U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

47-756 PDF 2009

MANAGING OUR OCEAN AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN A DYNAMIC 

ENVIRONMENT: PRIORITIES FOR 

THE NEW ADMINISTRATION AND 

THE 111TH CONGRESS 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS, 

OCEANS AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 

Serial No. 111-6 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

John Fleming, Louisiana 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Jason Chaffetz, Utah 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS, OCEANS AND WILDLIFE 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Don Young, Alaska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

John Fleming, Louisiana 

Jason Chaffetz, Utah 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

Doc Hastings, Washington, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, March 3, 2009 .............................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, Prepared statement of .................................................. 3 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam ............... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Capps, Hon. Lois, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 71 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Baughman, John, Member, Sporting Conservation Council ......................... 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 72 

Jackson, William J., Ph.D., Deputy Director General, International Union 

for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) ............................................................. 46 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 48 

Kareiva, Peter, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, The Nature Conservancy ................ 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 73 

Nutter, Franklin W., President, Reinsurance Association of America ......... 53 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 55 

Pomponi, Shirley A., Ph.D., Executive Director, Harbor Branch 

Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlantic University ............................... 39 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41 

Rothschild, Brian J., Ph.D., Montgomery Charter Professor of Marine 

Science, School for Marine Science and Technology, University of 

Massachusetts Dartmouth ........................................................................... 58 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 60 

Thompson, Barton H., Jr., Perry L. McCarty Director, Woods Institute 

for the Environment, Stanford University, and Robert E. Paradise 

Professor of Natural Resources Law, Stanford University ........................ 14 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Trandahl, Jeff, Executive Director, National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, on behalf of Mark Rockefeller, Chairman, Board of 

Directors, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Oral statement of ..... 4 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 75 

Additional materials supplied: 

Rockefeller, Mark F., Chairman, Board of Directors, National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation, Statement submitted for the record ......................... 6 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘MANAGING OUR 

OCEAN AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN A 

DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT: PRIORITIES FOR 

THE NEW ADMINISTRATION AND THE 111TH

CONGRESS.’’ 

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, the Hon. Madeleine Z. 

Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bordallo, Kildee, Sablan, Christensen, 

Capps, Kratovil, Pierluisi, Wittman and Hastings. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, 

A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM 

Ms. BORDALLO. Good morning everyone. The oversight hearing 

by the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife will 

come to order. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony concerning 

ocean and wildlife conservation priorities for the new Administration and the 111th Congress. 

Under Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairwoman and the Ranking 

Minority Member will make opening statements. 

We begin the 111th Congress during a period of great uncertainty for our nation. The United States faces an economic crisis 

that has led to the loss of more than 3 million jobs, frozen credit 

markets, and resulted in large Federal and state budget deficits. 

Ever-increasing energy demands are driving efforts to rapidly 

develop new and existing energy sources, while the threat of climate change has great potential to affect virtually every aspect of 

our society. 

These realities are presenting new challenges to how we manage 

and conserve our natural resources. Spending freezes and budget 

cuts, in many states and the territories, have led to a reduction in, 

and the cancellation of, conservation projects for fish and wildlife 

habitat restoration. 

2 

Charitable giving from private endowments and foundations and 

corporations has also declined, further straining the capabilities of 

public-private conservation partnerships dependent on non-Federal 

sources of funding. 

In addition to this, the push for new energy development and 

energy conservation has created unanticipated trade-offs for conventional fish and wildlife conservation. 

Wind energy is just one example. As we seek to develop green 

wind farms, we still have little understanding of how wind turbines, installed on an industrial scale, might impact migratory bird 

populations that the Federal Government invests millions of dollars annually to conserve. At the same time, climate change is 

causing shifts in migration and habitats of many species that we 

are only just beginning to understand. 

The dynamic nature of this period of time directly challenges our 

conventional approaches to the conservation of fish and wildlife 

habitat, and to the maintenance of healthy ecosystems. In fact, the 

dynamic nature of our time suggests the need for a new conservation paradigm, and new information and management tools to effectively conserve fish and wildlife habitat over the long term, and 

across an uncertain landscape in the 21st century. 

We need specific practical and constructive recommendations and 

priorities if we are to develop a new framework to support sciencebased and information-driven adaptive management of our fish and 

wildlife resources, both on land and in the ocean. 

So, I look forward to hearing from our invited witnesses, who are 

presently engaged in a variety of innovative approaches to address 

these needs. And I also look forward to engaging my colleagues in 

a broader dialogue to determine how we might shape a more effective, adaptive, and cooperative conservation model for the time that 

we live in. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife 

We begin the 111th Congress during a period of great uncertainty for our Nation. 

The United States faces an economic crisis that has led to the loss of more than 

three million jobs, frozen credit markets, and resulted in large federal and state 

budget deficits. 

Ever-increasing energy demands are driving efforts to rapidly develop new and existing energy sources, while the threat of climate change has catastrophic potential 

to affect virtually every aspect of our society. 

These realities are presenting new challenges to how we manage and conserve our 

natural resources. Spending freezes and budget cuts in many states and the territories have led to a reduction in and the cancellation of conservation projects for 

fish and wildlife habitat restoration. Charitable giving from private endowments, 

foundations and corporations has also declined, further straining the capabilities of 

public-private conservation partnerships dependent on non-Federal sources of 

funding. 

In addition, the push for new energy development and energy conservation has 

created unanticipated trade-offs for conventional fish and wildlife conservation. 

Wind energy is just one example. As we seek to develop ‘‘green’’ wind farms, we 

still have little understanding of how wind turbines installed on an industrial scale 

might impact migratory bird populations that the Federal Government invests millions of dollars annually to conserve. 

At the same time, climate change is causing shifts in migration and habitats of 

many species that we are only just beginning to understand. 

The dynamic nature of this period of time directly challenges our conventional approaches to the conservation of fish and wildlife habitat and to the maintenance of 

3 

healthy ecosystems. In fact, the dynamic nature of our time suggests the need for 

a new conservation paradigm and new information and management tools to effectively conserve fish and wildlife habitat over the long-term and across an uncertain 

landscape in the 21st Century. 

We need specific, practical, and constructive recommendations and priorities if we 

are to develop a new framework to support science-based and information-driven 

adaptive management of our fish and wildlife resources, both on land and in the 

ocean. 

I look forward to hearing from our invited witnesses who are presently engaged 

in a variety of innovative approaches to address these needs. I also look forward to 

engaging my colleagues in a broader dialogue to determine how we might shape a 

more effective, adaptive and cooperative conservation model for the times we live 

in. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And now, as Chairwoman, I recognize Mr. Hastings, the Ranking Republican Member of the Natural Resources 

Committee, for any statement that he may have. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

WASHINGTON 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, thank you very much, Madame Chairman. 

And I have to say that I am here in place of the Ranking Member 

of this Subcommittee, Henry Brown, who is delayed because of the 

weather. And so I will just simply ask unanimous consent that Mr. 

Brown’s full statement appear in the record, and we will go to the 

panel. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Republican, 

Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife 

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman. As our new President has frequently reminded us, the American people are tired of partisan politics and want bipartisan 

solutions to the serious problems facing our country. 

Today’s hearing offers us an excellent opportunity to engage in bipartisanship because there are no Republican or Democratic fish, marine turtles, white tail deer 

or neotropical migratory birds. 

It is my hope that during the next two years, we will try to work together to craft 

bipartisan solutions. Let me suggest some areas of potential agreement. First, we 

can work together to ensure through oversight hearings that the $280 million appropriated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the $830 million appropriated to 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the stimulus package is 

wisely spent. 

The money for the Service was allocated to undertake backlog maintenance 

projects, to replace old or outdated equipment, improve wildlife conservation and to 

improve access for the American people to our 548 national wildlife refuges and 70 

national fish hatcheries. The funding for NOAA was directed toward habitat restoration, hydrographic survey backlog and for construction and vessel maintenance 

activities. Each agency will also receive additional funding in the Omnibus appropriations bill. It is very important that this Subcommittee oversee how these funds 

are being spent. 

Second, we can work together to reauthorize the Sikes Act which provides valuable fish and wildlife habitat to thousands of species who reside on our 400 military 

installations. This law, which was first enacted nearly 50 years ago, has been a 

huge wildlife conservation success story. 

Third, it is my hope that we can work together on the plethora of ocean-specific 

legislation coming before the subcommittee this Congress. Many of the bills that 

moved out of the Subcommittee last Congress may have been referred to as bipartisan based on the list of cosponsors, but many of the bills that were approved by 

4 

this Subcommittee were not bipartisan with respect to the legislative language included in the bill. 

Finally, I look forward to our collective efforts to extend the Marine Turtle Conservation Act, the Great Ape Conservation Act and the Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act at the earliest opportunity. These three landmark conservation 

laws have financed nearly 700 projects that have literally stopped several of these 

species from sliding towards extinction. Nevertheless, there is more work to be done 

and these laws must be reauthorized this year. 

Thank you Madame Chairwoman, I look forward to hearing from out witnesses 

today. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I would also like to, I would like to recognize 

other Members who are here with us. Lois Capps from the State 

of California, Donna Christensen from the Virgin Islands, and Mr. 

Kratovil, Mr. Kratovil. I welcome you to our Subcommittee meeting 

today. 

And I thank Mr. Hastings. And I would now like to recognize our 

first panel of witnesses, who are already seated. Mr. Jeff Trandahl, 

Executive Director of the National Fish and Wildlife Federation; 

Dr. Peter Kareiva, Chief Scientist and Director of Science, the Nature Conservancy; Mr. Barton Thompson, Jr., Mr. Thompson is the 

Perry L. McCarty Director of the Woods Institute for the Environment and the Robert E. Paradise Professor of Natural Resources 

Law at Stanford University; and finally, Mr. John Baughman, 

Member of the Sporting Conservation Council. 

Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to our hearing. I will begin 

now with the first of the panel. And as we begin, I would note for 

all the witnesses that the red timing light on the table will indicate 

when five minutes have passed, and your time has concluded. We 

would appreciate your cooperation in complying with these limits, 

and be assured that your full written statement will be submitted 

for the hearing record. 

And now, Mr. Trandahl, thank you for joining us today, and 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF TRANDAHL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION 

Mr. TRANDAHL. Madame Chairwoman, Mr. Hastings, and 

Members of the Committee. I am Jeff Trandahl, the Executive Director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. And I have to 

first start by apologizing. 

Mark Rockefeller, the Chair of our board, was delayed because 

of the storm in New York and not able to appear. So, I am appearing on his behalf. 

I will summarize some of his statement, and then be available, 

obviously at the end, for questions, or at the end of the panel for 

questions. 

As we approach this year, the Foundation was created 25 years 

ago. And it was created specifically to generate private dollars to 

match with Federal seed monies on conservation projects of mutual 

interest between the Federal Government and the private sector. In its history, we have managed more than $500 million in grant 

dollars, and have leveraged an impact of over $1.5 billion on the 

ground. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Excuse me, could you move just a little closer to 

the mic, please? 

5 

Mr. TRANDAHL. Sure thing. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Bring it closer. Thank you. 

Mr. TRANDAHL. There you go. In its history it has managed more 

than $500 million, and has leveraged a total impact of $1.5 billion. 

The source of these leverage funds have come from corporate, individuals, state, and other non-Federal sources. 

As we all know, these have been especially difficult and challenging times. While the last few years have provided a very positive trend related to increased environmental awareness and giving, the entire landscape has changed in the last six months. 

Nationally, philanthropic giving has taken a sudden dip, and environmental giving is expected to lose resources as funders begin 

to respond to human-need programs, such as shelters and food 

banks. 

With this unanticipated and rapid decline in the economy, and 

also major changes in the political environment, I believe the way 

to increase conservation funding from private sources, corporate 

and individual, is to do two things in particular. 

One, provide clear prioritization of Federal goals and objectives. 

And two, create incentives to maintain and increase environmental 

giving by promoting the partner of private and Federal resources 

around common goals. 

First I need to say that I believe strongly that there are many 

immediate and high-priority conservation needs. And more importantly, I strongly believe there is a significant financial giving capacity that can still be harnessed from the corporate community 

and other philanthropic funders if the right actions are taken, even 

in this difficult economy. 

As the Subcommittee knows well, the Federal Government continues to be the largest funder of conservation work throughout the 

United States. Congress and the Federal Government oversee 

much of that funding directly, and other funds are distributed to 

state fish and wildlife agencies through Federal programs, such as 

Pittman-Robertson. 

The Federal dollars divided among several different agencies 

cover hundreds, if not thousands, of different priorities. This investment has significant public benefits and positive impacts on 

land, sea, and air. 

That said, Federal agency expenditures on conservation are also 

so broad and diverse, it is incredibly difficult to comprehend exactly 

what the Federal government’s overall goal is for such spending. 

What are the Federal conservation priorities? For example, many 

Federal statutes require agencies to treat all issues equally, rather 

than encouraging agencies around conservation partners to 

prioritize their efforts around achieving achievable conservation 

outcomes. 

Moreover, across Federal agencies, even within individual agencies, there are differing conservation goals and objectives. 

For private funders, these competing priorities cause confusion, 

and sometimes lead to inaction. Major private funders in conservation tend to be focused on many of the same funding priorities as 

the Federal government. However, often the programs are not operated as a single effort. 

6 

While funders in conservation tend to gravitate toward, not away 

from, the Federal government, largely because of leveraging opportunities, it is my experience that the Federal agencies are either 

not equipped, not interested, or otherwise constrained from working with private funders. 

Federal Government lacks the necessary culture for partnership. 

Why? 

Our experience is that private funders are generally seeking public partners to leverage their funds, ensure a strong scientific basis 

for their investments, identify strategic priorities, and provide appropriate oversight to ensure a project achieves the anticipated results once the funding has been initiated. 

The Federal government is an attractive partner because it has 

financial resources; but more importantly, it has the ability to provide planning, science, strategy, and certainty of completion. 

As Executive Director of the Foundation, I oversee an entity that 

was created by Congress to specifically fund and find those partnerships. While the Foundation continues to experience a period of 

growth and success, we still are not able to maximize fully the Federal partnerships that are out there. 

I will submit the rest of my statement for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mark Rockefeller, Chairman, Board 

of Directors, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, submitted by 

Mr. Trandahl follows:] 

Statement of Mark F. Rockefeller, Chairman, Board of Directors, 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

Madame Chairwoman, Congressman Brown and Members of the Subcommittee ‘‘ 

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to appear today to discuss the current trends in conservation and environmental work throughout the United States 

and what can be done at the federal level, in particular, to encourage the expansion 

of private funding. 

As we all know, these have been especially difficult and challenging times. While 

the last few years have provided a very positive trend related to increased environmental awareness and giving—the entire landscape has changed in the last six 

months. Overall philanthropic giving has taken a sudden dip and environmental 

giving is expected to lose resources as funders begin to respond to more ‘‘human 

need’’ related programs (such as shelters, food banks, etc.). 

With the unanticipated and rapid decline in the economy and also major changes 

in the political climate, I believe the way to increase conservation funding from private sources (corporate, individual, and foundations) is to: 

1. Provide clear prioritization of federal goals and objectives; and 

2. Create incentives to maintain and increase environmental giving by promoting 

the partnering of private and federal resources around common goals. 

First, I need to say that I believe strongly that there are many immediate and 

high-priority conservation needs. And, more importantly, I strongly believe there is 

significant financial giving capacity that can be harnessed from the corporate community and other philanthropic funders if the right actions are taken, even in this 

difficult economy. 

As this Subcommittee knows well, the Federal Government continues to be the 

largest funder of conservation work throughout the United States. Congress and the 

Federal Government oversee much of that funding directly and other funds are distributed to state fish and wildlife agencies through federal programs such as the 

Pittman-Robertson Act. 

The federal dollars are divided among several different agencies and cover hundreds (if not thousands) of different priorities. This investment has significant public 

benefits and positive impacts—on land, in the sea, and in the air. As a conservationist and father, I strongly support these efforts. 

That said, federal agency expenditures on conservation are also so broad and diverse, it is incredibly difficult to comprehend exactly what the Federal Government’s 

overall goal is for such spending. What are the federal conservation priorities? 

7 

For example, many federal statutes require agencies to treat all issues equally 

rather than encouraging agencies and conservation partners to prioritize their efforts around achieving measurable conservation outcomes. Moreover, across federal 

agencies—and even within individual agencies—there are differing conservation 

goals and objectives. For private funders, these competing priorities cause confusion 

and lead to inaction. 

State Wildlife Action Plans have helped to establish priorities at the state level; 

however, many of these plans are still quite broad and don’t adequately address conservation issues that cross state boundaries (e.g., conservation of habitat for migratory species). 

Major private funders in conservation tend to be focused on many of the same 

funding priorities of the Federal Government. However, often the programs are not 

operated as a single effort. While funders in conservation tend to gravitate towards 

(not away from) the Federal Government (largely because of leveraging opportunities), it is my experience that the federal agencies are either not equipped, not interested, or otherwise constrained from working with private funders. Federal Government lacks the necessary culture of ‘‘partnerships.’’ 

Why? 

Our experience is that private funders are generally seeking public partners to 

leverage their funds, ensure a strong scientific-basis for their investments, identify 

strategic priorities, and provide appropriate oversight to ensure a project achieves 

the anticipated results once funding has been initiated. 

The Federal Government is an attractive partner because it has financial resources, but most importantly, it has the ability to provide planning, science, strategy and certainty of completion. 

As Chairman of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), I oversee an 

entity that was specifically created by Congress to promote and fund public-private 

partnerships. What started as a small experiment to leverage federal funding for 

conservation through public-private partnerships has grown into a highly successful, 

major catalyst for conservation action. Since our inception 25 years ago, NFWF has 

successfully leveraged nearly $500 million in federal funds into over $1.5 billion in 

on-the-ground and in-the-water conservation. 

A few recent successes exemplify how NFWF has been able to establish partnerships among corporations and federal agencies with great success. For example, 

NFWF and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently 

established a partnership with Covanta Energy, a waste-to-energy company located 

in the U.S., and Schnitzer Steel, to pilot a program, Fishing for Energy, through 

which fishermen dispose of derelict gear, free of charge, that Covanta in turn burns 

to create energy. And the results have been extraordinary; in one year, the partnership has collected and disposed of over 122 tons of derelict fishing gear from 10 gear 

collection ports in the Northeastern United States. Each ton of debris burned produces enough electricity to power one home for 25 days. That is enough recycled 

energy to run a U.S. home for eight years! 

In 2008, NFWF also announced a landmark partnership with ArcelorMittal—the 

world’s largest steel company—to address the ever increasing pressure on the freshwater ecosystems of the Great Lakes. The pooled resources of ArcelorMittal and several federal agencies has facilitated unprecedented coordination of partners and resources to support projects including habitat improvements for the endangered piping plover in Michigan, stream corridor restoration in Illinois, invasive species removal in Wisconsin, and wetland restoration in New York. With the President’s FY 

2010 budget request including significant increases for Great Lakes restoration, the 

future for partnerships in the region is very bright. 

While we continue to experience a period of growth and success in bringing new 

funds to wildlife conservation, we still continue to fail to fully maximize the potential. Even NFWF (an organization uniquely positioned and experienced at working 

with agencies) finds it difficult to convince agencies to partner with us in order to 

leverage existing federal funds with private dollars. Too often, federal agencies opt 

instead to do their work alone and only with federal funds. 

I am not opposed to the Federal Government as the single funder of certain efforts—but as an avid conservationist and businessman, I want to see all potential 

funds (both public and private) captured and put on the ground during this time 

of great environmental need. 

We believe there are several untapped opportunities to establish new partnerships 

that will expand the base of funding for conservation. Our own experience this past 

year working with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) illustrates some of this potential. Through the Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) 

program, NRCS awards approximately $20 million annually to support projects that 

advance innovative practices and technology to improve stewardship on working 

8 

farms and ranches. This program is highly attractive to private funders as it is 

geared to ensuring that America maximizes food production while enhancing environmental protection goals such as minimizing soil and nutrient runoff, improving 

wildlife habitat, and reducing water and energy consumption. 

NFWF reached out to several corporations and private foundations who share an 

interest in these issues. Based on our initial inquiries, we were able to identify 6- 

10 private funders who were excited about the opportunity to work with NRCS and 

NFWF to leverage funds and expand the pool of financial resources to address the 

high demand for this program. 

We believe there are other existing federal programs that offer similar opportunities to generate partnerships with interested corporations and private foundations. 

It is critical for the federal government to take full advantage of these partnership 

opportunities if we want to achieve measurable progress in restoring healthy populations of fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

I was very pleased to see in recent days statements from Secretary Salazar regarding his efforts to define a set of conservation priorities under an initiative 

dubbed ‘‘America’s Treasures.’’ While this initiative has yet to take shape and definition, I am very hopeful about this opportunity. 

As you may be aware, NFWF is scheduled for reauthorization this coming year. 

I offer the opportunity to use our reauthorization as a mechanism for this Subcommittee to consider changes that will facilitate the kind of effective public private 

partnerships we have described today. 

I believe efforts to clarify, inspire and focus potential private support will be very 

beneficial. 

