U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

58–416 2010

ON THIN ICE: THE FUTURE OF THE POLAR 

BEAR 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 17, 2008 

Serial No. 110–22 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR, Wisconsin 

Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DAVID MOULTON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS WEIMER, Minority Staff Director 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Wisconsin, opening statement .............................................................. 5 

Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, opening statement ...................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Jay R. Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, opening statement ................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 8 

Hon. John Larson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, opening statement ................................................................................ 9 

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Missouri, opening statement ............................................................................... 9 

Hon. John Hall, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9 

WITNESSES

Mr. H. Dale Hall, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 13 

Mr. Randall Luthi, Director, Minerals Management Service (Accompanied 

By Mr. John Goll, Regional Director, Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska) ................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 20 

Dr. Steven Amstrup, Polar Bear Team Leader, United States Geological Survey ......................................................................................................................... 28

Ms. Kassie Siegel, Director, Climate, Air and Energy Program, Center for 

Biological Diversity .............................................................................................. 44 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 47 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 150 

Ms. Deborah Williams, President, Alaska Conservation Solutions ..................... 89 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 92 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 155 

Ms. Jamie Rappaport Clark, Executive Vice President, Defenders of Wildlife .. 131 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 134 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 164 

SUBMITTED MATERIALS

International Fund for Animal Welfare Report: On Thin Ice .............................. 169 

Hon. Jay R. Inslee et al. letter of June 15, 2006 to Fish and Wildlife Service .. 209 

Hon. Jay R. Inslee et al. letter of Feb. 16, 2007 to Fish and Wildlife Service ... 217 

Hon. Jay R. Inslee et al. letter of April 9, 2007 to Fish and Wildlife Service .... 221 

Hon. Jay R. Inslee et al. letter of June 29, 2007 to the Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 227 

Hon. Jay R. Inslee et al. letter of Oct. 22, 2007 to Fish and Wildlife Service .... 231 

Hon. Jay R. Inslee et al. letter of Jan. 17, 2008 to Fish and Wildlife Service ... 238 

Hon. Edward J. Markey and Hon. James Sensenbrenner, letter of Jan. 31, 

2008 from Jason Patlis, World Wildlife Fund .................................................... 242 

Testimony of Margaret Williams, Managing Director, Kamchatka/Bering Sea 

Ecoregion Program, World Wildlife Fund before the Committee on the 

Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Jan. 30, 2008 ........................... 244 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

IV 

Polar Bears at Risk, a WWF Status Report, May 2002 ....................................... 264 

World Wildlife Fund, Polar Bear Fact Sheet, 2007 .............................................. 292 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

ON THIN ICE: THE FUTURE OF THE POLAR 

BEAR 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 2175, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey [chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee, Larson, 

Cleaver, Hall, Sensenbrenner, Shadegg, Walden and Blackburn. 

Staff Present: Morgan Gray and David Moulton. 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing is called to order of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. 

The impacts of global warming are often discussed in the future 

tense, but as we will hear today, the Arctic is already feeling the 

strain of the dangerous build-up of heat-trapping pollution in our 

atmosphere. Hardly a week passes without another discovery of 

new and accelerating ways that global warming is impacting the 

Arctic region, global warming’s Ground Zero. 

In the fall scientists reported that as a result of the warming 

planet, the 2007 summer Arctic sea ice melt was likely the greatest 

of the last century, an astonishing 23 percent greater than the previous record set in 2005. A recent study by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research projected that the Arctic 

Ocean could be devoid of ice by 2040. Furthermore, Dr. J. Zwally, 

a leading NASA scientist, recently reanalyzed sea ice data and projected that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summertime as 

early as 2012, just 4 short years from now. 

The presence of Arctic sea ice is essential for many forms of animal and plant life, but particularly for the polar bear. Polar bears 

use these ice floes as a platform for nearly every aspect of their 

lives, including hunting their primary food source. The disappearance of sea ice as a result of global warming is leading to the very 

real possibility that polar bears will disappear as well. 

The Bush administration’s own scientists project that the prospects for the polar bear’s survival are bleak. Last year Dr. Steven 

Amstrup, who is with us today, headed up a team of scientists 

charged with examining the impacts of sea ice loss on polar bear 

populations. In a series of reports released last fall, Dr. Amstrup’s 

team concluded that by midcentury two-thirds of all the world’s 

polar bears could disappear, and that polar bears could be gone entirely from Alaska. Dr. Amstrup’s team also noted that based on reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:25 Nov 10, 2010 Jkt 058416 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A416.XXX A416

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

cent observations, this dire assessment could actually be conservative. 

The actions of the Bush administration in the coming months 

could very well determine the fate of this iconic animal. The Interior Department is currently considering whether to list the polar 

bear under the Endangered Species Act as a result of the impacts 

of global warming. Last week the Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it was going to delay any decisions to beyond its 

statutorily required deadline, meaning that legal protection for the 

polar bear would be put on ice, while its habitat continues to melt. 

Meanwhile, the Interior Department is revving up its regulatory 

machine to allow new oil drilling in sensitive polar bear habitat. 

Earlier this month the Minerals Management Service finalized 

its plans to move forward next month with an oil and gas lease 

sale of nearly 30 million acres in the Chukchi Sea, an area that is 

essential habitat for polar bears in the United States. The timing 

of these two decisions leaves the door open for the administration 

to give Big Oil the rights to this polar bear habitat the moment before the protections for the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act go into effect. 

Rushing to allow drilling in polar bear habitat before protecting 

the bear would be the epitome of this administration’s backward 

energy policy, a policy of drill first and ask questions later. In this 

situation, as in many things in life, order matters. You don’t put 

on your shoes before your socks. You don’t start driving before looking at a map. You don’t buy a Patriots Super Bowl shirt before the 

game. And we shouldn’t be selling the drilling rights in this important polar bear habitat before deciding how we are going to protect 

them. It seems that every time there is a choice between extraction 

and extinction in this administration, extraction wins. This must 

not be the case for the polar bear. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 9 here 58416A.001
4 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 10 here 58416A.002
5 

The CHAIRMAN. Now I would like to turn and recognize the 

Ranking Member of the select committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner for an opening statement. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, what Patriot Super Bowl shirt? You are going to be wearing green and gold 

that day. 

Now I will talk about the polar bears. 

The polar bear is a majestic and fascinating creature that should 

be observed, admired and protected, and its habitat is declining. 

The price of crude oil is reaching $100 a barrel. The United States 

needs more and not less access to domestic oil and gas reserves. I 

am afraid that this hearing of a select committee charged with examining the nexus of energy independence and global warming, the 

polar bear simply is becoming a political tool, and that is a shame. 

There has been some cynical speculation in the media and among 

some others that the polar bear is just a few decades from extinction, and the current administration is ready and willing to diminish the polar bear’s plight in order to help the oil and gas industry. 

I believe nothing could be further from the truth. It is my hope 

that this hearing can help address some of these misconceptions. 

Currently the administration is looking at two decisions that, 

while interrelated, are decided under two separate, distinct and different laws that support two different policy goals: protection of the 

polar bear and progress on energy and security through the development of domestic oil and gas reserves. 

For more than a year, the Department of the Interior has been 

studying whether to list the polar bear as a threatened species 

under the Endangered Species Act. This is a complicated and 

nuanced question, but one whose answer must be based solely, and 

I emphasize solely, on the best scientific and commercial information about the polar bear. 

If the scientists and wildlife managers at the Interior Department determine that the polar bear should be listed as a threatened species, then the United States should take all required steps 

under the Endangered Species Act to protect the polar bear. I note 

that regardless of whether the polar bear is listed under the Endangered Species Act, it is already protected under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. 

The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service has 

also decided to move forward with an oil and gas lease sale in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, which is a part of the polar bear’s habitat. 

Should the polar bear be listed, then oil and gas companies will 

have to take all appropriate efforts to ensure that their exploration 

and production are done in a manner required by the Endangered 

Species Act. The timing of these separate decisions is incidental to 

protecting the polar bear. 

The hallmark of the Endangered Species Act is that listing decisions need to be based solely on sound scientific and commercial information and not politics. I worry that today’s hearing will focus 

too much on the politics and not enough on the science, and that 

certainly isn’t good news for either the polar bears or for America’s 

energy security. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
6 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There is a rare area of complete agreement with my distinguished friend from Wisconsin as relates to the Super Bowl. I appreciate his elaboration. 

I am very much appreciative of this hearing. I have a slight difference of opinion with my good friend from Wisconsin, however, in 

terms of what the significance of this is. I don’t think it is incidental, and just because they are tracking under different laws is 

no reason that they cannot be harmonized. 

Years ago I was involved with an effort that struck a raw chord 

in this country as we were trying to rescue polar bears from a circus environment in Puerto Rico where they were being abused. It 

is fascinating to me to watch the outrage and the activity that this 

engendered. People could sort of understand that. Now I look back 

and think of what is happening here today, because it is not just 

an individual circus in Puerto Rico, but we are talking about the 

Federal Government’s action which actually might endanger and 

abuse not a handful of circus animals, but threaten the existence 

of polar bears in the wild. 

This administration is dealing with activities that could potentially threaten the habitat of this magnificent animal, which is a 

critical part of a spectacular, but fragile ecosystem. It is stunning 

to think that the Federal Government, before considering whether 

or not the polar bear is endangered, would encroach upon almost 

half of its U.S. habitat. 

Now, I personally think that we are smart enough to figure out 

how to harmonize these efforts and make a difference. The notion 

that it is our country that wouldn’t take that extra step does give 

me pause. And frankly, the notion that this is incidental, I think 

in the course of the hearing it will be clear that it is not. We have 

an administration that has a record of taking small steps and driving forward. In effect, we are watching now throughout the Western United States where sportsmen are finding that—the consequence of the drill and dig and, as you were saying, Mr. Chairman, ask questions later. 

I think there is no excuse for not taking a few additional weeks 

and doing this right. I deeply appreciate your scheduling this hearing. The fact that I am not here for all of it is not a reflection on 

its importance, but we have Mr. Bernanke before the Budget Committee, and I am obligated to be across the street. But I will be 

with you, I will be following up, and I do appreciate it. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I look forward to reading the testimony of the witnesses and hearing from them, so I will 

keep my remarks brief. We also have an Energy and Air Quality 

Subcommittee hearing with Chairman Connaughton on his testimony in Bali that starts in about 17 minutes, so I will have to depart for that as well. 

I know this is a serious issue, and I look forward to hearing the 

scientific evidence involved here. I also know that consumers are 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
7 

getting a little tired of $4 gas or $3.15 gas, and natural gas is certainly going up in price, the rise of fertilizer costs for the farmers 

I represent and drives industry offshore. I want to see America become energy independent, but in an environmentally sensitive way. 

So hopefully we can find a balance here that works for the country, 

for the polar bears and for the consumers. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Your time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, this we know: This is the last chance for the 

polar bear. They will never get another chance, and neither will 

we. 

And I was thinking about why people feel so strongly about this 

issue. I was thinking about a woman named Helen Thayer, who 

was the first woman ever to ski alone to the North Pole. She was 

stalked for 2 days by a polar bear; she could have been an hors 

d’oeuvre for a polar bear. 

I was thinking why do we have such admiration, respect and love 

for this species when they at times could make us a snack? And 

I think there is an obvious and an unobvious reason for that. The 

obvious reason is because they are so beautiful and magnificent, 

their ability to turn ultraviolet light into thermal energy. They are 

just beautiful. 

I think there is a deeper reason that Americans feel so passionately about that, and that is that they realize that the polar bear 

is the largest canary in the largest coal mine in the world, and that 

it is not just the polar bear at risk from this threat of global warming, but we are at risk of the threat of global warming. 

When people think—and I think the reason they care so much 

about this is they recognize that you don’t cry for the bell tolling 

over the bear; we can ask, why is the bell tolling for us, because 

that is what is happening here. People recognize that, that a polar 

bear without an ice cap is a fisherman without a boat, and that is 

tough on the polar bear; but a world without an ice cap is a world 

without a thermal regulator. 

Just hold up this poster here. This shows the sea ice of 2000, the 

ice cap in the summer, and at the latest when it will disappear and 

be gone in 2040. And the reason people care so much about the 

polar bear is they realize its demise is inextricably related with 

ours, because this is a thermal regulator for the world’s climate. 

And when we lose that ice cap, we lose a cap that radiates energy 

back into the Earth, and now the ocean starts to absorb six times 

more energy than the world did in northern climes, which puts us 

at risk, not just the polar bear. 

So I am disturbed that this administration continues on a path 

of willful ignorance and habitual arrogance. It is willfully ignorant 

to go forward with allowing the leasing in this area immediately 

adjacent to the habitat, willfully ignoring science, willfully refusing 

to ask these questions before these decisions are made, and habitually being arrogant that oil surpasses all other forms of human 

value. So I hope that this hearing will convince the administration 

to rethink its position on this, ask the hard questions, get the scientific answers before we take this leap. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
8 

And just on one parting note, and this is kind of how I feel about 

this, if you look over at these kids sitting over here, I don’t know 

where they are from, all I know about them is that they are beautiful, and they look smart as a tack. And what we are doing here 

today is basically saying when they are our age, they will have 

polar bears around, and they should have an ice cap to make sure 

that their planet doesn’t warm up. So these kids, I hope you enjoyed today, and I hope this administration is thinking about you 

when they make these decisions. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. 

Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for 

holding the hearing, and I want to thank our witness for taking 

their time to come and be with us today and share their information. 

We all know that the Department of the Interior is currently considering a plan to list polar bears as a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act, and a basic question needs to be answered 

before we take such an action, and it is this: Are current polar bear 

populations sustainable, are they even sustainable? 

This committee has called this hearing because some scientists 

think that they have the answers to this question. They say that 

the polar bear population is decreasing, and global warming is 

causing the decline, and that is going to lead to their extinction. 

However, could it be, could it be that their conclusions are based 

on speculative and hypothetical conjecture that relies on climate 

modeling methods that have been shown to be statistically inaccurate in predicting past and present climate change? Is that a possibility for us? To rely on these error-prone models to predict the 

survival of a species 40 or 50 years from now does not withstand 

the most basic scientific scrutiny, so we need to think about this 

one. 

Studies done by the World Wildlife Fund, Canadian biologists 

and American climatologists are in direct contradiction to the 

claims of some of these scientists. These studies found that almost 

all, almost all, of the Arctic populations of polar bears are either 

stable or increasing, and that changing wind patterns are the primary causes of changing sea ice distributions, not global warming. 

One of the most interesting findings in these studies is that data 

shows polar bear populations are increasing in warming areas and 

declining in cooling areas. 

Mr. Chairman, the most available, incredible information on the 

status of the polar bear population indicates that listing the species 

as threatened could possibly be unwise. It might be misguided. Instead I think we need more studies to obtain precise and accurate 

measurements of population trends and ecosystem factors. The 

data could then be used to determine what best practices of conservation and management should be applied to maintain a sustainable polar bear population. I hope we will explore that issue 

and be able to arrive at some data that will give us better guidance. 

I yield the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
9 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. 

Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Chairman Markey. Let me put my plug 

in immediately for the New England Patriots, and I do think we 

will be wearing the silver and blue in celebrating. 

But let me associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues 

here, and specifically I am so pleased to see as well that we have 

so many young people in the audience today, because, as Mr. Inslee 

has said, this is about you, it is about our planet. I think of Teddy 

Roosevelt, that great, robust President who cared deeply about this 

country, its environment. I think of the bald eagle as our national 

symbol that almost was extinct. Today we have discussion over the 

issue of polar bears, who symbolically represent so much of the last 

vestige of the wild world in the North. 

And so I think it is important that kids are here today, because 

they not only get to hear the science and the facts, but they get 

to see their democracy in action, and they are stewards of the democracy of the future. And so you get to weigh the discussions and 

the arguments and the data and information that you hear from 

our experts, and then ultimately you get to decide as well. That is 

how our democracy works. 

It is interesting to see, I am sure, for you that there are differences of opinion when it comes to preserving our environment 

and making sure that we give the appropriate status to endangered 

species like the polar bear. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I must express some resentment at those of you speaking about 

the Super Bowl. In fact, I think we need to have some congressional hearings. Just because the Kansas City Chiefs lost the last 

nine games, there is no reason to prevent them from playing in the 

Super Bowl. I just don’t think this is democracy. 

The CHAIRMAN. The polar bears of the NFL. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yeah. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A short statement, and I am interested in the opinions of the witnesses. The strange thing about all of this is even if we don’t drill 

in Alaska, I think most of the scientific community would agree 

that continuing to burn fossil fuel does, in fact, put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and if there are more greenhouse 

gases in the atmosphere, the temperature the Earth will rise. If the 

temperature the Earth rises, the ice will melt. And so I think that 

even if you don’t want to accept this as a current problem, just accepting the fact that fossil fuel creates greenhouse gas shows that 

there is a problem. 

And I guess the delight for me today is that one of the polar 

bears came in, and they think that it is wrong to drill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL of New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you for holding this hearing. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
10 

I also believe that the polar bears are an iconic species, which 

people may not think that it directly affects human existence. But 

it is important to me and, I think, important to many of us and 

the children who are here today, those with imagination and appreciation and love for the nature that the Creator left us in a position 

of responsibility to protect and to guard, that species like the polar 

bear are allowed a chance to continue to have a habitat and to live. 

They are indeed part of the fabric of the ecological net that we also 

are a part of, and that one by one as the species that are threatened today are removed by continued excessive consumption and 

pollution, that net becomes more and more fragile and fragile to 

humans. 

Yesterday we had a meeting about the Tappan Zee Bridge with 

some of the representatives from New York and the New York 

State Department of Transportation commissioner, and I asked 

her, among other things, because the bridge is probably going to be 

rebuilt because it is deficient and aging—because of the bridge collapse in Minnesota, and everybody is thinking about other bridges 

that might be weak and need to be replaced, I asked her are they 

planning on building it higher because of the possibility of sea level 

increase, because the Hudson River which splits my district is tidal 

all the way to Troy, which is north of Albany, New York. In other 

words, if the sea level increases, the Hudson River level will increase, and that will affect things like the bridge, things like the 

rail—the freight rail line, and the west shore of the Hudson, and 

the passenger rail line and east shore of the Hudson that are only 

a few feet above sea level now, and if we have a significant increase in sea level and more frequent and more strong storms as 

a result, that these things will have a direct impact on people living in my district and on the economic life and investments that 

have already taken place in refurbishing waterfronts and building 

walkways, and boardwalks, and new restaurants and shops along 

these newly improved downtown waterfronts. 

Now, that might seem like a long cry, a far reach from a polar 

bear, but it is only one of the many ways that I believe we need 

to connect what is going on, the changes. I am looking at one of 

our witnesses’ testimony, the difference between ice pack in September of 1979 and the ice pack in September 2007, and it is a significant reduction. I just don’t think that we can wait to make the 

changes. 

The changes we need to make to save the polar bear are the 

same changes we need to make to stop asthma and emphysema 

from being such an epidemic in our inner cities and among our 

children; the same changes we need to make to save our balance 

and trade deficit from being worse; the same changes we need to 

make to stop shipping billions of dollars to oil states and unstable 

parts of the world and borrowing the money from other countries, 

including China, to pay for it. They are the same changes that are 

driving us into a loss of sovereignty and at the same time destroying our environment. 

And so that is a lose-lose-lose-lose energy policy. The policy that 

would change that and solve those problems is a win-win-win-win 

policy in which we create new technologies, new industries, jobs 

here in this country; keep our money at home; keep our children 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
11 

and elderly from suffering the effects of asthma and emphysema; 

cut back on oil spills, acid rain and other detrimental effects of fossil fuel consumption. 

So I am here to hear the witnesses. I have used up all of my time 

ranting. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired, and all time 

for opening statements from Members has expired. So we turn to 

our panel. Our first witness is Mr. Dale Hall, who is the Director 

of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Hall has spent 

the majority of his life in public service. Over the course of Mr. 

Hall’s three decades with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, he has 

played an important role in developing our Nation’s fishery facilities. 

We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin your 

testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF H. DALE HALL, DIRECTOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; RANDALL LUTHI, DIRECTOR, MINERALS 

MANAGEMENT SERVICE; AND STEVEN AMSTRUP, POLAR 

BEAR TEAM LEADER, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

STATEMENT OF H. DALE HALL 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner and members of the select committee. It is a pleasure to 

be here with you this morning. 

Mr. Chairman, I have requested my written statement be entered into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be included in the 

record at the appropriate point. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. 

The Service proposed to list the polar bear as threatened 

throughout its range on January 9th, 2007, after a scientific review 

of the species found that populations may be threatened by the receding sea ice. Polar bears use sea ice as a platform for many activities essential to their life cycle, especially hunting for their 

main prey, Arctic range seals. 

At the time Secretary Kempthorne announced the proposal, he 

directed us to work with the USGS, the public, and pertinent sectors of the scientific community to broaden our understanding of 

what factors affect the species to gather additional information to 

inform the final decision on whether the species warrants Federal 

protection under the ESA. 

To assist in that effort, we opened a 3-month public comment period and held public hearings in Anchorage and Barrow, Alaska, 

and Washington, D.C. In June 2007, we hosted a meeting that included official representatives from all of the countries within the 

polar bear’s range. The meeting provided a forum for the exchange 

of scientific, management and technical information among the 

range nations. 

In September 2007, USGS scientists supplied their new research 

to the Service, updating population information on polar bears in 

the Southern Beaufort Sea of Alaska, and providing new information on the status of two other polar bear populations. USGS studies provided additional data on Arctic climate and sea ice trends 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
12 

and projected effects to polar bear numbers throughout the species’ 

range. 

As a result of the new USGS research findings, we reopened and 

later extended a second comment period to allow the public time 

to review and respond to the USGS reports. We received numerous 

comments on the USGS reports and have been working to analyze 

and respond to the information provided during the extended comment period. We expect to provide a final recommendation to the 

Secretary and finalize a decision on the proposal to list the polar 

bear in the very near future. 

Part of today’s hearing focuses on the possible oil and gas development activities occurring in polar bear habitat. As we noted in 

our January 9 proposed rule, the Service determined that these activities do not threaten polar bears throughout all or a significant 

portion of their range after review of factors including the mitigation measures required under the Marine Mammal Protection Act; 

historical information on development activities; lack of direct, 

quantifiable impacts to habitat from these activities noted to date; 

the localized nature of the development activities or possible events 

such as oil spills. 

In particular, the incidental take provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act ensure that any impacts on the species will be 

negligible and will not have an unmitigable impact on the availability of the species for subsistence use by Alaska Natives. 

I look forward to working with you as we move forward in this 

process, and I look forward to working with all of the entities, including the State of Alaska, other Federal entities, the Congress, 

international community and others, as we work to conserve this 

very important species. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you, Mr. Hall, very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
13 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 58416A.003
14 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 58416A.004
15 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 58416A.005
16 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 58416A.006
17 

The CHAIRMAN. Our second witness is Mr. Randall Luthi. He is 

the Director of the Minerals Management Service in the Department of Interior. Mr. Luthi previously served as speaker of the Wyoming House of Representatives. 

We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF RANDALL LUTHI 

Mr. LUTHI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members 

of the committee, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner. It appears 

right now as I have listened to the opening statements what we all 

agree on is we are glad you had this hearing. It will be interesting 

as we go through and listen to the various opinions that are expressed today. 

I want to take an opportunity to let you know of our activities 

of dealing with the Chukchi Sea and the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf. And from the very beginning, from the outset—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Could you turn on your microphone? I am sorry. 

I am not sure it is on. 

Mr. LUTHI. I am sorry that all those witty comments were lost. 

Once again, let me state at the outset that the MMS has worked 

closely with our sister agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

throughout this process. This partnership is focused on protecting 

wildlife in the environment as we conduct an offshore energy program. We believe that energy resource development can be 

achieved consistent with the stewardship responsibilities, and believe me we take those stewardship responsibilities seriously. 

The Department of the Interior and its agencies, including the 

Minerals Management Service, are public stewards of our Nation’s 

natural resources. We also play an extremely vital role in the domestic energy development. One-third of all energy produced in the 

United States comes from resources managed by the Department 

of the Interior, both onshore and offshore. Our National security, 

our economy and our quality of life are dependent upon energy. 

Last week we issued a Record of Decision to move forward with 

alternative energy development in the Outer Continental Shelf, 

which will help us as a Nation expand our use of renewable energy 

resources. This represents an important milestone in charting a 

course designed to increase our energy security through the development of a variety of resources, and that is so important at this 

time in our lives. 

May I have the first slide, please? And you have it up. 

This just gives us an idea of what we are looking at. This is a 

slide from the EIA. You will notice our U.S. consumption of energy 

is expected to continue to increase. It appears that our U.S. production is also going to increase, but at a lower rate. What that means 

is we import energy, we import energy. Most of that energy is 

going to be oil and gas that we import. 

It is projected that we are going to see gasoline—an average gasoline price of $3.50 by this spring. It is unheard of a few years ago, 

but we now flirt with $100-a-barrel oil. It is projected that our increase in our demand for energy will increase by 24 percent by the 

year 2030, and during that same total period of time, as the chart 

indicates, our domestic energy will not significantly increase. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
18 

Currently the gap, as I have mentioned, in this import and our 

demand are filled by energy imports. In 2006, we imported 10 million barrels of oil and nearly 111⁄2 million cubic feet of natural gas. 

It is predicted by 2030 an additional 1.9 million barrels of oil and 

1.6 million cubic feet of gas per day is going to be above our current 

levels. 

Next slide, please. 

When we look at emerging economies—and this next slide takes 

a look at what the world consumption of energy is predicted to be. 

And once again, we are used to the idea that when we needed imports, we could get them. I think we are facing the possibility that 

that is going to be more and more difficult to do as you look at the 

great amount of energy the world is looking at. 

We think it is important that as part of or energy resource portfolio, that we continue to develop those natural resources. In fact, 

the EIA once again predicts no matter what we do in the next generation, the generation that we have talked about already this 

morning, we are going to rely largely upon the traditional forms of 

energy; that is, coal, oil and gas. It is my belief that we need to 

work with those resources as well as alternative resources to reduce our energy independence. 

Let us take a minute to look at the Chukchi Sea. Chukchi Sea 

sale is one of four areas that we have included in our 5-year leasing program. Between 1988 and 1991, there were four lease sales 

in the Chukchi Sea area; 483 blocks were leased, 5 exploration 

wells were drilled, and all of those wells indicated the presence of 

some oil and gas. We estimate that this area contains approximately 15 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of gas. 

