S. HRG. 113–749 

NATURAL RESOURCE ADAPTATION: PROTECTING 

ECOSYSTEMS AND ECONOMIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 25, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 

NATURAL RESOURCE ADAPTATION: PROTECTING 

ECOSYSTEMS AND ECONOMIES 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

97–585 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–749 

NATURAL RESOURCE ADAPTATION: PROTECTING 

ECOSYSTEMS AND ECONOMIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 25, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey, Chairman 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana(ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 25, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 4 

WITNESSES 

John, Holdren, Hon. P., Ph.D., Director, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, Executive Office of the President ........................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter ................................ 14 

Ashe, Hon. Daniel M., Director, United States Fish and Wildlife Service ......... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Matson, Noah, Vice President for Climate Adaptation, Defenders of Wildlife ... 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Houghton, David, President, National Wildlife Refuge Association .................... 61 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Brown, Christopher, President, Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s Association .................................................................................................................... 71 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Moore, Patrick, Ph.D., Chair and Chief Scientist, Ecosense Environmental ..... 74 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Bryce, Robert, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research ............ 127 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 129 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter ................................ 142 

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS 

Statement of Judith A. Curry Georgia Institute of Technology Climate Forecast Applications Network, LLC ......................................................................... 216 

Statement of Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., Professor, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado ................................................ 230 

Article, American Meteorological Society, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society ....................................................................................................... 240 

Article, Wallace P. Erickson, Gregory D. Johnson, And David P. Young Jr.; 

A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality from Anthropogenic Causes 

with an Emphasis on Collisions .......................................................................... 270 

Report, Environmental Health Perspectives and the National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences, A Human Health Perspective on Climate 

Change .................................................................................................................. 291 

Report, Critical Thinking on Climate Change, Questions to Consider Before 

Taking Regulatory Action and Implementing Economic Policies ..................... 370 

Comentary, John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett, and Francis W. Zwiers, Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years ................................................... 399 

Report, U.S. Global Change Research Program and the Subcommittee on 

Global Research, Our Changing Planet ............................................................. 402 

(1) 

NATURAL RESOURCE ADAPTATION: 

PROTECTING ECOSYSTEMS AND ECONOMIES 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Whitehouse, Markey, Inhofe, Vitter, Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The distinguished ranking member is on 

his way, so I will open with my opening statement. 

First of all, we will call the hearing to order and I will open with 

my opening statement. Then when Senator Inhofe arrives, if he is 

here at the conclusion of my opening remarks, he can give his. If 

not, I will interrupt the witness and allow whoever is speaking at 

the time to yield to my distinguished ranking member. 

We are here today for the committee to discuss the benefits that 

our American natural resources provide to us and the need for adaptation planning to protect these American resources in the face 

of climate change. I have been proud to work on this issue in recent 

years with former Senator Max Baucus. While Max is no longer 

here in the Senate, I am glad that this committee is meeting today 

to carry on this important work. From the beaches of Rhode Island 

to the glaciers of Montana, nature’s bounty provides us with life’s 

essentials: clean air and water, crops and timber, recreation and 

our outdoor heritage. Climate change threatens to rob us of these 

essentials. 

I have gone to the Senate floor now nearly 60 times to urge my 

colleagues to wake up to the facts of carbon pollution. But the fact 

of the matter is that even if we stop carbon pollution today, we still 

face decades of change in our air and water and temperatures and 

in extreme weather. 

So while we must take up the challenge to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions, we must also begin to prepare and adapt and secure 

our natural resources against the changes that we cannot avoid. 

Status quo management and planning will not be good enough. A 

GAO report on the topic, citing several sources, says ‘‘Natural resource management has historically been based on the idea of 

maintaining current environmental conditions, or restoring species 

2 

and habitats to some desired former condition. As the climate continues to change,’‘ GAO concludes, ‘‘this approach will become increasingly more difficult, if not impossible to maintain.’‘ 

But adaptation to warming air and ocean temperatures to catastrophic weather events, even to full ecosystem shifts, isn’t easy 

work. And the Federal, State and local leaders we entrust to protect our property and our ecosystems are often constrained by outdated laws and regulations. 

That is why Senator Baucus and I introduced the Safeguard 

America’s Future and the Environment Act, the SAFE Act, for 

short. It puts all climate adaptation tools and approaches on the 

table and would engage local stakeholders as well. As a first step, 

the SAFE Act requires adaptation planning and management efforts by Federal natural resources agencies, those that manage 

nearly 30 percent of land in the United States, as well as our marine resources, like fisheries, and our exclusive economic zone that 

extends 200 miles from our shore. 

The Administration is already doing what it can on this front. 

The President’s climate action plan includes steps to prepare us for 

the effects of climate change. And he further focused the Administration’s adaptation efforts in an executive order he issued in November. John Holdren, the Director of the White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy, is here to update us on these efforts, as well as the science behind what we are seeing and why 

strategic adaptation planning is so necessary in the face of climate 

change. 

The executive order builds on the first national fish, wildlife and 

plants adaptation strategy which Congress requested in 2009 and 

the Administration released last March. I look forward to hearing 

from Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe about implementation plans for the strategy as well as other adaptation measures 

being championed by the Service. 

I would also like to thank the witnesses on our second panel who 

will provide much-needed perspective on what is happening outside 

of Washington. In particular, I want to recognize Chris Brown, 

President of the Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s Association. 

Chris’s livelihood depends on the oceans. Sadly, our oceans are becoming ground zero for damage from carbon pollution. The oceans 

are warming. That is a measurement, not a theory. Sea level is rising. That is another measurement. Oceans are becoming more acidic. Again, a measurement, not a theory. 

These changes are already affecting marine life. Some species are 

moving northward and southward toward the colder water of the 

poles, as quickly as 10 to 45 miles per decade. Events that are 

timed for spring or summer, like egg-laying or migration, are happening several days earlier each decade. More acidic waters caused 

a 70 to 80 percent loss of oyster larvae at a hatchery in Oregon and 

crashed wildstocks in Washington State. 

In Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay has seen an overall increase 

in annual water temperature of between 3 and 4 degrees since 

1960. According to Christopher Deacutis, the previous chief scientist of the Narragansett Bay estuary program, ‘‘Fish species in 

Narragansett Bay are shifting, seemingly in step with increased 

temperatures.’‘ UI Professor Jeremy Colley and others have shown 

3 

that coldwater marine species such as the winter flounder, which 

used to be the dominant fish species in the Bay, are radically decreasing in numbers. Meanwhile, warmer water species such as 

summer flounder, scup and butterfish seem to be increasing. As 

fish species shift, either farther north or farther offshore, our fisheries management strategies are going to have to keep up and so 

is our science. We need to understand how environmental conditions are changing to better predict how species will react and how 

to manage them for the benefit of our fishermen. 

I am grateful that Chris is here to remind us that in addition to 

our national parks, forests and land species, our oceans and coasts 

and fisheries and the economies they support are also jeopardized 

by climate change. We must prepare for the changes that are coming and as well do everything we can to prevent future changes 

from carbon pollution. 

I look forward to today’s discussion, and before we turn to the 

witnesses, let me turn to our distinguished ranking member. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, U.S SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Today the Committee will discuss the benefits our American natural resources 

provide and the need for adaptation planning to protect these American resources 

in the face of climate change. 

I have been proud to work on this issue in recent years with former Senator Max 

Baucus, and while he is no longer here in the Senate, I’m glad the Committee is 

meeting today to carry on his important work. From the beaches of Rhode Island 

to the glaciers of Montana, nature’s bounty provide us with life’s essentials: clean 

air and water, crops and timber, recreation and our outdoor heritage. Climate 

change threatens to rob us of these essentials. 

I’ve gone to the Senate floor now nearly 60 times to plead with my colleagues to 

wake up to the facts of carbon pollution. The fact of the matter is that even if we 

stop carbon pollution today, we still face decades of changes in air and ocean temperatures and extreme weather. So while we must take up the challenge to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions, we must also begin to adapt, and secure our natural resources against the changes we cannot avoid. 

Status quo management and planning will not be good enough. A GAO report on 

the topic, citing several sources, says, ‘‘natural resource management has historically been based on the idea of maintaining current environmental conditions or restoring species and habitats to some desired former condition. As the climate continues to change, this approach will become increasingly more difficult if not impossible to maintain. ’’ 

But adaptation—to warming air and ocean temperatures, to catastrophic weather 

events, even to full ecosystem shifts—isn’t easy work, and the Federal, State and 

local leaders we entrust to protect our property and our ecosystems are often constrained by outdated laws and regulations. That’s why Senator Baucus and I introduced the Safeguarding America’s Future and the Environment Act. The SAFE Act, 

for short, puts all climate adaptation tools and approaches on the table, and would 

engage local stakeholders as well. 

As a first step, the SAFE Act requires adaptation planning and management efforts by Federal natural resource agencies. The Federal Government manages nearly 30 percent of land in the United States as well as marine resources, like fisheries, 

in our exclusive economic zone that extends 200 miles from our shore. 

The Administration is already doing what it can on this front. The President’s Climate Action Plan includes steps to prepare us for the effects of climate change and 

he further focused the Administration’s adaptation efforts in an Executive Order he 

issued in November. John Holdren, the Director of the White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy, is here to update us on these efforts, as well as the 

science behind what we’re seeing and why strategic adaptation planning is so necessary in the face of climate change. 

The Executive Order builds on the first National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Adaptation Strategy, which Congress requested in 2009 and the Administration released 

last March. I look forward to hearing from Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan 

4 

Ashe about implementation plans for the Strategy as well as other adaptation measures being championed by the Service. 

I’d also like to thank the witnesses on our second panel, who will provide a much 

needed perspective on what is happening outside of Washington. I especially want 

to recognize Chris Brown, President of the Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s 

Association. 

Chris’s livelihood depends on the oceans. Sadly, our oceans are becoming ground 

zero for damage from carbon pollution. The oceans are warming. That’s a measurement, not a theory. Sea level is rising. That’s another measurement. Oceans are becoming more acidic. Again, a measurement, not a theory. 

These changes are already affecting marine life. Some species are moving toward 

the colder water of the North and South Poles, as quickly as 10 to 45 miles per decade. Events that are timed for spring and summer, like egg laying or migration, are 

happening about 4 days earlier per decade. More acidic waters caused a 70–80 percent loss of oyster larvae at a hatchery in Oregon and crashed wild stocks in Washington State. 

In Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay has seen an overall increase in annual water 

temperature of between 3 and 4 degrees since 1960. According to Christopher 

Deacutis, the previous Chief Scientist of the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program: 

‘‘Fish species in Narragansett Bay are . . . shifting, seemingly in step with increased temperatures. [URI Professor] Jeremy Collie and others have shown that 

cold-water marine species such as the winter flounder, which used to be the dominant fish species in the bay, are radically decreasing in numbers. Meanwhile, warmer-water species such as summer flounder, scup and butterfish seem to be increasing.’’ 

As fish species shift, either farther north or farther offshore, our management 

strategies are going to have to keep up and so is our science. We need to understand 

how environmental conditions are changing to better predict how species will react 

and how to manage them for the benefit of our fishermen. 

I’m grateful that Chris is here to remind us that in addition to our national parks, 

forests, and land species, our oceans and coasts and the economies they support are 

also jeopardized by climate change. We must prepare for the changes that are coming and do everything we can to prevent future changes from carbon pollution. 

I look forward to today’s discussion. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t agree, but 

let’s—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You weren’t expected to. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Last month during the hearing on the climate 

action plan, I spent the bulk of my time raising concerns about the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s rollout of its greenhouse gas 

regulations, which I found to be alarmingly hypocritical. On the 

one hand, the Administration says these regulations are urgently 

needed. On the other hand, the EPA intentionally delayed the 

rule’s publication to prevent it from being implemented prior to the 

mid-term elections this fall. This is kind of reminiscent of the last 

elections that we had. 