I appreciate your allowing me this time before the Committee. I am available at 

the appropriate time to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you again. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Trandahl, for the valuable contribution of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to conservation, and for all of the work to develop and implement innovative 

public-private partnerships. And your complete statement will be 

entered into the record. 

To the persons who are standing, you could be seated up here 

around the table, if you would like. 

VOICE. Right here? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Right here. Some day you may be able to sit up 

there. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. I now recognize Dr. Kareiva from the Nature 

Conservancy to testify for five minutes. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF PETER KAREIVA, Ph.D., 

CHIEF SCIENTIST, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

Mr. KAREIVA. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for this opportunity. 

The Nature Conservancy, as many of you may know, is the 

world’s largest conservation organization. And just one dimension 

of that is we own and manage over 1400 private nature sanctuaries. That is a tremendous investment. 

And much of my job is geared toward providing scientific tools 

and decision support for how to protect that investment and other 

natural assets. 

And I just want to draw attention to a couple of examples of 

these decision-making tools and support. My written testimony 

goes into much greater detail. 

Let us start with the coastline. Seventy percent of the world’s 

population lives along the coast, and an equal percentage of the 

9 

world’s economic activity is in coastal areas or in delta areas. And 

these are areas that are at risk from rising sea level, more extreme 

storms, and are getting heavily battered. They are vulnerable. 

They also are sites of important habitats and nursing grounds for 

fisheries. 

So, the suite of tools that we develop for these marine coastlines 

are to identify what is vulnerable, identify what is valuable, and 

very clearly map some of the options and provide some guidance 

to the decisions that are before us. 

We have two examples of where we have played this out. One is 

in the Florida panhandle, where we map wildlife, we map offshore 

habitat that could reduce storm surge. We also actually map vulnerable human communities. And that helps us establish priorities 

for actions that would protect nature and people. 

And we don’t do any of this alone. A big partner in this is NOAA 

and universities. 

Another example is the Long Island Sound, where we detail some 

of the consequences of sea level rise, and look at different adaptation strategies, different ways of responding to that threat, and 

make clear the choices before us. 

So, we don’t just do maps of shoreline. The second tool I want 

to turn your attention to is what is called the Natural Capital 

Project. And this is a partnership where we rely on cutting-edge 

science from Stanford University—and I like to think that we do 

the cutting-edge implementation of that science. And again, it is 

maps, and again, it is decision support; but it is maps not just of 

the shoreline, it is maps of land and water use and infrastructure 

and energy development. 

And what we do is we economically value ecosystem services. 

Things like climate regulation, carbon sequestration, clean water, 

timber, agriculture, recreation. We map the landscape, we map alternative uses of the landscape, and translate it into cost-benefit 

analysis. And this has proven to be a very valuable tool to have 

when you see the consequences of the choices that are between us, 

and to deal with those trade-offs you mentioned in your opening remarks. 

We have applied it in several countries around the world, and 

are just beginning to apply these tools in the United States. 

And let me end by making one sort of general point about these 

tools. And this is more from my personal experience, working with 

these mapping techniques, and working in real places. 

In these times, with water creeping up, storms being more severe, heat stress, and many of the other stresses we face, you 

know, it is hard not to feel enormous anxiety, I guess you would 

say. 

But we have options. When you look at these maps, what you see 

is we do have options. The landscape isn’t totally filled. There is 

more than one thing we could do. And it is my personal experience 

that often the best option is investing in natural ecosystems. It is 

the most cost-effective and durable option, in many cases. 

Not always. Not always, for sure. For sure, sometimes are engineering solutions and alternative solutions. But using these mapping techniques, looking at what is valuable, what is vulnerable, 

and what our options are, I think we could have a very affective 

10 

investment strategy for our natural resources that benefit both the 

natural ecosystems and our economies, and people’s safety. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kareiva follows:] 

Statement of Dr. Peter Kareiva, Chief Scientist, The Nature Conservancy 

I am Peter Kareiva, the Chief Scientist for The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Prior 

to taking a position at The Conservancy, I served as Director of Conservation Biology Division at the Northwest Fisheries Science lab in Seattle, which is part of 

NOAA. Prior to working for NOAA, I was a Professor at University of Washington 

and had pursued a twenty year career of research in conservation, agriculture, and 

resource management. I have dedicated my scientific career to using rigorous but 

practical analysis and synthesis of environmental information in order to effectively 

manage and use our lands and waters. I am here today to talk about the information needs for resource management in an uncertain world facing climate change 

and potential ecosystem degradation. I also want to describe some new decision-support tools and planning tools that have the potential to guide future human impacts 

in a way that provides a sustainable future for people and our natural assets. 

The Nature Conservancy’s on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in all 

50 states and in 32 foreign countries and is supported by approximately one million 

individual members. The Nature Conservancy has protected more than 117 million 

acres of land and 5,000 miles of river around the world. Our work also includes 

more than 100 marine conservation projects in 21 countries and in 22 U.S. states. 

The Conservancy owns and manages approximately 1,400 reserves throughout the 

United States—the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. We 

use science to protect our investments, to manage our lands, and to make sure our 

natural assets will sustainably contribute to both biodiversity protection and to 

meeting human needs. To achieve our goals we routinely partner with government 

agencies, with other land trusts, with universities, and with private enterprise. As 

climate change has begun to show its impacts on lands and waters, and as the 

human footprint grows, we have found our responsibility increasingly challenging. 

It is my job as Chief Scientist to provide technical guidance and leadership so that 

the Conservancy is able to make smart decisions about marine, freshwater, and terrestrial conservation and management. There are two lessons we have learned as 

we seek to make sure that people and nature emerge as winners in the face of the 

many different and interacting threats to the environment. 

1. First, we need to invest in data collection, information systems and performance measures that allow us to engage in adaptive management, which is a 

fancy phrase that means ‘‘learn by doing in as efficient a way as possible’’. 

There is nothing more essential to institutional, national, and environmental 

survival than learning and improving. 

2. Second, we need to create and provide easy access to decision-support tools 

that can clarify for the public and decision makers the tradeoffs inherent in 

different options. Honest assessments of tradeoffs will promote informed decisions that in some cases might mean sacrifices to certain stakeholders, but in 

other cases could actually be win-win’s for all involved. Particularly needed are 

tools that help people to see the economic value of natural assets so that people 

do not make foolhardy decisions that at first glance seem like a good investment, but upon rigorous analysis turn out to be bad ideas. 

I will focus in this testimony on concrete examples of tools and approaches that 

represent The Conservancy’s experience at synthesizing information for adaptive 

management and developing decision support tools. We initiated development of 

many of these approaches before the impact of climate change was evident, but now 

feel a sense of urgency to improve our approaches given the rapid change and the 

uncertainty that the world faces. 

Marine Regional Assessments 

Over the last 10 years, the Conservancy has worked with a wide range of stakeholders and partners to complete marine regional assessments in nearly all U.S. 

waters and many waters internationally. Through these assessments, we have integrated databases and developed maps of the distributions of marine ecosystems, 

habitats, species, and human uses for most of the United States. This information, 

when used as part of a stake-holder process, provides a foundation to identify priority areas for conservation, restoration, and management. Examples of how these 

integrated data sets have been used range from helping to identify marine protected 

areas and no-trawl areas in California to developing comprehensive fish and wildlife 

11 

management plans in Oregon and Florida to partnering with NOAA to assess priority sites for restoration throughout the country. We have also used regional planning information to provide guidance on energy siting decisions. We have shared 

these data and approaches through workshops, scientific publications, reports, and 

websites. Over the last several years, we have we have worked with partners to expand our conservation decision-support tools to directly address fishery, coastal hazard, and energy objectives jointly with conservation objectives. Examples of these 

approaches and current products are available at www.marineebm.org. The key to 

these mapping tools is identifying a smart mix of fishing, resource extraction, and 

nature protection. 

Developing Multi-Objective Marine Management Approaches: Adapting to 

Protect Human and Natural Communities 

One cannot promote fisheries over all other alternatives, just as one cannot just 

promote only conservation. The world is not that simple. Instead resource managers 

must move from single objective plans and management (e.g., just conservation or 

just fish production) towards approaches that look at the trade-offs among multiple 

objectives and services. The aim is to identify solutions that minimize conflicts and 

maximize benefits among these multiple objectives and services. The Conservancy 

and partners have been developing approaches for combining fisheries, hazard mitigation, energy siting, and conservation objectives together into common frameworks. 

One of the areas where there are real opportunities for identifying win-win solutions for human and natural communities is in building approaches that combine 

hazard mitigation and biodiversity conservation in coastal zones. The goal here is 

to restore coastal ecosystems to preserve infrastructure and protect human communities. Coastlines have always been dynamic, but are now more so than ever because of changing storm patterns and sea level rise, placing human and natural 

communities at greater risk. The costs of these hazards to human and natural communities are increasing as coastal development continues and natural buffers, such 

as coastal wetlands and dunes, are lost. 

Despite a growing awareness of the reality of these hazards, communities and 

local decision makers still have little access to information on likely changes in 

storm and flooding risk or tools to visualize the potential impacts and identify alternative scenarios. As a consequence, communities are unable to integrate sea level 

rise and coastal hazard risk into decision-making regarding natural resource protection and land use management. This information is needed to protect human communities from the dramatic changes that are underway. The Conservancy has contributed to the development of two different examples of tools and approaches that 

can help address these services and objectives jointly in the Florida panhandle 

(www.marineebm.org/32.htm) and a more advanced and developing decision support 

tool for the southern shores of Long Island (http://www.coastalresilience.org). 

The salt marshes, sea-grass beds and oyster reefs of Florida’s Gulf Coast harbor 

manatees, sea turtles, piping plovers and many other threatened species, as well as 

serving as nurseries for economically important shrimp, crab and red snapper. 

These habitats also provide protection from storm surges that accompany hurricanes. Yet strategies to defend and restore coastal ecosystems—which could simultaneously assist people and expand habitats for threatened and economically valuable 

species—have largely been ignored in favor of engineering projects (diking, building 

levees, and hardening the coastline) that accelerate erosion and habitat loss. Working with scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, TNC 

recently combined maps of critical habitats and threatened species in the Florida 

Panhandle with maps of anticipated storm surges and of human communities most 

physically and socio-economically vulnerable to storm damage. By overlaying these 

data sets, they were able to identify areas in which restoration should simultaneously protect the most vulnerable human populations as well as many of the 

area’s most important species. 

On the south shore of Long Island, we have developed an interactive web mapping 

tool to explore flooding scenarios from sea level rise and storm surge for the south 

shore of Long Island, New York. The aim of the project is to support evidence-based 

decision making to better understand the risks to human and natural communities 

from climate change and to inform management options. The website (http:// 

www.coastalresilience.org) presents IPCC climate scenarios for flooding from sea 

level rise and storms and identifies some of their ecological, social, and economic impacts using models developed by NOAA and FEMA. We have incorporated management options such as the creation of buffers into the map server and there will be 

a full policy options report (and web summary) from the Pace University Land Use 

Law Center forthcoming. This interactive web-tool includes a set of alternative future scenarios that will help decision-makers keep the environment and public safeVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:13 Jul 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47756.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
12 

ty in mind as sea levels rise and coastal hazards increase. A wide range of partners 

across academia, government, and non profits are directly included in this effort. 

The partners include TNC, NOAA, NASA-Goddard, Association of State Floodplain 

managers (running FEMA models), University of California Santa Barbara, and 

University of Southern Mississippi, among others. There is a compelling need to expand this approach to the entire U.S. coastline. This is crucial to environmental protection and environmental justice. 

Marine mapping and spatial planning: Key Points & Advice 

The Conservancy has worked on marine regional plans for more than 10 years 

and with partners—including NOAA, EPA, USFWS, and many state agencies (e.g., 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife)—has completed more than 15 regional plans around the U.S. and 

internationally. You cannot manage marine habitats and ecosystems if you don’t 

know where they are and for most coastal ecosystems, decent maps of even habitat 

distribution do not exist. In New York, the maps that are currently used for statewide salt marsh management are from 1974. In the Gulf of Mexico, the distribution 

of oyster reefs was better document in the 1880s than it is today. The technology 

for mapping habitats nearshore is becoming quick and cheap and a concerted investment in this sort of mapping will have a high payoff. There is not a lot of sense 

in having comprehensive spatial management tools if the base of information does 

not exist. 

In addition to the need for multi-objective plans described earlier, a second key 

element for the future of marine spatial management is in interactive decision support. We at TNC think the future is not in the prioritization tools per se but in our 

ability to examine alternative management scenarios interactively with stakeholders. The interactive decision support shown at www.marinemap and 

www.coastalresilience.org are two examples of useful approaches for the future. 

There is no one right answer to how to jointly manage the needs of natural and 

human communities. Interactive and scenario based tools allow stakeholders to examine alternatives and identify approaches. 

There is no common database(s) or clearinghouse for marine information to be 

used in decision making. There does not need to be just one common framework and 

database for marine information, but a common framework would serve us all well. 

For example, we support the efforts to develop a multipurpose marine cadastre. 

Methods and tools that help us manage freshwater systems for people and 

nature 

Human alterations to natural stream and river flow patterns take a serious toll 

on the plants, animals, and freshwater ecosystems that people depend on. Environmental flows are the amount and timing of water flows required to maintain 

healthy freshwater ecosystems and their benefits to human communities. A wellmanaged water resource is appropriately allocated to people’s immediate needs and 

to environmental flows. Conservancy scientists have pioneered the field of environmental flows and developed tools that help water managers understand how much 

water a river needs in each season as well as across years to support important ecological functions and biodiversity. We have developed Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration, a software program that provides useful information for those trying to understand the hydrologic impacts of human activities or trying to develop environmental 

flow recommendations for water managers. We have also collaborated with the U.S. 

Army Corps on Engineers on a software program called the Regime Prescription 

Tool (HEC-RPT) to assist in the development of ecologically sustainable recommendations for dam operations. 

We are also developing specific tools that assess the effect of land use changes 

on freshwater ecosystems. In particular, Water for Tomorrow, a web-based tool 

being developed in partnership with IBM, will provide a modeling and visualization 

platform to allow users to assess the water and sediment yields of a landscape from 

current and projected scenarios of land cover. This project is set to conclude in April 

of 2010, resulting in a free-standing and broadly accessible product. 

From The Conservancy’s perspective, society is at a crossroads in water management and freshwater conservation. If society chooses to continue as it has, the 

health of our freshwater ecosystems will continue to decline at an alarming rate. 

But we can choose a different path, one which addresses human and ecosystem 

needs for water, one in which critical water quantity patterns are protected along 

with water quality. Capitalizing upon this opportunity, The Conservancy is contributing to the development of two certification programs that will promote sustainable 

water use, dam planning and operations, and catalyze the engagement of corporate 

13 

leaders, water utilities and the hydropower industry. Please go to http:// 

allianceforwaterstewardship.org/ for more information about one of these efforts. 

Valuing Natural Capital in order to make smart decision about development, infrastructure, and land or water use 

Long ago The Conservancy realized that the world is not divided into pro-environment and anti-environment. Rather, everyone seeks a better world and the trick is 

to have tools that help us see the consequences of our decisions with as complete 

a cost-benefit analysis as possible. As a partnership with Stanford University and 

World Wildlife Fund, we have developed spatially explicit mapping and valuation 

tools, called InVEST (see http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html). The 

motivation for this approach is simple: relative to other forms of capital, assets embodied in ecosystems are often poorly understood, scarcely monitored, and undergoing rapid degradation. Often the benefits that natural ecosystems deliver to humans are recognized only upon their loss. For example, Hurricane Katrina brought 

broader recognition of the importance of coastal ecosystems in dissipating the 

energy of large waves that occur during storms. Natural capital and the ‘‘ecosystem 

services’’ that flow from nature are typically undervalued—by governments, businesses, and the public—if indeed they are considered at all. 

Two fundamental changes need to occur to replicate, scale up, and sustain the pioneering efforts underway to give ecosystem services weight in decisions. First, the 

science of ‘‘ecosystem services’’ (the delivery of benefits from natural ecosystems to 

humans) needs to be advanced rapidly. In promising a return on investments in nature, the scientific community needs to deliver knowledge and tools to quantify and 

forecast this return. Second, ecosystem services must be explicitly and systematically integrated into decision-making by individuals, corporations and governments. 

Without these advances, the value of nature will remain little more than an interesting idea captured in small, scattered, and idiosyncratic efforts. 

The tool we have been developing (InVEST) is a suite of models that uses land 

use and land cover patterns to estimate levels and economic values of ecosystem 

services, biodiversity conservation, and market value of commodities provided by the 

landscape. Examples of the ecosystem services and commodity production that InVEST can model include water quality, water provision for irrigation and hydropower, storm peak mitigation, soil conservation, carbon sequestration, pollination, 

cultural and spiritual values, recreation and tourism, timber and non-timber forest 

products, agricultural products, and residential property value. InVEST can be run 

at different levels of complexity, making it sensitive to data availability and an understanding of system dynamics. Results can be reported in either biophysical or 

monetary terms, depending on the needs of decision-makers and availability of data. 

We have been applying InVEST in Hawaii, California, Washington State, China, 

and Colombia. This approach has already proven to be influential with decisionmakers and has brought a common currency to bear on discussions among private 

enterprise, government, and environmental groups regarding development projects 

and land use. 

Synthesis and Presentation of Environmental and Resource Information 

When you work internationally as I do, you quickly realize we in the USA have 

the best data and best information on soils, topography, land cover, stream flows, 

climate data and so forth anywhere in the world. We could also have the best data 

on ecological processes and biodiversity with modest increases in investment. But 

we do not get the full benefit of our information advantage. Information on something as critical as climate change, past and future, is not readily accessible to decision makers or land and water-use planners. It is for this reason that TNC scientists have begun to develop a tool called ‘‘Climatewizard’’ (see 

www.climatewiz.org) that allows one to pick any state in the USA or any country 

in the world and get records of past temperature and precipitation trends as well 

as future projections under different scenarios. 

There is so much environmental and ecological information out there, that decision-makers and the public get overwhelmed. For that matter, even scientific experts can be overwhelmed. There are two tiers of information and data synthesis 

needed. One tier concerns the simple tools The Conservancy has been using. Importantly, one must understand the limitations and biases of those tools. For that reason serious scientific research aimed at modeling and synthesis across disparate 

datasets (such a population distribution, wealth, climate vulnerability, freshwater 

flows, and biodiversity) are essential. Much of The Conservancy’s success at developing practical tools is due to a ‘‘hidden’’ support base of analysis by researchers 

at universities, and especially the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (see http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/). The nation desperately needs centers such 

14 

as NCEAS. NCEAS has supported resource management and conservation around 

the world through its synthesis of environmental data and development of prototype 

models that resource management institutions can then tailor to everyday practical 

decisions. 

We live in a time of rapid population growth, dramatic climate disruption, economic stress, and critical resource decisions. In spite of these challenges we still 

have many options. In the United States we have vast areas of intact ecosystems 

and some of the world’s cleanest rivers. Energy development, coastal development, 

infrastructure development, agriculture and forestry can be done smartly in a way 

that gives us a sustainable future. But this will happen only with science-based decision-support tools, easy access to wide-ranging datasets, institutions that support 

synthesis and analysis, and monitoring of the environment in critically vulnerable 

regions. By combining climate change models with models of ecosystem services and 

human vulnerability it is possible to pinpoint sentinel sites for the monitoring of our 

national well-being. While The Conservancy can help develop practical tools, we cannot collect the early-warning data that the nation needs. We encourage the nation 

to invest in sentinel sites that track changes in our most vulnerable ecosystems. To 

do otherwise would be irresponsible. Moreover, as we develop the information systems and decision-support models, we can lead the world ‘‘other nations are hungry 

for the tools that we are developing. 

Access to data and easy-to use decision support tools are the keys to smart choices 

about our future. We know how to do this—we need only to invest in expanding 

these efforts. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Dr. Kareiva. Your work in 

developing important applied tools is very encouraging. 

And our next witness that will speak to us is Mr. Thompson from 

Stanford University. Mr. Thompson, the floor is yours. Please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF BARTON H. THOMPSON, JR., PERRY L. 

McCARTY DIRECTOR, WOODS INSTITUTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, AND ROBERT E. PARADISE 

PROFESSOR OF NATURAL RESOURCES LAW, STANFORD LAW 

SCHOOL 

Mr. THOMPSON. Madame Chair and Members of the Committee, 

thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here today. 

There are multiple challenges that are currently facing our efforts for oceans and wildlife. Climate change, competition from a 

growing set of land uses, including alternative energy development, 

reduced funding levels; all of these will require a shift in the character of the agencies that are responsible for the management of 

our oceans and land, and the laws that are underpinning them. 

Today, separate agencies often manage separate sectors, sometimes with minimal coordination. In the oceans area, for example, 

one agency will manage the marine reserves, another agency will 

manage oil and gas development. We have something in the nature 

of 20 different agencies that are responsible for management in the 

Federal oceans, and additional ones on the state side. 

Today, most agencies focus on current needs and demands, and 

don’t necessarily have to plan ahead for future challenges. In administering some laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, Federal agencies are inevitably crisis-driven. 

Today, conservation statutes generally do not admit trade-offs 

among species. 

Today, managerial actions are largely static. Today, management 

decisions tend to focus on relatively small, and sometimes isolated, 

areas, not on broad ecological regions. 