This process, as we go through a sale, includes consultations and 

conferences with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fishery Service under the Endangered Species Act, as well 

as the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Both of those agencies 

issued no jeopardy biological opinions. 

These reviews went to the potential direct, the indirect and the 

cumulative effects of the lease sale on marine mammals, including 

polar bears, as well as subsistence activities. 

Mr. Chairman, to use your analogy, we believe that we have put 

on our underwear first, our T-shirt, our socks, our shirt, our pants 

and then our shoes, and lastly the belt. We think we have done a 

good job in making sure we understand the potential effects of this 

sale. 

If you go back to the last slide, please, that gives you an idea of 

some of the things we have done on this slide. What the slide indicates there, if you will look at that, that is the coast of Alaska. 

That narrow white line is the State land, submerged lands. The 

next blue line is the area originally included in the sale, the proposal, as well as that pink. 

What we did after consultations of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

as well as the Native groups, we reduced the size of the sale back 

to the green line, so that means at least 25 to 50 miles offshore, 

which is important critical habitat for beluga whales, for migratory 

birds, as well as the polar bear. In addition, that area that is 

shaded there would indicate that if any leases were leased in that 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
19 

area, they would have additional restrictions regarding exploration 

and development in order to protect natural resources. 

MMS has an important role in providing information. In the last 30 years we have provided nearly $300 million of funding to study 

natural resources in the offshore of Alaska, including the polar 

bear. 

Mr. Chairman, I see that my statement goes on much longer 

than the stop light does, and again, having been somewhat in your 

seat at a smaller level, I understand the importance of trying to 

move this along. I would ask, however, that my full written statement be included in the record. I look forward to attempting to answer questions that the committee might have. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you, Mr. Luthi, and your entire statement will be included in the record. We thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Luthi follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
20 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 58416A.007
21 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 58416A.008
22 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 58416A.009
23 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 58416A.010
24 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 58416A.011
25 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 58416A.012
26 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 58416A.013
27 

The CHAIRMAN. We also have with us and sitting at the table Dr. 

Steven Amstrup, who is the Polar Bear Team Leader for the 

United States Geological Survey. He is not going to deliver an 

opening statement, but he will be here to answer questions from 

any member of the select committee. He is a renowned wildlife biologist with the USGS at the Alaska Science Center and one of the 

world’s preeminent polar bear experts. 

So we thank you for being here as well, Dr. Amstrup. 

So the Chair will now recognize himself for a round of questions. 

Let me begin with you, Director Hall. 

Can you assure the committee and the public that science and 

only science is and will control the final listing decision for our 

polar bear? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Director Hall and Director Luthi, will the final 

polar bear listing decision be made and be effective before the 

scheduled February 6th Chukchi lease sale? 

Mr. HALL. Since that time frame is in my lap, I will respond to 

it. 

Mr. LUTHI. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. Last week I held a press conference and announced 

that we will have to take some extra time. That responsibility is 

mine. I don’t like to do that. I don’t like to miss due dates, but I 

want to make sure that when we roll out a package to the public 

in the Federal Register, that it clearly demonstrates the wellthought-out process that we went through and how and why we 

reached the conclusion that we reached. 

It was mentioned earlier that there are uncertainties in science, 

and frankly, that is the nature of science. If we moved forward expecting to have a decision that didn’t have uncertainties with it, we 

would never make a decision. That is the world we live in. And 

natural resource management, we are constantly predicting what 

might happen in the future, but not just what might; what do we 

expect, what do the best data lead us to believe. And taking this 

extra time, I wanted to make sure that our staff and I had enough 

time to clearly understand, be able to explain both the reasons why 

we accepted the information that we accepted and relied upon and 

the reasons why we didn’t. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that, Director Hall, but we do need 

assurances that the public listing decision will be made before the 

lease sale. And so there is a real problem here, and we have to do 

something about it. So I am going to introduce legislation later 

today with members of this committee that will ensure that the Interior Department makes these two decisions in the correct order. 

My legislation will require that the final listing and critical habitat designation decisions for the polar bear be made before the 

Chukchi lease sale can take place. This will not prevent the 

Chukchi Sea leasing, but simply require that the Interior Department, the two of you sitting here, make the decisions in the proper 

order to protect the polar bear. It is one agency; you have one Secretary who runs your agency, and this decision-making process 

should occur in the proper sequence. And I am going to introduce 

legislation to make sure that that is the way in which it happens. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
28 

Dr. Amstrup, can you tell us in your opinion how endangered is 

the polar bear? 

Mr. AMSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Our research completed this past summer contributed to a body 

of information that already existed on polar bears. That research 

suggested that within the next 50 years or so, that the population 

of polar bears could decline by approximately two-thirds because of 

changes in the sea ice habitat that are related to global warming. 

These results were based on a variety of modeling efforts, based on 

outputs from general circulation models, and outputs from population dynamic models, and our best attempt to synthesize all of 

those into a comprehensive forecast of what the future for polar 

bears might be. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you, Dr. Amstrup, very much. I thank 

you for your work as well. 

This is an important moment for Secretary Kempthorne. He 

must do the right thing. He must ensure that Mr. Hall makes his 

decision before Mr. Luthi makes his decision. He must make sure 

that the polar bear has the proper legal protection before Mr. Luthi 

makes his decision as to where and how drilling will take place for 

oil and natural gas. 

We don’t want to either lose a polar bear or our potential for 

more oil and gas in this country, but we have to do both in a way 

that is sensitive to the role that each plays in our society, and Secretary Kempthorne has a big historical moment that he is going to 

be presented with. And we are going to do everything that we can 

in order to ensure that the public understands how critical that decision is. 

Let me turn now and recognize the gentleman from the State of 

Wisconsin Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a technical question for Dr. Amstrup. What has been the 

trend in the polar bear population since 1972? Do we have more 

of them, less of them, same number? 

Mr. AMSTRUP. Thank you, Congressman. That is a good question 

because it is one that has come up repeatedly in the press and in 

the public. 

Historically our knowledge about polar bears goes back to about 

the mid-1960s, and it was at that time that people who were interested in Arctic wildlife realized that polar bears pretty much worldwide were being harvested extensively. We had aerial trophy hunting that was occurring in Alaska. There was ship-borne trophy 

hunting that was occurring north of Norway. They were using set 

guns on the Svalbard archipelago to kill polar bears, basically a 

trap kind of a situation, to get the furs, and populations were recognized as being very low at that time frame. Just how low they 

were wasn’t clear because nobody had been doing—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. My time is limited. 

When did the hunting protection of polar bears kick in? What 

year was that? 

Mr. AMSTRUP. 1972 is when the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

kicked in. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
29 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. So the Marine Mammal Protection Act, at 

least in the United States, stopped the type of hunting that you 

were describing that occurred in the 1960s. 

Now, what has happened to the polar bear population since the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act became effective; has it gone up? 

Mr. AMSTRUP. Our research has shown that the populations have 

increased substantially not only in Alaska, but in many other parts 

of their range. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. That is the answer that I was looking for. 

Now, Mr. Luthi, did I hear you correctly when you testified that 

the proposed lease in the Chukchi Sea, there had been an examination of the impact on the polar bear habitat, and the result was 

that if the exploration and the drilling occurred, that there would 

be a negligible impact on the polar bear added to it? Did I hear you 

correctly when you said that? 

Mr. LUTHI. That is correct, and that was also, I believe, a statement by Director Hall. 

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, we are also required 

to confer with the wildlife agencies, and that is actually one of the 

stricter acts that is available, and we must comply with that as 

well. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, after hearing you, Dr. Amstrup, and 

having heard the result of your study, Mr. Luthi, let me say that 

the fears that I expressed in my opening statement I guess are 

coming to fruition. It seems that the scientific evidence that Dr. 

Amstrup has referred to and the study that Mr. Luthi has done in 

the course of the discharge of his duties indicates that while there 

is perhaps a problem with polar bear population, going ahead with 

the lease will not have a major impact on the habitat of the polar 

bears in this part of the sea across Alaska. 

Now, if that is the case, then I don’t think Mr. Markey’s bill has 

the scientific background that is necessary to effect what he wants 

to do, and that this process is going along fairly well, even though 

it is a two-track process under the existing law that has been 

passed by this Congress. So what is the beef? And I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

I just want to comment on some of the things said on opening 

statement about the problem that we face, people suggesting that 

there is no clear science about what is happening in the Arctic. 

And it is unbelievable to me that people are still adopting the attitude of the ostrich in this situation. 

One million square miles of the Arctic disappeared this summer, 

that is the size of six Californias disappeared, stunning the scientific community; the news that probably about 40 percent of the 

depth of the Arctic has gone AWOL in the last couple of decades. 

And people who refuse to ignore this plain visual evidence—I don’t 

know how we are going to solve our problems as a country if they 

refuse to recognize the visual evidence. It is not hypothetical, it is 

not theoretical, it is gone. I just want to make that comment. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
30 

I want to ask Mr. Luthi about the risk of oil spills with polar 

bears. Some people suggested essentially no risk, but I am reading 

from the Environmental Impact Statement of May 2007. It says, 

we estimate the chance of a large spill greater than or equal to 

1,000 BBL occurring in offshore waters is within a range of 33 to 

51 percent. For purposes of analysis we model one large spill of either 1,500 BBL platform spill or 4,600 BBL pipeline spill. If a large 

spill were to occur, the analysis identifies potentially significant 

impacts to bowhead whales, polar bears, essential fish habitat, marine and coastal birds, subsistence hunting, and archeological sites. 

Is that the conclusion in the Environmental Impact Statement? 

Mr. LUTHI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative Inslee. 

I believe you may be reading from our Environmental Impact 

Statement; is that correct? 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes. 

Mr. LUTHI. An Environmental Impact Statement, as you are well 

aware, has asked us to basically evaluate all kinds of impacts. I 

don’t think we would be doing our job effectively if we didn’t realize 

and say that we are going to look at the possibility of a spill whenever there is development. The history shows us differently. The reality is particularly in the Alaska area industry has been very careful, and we require that they be responsible for also having cleanup equipment available. 

But we do want to say that there is the potential to spill, otherwise it would be—— 

Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate that, and that is why we would like to 

have the science before you make the decision. If I told you there 

is a 33 to 51 percent chance of you getting run over by a bus in 

the next year, I think you would think that was significant, and 

you would want to know that before you made decisions. 

You have concluded there is a 33 to 51 percent chance of a spill, 

which, in your own words, and I will quote from your own agency 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, says, ‘‘Our overall finding 

is that due to the magnitude of potential mortality as a result of 

a large oil spill, the proposed action would likely result in significant impacts to polar bears if a large spill occurred,’’ close quote. 

Despite that own finding of your own agency, nonetheless you 

have decided, unless something changes, to go ahead with the lease 

of these extreme number of acres, despite the fact that that is a 

substantial risk, knowing that the other part of the agency is about 

to enter or could enter an endangered or threatened species declaration; is that accurate? 

Mr. LUTHI. Mr. Chairman and Representative Inslee, you quoted 

the EIS certainly accurately, and I would point out to you the word 

‘‘if a large spill occurs.’’ The purpose of an impact statement is to 

evaluate those potentials. We then are left to the agency some discretion of how to overcome and mitigate that potential impact 

which we have. 

Now, in addition, you mentioned the second part of your statement deals with before the Endangered Species Act kicks in or if 

it does. Frankly, as I said in my opening statement, we have 

worked with Fish and Wildlife Service very carefully about consultation not only with the polar bear, but also all marine mamVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:25 Nov 10, 2010 Jkt 058416 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A416.XXX A416

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
31 

mals. We believe that adequate protections exist. Should the Fish 

and Wildlife Service list—— 

Mr. INSLEE. I understand you believe that, but I tell you what, 

my constituents do not believe that. My constituents believe, the 

650,000 people believe, that you are acting in willful ignorance of 

known science by making this decision before the taxpayer money 

is used adequately to evaluate this science. And when your own 

agency recognizes this threat, it is, I believe, negligent in the extreme to make this decision without having the declaration by the 

other agency. 

One other question. I sense from your testimony, reading your 

testimony and what the agency has said, that it treats a declaration of endangered or threatened species as sort of a nullity, kind 

of no big deal. We kind of do the same thing whether or not there 

is a designation, and I find that totally disrespectful of the law, and 

I can’t understand how you take that position. Tell us what would 

be different about your leasing decision if there had been a designation before your decision? 

Mr. LUTHI. If I understood your question correctly, it would be 

what would change if the polar bear had been listed as we went 

through the sale process; is that correct? 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes. 

Mr. LUTHI. What would be different would be one more layer of 

consultation, and it would be an official consultation under the Endangered Species Act. However, and let me underline ‘‘however,’’ 

what I believe you are not pointing out particularly is the protections under the current act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

which in many senses is actually more strict. What the consultation would result in—well, we don’t know what it would result in, 

but what the purpose would be is to make sure any activities that 

we authorize do not jeopardize the existence of whatever creature 

or critter happens to be listed. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to continue to 

pursue this line of questioning. 

Mr. Luthi, I had written down this question: What happens if 

you go ahead with the leases, and then the polar bears are listed? 

Tell me practically what happens. 

Mr. LUTHI. Mr. Chairman, Representative Walden, thank you for 

that question. 