Does anyone other than me care that fewer, and I understand, 

and I say to my good friend, and we are good friends, that while 

I don’t agree on this, neither do the majority of the people in the 

U.S. Senate or in the House. Because they can’t get more than 35 

votes, is all you can get today, a bill to legislatively allow the EPA 

to regulate greenhouse gases. We know this is true, we have been 

there before. So now they are trying to do what they couldn’t do 

with legislation through regulation. And the cost of these is pretty 

alarming. 

Now, what is more concerning is that there is similar behavior 

taking place across the government, including the Fish and Wildlife 

5 

Service, the bald eagle, the Golden Eagle Protection Act passed in 

1940, and it protects our national bird from hunting, poaching and 

other activities that could harm it. The Act states that without a 

permit, it is illegal to take, possess or sell or purchase any bald 

eagle. Wind turbines, with their massive blades, kill an estimated 

1.4 million birds a year as the turbines spin through the air. Some 

of these casualties have been protected birds like the bald eagle. 

Federal law stipulates that the illegal killing of bald eagles be 

punished with fines and/or jail sentences. But this won’t be the 

case for the wind industry. On December 6th of 2013, the Administration said that it would begin granting waivers to wind farm operators so that they would be able to kill bald eagles for a period 

of 30 years without fear of any retribution. That is pretty shocking. 

While I am not particularly bothered by the fact that permits are 

being offered, I am extremely concerned by the systematic practices 

of this Administration to use its powers to help its friends in renewable energy, while punishing its enemies developing traditional 

fossil fuels. Other species receive similar protections to the bald 

eagle under the Endangered Species Act. One covered species is the 

American burrowing beetle, many of which are located in eastern 

Oklahoma. For the past 2 years, eastern Oklahoma has been without a general conservation plan making it illegal to engage in nearly all activities that could disturb the ABB. 

Despite repeated attempts by my office, the State of Oklahoma 

and dozens of private entities, we have not managed to get anything out of the Service. This is a big deal, because many companies are planning to build new neighborhoods, develop new oil and 

gas wells and construct new pipelines, but because of the GCP, its 

effect is not final, they can’t do it. When this is compared to the 

new permits the Service may offer the wind industry, I can’t think 

but that this is a startling double standard. 

Justice is supposed to be blind. Treatment of different industries 

is supposed to be equal under the law, including the energy industry. And while the President says that he has an all of the above 

energy strategy, evidence shows whether the EPA or the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, that its real strategy is focused primarily on restricting traditional fossil fuels while assisting the development of 

renewables. 

This favoritism also extends to the way the government thinks 

about the adaptability of our Nation to changing circumstances. Renewable energy requires massive amounts of land to make very 

small quantities of power. But the government seems to ignore this 

fact. One recently constructed solar farm takes up five square miles 

but only makes enough electricity to power 140,000 homes. By contrast, a typical natural gas powered plant may in total take up only 

half of a square mile, but can generate enough power to support 

over a million homes. 

So despite the true impacts of renewables on the environment, 

the Administration continues to turn a blind eye to them. It is my 

hope that during this hearing we will be able to uncover some of 

the facts and provide a better framework for comparing the relative 

benefits and costs of the different forms of energy. 

Again, I would just repeat what I said earlier, ever since the 

Kyoto Treaty, I say to our Chairman, we have gone through this 

6 

thing. I can recall the first bill to be introduced was not really a 

Democrat bill, it was the McCain-Lieberman bill. It was soundly 

defeated, and this was 12 years ago. There have been several others, one by a new member of this committee that I am sure will 

be here, my very good friend from Massachusetts. And they have 

not been able to get enough votes to even get a third of the vote 

out of the Senate and less than a third in the House. 

So there is something wrong with the system, I say to my chairman, that we are able to go ahead and do through regulation what 

they have tried over and over again for 12 years to get through legislation unsuccessfully. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. It is important for us 

to conduct oversight on all aspects of the President’s Climate Action Plan to uncover 

the impact it will have on our Nation. 

Last month, during a hearing on the Climate Action Plan, I spent the bulk of my 

time raising concerns with the Environmental Protection Agency’s rollout of its 

greenhouse gas regulations, which I found to be alarmingly hypocritical. On the one 

hand, the Administration says these regulations are urgently needed; on the other, 

the EPA intentionally delayed the rule’s publication to prevent it from being implemented prior to the midterm elections this fall. 

And does anyone other than me care that fewer than 35 percent of the members 

of either the House or the Senate would even vote in favor of legislation granting 

EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases? And yet we continue to spend 

countless time debating the issue. 

This is alarming, but what’s more concerning is that I see similar behavior taking 

place across the government, including at the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act, passed in 1940, protects our national bird from hunting, poaching, and other activities that could harm it. The act 

states that without a permit, it is illegal to ‘‘take, possess, sell, [or] purchase’’ any 

bald eagle. 

Wind turbines, with their massive blades, kill an estimated 1.4 million birds per 

year as their turbines spin through the air. Some of these casualties have been protected birds like the bald eagle. 

Federal law stipulates that the illegal killing of bald eagles be punished with fines 

and/or jail sentences, but this won’t be the case for the wind industry. On December 

6, 2013, the Administration said that it would begin granting waivers to wind farm 

operators so that they would be able to kill bald eagles for a period of 30 years without fear of any retribution. 

While I’m not particularly bothered by the fact that the permits are being offered, 

I am extremely concerned by the systematic practices of this Administration to use 

its powers to help its friends in renewable energy while punishing its enemies developing traditional fossil fuels. 

Other species receive similar protections to the Bald Eagle under the Endangered 

Species Act. One covered species is the American Burying Beetle (ABB), many of 

which are located in Eastern Oklahoma. 

For the past 2 years, Eastern Oklahoma has been without a General Conservation 

Plan, making it illegal to engage in nearly all activities that could disturb the ABB. 

Despite repeated attempts by my office, the State of Oklahoma, and dozens of private entities, we have not managed to get anything out of the Service. This is a big 

deal because many companies are planning to build new neighborhoods, develop 

new oil and gas wells, and construct new pipelines, but because the GCP is not 

final, they cannot do it. 

When this is compared to the new permits the Service may offer wind industry, 

I can’t help but think this is a startling double standard. 

Justice is supposed to be blind. Treatment of different industries is supposed to 

be equal under the law, including the energy industry. And while the President says 

that he has an all-of-the-above energy strategy, evidence shows—whether at EPA 

or the Fish and Wildlife Service—that his real strategy is focused primarily on restricting traditional fossil fuels while assisting the development of renewables. 

7 

This favoritism also extends to the way the government thinks about the adaptability of our nation to changing circumstances. Renewable energy requires massive 

amounts of land to make very small quantities of power, but the government seems 

to ignore this fact. One recently constructed solar farm takes up 5 square miles but 

only makes enough electricity to power 140,000 homes. By contrast, a typical natural gas power plant may, in total, take up only a half square mile but can generate 

enough power to support over one million homes. 

Despite the true impacts of renewables on the environment, the Administration 

continues to turn a blind eye to them. It’s my hope that during this hearing, we’ll 

be able to uncover some of these facts and provide a better framework for comparing 

the relative benefits and costs of different forms of energy. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Always glad to hear from the ranking 

member. Some would say that the problem is the problem with 

Congress. That is one that elections will cure, with any luck. 

Senator INHOFE. I do agree with that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Now we have Dr. Holdren, who is the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He 

is also the co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science 

and Technology. 

He has served previously as a member of the President’s Council 

of Advisors on Science and Technology during the Clinton administration and also chaired studies for President Clinton on preventing theft of nuclear materials, disposition of surplus weapon 

plutonium, the prospects of fusion energy, U.S. energy R&D strategy and international cooperation on energy technology innovation. 

He holds advanced degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics—hurts my head just to say that—from MIT 

and Stanford. 

Dr. Holdren, welcome and thank you. Then we will turn to Mr. 

Ashe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. HOLDREN, PH.D., DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE 

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

Mr. HOLDREN. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe. I am certainly pleased to be here today to discuss with 

you the Federal Government’s ongoing work to inform and support 

climate change preparedness and resilience in communities across 

America. 

Few environmental factors affect our Nation’s economy, communities and ecosystems more than weather and climate. Severe 

weather and climate change poses important risks to human 

health, safety, livelihoods and property. In 2012 alone, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data 

Center identified 11 weather-related events in the United States 

that each resulted in losses exceeding a billion dollars, totaling 

$110 billion in damages and 377 deaths across the entire year. 

And we are all acutely aware that the severe drought currently 

afflicting California and other areas of the southwest is having important impacts on agriculture, ranching, water resource management and other critical sectors of the region’s economy. 

Scientifically, one cannot say that any single episode of extreme 

weather, no storm, no flood, no drought, was caused by climate 

change. What scientists can say is that global climate has been so 

extensively impacted by the human-caused buildup of greenhouse 

8 

gases that many such events are being influenced by climate 

change. Any effective effort to boost climate preparedness will require anticipating and planning for changes in the frequency, intensity and locations of some kinds of extreme weather and climate 

events as well as for other changes, such as the continuing rise of 

sea level. 

Strengthening America’s climate resilience also requires a full 

understanding of how climate change is affecting the health of our 

environment and natural resources and what can be done to plan 

and prepared for such changes. As you pointed out in your opening 

statement, Senator Whitehouse, ecosystems provide a range of important benefits to people, including protection of coastal areas, 

clean drinking water and opportunities for commerce, tourism and 

recreation. 

Some of the Nation’s ecosystems have been depleted or degraded 

due to non-climatic factors, pollution, over-harvesting, changes in 

land use, that have reduced the ability of these systems to provide 

benefits to people. But these benefits are further threatened by climate change, the impacts of which include widespread changes in 

the Nation’s habitats and ecosystems. Certain commercial fish species are moving northward along the east coast as waters warm. 

The timing of some biological events, such as flowering and migration, is shifting in regions across the Country. Decreases in rainfall 

and snow pack in the west are reducing the health and productivity of forests and agricultural systems alike. 

The President’s climate action plan, released last June, provides 

a roadmap for Federal action to meet the pressing challenges that 

come with climate change, including concrete actions that can be 

taken to boost the resilience and preparedness of American communities. These actions build on work already completed or underway, 

including a number of Federal interagency climate adaptation 

strategies related to freshwater resources, fish, wildlife and plants 

and marine resources. 

The plan also recognizes the need to ensure that the best science, 

research, data, tools and technologies are brought to bear in implementing all climate preparedness and resilience efforts. The White 

House Office of Science and Technology Policy is working with 

partners within and outside government to meet this challenge and 

to meet the growing demand among decisionmakers on the ground 

for accessible and actionable information to inform their efforts to 

plan and prepare for climate change. 

I thank the committee for its support and interest in this issue, 

and I look forward to continuing to work with you. I will be pleased 

to take any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holdren follows:] 

9 


97585.001
10 


97585.002
11 


97585.003
12 


97585.004
13 


97585.005
14 


97585.006
15 


97585.007
16 


97585.008
17 


97585.009
18 


97585.010
19 


97585.011
20 


97585.012
21 


97585.013
22 


97585.014
23 


97585.015
24 


97585.016
25 


97585.017
26 


97585.018
27 


97585.019
28 


97585.020
29 


97585.021
30 


97585.022
31 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Holdren. And as is custom 

in this committee, your longer statement that was provided will be 

put into the record. We appreciate that you were able to summarize in the appropriate amount of time. 

