program for Latin
America and the Caribbean, WWF has received funding for a regional
``Train-the-Trainer'' workshop on protected area management in the
Tropical Andes and Amazon region. The workshop, based in Ecuador's
Podocarpus National Park, is helping to teach new skills, techniques,
and methods to park rangers throughout the region. WWB has also helped
to fund a guidebook on ``Migratory Species of the Western Hemisphere''
to support awareness of the Western Hemisphere Migratory Species
Initiative (WHMSI). This document will act as an essential educational
and promotional tool to raise the profile of WHMSI while communicating
the importance of conserving migratory species.
WWF has received significant funding from FWS through the newest of
the WWB regional programs, Wildlife Without Borders--Africa. FWS
launched the Africa regional program in 2007 by awarding a $500,000
grant for the Mentoring for Environmental Training and Outreach in
Resource Conservation (MENTOR) Fellowship Program The grant, which is
one of the largest ever given by FWS, is shared between the Africa
Biodiversity Collaborative Group (ABCG)--a consortium of major U.S.
conservation NGOs with field programs in Africa currently based at
WWF--and the College of African Wildlife Management in Mweka, Tanzania,
established 45 years ago by WWF's founder, former president and
chairman emeritus, Russell E. Train. MENTOR is supporting capacity
building, training and career development of emerging African
conservation leaders in order to build a network of leading wildlife
professionals in East Africa who can develop and implement solutions to
reduce illegal and unsustainable bushmeat exploitation at local,
national and regional levels.
Eight MENTOR Fellows were selected from four East African nations--
Kenya, Southern Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda--and are currently pursuing
academic studies at the College of African Wildlife Management. One-on-
one mentorship is the foundation of the 18-month program. Four highly
experienced African conservation professionals are working side-by-side
with the Fellows to conduct bushmeat assessments, implement field
projects, and draw up plans for interventions in their respective
countries. Upon completion, the Fellows will have received substantial
practical, solutions-based field training, in addition to a post-
graduate diploma.
MENTOR Fellows are currently engaged in conducting bushmeat
assessments and drawing up plans for interventions in their respective
countries. Among the planned interventions that Fellows are working on
are education and awareness campaigns targeted at both local and urban
markets for bushmeat, and efforts to expand and enforce wildlife laws.
In some formerly war-torn areas, such as Southern Sudan, there are
programs underway to train unemployed ex-combatants to become paid park
rangers, providing a double benefit by helping to achieve conservation
goals through wildlife protection while at the same time helping to
achieve security goals by reducing the potential for armed conflict and
stabilizing East African communities. These programs will be greatly
enhanced by Fellows who have trained in the MENTOR Program and who can
return to their home countries to act as mentors themselves while at
the same time having access to a network of East African wildlife
professionals who are working to combat the bushmeat trade on a
regional basis.
The MENTOR Program, which involves the collaboration of U.S.
experts with environmental NGOs, African institutions, and wildlife
professionals from throughout East Africa, provides a clear example of
the strength of the regional approach employed by FWS through the
Wildlife Without Borders Regional Programs. It was recently highlighted
by Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne in his address at the
Opening Ceremony of Sullivan Summit VIII, attended by thousands of
people including many African heads of state, and broadcast live on
national TV in Tanzania on 2 June 2008.
Projects currently pending include building the capacity of
government agencies and NGOs in the Ruvuma Wilderness of Tanzania and
other ecoregions in East Africa to use Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) as a guide to their decisions regarding wildlife and protected
area management. Another would build and enhance the capacity of women
currently working in protected area management and conservation in the
Democratic Republic of Congo, in order to provide them with training
focused on human/wildlife conflicts, illegal trade in bushmeat,
wildlife/livestock diseases, and alternative sources of livelihoods for
communities living around protected areas.
In WWF's experience, the species program has many decades of proven
success, and the regional program has fulfilled a crucial need by
providing flexible international conservation funding that is not
targeted at any one species or habitat, but which can be used in a
broader regional context. The regional program has been particularly
successful in supporting capacity building, education and training on a
regional and local scale--a critical component for bringing about a
culture of conservation in those developing countries where WWB-funded
projects are underway. It is only by creating a homegrown capacity for
conservation in developing countries, by instilling an appreciation of
the globally important biodiversity found in those countries and its
value to local communities, and by ensuring the desire among local
individuals to preserve their natural heritage that any conservation
efforts can be confident of success over the long-term. Through its
regionally focused Wildlife Without Borders Program, FWS has done much
over the past twelve years to bring us closer to that goal.
WWF Comments on the Legislation
WWF reads H.R. 4455 to take the three programmatic areas of FWS
responsibility for international conservation and place them under the
one heading of the Wildlife Without Borders Programs. The bill would
define the Wildlife Without Borders Program as an umbrella for the
Species Programs, the Regional Programs and the Global Programs. As
noted above, we see great value in tying the three programs together,
in that it will foster greater synergy among the programs, and greater
consolidation and coordination of efforts towards international species
conservation within the FWS.
However, we are concerned that it may cause at least initial
confusion among Congressional supporters of the Multinational Species
Conservation Funds when they are renamed as the WWB Species Programs,
and the erstwhile WWB Regional Programs lend their name to the new
umbrella structure. We do not see renaming as an insurmountable
problem, but are concerned that the MSCF might be compromised by
shifting these well-established programs into a broader collective.
This might be addressed by amending the bill language to clarify the
relationship of these programs, and it certainly can be addressed
through report language if the bill is approved by the Subcommittee and
full Committee.
More to the point, while we do not read the bill as subsuming or
superseding the independent authorized levels of the existing MSCF
laws, we do not want there to be any confusion on this point. We
understand that the resources provided by this bill would be additional
to the resources already authorized for the MSCF, and are intended to
provide additional support for FWS international conservation efforts
beyond what they get in MSCF line-item appropriations, and what they
get in baseline funding. To this end, we recommend that the funding
authority in this bill be increased to $15 million.