Should the polar bear be listed, what that does is add an additional layer of consultation. The leasing process is actually a very 

phased process. The sale of the lease is only the first. The second 

step comes in when the company develops an exploration plan. 

That plan has to be approved by us. It has to be reviewed by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service agency. It has also to be consistent with 

basically the State plans as well. So that would be probably the 

first time that additional layer of consultation would take place is 

when they actually had a development plan. That would occur 

again should they have a production plan, and at least one more 

time in the process before the oil or gas should actually flow. 

Mr. WALDEN. Do you have other threatened or endangered species listed where you have leases in the Arctic? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
32 

Mr. LUTHI. Yes, we do. We have the—the eiders are listed, as 

well as, I think, one of the whale species; is that correct, Dale? 

Yeah, yeah. Actually that would be on the whales we consult with 

the National Marine Fishery Service. 

Mr. WALDEN. Can you tell me the historic activities that have occurred after those leases have been let and the species have been 

listed? Have you seen spills, have you seen threats to these species, 

have you seen loss of life? 

Mr. LUTHI. Mr. Chairman, Representative Walden, I am pleased 

to tell you that in the limited exploration and development that has 

happened in the current Outer Continental Shelf of Alaska, we 

have seen no blow-outs, only very small spills, and these are spills 

that are normally contained. They are more diesel in the preparation as opposed to actual crude oil, and we have not had—to my 

knowledge, there has not been a take or harassment of the endangered species. 

Mr. WALDEN. Now, talk to me a bit about—you mentioned in response to Mr. Inslee’s question, but you didn’t get into any detail, 

that you would have to overcome and mitigate if there were a spill. 

I mean, your environmental planning process says, here’s the range 

of options, here’s the worst thing that could happen, and then don’t 

you go to the next step and say, and here’s how we would mitigate 

to make sure that didn’t happen? So I am concerned Mr. Inslee is 

saying you have a 33 to 50 percent chance of is it a 1,000-barrel 

spill? 

Mr. LUTHI. I believe that is what he quoted. 

Mr. WALDEN. And is that your worst-case scenario? 

Mr. LUTHI. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Walden, I believe it is. But what 

I would also like to do, Mr. Chairman, if you would grant me the 

opportunity, I brought back-up. John Goll is our Regional Director 

in Alaska and has worked personally on the EIS far longer than 

I have. And if you would want more technical answers—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, I would. Mr. Chairman, if that is okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have no problem. The gentleman has a minute. 

Mr. WALDEN. I have about 2 minutes left, so make it quick. 

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would come up to the table, 

identify himself for the record and then answer the question from 

the gentleman. And I will extend the gentleman an extra minute. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Mr. GOLL. My name is John Goll. I am the Regional Director 

with the Minerals Management Services Office in Anchorage, Alaska. And with regard to, we review basically two types of information when we evaluate a sale. One is what we reasonably expect. 

That is activity that we know will happen, the activity in the water 

and such. And, for example, when an operator goes under there in 

Alaska, they have gotten authorization from either the National 

Marine Fisheries Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service for the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act authorization. So that is where the 

protection comes in. The companies do apply for that. And they are 

required then under those acts to follow certain requirements. 

We also evaluate though, again for disclosure, that if there were 

a spill what might happen. So we look at the various kinds of scenarios, and that I think is what you are asking. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
33 

Mr. WALDEN. Then I also understood you have then mitigation 

to overcome that, is that right, proposals to overcome and then 

what you would do if it happened? 

Mr. GOLL. Actually, the expectation from a sale from an expected 

value is that we expect no significant spills. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am going to run out of time here. I want to go 

back to this issue that there is an anticipation of a 33 to 51 percent 

likelihood of a 1,000-barrel spill if these leases are let. Is that accurate? 

Mr. GOLL. That is what our statistics show. 

Mr. WALDEN. And you have no way to mitigate or prevent that? 

Mr. GOLL. No, there is mitigation. 

Mr. WALDEN. Okay. Get to that. 

Mr. GOLL. The last offshore spill from a platform was in 1980. 

Spills generally occur, if they do occur, at the development stage, 

and we have had a very good record since. There are many 

redundancies with regard to the drilling programs. The technology 

today is much better. The statistics we have used go back in time, 

so you are including a lot of past records. 

Mr. WALDEN. So in the 33 to 51 percent chance of a spill of 1,000 

barrels this does not reflect modern technologies? 

Mr. GOLL. Our goal is to prevent any spill from occurring. And 

with our regulatory system what I am saying is we have been very 

successful in that in the last 2 decades or so. 

Mr. WALDEN. Since 1980. Almost 3 decades then? 

Mr. GOLL. Correct. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the courtesy in extending the additional time. I appreciate the witness’ 

comments. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me continue 

with this line of questioning, because I think it is informative. Mr. 

Markey has made a proposal that seems to me just on the face of 

it to be logical and pragmatic. Mr. Hall, Mr. Luthi, would you object to the legislation as proposed or do you think that that is 

sound policy and practice? 

Mr. HALL. Well, it is probably a question that I can’t answer, because I don’t make the decision for the administration on what 

they support or don’t support. That comes through the statement 

of administration first. 

Mr. LARSON. Well, let me ask you personally. 

Mr. HALL. Personally, the activities, what Director Luthi has 

been saying is true. We don’t have any substantial records that the 

oil and gas exploration have created an issue for the polar bear. 

Mr. LARSON. And yet Mr. Inslee in his questioning says that by 

your own statement you recognize that should a catastrophe occur 

there is a risk here of 33 to 51 percent, which you both said earlier 

this would have negligible impact. Does it not make sense to follow 

what Mr. Markey has laid out so that we can, or is it because you 

don’t want to encounter the consultation that you will have to go 

through that surrounds making the polar bear an endangered species? What is the big deal here? I don’t understand why—what is 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
34 

behind this? Why wouldn’t you proceed in the order that Mr. Markey has suggested? 

Mr. HALL. We will proceed. And quite frankly if I hadn’t made 

the decision that I made to give us more time it would have worked 

that way anyway. And I apologize for doing that, but I just felt like 

we had to give our staff an opportunity. But quite frankly I am a 

biologist that happens to be sitting in a position that is political 

and has that ramification, and I am never quite comfortable in telling anybody what kind of laws they should pass. 

Mr. LARSON. Well, listen, I thank the both of you for your public 

service. These are difficult decisions, but they are very important 

decisions for the country, and in this case for not only the polar 

bear, but as you have acknowledged in your own comments, other 

mammal life as well. 

Dr. Amstrup, could you answer the question, given the record 

low summer sea ice this year, what are you doing to understand 

the impact on polar bears and what could you tell us about the future impact of global warming and this melting with regard to 

that? 

Mr. AMSTRUP. Well, let me try and answer the second question 

first. The work that we have done has suggested that the changes 

in the sea ice that are projected to occur and have already been observed to have occurred are having a negative impact on polar 

bears across different reaches of their range. And we expect that 

those negative impacts will continue. What we are planning to do 

about them is, in terms of understanding what our projections, how 

accurate our projections are and whether or not we need to adjust 

our projections in the future, is we do plan to continue the monitoring that we have been doing for years. We are trying to get work 

done in the Chukchi Sea, which we don’t have much recent research ongoing or haven’t had recent research ongoing in the 

Chukchi Sea. We do plan to continue the research in the Beaufort 

Sea where we have got a long-term data set. And we are hopeful 

that that will continue to refine our understanding of the impacts. 

Mr. LARSON. What would a spill, as they have indicated in their 

own assessment here, what would that mean with respect to the 

polar bear? 

Mr. AMSTRUP. We don’t really have any data that would address 

what the effects of a spill of that size might be in that environment. We did do an analysis of an oil spill in the Beaufort Sea on 

an offshore proposal that was made some years ago. And what our 

research showed there is that spills that escape the shoreline, that 

is when the oil moved offshore, there was a substantial risk of a 

large number of bears encountering the oil. In the Chukchi Sea the 

situation is very different than it was in the Beaufort Sea, and it 

would require additional work like that to get quantitative information on what those risks might be. With regard to the risks of 

polar bears if they encounter oil, the data that are available are 

few, but pretty clear polar bears do not do well when they get into 

oil. They tend to groom themselves, they ingest the oil and the 

spills tend to have a—basically they most likely are fatal. 

Mr. LARSON. Now, Mr. Luthi, would you in the question I asked 

Mr. Hall before, just as a quick follow-up, do you think that Mr. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
35 

Markey’s proposal is a common sense, pragmatic course that we 

should take? What is the big deal here? 

Mr. LUTHI. Mr. Chairman, Representative Larson, I appreciate 

the question. Again, I haven’t seen the proposal. I would have to 

read it in detail. However, as I would say again, we wouldn’t be 

proceeding with this sale if we weren’t comfortable that we had 

enough knowledge, enough data, to say that we can adequately see 

that the polar bear is protected, as well as other endangered species, if, let me underline if, if the department makes a decision to 

list the polar bear. We take it—I am very serious about seeing that 

we do this right. And I believe we are doing it right. 

It is interesting. We talk a lot about data and science and the 

information that is out there. And one of the reasons the data that 

has been collected so far is in anticipation of sales. That is one of 

the reasons that we actually start spending money to try and get 

more and more data about the Chukchi Sea, about natural resources. So it is actually a help, and to some degree with our scientific knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Arizona. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my late 

arrival. I am fighting a bad cold. 

Mr. Hall, can you give me a broad description of the implications 

of trying to make a decision to list a species as endangered or 

threatened in the context of global warming? 

Mr. HALL. Well, this has been one of the most difficult processes 

that we have gone through because it is atypical. Normally the 

1,300 species that we have on the list, we have seen wetlands developed, we know exactly the point sources of where we are losing 

them, all the different aspects associated with it. We have better 

population estimates in a lot of cases. So in the case of global 

warming where the impacts are coming literally from everywhere, 

it has been pretty difficult. However, the responsibility to answer 

the questions brings it back into scope that we can deal with. Because the questions under the Endangered Species Act still deal 

with the habitat for the species, the impacts that may occur to the 

species, and those we call the five factor analysis. And that is the 

process then that we have gone through with the help of USGS and 

any other science that is out there to understand, not necessarily 

all the different sources and where they are coming from, maybe 

even what country they are coming from, but for the purposes of 

the listing of the Endangered Species Act, it is what is happening 

to the habitat that is the question that we are answering. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Would any of the other of you like to comment on 

that? 

Mr. LUTHI. I don’t think I can add anything to the procedural aspects. If there is a particular question I would attempt to try it involved with the Chukchi Sea or the sale process. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Hall, is there the potential that someone 

could, on the basis that the sea was rising, allege that some country was, an island country, could allege that the species on their 

habitat were threatened as a result of what is happening and try 

to affect any decision you make based on a remote effect, and you 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
36 

said depending on the country it is coming from effects very remote 

from where, for example, you were looking up? 

Mr. HALL. I am sorry. I am not exactly sure what you are asking. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Let us say a company in my State of Arizona decided it wanted to build a coal-fired power plant. Would they be required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that 

their actions wouldn’t affect polar bears in the Chukchi Sea? 

Mr. HALL. They would be—anyone that is proposing an activity 

that could impact a listed species, if it has any kind of Federal connection, would require Section 7 consultation, and under coal-fired 

plant. Then Energy or whomever would have to consult. The question would then be, do we have the science, do we have the technology, do we have the capability of making the linkage to take. 

Because the Endangered Species Act is pretty specific in what we 

have to establish. And the courts have made sure that we understood that. 

Unfortunately, we have lost some cases where the courts felt like 

we were being speculative in coming up with take. The Arizona 

Cattle Growers Association case at the Ninth Circuit upheld, told 

us that we were wrong, that we couldn’t speculate, that we had to 

have a direct cause leading to take before we could say that take 

was occurring. And that the attorneys that have really interpreted 

that to mean the but-for clause: But for this action would this take 

have occurred. And the burden is on us and the science to be able 

to make that very direct linkage to the take and to the diminishment of the population of the species. Because the Endangered Species Act listing is for the species. Habitat is a measurement of damage or positive impacts, if we can improve it, to the species. But 

the act has us analyze take and then leading to jeopardy or no 

jeopardy. And the science as it is today, even the IPCC information, would not allow us to segment out that this particular set of 

emissions caused this particular set of impacts leading to take. 

That is the difficulty with this. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I think the answer to my question is, and my time 

is up, if the allegation was that those emissions could cause that 

effect, if they could answer the but-for, the answer to my question 

would be yes? 

Mr. HALL. Yes. They would have to consult if they believed that 

they may contribute to the effects. But then the next question is, 

is it likely to adversely affect. And that is really the part I was answering there that would be extremely difficult to deal with. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Fair enough. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hall—Mr. Luthi 

first. Are you familiar with the USS Arizona? 

Mr. HALL. To some degree yes, sir. 

Mr. CLEAVER. It went down in Pearl Harbor. It was one of I 

think nine ships that went down in the attack. Have you ever gone 

there in Pearl Harbor to see the ship which is on the bottom, but 

there is an area where people can walk over and actually look 

down in the water and see the remains? 

Mr. LUTHI. Unfortunately, I have not been able to see that personally, Congressman Cleaver. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
37 

Mr. CLEAVER. Each day when thousands of people go over, actually it is the number one tourist attraction in Hawaii oddly, oil is 

bubbling up out of the Arizona every single day 60 years later, 60 

years later. You can see it on the water. I mean it is just laying 

on the water and you can see it bubbling. It is amazing that it is 

continuing this long. And so I watched it last week and realized the 

lasting impact on oil spills and what it does to the environment 

and to the animals and species that are impacted. 