15 

Today, the funding that agencies have to undertake their responsibilities is often inadequate. 

The nature of the new challenges that are facing conservation efforts will require change. 

In the future, agencies with overlapping geographical jurisdictions will need to coordinate, both to minimize conflicts between 

competing uses, and also to maximize protection. 

In the future, agencies will need to be more proactive in anticipating the impacts of climate change, and also competing uses. 

In the future, conservation agencies may need to engage in 

triage, and recognize that some species inevitably will disappear. 

In the future, planning will need to be more comprehensive, and 

in particular, focused on the creation of an integrated network of 

reserves. 

In the future, agencies will need to make greater use of adaptive 

management. And unfortunately, in the future, agencies will have 

to accomplish even more, with actually fewer resources. 

These changes may, in some cases, require modification of existing laws, or the adoption of new laws. 

In your letter of invitation to me, you asked for my views on the 

priorities for creating new legal frameworks. Thankfully, current 

laws provide significant discretion to existing agencies to accomplish many of the things that they need to do in the face of the 

challenges that you are examining. However, there are probably 

two priority areas that you may wish to review. 

The first is to see whether or not there is currently adequate authorization for the creation of integrated networks of reserves on 

both land and water, that are climate-aware. 

The second area would be to examine current laws to see whether or not there exists an adequate system at the moment for coordinating among the multiple Federal agencies with responsibilities 

over activities on Federal lands and oceans, and for proactive planning on how to utilize such lands. 

There is reason, I think, for optimism. You already have a sizable number of laws that provide a foundation for agencies to do 

again what they will need to do in the future to address climate 

change, a growing number of competing uses, and reduced funding. 

As you will hear from the other witnesses, there are emerging tools 

to manage these various challenges. 

With that, I will submit my written testimony, and look forward 

to your questions. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 

Statement of Barton H. Thompson, Jr., Perry L. McCarty Director, Woods 

Institute for the Environment, Robert E. Paradise Professor of Natural 

Resources Law, Stanford University 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me 

to testify before you today on this important subject. My name is Barton Thompson. 

I am one of the two directors of Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment, which brings together over 300 faculty members at the university to help 

develop practical solutions to sustainability challenges. I am also a professor of law 

at Stanford University and have extensive experience with many of the laws under 

your jurisdiction. I serve on the board of several land trusts and foundations 

supporting land and marine conservation. I am testifying today in my individual 

capacity. 

16 

My testimony will focus on the institutional needs for protecting ocean and wildlife resources in the face of climate change and other emerging challenges. In particular, what types of governmental institutions, programs, and processes will be 

needed for effective protection? 

The good news is that current Congressional legislation already provides many of 

the management tools and much of the authority and discretion that the government will need to address climate change and other emerging challenges in the coming decades. Many key federal agencies, moreover, have already begun to use their 

authority to develop programs and strategies for addressing the challenges. The 

United States Geological Survey, for example, has created the National Global 

Warming and Wildlife Science Center to project climate impacts, help federal agencies develop effective adaptation strategies, and collaborate in developing new tools. 

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has developed a draft Climate Change Strategic 

Plan for the 21st Century, in which it commits to developing a National Fish and 

Wildlife Adaptation Strategy. 

To provide effective protection, however, the federal government will need to (1) 

adopt new management approaches focused on creating effective networks of land 

and ocean reserves and on adapting over time to climate change; (2) collect, analyze, 

and use information regarding the state of, and trends in, land and marine species 

and ecosystems in the face of climate change; and (3) coordinate and collaborate 

more actively among themselves and with state managers, conservation organizations, private landowners, and other local stakeholders. Resource managers may 

also need to establish priorities in attempting to conserve species, recognizing that 

some species will be more difficult than others to protect in the future. These additional steps may require new authorizing and guiding legislation and almost certainly will require new resources. Given the increased conservation effort that is 

likely to be required in the future, all levels of government will want to look for 

new ways of reducing the cost of conservation efforts (e.g., by finding ways of conserving species on farms, ranches, and other ‘‘working landscapes’’ that also produce 

an economic profit) and identify new potential funding sources (e.g., by turning to 

those who benefit from the ecosystem services often provided by effective conservation). 

I. Emerging Challenges 

In prior sessions of Congress, the Subcommittee has already heard testimony on 

the emerging challenges to protection of fish and wildlife resources and ecological 

services. A quick overview of these challenges is important, however, because they 

form the basis for determining what institutional changes may be necessary. 

The potential pressures from climate change head the list of challenges. No matter what mitigation measures the United States chooses to adopt, the effects of 

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have substantial lag time and are predicted to 

impact fish and wildlife for decades to come through changes in temperature, water 

availability, wildfires, sea level, ocean acidification, and pests. Scientists predict 

that, in North America, temperature rise will shift the range of many species northward and to higher altitudes. A growing number of studies indicate that recent temperature rises have already begun to affect the ranges and migration patterns of 

species in the United States and globally. Scientific studies also suggest that ocean 

fish populations will be affected both by continuing increases in water temperature 

and decreases in recovery periods as extreme events occur more frequently. 

One of the most troubling aspects of climate change for managers of fish and wildlife is the high level of uncertainty involved. Uncertainty regarding the level of climate change that will occur is compounded by uncertainty regarding the impact of 

that change on ecosystems and the fish and wildlife that inhabit them. Many scientists believe that the nation is facing a ‘‘no analog’’ future for fish and wildlife: 

current ecosystems will disassemble as species try to adjust to climate change, and 

then reform into new assemblies. 

Land and ocean ecosystems also face new competing interests. Important efforts 

at energy development, in particular, may create new pressures on fish and wildlife. 

Both the new administration and the 111th Congress have announced that alternative energy development will be a priority. Land managers will need to coordinate 

projects to develop solar, wind, geothermal, and other energy sources with potentially conflicting conservation objectives. Ocean managers will need to coordinate 

protection of fish and ocean ecosystems with increased interest in liquefied natural 

gas facilities, renewable energy projects involving wave and tidal energy, and coastal aquaculture, as well as potentially with new oil and gas operations. 

Government agencies and private conservation organizations, moreover, will need 

to protect ocean and wildlife resources in the face of more limited resources. State 

managers are already facing reduced conservation budgets both because of reduced 

17 

tax revenues and a fall-off in new bond measures that have historically supported 

conservation efforts in many states. Private conservation organizations are affected 

not only by these same revenue declines, but also by a reduction in private donations. 

II. Ensuring that Institutions Are Up to the Challenges 

Existing laws and institutions designed to protect fish and wildlife will remain 

central to addressing the challenges outlined above. One of the most important steps 

in helping species adapt to climate change, for example, will be to reduce the other 

stresses that the species face—e.g., habitat loss and fragmentation, over-utilization, 

pollution, and invasive species. Reducing these other stresses can increase natural 

resistance and resilience to climate change. A limited number of studies also suggest 

that climate change can exacerbate other stresses. Changes in water flows, for example, might worsen the impact of water pollution. To the degree that current programs to address non-climate stresses are successful, therefore, the affected species 

are more likely to survive climate change. And because many of these stresses are 

local and discrete, they will often be easier to address than climate change. 

In looking beyond current programs, however, eight considerations are important 

in designing new institutions, programs, and tools. It is important to emphasize 

that, because the need to adapt to climate change is a new challenge, there is little 

experience upon which to directly draw in divining best practices for ocean and wildlife management. Scientific studies of how species respond to climate impacts and 

experience with similar challenges, however, can provide useful initial guidance. 

1. Proactively Incorporate Climate Considerations into Management Programs and 

Plans 

First, government conservation managers should use the best information available regarding the potential future impacts of climate change on ecosystems and 

species to proactively seek to protect those ecosystems and species. Many of the nation’s current laws are focused on ‘‘crisis management,’’ protecting species that are 

already in trouble from immediate threats, rather than anticipating and avoiding 

future problems. Where management takes place in a crisis setting, management 

agencies generally have only limited options, and conflicts with various stakeholders 

are more likely. To the extent the government can identify at an early stage climatevulnerable species, the habitat that they may need to survive, and steps that can 

reduce the impact of climate change on the species, the government is likely to be 

more effective in protecting the species and to avoid the need either to ultimately 

list the species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or engage in other forms 

of crisis management. 

Once a species is listed under the ESA, the Act appears to give the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) significant authority to proactively address climate-related threats to the species. Section 4(a)(ii), for example, appears to allow these agencies to designate as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ areas that will be essential future habitat for the species in light of climate 

change, even though the areas are not currently occupied by the species. Under the 

recent decision in NRDC v. Kempthorne, 506 F.Supp.2d 322 (E.D.Cal. 2007), the 

agencies must also consider the effects of climate change in jeopardy consultations 

(at least where the effects are ‘‘reasonably certain to occur’’ and ‘‘reasonably expected’’ to jeopardize the relevant species). In evaluating the adequacy of habitat 

conservation plans (HCPs) under section 10, the agencies would appear to be authorized to require that the HCPs address ‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ risks from climate change. 

The regulatory provisions of the ESA, however, were not designed to address uncertain future threats such as climate change and therefore are not sufficient to provide the type of proactive management that is likely to be needed. First, the ESA 

covers only species that are already endangered or threatened (i.e., are already at 

a crisis stage). Second, many provisions of the Act can be used only awkwardly, at 

best, to provide proactive management. Section 9, for example, applies only to land 

modifications that pose proximate and foreseeable harm to endangered species, 

making it very difficult to regulate land uses that pose threats to likely future habitat or to important corridors. Finally, even where the ESA permits some degree of 

proactive management as described above, the level of uncertainty involved in predicting the future range and needs of listed species may frequently make it impossible to meet the Act’s standards. 

Although federal laws would appear to provide the Fish & Wildlife Service and 

NOAA with the authority to proactively manage federal areas under their jurisdiction for the risks of climate change, neither agency has historically engaged in such 

planning. The National Wildlife Refuge System, for example, lacks a system-level 

18 

proactive planning program for climate change. The management of federal marine 

reserves also does not currently incorporate projected impacts from climate change. 

Both agencies, however, have begun to consider how to incorporate climate change 

into their missions. 

The federal government might consider several proactive steps in addressing climate change. First, in establishing new land or ocean reserves, the government 

could consider what areas will be most important in light of likely climate impacts. 

New refuges might focus on what scientists often refer to as ‘‘refugia,’’ which are 

areas that will probably be less affected by climate change and therefore safe havens for climate-sensitive migrants or sources of ‘‘seeds’’ that can be transplanted 

elsewhere. For example, marine protected areas might focus on areas where 

upwelling reduces thermal stress. New refuges might also focus on establishing current or future havens for species that are likely to be most vulnerable in other locations to climate change impacts. 

Second, governmental agencies could incorporate climate change projections into 

their management plans for existing reserves. As mentioned earlier, the Fish & 

Wildlife Service has already begun to examine this option. Finally, the national government could develop new incentive systems and other programs to encourage the 

conservation of private lands that are likely to be essential for the future survival 

of species in the face of climate change, either as refugia or as the destination of 

migrating species. 

2. Consider ‘‘Resilience,’’ ‘‘Replication,’’ and ‘‘Connectivity.’’ in the Creation and 

Management of Reserves 

A related goal in establishing new reserves or conservation programs, and in managing existing ones, should be to maximize the probability that the reserves will 

protect species over the long run in the face of climate change. In discussing what 

types of reserve system are likely to do so, scientists often talk in terms of ‘‘resilience,’’ ‘‘replication,’’ and ‘‘connectivity.’’ Resilience refers to the ability of an ecosystem or species to resist shocks or surprises and to revitalize or repair itself if 

damaged. Scientists believe that ecosystems with high biodiversity will more easily 

recover from climate impacts. As mentioned earlier, reserves that are not under 

other stresses are also likely to be more resilient to climate change. Replication emphasizes the importance of creating a reserve system that includes multiple examples of key species or ecosystem so that, if species die out in one area, the species 

might still survive in another and provide a long-term source for recolonization. Finally, ‘‘connectivity’’ emphasizes the importance of providing connections between 

reserves both so that species can move from one reserve to another in response to 

climate change and so that species that survive in one area can naturally recolonize 

another. 

A variety of governmental agencies and private conservation groups around the 

world are already utilizing these concepts to design reserve systems that are more 

likely to resist or recover from climate impacts. In the Florida Keys, for example, 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has created a Florida Reef Resilience Program to 

try to enhance the probability that coral reefs will survive climate change and other 

impacts. TNC is growing multiple coral genotypes at different locations along the 

reef and studying their survival. This in-place experiment will provide important 

knowledge about the genetic and geographic determinants of reef resilience and provide the basis for the selection, creation, and management of more resilient reserves 

in the face of climate change. The Australian government has adopted a Climate 

Change Action Plan for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park that also focuses on 

protecting those areas with high resilience (as determined by such factors as water 

quality, coral cover, community composition, larval supply, recruitment success). In 

their work in the Australian Central Desert, TNC and the Australian Wildlife Conservancy are focused on creating connections between protected lands in order to 

maximize the probability of successful migration of species when necessary for 

survival. 

These experiences, along with scientific studies, suggest again a number of considerations for improving the effectiveness of conservation laws and practice in the 

United States. First, focus on the creation of networks of effective protected areas, 

rather than on the creation of a portfolio of separate sites. The nation’s current system of wildlife refuges, for example, largely consists of a number of separate sites 

that are often small, located in altered landscapes (and thus subject to significant 

external stresses), and incompletely representing imperiled species. The system 

would likely be more effective in the face of climate change if it consisted of a network of interrelated, resilient reserves. To the degree possible, the network would 

replicate critical ecosystems and species and would be connected by corridors permitting species to migrate northward or upward in response to climate change. 

19 

Where possible, the network would include reserves along climate gradients, in 

order to ensure effective migration in response to climate change. 

Creation of a network of marine protected areas would also be valuable in protecting the oceans against the impacts of climate change. In an ideal world, the network would protect a full range of habitat and community types, and include areas 

of apparent resilience (e.g., reefs that still have high coral cover). The network 

would also ensure that the individual reserves were connected by taking into account currents, larval dispersal, and the movement of adults. Much like a diverse 

stock portfolio can reduce financial risk in normal economic conditions (albeit not 

today), such a network would also reduce risk to marine ecosystems and species 

from climate change. 

A number of governments have created or are developing effective systems of marine reserves. The Australian government has created a network of marine reserves 

as part of its Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In the United States, California is 

currently developing a system of marine reserves in an even larger geographic 

areas, the state’s entire coastline, under its Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). 

Current laws in the United States would appear to provide adequate authority for 

the creation of such reserves. In practice, however, absent legislative directive, most 

reserves have been established on an individual basis rather than as part of a more 

comprehensive and strategic network. California’s creation of a network of marine 

reserves has been advanced by (1) explicit legislation calling for the creation of such 

reserves (the MLPA), (2) the establishment of deadlines for the creation of such reserves, and (3) the creation of an institutional structure, including science advisory 

teams and regional stakeholder groups, to advice in the design and selection of the 

reserves. 

Second, to the extent possible, reserves should minimize stresses on protected 

species from outside activities. Where practical, wildlife reserves should be surrounded by buffer zones that minimize stress from adjacent land uses. Wildlife refuges should also have adequate water supplies. Many refuges today have only limited jurisdiction or authority over needed water. For this reason, the Fish & Wildlife 

Service’s draft strategic plan emphasizes the need to work with other governmental 

agencies and water users to ensure water resources of adequate quantity and quality. Marine reserves also can benefit from buffer areas. Australia’s Great Barrier 

Reef Marine Park provides for buffering, and a new proposal in California would 

‘‘zone’’ the coastal waters in part to ensure that uses adjacent to marine protected 

areas are compatible with the protection. 

3. Provide for Flexibility and Adaptation 

The uncertainty surrounding the impact of climate change on oceans and wildlife 

calls for flexibility and adaptive management in response to climate change over 

time. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is effective in part, for example, because 

the flexibility of its management plans have permitted adjustments in the face of 

new information. The marine park has established a variety of tools to which it can 

turn as soon as new information becomes available showing the need for the tools, 

ensuring that managers can respond rapidly and responsively to ongoing changes. 

Many of the existing conservation laws in the United States would seem to allow 

for, or in some cases explicitly call for, flexibility and adaptive management in the 

face of climate change. Section 7 of the ESA, for example, provides that agencies 

must reinitiate consultations if ‘‘new information reveals effects of the action that 

may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent nor previously considered.’’ The laws governing the National Wildlife Refuge System would 

appear to give the Fish and Wildlife Service substantial latitude to manage the system adaptively. 

In practice, however, adaptive management is only infrequently utilized. In some 

situations, the law does not provide adequate flexibility. Some wildlife refuges established by presidential proclamation, for example, have very specific purposes that 

limit flexibility. Section 7 of the ESA provides for reinitiations of consultation only 

where the affected federal agency has retained discretion over the covered action. 

In the case of private land trusts, federal tax laws require the creation of perpetual 

conservation easements that may be difficult to modify in response to climate 

change. In other cases, both the flexibility and authority needed to engage in adaptive management might exist but there is no requirement that it be utilized. Even 

where section 7 of the ESA provides for the reinitiation of consultations in the face 

of relevant new information, for example, there is no affirmative obligation to seek 

out new information. 

A number of practical considerations often discourage the use of adaptive management where it is not required. First, the flexibility of adaptive management can conflict with the degree of certainty that is often demanded both (1) by private landVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:13 Jul 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47756.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
20 

owners and other commercial interests whose actions may be affected by management changes, and (2) by conservationists seeking to ensure protection. As a result, 

property owners and other commercial stakeholders often oppose the use of adaptive 

management and have no incentive to provide new information that might lead to 

the adoption of new management measures. As illustrated by the recent decision in 

NRDC v. Kempthorne, courts may worry that adaptive management measures are 

too open ended and insufficiently certain to provide effective management. Efforts 

such as the Fish & Wildlife Service’s ‘‘no surprises’’ policy can reduce uncertainty 

for property owners but, in the view of some environmental organizations, only at 

the cost of threatening to undermine the agency’s use of its adaptive discretion. Second, the legal focus on ‘‘final agency action’’ may also indirectly discourage agencies 

from engaging in adaptive management. NEPA, the Administrative Procedure Act, 

and specific conservation laws all emphasize finality, and the process required to develop a final agency action may tend to lock such actions into place. 

Limited resources also restrict the use of adaptive management. Most conservation agencies have little funding and other resources available to engage in monitoring and the development of iterative actions. Management agencies also often 

lack the metrics needed to implement adaptive management. 

The effective use of adaptive management to address climate change may therefore require explicit Congressional directive and support. New incentive systems 

may also need to be created to reduce stakeholder opposition to climate change. 

Some studies, for example, have urged the creation of economic incentives to encourage permittees under section 10 of the ESA to provide information regarding species 

on their property that could call for adaptive measures. 

4. Develop & Use Adequate Information & Science 

In order to implement the above approaches, governmental agencies need significant new science and information, including: 

• Models that can predict, at regional and local levels, the likely impacts of 

climate change on fish and wildlife. Such models are critical to proactive 

management, the creation of effective reserve networks, and identifying adaptive measures. 

• Baseline data on current ranges and distributions of species. This data is again 

important in all of the approaches described above. 

• Monitoring of ecosystems and species over time. Important data can include 

ranges, distributions, abundance, changes in phenology, arrival and departure 

times of migrants, flowering dates for plants, and emergence dates for insects. 

Such monitoring data is critical to effective adaptive management and to determining what management approaches are likely to work in the future. Such 

data can also be used to help inform the public and relevant stakeholders about 

the impacts that climate change is having on oceans and wildlife. 

Governmental agencies and other conservation groups also can benefit from more 

robust and comprehensive exchanges of information regarding the effectiveness of 

various measures to address climate change. 

Significant work is still needed on all of these fronts. The National Research 

Council, for example, has concluded that climate change predictions are still relatively poor at both the regional and local scales. Few conservation agencies have 

either substantial baseline data or monitoring programs. Studies of HCPs, for example, have concluded that few HCPs have well-developed and statistically-valid monitoring programs. (Due to cost and for the reasons discussed in the last section, 

moreover, land owners oppose significant monitoring requirements.) Although the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act requires the Fish & Wildlife 

Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge, 

the service’s budget has not kept up with the needed work. While a large percentage 

of refuges have presence information regarding relevant bird species, for example, 

many have no information regarding seasonal presence or abundance. 

Effective management in the face of climate change could therefore benefit from 

support for several new scientific efforts. First is the development of new models of 

regional and local impacts from climate change that could aid in the development 

of simulation maps and other tools for predicting ecological changes in response to 

climate change. Second is an inventory of the existing ranges and abundances of atrisk species in order to establish a baseline against which management actions can 

be planned and evaluated. Third are nationally coordinated monitoring systems that 

can be used by management agencies to gauge the success of management measures 

and decide on needed adaptive measures. The Fish & Wildlife Service in its draft 

strategic plan calls explicitly for a National Biological Inventory and Monitoring 

Partnership. The final effort is a national interagency climate-change information 

21 

network that can exchange information on successful and unsuccessful management 

efforts. 