We support the codification of the WWB Regional Program as a
separate program outside the International Affairs administrative
budget. A higher profile will inevitably draw more attention to the
essential need for grants for local capacity building and emphasize the
complementarities of these programs with the species programs. The
Regional Programs provide greater flexibility to address a broader
range of species and issues than are covered by the formal species
programs. We recommend that the funding authorized in this bill be
directed primarily to increasing the available resources for the
Regional Program.
The Global Program proposed in this bill would expand the current
range of International Affairs activities beyond the support of
international treaties and conventions, and would provide a vehicle for
addressing cross-cutting issues as a complement to activities under the
Species and Regional Programs. This would provide useful flexibility to
FWS in implementing conservation programs that are not currently
covered by the Species Program or located in regions covered by the
Regional Programs. However it its current form, the language in Section
4(b)(3) of the bill could benefit by greater elaboration on scope,
description of activities, and priority-setting for potential funding.
Education efforts and the use of tool-kits, and enforcement training
efforts certainly have a global significance and might be improved and
made more efficient if they were coordinated through a global program.
A sense of other activities that might fall under the Global Program
would be valuable. In addition, the language establishing the Global
Program would need to address the global crises affecting species.
There is none more profound than climate change, and we recommend that
the Global Program specifically include activities addressing the
impacts of climate change.
We consider this Global Program to be a useful addition to the
current FWS suite of programs, but not an adequate response to the need
for a new paradigm for international conservation. This Program can
only be considered a placeholder for further Congressional direction
and funding on addressing the current extinction crisis that is taking
place across the planet.
Recommendations for a New Paradigm in International Species
Conservation
H.R. 4455 takes the status quo and improves it in terms of the FWS
programs currently in existence. However, a new paradigm for species
conservation is needed, one that evolves from the current single-
species programs and a focus on implementing terms for individual
grants programs, towards one that embraces a strategic vision towards
species conservation worldwide, with adequate resources to accomplish
that vision.
Several efforts have been made to craft a bill that would take an
omnibus approach to species conservation, including the Keystone
Species Conservation Act of 1999 and the Flagship Species Conservation
Act of 2004. While to be praised for taking the initiative towards a
broader approach, these initiatives did not offer adequate funding to
address the need that they recognized, nor did they offer sufficient
Congressional direction or oversight to effectively address that
overwhelming need.
Scientists estimate that approximately 1/10 of the world's known
biological diversity is currently in danger of extinction, including at
least 1/4 of all mammals,
1/3 of all primates, 1/3 of all amphibians, and 1/8 of all birds. The
initial stages of a major worldwide extinction event are occurring now
and it is estimated that by the end of the 21st century as much as 2/3
of the world's plant and animal species could be in danger of
extinction. It is also estimated that approximately 3/4 of the world's
terrestrial plant and animal species reside in whole or in part in
developing nations where in many cases poor management of natural
resources has exacerbated the threat of extinction to many species and
directly harmed local communities. Yet the conservation of species and
habitats are vital to alleviating poverty for many communities in
developing countries that depend on these resources for their
livelihoods, food, medicinal compounds, housing material, and other
necessities. In addition, there are significant risks to the global and
U.S. economies from the loss of species and their habitats around the
world and the valuable services they provide. Opportunities for
conserving viable populations of species and their habitats rapidly
diminish with each passing year. The U.S. has maintained the tradition
of serving as a leader in international conservation efforts for over
100 years, and it has an opportunity to lead the world in confronting
this challenge yet again.
WWF has long seen the need for a global conservation initiative
that would encompass future species needing protection, and recently
has worked with conservation partners and the FWS to identify a new
paradigm for conservation funding. We recognize that such an approach
would be in addition to, and have no bearing on, the current MSCF,
which would be considered grandfathered into the law.
In brief, we recommend that this new paradigm should:
Be broad-based and flexible, but subject to
scientifically based criteria for eligibility (e.g. IUCN Red List)
Focus primarily on international programs in developing
countries.
Include a clearly defined system for establishing
priorities among species, while retaining administrative flexibility.
Provide adequate funding commensurate with conservation
objectives, including sufficient fees to enable USFWS to meet
administrative costs.
Encourage but not require grant recipients to obtain
matching funds from public and private partners.
Require host country approval and encourage local support
for programs and projects.
Provide for coordination among Federal agencies with
overlapping jurisdictions.
Allow for outside oversight and review of program
implementation.
The attached White Paper and Statement of Principles elaborate
these principles and may be considered a ``work in progress''. Many
questions remain to be addressed in both documents, and we look forward
to further productive dialogue with your staff and with our partners in
conservation organizations.
We believe that a broader approach is necessary and are prepared to
work with Subcommittee and Committee staff on the best way to address
this need in legislation. We would support a separate hearing on a
global approach, with the goal of developing legislation consistent
with the principles outlined above and in the attachments to this
testimony. Conclusion
I thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today.
WWF would like to endorse H.R. 4455 with the suggested changes
mentioned earlier in my testimony. There is much to be gained in
authorizing the international conservation programs of FWS, and
creating one umbrella to promote synergies, efficiencies and
coordination. We think it is an important step toward redefining the
approach to international conservation programs. Because of the
continued demand on these programs, the continual strained resources
available to these programs, and their proven track record of success,
we recommend an authorized annual appropriations level of $15 million.
At the same time, we urge the Subcommittee to begin consideration
of new legislation to address the overarching need of species
conservation globally, and to craft legislation in which Congress
provides direction, parameters and priorities for FWS efforts in this
regard, balanced with flexibility for FWS to use its discretion and
expertise when fulfilling the need.
Madame Chair, I cannot emphasize how important your work has been
in protecting some of the world's most endangered and iconic species,
which find themselves on the brink of extinction. We look forward to
working with you, other members of the Subcommittee, and your
respective staff, on these most important efforts.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Dillon.
And my colleague from Virginia has to leave to go down on the
Floor to vote but we will continue on with the testimonies.
I would like now to recognize Mr. Burchfield. And, Mr.