Mr. Ashe, welcome. Actually, let me do my proper introduction 

to you. Daniel Ashe was confirmed on June 30th, 2011 as the 16th 

Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Ashe served as the Fish and Wildlife Service Deputy Director for Policy, beginning in 2009. 

Mr. Ashe is a career member of the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

having served in a great variety of capacities, and formerly was a 

professional staff member of the former House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. He is also a legacy, his father served 

in the Fish and Wildlife Service for 37 years. Mr. Ashe brings to 

us a B.S. in biological science degree from Florida State University 

and a masters in marine affairs from the University of Washington. 

Please proceed, Mr. Ashe. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANIEL M. ASHE, DIRECTOR, 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe. It is a 

pleasure to be here again. 

If we think about this issue of adaptation and response to climate change, I think what I would say is, climate change affects 

every aspect of the enterprise of wildlife conservation. But it is not 

just climate change, it is climate change on top of and turbo-charging the cumulative effects of other factors driving wildlife populations, things like habitat loss and fragmentation, wildlife diseases 

like white nose syndrome in bats and Kitrick fungus in amphibians, species invasions, wildfire. So it is climate change on top of 

all of these things. We see these effects, these cumulative, accelerating effects, everywhere we look. 

Chairman Whitehouse, in your region of the Country, consider 

Atlantic salmon conservation. For nearly 40 years, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service has worked with many partners, State, tribal, 

local, to try to achieve Atlantic salmon conservation in the Connecticut River. We have put forth great effort with great partnerships. But what we find is now with the accelerating effects of climate change, driving warming of the water and changing of the 

chemical and physical characteristics of the Connecticut River, that 

that is acting synergistically with other factors, like the presence 

of predators that never existed in the Connecticut River, like 

smallmouth bass and human-based pollution of the water, and barriers to migration like dams and other barriers in the Connecticut 

River and tributaries. 

So climate change now acting cumulatively and synergistically 

with those effects are telling us that we can’t achieve Atlantic 

salmon conservation in the Connecticut River. So if we are going 

to achieve that, we need to look elsewhere within the historic range 

of the species. 

Mr. Inhofe, as you know, we are seeing the same things in the 

range of the Lesser prairie chicken. Certainly habitat loss and alteration changes are being accelerated and exacerbated by changes 

32 

in soil moisture and other things that seem to be driving the Lesser prairie chicken toward potential extinction. We have made great 

efforts working with the State to put in place a range-wide plan, 

working on a candidate conservation agreement to drive conservation, habitat conservation for this species. But the one missing ingredient there is rain, and will we get rain, and will the presence 

or absence of rain, is that a phenomenon of weather, or is that a 

phenomenon of climate. Does it really matter. What we need to do 

is, we need to better understand what is driving the fate of these 

creatures that we are responsible for. 

And as I was thinking about this, I am going to borrow from a 

book called The Legacy, by David Suzuki. He talks about the 

human enterprise and he talks about the fact that we are not an 

impressive species in size and speed and strength or sensory alacrity. But the key to our success as a species is this two-kilogram 

organ encased in our skull. The human brain has more than compensated for our lack of physical or sensory abilities. We observe, 

we learn, we remember. We recognize causal relationships and we 

come up with innovative solutions to problems. 

So throughout history, drawing on our experience and knowledge, we have dreamed of our place in the world and imagined the 

future into being. By inventing a future, we could look ahead, we 

could see where dangers and opportunities lay and recognized that 

our actions would have consequence in that future. Foresight gave 

us a leg up and brought us into a position of dominance in the 

world. I think now we are at that position of time where foresight 

is especially important. As we look at all of these things that are 

influencing not only the future of the wildlife that is the mission 

and responsibility of my agency, but our life, it seems like it is an 

especially important time for us to exercise that special human ingredient and characteristic of foresight. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:] 

33 


97585.023
34 


97585.024
35 


97585.025
36 


97585.026
37 


97585.027
38 


97585.028
39 


97585.029
40 


97585.030
41 


97585.031
42 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Director Ashe. 

How would the capacity of our human brain exercise its Godgiven quality of foresight be influenced in your world, in protecting 

our natural resources, if we fail to acknowledge the reality of climate change? 

Mr. ASHE. It cannot be, if we do not acknowledge the reality of 

climate change. I think in what we are doing in the Fish and Wildlife Service, you acknowledged, one, the National Fish, Wildlife and 

Plants Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. We are working with 

our State partners, with our tribal partners, with local partners to 

think about the future and to plan for that. Some of the steps are 

simple, that we need to learn more, we need to understand more 

about the effect of a changing climate on populations. We need to 

be able to anticipate more. We are developing a national and international network of landscape conservation cooperatives, a partnerdriven, partner-managed scientific enterprise. We are working to 

conserve and connect large landscapes, to build a representative, 

resilient and redundant conservation network. And we are doing 

that not just with environmental community partners like the Nature Conservancy or Defenders of Wildlife, we are doing that with 

energy industry partners. So simple common sense steps to make 

a difference. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. As was the case with Mr. Holdren, Director Ashe, your full statement will be made a matter of record here. 

You State in it, according to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, significant changes in the U.S. climate over the past 50 

years have occurred, including increases in average temperatures, 

shifts in rainfall and storm patterns, increases in wildfires, more 

frequent water shortages, rising sea levels, loss of arctic sea ice, 

ocean acidification, changing precipitation patterns and coastal 

flooding and erosion. 

Is that a matter of theory or is that at this point a matter of observation? 

Mr. ASHE. Those are all matters of observation, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Dr. Holdren, the President recently announced plans for a billion dollar climate resilience fund that is 

meant to help communities deal with harms from extreme events 

due to climate change. Can you talk a little bit about how these 

resilience measures, completed before or in the recovery phase of 

a natural disaster, actually save money in the future? We have 

lived through this question with Sandy in New England and I 

would like to have your comment on that. 

Mr. HOLDREN. First of all, we know of course that events like 

Sandy are immensely expensive. We also know from both experience and analysis that prevention of damage is almost always considerably less expensive than rebuilding after the damage or otherwise trying to repair it. 

In the natural resource context that is the particular focus of this 

hearing, we know that community resilience, the resilience of 

human communities, depends in many respects on ecosystem resilience. The declines in benefits provided by ecosystems, including as 

a result of climate change, have direct and indirect impacts on livelihoods and the economy of communities. Loss of coral reefs due to 

bleaching and disease means losses of revenue for the tourism inVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:20 Mar 08, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\97585.TXT VERN
43 

dustry as well as declines in reef-dependent fish species that have 

commercial value. 

Again, almost invariably, when you count up the cost of allowing 

this damage to continue unabated versus the cost of intervening to 

reduce the damage or increase resilience to protect against it, you 

find that these investments are a bargain. That is why the President has proposed his billion dollar climate resilience fund. It will 

be a bargain. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

I will yield back my time to our distinguished ranking member. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ashe, I said in my opening statement I have been concerned 

that the Service has been giving preferential treatment under the 

Endangered Species Act to renewable energy producers when compared to those of traditional fuels. I know we have talked about 

this before. But this is particularly problematic in Oklahoma with 

the American burrowing beetle. You and I both know that the oil 

and gas industry is the source of most economic activity there. But 

because there isn’t a general conservation plan in place, most of 

this new activity has been curtailed. It is my understanding that 

a new general conservation plan is under development. 

You are a good friend of Richard Hatcher in our State of Oklahoma and you have visited extensively with each other. He is our 

director of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 

And he asked if it would be possible to allow modified conservation 

practices until a new GCP is completed, which is expected to be 

later this year. What would be your answer to that? Would that be 

possible? 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Mr. Inhofe. Mr. Hatcher is a great American and a great friend. I think we are working on an interim plan 

for the American burrowing beetle. In fact, people are meeting 

today, I am told, in Oklahoma with the State and with representatives from the energy industry to try to find a solution while we 

work on the larger general conservation plan. 

So Senator, we are committed to trying to find a solution. It is 

surprisingly vexing, I have to admit. But we are working to try to 

find an interim solution, and conversations are literally going on as 

we speak. I am hopeful that by the spring we will have identified 

a solution. 

Senator INHOFE. The question, though, that he asked was, would 

it be possible to go ahead and address this thing, possible to allow 

maybe a modified conservation practices until the new plan is completed. I think as you just now said, it is expected to be completed 

soon. It is very close right now. So in the interim period, that is 

the concern he was asking about. 

Mr. ASHE. I would have to talk to Richard specifically about his 

ideas. I have not had a chance to do that. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, that would be good. That is fair enough, 

you would do that. 

I think most of our conversation has been around the Lesser 

prairie chicken. This is something that has been of great concern 

in the State of Oklahoma and about a four-State area, New Mexico, 

Kansas and Texas and Oklahoma. From what I understand, we are 

in the very final stages of giving final approval to the oil and gas 

44 

CCAA and acres are being enrolled in the State-based range-wide 

plan. 

I recently wrote you a letter asking if you would allow enrollment in the CCAAs beyond a listing decision. This is important because we are about a month away from the deadline. It often takes 

several weeks to complete the enrollment process. Enrollment can’t 

be done until the CCAA is finalized. Would you allow a post-position enrollment? 

Mr. ASHE. I cannot do that. Our expectation, Senator, is that the 

Candidate Conservation agreement will be completed this week, by 

Friday of this week. So we will have a completed instrument and 

sign-ups can begin. 

If we were to list the Lesser prairie chicken, then it would no 

longer be a candidate. So it would not be appropriate for people to 

sign—— 

Senator INHOFE. So you are saying you cannot do it, even if you 

are willing to do that? 

Mr. ASHE. We cannot do it. 

Senator INHOFE. If we were to find that you can do it, then would 

you reconsider that? Because we are right down now to the deadline. The time is on us now. 

By the way, I have to say this, for this committee, how much I 

appreciate the fact that you in your confirmation made an agreement to come out, talk to our people about the cooperative plans 

that we have, the partnership plans that we have in Oklahoma. 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. You did it not only once, but twice. So I thank 

you very much for that. 

So far to my understanding, several hundred thousand acres 

have been enrolled in the RWP, 4 million are in the queue. And 

between 5 million and 6 six million acres will be enrolled in the 

CCAA in the first week following its approval. Are you encouraged 

by what you have seen, are seeing from the conservation standpoint with the range-wide plan and the CCAAs? 

Mr. ASHE. I am greatly encouraged, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. Now, there isn’ time, my time has expired, but 

let me just take a little bit, because there is a new critter coming 

I wasn’t even familiar with, and that of course is the northern longeared bat. I figured beetles and Lesser prairie chickens would be 

enough, and now we are concerned with this. Apparently this affects some 39 States. 

It has come to our attention that the Service issued guidance requiring Section 7 conferencing reviews for the projects proposed to 

take place in the species range which is, as I said, affects now 39 

States, is that right? About 39 States. This has occurred despite 

the fact that the species has only been proposed as an endangered 

species. That determination has not yet been made. It is also my 

understanding that these Section 7 reviews are only allowed prior 

to a listing when a project is going to jeopardize the existence of 

the species across the entire range. Can you explain to me why the 

Service is doing this, and isn’t it getting ahead of itself? By the 

way, of the 39 States, everyone at this table here is one of the 39 

States. 

45 

Mr. ASHE. Senator, I will have to get back to you on the details 

related to the long-eared bat. I am not intimately familiar. I would 

say we cannot, or we do not and cannot require consultation prior 

to a listing. Consultation is a formal, statutorily required commitment on the part of the Federal agency once a species is listed. 

We sometimes do what we call conferencing on a candidate species, which is a voluntary process to provide advice and guidance. 