I am also wondering, this is a difficult question, I hope it is fair, 

do you think that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is strictly 

dealing with fish and wildlife or does it get into ideological issues 

as it looks at fish and wildlife issues? Any of you. 

Mr. LUTHI. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cleaver, this is one I 

think I really should defer to Mr. Hall as Director of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Mr. HALL. Well, I am going to try and interpret your question. 

Mr. CLEAVER. No, no, no. I will say it again if you didn’t understand it. I usually don’t like for people to interpret what I say. 

Mr. HALL. Good. That is why I was going to say what I thought 

you said. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Okay. Good. What part didn’t you understand? 

Mr. HALL. The philosophical part. 

Mr. CLEAVER. No, ideological. 

Mr. HALL. Ideological, okay. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Is it ideological or scientific, is your decision ideological or scientific or is it a mix of two? 

Mr. HALL. Over my 29 years with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

I think I can speak with some confidence that our employees approach work from, number one, trying to be a professional, and 

number two, trying to be honest about what we know and don’t 

know. And as I spoke earlier, in all science there is a lot we don’t 

know, but we have to deal with it. But as far as being ideological, 

I believe the vast majority of our employees, and I am one of those, 

believes that we should be advocates for truth, whatever that is. 

And if the truth means that there is an impact, we need to say that 

and if the truth means there isn’t, we need to say that. Because 

I think the public depends upon us to be as honest in our disclosures as we possibly can be. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I appreciate that. 

Mr. HALL. If that is the ideology you are talking about. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes. Not completely. But I mean when we begin 

to discuss this issue, global warming, endangered species, quite 

often we get into an ideological discussion that has to do with free 

commerce and government intervention into business and that 

kind of thing. And so there is a whole bit of resistance to the acceptance of the science based on ideology and not science. But dealing with the whole issue of receiving the facts and dealing with 

them honestly, is there any doubt in your mind at this point that 

the habitat of the polar bear has been damaged? 

Mr. HALL. Oh, I think there is a difference between has been. We 

certainly lost 20 percent. But the decision that we are trying to 

make, and will make, will be over the foreseeable future, which actually would take us out to mid century as well. And we know, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
38 

based upon the science, that the habitat is leaving us. So there is 

no doubt that that is happening. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So what is the problem? 

Mr. HALL. There is a lot of—you know, I have tried to say this, 

and perhaps I am not being clear. It is not just making a decision 

that is important. It is making it clear and why. Because we had 

over 600,000 comments come in, and there were people that didn’t 

agree that the issue you have described is there. There are people 

that believe that it was. Our responsibility is to answer for everyone that when we have uncertainty, that we accept, because we accept some risk in everything, but we explain that. 

Mr. CLEAVER. But you—— 

Mr. HALL. I want to get to when I release a document with my 

signature—— 

Mr. CLEAVER. Excuse me, my time is running out. But you have 

already said that you agree with me that the habitat has been 

damaged? 

Mr. HALL. Uh-huh. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Didn’t you say that? 

Mr. HALL. I think that is factual record that we have lost 20 percent of the ice, I believe it is 20 percent since the 1970s, roughly, 

a little more than that. I think that is scientific record. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So how much do you think we need to lose before 

we say this is a clear—you said you wanted to make sure that everything was clear—that this is a clear problem, because 20 percent looks clear to me. I mean if I had $100 and lost 20 percent 

of it, I clearly lost $20. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. Maybe I might owe you an apology. I thought 

you were talking about the listing decision versus a decision that 

we need to do something about climate change. We need to do 

something about climate change starting yesterday. And it needs to 

be a serious effort to try and control greenhouse gases, which is 

probably the only thing we actually can control. If the Earth is tilting, if other things are happening, we can’t control that, but we 

need to look at those things we can. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL of New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Amstrup, 

when the ranking member asked you a question about bear population, he cut you off when you were still talking. I was curious if 

you were going to say anything further about recent years of population. 

Mr. AMSTRUP. Thank you, Congressman. I was going to add a 

couple of comments. So the trend from the time that the over exploitation was recognized in the late 1960s and early 1970s was a 

period of growth in many areas of the polar bear’s range. And unfortunately we don’t have data from all areas of the polar bear’s 

distribution. But to the extent that we have data, it suggested a 

period of population growth. But that was in a period of stable environment, stable sea ice. And it has changed in recent years. We 

have seen the loss of ice that Congressman Cleaver was just referring to. And it is projected to continue to decline at a rapid rate. 

And in fact the declines that are predicted actually haven’t been as 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
39 

fast as what we have actually observed. So it is clear that we are 

losing an increasing amount of polar bear habitat. The habitat 

losses in a couple of areas have already been shown to have negative effects on polar bear populations. 

Mr. HALL of New York. Can we quantify this or do we just know 

that as we lose habitat therefore we must be losing population? 

Mr. AMSTRUP. It has been quantified in Hudson Bay, in the 

Western Hudson Bay population, we have seen significant declines 

in survival and a 22 percent loss in population size. 

Mr. HALL of New York. I am sorry. I only have 5 minutes. I want 

to get to a couple other things. Thank you for filling in some more 

of your answer. I wanted to ask Mr. Luthi and Mr. Hall, I guess 

Mr. Luthi first, your charts and slides about consumption projecting this 24 percent demand increase by 2030, in my district we 

have held, I have held, my office has held hearings around the 19th 

District of New York on solar energy, on biofuels, on efficient—high 

efficiency building techniques and on hydrokinetic tidal power, 

which is being tested in the East River. And my constituents are 

coming out in overflow crowds to find out what they can do, to ask 

what they can do. And a lot of them are doing something, as I am, 

buying wind power every month in my home, burning 20 percent 

biodiesel in my home, heating oil, driving a hybrid vehicle, et 

cetera. And we just passed a substantial, it is not a perfect energy 

bill, but it does some things. It puts billions of new dollars into renewables and into conservation and carbon sequestration. And we 

are trying to lead, as I think the United States should try to lead, 

instead of following, the world in developing these new technologies. And there are regional cap-and-trade systems being set 

up in the Northeast and the Western States, as well as the European Union and other parts of the world. 

My question is whether your projection of the increase and your 

statement that no matter what we do, I think this is a quote, if 

I remember it, we will primarily rely upon coal, oil and natural gas 

in this projected time. Are you saying that, taking into account all 

these efforts that are being made on renewables and conservation? 

Mr. LUTHI. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hall, that slide comes 

from the Energy Information Agency, and that is what they are 

saying, that even with the increased emphasis on renewables, 

which I support absolutely. One of the reasons I am so thrilled to 

be Director of MMS is that we are starting an alternative energy 

program in offshore. But that is what that slide says. That is what 

they tell us, that no matter what we do it is not going to move fast 

enough to make a significant decrease through at least the next 

generation of coal, oil and gas. 

Mr. HALL of New York. Excuse me, I want to get through a couple more questions before it goes red. You are aware, I am sure, 

that California’s electricity demand has been flat the last 20 years. 

It has gone up and down a little bit. It basically has been flat, even 

as the rest of the country has been on an increasing curve. And 

that is because we presume the regulatory climate in California 

being stricter, Air Resources Board and other regulations, that they 

have adapted to. And California is not a developing nation with no 

high technology. They have big screen TVs and video games and 

lots of industry. And so it seems to me that there are examples 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
40 

that we can look at to show that energy consumption can be limited without limiting our way of life and our productivity. 

So I don’t understand—here is where you get into the question 

I think that Congressman Cleaver was mentioning about ideology. 

You can draw a graph that projects—I have seen graphs that 

project different outcomes depending on what policies this government adopts and what lifestyle. You know, do we choose to fight 

literally and give billions of our dollars and the lives of our men 

and women in uniform to take oil from unstable parts of the world 

or from dangerous and difficult areas like the Arctic and the 

Chukchi Sea, or do we look for these alternatives that are not as 

dangerous, but do require us to develop new technologies? 

Let me just ask you as a follow-up, because I know my time did 

just run out, I am curious, the lease total in your testimony, your 

written testimony, for the Chukchi Sea leases total $500 million. 

I am curious what the potential value of the oil and gas underneath those leases is, if you have estimated that? 

Mr. LUTHI. Thank you. And I will have Regional Director John 

Goll deal with that technical question, because I think we do have 

a value. I know we have a value on the amount. 

Mr. GOLL. The issue is until you inventory and we really find out 

what is there we don’t know. Our scenario in the EIS is that it 

would take at least a field of a billion barrels to be able to produce. 

If you multiplied 1 billion by $100 oil you are talking $100 billion 

in today’s market. 

Mr. HALL of New York. Which everybody expects will go up? 

Mr. GOLL. Some people, yes. 

Mr. HALL of New York. So you are talking about a potential $100 

billion yield? 

Mr. GOLL. For one field, correct. 

Mr. HALL of New York. For a lease of $500 million? 

Mr. GOLL. Well, we don’t know what we would be getting from 

the sale with regard to the bids. We don’t know that until the sale 

happens. 

Mr. HALL of New York. Well, some of us believe that these offshore leases and leases on public lands have been given away too 

cheaply to the oil companies. Is there any possibility that that has 

happened here? 

Mr. LUTHI. Let me answer that one. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, 

Congressman Hall, the Minerals Management Service takes very 

seriously its responsibility about getting a fair market value for 

leases. I would invite you to come to our offices and see how we 

conduct our sales, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico where we have 

some more experience as well. After a lease sale is offered we actually go through a process once the bids are in and we evaluate 

whether that truly is a fair market, and there have been times we 

have turned those leases back. 

Mr. HALL of New York. Thank you, sir. I will take you up, and 

thank you for the invitation. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. This is a very, 

very, very important subject and I think this panel does deserve a 

second round of questions. And the Chair will recognize himself for 

that purpose. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
41 

Dr. Amstrup, what would the impact of an oil spill be on the 

polar bear? You are America’s leading expert on the polar bear. 

What is your judgment as to the impact of an oil spill on their 

habitat? 

Mr. AMSTRUP. The impact of an oil spill on polar bears would depend on the size of the spill, the currents, the winds that would 

distribute the oil after the spill. All of those things would have to 

be taken into account. And we don’t have data on those things. But 

what we do have data on is that the effect of oil on polar bears is 

in a wild environment where they don’t have access to strong medical veterinary care is likely to be fatal. So—— 

The CHAIRMAN. So it could be a disaster? 

Mr. AMSTRUP. If a number of polar bears were affected, they 

would probably die. And to the extent that that number is large, 

it could be a big problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Amstrup, very much. Mr. 

Hall, would you mind if Secretary Kempthorne made a decision 

which postponed the decision on the leasing of the Chukchi leases 

until you made your decision? 

Mr. HALL. It wouldn’t impact what I am doing at all. So it would 

be his decision, and whatever he wants to do is fine with me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Luthi, would you mind if Secretary Kempthorne made the decision that guaranteed that Mr. Hall’s decision 

preceded the decision which you are tasked with making? 

Mr. LUTHI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, as I have stated, 

I am confident that we have done all we needed to do. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, I didn’t ask you that question. I asked would 

you mind, would you object if Secretary Kempthorne decided to 

allow Mr. Hall to make his decision first before you announced 

your decision? 

Mr. LUTHI. Mr. Chairman, certainly the Secretary is my boss. 

That would be his decision. 

The CHAIRMAN. That would be his decision. And so you would accept that? 

Mr. LUTHI. Yes, sir, if he should do so. If new information were 

available and he should make such a decision. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, there is new information available, and 

that is that Mr. Hall is not going to be able to make his decision 

unless something happens, that once again keeps the order in place 

that had been decided upon, which is that Mr. Hall would decide 

first on the polar bear and the protections needed for the polar 

bear. Mr. Hall mentioned earlier that he was somewhat uncomfortable as a biologist trying to make a political decision. But the problem is just the opposite. We have political players confronting a scientific decision and the chief decision maker is the Secretary of the 

Interior, Mr. Kempthorne, who could turn this upside down decision right side up in a nanosecond if he wanted to. All he has to 

do is say let us use common sense, let us ensure that we understand that extinction is forever and we must make that decision 

first before we send the oil and gas industry out into the critical 

habitat to break up the polar bear ice. 

And so while I appreciate the testimony that both of you have 

presented to us today, in the end, if this is not fixed, it is Mr. 

Kempthorne who is to blame. I hope he understands the imporVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:25 Nov 10, 2010 Jkt 058416 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A416.XXX A416

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
42 

tance of his decision. I fear he does not, because this is now a looming threat that has not been dealt with by the Department of Interior. In the end, man can adapt but the bear cannot. We can act 

to prevent global warming, but the bear cannot. We can develop alternatives to oil, the bear cannot. When the ice is gone, man cheers 

about new commercial opportunities for oil and gas drilling, the 

bear starves and drowns. 

I have been hoping for common sense from the Department of Interior and from Secretary Kempthorne, but I have heard that all 

too common abandonment of common sense here today. We are 

going to have to redouble our efforts on this committee and in this 

Congress to head off the extinction of the polar bear. If this decision is delayed in making a determination as to drilling in the 

Chukchi Sea, we will still be years from the first barrel of oil ever 

coming from the ocean. But if we get this sequence wrong in terms 

of the protection of the polar bear, we will be accelerating the day 

when the polar bear will be extinct, and I do not think that that 

is something the American people want to see. 