Burchfield, you are representing the Gladys Porter Zoo. And I
would like to say that I had the honor of visiting the zoo when
I was in Brownsville, Texas. And I think what impressed me the
most was that you are taking care of many sea turtles with
disabilities. And I visited and I was very impressed with the
zoo. So I am very pleased that you are here to testify today.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK M. BURCHFIELD, ED.D., MSC, DIRECTOR,
GLADYS PORTER ZOO
Mr. Burchfield. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity
to testify today on H.R. 4455, the Wildlife Without Borders
Authorization Act. My name is Pat Burchfield. I am Executive
Director of the Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville, Texas.
I have had the pleasure of working with the Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Texas
Parks and Wildlife Service, and 26 other NGO's and industry in
both Mexico and the United States in the conservation effort
for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle.
Today I am testifying on behalf of the 218 accredited
institutions of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, AZA. Our
zoo is an accredited member of AZA. In general, AZA supports
the conservation tenets of H.R. 4455, but we would strongly
encourage the Subcommittee to consider raising the
authorization limits placed on the bill to capitalize on the
successes, cost effectiveness, and future opportunities
associated with the Wildlife Without Borders programs. AZA and
its member institutions are proud to work with Congress, the
Federal agencies, conservation organizations, the private
sector, and the general public to conserve our wildlife
heritage. With 116 million visitors to 218 accredited zoos and
aquariums, AZA's focus on connecting people and animals
provides a critical link to helping animals in their native
habitats.
Far-reaching conservation programs at AZA institutions have
provided support for over 3,700 field conservation and research
projects in more than 100 countries. AZA accredited zoos and
aquariums are among the leaders in the protection of endangered
species. Today I will highlight one of these many programs.
In reviewing the language of H.R. 4455 I took particular
note to section 4[a] which states that the purpose of the bill
is ``to provide international wildlife conservation assistance
through the initiation, facilitation, and promotion of locally
adapted wildlife management and conservation programs in
coordination with non-governmental organizations, governments,
private businesses, and community leaders.'' In a microcosm
that is exactly the philosophy of the Gladys Porter Zoo and our
field work, and probably the same for other AZA accredited zoos
and aquariums.
Because of our close proximity to Mexico and our interest
in its diverse fauna, for the past 35 years we have been
engaged in the conservation of the world's most critically
endangered sea turtle. On one day in June in 1947, Andres
Herrera of Tampico filmed what is now a classic documentary or
tens of thousands of Kemp's ridley sea turtles crawling up onto
shore to and from in their effort to lay their eggs and
perpetuate their species.
By 1961 when science became aware of this massive nesting
aggregation which is termed ``arrivada'' in Spanish, the
numbers had dwindled to 5,000, to 2,000, and by 1978 when the
Mexico-U.S. effort to save what was left of this critically
endangered sea turtle began, the entire nesting production for
the year 1978 was 902 nests. Despite our efforts, the
population continued to decline and in 1985 we saw a total of
702 nests for the entire nesting season. That represents
approximately 280 nesting females. When we think of the tens of
thousands that came ashore in a single day in June of 1947,
that is the most precipitous decline in any species since the
extinction of the passenger pigeon.
Well, 30 years later, thanks to support from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, its International Program, SEMARNAT and
CONANP of Mexico, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the fishing industries
of both countries, last year we protected 15,000 nests and
released over a million hatchlings into the Gulf of Mexico.
Madam Chair, according to recent estimates, 20 percent or
more of the world's biodiversity could disappear over the next
two decades due primarily to habitat fragmentation and
alteration, climate change, and over-exploitation of threatened
and endangered species. It is therefore vital and more
citizens, governments, institutions and organizations become
involved in efforts to conserve our imperiled environment. H.R.
4455 provides this framework for building that capacity. What
makes these programs effective is that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service distributes these funds in a timely and
efficient manner and with very few bureaucratic entanglements.
The funds are targeted to high priority field conservation
efforts that most directly benefit the species or region of
most concern.
Madam Chair, while we strongly support the intent and
passage of H.R. 4455, we applaud Congressman Young and you for
this effort. We are also concerned about the size of the
Wildlife Without Borders budget. While we have seen some
incremental growth in dollars appropriated by Congress for
these critical conservation programs, thanks in large to the
support of this Committee and Subcommittee and the actions of
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, the overall
international conservation account is not growing fast enough
to meet the significant wildlife and habitat needs.
I thank you for the opportunity to be here today, applaud
your efforts, and hope that you will continue with your
enhancement of funding for these vital programs. Thank you so
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burchfield follows:]
Statement of Dr. Patrick Burchfield, Director,
Gladys Porter Zoo, Brownsville, Texas
Thank you Madame Chair for the opportunity to testify today on H.R.
4455--the Wildlife without Borders Authorization Act.
My name is Dr. Patrick Burchfield and I am the director of the
Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville, Texas. Today, I am testifying on
behalf of the 218 accredited institutions of the Association of Zoos
and Aquariums (AZA). The Zoo is an accredited member of the AZA.
In general, AZA supports the conservation tenets of H.R. 4455 but
we would strongly encourage the Subcommittee to consider raising the
authorization limits placed on the bill to capitalize on the success,
cost-effectiveness and the future opportunities associated with the
Wildlife without Borders programs.
AZA and its member institutions are proud to work with Congress,
the Federal agencies, conservation organizations, the private sector
and the general public to conserve our wildlife heritage. With 160
million visitors to 218 accredited zoos and aquariums, AZA's focus on
connecting people and animals provides a critical link to helping
animals in their native habitats. Far-reaching conservation programs at
AZA institutions have provided support over 3,700 field conservation
and research projects in more than 100 countries. AZA-accredited zoos
and aquariums are among the leaders in the protection of endangered
species. Twenty years ago, AZA established the Species Survival Plan
(SSP) program--a long-term plan involving genetically diverse breeding,
habitat preservation, public education, field conservation and
supportive research to ensure survival for many threatened and
endangered species. Currently, AZA members are involved in 110 SSP
programs that include more than 160 species.
As centers for conservation volunteerism, AZA-accredited zoos and
aquariums offer the public a great way to discover connections to their
environment and to learn how they can make a difference in
conservation. Annually, more than 58,000 volunteers invest over
3,000,000 hours of their time supporting virtually every aspect of zoo
and aquarium operations. AZA-accredited institutions also teach more
than 12 million people each year in living classrooms, and have
provided training to more than 400,000 teachers.