Efforts to collect new information can build off of existing efforts, such as NOAA’s 

Coral Reef Ecosystem Integrated Observing System (CREIOS) and the USGS’s National Phenology Network. In many cases, efforts to inventory and monitor species 

may be able to enlist community volunteers. A privately-supported example is the 

Reef Check program that uses community volunteers to collect coral reef monitoring 

data to supplement scientific and governmental data. 

5. Integrate Across Institutions & Geographic Areas 

Climate change and other emerging challenges to the effective management of 

oceans and wildlife are likely to require greater management integration across geographic areas and management institutions. As discussed earlier, addressing climate change may require large networks of protected areas, including corridors for 

moving between areas. Existing governmental reserves tend to be relatively small 

and, on land, embedded in a matrix of private land ownership. Such fragmentation 

restricts the ability of the government to address changing dynamics. Even if we 

started from scratch to create reserve networks, moreover, no single agency or private conservation group would be likely by itself to be able to create an optimal network. And today coordination among agencies may be more practical and efficient 

than significant expansion of individual reserve systems. Other groups also frequently have control over potential external stresses. Water supplies for national 

wildlife refuges, for example, are often under the control of water agencies such as 

the Army Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation, rather than the Fish 

& Wildlife Service. 

A number of groups, ranging from the Fish & Wildlife Service to the Western 

Governors’ Association, have therefore called for national and regional task forces 

or partnerships to help bring together national, state, and local agencies, as well as 

private conservation groups and landowners, to address climate change on a more 

comprehensive basis. Although agencies and other groups probably have the authority to enter into such partnerships already, Congress might be able to help promote 

and speed the formation of such partnerships through explicit legislation and funding. Conservation partnerships could have multiple purposes, including coordinating 

conservation actions, building essential connectivity among reserves, reducing local 

stresses, and protecting needed water resources. Such partnerships can build on existing partnership or funding programs (such as the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program or the State Wildlife Grants program), although Congress might wish to 

rationalize these programs into a more integrated system rather than simply building haphazardly on top of existing programs. 

Greater integration among agencies can also help in addressing the increasing 

conflicts between energy and conservation uses both on land and in the oceans. Different agencies have authority over various commercial uses of land and oceans and 

over conservation efforts. These differing agencies also tend to have conflicting missions, policies, and programs, and they are used to having sole responsibility over 

the activities under their jurisdiction. Effective coordination of activities is therefore 

often exceptionally difficult. 

A recent study of conflicts in the use of California’s territorial waters examined 

a variety of options for resolving such conflicts among state agencies and creating 

an effective system for managing competing ocean activities. (See Deborah A. Sivas 

& Margaret R. Caldwell, A New Vision for California Ocean Governance: Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Marine Zoning, 27 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 209 (2008).) The 

least radical option was to legislatively create a common set of management principles that all agencies would need to consider and follow in carrying out their management responsibilities. At the more radical end of the spectrum, the legislature 

could create a master management plan to be implemented by a single agency. Intermediate options would allow existing agencies to maintain their current management jurisdictions but subject them to varying levels of oversight and review by a 

‘‘master agency.’’ The study ultimately concluded that a balance was needed between protection of existing jurisdictions (given the significant expertise that existing agencies have developed over time) and the need for establishing a coordinated 

management regime among the agencies. 

6. Be Willing to Consider the Necessity of Triage 

Scientific discussions have begun to suggest that triage might be needed in protecting oceans and wildlife in an age of climate change. Some species may not be 

able to adjust to climate change. For example, species such as the Devil’s Hole 

pupfish, which lives in a single cave in Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in 

22 

Nevada, may not be able to adjust to change. Climate change, moreover, may 

quickly overburden the abilities of conservation agencies to respond. 

Some governmental agencies have already begun to prioritize actions based on the 

chances of success. In a recent report, for example, the Tahoe National Forest stated 

that it has decided not to engage in some projects that might not succeed due to 

climate change—e.g., trying to restore salmon in rivers that are not likely to provide 

suitable future habitat. 

Most conservation laws, however, including the ESA, appear to demand action in 

the face of jeopardy and do not appear to allow for consideration of feasibility. Agencies, moreover, have little experience with explicit tradeoffs. Congress, therefore, 

may need to provide guidance to federal agencies on how to deal with species that 

cannot be effectively protected or protected only with great difficulty in a time of 

limited resources. Should resources be spent, for example, under the ESA in developing recovery plans for non-recoverable species? One policy option for dealing with 

this issue would be to focus attention on ecosystem-based management rather than 

on single species and seek to support long-term species diversity. 

7. Seek Methods for Reducing Costs 

Given the sizable task of trying to protect oceans and wildlife in the face of climate change, governmental agencies at all level will need to find methods of reducing the costs of conservation measures. Land conservation managers, for example, 

might where possible consider the feasibility of carrying out management measures 

(such as the creation of corridors) on farms, ranches, and other working landscapes 

before seeking to establish non-use reserves. Allowing the use of land while promoting conservation can reduce the costs of the conservation. Conservation agencies 

might similarly look to relatively liberal easements (with consequently lower price 

tags) where appropriate before considering fee acquisitions of property. In all of 

these cases, federal agencies would seem to have the general authority to consider 

lower cost options, although agency culture or specific Congressional mandates 

might present an obstacle. 

8. Look for New Funding Sources 

Finally, governmental agencies at all levels, as well as private conservation organizations, could obviously benefit from new funding sources. As earlier discussion 

suggests, conservation in the face of climate change is likely to be expensive. One 

potential source of funding could be ecosystem service markets in which the beneficiaries of ecosystem services help pay for conservation measures that protect those 

services. Existing ecosystem service markets tend to be relatively small and localized (with the exception of the emerging carbon sequestration market), and the degree to which more significant markets will arise is questionable. 

Efforts to quantify and value ecosystem service markets, however, can be helpful 

here. The Natural Capital Project (a collaboration among Stanford, The Nature Conservancy, and WWF) is one of several groups developing tools that can help in this 

quantification and valuation. Congress can help facilitate such markets through provisions such as section 2709 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, 

which has led to the creation of the government-wide Conservation and Land Management Environmental Services Board. Even where markets for ecosystem services 

do not arise, the ability to quantify and value the services flowing from conservation 

may help local and state governments justify continued financial support of critical 

conservation measures.DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson. And I now 

recognize Mr. Baughman to testify. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BAUGHMAN, MEMBER, 

SPORTING CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, Mr. Hastings, Members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify 

today. 

I am John Baughman, a biologist by training, former Director of 

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, former Executive Director of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies here in Washington. I am currently on the Sporting Conservation Council, which 

is a FACA committee that advises both the Secretaries of Interior 

23 

and Agriculture on sportsmen’s issues, including wildlife conservation. 

Over the past year I have been involved in three parallel, but 

independent, efforts to formulate recommendations on fish and 

wildlife conservation for the new Administration and Congress. 

The first is in my role with Sporting Conservation Council, where 

we developed a series of white papers on eight of the biggest conservation issues of our time. Those are contained in a report entitled, ‘‘Strengthening America’s Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation in the 21st Century.’’ 

The second effort worked with the American Wildlife Conservation Partners—that is a consortium of 42 conservation organizations—to revise their recommendations for the Obama Administration. They are in a report entitled, ‘‘Wildlife for the 21st Century, 

Volume Three.’’ 

And the third effort, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies also came up with recommendations for the new Administration and Congress. These represent the collective opinions of those 

agencies legally charged with the stewardship responsibility for the 

nation’s fish and wildlife resources. 

All of those are contained in reports that accompanied my written testimony to the staff. 

While these efforts were independent, the recommendations were 

strikingly similar. And I have characterized the really big issues 

identified in all three. These are my characterizations. 

One is global climate change. Two is maintenance of fish and 

wildlife habitat. Three, invasive species and diseases. Four, the disconnect between Americans and nature. And the fifth, a lack of 

reasonable assured funding. 

Given the short time for oral testimony, I will highlight just a 

few of the challenges and opportunities. 

Global climate change, certainly other entities will work on the 

causes and solutions to global climate change. The challenges for 

fish and wildlife conservation will be maintenance of functional ecosystems, lessening impacts of a warmer world on at-risk species, 

and developing and implementing wildlife and habitat monitoring 

systems that are sensitive enough to allow us to identify and react 

to emerging impacts. 

Challenges to maintenance of fish and wildlife habitats include, 

but certainly aren’t limited to, urban sprawl, increasing frequency 

of catastrophic fire, poorly managed land-use practices such as agriculture and timbering, conversions from native habitat to agriculture, from agriculture to urban and suburban landscapes, impacts of energy development. And all of these are exacerbated by, 

and in addition to, the impacts of global climate change and 

invasives. 

Invasive species and diseases. The most important challenge is 

to stop the spread of invasives. But even more challenging will be 

the methods to control, manage, and/or eradicate invasives once 

they are introduced. 

The disconnect between Americans and nature. We are raising a 

generation of Americans whose only link to nature comes from a 

TV screen or computer monitor. It is not surprising that childhood 

obesity is epidemic. Those who don’t comprehend and understand 

24 

the link between habitat and animals, man and nature, aren’t likely to support the political and on-the-ground processes that ensure 

perpetuation of these resources. 

Lack of reasonable assured funding. The challenges are twofold: 

less money available, lots more to do. At the turn of the last century, wildlife conservation was setting regulations for law enforcement and stalking fish. And we had adequate resources from the 

revenues from hunters and anglers, and appropriations from Congress for national programs. 

Now we have preserving biodiversity, recovering species at risk. 

We have conservation education. We have solving human-wildlife 

conflicts, controlling wildlife/human/livestock diseases, and so forth. 

Failure to act on any of these challenges will mean less wildlife, 

less and more fragmented habitat, more threatened and endangered species, along with regulatory and cost burdens; an 

unhealthier country, and greater long-term costs. 

Our opportunities under global climate change, I would say comprehensive legislation that addresses emissions of greenhouse 

gases also generates revenues to drive the programs to identifying 

remedy impacts. 

Maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat, opportunity to work on 

the really big issues, through landscape scale initiatives, such as 

North American Water Fowl Management Plan, conservation features of the Farm Bill, National Fish Habitat Action Plan, Healthy 

Lands Initiative. 

Invasive species, diseases, we need to secure comprehensive legislation to address importation, possession, and management of 

invasives. Disconnect between Americans and nature, to support 

existing and create new programs and partnerships that encourage 

adults and children to participate in wildlife- and nature-based outdoor recreation. 

Lack of reasonable assured funding. We need to improve the sustainability of traditional funding, while working with state, Federal, and private partners to develop new sources of funding. 

In conclusion, there are dozens of excellent recommendations in 

the three reports I mentioned. The new Administration and Congress can make the needle move; that is, make measurable on-theground differences in conservation of fish and wildlife resources if 

we seize a few big opportunities under each of my categories. 

But we have to do things a little different than we did in the 

20th century. First, we need to address issues on a much larger 

landscape scale. Second, we need to work together better. Virtually 

all conservation needs to be delivered via partnerships. Third, we 

need to spend dollars more efficiently. Virtually all conservation 

dollars need to be leveraged. And fourth, when contributions from 

hunters, anglers, and Federal appropriations are no longer adequate as a primary source for funding conservation of all species 

for all Americans in the 21st century, new streams of adequate assured funding have to be developed. 

Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baughman follows:] 

25 

Statement of John Baughman, Member of the 

Sporting Conservation Council 

Thank you Madame Chairwoman. I am John Baughman, a member of the Sporting Conservation Council (SCC), which is an officially sanctioned FACA committee 

that advises both the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture on issues important to 

America’s sportsmen and women—including those issues related to conservation of 

our wildlife resources. I am a biologist by training and have spent over 30 years 

as a wildlife conservation professional including 6 years as Director of the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department and 4 years as Executive Director of the Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) which is an organization of the state and federal agencies charged with management of North America’s fish and wildlife resources. At present I work for AFWA, from my home in Cody, Wyoming, as a liaison 

between state and federal agencies, industry, and non-profit organizations on energy 

development and wildlife conservation issues. 

Our topic today is especially timely given the new Congress, the change in administrations, and the mega-issues of world population growth, global climate change, 

invasive species and diseases, a faltering economy, changing demographics and social values, and a growing list of tasks and problems to be addressed with a shrinking supply of money and personnel resources. 

Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to be involved to some degree in 

three efforts that have analyzed the wildlife conservation issues of our time and 

made recommendations for maintaining our fish and wildlife resources in the future. 

The first effort was the Sporting Conservation Council’s role in responding to Executive Order 13443, ‘‘Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation.’’ In 

cooperation with the Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of Agriculture and Interior, the American Wildlife Conservation Partners, other conservation organizations, and state wildlife agencies; the SCC produced a series of white 

papers and recommendations on eight topics related to wildlife conservation and our 

nation’s hunting heritage. Those white papers are contained in a report entitled 

‘‘Strengthening America’s Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation in the 21st 

Century: Challenges and Opportunities’’ which accompanies my written testimony. 

The second effort was working with the American Wildlife Conservation Partners 

(AWCP) to update their recommendations for the incoming administration. The 

AWCP is a consortium of 42 conservation organizations with a common goal to safeguard America’s wildlife resources and the interests of sportsmen and sportswomen. 

Beginning in 2000, and then preceding each presidential election thereafter, the 

AWCP has prepared a series of recommendations related to the most important 

issues facing wildlife conservation and America’s sporting traditions. The revised 

recommendations, ‘‘Wildlife for the 21st Century: III’’ which were presented to President Obama, also accompany this testimony. 

Finally, the AFWA also prepared a series of recommendations for the Obama administration. These recommendations represent the collective opinion of those agencies legally charged with the stewardship responsibilities for our nation’s fish and 

wildlife resources. Their recommendations accompany this testimony in a report entitled, ‘‘Furthering Conservation in the Public Trust: A National Fish & Wildlife 

Agenda.’’ 

The purpose of all three efforts—to define and analyze today’s fish and wildlife 

conservation issues and produce actionable recommendations to ensure the future 

health and sustainability of these resources—is squarely on target with the purpose 

of this hearing. For a more in-depth discussion of the subject we are addressing I 

highly recommend that members of the committee and their staffs peruse these documents. Even though these three efforts were independent, the similarities between 

their recommendations are striking. The reports identify literally scores of issues, 

challenges, and opportunities, but I would categorize the really big issues—common 

to all three—as follows: 

1. Global climate change. 

2. Maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat. 

3. Invasive species and diseases. 

4. Disconnect between Americans and nature. 

5. Lack of reasonable, assured funding. 

Challenges: 

Global Climate Change 

While others work on the causes of and solutions for global climate change, the 

biggest challenges in managing aquatic and terrestrial habitats and wildlife will be 

in conserving functional ecosystems, lessening impacts of a warmer world on at-risk 

species, and developing and implementing wildlife and habitat monitoring systems 

26 

with sufficient sensitivity to identify the emerging impacts of climate change so 

adaptive management strategies can be employed. Failure to meet these challenges 

will mean greater loss of habitat and wildlife populations, more species becoming 

jeopardized or even extinct, and far more resources spent on recovery of individual 

species than would have been needed to take early preventative actions. 

Maintenance of Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Healthy, sustainable ecosystems and wildlife populations depend on a healthy, 

somewhat stable, and resilient habitat base. Major challenges to our ability to sustain fish and wildlife habitat include, but certainly aren’t limited to, urban sprawl, 

increasing frequency of catastrophic wildfire, poorly managed agricultural practices, 

impacts from domestic energy development, conversion of native habitat to agriculture and conversion of agriculture to urban/suburban landscapes, and all of these 

are compounded by and in addition to changes in habitat due to climate changes 

and invasive species. Failure to react adequately to these challenges will result in 

habitat loss and fragmentation, and the net effect will be fewer animals and more 

species at-risk. 

Invasive Species and Diseases 

Invasive species and diseases cause challenges on a number of fronts such as 

maintaining wildlife habitat; protecting human, wildlife, and livestock health; safeguarding the economic viability of agricultural and timber operations, etc. Perhaps 

the biggest challenges for Congress, the Administration, and all of us will be first 

and foremost developing and implementing better systems to prevent the spread of 

invasive species and diseases, and secondly, though even more challenging, developing and implementing programs to manage, control, and eliminate invasive 

species and diseases once they are introduced. 

Disconnect Between Americans and Nature 

As American society becomes more urban and opportunities for fish and wildliferelated recreation diminish, our citizens become more and more disenfranchised 

from nature. People who don’t understand the uniqueness and success of the North 

American Model of Wildlife Conservation have little reason to actively support its 

continuance. Those who don’t comprehend the link between habitat and wildlife 

aren’t likely to participate in and support political and on-the-ground processes that 

ensure perpetuation of these resources. America is raising an entire generation 

whose only link to the out-of-doors is through a TV screen or computer monitor, and 

it is not surprising that child obesity is epidemic. The challenge is to increase our 

nation’s understanding and appreciation of nature and their participation in hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-related recreation. To maintain the public’s support 

and participation, there is also a challenge to ensure access to opportunities for 

quality recreational experiences. 

Lack of Reasonable, Assured Funding 

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation was founded on a user-pays 

concept where the cost of fish and wildlife conservation was almost exclusively funded by hunters and anglers through their purchase of licenses, permits, and stamps 

and taxes on their equipment and supplies along with federal appropriations for national programs (e.g. wildlife refuges, interstate law enforcement, national fish 

hatchery system). This method of funding worked well for much of the 20th Century 

when wildlife conservation meant establishing regulations, law enforcement, and 

raising and stocking fish and wildlife to establish and supplement natural populations. The challenges now in providing adequate funding for fish and wildlife conservation are two-fold: 1) less money available, 2) lots more to do. Hunters and anglers who once provided most of the funding for all fish and wildlife conservation 

are declining as a percentage of the population nation-wide, and with the national 

economy and federal budget priorities, federal appropriations for fish and wildlife 

conservation have less flexibility and purchasing power than 30 years ago. Fish and 

wildlife conservation still includes establishing regulations, law enforcement, and 

stocking fish and wildlife, but it also includes major additional programs to manage 

and conserve all wildlife resources for all citizens (e.g. environmental protection, 

maintaining biodiversity, species at-risk recovery, conservation education, watchable 

wildlife programs, managing human/wildlife conflicts, wildlife/livestock/human disease control, etc.). 

Opportunities: 

As mentioned earlier in my testimony, there are literally scores of opportunities 

identified in the reports from the SCC, the AWCP, and the AFWA. I will highlight 

27 

of few of the most important opportunities, i.e. things that can actually make a significant on-the-ground difference under each of my five major categories. 

Global Climate Change 

1. Enact comprehensive climate change legislation that regulates greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

2. Dedicate a portion of the revenue from carbon credits or other cap-and-trade 

protocols to state and federal programs that identify and remediate the impacts 

of global climate change. 

Maintenance of Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

1. Ensure continuance of meaningful conservation features in future Farm Bills. 

2. Support delivery of habitat conservation through landscape-level conservation 

initiatives based on strong federal, state, corporate, private partnerships and 

highly leveraged federal dollars (e.g. North American Waterfowl management 

Plan, National Fish Habitat Action Plan, Health Lands Initiative). 

3. Support tax credits and other incentives to encourage private landowners to 

voluntarily preserve habitat and incorporate conservation practices. 

4. Support legislative and administrative changes in federal energy development 

processes to better balance the needs of domestic energy development with conservation of fish and wildlife resources, and develop the appropriate capacity 

to run these processes with federal, state, and industry funding from rents, 

royalties, receipts, and income. 

5. Incorporate state and regional wildlife plans (e.g. State Wildlife Action Plans, 

Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy, Mule Deer Conservation Plan) into federal 

land use planning processes. 

6. Develop and implement landscape-level programs to treat at-risk forest, grassland, and wetland habitats. 

Invasive Species and Diseases 

• Secure comprehensive legislation to address importation, possession, and management of invasive species (including pathogens and regulation of ballast 

water). 

Disconnect Between Americans and Nature 

1. Support existing and create new programs to encourage children and adults to 

participate in fish, wildlife, and nature-based outdoor recreation. 

2. Develop federal training programs designed to give in-coming employees an understanding of wildlife conservation and the North American Model of Wildlife 

Conservation. 

3. Develop and support programs that enhance access to public and private lands 

for fish, wildlife, and nature-based recreation including incentive-based programs to encourage private landowners to voluntarily provide public access. 

4. Include natural resource agencies in any forthcoming ‘‘No Child Left Inside’’ 

legislation. 

5. Improve and revise the Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 to create a Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation-like entity to promote hunting, 

shooting, and wildlife related outdoor recreation. 

Lack of Reasonable, Assured Funding 

1. Stabilize traditional funding (i.e. hunter and angler user fees and federal appropriations). 

2. Encourage comprehensive evaluation of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Trust 

Funds by state, federal, industry, and sportsmen representatives with a goal 

to simplify and modernize the processes for collecting revenue and to sustain 

and expand funding over time. 

3. Create additional sources of funding for conservation of all species and their 

habitats (e.g. carbon credit revenue, OCS revenue, income from new energy development). 

4. Provide incentives to encourage states and private entities to develop new 

sources of funding. 