With regard to the lesser prairie chicken, for instance, we have 

done a conference with the Natural Resource Conservation Service, 

which has allowed us to provide certainty to landowners that sign 

up and implement best conservation practices for lesser prairie 

chicken. We have done the same thing for sage grouse. So sometimes we do conferencing informally to encourage investment in 

conservation before a species is listed, but we can’t require consultation. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. I know my time is expired, but when you 

talk about the burrowing beetle and the lesser prairie chicken, it 

really is only in a smaller number of States. This apparently affects 

a large number of States. 

I also want to take advantage of the opportunity to welcome my 

good friend Senator Markey from Massachusetts. He and I have 

gone around and around in debates for the last 12 years. We have 

always maintained a very good relationship and friendship. I appreciate your adding your expertise to this committee, Senator 

Markey. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And indeed, it is Senator Markey’s turn, 

so I recognize him for his first appearance in this committee. We 

will miss Senator Baucus, but he has certainly been replaced by a 

very prominent figure in the environmental cause. I am delighted 

to have Ed Markey with us. The floor is yours, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I am 

looking forward to learning a lot about these issues. I am familiar 

with many of them, after 37 years on these committees. Senator 

Inhofe and I, we started back in 1987 having these conversations, 

when we joined the House of Representatives. So we are 27 years 

now into our conversation. 

Senator INHOFE. But neither one of us has moved yet. 

Senator MARKEY. My father always said that when two people 

agree upon absolutely everything, you don’t need one of those people. So we are both needed here. We are needed for this conversation. We have to just continue to have it, and I thank you, my 

friend, Jim Inhofe, for all these years. 

Chairman Whitehouse, thank you for all your leadership on the 

issues. I am looking forward to working with you and Chairman 

Boxer and all the members of the committee to work on these 

issues that are so central to the health of our economy and the 

health of the citizens of our Nation, whether it is rebuilding roads 

or reducing the impact of what comes out of the tailpipes of the 

cars that drive on them, the work of this committee is crucial to 

driving the United States economy. 

Today’s hearing is examining one of the major risks to America’s 

environmental and economic health climate change. It is having 

tangible impacts in Massachusetts right now. My State loses land 

to rising sea levels every year. Our iconic cod have been moving 

46 

north as ocean temperatures warm and are contributing to the extreme economic challenges facing Massachusetts fishermen and the 

coastal communities that depend upon them. 

Thankfully we already have many of the tools needed to prepare 

for the impact of climate change and reduce the risk in the future. 

Building upon natural coastal defenses will not only help protect 

infrastructure on land but also provide benefits for the fishing and 

tourism industries. Increasing the efficiency of our energy and 

water use can help respond to climate change and lower utility 

bills for our homeowners at the same time. Addressing climate 

change means capitalizing on the trillion dollar clean energy opportunity that exists. Cleaning up and fortifying our aging, polluting 

energy infrastructure could be the job creation engine of our time. 

Eighty thousand Americans are already employed in the wind sector in our Country. That is about the same number of people that 

mine coal in our Country today. 

Solar is one of the fastest-growing sectors of our economy, 

142,000 Americans are employee in solar, 24,000 new solar jobs 

added to our economy last year. These are high-wage jobs, $23 an 

hour on average. These are International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers jobs, these are roofer jobs, these are jobs that our soldiers 

are learning how to do when they return home. It has been clear 

for years that we need to invest in America’s resilience to climate 

change and our clean energy economy. Building climate-smart infrastructure and more wind and solar capacity will create jobs that 

are good for saving creation at the same time. 

Now, Dr. Holdren, let’s start with a basic analogy. If the current 

State of scientific understanding of human beings’ influence on climate change is like a jigsaw puzzle, are most of the pieces still in 

the box or have scientists put enough together to establish what 

the picture is? 

Mr. HOLDREN. I would say that most of the major pieces are in 

place. We have an increasingly clear picture of how human activities are influencing the global climate. That picture has been reflected in not only the reports every several years of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, contributed to by hundreds of 

climate scientists from around the world, but regular reports by 

our National Academies of Science, the academies of science of 

every other major country that has an academy of science. And the 

basic picture is that we know without question that the climate of 

the earth is changing in ways that stand out sharply against the 

backdrop of natural variations that have operated over millennia. 

We know with very high confidence that the principal driver of 

these recent changes has been human activities, above all, the 

emission of heat-trapping substances, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, black soot and others. 

And we know with high confidence that those changes in climate 

are already causing harm to human well-being in many forms and 

many places. A number of them have been referred to already. 

There are uncertainties surrounding the quantitative details in 

many cases. Climate scientists are well aware of the importance of 

measuring and quantifying uncertainty and working to reduce it 

over time. But the uncertainties and the details that are not yet 

47 

well understood do not obscure, do not implicate those fundamental 

understandings which I just summarized. 

Of course, we also work hard to try to create where we are headed as well as where we have been. And that is harder. As often has 

been said, predictions are difficult, particularly about the future. 

Senator MARKEY. Yogi Berra. 

Mr. HOLDREN. Yogi Berra. The uncertainties are greater looking 

forward than in trying to match our understanding with what has 

happened in the past. But we can have high confidence that as long 

as the buildup of greenhouses gases continues that the kinds of disruption of global climate that we have seen already will only grow. 

And the dimensions of the damage to human well-being associated 

with that will grow apace. 

Senator MARKEY. And I agree with you, the impacts are going go 

become more severe, the solutions are going to be more costly. We 

have to basically accept the fact that the pieces of the puzzle are 

in place. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just ask 

unanimous consent that my opening statement be in the record. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Without objection. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. And thank you, gentlemen, for being 

here, and for your work. 

Director Ashe, I wanted to ask you, is your agency currently engaged in consultation related to the EPA’s proposed New Source 

Performance Standards for power plants? 

Mr. ASHE. We are engaged in consultation with EPA over their 

proposed rules under Section 316(b), the Clean Water Act, yes. 

Senator VITTER. And how would you describe that level of consultation? Is it the formal consultation process? 

Mr. ASHE. It is a formal consultation process, yes, sir. 

Senator VITTER. And how extensive has that been specifically 

with regard to New Source Performance Standards for power 

plants? 

Mr. ASHE. I am not certain how to answer your question. I am 

not sure what you are looking for. We have been engaged in conversation with EPA. 

Senator VITTER. Let me back up, because I think we are talking 

about two different things. I am talking about New Source Performance Standards for power plants, which is separate from 

316(b). So with regard to endangered species, are you engaged in 

consultation with EPA on New Source Performance Standards? 

Mr. ASHE. I do not believe that we are, sir. I will have to check 

and make sure of that, but I do not believe that we are. 

Senator VITTER. If you can check and submit that follow—up for 

the record. Assuming you are correct, and you are not, why aren’t 

you? You don’t think this has any potential impact on endangered 

species? 

Mr. ASHE. The obligation for consultation, Senator, is on the action agency. So EPA would determine whether a consultation was 

necessary and they would provide us with a biological assessment, 

which then would be the basis for a biological opinion. So your 

question is appropriately directed to the action agency. 

48 

Senator VITTER. OK, I will direct it to them. But I would point 

out that, for instance, in contrast to that, you are definitely involved in Section 7 consultation, for instance, in the cooling water 

intake rule of EPA. 

Mr. ASHE. Correct, 316(b). 

Senator VITTER. Was that initiated by EPA? 

Mr. ASHE. It was. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Now, I would also point out, in that scenario, they are considering alternatives, all of which, both of which, 

I think there are two big alternatives, have a beneficial impact on 

endangered species. The discussion is more or less how big the beneficial impact is, is that correct? 

Mr. ASHE. No, sir, the discussion is that permit framework under 

Section 316(b) would authorize the use of cooling waters, which will 

have a significant effect on threatened and endangered species. So 

the discussion is about minimizing and avoiding those potential impacts and reasonable and prudent measures that the EPA and 

State-delegated programs could take. 

Senator VITTER. The point is, all the alternatives being considered are benefits compared to the status quo on endangered species. 

Mr. ASHE. That is the purpose of a consultation, is to determine 

and to determine what measures can be taken by EPA within its 

Clean Water Act authorities to avoid and minimize the take of endangered species. Probably, sir, since the 1970’s and the passage of 

the great environmental laws in the 1970’s, everything the government does makes life better under the Clean Water Act, under the 

National Forest Management Act, under the Clean Air Act. The 

question is not whether it is one increment better. The question is, 

can EPA within its discretion undertake reasonable and prudent 

measures to improve the likelihood that species will be recovered. 

Senator VITTER. Let’s go back to that standard with New Source 

Performance Standards. Because New Source Performance Standards fundamentally are going to shift power supply sources for energy. And to the extent it shifts it, for instance, to wind, it takes 

up a whole lot more land footprint than existing sources. Is that 

not likely to have a major potential impact on endangered species? 

Mr. ASHE. Again, sir, it is not for me to determine. It is for the 

action agency to determine in looking at their action. You are asking me a completely hypothetical question. 

Senator VITTER. It is not hypothetical. It is going on, and you are 

the top lead actor in the Federal Government who is supposed to 

be concerned about endangered species essentially, correct? 

Mr. ASHE. I am concerned about them. 

Senator VITTER. OK. So it is not hypothetical. The question is, 

if we are shifting power supply to things that take up a whole lot 

more land, could that have an impact on endangered species? 

Mr. ASHE. It could, theoretically, have an impact on endangered 

species. It could. 

Senator VITTER. Therefore, would it be appropriate in your opinion, I understand you don’t initiate this legally, but therefore, as 

the person who is charged with thinking about endangered species 

in the Federal Government, would it be appropriate to think about 

that through a formal consultation process? 

49 

Mr. ASHE. It is appropriate any time an action agency is taking 

an action for them to consider the effect of their action on endangered species. In fact, they have an obligation to do so under the 

Endangered Species Act. But it is their call. 

Senator VITTER. It is the legal responsibility, it is their call. I am 

asking the question, are they making the right call by not initiating any consultation process with you on the matter? 

Mr. ASHE. That is not for me to say, sir. 

Senator VITTER. OK. If I could just wrap up, I think it is collectively for us to say, and I think clearly, clearly this major rulemaking has a broad potential impact on endangered species. I 

think clearly the lack of any consultation is completely inappropriate. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

opportunity to be with the subcommittee. 

Thank you both for being here today. Dr. Holdren, you are the 

Director of the Office fo Science and Technology Policy, called the 

President’s top science advisor, commonly, and it is an important 

office for sure. I would say you feel a responsibility to accurately 

tell the American people the challenges and facts dealing with 

science and technology in America. 

Mr. HOLDREN. That is one of my responsibilities. But my first responsibility is giving the President accurate information about 

science and technology, bearing on his decisions. 

Senator SESSIONS. I understand that. On February 14th, during 

a press conference at the White House, about the President’s trip 

to California, where he was promoting or talking about a new $1 

billion drought climate change fund, you stated, a, weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change. 

Mr. HOLDREN. That is not quite what I said, sir, but we will 

come back to that. 

Senator SESSIONS. You said more than that. Then you said ‘‘We 

really understand a number of reasons that global climate change 

is increasing the intensity and frequency and life of drought and 

drought-prone regions.’‘ Then you talked about ‘‘the connection between the increasing frequency and intensity of droughts and climate change.’‘ You also asserted that severe droughts are ‘‘getting 

more frequent, they are getting longer, they are getting drier,’‘ and 

that ‘‘we have seen droughts and drought-prone regions becoming 

more frequent and more severe and longer.’‘ 

Will you stand by that? 