Opened in 1971, the Gladys Porter Zoo was built directly out of
concern for endangered wildlife and to educate the community of South
Texas about the importance of preserving the planet's resources. We
strive to maintain a world-class zoological and botanical park, and to
provide a positive recreational experience to an increasingly large
group of visitors, both national and international. Through our daily
routines, we aspire to making significant contributions to the
cooperative captive management of threatened and endangered species.
Our education programs are geared to establish a conservation ethic in
the beneficiaries of our presentations. We present them with
enthusiasm, in hopes that our efforts will ultimately help preserve the
diversity of remaining wild creatures and their habitats. Like all AZA
institutions, we also make contributions to scientific studies that
will aid in the conservation of wildlife.
In reviewing the language of H.R. 4455, I took particular note of
Section 4 (a) which states that the purpose of the bill is to ``provide
international wildlife conservation assistance through initiation,
facilitation and promotion of locally adapted wildlife management and
conservation programs in coordination with non-governmental
organizations, government, private businesses and community leaders.''
In microcosm, that is exactly the philosophy of the Gladys Porter Zoo
and our field work--and probably the same for other AZA accredited zoos
and aquariums.
We are in a unique position at the Gladys Porter Zoo. Located at
the southernmost tip of Texas, Brownsville sits right on the border
between the United States and Mexico. It is one of the few federally
authorized wildlife ports of entry. We have historically worked closely
with state and federal wildlife agents in our area. We are the logical
candidate to provide veterinary and rehabilitation services for sick
and injured local wildlife, as well as housing and placement of animals
confiscated at U.S./Mexico border crossings.
Because of our close proximity to Mexico and our interest in its
diverse fauna, for the past 35 years we have also been engaged in the
conservation of the world's most critically endangered sea turtle, the
Kemp's ridley. On one day of June 1947, Sr. Andres Herrera, from
Tampico, Tamaulipas, made an historic film of tens of thousands of
nesting sea turtles coming ashore and returning to the Gulf of Mexico
after depositing their clutches of eggs. The film lay unknown to
science until screened by Dr, Henry Hildebrand at an annual convention
of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists in 1961. This massive nesting
phenomenon, termed ``arribada'' in Spanish, along with the location of
these turtles then came to light. In the ensuing years--between 1947
and the early 1960s--this population endured unrelenting exploitation
for eggs, meat and leather; and when Mexican biologists began efforts
to save what remained of the population, the arribadas of up to an
estimated forty-thousand individuals had plummeted from five-thousand
to two-thousand, and were dropping rapidly. In the late 1970s, the
governments of Mexico and the United States joined together in a
desperate attempt to salvage what was left of the Kemp's ridley. In
1978, 902 nests for the entire season were all that remained of the
reproductive effort. Despite strict protection of the nesting females
and their eggs, the total take of the reproductive effort resulted in
the most rapid decline of any species since the extinction of the
passenger pigeon. The population reached its all-time low in 1985 with
a total of 702 nests representing approximately 280 nesting females for
that year. Mexican and U.S. federal, state, and local government
agencies, NGOs and individuals stayed the course, despite discouraging
results and harsh conditions.
Thirty years later there is good news. Thanks to support from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its international program, SEMARNAT
/ CONANP of Mexico, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department, the fishing industries of Mexico and the
United States, and countless other businesses and individuals--more
than 28 cooperating entities--the Kemp's ridley sea turtle is crawling
and swimming its way back from the brink of extinction. We are well on
our way toward the downlisting of this species. In 2007, 15,000 nests
were protected and more than one million hatchlings were released into
the Gulf of Mexico.
Were it not for the long term support by the governments of both
countries, this species would surely already have become extinct. Many
individuals may have difficulty understanding the impact that one
species can have on entire ecosystems. To put it in a different
context, liken the loss of a species to the loss of a cog in the gears
of your automobile. Clearly it is the forerunner of more serious
problems to come.
Like other AZA-accredited zoos, the Gladys Porter Zoo is involved
with other conservation programs around the world. This includes
programs for endangered crocodilians, iguanas, margay cats, ocelots and
tree kangaroos, to mention a few. The rapid loss and degradation of
wild places around the world necessitates that all countries work
together to try and maintain what is left of our global marine and
terrestrial ecosystems for our very own survival and for that of future
generations.
Madame Chair, according to recent estimates, 20 percent or more of
the world's biodiversity could disappear over the next two decades,
primarily due to habitat fragmentation and alteration, climate change
and the over-exploitation of threatened and endangered species. It is
therefore vital that more citizens, governments, institutions and
organizations become involved in efforts to conserve our imperiled
environment. HR4455 provides the framework for building that capacity.
For example, over the duration of the African elephant, Asian
elephant, great ape, marine turtle and rhino/tiger conservation funds,
the U.S. Congress has appropriated tens of millions of dollars that
have been leveraged more than three-fold from host countries and local/
international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This is a
significant partnership--especially in terms of government programs.
The funds provided by Congress have served as the catalyst for the
implementation of hundreds of projects worldwide ranging from highly
sophisticated and innovative data collection, tracking, research and
monitoring programs to simply providing essential on-the-ground
resources--weapons, ammunition, vehicles and communication systems--to
game wardens and law enforcement officials who have been entrusted to
protect these magnificent animals from the ravages of civil unrest,
poaching and habitat exploitation.
What makes these programs effective is that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service distributes the funds in a timely and efficient manner
with very few bureaucratic entanglements. The funds are targeted to
high-priority field conservation efforts that most directly benefit the
species or region of most concern. More importantly, these programs
have long-recognized the value of promoting cooperative projects among
government entities, NGOs and the affected local communities in the
range states. This is essential because it is only through local
action, local education, and local support that realistic solutions for
saving these species and critical habitats can be effectively devised
and implemented.
Madame Chair, while we strongly support the intent and passage of
H.R. 4455 and applaud Congressman Young and you for this effort, we are
also concerned about the size of the Wildlife without Borders budget.