So I thank both of you for being here today, and I call upon Secretary Kempthorne to make a decision that once again lets Mr. 

Hall make his decision before, Mr. Luthi, you make your decision. 

The ball is now in his court. 

Let me now turn and recognize the gentleman from Washington 

State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. The more I listen to this, the more I understand that 

this is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is 

doing before they act that could result in a suicide squeeze play for 

the polar bear. And this is a big deal. I come from the Seattle area 

where Dr. Cecelia Bitses, who has predicted the demise of the ice 

cap, where George Devoshe is, who has been studying the Arctic 

for 25 years now, and is starting for the first time to see star polar 

bears wash up on the beaches where he has been studying for 25 

years, where he has seen very significant changes in migratory bird 

habits. So it is a big deal in the country I come from. And I want 

to focus on the fact that this left hand not knowing what the right 

hand is doing is very important. It is clear, isn’t it, Mr. Luthi, that 

if you do this leasing and then there is a designation of a status 

by the agency, it will be too late for you to do what the agency may 

want you to do, isn’t that right? 

Mr. LUTHI. Mr. Chairman, Representative Inslee, taking some 

liberty with what you mean, should we go ahead with the leasing 

sale and offer the leases for sale and some are purchased, then the 

decision is made by the Department on the status of the bear, we 

have lost something is what I believe you are indicating, correct? 

Mr. INSLEE. You have lost the ability to do what the Federal 

Government is charged by the taxpayers to do, which is to protect 

the polar bear. Now, if they make the designation before this they 

might compel you to reduce the sale by 10 percent, for instance, 

and you could reduce the sale by 10 percent geographically. But 

after you issue these leases and then there is a designation and 

then the agency says, wait, we have got to reduce this by 10 percent to have an acceptable risk to the bear, then isn’t it true that 

it is too late for you to go back and terminate the leases? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
43 

Mr. LUTHI. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Inslee, I disagree, one, 

with the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. 

Mr. INSLEE. Excuse me. I want you to answer my question. You 

may not like my metaphors, but I want an answer to my question. 

If they designate the bear and you have already issued the leases, 

you cannot terminate the leases legally, can you? 

Mr. LUTHI. We cannot terminate the leases. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. LUTHI. But we are able to consult on the next stage, which 

is the actual leasing and sale. 

Mr. INSLEE. I want to make it absolutely clear so that you understand. If you go forward on the course you are at and you issue 

these leases and then the Federal agency that is vested with the 

legal authority to protect the bear says that those leases will endanger the bear at an unacceptable level to the taxpayer, you will 

have lost the ability to stop that activity, isn’t that correct? Yes or 

no. I think that is a yes or no answer. 

Mr. LUTHI. I will not answer yes or no because it is an incomplete answer. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, you have certainly lost the ability to prevent 

drilling in certain areas, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. LUTHI. We have not lost the ability to protect the bear under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act at this time. 

Mr. INSLEE. I know you don’t like the answer to this question, 

but I think you answered it. Once you issue the leases, it is too late 

to go back and terminate them, you will not have the ability to 

take back the leases that the other Federal agency have told you 

that it would have been unduly dangerous to the bear, isn’t that 

correct? 

Mr. LUTHI. Correct. They have the ability to condition those 

leases, however, to protect the bear under the Endangered Species 

Act. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I think you have answered my question. 

Now, the other thing that was a little soft spoken was this 33 to 

51 percent chance. I want to make sure I understand this. I am 

going to read you the paragraph on page E–7—excuse me, ES–4 of 

your document: Over the life of the hypothetical development and 

production that could follow from the lease sale, other effects are 

possible for events, such as a large accidental oil spill or natural 

gas release. We estimate the chance of a large spill greater than 

or equal to 1,000 BBL occurring and entering offshore waters is 

within a range of 33–51 percent. That is a direct quote. 

Now, I have heard some suggest, well, no, that is really not, considering all the whiz bang technology we have. But I can’t believe 

that an agency of the Federal Government would issue this document and say there is a 33 to 51 percent chance of a mortal oil 

spill, not taking into consideration existing technology, not taking 

into consideration existing geological information, not taking into 

consideration existing information of the bear. And Mr. Luthi, it is 

true, isn’t it, that your agency reached a conclusion that there is 

a 33 to 51 percent chance of these type of spills considering existing technology? 

Mr. LUTHI. I will ask Mr. Goll to respond. He seems to want to 

be able to tackle this one. Thank you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
44 

Mr. GOLL. We update the statistics with regard to the probability 

on a periodic basis, and then that rolls in new technology. So the 

data there, again, reflected what the past history has been. 

Mr. INSLEE. I am sorry, but this should be really, really simple. 

You used the best information about the technology you have that 

is available to you when you reached the assessment, isn’t that correct? You didn’t just ignore what you knew, did you? 

Mr. GOLL. We used the best available information at the time, 

correct. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Do other 

members seek recognition for the purpose of asking questions? I 

don’t see any members who do. We thank you all for testifying 

today. This is the beginning of what I think is going to be one of 

the most historic environmental decisions in our country’s history, 

and this committee intends on being a part of that process from 

this moment forward. Thank you. 

We have a very distinguished second panel as well. And we will 

ask each of them to come up to the table. 

Ms. Kassie Siegel is the Director of Climate, Air and Energy Program for the Center For Biological Diversity. She is focusing her 

work on the impacts of heat trapping pollution and protection of 

plants and animals threatened by global warming. She is one of the 

leading experts on the polar bear and the Endangered Species Act. 

We welcome you, Ms. Siegel. Whenever you are ready please begin. 

STATEMENTS OF KASSIE SIEGEL, DIRECTOR, CLIMATE, AIR 

AND ENERGY PROGRAM, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; JAMIE RAPPAPORT CLARK, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE; AND DEBORAH WILLIAMS, 

PRESIDENT, ALASKA CONSERVATION SOLUTIONS 

STATEMENT OF KASSIE SIEGEL 

Ms. SIEGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify, and thank you so much for 

your leadership on energy independence and global warming. I 

have some slides which I think will come up in a moment. And as 

you know, the polar bear is completely dependent on sea ice for all 

of its essential behaviors, including travel and mating and hunting 

its primary prey of ice dependent seals. Polar bears can’t hunt 

seals from land. And so tied to the ice are they that some mother 

polar bears even give birth to their clubs in snow dens like this one 

we can see, if we can advance the slides. 

Advance, please, just to there. Thank you. 

The future of the polar bear in a rapidly warming Arctic is grim. 

Next slide. Polar bears are drowning. 

Next slide. Resorting to cannibalism when they don’t have access 

to their usual food sources and starving. 

Next slide, please. This photo was taken in September 2007 in 

northern Quebec, Canada. This bear is in the final stages of starvation. And while we can’t say for sure that this bear died as a direct 

result of global warming, we know that global warming is and will 

continue to increase the number of bears that suffer this fate. But 

we also know that it is not too late to do something about it. And 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
45 

that is why the Center for Biological Diversity submitted the petition to list the polar bear in February 2005. The listing process has 

already benefited the species by raising awareness of its plight and 

leading to new information which we would not otherwise have 

had. Most importantly, the USGS completed a study on the future 

status of polar bears. 

Next slide. To do this they divided the world’s polar bear populations into four ecological regions shown here. And they modeled 

the future population size of polar bears based on the IPCC’s A1B 

scenario, often called the business as usual emissions scenario. The 

results of the USGS study are profoundly disturbing. Under business as usual emissions polar bears will be completely gone from 

the divergent ice ecoregion shown here in the purple and the seasonable ice ecoregion shown here in the green by 2050. The good 

news is that polar bears may hang on a bit longer here in the convergent ice ecoregion in blue, and the archipelago region in orange. 

But the risk of extinction by the end of the century in these areas 

is still unacceptably large, over 75 percent in the blue area and 

over 40 percent in the orange area. Most disturbingly, the USGS 

study may underestimate the risk to polar bears. This is because 

the Arctic ice is melting faster than forecast by any of the world’s 

leading climate models. 

Next slide, please. You have seen the Arctic ice pack in September 1979. 

Next slide. And again in 2007. 

This next slide, please, shows graphically actual observed minimum sea ice extent in the heavy red line compared to model projections in the dash colored lines. 

Next slide please. Yes, good. You can see that not one single 

model projected the record new minimum low sea ice extent in 

2007 and, further, that there was less ice in the Arctic this past 

year than more than half of the models projected for 2050. 

The situation in the Arctic has reached a critical threshold, but 

there is still time to save the polar bear if we act immediately. A 

critically important first step is to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. 

Next slide. Our Nation’s strongest and most successful law has 

a critically important role to play in saving this species. And we 

also need to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, including 

of course carbon dioxide, but also other pollutants, including methane and black carbon that have shorter atmospheric lifetimes for 

a very high warming impact on the Arctic. And we also need to 

protect the Arctic in the species most at risk from further direct 

impacts such as oil and gas activities and the oil spills that come 

with them. But right now the opposite is happening, and the only 

thing that is keeping pace with the melting of the sea ice is the 

breakneck speed with which the Department of Interior is rushing 

to improve new oil and gas development in polar bear habitat. And 

now the Fish and Wildlife Service has illegally delayed the polar 

bear listing as well. It has been over 3 years since we submitted 

the petition to list the polar bear and we have already had to go 

to court once. The polar bear shouldn’t have to wait any longer. 

While there are many reasons the Chukchi lease sale 193 should 

not proceed, at a minimum this sale and other oil and gas activities 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
46 

in polar bear habitat should not go forward until the polar bear is 

listed, until its critical habitat is designated, until a recovery plan 

is in place and then only if these agencies can affirmatively demonstrate that these activities would truly be compatible with polar 

bear conservation. Chukchi Sale 193 cannot possibly meet this 

standard and therefore it must be stopped. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Siegel follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
47 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 58416A.014
48 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 58416A.015
49 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 58416A.016
50 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 58416A.017
51 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 58416A.018
52 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 58416A.019
53 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 58416A.020
54 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 58416A.021
55 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 58416A.022
56 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 58416A.023
57 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 58416A.024
58 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 58416A.025
59 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 58416A.026
60 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 58416A.027
61 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 58416A.028
62 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 58416A.029
63 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 58416A.030
64 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 58416A.031
65 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 58416A.032
66 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 58416A.033
67 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 58416A.034
68 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 58416A.035
69 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 58416A.036
70 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 58416A.037
71 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 58416A.038
72 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 58416A.039
73 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 58416A.040
74 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 58416A.041
75 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 58416A.042
76 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 58416A.043
77 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 58416A.044
78 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 58416A.045
79 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 58416A.046
80 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 58416A.047
81 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 58416A.048
82 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 58416A.049
83 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 58416A.050
84 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 58416A.051
85 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 58416A.052
86 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 58416A.053
87 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 58416A.054
88 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 58416A.055
89 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Siegel, very much. 

Our second witness, Deborah Williams, is the President of the 

Alaska Conservation Solutions. She has devoted 25 years to conservation and sustainable community issues in Alaska. And for her 

work Ms. Williams received a presidential appointment as Special 

Assistant to the Secretary of Interior for Alaska. 

We thank you and whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH WILLIAMS 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

polar bears are indeed on thin ice. Thank you so much for holding 

this critical hearing to help focus the Nation’s attention on the very 

serious plight of our country’s polar bears, whose survival is jeopardized by global warming and proposed offshore lease sales. 

Polar bears are bellwethers for the Nation and the world. Their 

fate reflects our fate. The good news is that there is still time to 

act, but unquestionably the time to act is now. 

There are three actions that we can and must take to protect 

polar bears. All of these actions will be beneficial to our Nation’s 

future. First, as has been well described, we must postpone the 

Chukchi lease sale until adequate information regarding polar 

bears and other key species is available, and certainly we cannot 

hold this lease sale until polar bears are listed under the Endangered Species Act and their critical habitat designated. 

Secondly, we must provide critically needed funding for polar 

bear research and management, especially for the Chukchi population. 

And third, we must of course pass comprehensive legislation substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Next slide. Alaska has warmed at a rate four times faster than 

the rest of the world, as shown in that previous slide. There we go. 

As shown in red. And in fact the Arctic Ocean is the warmest ever 

recorded in some locations, 5 degrees centigrade above normal. 

Next slide. Sea ice has reduced dramatically in Arctic water. Especially, committee members, you can see where the Chukchi Sea 

is. That is where the dramatic reduction has occurred. As Dr. Steven Amstrup has stated, our results have demonstrated that as the 

sea ice goes so goes the polar bear. 

Next slide. As evidenced by cannibalism, and these are slides of 

the brutal bloody fingerprints of global warming as it relates to 

polar bears, as evidenced by cannibalism, starvation, drownings, 

decreased cub survival, small skull size and more, the evidence is 

compelling: Alaska polar bears are suffering from the effects of 

global warming right now. Given the above it doesn’t make sense 

to add a substantial additional risk to the survival of polar bears 

from the Chukchi lease sale that is scheduled to take place in less 

than a month. Absolutely not, the sale must be postponed. 

Next slide. The Chukchi is an amazing part of our national heritage and home to the Chukchi bearing population of polar bears. 