Summary and Conclusions: 

Most of the big issues we face in managing our ocean and wildlife resources in 

this dynamic environment can be included under one or more of my five categories: 

Global Climate Change, Maintenance of Fish and Wildlife Habitat, Invasive Species 

and Diseases, the Disconnect between Americans and Nature, the Lack of Reasonable and Assured Funding. If the new Congress and Administration dedicate themselves to seizing a few of the very top priority opportunities for each of these catVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:13 Jul 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47756.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
28 

egories we will have ‘‘moved the needle’’ in making a real difference in conservation 

of these resources. If we are going to continue to be successful we will have to do 

a few things differently from the way we operated over the past 100 years: 1) we 

have to address issues at a much larger landscape-level scale, 2) we (federal and 

state governments, industry, tribes, NGOs, private individuals) have to work together much better, everything should be done in partnership, 3) all conservation 

dollars need to be leveraged, and 4) contributions from hunters and anglers and federal appropriations are not adequate, and probably not appropriate, as the primary 

source to fund wildlife conservation in America for the 21st Century; new streams 

of adequate assured funding must be developed. Leadership from Congress and the 

new Administration will be essential. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Baughman. And I 

want to commend all of our witnesses; they stayed within the time 

limit. Congratulations. 

Your entire written statement will be included in the record. 

I will now recognize the Members of the committee for any questions they may wish to ask the witnesses, alternating between the 

Majority and the Minority, and allowing five minutes for each 

Member. However, should the Members need more time, we will 

have a second round of questions. 

I will begin with myself. And I have just one question, three 

parts of it, to Mr. Trandahl. 

You have testified that Congress should provide clear priorities 

of Federal conservation goals and objectives in order to increase 

conservation funding from private sources. 

Now, how does NFWF establish its own conservation priorities? 

Mr. TRANDAHL. Great question. We have within our staff a scientific group. And we have identified what we call keystone objectives. In forming those keystone objectives, we are working alongside with the Federal agencies, as well as the conservation community, to identify through a scientific process where we believe we 

can move the needle on particular species or particular habitats, 

based upon the financial contributions we can invest into those 

areas. 

So, it is called the keystone process. And I can submit for the 

record a very detailed explanation of it. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. I would like to have that entered into 

the record. 

Mr. TRANDAHL. OK. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And the second part of the question, how can the 

goal-setting process of NFWF and the Federal government be made 

mutually reinforcing? 

Mr. TRANDAHL. I believe it is a matter of really getting a spirit 

within the Federal agencies to really pursue partnerships through 

the Foundation, or with other partners, in order to bring together 

those private and public dollars. As well as everyone, science and 

wildlife plans and everything else. 

We are not short on planning, and we are not short on science. 

We are short on coordination, in my opinion. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And then the third question along the same lines. 

How would Federal priorities improve the availability of funding 

from private sources? 

Mr. TRANDAHL. What has happened is many private donors are 

very interested in partnering with the Federal government. I will 

use a real-life example here, just the last couple months. 

29 

We have been working with the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, which is an agency of the USDA, on a program that is 

called Conservation Innovative Grants, which is a $20 million-ayear grant program. 

I have been trying for two years to get them to move it into the 

Foundation, so one, we could administer the grants much more efficiently; but more importantly, we could then turn and try to leverage it up with the corporate community. 

And in just gauging corporate interest in leveraging against that 

$20 million, we have had seven different companies come forward 

and say yes, we would want to do that, if you are able to do it. 

Now, we are still pursuing, and hopefully we will be able to bring 

that into the agency. 

The thing to realize is the values within an agency aren’t necessarily to partner. Partnerships cause complication and more 

work. And the idea of bringing in more money is not necessarily 

enough of an incentive for agencies to enter into it. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, thank you very much, Mr. Trandahl. 

I have another question, just one more, for Dr. Kareiva. And 

again, Dr. Kareiva, while the Nature Conservancy has developed 

some impressive tools for marine mapping and planning, your testimony provided examples of data gaps that limit the ability of decision makers to use adaptive management strategies. 

Now, is this patchwork of data the critical limitation on adaptive 

management? In other words, why isn’t adaptive management used 

more often? 

Mr. KAREIVA. I will also speak for NOAA, where I worked for the 

fisheries and fisheries management, as well, where that was a 

struggle. 

Certainly there are data gaps. In the marine system, part of it 

is we don’t have good maps yet for the whole coastline for the habitats and the resources. So, the data is a limitation. 

I would say the other two limitations are strong incentives to the 

agencies to engage in it. We talk about it a lot, but you really need 

sort of strong administrative incentives. Performance, have your 

performance based in your agency job onto the extent to which you 

do adapted management. 

And the third thing is that adaptive management is new, and 

you need some tools to help people. You need, some of the tools 

that we develop at the Nature Conservancy are meant to synthesize that information, and present it in a way that doesn’t overwhelm you with the complexity of the program. 

And if you have those tools, I think people will be much more 

amenable to doing it. If we make it easy for them. Incentivize and 

make it easy. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Another part of the question. Do tools and technology exist to effectively fill the critical data gaps? And can this 

be done in a cost-efficient manner? 

Mr. KAREIVA. Prototypes of all the tools and data do exist. With, 

I hesitate to give a timeframe, but in a relatively short timeframe, 

you know, two to five years, we could fill the data gaps and get the 

tools up to easy implementation. And really, on your desk, anybody 

could use them in a very cost-effective manner. 

30 

Most of the hard work has been done. Most of the early investment, and a lot of the hard work and research have been done. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Doctor. And now I would 

like to invite the person standing in the back to please come and 

be seated around the lower table here. 

And now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Hastings, for any questions he may have. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. I just 

have a couple of questions here. 

Mr. Trandahl, you were—and it is good to see you. 

Mr. TRANDAHL. Good to see you. 

Mr. HASTINGS. You had mentioned the private and the public 

partnerships several times in your testimony, and in response to 

the Chairman’s, Chairwoman’s remarks. 

Give me your assessment of the President’s proposed budget that 

limits tax deductibility of those earning more than $250,000. 

Mr. TRANDAHL. Yes, I expect to be going over to the Ways and 

Means Committee at some point. 

Yes, as people are probably familiar, in the President’s sort of 

outline of a request, there is an idea of limiting individuals who 

earn more than $250,000 a year, limiting their tax deductibility to 

nonprofits. 

And I personally would have great hesitation and disappointment if that were adopted as a concept. And from the Foundation’s 

perspective, it would be disastrous. 

We rely on major gifts—obviously corporate as well as Federal 

dollars. And my average individual contribution is well in excess of 

$100,000 a year; it is not five dollars a year. 

And you know, we are working the very high end of the economy 

in order to generate tens of millions of dollars back into conservation, that is then, in turn, matched on the ground. 

So, it would have a very negative impact. And I have spent my 

entire weekend actually putting together all the empirical data to 

kind of show exactly what it would do for us, but as well for others. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I thank you for that. We are not the Ways and 

Means Committee, but I felt it was worth, worth at least asking. 

Mr. TRANDAHL. I appreciate it. And I should just mention, as 

well. This committee, last Congress, expanded our board from 25 

to 30, which I have to say had exactly the impact that we were 

hoping for with the committee, which would be a dramatic increase, again, in the individual giving for the Foundation. Which 

it did. It has had more than a million-dollar impact. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Good, thank you. Mr. Thompson, I want to ask a 

very broad question, because this is a hearing on climate change, 

yet we haven’t talked about what climate change is, and how one 

looks ahead of it. 

My understanding is that most of the predictions are based on 

modeling data. And I want to put this—and I want you to respond 

to that—but I want to put it in real-world terms. Because I was 

here last Thursday, and I flew back to my home in Washington. 

And I listened to the weather report for this weekend. And they 

said it was going to cool down. 

31 

There was absolutely no prediction, when I left on Thursday, 

that you were going to have all of this snow here. And I come back, 

and I see that low records were set here during the week. 

So, my question to you is, based on the data long term, how can 

we have any confidence, when we can’t predict what, just this last 

week we didn’t predict how cold it was going to be this weekend? 

Mr. THOMPSON. So, Mr. Hastings, this is a very important question. Because of the difficulties of predicting exactly what the impacts of climate change will be on our oceans and wildlife in the 

future, our first priority should clearly be to protect the fish and 

wildlife today. 

But we also have to recognize that climate change may very well 

impact those fish and wildlife in the future. Scientists are already 

beginning to see what they believe is an impact on the fish and 

wildlife today. 

And so that would suggest two things. First of all, that we be as 

adaptive as possible, recognizing that we are not that good at the 

moment at predicting into the future—so that as we begin to see 

change, we can adjust to those changes. 

And then second of all, we do know the general nature of impacts 

in the future. We know, for example, that species are likely to 

move, that they are likely, in the United States, to move north to 

higher altitudes. And therefore, in thinking about the reserves that 

we are setting aside, and the coordination between Federal actions, 

state actions, and the actions of organizations like the Nature Conservancy, we need to be providing for that opportunity of movement. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Madame Chairman, I see my time is about out. 

My question was more, how can we have confidence—because we 

are going to be potentially making huge decisions here that is going 

to cost individuals and taxpayers millions, if not billions, of dollars. 

And yet we are doing it, what appears to be on something that is 

not extremely solid data. 

Madame Chairman, I have other questions, and I will wait for 

the second round. And maybe, Mr. Thompson, I would ask you to 

rethink that. I understand the impact that probably everybody 

feels on climate change. After all, history, long before humans were 

here, climate change had an effect on the species in the world, so 

I think that is self-evident. 

The question is, how do we make these determinations based on 

good data. And I guess that is what the question is. But thank you 

very much. And thank you for your indulgence, Madame Chairman. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Hastings from 

the State of Washington. 

I would like to just introduce a few new Members that have come 

in. We have Mr. Sablan from the Northern Marianas, and we have 

Mr. Pierluisi from Puerto Rico, and Mr. Wittman, State of Virginia. 

And now I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from 

California, Lois Capps. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Madame Chair. And may I say at the 

outset, congratulations on this hearing. The topics and the esteemed testifiers managing our oceans and wildlife resources, this 

is very valuable to have as we confront the 111th Congress and our 

32 

new Administration. And with the goal of establishing some priorities. 

I would like to turn to Dr. Kareiva, if I could, please. And I commend you, as an organization amongst many who have worked 

very closely to set aside millions of acres of land and water as habitat for plants, birds, fish, other animals. 

You have been working in Morro Bay in my Congressional district, dealing with marine protection. And by the way, you have 

also been working on that endangered group, the fishing community, through sustainable fishing that you partnered with the Environmental Defense, a very novel, and I think very worthwhile, approach, which actually touches on some of the things we are talking about here. 

I would like to ask if you could describe for us what a failure to 

act on climate change—a little different take on it from the previous question—what a failure to act or delay to action would mean 

for the ability of existing marine protected areas and wildlife preserves, to protect wildlife and sensitive ecosystems. 

Mr. KAREIVA. First I would like to say—— 

Ms. CAPPS. And as you are thinking of your answer, let me, I can 

maybe focus it a little more specifically. 

How would climate change impact the national marine sanctuaries, for example? I have two sanctuaries in my district, the 

Channel Islands and Monterey Bay, the tip of Monterey Bay Sanctuary. 

As you know, national marine sanctuaries are set up to be some 

of the best examples of ecosystem-based management. They will be 

affected by climate change. Maybe that is a good way to approach 

this question. 

Mr. KAREIVA. So, first I want to correct sort of a misimpression. 

We actually have very good data and science about climate change. 

We don’t about weather. There is a distinction between weather 

and climate change. Weather is what happened, you know, here in 

D.C. the last couple days. Climate change is long-term trends and 

expectations. 

So, in any given year, any given day, any given week, you might 

be surprised. But it is the long-term averages we are doing on climate change. 

Ms. CAPPS. Yes. 

Mr. KAREIVA. So, turning to the marine protected areas, and just 

the marine resources in general, it is quickly becoming evident that 

our marine systems are some of our most vulnerable. And they are 

vulnerable for a number of reasons. 

They are vulnerable in coral reefs because rising sea surface temperatures stresses and kills the coral. They are vulnerable because 

they change currents and up-welling patterns; and thus, they 

change the fisheries that we harvest. And they are vulnerable because some species shift their, their distributions. And in fact, it 

has been noticed along the California coast that species will shift 

their distributions. 

As a result of that, if we have a marine protected area set up 

in one place for a suite of species we are trying to manage, and as 

a result of climate change the physical conditions are altered, that 

place will no longer provide the protection for those species. 

33 

So, it is going to be a challenge to management in that we won’t 

just be able to rely on fixed marine protected areas. We are going 

to need much more sophisticated management, like zoning and 

some of the innovative techniques we have. 

But we already have good data showing shifts in distributions, 

showing stresses in offshore habitats, that are tightly linked to climate change in the last 30 years. 

And there will be surprises, for sure. And we will be surprised. 

But I think we know generally, strategically how to approach the 

problem. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. Another justification for having these 

areas, because of the data that you are able to collect in an intensive way. 

Mr. KAREIVA. That is right, we do monitor those places. 

Ms. CAPPS. I want to talk about sanctuaries. I happen to—this 

is a little self-serving question for me. I am Co-Chair of our newly 

formed caucus on National Marine Sanctuaries. The other Co-Chair 

is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I represent a specific district, she represents a district in Florida. 

The sanctuaries are applying the principles of ecosystem-based 

management, I understand, to manage their diverse set of natural 

resources and ecosystem services. Maybe you would talk about this 

a little bit, as a follow-up to the previous question. 

And more specifically, how are sanctuaries using ecosystembased management to meet the growing threat of climate change? 

And what they do then is important for its own sake, but clearly 

because of their status; but also as an example and a model for 

other areas. 

Mr. KAREIVA. So, ecosystem-based management is jargon for, I 

guess you would say trying to achieve many purposes with one 

sanctuary. And balancing those purposes using the best science. 

And in doing that in a very transparent way, so it is also clear to 

the stakeholders that are involved. 

So, early on in the history of marine protected areas, it might 

have been thought they were just for biodiversity, or just for one 

species. No longer is that the case. You look at the entire ecosystem, and the many services they provide. 

So, shoreline ecosystems, as an example, they provide fisheries 

for commercial fisheries; they provide sport fishing; they provide 

recreation. They can provide habitats that reduce storm surge, and 

protect human communities. 

See, we would look at all those natural assets, and you would 

look at the economics in the stakeholder zone. That is what ecosystem-based management is, looking at the many different interests in the sanctuaries. 

The other thing, for the Federal ones that have been set up, that 

is especially valuable, is they are well-monitored. We have invested 

money into collecting information. And I think of them as probably 

our best sentinels for climate change. 

We have too few places in the world where we are collecting comprehensive information, and we will be able to see, before it is too 

late, what is going on. So, they also serve that purpose, although 

maybe that isn’t what they were originally set up for. 

34 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you very much. I have used my time. But Madame Chair, that, of course, prompts with me a follow-up, an additional question, what kind of resources. Do we have enough resources, if this is indeed that critical, for advice to the new Administration and to our 111th Congress? Do we need additional resources for the kind of information that you are going to be able 

to supply? 

But I will yield back. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. We will have a second round. I thank the 

gentlelady from California. 

I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I would like to 

begin by yielding to the Ranking Member, Mr. Hastings. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. Baughman, I want to ask you a question real briefly. In your 

oral testimony you talked about regulating greenhouse emissions. 

Could you elaborate on what your recommendations would be on 

that? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Well, I think if you look at my testimony, part 

of it is that there are other people working on the emissions of 

greenhouse gases, other than the wildlife conservation community. 

I think our bigger task is reacting to those impacts on the communities, and maintaining those functional ecosystems. 

I am not an expert on it, but certainly some of these carbon-trading protocols, carbon credits, I think those are the most—I think 

there is promise in some of those protocols. There is always the 

devil in the details, things that have to be worked out. 

You mentioned the tremendous costs of some of those. We need 

to look at the tremendous benefits of some of those protocols, too. 

There is always someone paying things, receiving money. There is 

a money end of it, but there is also the behaviors-and-outcomes end 

of that equation, too. And we need to look at the whole picture, to 

where whatever protocols are adopted, those things balance. And 

the net is a positive effect for the country. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much. I yield back to my friend. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. Mr. Baughman, you have had over 30 

years of experience in the area of wildlife conservation. Can you 

tell us what you believe the overall impact of climate change is 

having on our wildlife? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Well, I am most directly, of course, familiar with 

the West, the Rocky Mountain West. And certainly the last 15 

years has been warmer and drier than any situation we have witnessed. And in fact, I think the records document, it just has been 

warmer and drier than any period in the last 500 years. 

And we have seen species decrease in abundance. We have seen 

entire habitats devastated, trying to manage through drought for 

15 years. Our systems of timbering, our systems of public land, 

they just break down. They were never, they were never meant to 

operate that way, and we have not adopted behaviorally or economically to some of those systems. And some of the net results the 

whole country is looking at are species like sage grouse becoming 

listed as threatened and endangered, and the impacts that would 

have. I think the Northern Spotted Owl would pale in comparison. 

35 

Our mule deer are in jeopardy. All of these high grassland step 

species are at risk. 

But in the whole country, there are just species and, and habitats that evolved in much wetter, cooler times. And things are moving, things are changing, like some of the other speakers talked 

about. Things are disappearing. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Now, you spoke earlier about making sure we get 

our children out from behind televisions and computer screens, and 

I couldn’t agree with you more. I think it is high time that our 

youth be as acquainted as they can with our outdoor environment. 

I wanted to sort of pick your brain about, how do you think we 

can best achieve that? I think there has to be an understanding 

from top to bottom about, obviously about the issue of climate 

change; but also how that affects our natural environments. And 

we have to have, I think, people plugged in from top to bottom, as 

far as the spectrum of age. 

So, if you could give us your thoughts about how we can make 

sure we can fully engage folks, and that includes our youth. 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Well, certainly there are some really good programs out there. And there are some really good programs emerging. 

Congress, the Administration doesn’t have to do everything, but 

it would be nice for them to be partners in these efforts. And I 

think the most important needs, and probably the biggest successes, we have is one, developing some national conservation environmental education standards, that there are some concepts and 

principles that every child, every citizen of America understands. 

We don’t have that. 

And the second is concentrating on opportunities as this country 

becomes more urban, and we get more kids with that computer 

monitor and TV screen. And access becomes tougher, not only the 

legal access to public and private lands, but just the difficulties of 

getting out of the beltway to find a place to recreate. 

We have to focus on, again through partnerships, on developing 

those opportunities that people know about, and they are easy to 

take advantage of. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Madame Chairman. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, gentleman. I would now like to recognize the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Mrs. Christensen. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Madame Chair. And thank you 

for holding this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses today. 

I would like to begin by welcoming our former Clerk of the 

House, Jeff Trandahl, who is now representing, is now the Executive Director of the National Wildlife Foundation. 

Before I ask a question, and I will ask this inside of a question, 

I have a concurrent resolution, too. I don’t know if you are familiar 

with it. I know we are talking today about specific legislative 

changes and administrative changes that are needed. But this 

would express a sense of Congress that the Fish and Wildlife Service in particular should incorporate consideration of global warming 

and sea level rise into comprehensive conservation plans for coastal 

national wildlife refuges, and for other purposes. 

And Madame Chair, we are working with your staff to move this 

through the committee. But is that something that the panelists 

36 

would support? At least as a beginning step, getting the Congress 

to recognize—and we could expand it to include, you know, all 

planning, if you so recommend. 

Mr. Trandahl, you focus a lot on the need for clear and synchronized goals, one reason being that it is a barrier to you felt the 

kind of public-private partnerships you are charged to create. And 

Mr. Thompson, I think you also referenced the same concern. 

I can understand, within agencies, the need for consistent and 

clear goals. But across different agencies with somewhat different 

missions and different oversight, I am not sure if that can be done 

successfully. 

Are there some key overarching areas that you would want to 

suggest, that the Park Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife could have 

clearer goals that are synchronized with each other? 

Mr. TRANDAHL. OK. First, Donna, it is always great seeing you. 

I prefer to see you in the Virgin Islands, though. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TRANDAHL. First, I want to start and say I do think that the 

need of coordination among the agencies is incredibly important. 

And it is going to take leadership from one agency in particular, 

which I think the Department of the Interior is the agency that 

should lead it. 

The good news, to me, and the optimism is, Secretary Salazar 

spent a lot of time, the last couple weeks in particular, talking 

about his America’s Treasures concept. Of which he is talking 

about exactly the same thing: creating a priority list of habitats, 

ecosystems, actions that are potentially, should become Federal priorities, and agencies should look at those priorities to try to do a 

better job in working with one another. 

An example I would give just right off the top is invasive species. 

A lot of money is spent at USDA, a lot of money is spent at the 

Department of the Interior to deal with invasive species. But I 

have yet to see the Department of Transportation do anything. 

Yet how do they get there? Well, they normally arrive through 

a transportation system: a highway, a plane, a boat. And if we 

were able to coordinate better, and get the agency sort of at the 

front end of the problem involved, I think we would find ourselves 

in a much more successful position down the road. And hopefully 

save money, instead of just trying to manage through a problem. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And I was thinking just under Interior. I 

wasn’t even thinking about the departments outside. 

Mr. TRANDAHL. OK. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. But we are actually employing the same, trying to get the same kind of coordination on healthcare issues. 