While we have seen some incremental growth in the dollars appropriated
by Congress for these critical international conservation programs--
thanks in large part to the support of this Committee and Subcommittee
and the actions of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee--the
overall international conservation account is not growing fast enough
to meet the significant wildlife and habitat needs.
Therefore, AZA respectfully requests that the Subcommittee amend
H.R. 4455 to significantly increase the authorization levels for Fiscal
Years 2009 through 2013. The demands are too numerous, the
opportunities too boundless and the stakes are too high not to reward a
small, efficient program that has made tremendous contributions to
wildlife conservation--especially in these times of global economic,
social and environmental uncertainty.
Again Madame Chair, AZA wholeheartedly supports this effort and we
look forward to working with you and the Subcommittee to secure swift
passage of this bill. In addition, AZA member institutions will
continue to raise the awareness of our 160 million visitors each year
to bring focus on threatened species and habitats worldwide for it is
public awareness and public appreciation of their plight that has
helped engage the U.S. as a major catalyst for world concern.
Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on this important
wildlife conservation measure. I would be happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Burchfield.
And, finally, I would like to recognize the last gentleman
on our panel, our third panel, Mr. Arce.
STATEMENT OF JUAN PABLO ARCE, DIRECTOR,
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN, NATURESERVE
Mr. Arce. Good morning. My name is Juan Pablo Arce, and I
am the Director of the Latin American and Caribbean program for
NatureServe. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear
before the committee to speak about our experience with the
Wildlife Without Borders program.
NatureServe is a non-profit conservation organization. Our
mission is to provide the scientific basis for effective
conservation action. We represent an international network of
conservation programs operating across the U.S., Canada, Latin
America and the Caribbean.
Since 2001, NatureServe has been helping to build
conservation capacity in Latin America and the Caribbean by
developing a series of training activities for biodiversity
conservation, conservation planning, species distribution
modeling, and environmental policy.
For the last two years we have worked with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's Wildlife Without Borders program to
carry out training programs in Latin America. I would like to
share with you the results from a two-week course on effective
implementation of environmental policy that we held at the
National University of Costa Rica just one month ago, in late
May. The training was for graduate-level wildlife management
students and protected areas decision-makers.
Thanks to support from the Wildlife Without Borders program
the students received this training at no cost. It was attended
by 10 graduate students from Costa Rica, Mexico and Chile, five
professors from Costa Rica and Mexico, and five middle-level
decision makers from Guatemala. Also attending were six current
decision makers and protected areas managers from Costa Rica,
Nicaragua, and El Salvador.
Using a practical case study from Guatemala, we
demonstrated ways to integrate biodiversity data with social
and economic information, using methods from the social
sciences as well as the natural sciences.
I was the principal organizer and instructor of this
integrated training activity, joined by several expert
colleagues. I can tell you from this personal experience that
the enthusiasm and commitment to conservation shown by the
students we reached was remarkable. These are the future
leaders, policy makers, and protected areas managers of their
countries. It was clear that the personal connections across
borders that grew among the participants were as important as
the subject matter itself.
In delivering these training sessions over the past two
years, we have learned some important lessons which I would
like to share today.
First, focus on people. No conservation effort in Latin
America will be successful in the long run unless it builds the
capacity of the people who live and work there. External advice
and assistance can help, but ultimately people in each country
must have the tools, expertise, and resources to conserve their
own lands and waters.
Second, work across borders. It is clear that biodiversity
threats cross borders: habitat fragmentation, deforestation,
invasive species, and climate change are just a few examples.
Our responses have to cross borders too. As Conrad
Lautenbacher, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, recently stated: ``Everything is connected in
our Earth system. It is science without borders.''
Third, embrace innovation. The students and policy makers
we are working with in Latin America are just as sophisticated
as those here in the United States. They are tackling complex
questions using the latest innovations and scientific methods,
information technology tools, and social sciences
methodologies. In fact, in the true spirit of ``training the
trainers,'' perhaps someday soon the Wildlife Without Borders
program can bring these Latin American graduate students here
to share their knowledge and train us in the United States.
In conclusion, we at NatureServe strongly endorse the
Wildlife Without Borders Act and encourage Congress to
authorize this program and strengthen it in the years to come.
On behalf of NatureServe, I want to once again thank the
committee for this opportunity and also to salute the staff of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their excellence and
professionalism. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arce follows:]
Statement of Juan Pablo Arce, Director of Latin America and the
Caribbean, NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia
Introduction
Good morning. My name is Juan Pablo Arce, and I am the Director of
the Latin America and Caribbean program for NatureServe. Thank you very
much for the opportunity to appear before the committee to speak about
our experience with the Wildlife Without Borders program.
NatureServe is a non-profit conservation organization. Our mission
is to provide the scientific basis for effective conservation action.
We represent an international network of conservation programs--nown as
natural heritage programs or conservation data centers--operating
across the U.S., Canada, Latin America and the Caribbean. We have three
major objectives: First, to inform natural resource decision-making;
second, to advance scientific understanding about our environment; and
third, to work with partners to build conservation capacity.
Training Program
Since 2001, NatureServe has been helping to build conservation
capacity in Latin America and the Caribbean by developing a series of
training activities for biodiversity conservation, conservation
planning, species distribution modeling, and environmental policy.
For the last two years we have worked with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Wildlife Without Borders program to carry out
training programs in Latin America. I'd like to share with you the
results from a two-week course on effective implementation of
environmental policy that we held at the National University of Costa
Rica just one month ago, in late May. The training was for graduate-
level wildlife management students and protected areas decision-makers.
The primary goal of the training was to share innovative procedures
for analyzing and evaluating the implementation of environmental policy
within the existing social, economic and biodiversity conservation
context. The course was held at the International Institute of
Conservation and Wildlife Management and was part of the masters degree
program in conservation at the National University of Costa Rica.
Thanks to support from the Wildlife Without Borders program, the
students received this training at no cost to themselves. It was
attended by 10 graduate students (from Costa Rica, Mexico, and Chile),
five graduate program professors (from Costa Rica and Mexico), and five
middle-level decision makers (from Guatemala). Also attending were six
current decision-makers and protected areas managers from Costa Rica,
Nicaragua, and El Salvador, representing government and non-profit
organizations.