Mr. HOLDREN. The one part I don’t stand by is the initial 

quotation, because I said weather practically everywhere is being 

influenced by climate change, not caused by climate change. And 

I explained that as well in my opening statement here. What we 

have done, we have warmed the surface of the earth, we have 

warmed the surface of the oceans. That is influence climate and is 

influencing weather everywhere. 

Senator SESSIONS. The weather changes, we all know that, it has 

since time immemorial. But do you stand by your statements that 

droughts are getting more frequent, and getting longer and they 

are getting drier and the other comments I made? And if so, cite 

for us a scientific report or data that supports that. 

50 

Mr. HOLDREN. I would be happy to do that. My statement was 

that droughts are getting more severe in some regions. That is supported by the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 2013. Its science basis supported by the National Climate 

Assessment—— 

Senator SESSIONS. No, no, no. What you said, sir, you said, and 

I am quoting here, the first quote I mentioned did mention 

drought-prone regions. But you talked about the connection between increasing ‘‘frequency and intensity of drought and climate 

change’‘ and you asserted that severe droughts are ‘‘getting more 

frequent, they are getting longer and they are getting drier.’‘ 

Mr. HOLDREN. In some regions, and I would be happy to provide 

you the scientific references. There is a long list of them. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, what about the United States of America? 

Mr. HOLDREN. In the United States of America, droughts are getting more severe in the American west and in the Colorado River 

basin. We are experiencing in the Colorado River basin what looks 

like probably the most severe drought in a thousand years. California is heading for what looks like one of the most severe drought 

in 500 years. And the data show that we are experiencing in the 

western United States, we are experiencing one of the most—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, let me tell you what Dr. Pilkey said, 

who sat in that chair you are sitting in today just a few months 

ago, he is a climate impact expert, and he agrees that warming is 

partly caused by human emissions. But he testified ‘‘It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated 

with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on 

climate change time scales either in the United States or globally.’‘ 

Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama testified ‘‘There is 

little or no observational evidence that severe weather of any type 

has worsened over the last 30, 50 or 100 years.’‘ The American Enterprise Institute evaluated the data and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Palmer Drought Severity Index, are 

you familiar with that? 

Mr. HOLDREN. I am. 

Senator SESSIONS. And they concluded ‘‘The Palmer Drought Severity Index shows no trend over the record period beginning in 

1895 in terms of drought. More areas in the United States have experienced an increase in soil moisture than a decline.’‘ And the 

IPCC of April of last year admitted their previous reports had been 

in error, stating ‘‘Based on updated studies, conclusions regarding 

global increasing trends in drought since the 1970’s were probably 

overstated.’‘ And the congressional Research Service, our own 

group here, likewise finds that droughts haven’t been increasing. 

Mr. HOLDREN. On your last point about global drought, of course 

we know that in a warming world with evaporation increasing, precipitation also increases. More places are getting wetter than are 

getting drier. 

Senator SESSIONS. Oh, so we don’t have any drought? 

Mr. HOLDREN. So when you say global drought, if I may finish, 

when you say global drought, you are averaging out the places that 

are getting drier and the places that are getting wetter. What I am 

talking about is what has been happening in drought-prone reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:20 Mar 08, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\97585.TXT VERN
51 

gions. The first few people you quoted are not representative of the 

mainstream scientific opinion on this point. And again, I will be 

happy to submit for the record recent articles from Nature, Nature 

GeoScience, Nature Climate Change, Science and others showing 

that in drought-prone regions droughts are becoming more intense. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The record will remain open for 2 weeks 

after this hearing. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I thank the 

witness. We expect that a taxpayer paid government official should 

be very accurate and not advance a political agenda but tell us the 

absolute facts. 

Mr. HOLDREN. That is what I have been doing. 

Senator SESSIONS. I look forward to getting that additional information. 

Mr. HOLDREN. Happy to provide it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Dr. Holdren. Thank 

you very much, Director Ashe. 

We are pressed for time, because we have a vote at 3:30, so let’s 

see how quickly we can get the next panel on, and I will urge them 

to be particularly diligent about confining their remarks to the allotted period of time, and we will see if we can get some questions 

in. 

Let’s swing right into action. I think you all heard the concerns 

that I have about our timeframe. We have been squeezed up 

against a vote that has been scheduled for 3:30. So we are going 

to have to try to fit in what we can. 

Let me start with Mr. Matson, who is the Vice President for Climate Adaptation, at Defenders of Wildlife. He directs Defenders’ efforts to create and implement policies and strategies to safeguard 

wildlife and habitat from the effects of climate change. He has a 

BS in biology and geology from the University of Rochester, masters in environmental management from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and his masters research focused 

on biodiversity and management of the National Elk Refuge in Wyoming. Mr. Matson, please proceed. Your full statement will be 

made a matter of record. 

STATEMENT OF NOAH MATSON, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

CLIMATE ADAPTATION, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 

Mr. MATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Inhofe. Again, my name is Noah Matson. I am the Vice President 

for Climate Change Adaptation for Defenders of Wildlife, a national 

non-profit conservation organization. Thank you for the opportunity 

to provide input into this important hearing. 

Asking your indulgement for a moment, imagine a country where 

a single storm could kill almost 2,000 citizens and level over $100 

billion worth of damage. Imagine a country where the majority of 

its fruits and vegetables and crops are threatened because of a prolonged drought. Imagine a country where whole villages have to be 

relocated and escape an eroding coast. 

I am not talking about the Philippines, Namibia or the Maldives. 

All these things have happened or are happening right here in 

America, where Hurricane Katrina pummeled the Gulf Coast, California’s 3-year long drought is shriveling crops and the Alaskan 

52 

Native village of Newtok is making plans to move as its coast 

washes away. 

We are woefully unprepared for ‘‘natural disasters.’‘ Even less 

prepared as these and other disasters are magnified by a changing 

climate. Preparing for responding and adapting to the impacts of 

climate change is a moral and economic issue. Taking reasonable 

steps now to prepare for the future will save lives, save jobs, save 

money, save our communities and the nature that supports us. 

In preparing for the future we need to look to nature to provide 

many of the protective services we all need. We can reduce the risk 

of flooding by restoring flood plains that naturally absorb and slow 

flood waters. We can reduce the risk of water shortages and water 

quality degradation by maintaining and restoring watersheds. We 

can reduce the risk of wildlife by restoring forests near residential 

areas to more fire-adaptive ecosystems. 

Although nature can provide all these benefits to help protect our 

communities, wildlife and ecosystems are also being negatively impacted by climate change. Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ashe listed many 

of these impacts, so I won’t repeat them. However, I personally 

have seen the impacts on habitat first-hand in a number of national wildlife refuges, including Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware. In 2009, a storm punched and breached the coastal dunes at the refuge, spraying saltwater into the refuge’s freshwater marshes, critical migratory stopover for tens of thousands of 

ducks, gees and other migratory birds. The saltwater killed the 

marsh, 4,000 acres in the span of a couple of years, as freshwater 

marsh grasses were converted to open water, limiting the ability of 

the refuge to provide for the migratory birds that depends on that 

habitat. 

The good news is the Federal Government, many State and local 

communities are beginning to plan for the future, a future unlike 

the past. The Obama administration is taking this issue seriously. 

Not only is the Administration tackling the causes of climate 

change head-on, limiting greenhouse gas emissions, the President 

has also issued an executive order on preparing for climate change. 

As described by Director Ashe, the Administration also released 

the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy. Since wildlife don’t know when they have crossed jurisdictional boundaries, the intergovernmental approach is critical if we 

are going to have any chance of helping species respond to climate 

change, especially as they attempt to shift their ranges across the 

landscape. 

Despite these important advances, more needs to be done. Specifically, I urge the Congress to enact the Secure America’s Future 

Environment Act. Mr. Chairman, your SAFE Act would protect 

American communities, wildlife and natural habitat from the increasingly destructive effects of climate change. 

Two, providing funding. Congress should provide adequate funding to maintain and expand key Federal programs supporting adaptation efforts and natural resources conservation. Three, we need 

to prepare better for disasters. Protecting and restoring natural 

systems is often the least expensive method of buffering communities against disasters, and therefore must be considered in disVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:20 Mar 08, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\97585.TXT VERN
53 

aster preparation and recovery. Finally, I urge you to protect large 

connected landscapes to facilitate species movements. 

On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, I thank you for the opportunity to provide this input and I would be happy to take any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matson follows:] 

54 


97585.032
55 


97585.033
56 


97585.034
57 


97585.035
58 


97585.036
59 


97585.037
60 


97585.038
61 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Mr. Matson. 

Our next witness is David Houghton. He is the President of the 

National Wildlife Refuge Association. The National Wildlife Refuge 

Association works with the National Wildlife Refuge System in engaging other conservation non-profits, private landowners, and refuge friends groups in safeguarding wildlife. Mr. Houghton has 

worked for and in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for more than 25 years, including a stint at the Rhode Island Refuge Complex years ago, where he served as deputy refuge 

manager. 

We are delighted to have him here, and please, Mr. Houghton, 

proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID HOUGHTON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HOUGHTON. Senator Whitehouse, thank you very much. It is 

an honor and a pleasure to be here today to talk about these important issues. 

Again, I am David Houghton. I am President of the National 

Wildlife Refuge Association. The Association has worked since 1975 

to champion the integrity and the stature of the 150-million acre 

national wildlife refuge system. Many do not know that the refuge 

system is almost twice as large as the national park system. It annually receives 46.5 million visitors and has an economic output of 

$2.4 billion into the American economy. There is a national wildlife 

refuge in every State and territory of this great Country. 

A growing body of evidence has linked climate change and effects 

on wildlife populations. Migration timing, age, structure, as well as 

condition with wildlife has been affected. This has also been affecting the National Wildlife Refuge System around the Country. 

I would like to talk about some of these effects and then I would 

like to talk about what the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

is doing and how this has positive effects on the economy. 

During Hurricane Sandy, which hit in October 2012, 35 national wildlife refuges were affected at a cost of $64 million. That is 

equivalent to 15 percent of the annual appropriation to national 

wildlife refuges. In Rhode Island, at Trustom Pond and John 

Chafee National Wildlife Refuges, the barrier beaches were eroded 

and the coastal marshes were impacted. 

What was clear about Hurricane Sandy, though, was that the 

natural systems on these refuges did far better than the manmade 

systems. But our managers at Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge, who have been managing threatened and endangered species 

of piping plovers and least terns, had never seen a storm with this 

kind of impact. This storm also affected the New Jersey coast, leaving a 22 mile trail of debris over fragile marshes and woodlands 

at Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. 

We also see the storm effects outside of the northeast. For example, Button Island National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, which 

was one of the first established national wildlife refuges in 1904 by 

Teddy Roosevelt was initially 18,000 acres in total. Now, after hurricane after hurricane, it is only 2,000 acres. Passage Key in 

Tampa was a refuge that was established by Teddy Roosevelt. Because of hurricanes, et cetera, it is no longer. It is no longer on the 

62 

face of the earth. So these storm events have had great impacts to 

the national wildlife refuge system. 

I would also like to talk about wildfires. We have seen increasingly large catastrophic wildfires in the western United States. 

This means that more resources are devoted toward fighting these 

catastrophic fires as well as the interface between forest and our 

urban areas. This has had an effect on national wildlife refuges because prescribed burn is a very important wildlife tool. And the 

dollars are not there to be able to conduct these fires any more. 

So I would also like to talk about refuges as an economic powerhouse. A report that the Fish and Wildlife Service put out called 

Banking on Nature said that for every dollar that Congress invests 

into the National Wildlife Refuge system, $4.87 are returned to the 

American economy. That means that $2.4 billion came into the 

economy from refuges. So not only does climate change have an effect on wildlife but also on the refuges ability to provide to the 

American economy. 