Mr. TRANDAHL. Right, right. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Because there are many ways that other 

agencies, other than the HHS, can collaborate and coordinate, and 

within the department also, to address those issues. 

Dr. Kareiva, as you know, the Nature Conservancy has been 

doing a lot of work in the Virgin Islands. I wanted to talk a little 

bit about the multi-objective marine management approaches that 

you talked about. 

Your remarks referenced the utility of such techniques in places 

such as Long Island and Florida. But what about in a smaller comVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:13 Jul 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\47756.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
37 

munity like ours, or Culebra, which my colleague, Mr. Pierluisi, 

represents, and where I understand you may be partnering with an 

organization shortly, where single objective approaches such as 

coral farming or small-scale community conservation projects have 

been quite successful. Are these approaches transferrable to smaller communities like ours, and can they support what are sometimes unique and often cultural concerns? 

Mr. KAREIVA. For sure they can. To be honest, probably—— 

[Electronic interference.] 

Mr. KAREIVA.—there is support then for doing the research and 

development. 

But as we get better at the tools, of course, what they really are 

about is balancing competing needs, and making clear the tradeoffs 

and the consequences of decisions. 

So, instead of making a decision yes/no, the decision is, what is 

your full suite of options to meet everybody’s needs. And those 

needs for sure include cultural values, impact on family structure. 

In some of the Pacific Islands we worked on, paying attention to 

role of women in the community, impact on family structure, and 

household surveys. What are the consequences for household satisfaction. 

And I think you will see these tools in a second generation being 

widely used across scales, not just for Long Island, and not just for 

Florida. I think it is a general, it is common sense. It is really a 

common-sense vision, supported by science and transparent presentation of information. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I think my time is up. Thank you for your 

responses. Thank you, Madame Chair. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentlelady from Virgin Islands. Now 

I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Wittman from 

Virginia. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I would like to 

go back to Mr. Baughman again, and talk a little bit about the 

President’s budget submission. As you know, he has set aside some 

dollars for wildlife adaptation. And of that, it designates 31 percent 

of those dollars will go to the states. 

In considering that states have primacy over wildlife resources in 

their state, would it be more judicious if the split were 50/50, rather than 31 percent going to the states, as far as utility in getting 

dollars down to make meaningful impacts on wildlife adaptation? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. You know, I am really not familiar with that, so 

I wouldn’t be, I would be out of my league to comment right now 

without doing a little homework on that. 

But in general, the conservation programs are developed and run 

more efficiently. And like most forms of government, the more local 

we get in the delivery. And so I would certainly favor that. 

But there are certainly roles for the Federal dollars, private dollars, state dollars. And there are programs where all those entities 

kind of take a lead, and do it very well. And we just need to segregate and figure out who is best at doing what. 

But on all programs, as long as we are working together, maybe 

the end outcome isn’t going to be that different where it goes. 

38 

Mr. WITTMAN. Any other panel members have a comment on how 

funding should take place under wildlife adaptation? 

[No response.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman for his questions. 

I have a couple of questions before we go into any further questions from the Members. 

For Mr. Thompson, this has to do with climate change and 

adaptive management. How will incorporating climate change projections into programs and plans enhance our ability to manage 

ocean and wildlife resources? 

Mr. THOMPSON. So, Madame Chair, I think there are two important issues here. 

The first one is the importance of immigrating what we already 

know about the likely impacts of climate change into the current 

management plans. That would suggest that we need, for example, 

a network of reserves, on both the marine side and the land side, 

that permit species to adjust over time. 

As Dr. Kareiva mentioned earlier, given the likely impact of climate change, fixed reserves that are relatively isolated will not be 

as effective as they were in the past. So, we need a broader network of reserves. 

In California, for example, under the Marine Life Protection Act, 

we are currently setting up reserves along the entire California 

coast which are immigrated, and are likely to be far more effective 

in addressing climate change. 

The second aspect, though, is in addition to taking climate 

change into account in our current plans, we also have to always 

be ready in the future to adjust our management efforts to take 

into account the new information and the surprises that will come 

along. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Thompson, a second part of the question. 

What lessons can be learned and applied at a Federal level from 

California’s Marine Life Protection Act? 

Mr. THOMPSON. So, there are several lessons that I think can be 

learned from the Marine Life Protection Act. 

The first one is the importance of having a very explicit directive 

to establish a set of marine reserves. The second is to establish a 

process for setting up those marine reserves which are effective. 

When California first started implementing its Marine Life Protection Act, for example, the agencies did not fully consult with the 

stakeholders; and as a result, it wasn’t that effective of a process. 

Today we have a process where, first of all, the state is going region by region, and looking to see what the set of marine reserves 

should look like in each of those areas. And it has set up a very 

clear process that involves a scientific advisory committee and a 

stakeholders group and a blue ribbon task force. So then, each of 

those regions help to shape what those reserves are going to look 

like. 

And then finally, there are a clear set of deadlines by which action is actually supposed to be taken. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. I also have, for Mr. Baughman, you 

recommend that the Congress take action to screen and prevent 

the introduction of invasive species. 

39 

Now, does the Sporting Conservation Council support my legislation, H.R. 669, which would address that particular gap? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. I have not read the legislation, and I know that 

counsel has not done a thorough analysis of it. But certainly the 

concepts we would support. 

And as you know, perhaps better than I do, that is a tough, 

tough challenge to, first, control the spread of those invasives 

around this planet; and then even tougher, to try to control things 

once we have them. It is just an overwhelming, overwhelming task 

with challenges that are just mind-boggling. How to address some 

of these things once they are introduced. 

But yes. Again, the devil is also in the detail. I think there is still 

some work, as there always is in Congress, to be done before a fine 

piece of legislation goes out the door. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, I suggest you read the bill, and give us 

your comments. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So noted. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. The Chair wishes to welcome Mr. 

Kildee from Michigan, who has entered. And just in time for our 

second panel. 

Are there any other questions of—gentlelady from Virgin Islands, 

do you have any other questions? 

Then I wish to thank the witnesses for being with us this morning, and would like to welcome the second panel of witnesses. 

[Pause.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. For anyone who is standing in the back of the 

room, please come forward and be seated here in the lower level 

here. There are many chairs. 

As Chairwoman, I now recognize our second panel of witnesses. 

Dr. Shirley Pomponi, Executive Director of the Harbor Branch 

Oceanographic Institute; Dr. William Jackson, Deputy Director 

General, the International Union of Conservation of Nature; Mr. 

Franklin Nutter, President of the Reinsurance Association of America; and Dr. Brian Rothschild, Montgomery Charter Professor of 

Marine Science, Professor, School of Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. 

As a reminder to the second panel of witnesses, I would note for 

all of you that the red timing light on the table will indicate when 

five minutes have passed, and your time has concluded. 

However, a reminder that your full written statement will be 

submitted for the hearing record. 

And now I would like to begin with the first witness of the second panel, Dr. Pomponi. Please begin. 

STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY A. POMPONI, Ph.D., EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE, 

FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY 

Ms. POMPONI. Good morning, Chairwoman Bordallo and 

Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Shirley Pomponi, and 

I am the Director of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at 

Florida Atlantic University. 

Today I am providing my perspective as a career oceanographer, 

Chair of the board of trustees of the Consortium for Ocean LeaderVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:13 Jul 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\47756.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
40 

ship, and Chair of the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council. 

The ocean covers two thirds of our planet. It is the driving force 

behind the climate and weather. It provides oxygen, food, recreation, and highways for commerce, and significantly contributes to 

our nation’s economic regime. 

As we have come to better appreciate the complexity of marine 

ecosystems, we have developed new approaches to ocean management that seek to balance the human uses of coastal and ocean environments, while maintaining the integrity of marine ecosystems. 

I am going to highlight five priority areas for managing our 

ocean resources. 

First, ecosystem-based management, about which we have heard 

quite a bit this morning already. This recognizes the complex interactions of the entire ecosystem, rather than just a single fishery. 

The many aspects of human interactions with the oceans are also 

taken into consideration in resource management decisions. Although not a new concept, we have not made significant progress 

toward realizing ecosystem-based management in our current regulatory regimes. 

Marine protected areas are an essential component of ecosystembased management that could provide some insurance against 

over-harvesting. 

In addition to committing to the establishment of marine protected areas, we must also ensure that there is continuing support 

for science to monitor their effectiveness. 

Second, in the ongoing debates about climate change and how to 

mitigate and adapt to its effects, the role of the ocean and the impact of climate change are often overlooked. One example is sequestration of carbon dioxide. While the processes by which the ocean 

absorbs CO2 are well understood, the impact of a more acidic ocean 

on critical ocean ecosystems like coral reefs is not known. 

I want to thank this committee for its leadership in passing the 

Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act last year. 

As the committee considers climate change and energy legislation, I ask you to include provisions for funding to support research 

and monitoring activities to better understand the effect of climate 

change on the ocean. 

Third, the ocean plays an important role in human health. 

Harmful algal blooms produce toxins that not only affect fish and 

marine mammals, but also humans who eat fish or shellfish, or 

simply visit a beach during a bloom. 

A renewed emphasis on research into the mechanisms of transmission of water-borne pathogens and toxins and the effects of climate and weather patterns on ocean and human health would provide public health officials with the tools and information that they 

need to prevent human exposure to illness, both in coastal communities and hundreds of miles inland. 

Fourth. By integrating existing ocean observing and monitoring 

systems and expanding the system to incorporate new sources of 

data, we can combine information from regional systems into one 

national integrated ocean observing system, and provide multiple 

scales of information to a variety of end users; from ship captains 

41 

to coastal resource managers, to recreational fishers and public 

health officials. 

A critical need is to expand and sustain the basic components of 

the integrated observing system, including a national commitment 

to a program of satellite observations from space, coupled with an 

investment in our academic research fleet, to support simultaneous 

in situ observations. A robust integrated ocean observing system 

will fundamentally alter our ability to understand, conserve, and 

manage our ocean resources, and will enable ocean forecasting, ecosystem-based management, and adaptive management during the 

next decade. 

Fifth. I would like to emphasize the need for continued coordination among the 25 Federal agencies that conduct or fund ocean research. A coordinated mechanism for inter-agency OMB budget reviews would ensure that inter-agency priorities are included in 

budget planning for individual agencies. A comprehensive interagency review as part of the annual budget process would help ensure that the full suite of ocean research priorities is addressed. 

In conclusion, we have drawn down our ocean assets. We now 

need to reinvest in, and recommit to, the health of our ocean planet. The oceans are finite, and cannot indefinitely withstand the 

stresses of overfishing, climate change, and pollution. 

New technologies to map, explore, and observe the ocean will enable us to achieve ecosystem-based and adaptive management, restore the health of the ocean, and indeed, our planet. 

Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of the Subcommittee, I 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you; and on behalf 

of the ocean science community, I look forward to working with you 

to provide the science to conserve our ocean planet for future generations. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pomponi follows:] 

Statement of Shirley A. Pomponi, Ph.D., Executive Director, 

Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlantic University 

Good morning Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and members of 

the Subcommittee. It is an honor to be invited to testify before this committee on 

ocean research priorities for the 111th Congress and the new administration. My 

name is Shirley Pomponi. I am the Executive Director of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at Florida Atlantic University. Today I am providing my perspective as a career oceanographer, science advisor to the U.S. Commission on Ocean 

Policy, Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Consortium for Ocean Research, and 

Chair of the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council. 

Both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Ocean Studies Board have 

provided recommendations on issues ranging from the management of fisheries and 

protected marine species, the prevention of oil and other ocean pollutants, the 

ocean’s role in climate change, and preparedness for coastal hazards such as hurricanes and tsunamis. Clearly, there is a need to improve our understanding of the 

oceans to inform decision making on these and a suite of other issues affecting society and imperiling our oceans. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share with you what we have learned about data 

needs as well as methods and tools to manage living natural resources within an 

adaptable, ecosystem-based management regime. I will highlight five areas: ecosystem-based management, climate change, oceans and human health, ocean observing, and interagency cooperation. I will underscore some recommendations from recent Ocean Studies Board reports, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Report ‘‘An 

Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century,’’ and the Ocean Research Priority Plan and 

Implementation Strategy (ORPPIS) developed by the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean 

Science and Technology (JSOST), Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the 

United States: Research Priorities for the Next Decade. The Ocean Studies Board 

42 

has prepared a set of booklets, the Ocean Science Series, which present overviews 

of key findings and recommendations from National Research Council reports on selected topics including: Oceans and Human Health, Coastal Hazards, Pollution in 

the Ocean, Marine Ecosystems and Fisheries, and Ocean Exploration (forthcoming). 

The booklets are available at: http://dels.nas.edu/osb/ocean—science—index.shtml. 

INTRODUCTION 

The ocean covers two-thirds of the planet, holds 97% of the Earth’s water, and 

97% of the biosphere. The ocean is the driving force behind climate, weather, and 

planetary chemistry; it generates more than half of the oxygen in the atmosphere; 

and it absorbs approximately one-third of the carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuel. The ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes are critical 

to our survival and the long-term vitality of the United States: they provide food, 

recreation, and highways for commerce, thereby contributing significantly to our nation’s economic engine. As an example, our commercial marine fishing industry contributed $35.1 billion to the 2006 U.S. Gross National Product. More than 40 million 

people around the world depend on fishing or fish farming for their livelihood—a 

number that has more than tripled since 1970. The vast majority of these people 

are working in developing countries, where fishing and aquaculture constitute the 

economic backbone of most coastal areas. Their efforts now bring in more than 141 

million tons of seafood per year, supplying a primary source of protein to more than 

one billion people. 

But the ocean provides more than fish—it contains a dazzling diversity of life and 

a seemingly endless bounty of marine resources. Coral reefs draw tourists to support 

growing ecotourism industries. Marine organisms are the source of thousands of 

unique chemicals with the potential to treat human diseases. Some are already 

clinically available. Coastal communities have deep cultural ties to the ocean and 

depend on it for their livelihood. 

But consider this sobering fact: despite the vastness of the ocean, it is not limitless. Ocean resources are under intense pressure to satisfy the expanding demand 

due to population growth and globalization. Globally, 75% of 441 different stocks of 

fish are fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted; invasive species have disrupted 

marine food webs; an increasing number of species are in danger of extinction as 

a result of human activities; and point and non-point pollution and marine debris 

are polluting our oceans at an alarming rate. Changes such as habitat loss and degradation are significant threats to marine life while climate change has the potential to modify entire marine ecosystems. The ocean’s ability to continue to sustain 

the multibillion dollar industries it supports is increasingly uncertain. 

As scientists have come to better appreciate the complexity of marine ecosystems, 

we have developed new approaches to ocean management that seek to balance the 

human uses of coastal and ocean environments while maintaining the integrity of 

the marine ecosystem. Scientific research on how these ecosystems function and 

react to physical, chemical and biological changes has helped inform policy decisions 

that promote the sustainable use of marine resources; however, we need sustained 

investments in research and strategic, long-term planning to ensure that future generations will have an opportunity to experience and enjoy the ocean and its many 

resources. 

ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT 

The concept of ecosystem-based management has been around for some time, yet 

we have not made significant strides toward realizing ecosystem-based management 

in our current regulatory and management regimes. In this approach, the many aspects of human interactions with the oceans—fishing, shipping, water quality, extraction and transport of oil, gas and renewable energy resources, and invasive 

species, among others—are taken into consideration as a whole in fishery management decisions. Recognizing that human activities often have rippling effects on marine ecosystems, ecosystem-based management takes a big-picture approach to using 

and conserving marine resources. 

Although fisheries management is not its only application, ecosystem-based management represents a new approach to harvesting marine resources. Rather than focusing on single species, it emphasizes fisheries management practices that take 

into account food web and multispecies interactions. Ecosystem-based management 

recognizes the complex interactions among fished species, their predators and prey, 

and other aspects of the marine environment. Two reports of the National Research 

Council—Sustaining Marine Fisheries (1999) and Dynamic Changes in Marine Ecosystems (2006)—conclude that an ecosystem-based approach would improve the 

prospects for long-term sustainability of marine fisheries. Integrating information 

about predator-prey relationships, food webs, habitats, and the effects of climate 

43 

variation, ocean circulation patterns, chemistry, seafloor terrain and fish distributions should enhance attempts to improve fisheries management. 

The National Research Council report Understanding Marine Biodiversity (1994) 

recognized that the human interactions can lead to transformations in ecosystem 

structure and function and that this transformation is manifested in changes to marine biodiversity. This report, which called for a national marine biodiversity research initiative, led to the Census of Marine Life (CoML), a global network of researchers in more than 80 nations engaged in a 10-year scientific initiative to assess 

and explain the diversity, distribution, and abundance of life in the ocean. From the 

work of CoML, we have learned that preserving natural marine biodiversity is critical to maintaining marine ecosystem functions and services, including fisheries, 

water quality, recreation, and shoreline protection. We need management systems 

that conserve marine biodiversity; doing so will increase the chance that ecosystems 

can adapt and recover following natural or human-caused disturbances. If we use 

conservation of marine biodiversity as a primary aim of ecosystem-based management, we will automatically conserve many of the myriad interconnections among 

species and their environment, we will generate a cost-effective way to coordinate 

diverse agency goals, manage trade-offs in providing ecosystem services, and ensure 

maximum ecosystem function and resilience. 

Marine protected areas are an essential component of an ecosystem-based approach to management, as indicated by the National Research Council report on 

Marine Protected Areas (2001). Marine protected areas could provide some insurance against over-harvesting, provide an effective way to assess ecosystem structure 

and functions, and protect vulnerable habitats, such as coral reefs. In addition to 

committing to the establishment of marine protected areas, we must also ensure 

that there is continuing support for science to monitor their effectiveness, which will 

allow us to refine and improve the process for identifying and conserving important 

marine habitats. 

To effectively use ecosystem-based strategies, we must improve our understanding 

of the effects of commercial and recreational fishing on marine ecosystems; in particular, we need greater knowledge of trophic effects and species interactions, indicators of ecosystem regime shifts, and baseline abundance data for non-target species 

and organisms that comprise the lower trophic levels of marine ecosystems. Only 

then can we develop accurate ecosystem models to propose alternative policy and 

management scenarios. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

In the ongoing debates about climate change and how to mitigate and adapt to 

its effects, the role of the ocean and the impact of climate change on the ocean are 

often overlooked. The National Research Council addressed this issue in several reports. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002) highlights how the ocean 

exerts a profound influence on climate through its ability to transport heat from one 

location to another and its capacity to store carbon. Because water has enormous 

heat capacity, the ocean typically stores 10-100 times more heat than equivalent 

land surfaces. Changes in ocean circulation, and especially the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic, have been implicated in abrupt climate change of the 

past. 

Today, a question of great societal relevance is whether the North Atlantic circulation, including the Gulf Stream, will remain stable under the climatic changes 

and global warming that are expected to continue for the next few centuries. It was 

predicted that as the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, the influx of fresh, cold water 

could shutdown the ocean conveyer belt that delivers warm water (and weather) to 

northern Europe. A shutdown of this circulation would not induce a new ice age, 

but it was hypothesized that it would cause major changes in climate and in the 

ocean’s circulation, upwelling and sinking regions, distribution of sea ice and sea 

level. Surprisingly, after seeing a predicted slow-down in this process, last year the 

conveyer belt strengthened, which suggests that something is happening that we 

scientists have not predicted. 

In areas of the Arctic and Antarctic, the loss of sea ice has broader implications. 

For example, as air and water temperature rose, sea ice in Alaska has declined; populations of commercially important fish, seabirds, seals, walrus, sea otters, and 

other species depend on plankton blooms that are regulated by the extent and location of sea ice in the spring. As sea ice retreats, species composition of the blooms 

changes, reducing the amount of food reaching benthic organisms which in turn feed 

other portions of the Arctic food web. Our ability to fully understand the ramification of these changes or predict their impact on protected species or commercial fisheries is sorely lacking. 

44 

The future amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide 

(CO2) and methane, will depend on the ocean’s ability to absorb these gases in openocean and coastal systems. The ocean absorbs approximately one-third of the CO2

emitted to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. However, this valuable 

service comes at a steep ecological cost—the acidification of the ocean. Charting the 

Course for Ocean Science in the United States: Research Priorities for the Next Decade, notes that a more acidic ocean will threatening a wide range of marine organisms from plankton and shellfish to massive coral reefs—further altering ecosystems and their processes. While the process by which ocean waters absorb CO2

are well understood, the level at which the ocean loses this buffering capacity is not 

well known nor are the implications for ocean food webs and commercial fisheries 

that depend on shell-forming organisms. I want to thank this committee for its foresight and leadership in passing the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act last year; this is a good first step. As the committee considers climate 

change and energy legislation, I urge you to include provisions that will provide the 

necessary funding to support research and monitoring activities to better understand the effect of climate change on the ocean. 

OCEANS AND HUMAN HEALTH 

The ocean is a source of health hazards, harboring toxins and disease-causing 

agents that can present serious threats to human health. For example, the 

phytoplankton that cause harmful algal blooms produce toxins that not only affect 

fish and marine mammals, but also humans who eat affected fish or shellfish, or 

in some cases, simply visit a beach during a bloom. To prevent disease outbreaks 

and improve public health, we need to develop more effective threat detection and 

monitoring systems, and conduct basic research to better understand of the causes 

and epidemiology of ocean-related health threats. 