Using a practical case study from Guatemala, we demonstrated ways
to integrate biodiversity data with social and economic information,
using methods from the social sciences as well as the natural sciences.
The course was divided into two sessions: First, a four-day Species
Distribution Modeling course, towards completion of a short modeling
project using the student's own data for a species of interest. Second,
a five-day Analysis of the Implementation of Environmental Policy
course, integrating selected biodiversity data from the first session
into the social and economic framework of analysis.
I was the principal organizer and instructor of this integrated
training activity, joined by several expert colleagues. I can tell you
from this personal experience that the enthusiasm and commitment to
conservation shown by the students we reached was remarkable. These are
the future leaders, policy-makers, and protected areas managers of
their countries. It was clear that the personal connections across
borders that grew among the participants were as important as the
subject matter itself.
It was fascinating to see how the students and the professionals
interacted and what they learned from each other. Particularly since
it's clear that these graduate students, once they enter the
professional world, will be the ones making the decisions for those
organizations in just a few years.
An important part of the training was the fact that we were looking
not just at environmental factors alone, but at how environmental
policy is affected by the social and economic situation in each
country, and must take them into account. Policies and recommendations
that may make sense here in Washington, D.C. often look very different
to a policy-maker working in a relatively poor area in Central America.
Here, for example, we may think of the value of forests principally for
the wildlife that they protect. To people living there, however, an
even more important value of forests may be providing clean drinking
water, wood for fuel, and preventing the hillside from eroding during
the next tropical storm.
Lessons Learned
In delivering these training sessions over the past two years, we
have learned some important lessons which I would like to share today.
First, focus on people. No conservation effort in Latin America
will be successful in the long run unless it builds the capacity of the
people who live and work there. External advice and assistance help,
but ultimately people in each country must have the tools, expertise,
and resources to conserve their own lands and waters.
Second, work across borders. It's clear that biodiversity threats
cross borders: habitat fragmentation, deforestation, invasive species,
and climate change are just a few examples. Our responses have to cross
borders too. The training we presented crossed borders, both in terms
of the case studies used, the students who have attended, and the
subject matter. As Conrad Lautenbacher, head of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, recently stated: ``Everything is
connected in our Earth system. It's science without borders.''
Third, embrace innovation. The students and policy-makers we are
working with in Latin America are just as sophisticated as those here
in the United States. They are tackling complex questions using the
latest innovations in scientific methods, such as predictive modeling
of species ranges), information technology tools, (such as advanced GIS
software), and social sciences methodologies (statistical analysis
tools). In fact, in the true spirit of ``training the trainers'',
perhaps someday soon the Wildlife Without Borders program can bring
these Latin American graduate students here to share their knowledge
and train us in the United States!
In conclusion, we at NatureServe strongly endorse the Wildlife
Without Borders Act and encourage Congress to authorize this program
and strengthen it in the years to come. On behalf of NatureServe, I
want to once again thank the committee for this opportunity and also to
salute the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their
excellence and professionalism. Thank you.
Project Background
As the world community seeks to replace unsustainable development
patterns with environmentally sound management, a key challenge is the
need to create a sense of common purpose, especially among the academic
and government sectors. Our project was based on the premise that sound
methods for analyzing the distribution of endangered species and the
implementation of environmental policy are a fundamental prerequisite,
as well as a catalyst for collaboration between the scientific
community and concerned decision-makers. Even though the distribution
of biodiversity is a key factor in establishing effective environmental
policy, making a meaningful connection between the two remains a major
challenge in Latin America.
This graduate-level training provided practical tools for assessing
species distributions, social and economic conditions, and legislative
policy information that can be used to monitor the status and
effectiveness of protected areas. The case study for this training was
developed based on an existing NatureServe project, funded by the
Tinker Foundation, about the conservation of Dry Forests in Guatemala.
The social, economic, and environmental data generated by the Guatemala
project was the basis for the examples used during the training. Thus,
we were able to leverage the results of current work funded through
private sources to improve the quality of the training funded via the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Goal and Objectives
The goal of this initiative is to train students, faculty and
decision makers to analyze the distribution of high priority species
within and near Latin American protected areas, and apply the results
from a Central American case study in development of sound
environmental policies for biodiversity conservation in a sustainable
development framework.
Project Outcomes, 2008
Trained 20 participants (graduate level students and
decision makers) in the use of methods, mathematical models and
statistical tools for environmental policy analysis and species
distribution modeling.
Informed participants about the importance of evaluating
policy and conservation as key factors for sustainable development and
opportunities to declare and/or evaluate protected areas status.
Provided participants the ability to apply this knowledge
to protected areas work in their own countries in the future.
Created personal and professional connections among
future protected areas decision-makers from four countries.
Description
Species Distribution Modeling course (May 19-23, 2008):
Lectures providing background on the development of
distribution modeling techniques, their application in conservation
biology and resource management, modeling environments to choose from,
statistical considerations, use and availability of environmental data
layers, and interpretation of results
Hands-on practice using distribution models such as
BIOCLIM, MAXENT, and Random Forests
Completion of a short modeling project using the
student's own data for a species of interest
Class presentations and discussion of independent
projects
Analysis of Implementation of Environmental Policy course (May 26-30,
2008):
Presentations on basic concepts, methodology, and
statistical tools for policy analysis
Interactive GIS training within a group-study framework
Analysis of a Central American case study in
implementation on Environmental Policy using
Integration of Species Distribution Modeling results into
the statistical and spatial analysis of environmental policy
Spatial representation of products using Geographic
Information Systems (GIS)
Coordination and Instructors
Juan Pablo Arce, Director, LAC Section Support. Juan Pablo has
extensive experience in policy, and conservation, which was gained
through previous employment as the Bolivia Country Director for
Conservation International, former Vice Minister of Natural Resources
and Environment in Bolivia, and former project manager for the Paraguay
Environmental Policy project. In June 2007, Juan Pablo was the
instructor of an Environmental Policy training activity at UNA.