So what is the Fish and Wildlife Service doing about it? In Rhode 

Island, we are restoring over 300 acres of marsh, we are rebuilding 

a road into Sachuest National Wildlife Refuge. In the Everglades, 

in the State of Florida, we are working on a new type of refuge. 

This is a large, landscaped refuge that is able to connect various 

different endangered species to one another. And in the Pacific, we 

are working on a refuge, Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, 

which is a unique reef system. We are working very hard to make 

sure that the reef remains. 

Thank you very much, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Houghton follows:] 

63 


97585.039
64 


97585.040
65 


97585.041
66 


97585.042
67 


97585.043
68 


97585.044
69 


97585.045
70 


97585.046
71 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness, I have a point of personal privilege in recognizing. He is Christopher Brown, the president of the Rhode Island 

Commercial Fishermen’s Association. The Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s Association was founded in 2000 to protect Rhode 

Island’s first industry from becoming extinct, by maintaining the 

commercial fishery in the State of Rhode Island as a way of life for 

present and future generations. 

Mr. Brown is the captain of the fishing vessel Proud Mary out 

of Point Judith, Rhode Island. He built his first boat in 1978 at the 

age of 20. And he sailed that vessel, the Grandville Davis, for 31 

years. He owns Brown Family Seafood, and we are delighted to 

have him here. Mr. Brown? 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER BROWN, PRESIDENT, RHODE 

ISLAND COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. 

Let me begin by thanking you all for letting me share some of 

the perspectives that I have garnered in over 35 years as a fisherman and 25 years in service to the resource and my industry. 

I fish on a much different ocean today than when I first started 

fishing with my grandfather as a boy in the mid–1960’s. When I 

started out fishing, catching haddock in the waters around Point 

Judith was commonplace and they were a daily component of our 

catch. Last year, in 200 days of fishing, I caught only two. They 

are considered fully rebuilt and are now managed jointly with Canada by virtue of the climate that they have chosen to live in. 

In the fall of 2013, in Block Island Sound, I caught 1,800 pounds 

of spot in a single set of my net. These are fish that are indigenous 

to the Carolinas, not southern New England. I had never seen a 

single one until the late 1990’s. Although not greatly abundant, 

regularly caught now in Rhode Island are the species of croaker, 

grouper, cobia, drum and tarpon. My grandfather never saw a single one of these in his entire life as a fisherman. 

Dogfish were determined to have been over-fished roughly 15 to 

20 years ago and were assigned to a rebuilding plan. The plan was 

driven by incorrect biological assumptions of their reproductive capability and initial abundance. They have now overpopulated the 

waters of the Atlantic from Hatteras to Nova Scotia to the extent 

that there is no longer an effective migration. In their current 

unexploited condition, they stand to significantly hamper the recovery of species that either compete with or serve as a food source. 

These are the findings of Dr. James Sulowsky, Ph.D., professor at 

the Unviersity of New England, the foremost authority on dogfish 

in the United States. 

I hope that I have adequately portrayed an ocean that is in flux. 

In New England, we currently are an industry that is in search of 

a science-based, regulatory co-existence with the laws that govern 

our fishery. We are a cold water region that has suffered greatly 

at the hands of a warming regime. Our inability to successfully rebuild several key stocks is well documented. We have evoked the 

ire of Magnusson repeatedly, and been put to the lash at the hands 

72 

of an Act that up until now, reasons that ideology serves as a fair 

substitute for sound and relevant science. 

The Magnusson Act was assembled at a time when the science 

surrounding our fisheries was in its infancy. As we should anticipate, the scientific perspective of the management of our oceans 

should evolve. The Act has not. To date, we have failed to articulate those discoveries into actionable policy within our fisheries. 

Any national policy that remains predicated upon outdated scientific perspectives will do unnecessary economic harm to those 

whom it serves. It will limit the productivity of what I believe to 

be our national strategic protein reserves and will to some extent 

damage our national food security. 

Our failure to tease out an edified response to these problems 

from the larger national debate surrounding climate shift strands 

the enormous sum that we have invested in science and leaves my 

region without an effective solution to an ongoing and complex environmental problem. Our fields will lay fallow until we dare fashion a different response. 

The framers of Magnusson were wise in their decision to construct a document that was largely conceptual by nature. Given 

that it is thematic and overarching it is therefore lacking in the 

granular specificity that is needed to deal with environmental problems that are beyond the realm of what was once known. 

Magnusson Stevens is a profoundly valuable document that should 

remain our North Star of fisheries management policy. But in New 

England, in the face of wholesale systemic change, as a standalone 

document, it has failed to produce the biological or economic results 

that have been promised and delivered elsewhere. It is in need of 

a reasonable complement. I believe that the SAFE Act is that complement. It is one which does not attempt to separate the fish from 

the surrounding sea. I believe it is worthy of your approval. 

The wild-caught fisheries of the Northeast may ultimately prove 

to be the coal miner’s canary for the Nation as we grapple with the 

issue of climate change. A reconsideration of our strategy is called 

for, given the enormous chasm between what we have endured and 

what we have gained in New England. I view the SAFE Act as a 

sound, reasonable, and measured complement to Magnusson. It 

represents a new set of eyes on the problem and another tool in 

the tool box. It respects both sides of the larger debate and a 

chance to evaluate the potential for new strategies in healing our 

Nation’s most iconic fishery. 

I urge you to pass this Bill along for further consideration and 

discussion. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER BROWN, PRESIDENT, RHODE ISLAND

COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION

Let me begin by thanking you all for letting me share some of the perspectives 

that I have garnered in over 35 years as a fisherman and 25 in service to the resource and my industry. 

I fish on a much different ocean today than when I first stared fishing with my 

grandfather as a boy in the mid–1960’s. When I started out, catching haddock in 

the waters around Pt Judith was commonplace and a daily component of our catch. 

Last year I caught only two. They are considered fully rebuilt and are now managed jointly with Canada by virtue of the climate that they have chosen to live in. 

73 

In the fall of 2013 I caught 1800 pounds of spot in a single set off my net. These 

are a fish that are indigenous to the Carolinas. Not Southern New England. I had 

never seen a single one until the late 90’s. Although not greatly abundant, regularly 

caught now in Rhode Island are the species of Croaker, Grouper, Cobia, Drum and 

Tarpon. My grandfather never saw a single one of these in his entire life as a fisherman. 

Dogfish were determined to have been over fished roughly 15 years ago and were 

assigned to a rebuilding plan. The plan was driven by incorrect biological assumptions of their reproductive capability and initial abundance. They have now overpopulated the waters of the Atlantic, from Hatteras to Nova Scotia to an extent that 

there is no longer an effective migration. In their current unexploited condition, 

they stand to significantly hamper the recovery of a species that either compete 

with or serve as a food source. These, the findings of Dr. James Sulowsky PHD, Professor at The University of New England, the foremost authority on dogfish in the 

U.S. 

I hope that I have adequately portrayed an ocean that is in flux. In New England, 

we currently are an industry that is in search of a science based, regulatory co-existence with the laws that govern our fishery. We are a cold water region that has 

suffered greatly at the hands of a warming regime. Our inability to successfully rebuild several key stocks is well documented. We have evoked the ire of Magnusson, 

and been put to the lash at the hands of an act that reasons repeatedly that ideology serves as a fair substitute for sound relevant science. 

The Magnusson act was assembled at a time when the science surrounding our 

fisheries was in its infancy. As we should anticipate, the scientific perspective of the 

management of our oceans should evolve. The act has not. To date, we have failed 

to articulate those discoveries into actionable policy within our fisheries. Any national policy that remains predicated on outdated scientific perspectives will do unnecessary economic harm to those it serves; it will limit the productivity of what 

I believe, are our national protein reserves and compromise to some extent our national food security. Our failure to tease out an edified response to these problems 

from the larger national debate surrounding climate shift, strands the enormous 

sum that we have invested in science and leaves my region without an effective solution to an ongoing and complex environmental problem. Our fields will lay fallow 

till we dare fashion a different response. 

The framers of Magnusson were wise in their decision to construct a document 

that is largely conceptual by nature. Given that it is thematic and overarching it 

is there for lacking in the granular specificity that is needed to deal with environmental problems that are beyond the rehelm of what was once known. Magnusson 

Stevens is a profoundly valuable document that should remain our North Star of 

fisheries management policy, but In New England, in the face of wholesale systemic 

change, as a stand-alone, document, it has failed to produce the biological or economic results that have been promised and delivered elsewhere. It is in need of a 

reasonable compliment, one which is free to consider environmental conditions as 

a necessary component of its decisionmaking process. One which does not attempt 

to separate the fish from the surrounding sea. I believe that the ‘‘Safe Act’’ could 

serve our national transition to ecosystem based management, as is called for in 

Magnusson’s vision of our fishery. 

The wild caught fisheries of the Northeast may ultimately prove to be the ‘‘coal 

miner’s canary’’ for this Nation as we grapple with the issue of climate change. A 

reconsideration of strategy is called for given the enormous chasm between what we 

have endured and what we have gained. 

I view the Safe Act as a sound, reasonable, and measured compliment to 

Magnusson. It represents a new set of eyes on the problem and another tool in the 

tool box. It respects both sides of the larger debate and a chance to evaluate the 

potential for new strategies in healing our Nation’s most iconic fishery. I urge you 

to pass this Bill along for further consideration and discussion. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Captain Brown. I appreciate 

it. 

Our next witness is Dr. Patrick Moore, the Chair and Chief Scientist of Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, Canada. Dr. Moore 

is a co-founder and former chair of Greenspirit Strategies, an environmental consulting and communications firm in Vancouver, Canada. He received a bachelor of science in forest biology and a Ph.D. 

in ecology from the University of British Columbia in Canada. Welcome, and please proceed with your statement. 

74 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK MOORE, PH.D., CHAIR AND CHIEF 

SCIENTIST, ECOSENSE ENVIRONMENTAL 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member 

Inhofe. 

In 1971, as a Ph.D. student in ecology, I joined an activist group 

in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small 

boat across the Pacific to protest U.S. hydrogen bomb testing in 

Alaska. We became Greenpeace. 

After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave, as 

Greenpeace began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my 

scientific perspective. Climate change wasn’t really an issue when 

I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is today. 

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it 

would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists. Please see Exhibit 1. 

The IPCC states, ‘‘It is extremely likely that human influence 

has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the 

mid–20th century.’‘ ‘‘Extremely likely’‘ is not a scientific term but 

rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines extremely likely as a 95 to 100 percent probability. Those numbers 

are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical 

analysis. They have been invented to express the ‘‘expert 

judgment’‘ as determined by the IPCC. 

As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the 

Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not 

a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict 

the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the 

gods. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, please 

see the second exhibit, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than 

today, yet life flourished at that time. Then an ice age occurred 450 

million years ago when CO2 was still 10 times higher than today. 

The fact that there were both higher temperatures and an ice age 

at a time when CO2 was 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that CO2 emissions are the 

main cause of global warming. 

Today we remain locked in what is still the Pleistocene Ice Age, 

with an average global temperature of 14.5 degrees Celsius. This 

compares with a low of about 12 degrees Celsius during the periods 

of maximum glaciation in this ice age to an average of 22 degrees 

Celsius during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer 

time periods prior to the most recent ice age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was 

tropical and sub-tropical. As recently as 3 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were forested. Today, we live in an unusually 

cold period in the history of life, note on the graph here 14.5 degrees, an unusually low period in carbon dioxide in the history of 

life, 400 ppm. 

There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization, where 

there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anyVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:20 Mar 08, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\97585.TXT VERN
75 

thing but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. 