Environmental changes can affect the dynamics of waterborne diseases. When 

sea-surface temperatures increase, pathogens can become more concentrated in seawater, threatening to contaminate seafood and drinking water supplies in coastal 

communities. When sea levels rise, low-lying areas can become inundated with contaminated water. Adaptive management practices can recognize these environmental clues, such as higher sea-surface temperature or a rise in sea level, and enable public health officials to take action to help prevent our citizens from being exposed to waterborne diseases. 

The ocean is also a key source of plants, animals, and microbes that are beginning 

to yield new and potent drugs for the treatment of human disease, as well as new 

products for use in biotechnology. More than 20,000 chemicals with pharmaceutical 

potential have been isolated from marine organisms since the 1980s, several of these 

are currently in the drug development pipeline, and a few are already clinically 

available. One example is Prialt—a drug developed from the venom of a fish-killing 

cone snail, and which is being used to treat chronic pain associated with diseases 

like cancer and AIDS. Another example is Yondelis—a cancer drug developed from 

a chemical discovered in sea squirts that grow on mangrove roots in Florida. 

Ocean research will enable us to develop effective ways of protecting communities 

from harmful toxins, such as those produced by harmful algal blooms, and dangerous pathogens, and to fuel discoveries of marine-derived medicines, biomedical 

research probes, and other products that improve public health and well-being. Now 

more than ever we need a renewed emphasis on research into the mechanisms of 

disease transmission and the effects of climate and weather patterns on ocean and 

human health. Only then can we equip public health systems with the tools and 

information they need to prevent human exposure to illness, both in coastal communities and hundreds of miles inland. 

OCEAN OBSERVING 

The capability to adaptively describe and forecast the state of the ocean is necessary to predict climate change and large scale phenomena such as El Nin ̃ o and 

La Nin ̃ a events, as well as local phenomena, from hurricanes and tsunamis to 

human health hazards. A report issued by the National Science and Technology 

Council Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology listed the ‘‘capability to 

forecast key ocean-influenced processes and phenomena’’ and ‘‘deploying an oceanobserving system’’ as two of its three central elements of science and technology that 

will ‘‘provide the U.S. with the knowledge and means to redefine our relationship 

with the ocean for the better’’. 

By measuring physical, biological and chemical water properties, integrated ocean 

observing systems provide the scientific data necessary to support ecosystem-based 

management and develop adaptive strategies to better manage our ocean resources. 

Models are invaluable tools that combine oceanographic data from observing sysVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:13 Jul 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47756.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
45 

tems with scientific theory to recreate past conditions, provide real-time observations and enable predictions of future impacts to the ocean. Output from models are 

used by harbor pilots to navigate vessels safely into port, to forecast the transport 

of harmful algal blooms near coastal cities, and to predict how increasing levels of 

carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will affect the acidity of the ocean. 

An Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) is a central recommendation of 

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and serves as the U.S. contribution to the 

Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). The IOOS combines information from 

many sensor types at multiple scales, from global to national to regional to local. 

By integrating and enhancing existing ocean observing and monitoring systems already in place, and expanding the system to incorporate new sources of data, we 

can aggregate information from regional systems into one national IOOS and provide multiple scales of information useful to a variety of end-users. The data need 

to be managed and relayed through an integrated communications system that allows feedback from end-users to keep the system relevant to their needs. Although 

IOOS is still in its infancy, it promises to be a powerful tool for end-users. IOOS 

end-users make decisions affecting or affected by the ocean, from ship captains to 

coastal resource managers to climate scientists, recreational fishermen, and surfers. 

A critical need is to expand and sustain components of the IOOS, in particular, 

ocean observations from space. NASA’s earth observations have improved warning, 

monitoring, and recovery support from national disasters, such as hurricanes and 

floods; they provide more timely detection of tropical storms, resulting in much improved evacuation decisions; and they improve wildfire detection and El Nin ̃ o forecasting. Satellite missions to observe sea surface height and ocean color are experimental, with no path for transition to true operational status. Declarations in the 

National Research Council’s Decadal Survey call for a renewal of the national commitment to a program of Earth observations. One key recommendation of the survey 

tasked NOAA with restoring measurements of ocean vector winds and sea-surface 

temperatures to planned Earth observing missions: the National Polar-orbiting 

Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) and the Geostationary 

Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series (GOES-R). Sustained measurements 

from Earth observing systems such as these provide the long-term record necessary 

to make sound policy decisions regarding our oceans. 

While ocean data from space are important, satellite remote sensing can only provide information a few meters deep into the ocean. It is, therefore, critical that we 

continue to invest in our academic research fleet, buoys, floats, underwater vehicles, 

and sensors to expand our ability to measure biological, chemical and physical properties, and to integrate remote sensing from space with in situ measurements in the 

ocean. A robust, integrated ocean observing system should be able to describe the 

actual state of the ocean as well as provide data to predict changes in ocean ecosystems. This information will fundamentally alter our ability to understand, conserve, and manage our ocean resources. 

Full development and sustained funding to support the operational costs of this 

ocean observing system are important: they will enable the promise of ocean forecasting, ecosystem-based management, and adaptive management during the next 

decade. 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

In 2007, the JSOST released the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy: Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States: Research 

Priorities for the Next Decade. The plan represents the first coordinated national 

research planning effort involving all federal agencies that support ocean science. 

I would like to emphasize one of the overarching recommendations from this report: 

the need for continued coordination among the federal ocean agencies. Ocean research activities are spread across the 25 federal agencies that comprise the JSOST. 

This poses a serious challenge for coordination, collaboration and integration of 

projects for implementing ocean research priorities. A central program office, similar 

to that of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP), should be established to coordinate and manage projects to serve the broader ocean sciences 

community. NOPP has been effective in facilitating interagency collaboration on a 

wide variety of topics, including ocean observing system development, and biological 

and chemical sensor development and commercialization. Under the Ocean Action 

Plan (OAP), the NOPP program office has been instrumental in ensuring the effective coordination, collaboration, and integration of the Inter-agency Working Group 

on Ocean Partnerships, the Inter-agency Working Group on Facilities, and the 

Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel as a subset of the various interagency working groups established under the OAP. 

46 

Transparency in agency budget requests to specify how funds will be used to support the interagency research priorities would ensure accountability and encourage 

participation among all federal ocean agencies. However, OMB budget reviews are 

performed largely per agency, presenting an administrative barrier to assessment 

of progress that can be more effectively accomplished through interagency coordination, such as those envisioned in the ORPPIS. A more coordinated mechanism will 

be required to ensure that the interagency priorities are included in budget planning for individual agencies. A comprehensive interagency review, as part of the annual budget process, would help ensure that the full suite of research priorities is 

addressed. Agency budget reviews should be coordinated to ensure that interagency 

priorities are included in the plans of each individual agency within the JSOST. 

CONCLUSION 

The ocean is the reason that Earth is inhabitable: it sustains all life. Yet, we have 

taken the ocean for granted, often looking to outer space and distant planets rather 

than inner space, the ocean’s depths and the vast species diversity—diversity that 

feeds a planet and holds the cures to diseases that have plagued humankind. We 

must recognize that the oceans are finite and cannot indefinitely withstand stresses 

of overfishing, climate change, and pollution. 

We have drawn down the assets of the ocean, but now more than ever we need 

to re-invest in and recommit to the health of our ocean planet. We have explored 

only five percent of the ocean and we protect only eight-tenths of one percent of it. 

We need to understand society’s impact on the ocean and the ocean’s impact on society to ensure a clean, healthy ocean. We need new technologies to map, explore, and 

observe the ocean—technologies that will enable us to achieve ecosystem-based and 

adaptive management, restore the health of the ocean and unlock its secrets. Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and members of the Subcommittee, I 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you, and on behalf of the ocean 

science community, I look forward to working with you to provide the science to conserve our ocean planet for future generations. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, thank you very much, Dr. Pomponi, 

for your testimony. And also thank you for the many dedicated 

years working to advance marine science. 

And I now recognize Dr. Jackson from the International Union 

for the Conservation of Nature to testify for five minutes. Please 

proceed. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM JACKSON, Ph.D., DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

GENERAL, IUCN-USA MULTILATERAL OFFICE 

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman and Members of 

the Subcommittee. 

Madame Chairwoman, you began your opening statement by 

talking about the financial crisis. I think this crisis has provided 

us with a very stark reminder of how the loss of assets can affect 

our livelihoods, but also undermine our capacity to make choices. 

It is shown that early warning signals often go unheeded until 

a crisis is upon us; and that when we do have a collapse, it can 

be very rapid and very far-reaching. 

I think if we compare the financial crisis with the state of our 

natural resources, we see some alarming similarities. For many 

years we have been told that our forests, our rivers, and our oceans 

are stressed, and unfortunately we tend to ignore these early warning signals. Just look at how 70 percent of the world’s fisheries are 

depleted or over-exploited. Yet in some areas, fishing industry continues to intensify their efforts, opening up new species and new 

areas. 

The IUCN red list of threatened species tells us that nearly 40 

percent of the animals and plants that we have assessed globally 

are threatened with extinction. And we know that since 1900, the 

47 

world has lost about half of its wetlands, and about 60 percent of 

coral reefs could be lost by 2030. 

Having the right information is the key to the Subcommittee; 

acting on that information, even more important. 

The consequences of ecosystem degradation have far-reaching 

impacts on human well-being. Climate change, for example, has 

global reach; but poor countries are more, or are least able to cope 

with this. This, in turn, will have a major impact on human security issues through food and water scarcity, and through ensuring 

migration. 

When fisherpeople stop fishing because there is no fish left, and 

they start using their boats to ferry refugees, you know we have 

reached another tipping point. 

Technology is critical in reversing climate change, but we must 

be careful not to put all of our eggs in the technology basket. Some 

technologies will definitely work, others won’t. Some will be economic, others won’t. 

But whether we talk about climate change mitigation or adaptation, conserving natural resources is a safety net that we should 

never lose. While climate change rightly dominates the headlines 

today, ecosystem degradation will do so tomorrow if we don’t act 

now. Economies can recover, whilst biodiversity is irreversible. 

Biodiversity can do for the planet what a healthy immune system 

can do for us as individuals. It helps us to adapt to change, but if 

it doesn’t function properly, it makes us more vulnerable. 

We have many years, and thousands of years indeed, of experience in using nature to help us to grow our food, to provide us with 

clean water and medicines, and to protect us from natural hazard. 

We know that investing in ecosystems can yield multiple benefits 

at the same time. 

For example, in a fight against climate change, restoring forest 

ecosystems, not only stores large amounts of carbon, but can directly improve the resilience of poor people’s livelihoods, and therefore reduce impacts. 

We know enough about marine ecosystems to create far more effective national and international management mechanisms to halt 

the decline and maintain resilience, so that they can have a better 

chance of coping with climate change. 

The bottom line, we need to act urgently on the existing knowledge we have, while increasing, at the same time, understanding 

of natural processes. 

What is it that you can do as lawmakers? The first answer, to 

me, is fairly obvious, and the one that fits within your Administration’s stated intentions. You can invest in knowledge, you can support research. 

This committee has a special interest in oceans. Your support for 

time-series data on fisheries, pollution, and climate variability to 

allow us to better understand the impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems is essential. We need to understand processes, such 

as acidification and interaction between oceans and the climate 

system. Research itself is not enough. 

The U.S. has traditionally shown leadership in ocean resource 

management, and I encourage you to renew that leadership role. 

This is particularly important for the Arctic. 

48 

The U.S. also needs to send strong messages into the international multi-lateral system, and particularly the U.N. Convention on the law of the sea and the upcoming climate negotiations. 

Most importantly, you can perhaps do a lot by integrating, in the 

committee’s own thinking, the idea of investing in nature as infrastructure. Perhaps that is part of your new paradigm. 

In short, we have to make biodiversity integral to every project 

in every piece of legislation you work on. The U.S. can lead by example in making these necessary interventions. The International 

Union of the Conservation of Nature stands ready to help you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:] 

Statement of Dr. William J. Jackson, Deputy Director General, 

International Union for Conservation of Nature—IUCN 

The challenge 

Conserving Nature—our life support system 

While the global economic crisis certainly warrants the political attention it is receiving, another crisis is escalating, the effects of which could far outstrip the current financial losses: the global decline of the earth’s natural capital. 

Healthy biodiversity and ecosystems are the true foundation of all economies, yet 

they are under attack by the same economic forces that ultimately depend on them. 

Economies can eventually recover, but the loss of biodiversity is irreversible and the 

impacts of ecosystem degradation are likely to undermine economic recovery. 

Biodiversity affects nearly every aspect of human well-being and development. 

Ecosystems such as forests, wetlands and river basins, if allowed to function naturally, provide streams of benefits to people. These ‘‘ecosystem services’’ include food, 

timber and medicines, regular supplies of fresh water, maintaining a healthy climate, pollinating crops, preventing soil erosion and controlling diseases. Healthy 

ecosystems minimize the impacts of extreme natural events and allow affected communities to recover more quickly. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 

study put an average price tag of US$ 33 trillion a year on these fundamental services which are largely taken for granted because they are free. That is nearly twice 

the value of the global GNP of US$18 trillion. Society as a whole—individual, households, businesses, and governments—depends on ecosystem services but has become 

so far removed from nature that most people, including policy makers, are unaware 

of this dependence. 

Biodiversity supports much of the energy systems, especially in developing countries where firewood and charcoal are by far the most important sources of energy 

used for cooking and heating. Biofuels are becoming increasingly important in providing energy security, potentially helping to address the problems of climate 

change, and providing new sources of income to poor farmers. Biodiversity also provides an effective way to store the carbon produced by burning fossil fuels. Millions 

of tons of carbon are absorbed every year by plankton, soils and forests. 

Human health depends on healthy biodiversity. More than half of our modern 

pharmaceuticals originated from wild plants or animals while medicinal plants continue to provide the main source of health care in many developing countries. In 

the U.S. alone, the turnover for drugs derived from genetic resources was between 

US$ 75 billion and US$ 150 billion in 1997. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the demand for medicinal plants is likely to increase from the current US$14 billion a year to US$5 trillion in 2050. 

Some 40% of world trade is based on biological products or processes including 

fisheries, timber and food products. The increasing dependence of many countries 

on imports of food and other biological resources underlines the important contribution biodiversity makes to economies. 

Biodiversity is linked to national security. Conflicts over water, fisheries and 

other shared resources are increasing in many parts of the world and natural resources help feed some conflicts. Civil conflicts are being fought in tropical forests 

and illegal harvesting of timber and other natural resources provides income that 

enables insurgent groups to purchase arms or corrupt governments to finance repression. Better resource management can contribute to peaceful relationships 

among nations. The massive movement of people competing for shrinking natural 

resources in the face of climate change will further destabilize fragile States. 

49 

How many warnings are needed? 

Despite the growing knowledge of how nature provides societies’ life support systems, environmental degradation is rampant. The world is not reacting to the alarm 

bells that have been ringing with ever greater urgency for many years. 

Almost 40% of the world’s species assessed through the IUCN Red List are threatened with extinction; 70% of the world’s fisheries are depleted or over-exploited and 

still, fishing industries intensify their efforts, plundering new species and new 

areas. The collapse of the cod fishery in Canada is a stark reminder of the impacts 

of unsustainable harvest on people and economies. The first sale value of marine 

fisheries was globally valued at US$ 70 billion in 2002, while local scale fishing provides a critical source of protein for the poor. 

Nearly every aspect of human development is unsustainable. Demand for fresh 

water exceeds supply in more and more countries, leading in some cases to conflict 

over dwindling resources. Through burgeoning levels of waste and industrial pollution, air and water quality continues to decrease, even if the problem may seem far 

away from Washington, as the ‘‘workshop of the world’’ has moved to East Asia. 

Consumption increases but the world seems unwilling to recognize, let alone to invest, in maintaining natural capital. 

Climate change is altering weather patterns and contributing to the increasing 

frequency and strength of extreme weather events. What was the impact of hurricane Katrina on the U.S. economy? What was the cost of reconstruction associated 

with the massive fires in California last summer? What will be the cost of losing 

cultural heritage from inundation of Pacific islands? What will be the cost of technology to try to maintain liveable conditions as temperate areas become hotter? 

In their bid to stimulate economic recovery and create new employment, governments around the world are using public financial resources to invest in infrastructure such as roads and airports. In many cases, these investments could further 

damage the environment. Infrastructure spending should address issues of waste 

and energy efficiency and the potential impacts on ecosystems. 

Nature can be viewed as a ’trust fund’. There is a choice to spend it all now, use 

the current stock sustainably (at its current rate of return) or increase future opportunities through investment. There is no ‘‘natural reserve bank’’ or ‘‘natural treasury’’ which will bail the world out of the environmental debt crisis. The necessary 

actions will not be easy or quick, but the longer we wait, the harder it will be to 

climb out. As Sir Nicholas Stern has shown with respect to climate change, every 

year that serious action is postponed results in more unavoidable damage and increased costs of adaptation. 

The opportunity 

The current economic meltdown can become a catalyst for a new and very real, 

green economy. It offers an unprecedented opportunity to rethink the global economic model. The U.S., with a renewed commitment and energy to make its contribution once again towards a better world, is ideally placed to lead by example, 

in putting environmental restoration at the heart of economic recovery and biodiversity conservation at the forefront of efforts to halt climate change. 

Many governments still worry that if they set tough standards to control carbon 

emissions, their industry and agriculture will become uncompetitive, a fear that 

leads to a foot-dragging ‘‘you go first’’ attitude that is blocking progress. A positive 

intervention by the U.S. could provide the vital impetus that moves the current climate negotiations beyond the national interests which lie at the heart of the current 

impasse. The logjam should not be difficult to break if the U.S. helps industrialized 

countries agree on the principle of equitable entitlement to the planet’s common resources. Caps on emissions and sharing of energy-efficient technologies are in everyone’s interests, rich and poor. 

U.S. corporations have invented remarkable products that have been the source 

of material well-being for hundreds of millions around the world, but for too long 

have used unsustainable production systems. Methods of production and consumption must change, but that does not mean going back to the Stone Age. An average 

citizen of Switzerland, whose per capita GDP is higher than that of the U.S., emits 

one third of the CO2 of an American. And in other societies and cultures, a full and 

happy life can be had for one third of what the Swiss consume. 

Climate change, which is triggering environmental, social and economic disruptions, should be elevated as a top priority. But conservation of biodiversity needs 

just as much attention, and just as urgently. The U.S. interests in conserving its 

natural resources and achieving energy independence, clearly align with the global 

common good in every sphere: in the oceans, by halting the rapid decline of fish 

stocks and increasing acidification; on land, by regenerating the health of our soils, 

50 

forests and rivers; and in the atmosphere by reducing the massive emission of pollutants from our wasteful industries, construction, agriculture and transport. 

Conservation of nature and natural resources is often perceived as an obstacle to 

development when in reality, conserving forests, watersheds and coastlines can 

bring enormous savings to national governments. Investing in green infrastructure 

secures the continuous flow of ecosystem services and is far cheaper than traditional 

‘‘built infrastructure’’ such as flood barriers and water filtration plants. 

Green infrastructure = green jobs 

The concept of green infrastructure, which originated in the U.S., highlights the 

importance of the natural environment in decisions about land use and emphasizes 

the ‘‘life support’’ functions provided by the natural environment. Examples include 

clean water and healthy soils, functions such as recreation and providing shade and 

shelter in and around urban areas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) has extended the concept to the management of storm water runoff at the 

local level through the use of natural systems or engineered systems that mimic 

natural systems. At a larger scale, the preservation and restoration of ecosystems 

such as forests, floodplains and wetlands are critical components of green storm 

water infrastructure. 

Millions of new jobs could be created by ‘‘greening’’ development. Last week, the 

German government announced that strong growth in Germany’s renewable energy 

sector along with increased state spending for environment protection could help 

shorten the country’s worst post-war recession. The number of jobs in renewable energies will triple by 2020 and hit 900,000 by 2030. 

Putting nature at the centre of the fight against climate change 

For several years, the world has been investing in technology and engineering to 

fight climate change. Technology is a vitally important part of efforts to tackle climate change, but we must be careful not to put all of our eggs in a ‘‘techno-fix’’ basket. Some technologies will work; others won’t; others will be economically unviable. 

And yet, whether for mitigation or adaptation measures to climate change, conserving nature is the safety net we should never lose. 

A well managed reef in the Indian Ocean or the Caribbean will be more resistant 

to rising temperatures and will help to keep fisheries healthy. The key role played 

by forests and other ecosystems like peatlands in absorbing CO2 and therefore, in 

reducing emissions is well known. Greater support should therefore be given to the 

REDD protocol (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) being put 

in place through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC) and a financial mechanism in which conserving biodiversity allows countries to reduce their emissions. Properly applied, initiatives like REDD can produce 

better managed forests that deliver goods for people. A well-managed forest in 

Ghana brings benefits to the people living in the area, but it also helps to regulate 

the climate for the rest of the planet. This type of approach makes sense from both 

a development perspective and an environmental one. 

The U.S. has a clear role to play in promoting international cooperation to achieve 

conservation goals. It is one of only five countries that has not ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). IUCN recommends that the U.S. ratifies the 

CBD, possibly as part of a package of widely-accepted treaties such as the United 

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Migratory 

Species. 