Overall, this extraordinary sea nourishes humans and a myriad of 

other very valuable species. This slide shows the vast extent of the 

proposed Chukchi lease sale, which is in red, and how it overlaps 

with the American managed population of the Chukchi polar bears. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
90 

Stunning. Almost all of the critical polar bear locational sites is 

covered by this Chukchi lease sale. 

Now, three critical points. We do not know enough about the 

Chukchi Sea population of polar bears or the biology of the 

Chukchi Sea to make an informed decision about this sale. We simply do not know how many polar bears there are in the Chukchi 

Sea. We don’t know where they are distributed. Every Federal 

agency admits one of the following; that a reliable population estimate for the Chukchi Sea currently does not exist, quote, unquote, 

that existing population estimates, quote, are to be considered of 

little value for management, unquote, and that the population, 

quote, is already declining. In addition, the polar bear’s numerous 

valuable species of whales, walruses, seals, birds and fish exist in 

the Chukchi Sea. 

But this is, next slide, what I think, and the next slide is one 

of the most important statements made by a Federal agency, and 

that is looking at the Chukchi area as a whole. The National Marine Fishery Service has said, quote, the information necessary to 

properly assess the biological effects of sale 193 is not available, 

closed quote. Congress would never make a decision with this little 

information. It is irresponsible. This kind of ignorance is not bliss 

to polar bears or the other denizens of the Chukchi, especially 

when this ignorance is serving as the basis for proceeding with a 

very risky lease sale. 

Next slide. We do, however, know that there have been major impacts from oil development in Alaska. For example, there is an average of over 500 spills from the North Slope oil industry each 

year. And as the Exxon Valdez oil spill underscores, human error 

can cause massive devastating oil spill damage. Oil spills are particularly a serious problem for the Chukchi, as Dr. Amstrup stated 

repeatedly. Oil kills polar bears. And it is particularly impossible 

to clean up oil when it is in broken ice, and that is what the 

Chukchi has. This is a lethal combination for polar bears. 

Next slide. As has been repeatedly stated, there is a 33 to 51 percent chance, or an average of 40 percent chance of an oil spill. So 

bottom line what does this mean? As you have stated, Mr. Chairman, even MMS says that, quote, due to the magnitude of potential 

mortality as a result of an oil spill sale 193 could result in significant adverse impact to polar bears. As Special Assistant, I supported several oil and gas lease sales, but I do not support leasing 

in Chukchi at this time. It is irresponsible. And, Mr. Chairman, 

there are better alternatives. 

Next slide. That wind farm is a cotebu which borders the 

Chukchi Sea. We have tremendous renewable energy in this area. 

Next slide. Before closing, I do want to emphasize the need for 

Congress to fund necessary research and management efforts for 

the protection of the Chukchi and our Nation’s other population of 

polar bears. And of course the final comment is first and foremost 

in addition to these actions we must dramatically reduce our emissions. 

Last statement, we are a compassionate country filled with innovation and renewable energy resources. We do not need to write a 

death sentence for polar bears from premature ill-advised offshore 

leasing and recklessly high emissions of greenhouse gases. We can 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
91 

do better. And for the sake of polar bears, ourselves, and future 

generations, we must. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
92 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 58416A.056
93 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 149 58416A.057
94 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 150 58416A.058
95 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 58416A.059
96 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 58416A.060
97 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 58416A.061
98 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 58416A.062
99 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 155 58416A.063
100 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 156 58416A.064
101 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 58416A.065
102 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 58416A.066
103 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 159 58416A.067
104 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 160 58416A.068
105 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 161 58416A.069
106 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 162 58416A.070
107 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 163 58416A.071
108 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 164 58416A.072
109 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 165 58416A.073
110 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 58416A.074
111 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 58416A.075
112 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 58416A.076
113 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 58416A.077
114 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 58416A.078
115 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 58416A.079
116 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 58416A.080
117 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 58416A.081
118 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 174 58416A.082
119 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 175 58416A.083
120 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 176 58416A.084
121 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 177 58416A.085
122 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 58416A.086
123 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 58416A.087
124 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 58416A.088
125 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 58416A.089
126 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 58416A.090
127 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 58416A.091
128 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 58416A.092
129 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 58416A.093
130 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 58416A.094
131 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you so much, Ms. Williams. And our 

final witness is Ms. Jamie Rappaport Clark, the Executive Vice 

President of Defenders of Wildlife. She has spent 20 years in government service, primarily with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

where she served as Director from 1997 to 2001. We thank you so 

much for being here. Whenever you are ready please begin. 

STATEMENT OF JAMIE RAPPAPORT CLARK 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the select committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. 

This hearing today highlights the conflicted and misguided priorities of this current administration. On the one hand, the Bush administration continues to drag its feet protecting polar bears under 

the Endangered Species Act. On the other hand, it is rushing forward with its proposal to sell oil and gas leases under nearly 30 

million acres in the Chukchi Sea in the heart of critically important polar bear habitat. At the very least this creates an appearance of once again allowing politics to trump science and endangered species decision making. 

As the Chair mentioned, as a long-term career biologist with the 

Federal Government before becoming Director of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, I know firsthand the challenges faced by the dedicated professionals implementing the Endangered Species Act. And 

consequently I am certainly reluctant to criticize them; however, I 

cannot ignore what this administration’s political appointees have 

done to the administration of ESA and our other conservation laws. 

This administration has repeatedly engaged in political manipulation of science and conservation. 

The Interior Department’s own Inspector General exposed cases 

of inappropriate political interference with the professional assessments and recommendations of the Department’s biologists, scientists and wildlife managers in endangered species listings and 

critical habitat determinations, decisions which the Department 

has now been forced to revisit at a significant cost to taxpayers. 

Thus, when the administration delays listing while at the same 

time promoting new oil and gas leasing in critical polar bear habitat, it is reasonable, I believe, to suspect that it is once again putting political interest before conservation. 

There are numerous factors that support listing polar bears 

under the Endangered Species Act. Above all known threats, however, is the unequivocal loss of polar bear habitat due to global 

warming. The polar bear’s Arctic sea ice is literally melting away, 

as my colleagues just demonstrated. Interior’s own scientists have 

concluded that if we continue business as usual there will be no 

wild polar bears left in the United States by 2050. Clearly, there 

is no scientific rationale for further delay. Polar bears should be 

listed immediately. 

Once the Interior Department proposed to list polar bears the 

Minerals Management Service and Fish and Wildlife Service were 

obligated by law to determine whether oil and gas leasing in the 

Chukchi Sea is likely to jeopardize polar bears and, if so, to confer 

on the leasing and its impact. After polar bears are listed the agencies must consult under the ESA to ensure that the listing is not 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
132 

likely to jeopardize their continued existence. It would fly in the 

face of the precautionary approach to the Endangered Species Act 

if the Interior Department were able to take advantage of its own 

delay, its own delay in making a listing decision in order to expedite oil and gas leasing in the Chukchi Sea without fully evaluating 

the potential harm to polar bears. At a minimum the administration should delay any leasing in the Chukchi or any other polar 

bear habitat until the listing decision has been made and consultation requirements are fully met. 

Ms. CLARK. The potential harm to polar bears from oil and gas 

leasing in the Chukchi Sea is substantial. Such development is 

highly risky and detrimental to polar bears and other Arctic wildlife. And most disturbing, there is no technology to respond to and 

clean up spilled oil at sea in conditions that are prevalent in the 

Arctic. The impact of promoting additional burning of fossil fuels 

will add further pressure to an already stressed polar bear population. 

We cannot continue business as usual. The plight of the polar 

bears is a warning to all of us that we need to act now to reduce 

our use of fossil fuels. 

In conclusion, the polar bears—the Bush administration should 

move forward immediately to list the polar bear and fully comply 

with the Endangered Species Act. The administration should also 

withdraw the proposed oil and gas leases in the Chukchi Sea and 

should refrain from any further leasing in polar bear habitat until 

adequate measures are in place to protect the polar bears in their 

habitat from the harmful effects of such development. 

Most importantly, the administration should stop their foot dragging and work with the Congress to develop an energy policy that 

would reduce our use of fossil fuels and our production of greenhouse gas pollution. If we act now there is hope for the polar bears, 

the Arctic ecosystem, ourselves and our children. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify and I am 

happy to respond to questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Clark follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
133 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 58416A.095
134 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 58416A.096
135 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 58416A.097
136 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 58416A.098
137 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 58416A.099
138 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 58416A.100
139 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 58416A.101
140 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 58416A.102
141 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 58416A.103
142 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 58416A.104
143 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 58416A.105
144 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The Chair recognizes himself for a 

round of questions. 

Ms. Clark, you support delaying the decision on the leasing in 

the Chukchi Sea until there is a decision made on the listing of the 

polar bear? 

Ms. CLARK. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, it just makes common 

sense. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, when you had the job of running the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, would you have made a recommendation to 

the Secretary of Interior to make that decision? 

Ms. CLARK. Unequivocally, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. You would have. And would it be appropriate for 

you to make a recommendation to the Secretary? 

Ms. CLARK. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And so Secretary Babbitt did welcome those 

kinds of recommendations? 

Ms. CLARK. Yes, he did. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, great. Thank you, that is helpful, because 

again, Secretary Kempthorne obviously has a huge decision to 

make here. Does he have it within his power to rectify this problem? 

Ms. CLARK. Yes, he does, Mr. Chairman. On the one hand he has 

an obvious statutory responsibility to make a decision based on the 

best science available, whether or not the polar bear deserves the 

protection of the Endangered Species Act. On the other hand, he 

has a somewhat discretionary decision on timing of oil and gas 

leasing in the Chukchi, very different decisions. 

The CHAIRMAN. But decisions within his—— 

Ms. CLARK. Both within his purview, absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is important for the public to know. 

Ms. CLARK. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Williams, you are testifying to the fact that 

there are still gaps of knowledge that exist—— 

Ms. WILLIAMS. It is virtually—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Between what is going on in the ice melt and its 

impact on polar bears. Could you expand on that? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. The gaps in knowledge represent a virtual 

black hole. As I had mentioned, we don’t know how many polar 

bears there are there. We don’t know their condition, we don’t 

know their distribution. We don’t know how the recent melting 

which you saw so dramatic in this area is affecting them. We do 

not know other than we believe from previous research that a spill 

would be lethal, but we don’t know the precise—traveling of that 

spill and so forth. 

And so we do know, though, that we have no technology to clean 

up oil in broken ice that has been proven, we do know it is lethal. 

And so what we know all speaks in favor very much of your legislation, what we don’t know also speaks in favor of your legislation. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Ms. Williams. 

Ms. Siegel, you heard what Ms. Clark and Ms. Williams said 

both about the decision that Secretary Kempthorne can make in 

those gaps in knowledge that exist. Would you like to expand upon 

either one of those thoughts? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
145 

Ms. SIEGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that there are 

many reasons that Chukchi Sea lease sale 193 should not go forward, but the fact that the polar bear has not yet been listed and 

that the process has now dragged on for nearly 3 years when it was 

supposed to be completed within 2 years is reason enough to halt 

this sale. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is absolutely all we really have to 

know, that there is a year delay already in protection of the polar 

bear, but no time can be lost in the leasing of oil and gas drilling 

in the area where the polar bear lives and has to have a habitat 

if it is to survive. So that is the equation and we have to ensure 

that the Secretary of Interior makes the right decision or the Congress makes it for him. 

Ms. CLARK. Mr. Markey, if I could add, I think, in listening to 

the testimony one of the most significant revelations as I was listening to it relates to what the decision is that has to be made. The 

decision by the Secretary and the Director regarding the polar bear 

needs to be made based on the best scientific information available. 

They seem to be trying to solve the cause of endangerment before 

making the call that its endangered. The Endangered Species Act 

does not call for that. It calls for a decision to be made on the biological status of the species at this time and all the kind of initiatives, innovations, other opportunities governing recovery will take 

over after that, but they are not going to solve the problem without 

declaring it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, thank you, Ms. Clark, that is very helpful. 

I think I will include that in my—in the language which I use to 

accompany the legislation as I am introducing it. I think that is 

very helpful. My time has expired. 

Let me now turn and recognize the gentleman from Missouri. 

The gentleman is the last questioner I believe, unless another 

member returns. So I am going to recognize the gentleman and ask 

him then to adjourn the hearing if he would or if another member 

arrives, to please give the gavel to him. So with that, I recognize 

the gentleman from Missouri. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It does not happen 

often that I am in full agreement with our witnesses, but I am 

today. But because I didn’t get clear answers with the previous 

panel. I am interested, Ms. Clark, if you could give us a picture of 

how the machinery of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service actually 

functions with regard to the professional staff and then those who 

are appointed. My question that I asked earlier, which may be answered in the next millennium, is I was interested in whether or 

not there is political interference. And number 1, is it the normal 

process that the professional staff, the experts, the scientists collect 

information, make recommendations then to the Director and then 

those recommendations are acted on; is that the normal process? 

Ms. CLARK. I can share with you how it used to work. I was a 

long time endangered species biologist before accepting the Presidential appointment as director. During that time, you are right, 

in that as director, I relied very heavily on the professional staff. 

They are highly competent, incredibly dedicated and very capable. 

And they would conduct all the science and all the kind of anaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:25 Nov 10, 2010 Jkt 058416 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A416.XXX A416

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
146 

lytics. They are closest to the ground, closest to the species and certainly the most knowledgeable about the scientific effects. 