Please see Exhibit 3. 

The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming since the mid–20th century, which was 1950. From 1910 to 

1940, there was an increase in global average temperature of half 

a degree Celsius over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30- 

year pause until 1970. This was followed by an increase of .57 degrees Celsius during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since 

then there has been no increase. This in itself tends to negate the 

validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued 

to accelerate during this time. 

The increase in temperature between 1910 and 1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970 to 2000. Yet the IPCC 

does not attribute the increase from 1910 to 1940 to human influence. They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact 

only increased the temperature since the mid–20th century. Why 

does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by human influence, when it 

has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910 to 

1940? 

It is important to recognize that humans are a tropical species. 

We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing temperature 

did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates 

are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice 

are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that 

have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during the ice age. 

It is extremely likely that a warmer temperature than today’s 

would be far better than a cooler one. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:] 

76 


97585.047
77 


97585.048
78 


97585.049
79 


97585.050
80 


97585.051
81 


97585.052
82 


97585.053
83 


97585.054
84 


97585.055
85 


97585.056
86 


97585.057
87 


97585.058
88 


97585.059
89 


97585.060
90 


97585.061
91 


97585.062
92 


97585.063
93 


97585.064
94 


97585.065
95 


97585.066
96 


97585.067
97 


97585.068
98 


97585.069
99 


97585.070
100 


97585.071
101 


97585.072
102 


97585.073
103 


97585.074
104 


97585.075
105 


97585.076
106 


97585.077
107 


97585.078
108 


97585.079
109 


97585.080
110 


97585.081
111 


97585.082
112 


97585.083
113 


97585.084
114 


97585.085
115 


97585.086
116 


97585.087
117 


97585.088
118 


97585.089
119 


97585.090
120 


97585.091
121 


97585.092
122 


97585.093
123 


97585.094
124 


97585.095
125 


97585.096
126 


97585.097
127 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Dr. Moore. We now 

turn to our final witness, Mr. Robert Bryce. He has served as a 

senior fellow at the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment 

at the Manhattan Institute since April 2010. He is a journalist and 

author based in Austin, Texas. From 2006 to 2010 he worked as 

a managing editor of the online publication Energy Tribune. Mr. 

Bryce received his BFA from the University of Texas at Austin in 

1986. 

Mr. Bryce, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BRYCE, SENIOR FELLOW, 

MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

Mr. BRYCE. Thank you, and good afternoon. 

Over the past decade or so, the U.S. Government has enacted 

policies to encourage the use of renewable energy in general and 

wind energy in particular. These policies are, in theory, designed 

to address the issue of climate change. 

But the facts show three certain things. First, the wind energy 

sector has been getting billions of dollars in Federal subsidies, even 

though it is killing significant numbers of some of America’s most 

iconic wildlife. Second, Federal authorities have largely turned a 

blind eye to the wind industry’s slaughter of our wildlife. And finally and most importantly, this slaughter is being done in the 

name of climate change, but whatever reductions in carbon dioxide 

emissions that may be occurring due to the deployment of wind 

turbines are so small as to be insignificant. 

I began writing about the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the 

Eagle Protection Act in the late 1980’s. At that time the Fish and 

Wildlife Service estimated that roughly 600,000 birds per year 

were being killed after coming in contact with illegal oil pits in the 

oil fields of Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. In response, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service rightly began a multi-State, multi-jurisdictional crackdown on these illegal operations. They brought more 

than 200 cases against the oil and gas industry at that time for violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Eagle Protection Act. 

Today, biologists are estimating that U.S. wind turbines are killing about 900,000 bats and 600,000 birds per year. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s own biologists have documented dozens of cases 

of eagle kills by wind turbines, including at least six bald eagles. 

They have documented now eagle kills in 14 States. Between 2007 

and 2011, they found a twelvefold increase in the annual rate of 

eagles being killed by wind turbines. And yet to date, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the Department of Justice have brought exactly one, I repeat, one, prosecution against the wind industry for 

clear and continuing violations of some of America’s oldest wildlife 

laws. 

Furthermore, and most astoundingly, the Interior Department is 

now considering permits that would allow the wind industry to kill 

eagles and other migratory birds for up to 30 years. 

Now, let me discuss the more important issue here of CO2 emissions, and let me be blunt. The birds and bats that are being killed 

by America’s wind turbines are effectively being killed for no reason. Widespread deployment of wind turbines is not an effective climate change strategy. In fact, wind turbines are nothing more than 

128 

climate change scarecrows. This is not an opinion, this is basic 

math. 

The American Wind Energy Association estimates that in 2012, 

60,000 megawatts of wind turbine capacity in the United States resulted in a reduction in CO2 emissions of roughly 80 million tons. 

This amounts to two-tenths of 1 percent of global carbon dioxide 

emissions. Climate change activists repeatedly tell us to do the 

math. OK, let’s do the math. Since 1982, global carbon dioxide 

emissions have been rising by an average of 500 million tons per 

year. Therefore, if we wanted to use wind energy merely to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions globally, and remember, this will 

not cut existing demand for coal, oil or natural gas, it would require the installation of roughly 375,000 megawatts of new wind 

energy capacity every year. 

The power density of wind energy is 1 watt per square meter. 

Therefore, the math is simple. It would require, to stabilize CO2

emissions growth, it would require covering a land area of roughly 

375,000 square kilometers, an area the size of Germany, and we 

would have to do so every year. If we reduce that to a daily basis, 

ladies and gentlemen, it would require us to cover roughly 1,000 

square kilometers, a land area the size of 17 Manhattan islands, 

with wind turbines, and we would have to do so every year. And 

because of the noise those wind turbines make, no people could live 

on that vast area of land. And further, and most obviously, the 

more wind turbines we erect, the more birds and bats we will kill. 

About 5 years ago I testified in this same Senate office building 

about our energy policy here in the United States. If we are going 

to agree that CO2 emissions are a problem, and we want to do 

something about it without destroying our economy, we must embrace the technologies that are affordable, scalable and are lower 

carbon than oil and coal. That means end to end, natural gas to 

nuclear. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryce follows:] 

129 


97585.098
130 


97585.099
131 


97585.100
132 


97585.101
133 


97585.102
134 


97585.103
135 


97585.104
136 


97585.105
137 


97585.106
138 


97585.107
139 


97585.108
140 


97585.109
141 


97585.110
142 


97585.111
143 


97585.112
144 


97585.113
145 


97585.114
146 


97585.115
147 


97585.116
148 


97585.117
149 


97585.118
150 


97585.119
151 


97585.120
152 


97585.121
153 


97585.122
154 


97585.123
155 


97585.124
156 


97585.125
157 


97585.126
158 


97585.127
159 


97585.128
160 


97585.129
161 


97585.130
162 


97585.131
163 


97585.132
164 


97585.133
165 


97585.134
166 


97585.135
167 


97585.136
168 


97585.137
169 


97585.138
170 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Mr. Bryce. 

We have a few minutes, so I will try to be very brief. Let me first 

thank Christopher Brown for being here. Mr. Brown, you said in 

your testimony that there was room for improvement in the relationship between your fishing community and the scientific community and improved data collection. Could you just briefly elaborate 

on that? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes. The Magnusson Act has almost a reckless pursuit of its desires. What we are attempting to achieve with it is just 

not possible. Dr. Sulowsky, as I stated, has done extensive stable 

isotope analyses and determined that it will be impossible to recover a number of stocks without first removing the ones that compete with them. 

The Magnusson Act is a wonderful document, but it is in need 

of supplement. It is in need of consideration of things that were beyond its possibility to understand and define when it was established. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And do you approve of initiatives like Captain Rule’s effort with the Virginia Institute of Marine Science scientists to bring fishermen and scientists together in data collection 

and the experiment, I guess you would call it, the initiative that 

is underway with Dr. Parker in the University of Rhode Island 

joining with the Rhode Island Lobstermen’s Association? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, I approve of those actions wholeheartedly. 

Magnusson calls for a co-managed fishery. Co-management finds 

its roots in the co-authoring of science. Until we are co-authors of 

science, this industry is co-manager of nothing. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. We very often talk 

about the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Division of Fish and 

Wildlife, but we end up usually talking more about the wildlife 

than the fish. So I am delighted that you are here. 

David, can you say a brief word about the public-private nature 

of the partnerships that the National Wildlife Refuge Association 

supports? 

Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes, absolutely. A great example would be Everglades National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area. This was 

established last year and it is a partnership with ranchers. In fact, 

there are about a million acres of ranchers who would like to participate in the National Wildlife Refuge. 

So an area that is large and connected will allow endangered 

species like Florida black bear or Florida panther to move throughout the landscape as that landscape changes with changing climate. But those are not the only critters that benefit. Ranchers 

that have been there for 500 years will have an upside. There is 

a military base in the middle of this. So our men and women of 

the military will be able to train as they see in combat, which has 

a big benefit to them. 

Last, the Everglades supplies the water supply for 6.5 million 

people. So we can bring climate change adaptation, and we can also 

help a 500 year old tradition of ranching, the military and water 

for 6.5 million people, all with conservation action of the Everglades headwaters. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

171 

Before I turn to our ranking member to close out the hearing, I 

would like to submit for the record reports from the U.S. Global 

Climate Change Research Program, the National Climate Assessment, the National Academies and the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, which all agree that human activities have altered the world’s climate. There is in fact clear scientific consensus 

among the scientific community that human-induced climate 

change is a reality. 

I would also like to submit a 2010 report entitled A Human 

Health Perspective on Climate Change for the record. These same 

reports note the negative effects of climate change on human 

health and the economy through rising sea levels, coastal flooding, 

increased frequency of drought and negative health effects. 

I would also like to submit for the record a National Wildlife 

Federation study that details the detrimental effects of carbon pollution on our wildlife, like mercury emissions from electric power 

plants, which affect wildlife and fish. I would also like to submit 

a Fish and Wildlife Service fact sheet on migratory bird mortality 

and a Sibley Guides article which states that as many as 976 million bird deaths a year are attributable to collisions with windows, 

72 million bird deaths are estimated as a result from pesticides, 

and at least 39 million bird deaths are from domestic feral cats, 15 

million birds a year are killed in North American in the carefully 

managed annual waterfowl hunt, and the greatest threat to all 

birds continues to be loss or degradation of habitat due to human 

development and disturbance. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

172 


97585.334
173 


97585.335
174 


97585.336
175 


97585.337
176 


97585.338
177 


97585.339
178 


97585.340
179 


97585.341
180 


97585.342
181 


97585.343
182 


97585.344
183 


97585.345
184 


97585.346
185 


97585.347
186 


97585.348
187 


97585.349
188 


97585.350
189 


97585.351
190 


97585.352
191 


97585.353
192 


97585.354
193 


97585.355
194 


97585.356
195 


97585.357
196 


97585.358
197 


97585.359
198 


97585.360
199 


97585.361
200 


97585.362
201 


97585.363
202 


97585.364
203 


97585.325
204 


97585.326
205 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So with that, I turn to my distinguished 

ranking member. 

Senator INHOFE. I would like to ask the question, then, how 

many of those birds you referred to are bald eagles. 

Mr. Bryce, I really enjoyed your testimony. In my opening statement I said some of the things that you had repeated, or I think 

we got that from you, concerning the extensive land that is used 

by renewable fuels as opposed to the traditional fuels. Is there anything you would like to say, how can we justify all the land that 

is used for renewables as opposed to traditional forms? And I refer 

to oil and gas. 

Mr. BRYCE. Thank you, Senator. 