Sponsored by the FWS, the course trained 16 graduate students
representing four Latin America countries. He has a Master of Science
in Rural and Land Ecology Survey from ITC, The Netherlands.
Bruce E. Young serves as NatureServe's Director for Species Science
and will oversee the Species Distribution Modeling course. Young has 20
years of experience collaborating with Latin American scientists on
conservation-related projects. Based in Costa Rica (and thereby
facilitating coordination with UNA colleagues), Young has previously
coordinated a species distribution modeling course in Lima, Peru, for
30 participants representing five countries. In addition, he
coordinated the Moore Foundation project that used distribution
modeling techniques to predict the distributions of 782 species of
plants, birds, mammals, and amphibians endemic to the Andes in Peru and
Bolivia. He has a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Washington,
USA.
Santiago F. Burneo is biologist at the Pontifical Catholic
University of Ecuador (PUC) whose research has focused on Mastozoology.
He has Masters in Conservation Biology of the International University
of Andalusia, Spain and currently serves as curator of the Mastozoology
Section of the Museum of Zoology and professor at the College of
Biological Sciences and Biogeography in areas such as geographic
information systems. He has worked in geographical distribution model
since 2002 in collaborative projects and workshops with Dr. Robert
Anderson and Dr. Catherine Graham.
Kazuya Naoki is responsible for the Centre for Spatial Analysis
(Laboratory GIS) Institute of Ecology at the Universidad Mayor de San
Andres, La Paz, Bolivia. He has taught various subjects: Ecology of
populations and communities, Conservation Biology, Biostatistics,
Wildlife Management, among others, for both undergraduate and graduate
from four universities. His main research interest is the spatial
pattern and the determinants of distribution and abundance of different
agencies at the micro and macro in the Andes. He has a BA in Biology at
the University of Costa Rica and Ph.D. in Biological Sciences from
Louisiana State University, USA.
Participant Comments
Participant comment, 2007 training:
``I think that the training sessions in legislation, analysis of
information and interpretation of the results were of major benefit for
our individual capacity building. Since in many cases we are more
familiar with the biological aspects, learning about these other
aspects helped us see the problem in a much more global way.''--Carol
Sanchez, International Institute for Wildlife Management and
Conservation. Graduate student, Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica
(UNA), Costa Rica
Participant comment, 2008 training:
``This training really expanded my knowledge. I appreciate the
opportunity to participate. This course has awakened my expectations in
terms of how to seek information needed to implement the theme of
environmental policies with data from my own country.''--Mildred
Rivera, National Environmental Information System (SINIA), Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA), Nicaragua
______
Ms. Bordallo. Muchas gracias, senor.
Mr. Arce. De nada.
Ms. Bordallo. For keeping it within the time limit. Thank
you very much, Mr. Arce, for your testimony.
I have a few questions to ask the panelists. And Mr.
Wittman had to leave for voting and he asked me to also ask
this particular question; it has to do with funding.
So during the testimony this afternoon we have heard that
the Wildlife Without Borders program should be authorized to
receive anywhere between $5 million and $50 million in
appropriations. Now that is quite a wide disparity. Is there
any number within this range that is reasonable compromise?
Could any of you answer that, possibly you, Mr. Arha?
Mr. Arha. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would answer it by
saying every dollar that this program spends it is able to
match more than three to go forward on it. So as a legislative
body in which there are competing demands on scarce funds in
your committee and this hallowed body, one has to look at where
we can use them efficiently. I would just submit to you that
this program uses it as efficiently if not more than many other
conservation programs.
We certainly have tremendous need, as my colleagues have
said, on the ground, and that need speaks for itself. And I
will let my colleagues do that. At this juncture I would leave
it in your best judgment as to with all the information that
you have how best to go forth on this. It certainly presents a
rather odd situation when the limit may be lower than what we
are already spending. But if you look at it as an additional
money and what we may possibly do in the future I will leave it
in your good judgment and my colleagues after.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Perhaps somebody here could answer, what is currently being
spent? This was part of Mr. Wittman's question. Does somebody
have that amount?
Mr. Arha. The amount that we have laid out we do get under
the multinational species conservation for 2007 we are looking
at almost $6 million. And the total appropriated fundings, the
numbers that I have in front of me it is in addition to $10
million right now.
I can get your more specific numbers.
Ms. Bordallo. What is the number, Mr. Arha, is it $10
million or?
Mr. Arha. Ten million for multinational species
conservation and 5.4 for the additional programs related with
Wildlife Without Borders.
Ms. Bordallo. So 15.
Mr. Arha. So it is 15 millions and more, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. That is the number we wanted to
hear.
Does anybody else have a compromise amount that they would
like to? Yes, Dr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson. Just that our understanding is that the
discussion here is not specifically at the multinational
species conservation funds, that we are really talking about a
program which is the global program and the regional program.
And in a very general way WCS works with a number of Federal
agencies. I would say that the cost effectiveness of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service international program probably
surpasses all. And the impact of these programs is recognized
within the conservation community in a very, very significant
way. And so if we are talking about a budget of $4.5 million
for all the impact, that is where the $30 million figure came
from. We looked at it in comparison to some of the other
programs that we are involved in and we really felt that each
of the regional programs themselves could probably spend
effectively on their regional and global efforts at least that
amount.
So I think there is a real opportunity to have a
significant impact here.
Ms. Bordallo. Let me ask the panel members, could a sharp
increase in Federal funding create a disincentive for non-
Federal matching contributions?
Mr. Dillon. Let me try to answer that. We are quite
involved with leveraged funding for these projects. And I do
not think there could be a disincentive at all. I think
actually it would provide an incentive for more matching funds.
Right now if we are considering just these multinational
species funds which we had thought were not--the funding for
that was not in this bill, but if it were to become so that $8
million, you know, leverages many times more than that. And the
limitation is that $8 million really is not very much money for
the number of species that are benefiting from it, particularly
given that many of them are wide-ranging species that are in
multiple countries and there are many sites that need
attention. So I mean I think you could ramp up the funding
significantly both on the species funding and on the regional
and still obtain multiples of leverage.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I also have a question here I guess I would like to hear
from all of the panelists either a yes or a no. It is my
understanding from reading your statements that you all agree
that the bill would be clarified to ensure that any funding for
the Wildlife Without Borders Program is in addition to any
funds authorized and appropriated for the funds administered
under the multinational species conservation fund. Is that
correct?