They would then make a recommendation that would be moved 

through the regional office and into Washington. The responsibility 

of those of us in Washington were to review the science and ensure 

that it complied with the policy and statutory requirements of, in 

this case, the Endangered Species Act. 

While certainly there is the opportunity for the policy makers political appointees to come up with a result with a different conclusion than the recommendation of the scientists and biologists, it 

was absolutely unheard of that the policy makers would change the 

underlying science. 

Ms. SIEGEL. Congressman Cleaver, if I might elaborate a little 

bit. Over the past seven years, the Bush administration has essentially shutdown the listing program for Endangered Species. This 

administration has listed fewer species than any administration in 

history and it is not because of a lack of worthy candidates. 

Overall, there are 279 species that are official candidates and 

have been waiting an average of 19 years for protection. Secretary 

Kempthorne has gone 617 days without listing a single species 

under the Endangered Species Act. The second longest delay in history was in 1981 when then Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, 

went 182 days without listing a species. In that situation, Congress 

quickly amended the Act to include the strict statutory deadlines 

for listing species that we now have. 

We have repeatedly seen political appointees in this administration use delays such as the current delay with the polar bear listing to interfere with the conclusions of service biologists. One example from a similar situation concerns a species called the California tiger salamander. The service was under a court order to 

issue a final listing decision for this species and asked the court for 

more time. This time was then used by the political appointee to 

overrule the judgment of agency scientists. The court later ruled 

that a request or a delay had been used to illegally reduce protection for that species. 

Under investigation by Congress and the Inspector General, the 

service has admitted to political interference in seven listing decisions which involved former Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald, 

but has it not actually committed to correcting this interference. 

And the Center For Biological Diversity has found evidence of political interference an additional 55 Endangered Species Act listing 

decisions that the agency has refused to address. And this is why 

we are so concerned with the current delay in the listing decision 

for the polar bear. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I think there is unanimity, at least on this side, 

that we do need to act and that the delay is unfortunately politically motivated. We have seen reports from staff bleached in other 

areas of our government over the past few years. And so it will not 

be a shock to see it happen here. 

Ms. Williams, my final question. How far can polar bears swim? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. They can swim long distances. Part of it depends 

on the conditions, but it is important to note that when polar bears 

swim, they use a lot of energy. They are really designed to swim 

from iceberg to iceberg or short distances where there is no ice. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
147 

They are not designed to swim 500 miles, which some of the projections show the ice will be 500 miles offshore, and polar bears will 

have the great challenge of swimming 500 miles from the edge of 

the ice to come on land to den. 

What we found, and it was actually MMS scientists have found 

that with diminished ice several years ago, there was a storm and 

they found more and more polar bears in the water as opposed on 

ice, because there is less ice. And it was those MMS scientists who 

found the drowned polar bears. And polar bears were drowned 

after that storm because they didn’t have enough ice to rest on and 

to seek refuge on. 

So polar bears can drown when they have too far to swim. They 

can use too much energy when they have too far to swim, it can 

affect their denning activities and other activities. So polar bears 

again were designed to be on ice not swimming in water except for 

short distances. So the more the ice retreats, the worse it is for 

polar bears. And of course, polar bears swimming through oil, as 

we know from a study that was done by a Canadian scientists, is 

lethal. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I am going to turn this over to Mr. Inslee. I was 

trying to make a point earlier and perhaps I didn’t make it as— 

yes, I did, it was clear. When we talk about cleanup of an oil spill, 

we are not talking about reversing the impact completely of that 

oil spill. And I was trying to point out that after the USS Arizona 

was damaged and went under, that 60 years later, it is still leaking 

oil. If you went there today, you would see oil bubbling up. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Cleaver, if I may respond to that, one of my 

jobs when I was special assistant was to serve on the Exxon Valdez 

trustee council. And as you know, the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred almost 19 years ago. There is still dramatic oil residues and 

release from that spill today. 

We also know from Exxon Valdez the spill cleanup process failed. 

When you combine what we see from spills throughout the Nation 

in the world and the failure of spill cleanup to begin with, the long 

residual life of oil spills. And when you combine that with the 

Chukchi Sea, which is the worst possible conditions for even trying 

to spill ice. Imagine that you just have this big tub filled with ice 

cubes and you pour oil in there, how are you going to get the oil 

out between the ice cubes? 

Various demonstration projects have been tried and they have 

failed, and even under the best of circumstances, to clean up that 

oil in those conditions. So we have a triple-whammy condition in 

the Chukchi Sea, it could not be worse for polar bears with respect 

to spills. We have established that the likelihood of a major oil spill 

is 33 to 51 percent. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you very kindly. Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. I thank you. Before I forget, I want to enter into the 

record the environmental impact statement that I was referring to 

in my previous questions. 

This planned sequence of events to allow this leasing before this 

designation makes me harken back. I am real glad that we did not 

allow DDT before we had the designation of the bald eagle. I saw 

four of them sitting on pylons outside of where I live the other day 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
148 

and I think it would be a similar type of tragedy, so I appreciate 

your working here. 

I want to ask you about hunting issues. Hunting of polar bears 

now is prohibited by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, but it is 

allowed for people who go out and hunt in Canada and bring them 

back as trophies. I am told there is some significant decline going 

on in the Hudson Bay polar bear population. If there is a designation, how would it effect that loophole? Could the Agency close that 

loophole or would it require statutory action? 

Ms. SIEGEL. Thank you, Congressman Inslee. When a species is 

listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act, it is automatically designated as depleted under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. Under normal circumstances, species that 

are designated and depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act are not eligible for the approval of sport-hunted trophies from 

Canada. So it is possible that if the polar bear is listed under the 

Endangered Species Act, that importation of sport hunted polar 

bear trophies from Canada will no longer be possible. 

I would note, however, that Director Hall at the press conference 

last week when he announced a delay on the listing decision did 

also note that it might be possible to apply for an exemption from 

this process from the Marine Mammal Commission. 

Mr. INSLEE. And what is the science to date about the decline of 

the Hudson species, whether it is related to global warming or 

hunting or both or other reasons? Can you give us any insight on 

that? 

Ms. SIEGEL. Scientists have attributed the decline of the western 

Hudson Bay population to global warming and also to the harvest 

of approximately 40 bears each year from that population, which 

at some point during this kind of species ceased to be sustainable. 

Mr. INSLEE. Great. Going back to this listing decision and how 

it affects the leasing. We have talked a lot about the danger of oil 

spills and the 33 to 51 percent likelihood of a spill and the potential mortality. But there is another huge sort of elephant in the 

room, if you will, and that is the CO2 associated with burning the 

oil that we drill. And that is really the ultimate potential mortality 

of the species of CO2 coming out of the oil we burn and we drill, 

going in the atmosphere, heating the atmosphere, melting the ice 

cap. By the way, someone said it is only a 20 percent reduction, 

that is way, way off. Could you explain why that is way off, Ms. 

Williams? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. That is way off. Indeed the 20 percent is incorrect. The reduction that we have experienced is 10 percent per year 

since the 1970s. And essentially the minimum that we experienced 

last summer in 2007 was 23 percent less than the previous minimum, but it was essentially 40 percent less than the average between the 70s and currently, but it has been 10 percent per year 

since the 1970s. 

Mr. INSLEE. Do I understand there is both a reduction in the 

area covered to the extent that in a very short period of time, either a decade or shortly thereafter, there will be no summer ice by 

area, but there is also about a 40 percent reduction on the average 

depth of the ice, it is pretty much across its range. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
149 

Ms. WILLIAMS. That is correct, Mr. Inslee. And one thing useful, 

I think the committee members know, but perhaps for the public 

to understand better, right now the average depth of the Arctic ice 

cap is only 3 feet. If you walked up to an average person and said, 

how thick do you think the Arctic ice cap is over the North Pole? 

They would say 100 feet, 200 feet, right? It is only 3 feet. And that 

has diminished by 40 to 50 percent in the last several decades. And 

so we are talking about a very fragile habitat, ice that is on average only 3 feet thick. That is why global warming has had such a 

profound effect on it. 

Mr. INSLEE. So if the polar bear is listed, would it be appropriate 

in any leasing decision, including this one, to consider the CO2

emissions and their capability to further this acceleration and the 

decline of the Arctic sea ice? 

Ms. CLARK. Section 7, the consultation provision that the administration seemingly is trying to escape, would require the evaluation, the analysis of not only the direct and indirect effects of the 

proposed actions, but the interrelated and interdependent effects. 

And so in that light, there would be a much more comprehensive 

review and analysis of the impacts of the threats affecting the 

polar bears than would ever occur under the Marine Mammal Protection Act or any inner agency conferencing under a proposed species listing. 

Mr. INSLEE. Very well. Our time has expired and I want to thank 

the witnesses, all of the witness, both panels, it has been very educational. We are, at least many of us on this panel, are hopeful that 

this will help inspire the administration and the Secretary to take 

another look at this issue. And I will be joining Mr. Markey in introducing legislation today, should that not take place by revisiting 

by the administration to do this by legislature or otherwise. And 

I have, of course, been joined by 2 dozen of my colleagues in a letter to the Secretary urging him to revisit this, what we believe to 

be a very ill-considered decision. With that, having received the 

gavel, we will consider this hearing concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
150 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 58416A.106
151 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 58416A.107
152 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 219 58416A.108
153 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 220 58416A.109
154 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 221 58416A.110
155 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 222 58416A.111
156 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 223 58416A.112
157 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 224 58416A.113
158 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 225 58416A.114
159 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 226 58416A.115
160 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 227 58416A.116
161 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 228 58416A.117
162 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 229 58416A.118
163 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 230 58416A.119
164 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 231 58416A.120
165 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 232 58416A.121
166 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 233 58416A.122
167 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 234 58416A.123
168 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 235 58416A.124
169 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 236 58416A.125
170 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 237 58416A.126
171 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 238 58416A.127
172 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 239 58416A.128
173 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 240 58416A.129
174 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 241 58416A.130
175 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 242 58416A.131
176 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 243 58416A.132
177 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 244 58416A.133
178 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 245 58416A.134
179 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 246 58416A.135
180 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 247 58416A.136
181 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 248 58416A.137
182 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 249 58416A.138
183 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 250 58416A.139
184 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 251 58416A.140
185 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 252 58416A.141
186 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 253 58416A.142
187 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 254 58416A.143
188 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 255 58416A.144
189 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 256 58416A.145
190 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 257 58416A.146
191 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 258 58416A.147
192 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 259 58416A.148
193 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 260 58416A.149
194 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 261 58416A.150
195 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 262 58416A.151
196 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 263 58416A.152
197 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 264 58416A.153
198 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 265 58416A.154
199 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 266 58416A.155
200 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 267 58416A.156
201 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 268 58416A.157
202 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 269 58416A.158
203 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 270 58416A.159
204 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 271 58416A.160
205 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 272 58416A.161
206 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 273 58416A.162
207 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 274 58416A.163
208 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 275 58416A.164
209 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 276 58416A.165
210 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 277 58416A.166
211 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 278 58416A.167
212 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 279 58416A.168
213 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 280 58416A.169
214 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 281 58416A.170
215 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 282 58416A.171
216 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 283 58416A.172
217 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 284 58416A.173
218 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 285 58416A.174
219 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 286 58416A.175
220 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 287 58416A.176
221 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 288 58416A.177
222 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 289 58416A.178
223 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 290 58416A.179
224 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 291 58416A.180
225 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 292 58416A.181
226 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 293 58416A.182
227 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 294 58416A.183
228 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 295 58416A.184
229 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 296 58416A.185
230 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 297 58416A.186
231 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 298 58416A.187
232 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 299 58416A.188
233 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 300 58416A.189
234 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 301 58416A.190
235 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 302 58416A.191
236 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 303 58416A.192
237 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 304 58416A.193
238 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 305 58416A.194
239 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 306 58416A.195
240 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 307 58416A.196
241 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 308 58416A.197
242 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 309 58416A.198
243 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 310 58416A.199
244 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 311 58416A.200
245 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 312 58416A.201
246 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 313 58416A.202
247 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 314 58416A.203
248 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 315 58416A.204
249 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 316 58416A.205
250 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 317 58416A.206
251 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 318 58416A.207
252 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 319 58416A.208
253 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 320 58416A.209
254 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 321 58416A.210
255 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 322 58416A.211
256 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 323 58416A.212
257 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 324 58416A.213
258 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 325 58416A.214
259 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 326 58416A.215
260 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 327 58416A.216
261 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 328 58416A.217
262 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 329 58416A.218
263 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 330 58416A.219
264 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 331 58416A.220
265 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 332 58416A.221
266 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 333 58416A.222
267 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 334 58416A.223
268 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 335 58416A.224
269 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 336 58416A.225
270 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 337 58416A.226
271 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 338 58416A.227
272 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 339 58416A.228
273 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 340 58416A.229
274 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 341 58416A.230
275 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 342 58416A.231
276 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 343 58416A.232
277 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 344 58416A.233
278 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 345 58416A.234
279 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 346 58416A.235
280 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 347 58416A.236
281 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 348 58416A.237
282 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 349 58416A.238
283 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 350 58416A.239
284 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 351 58416A.240
285 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 352 58416A.241
286 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 353 58416A.242
287 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 354 58416A.243
288 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 355 58416A.244
289 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 356 58416A.245
290 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 357 58416A.246
291 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 358 58416A.247
292 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 359 58416A.248
293 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 360 58416A.249
294 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 361/500 58416A.250