My short response, sir, is density is green. Regardless of your 

stance on environmental issues, left, right, center, we can all agree 

that small footprints are ideal. And that is where I part with the 

traditional left and the green left when it comes to the issue of energy production. I have a new book coming out in May in which 

I break this down. The power density of energy is 1 watt per 

square meter. To replace coal-fired power plants in the United 

States, then, if we wanted to replace them all with wind energy, 

it would require setting aside a land area the size of Italy. 

With regard to renewable fuels and biofuels, I have been a longtime of the corn ethanol scam. Why? Because the power density is 

simply too low. Further, from a moral standpoint, I reject the idea 

of burning food to make fuel. 

But the problem, sir, is fundamentally, again, basic physics and 

basic math. We don’t have enough land, because the power density 

is so low, to make significant quantities of energy based on renewable energy in general, but particularly wind energy and biofuels. 

Senator INHOFE. And I appreciate that very much. I would like 

to, let me just go ahead and, Dr. Moore, when you talked about the 

various ages that we went through, I often use the one very close 

to what you said, I would say in 1895, we went into a period of 

time that was a cold period, and from about 1918 to 1945 a warmer 

period, from 1945 to in the 1970’s, a cooler period. The interesting 

thing about that is, the greatest surge in emissions of CO2 happened right at the end of, during and at the end of World War II, 

which precipitated, not a warm period but a cooler period, is that 

correct? 

Dr. MOORE. There certainly was a pause at that time. It went up 

and down. But CO2 emissions have continuously increased since 

they began in earnest after the Second World War. I think the 

pause that is occurring now is actually more fundamental in terms 

of, why isn’t the temperature continuing to increase like it did between 1970 and 2000? It has basically just leveled off flat, even 

though CO2 emissions continue to increase, not just continue to accumulate, but continue to increase. 

Senator INHOFE. The same thing that has been going on since 

the turn of the century, 2000, for the last 10, 12 years. 

Mr. MOORE. Correct. Actually, if you look at the last 17 years, 

from 1996, it is flat. So this is the thing that everybody is struggling to explain, and people who still firmly believe that humans 

are the main cause are coming up with, there are 14 explanations 

206 

now that have been put forward, some of which actually contradict 

each other. 

So it is a bit of an act of desperation, because one of the real 

problems was when the IPCC was first set up, it only included the 

World Meteorological Organization, which is meteorologists who 

are always concerned with very short time spans of what is going 

to happen in the next 5 days, and the United Nations Environment 

Program, which is environmentalists. So weathermen and environmentalists got control of the whole climate change agenda. 

At the same time, their mandate was only to look at human effects on climate change, rather than the vast number of natural effects that have been affecting climate change since the beginning 

of the earth. 

Senator INHOFE. And reference has been made to IPCC several 

times during the course of this hearing. I suggest to you, and I 

would ask you if you agree, when you talk about IPCC, you are 

talking about United Nations, that is where this thing started. And 

I would suggest to my chairman, as long as we are putting things 

into the record, unless there is some reason that it can’t be done, 

I would like to have the last chapter of my book called The Greatest Hoax, it is on the history of the IPCC and the United Nations 

entered into the record also. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I can’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be, 

and assuming there is none, it will be, without objection. 

Senator INHOFE. Very good. 

[The referenced information was not recieved at time of print.] 

Senator INHOFE. I think it is really important to look at this and 

realize, the IPCC, whatever happened to Climate Gate? The media 

just drops this thing, and yet that was totally discredited during 

that period of time. We had a witness here that had a background 

with MIT. One of the lead scientists with MIT is one that totally 

contradicted, Richard Lindsay, that is right. 

So anyway, I just hope that we can look at this realistically, and 

when you stop and realize no one is taking an issue with this, that 

since we started talking about the legislation that would do what 

the President is trying to do right now through regulation, since he 

couldn’t get it through, one of the reasons was that the science is 

not settled. And the second reason is that people agree, they understand that the cost of this, if they would implement the cap and 

trade as proposed in legislation, the cost would be somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. And as our own administrator of the EPA said, the first one appointed by President 

Obama, it really wouldn’t make any difference what we do here in 

the United States, because this isn’t where the problem is. That 

isn’t a question, other than think about it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. Thank you very 

much, Ranking Member Inhofe. As any witness in this proceeding 

and frankly, any previous witness of prior proceedings in this committee will know, there are widely divergent views of the world reflected here. You see it in its full flourish today as well. 

So I will bring this hearing to conclusion. The record will remain 

open for an additional 2 weeks. I will also add a statement for the 

record of the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, 

207 

and there is also a collection of data regarding the funding sources 

of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

208 


97585.327
209 


97585.328
210 


97585.329
211 


97585.330
212 


97585.331
213 


97585.332
214 


97585.333
215 

Senator INHOFE. I would like to add, I would like to sit around 

and visit and thank all the witnesses for coming, but we are 8 minutes into a vote right now. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And we are going to make a quick escape. 

I thank very much the witnesses for appearing. We appreciate 

your time this afternoon. 

[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

216 


97585.139
217 


97585.140
218 


97585.141
219 


97585.142
220 


97585.143
221 


97585.144
222 


97585.145
223 


97585.146
224 


97585.147
225 


97585.148
226 


97585.149
227 


97585.150
228 


97585.151
229 


97585.152
230 


97585.153
231 


97585.154
232 


97585.155
233 


97585.156
234 


97585.157
235 


97585.158
236 


97585.159
237 


97585.160
238 


97585.161
239 


97585.162
240 


97585.163
241 


97585.164
242 


97585.165
243 


97585.166
244 


97585.167
245 


97585.168
246 


97585.169
247 


97585.170
248 


97585.171
249 


97585.172
250 


97585.173
251 


97585.174
252 


97585.175
253 


97585.176
254 


97585.177
255 


97585.178
256 


97585.179
257 


97585.180
258 


97585.181
259 


97585.182
260 


97585.183
261 


97585.184
262 


97585.185
263 


97585.186
264 


97585.187
265 


97585.188
266 


97585.189
267 


97585.190
268 


97585.191
269 


97585.192
270 


97585.193
271 


97585.194
272 


97585.195
273 


97585.196
274 


97585.197
275 


97585.198
276 


97585.199
277 


97585.200
278 


97585.201
279 


97585.202
280 


97585.203
281 


97585.204
282 


97585.205
283 


97585.206
284 


97585.207
285 


97585.208
286 


97585.209
287 


97585.210
288 


97585.211
289 


97585.212
290 


97585.213
291 


97585.214
292 


97585.215
293 


97585.216
294 


97585.217
295 


97585.218
296 


97585.219
297 


97585.220
298 


97585.221
299 


97585.222
300 


97585.223
301 


97585.224
302 


97585.225
303 


97585.226
304 


97585.227
305 


97585.228
306 


97585.229
307 


97585.230
308 


97585.231
309 


97585.232
310 


97585.233
311 


97585.234
312 


97585.235
313 


97585.236
314 


97585.237
315 


97585.238
316 


97585.239
317 


97585.240
318 


97585.241
319 


97585.242
320 


97585.243
321 


97585.244
322 


97585.245
323 


97585.246
324 


97585.247
325 


97585.248
326 


97585.249
327 


97585.250
328 


97585.251
329 


97585.252
330 


97585.253
331 


97585.254
332 


97585.255
333 


97585.256
334 


97585.257
335 


97585.258
336 


97585.259
337 


97585.260
338 


97585.261
339 


97585.262
340 


97585.263
341 


97585.264
342 


97585.265
343 


97585.266
344 


97585.267
345 


97585.268
346 


97585.269
347 


97585.270
348 


97585.271
349 


97585.272
350 


97585.273
351 


97585.274
352 


97585.275
353 


97585.276
354 


97585.277
355 


97585.278
356 


97585.279
357 


97585.280
358 


97585.281
359 


97585.282
360 


97585.283
361 


97585.284
362 


97585.285
363 


97585.286
364 


97585.287
365 


97585.288
366 


97585.289
367 


97585.290
368 


97585.291
369 


97585.292
370 


97585.293
371 


97585.294
372 


97585.295
373 


97585.296
374 


97585.297
375 


97585.298
376 


97585.299
377 


97585.300
378 


97585.301
379 


97585.302
380 


97585.303
381 


97585.304
382 


97585.305
383 


97585.306
384 


97585.307
385 


97585.308
386 


97585.309
387 


97585.310
388 


97585.311
389 


97585.312
390 


97585.313
391 


97585.314
392 


97585.315
393 


97585.316
394 


97585.317
395 


97585.318
396 


97585.319
397 


97585.320
398 


97585.321
399 


97585.322
400 


97585.323
401 


97585.324
402 


97585.365
403 


97585.366
404 


97585.367
405 


97585.368
406 


97585.369
407 


97585.370
408 


97585.371
409 


97585.372
410 


97585.373
411 


97585.374
412 


97585.375
413 


97585.376
414 


97585.377
415 


97585.378
416 


97585.379
417 


97585.380
418 


97585.381
419 


97585.382
420 


97585.383
421 


97585.384
422 


97585.385
423 


97585.386
424 


97585.387
425 


97585.388
426 


97585.389
427 


97585.390
428 


97585.391
429 


97585.392
430 


97585.393
431 


97585.394
432 


97585.395
433 


97585.396
434 


97585.397
435 


97585.398
436 


97585.399
437 


97585.400
438 


97585.401
439 


97585.402
440 


97585.403
441 


97585.404
442 


97585.405
443 


97585.406
444 


97585.407
445 


97585.408
446 


97585.409
447 


97585.410
448 


97585.411
449 


97585.412
450 


97585.413
451 


97585.414
452 


97585.415
453 


97585.416
454 


97585.417
455 


97585.418
456 


97585.419
457 


97585.420
458 


97585.421
459 


97585.422
460 


97585.423
461 


97585.424
462 


97585.425
463 


97585.426
464 


97585.427
465 


97585.428
466 


97585.429
467 


97585.430
468 


97585B.431
469 


97585B.432
470 


97585B.433
471 


97585B.434
472 


97585B.435
473 


97585B.436
474 


97585B.437
475 


97585B.438
476 


97585B.439
477 


97585B.440
478 


97585B.441
479 


97585B.442
480 


97585B.443
481 


97585B.444
482 


97585B.445
483 


97585B.446
484 


97585B.447
485 


97585B.448
486 


97585B.449
487 


97585B.450
488 


97585B.451
489 


97585B.452
490 


97585B.453
491 


97585B.454
492 


97585B.455
493 


97585B.456
494 


97585B.457
495 


97585B.458
496 


97585B.459
497 


97585B.460
498 


97585B.461
499 


97585B.462
500 


97585B.463
501 


97585B.464
502 


97585B.465
503 


97585B.466
504 


97585B.467
505 


97585B.468
506 


97585B.469
507 


97585B.470
508 


97585B.471
509 


97585B.472
510 


97585B.473
511 


97585B.474
512 


97585B.475
513 


97585B.476
514 


97585B.477
515 


97585B.478
516 


97585B.479
517 


97585B.480
518 


97585B.481
519 


97585B.482
520 


97585B.483
521 


97585B.484
522 


97585B.485
523 


97585B.486
524 


97585B.487
525 


97585B.488
526 


97585B.489
527 


97585B.490
528 


97585B.491
529 


97585B.492
530 


97585B.493
531 


97585B.494
532 


97585B.495
533 


97585B.496
534 


97585B.497
535 


97585B.498
536 


97585B.499
537 


97585B.500
538 


97585B.501
539 


97585B.502
540 


97585B.503
541 


97585B.504
542 


97585B.505
543 


97585B.506
544 


97585B.507
545 


97585B.508
546 


97585B.509
547 


97585B.510
548 

Æ