Mr. Arha. A very strong, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. All right.
Mr. Robinson. A very strong yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Our next panelist?
Mr. Dillon. Yes, that is what I would say.
Mr. Burchfield. Madam Chair, as I stated in previous
testimony, Association of Zoo and Aquarium Institutions
provided support for over 3,700 field conservation programs in
more than 100 countries. If we are going to have the knowledge
we need to deal with issues like global warming, habitat
degradation, these types of projects are critical to get
baseline data and have good science on the species that we are
talking about. In many cases we do not have the answers for how
these animals will or will not adapt to changing climates,
their ability to migrate, the requirements for corridors that
have been discussed.
I think that the figure that was put out by our colleagues
is very, very minimal.
Ms. Bordallo. So your answer to my question then would be
yes?
Mr. Burchfield. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Senor?
Mr. Arce. Yes. Something that was really important here is
that capacity building in Latin America it is very complex. And
obviously all the funding from this program helps a lot our
existing training needs. And however the most important thing
here is that we are just covering part of our geographic
region. We're just focusing in Central America right now. And
we would like really to expand our training activities in, for
instance, Mexico and for Caribbean, South America. Those are
still the gaps of these training activities, especially where
we would like to enhance some other audience.
These particular training activities, and thank you so much
to this, to the remarkable Federal agency, was developed based
on an existing NatureServe project funded by the Tinker
Foundation. And that means that all of these data generated to
set up a training activity was funded by another donor. And at
the end if we are just considering the training activity itself
that the cost was almost $30,000 in total. The training
activity probably was more than 100K. And I think that is
important.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. And I, after hearing
from all of you the answer is in the affirmative; is that
correct?
Mr. Dillon. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good.
Now, you know our committee is always looking at all
aspects of any bill or resolution that Congress introduces. And
so some of these questions have to do with their concerns. So
when we are preparing the final bill with amendments that we
want to be sure that everything is included. And so this is to
Mr. Tom Dillon.
There seems to be agreement on the scope of the species
grant programs and to an extent with the regional program.
There is far less consensus on the global program. Dr. Robinson
suggested that such a program could be structure to promote
coordinated Federal responses to address specific issues such
as climate change, wildlife disease, and illegal trade. Would
you say that this makes sense? Should the statute then include
specific guidance regarding what issues should be the focus of
the global program?
Mr. Dillon. Thank you for the question, Chairwoman
Bordallo. My reading and WWF's reading of the bill is that it
is mostly to consolidate the three existing programs that Fish
and Wildlife Service has internationally. And it is quite weak
I would say in the global piece. If there is going to be, you
know, funding of say $10 million I think it should focus on the
regional area and there should be different legislation for the
global program that would have very specific language about the
global threats to species such as climate change, invasives,
disease, habitat destruction, particularly from industrial
agriculture, and we are seeing a spike in that right now with
fuel prices, fuel and food prices rising so quickly.
These are big issues and they take substantial amounts of
money to deal with that I think the current bill as envisioned
could not really handle. And so it depends on what the ambition
really is of this bill. It could enhance the regional program
that exists significantly and then you could consider the
global program later. Or you could open this up and try and
have a real global program in here. It seems to me that is a
decision that the Subcommittee could make.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And, Dr. Robinson, so you have any thoughts on the same
question? We want to be sure that we get everybody's input
here.
Mr. Robinson. I mean I think with these large global
threats it has an impact on a number of different areas. But
what we are considering here in this bill is the impact on
wildlife species. So when we begin thinking about something
like wildlife disease, obviously wildlife disease is of concern
to a number of Federal agencies. CDC is very involved in it,
for instance. And yet there needs to be a focus on the impact
of wildlife diseases on wildlife species.
Equally, the emphasis on climate change. We need to think
about what is the impact on wildlife species and how to
mitigate climate change on those wildlife species, recognizing
that climate change has other impacts that we need to be aware
of and other agencies that have interest in these things. And
so what we are I think looking at is trying to identify a set
of commonalities that relate to wildlife that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service international program could directly address
and coordinate.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
My last question here to wrap up the discussion is to Mr.
Arha. Some of you have argued that the scope of the bill should
be much broader than the existing framework. In other context
people have also argued that we need to look comprehensively at
all the Federal programs that could be leveraged and applied to
promote U.S. leadership in the global wildlife conservation.
Would you then support amending the bill to direct the
Secretary of Interior to appoint a Blue Ribbon Panel to conduct
analysis of all the Federal programs that benefit global
wildlife conservation and to offer any other recommendations?
Would you go along with such an idea?
Mr. Arce. With the sage advice and suggestion, Madam Chair,
I would strongly follow, yes, that I would go along with that
particular provision. I follow up with two thoughts. I agree
with my colleagues on the scope of the global program. I do not
see at the moment as the bill is written, and if you look at
section 4[3][B] it says ``address the international aspects of
global conservation threats, such as invasive species and
wildlife disease.'' Those two are mentioned. It can stand more
specificity. It does not by any means exclude any of the
ambitions that have been laid out here. But having a panel
would certainly be a very worthy course of action and would
lead us in the right direction.
One other thought I would share with you, Madam Chair, you
raised a question early on about spending more money, would
that be a disincentive? And I just want to give you some
figures. We at the moment are funding about half of the
proposals for the grants that we have. So we have a lot of room
there and I think we could rest aside and for good any concern
that by raising more funds there would be any disincentive for
funding as we go forward.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Arha, for that
statement. And all of this will be placed in the record.
Is anyone who would like to make any kind of a closing
remark before we adjourned? Do you all support the blue ribbon
concept? Yes, I see.
Mr. Arce. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. All right.
Well, I want to thank all of you very much for being with
us. I know this has been a long hearing but very worthwhile.
And there being no further business before the Subcommittee, as
Chair I would like to thank the members of the Subcommittee and
our witnesses. And if there is no further business, the
Subcommittee meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]