IUCN also wishes to see an increased U.S. Federal role in conserving biodiversity 

and maintaining or increasing the ability of ecosystems to mitigate and adapt to climate change. IUCN urges the U.S. to strengthen its environmental policies and 

practices by fully implementing and enforcing existing laws such as the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act and the Endangered Species Act. 

The way forward 

The knowledge and the tools are at our disposal to restore the global environment 

and create a world that uses its natural resources sustainably. There are still some 

gaps in knowledge that must be filled but the problems are identified and so are 

the solutions. 

The first step is to acknowledge the magnitude of our ecological debts. Clear 

standards and accounting rules are needed for measuring and reporting the depreciation of natural capital, at all levels from individual businesses to entire countries. 

Recent advances in technology, including remote sensing and internet connectivity, 

make this kind of measurement and reporting easier than ever before. 

The next steps will be harder. In short, there is a need to rebuild our natural capital stocks. This will require wide-ranging reform of public policy, starting with reVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:13 Jul 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47756.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
51 

ductions in ‘‘perverse’’ subsidies, such as the US$ 300 billion per year that the 

world’s governments hand out to the petroleum industry. Subsidies to agriculture, 

forestry, mining, road-building also need to be reformed to create clear economic 

mechanisms that reward nature conservation and penalize environmental destruction. 

Conserving biodiversity and ecosystems must be done by addressing the underlying forces that are eroding them, particularly development and consumption. For 

conservation to be successful, a flexible approach is needed, diagnosing first and 

adapting specific solutions in changing contexts. Policy makers at all levels must 

better integrate sound science and demonstrated practice into their decisions. 

Years of experience ‘‘on the ground’’ have shown us the need to root conservation 

at the local level. It is only by working with communities, by giving them the knowledge and empowering them to use the tools available to them, that any conservation 

work will be possible. Influencing governance arrangements simultaneously from 

the local to global level is key to effecting wider change and building public support 

for environmental protection. 

Harnessing the power of the private sector 

Businesses and consumers must start to pay the real economic value for ecosystem goods and services. Following the UK-led Review of the Economics of Climate Change, IUCN is working with its partners on The Economics of Ecosystems 

and Biodiversity study which will provide tools for the true value of nature’s services to be accounted for in decision making and integrated into national economic 

measures. 

The priority should be to engage the business sectors in which change is most important and urgent, due to the scale of their negative impacts on the environment 

and social equity. These include ‘‘large footprint’’ industries such as mining, oil and 

gas, construction, automobile and energy which have a large impact on biodiversity 

through their operations. On the other hand, biodiversity-dependent industries such 

as agriculture, fisheries, forestry, food retailing and aquaculture must all be encouraged to reduce their negative impacts. 

Given the vast amounts of capital that financial services, banks, and insurance 

companies control, the leveraging potential for projects that conserve rather than 

damage biodiversity is enormous. The development of green enterprises whose activities generate conservation benefits should be encouraged. These include renewable energy, sustainable and organic agriculture, nature-based tourism and ethical 

trade. 

The business case for conserving nature is strong and getting stronger. A recent 

report published by IUCN and Shell International Limited calls for policy reforms 

to increase the commercial rewards for conserving biodiversity, increased penalties 

for biodiversity loss and better information on the biodiversity performance of business. A key challenge facing all businesses wanting to become more sustainable in 

their practices is the lack of accepted indicators to measure positive and negative 

contributions to biodiversity conservation. Markets for organic agriculture and 

sustainably-harvested timber are growing at double-digit rates. Another major area 

of growth is the demand for climate mitigation services such as the protection of 

forests and wetlands to absorb carbon dioxide. Bioprospecting—the search for new 

compounds, genes and organisms in the wild—is also a biodiversity business on the 

rise. 

Paying a true price 

Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes reward those whose land provides 

these services with subsidies or market payments from those who benefit from 

them. It is an innovative approach to sustainable financing for conservation and 

highlights the critical importance of natural capital to the global economy. 

In the U.S., companies or individuals can buy environmental credits from Wetland 

Mitigation Banks to pay for degradation of wetland ecosystems due to agriculture 

or development activities. More than 400 banks had been approved by September 

2005, almost three quarters of them sponsored by private entities, while in 2006 the 

trade of wetland bank credits reached US$ 350 million. 

In France, the Vittel mineral water company (Nestle ́ Waters) was concerned about 

nitrate contamination caused by agricultural intensification so it began to pay farmers within its catchment to make their practices more sustainable. A key element 

of success was that Vittel gained the farmers’ trust and maintained their income 

levels by providing them with sufficiently large payments. It also financed any required technological changes, meaning that farmers were not out of pocket. The 

company worked with farmers to identify suitable alternative practices and 

mutually-acceptable incentives. 

52 

The tools for environmental management are increasingly sophisticated and do 

not require massive increases in public spending. Market-based approaches such as 

tradable permits for sulphur dioxide, wetland mitigation banking, feed-in tariffs for 

renewable energy, waste deposit schemes and resource user fees, have shown that 

businesses will reduce their ecological footprint and invest in environmental protection, if the right incentives are put in place. 

Leading the way in restoring our oceans 

The oceans drive weather patterns, generate 70% of atmospheric oxygen, absorb 

most of the planet’s carbon dioxide, are the ultimate reservoir for replenishment of 

fresh water to land and contain a wealth of biodiversity that keeps the earth’s ecosystem services functioning. Marine ecosystems such as wetlands, coral reefs, 

mangroves and sea grass beds provide food and livelihood for millions of people and 

can protect communities from extreme weather events. 

However as with the terrestrial environment, our oceans face a barrage of threats, 

one of the biggest being over-exploitation of marine resources. Oil spills, agricultural 

run-off, harmful chemical and medical substances and plastic debris are just part 

of a long list of pollutants generated by modern society that end up in the sea. 

The U.S. has the largest ocean area under its jurisdiction of any country and has 

traditionally been a leader in global ocean diplomacy. It now has the opportunity 

to renew its stewardship of ocean resources and resume its leadership in international marine affairs. 

Marine ecosystems often extend across political or jurisdictional boundaries. It 

therefore follows that they must be managed using a broader framework. For larger 

systems, for example at the level of a sea or significant portion of it, such agreements might take the form of ‘‘regional ocean management agreements.’’ Smaller 

spaces might require agreement among States or provinces, such as the case of 

Chesapeake Bay. 

The goal of applying the ecosystem approach to marine management by 2010 is 

incorporated in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on 

Sustainable Development, adopted in 2002. Establishing this goal represented a culmination of global thinking developed in various international processes including 

the UN Food and Agricultural Guidelines on Marine Ecosystems and extensive work 

by the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Governments 

have collectively recognized the need to consider the full range of activities and processes affecting marine ecosystems in making decisions about the nature and extent 

of human activities. 

Achievement of this goal is not an easy task. Progress, however, has been steady 

and widespread. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) members and the Arctic 

Council have taken important collective steps. The Global Environment Facility, the 

World Bank, participating countries and other donors are funding 16 large marine 

ecosystem projects in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe at a multiyear level of US$1.8 billion. In the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has adopted ecosystem-based management as one of its principal strategic goals. 

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are an important tool in implementing the ecosystem approach. When effectively designed and managed these areas can deliver 

many ecological and socio-economic benefits as well as build the resilience of marine 

ecosystems in the face of increasing global pressures such as climate change. 

Improved coordination and implementation of land-based pollution programs, in 

alignment with other sectoral policies, and oil spill prevention measures are required to avoid nutrient overload and hazardous impacts. We need to improve fisheries management if we are to sustain healthy fish stocks and economically-viable 

fishing industries. Destructive fishing practices must be eliminated and bycatch 

drastically reduced. The development, strengthening and implementation of international and national policies are also needed to address declines in vulnerable and 

declining marine species. 

Despite the role of the oceans and coasts play in supporting our economic wellbeing, they remain poorly understood. Core funding for ocean science and research 

is necessary to expand our knowledge and allow us to continually adapt our management strategies for maximum effectiveness. Traditional approaches to coastal 

and marine management should be re-assessed and vulnerability studies need to 

consider new demands on marine ecosystems and their productivity. 

In the last few years, the importance of marine biological resources that exist beyond the limits of national jurisdiction—the high seas—as well as on the threats 

to these important resources have increasingly been highlighted. There is a need to 

capitalize on this growing awareness and find ways to reduce the multiple threats 

to marine biodiversity in these areas in ways that are consistent with international 

53 

law. Broadest possible participation in the United Nations Convention on the Law 

of the Sea would ease this process. 

Working together 

There are many other important steps needed to boost biodiversity conservation 

at the international level. There is a need to make all data on biodiversity and ecosystems easily accessible to all who need it, including industry. This means solving 

data proprietary issues. All relevant institutions need to be encouraged to share 

their data, even though they may have invested significant resources in compiling 

the information. A sustainable, self-financing, business model for open access needs 

to be developed and implemented. Financial support must be provided to developing 

countries, which arguably have the greatest need for access to biodiversity data. 

The world is looking to the U.S. with great expectations in relation to the environment. Of course, one nation alone cannot change the world but it can have an enormous influence. Much is possible, but only by mustering the political will at all levels to face and confront environmental challenges. The environmental community is 

heartened by the positive steps taken in the early days of the new U.S. Administration, particularly towards putting science at the foundation of policy development 

and natural resource management. IUCN, like other science-based conservation organizations, stands ready to help the U.S. and other nations achieve the ambitious 

but achievable goal of global sustainability. 

IUCN—International Union for Conservation of Nature 

1,000 organizations and 10,000 experts solving our planet’s greatest 

challenges 

In addition to the U.S. State Department, IUCN has six U.S. government agency 

members including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Working on behalf of more than 1,000 member organizations, both government and non governmental, IUCN is a unique environmental democracy operating at all levels from the 

villages of Central Africa to the United Nations’ General Assembly. By mobilizing 

knowledge and expertise from all regions of the world, IUCN’s powerful machinery 

is best able to convert policy into practice, allowing key decisions at higher levels 

to be informed by field information and expertise, and in turn, applying policy lessons at the ground level. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Dr. Jackson. And I am very encouraged by your testimony, and congratulate your organization for developing important products that deliver critical data to decision 

makers on the ground. 

And now I would like to recognize Mr. Nutter. It is a pleasure 

to welcome you this morning, and you can proceed. 

STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN W. NUTTER, PRESIDENT, 

REINSURANCE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. NUTTER. Thank you very much, Madame Chair. It is a pleasure to be here before the committee today and offer our perspective 

on managing risk by promoting the conservation of our natural resources, and through risk mitigation efforts along our densely populated coastlines. 

In simple terms, reinsurance is the insurance of insurance companies. One of its primary functions is to provide transfer for insurers for major natural catastrophe risk. 

For example, in 2005, with Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, 

nearly 61 percent of all the insured losses paid by the insurance 

industry were transferred to the reinsurance market. 

The insurance industry’s financial interest is interdependent 

with climate and weather. It is the risk of natural events that 

drives the demand for insurance coverages; yet, if not properly 

managed, can threaten the financial health of an insurer if it is 

over-exposed in high-risk areas. 

54 

As has been mentioned by several witnesses, the insured property along our coastlines has risen dramatically. One study estimated that it has nearly doubled every decade. And at the end of 

2007, our estimates are that the privately insured property values 

along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts totaled nearly $9 trillion. And 

of course, economic losses associated with natural catastrophes has 

risen dramatically. 

With 30 percent of the U.S. population living in coastal counties 

that are exposed to extreme events, global climate change will only 

increase this exposure and potential losses. 

Congress should help people living in hurricane-prone coastal 

areas to take proactive mitigation steps to protect their property, 

rather than encourage further development in these high-risk environmentally sensitive locales, by creating taxpayer-funded programs to subsidize insurance. 

Our organization has partnered with other diverse interest 

groups to create the Americans for Smart Natural Catastrophe Policy to promote environmentally responsible, fiscally sound approaches to natural catastrophe policy, in the interest of public 

safety. I have listed a number of our partners in this, including the 

National Wildlife Federation, American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, Republicans for Environmental Protection, the Sierra Club, and, most recently, the Nature Conservancy 

as part of that coalition. 

And it stands for the following principles: that we should build 

smart, according to the most modern building standards and codes 

reflecting exposure to natural catastrophe disasters and cost-effective loss-reduction measures; promote risk avoidance and proactive 

mitigation measures; protect both the public and ecosystems that 

provide natural buffers to storms, renewed efforts should be made 

to preserve coastal areas consistent with effective state and Federal 

laws; and also to provide, to ensure, based upon risk, private and 

public property, insurance should be established based upon risk 

exposure. 

While our coalition members have different priorities, we all 

agree that certain actions being considered by Congress may have 

a detrimental impact on oceans, coastal systems, and wildlife. Our 

coalition opposed proposals to expand the National Flood Insurance 

Program to include wind-power coverage, largely because it would 

overwhelm a program that is already $18 billion in debt, and encourage further development in unsafe or environmentally sensitive 

areas. 

There are many steps that we can take to mitigate losses and 

protect our oceans, coastal and wildlife resources. Among them include incorporating climate change and risk assessment and risk 

mitigation that is translated to local levels, particularly for the 

mapping of flood, shoreline, and inundation areas. 

We should require risk-based land-use planning and the integration of natural hazards into land-use planning. We should design 

infrastructure to consider natural hazards and climate change. 

Our organization is also part of a building code coalition whose 

goal is to enact legislation to amend the Stafford Act, by encouraging states to adopt nationally recognized model building codes for 

residential and commercial structures. 

55 

During this year’s consideration of the economic stimulus package, our coalition supported an increase in funding to FEMA’s predisaster-mitigation program to provide funds to states for community-based hazard-mitigation activities. We also advocated for efforts to ensure that infrastructure projects funded through Federal 

appropriations consider and incorporate measures to reduce the 

risk of potential impacts of natural disasters. 

Our coalition supports the Coastal Barrier Resources System, 

which prevents structures proposed for construction in undeveloped 

environmentally pristine areas from purchasing Federal flood insurance. The Coastal Zone Management Act could provide a tool, 

essentially a climate adaptation tool, to ensure states are planning 

for potential risks posed by the impacts of climate change. 

If blended with state mitigation plans already required by the 

Stafford Act and approved by FEMA, the combination provides 

states with the planning tools they need to develop and implement 

a climate adaptation policy. 

Last, I would like to commend the committee for recognizing the 

importance of risk mitigation to conservation of our ocean, coastal 

ecosystems, and wildlife resources in an increasingly dynamic and 

unpredictable environment. Clearly, all stakeholders must work together to make sure that we have environmentally sound and fiscally responsible policy that will ultimately reduce costs borne by 

the Federal and state governments, insurers, and American taxpayers. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nutter follows:] 

Statement of Franklin W. Nutter, President, 

Reinsurance Association of America 

My name is Frank Nutter and I am President of the Reinsurance Association of 

America (RAA). The RAA is a national trade association of property and casualty 

reinsurers doing business in the U.S. Its membership is diverse, and includes reinsurance underwriters and intermediaries licensed in the U.S. and those that conduct 

business on a cross-border basis. It is a pleasure to appear before you today at this 

hearing on ‘‘Managing Ocean and Wildlife Resources in a Dynamic Environment.’’ 

In particular, I will address the reinsurance perspective on managing risk by promoting the conservation of our natural resources and through risk mitigation efforts 

along our densely populated coastlines. 

U.S. Reinsurance Market’s Interest in Oceans and Wildlife Resources 

First, let me provide a brief background on reinsurance. In simple terms, reinsurance is insurance for insurance companies. Reinsurance is critical to the insurance 

marketplace because it reduces the volatility experienced by insurers and improves 

insurers’ financial performance and security. It is widely recognized that reinsurance performs at least four primary functions in the marketplace: to limit liability 

on specific risks; to stabilize loss experience; to provide transfer for insurers of 

major natural and man-made catastrophe risk; and to increase insurance capacity. 

I cannot emphasize enough the important role that reinsurance plays in the insurance marketplace. Reinsurers have assisted in the recovery from every major U.S. 

catastrophe over the past century. By way of example, 60% of the losses related to 

the events of September 11 were absorbed by the global reinsurance industry and 

61% of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005 were ultimately borne by 

reinsurers. 

Reinsurers have a keen interest in managing risk as a means to reduce economic 

loss. The insurance industry’s financial interest is inter-dependent with climate and 

weather. It is the risk of natural events that drives the demand for insurance coverage, yet if not properly managed, can threaten the financial health of an insurer 

if it is over-exposed in high risk areas. An insurance company’s financial viability 

rests on its ability to estimate the economic consequences of future events. 

56 

1Data from Munich Reinsurance Company 

2 2 The Wharton School 

Increasing Exposure to our Nation’s Coastlines and Wildlife Resources 

According to AIR Worldwide, a catastrophe modeling firm, insured property values along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts have doubled every decade. At year-end 2007, 

Gulf and Atlantic coast insured property values equaled $9 trillion. Globally, the 

economic losses due to extreme weather have also risen dramatically over time: 

1950-59—$53B; 1906-69—$93B; 1970-79—$162B; 1980-89—$263B; 1990-99—$778B; 

2000-2008—$620B. 1 Interestingly, between 1970 and 2004, storms and floods accounted for 90% of those losses. In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma resulted in $87B in insured losses and an additional $20B of losses due to flood that 

were ultimately covered by the National Flood Insurance Program. Since 2001, nine 

out of the top 20 costliest natural disasters have occurred in the U.S. 

There are two principal socio-economic factors driving these increased losses—the 

degree of urbanization and value at risk (i.e., higher property values in higher risk 

areas). 2 With 30% of the U.S. population living in coastal counties that are exposed 

to extreme events—such as hurricanes and storm surge—global climate change will 

only increase this exposure and potential losses because of its affects on the intensity and frequency of extreme atmospheric events and storm surge. According to Dr. 

Dennis Miletti, author of ‘‘Disasters by Design,’’ ‘‘we are putting more property of 

greater value in harms way.’’ 

Mitigation Works to Save our Coastlines and Wildlife 

Congress should help people living in hurricane-prone coastal areas take proactive 

mitigation steps to protect their property, rather than encourage further development in these high-risk, environmentally-sensitive locales by creating taxpayerfunded programs to subsidize homeowners’ insurance. The RAA has partnered with 

other diverse interest groups to create the Americans for Smart Natural Catastrophe Policy Coalition to promote environmentally-responsible, fiscally-sound approaches to natural catastrophe policy in the interest of public safety. Our environmental allies and coalition partners are particularly interested in protecting our 

oceans, coastal ecosystems, and wildlife. They include American Rivers, Defenders 

of Wildlife, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife 

Federation, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers, American Consumer Institute, Americans for Prosperity, 

Competitive Enterprise Institute, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, 

and the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents. The Coalition’s guiding principles are as follows: 

Principles for Natural Disaster Mitigation and Assistance 

• Build Smart: Properties in coastal areas and other high-hazard areas should be 

built, replaced or repaired according to the most modern building standards and 

codes reflecting exposure to natural disasters and effective loss-reduction measures. Based on the continuing scientific assessment of the effects and consequences of a changing climate, property and infrastructure development in 

coastal and other high-hazard areas have placed people in harm’s way and 

property at significant risk of loss from natural catastrophic events. 

• Encourage Safety: Government incentives should promote risk-avoidance and 

proactive mitigation measures to protect the public from a broad range of natural disasters, including wind, flood, wildfires and earthquakes. 

• Use Nature: To protect both the public and ecosystems that provide natural 

‘‘buffers’’ to storms, renewed efforts should be made to preserve coastal areas 

consistent with effective state and federal laws, using uniform, objective standards. 

• Insure Based On Risk: Private and public property insurance premiums should 

be established on the basis of risk exposure, including catastrophic risk, subject 

to state law that risk premiums should be neither excessive nor inadequate. 

• Assume Responsibility: Responsibility for state insurance and reinsurance programs that pool natural disaster risks should remain with those states which 

have established such programs, rather than shifting the financing to the federal government through such means as federal loans or reinsurance. 

• Target Government Assistance: Programs should focus on people and not on insurance companies: 

Æ Extend tax credits, loans and grants for measures designed to protect the 

property from natural disasters—rather than for programs designed to support artificially low insurance rates. 

57 

Æ Provide means-based assistance, focused on low and fixed income residents— 

rather than wealthy individuals with expensive beach front or vacation 

homes. 

Æ Discourage development in coastal areas and other high-risk areas—federal 

assistance should not subsidize new property development in coastal areas 

vulnerable to catastrophic storms, or other high-risk areas. 

While Coalition members have differing priorities, we all agree that certain actions being considered by Congress will have a detrimental impact on oceans, coastal ecosystems, and wildlife. During the last Congress, proposals to expand the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to include wind damage were considered in 

both the House and Senate. We believe adding wind as a covered peril would: 

1. Overwhelm the NFIP. The program already has an $18 billion deficit and is 

struggling to resolve flood claims, manage fraud arising from Hurricane 

Katrina payouts, and prevent insolvency. Adding wind insurance will distract 

from the program’s mission and substantially undermine efforts to stabilize the 

program. 

2. Encourage further development in unsafe or environmentally sensitive areas. 

Supporting wind insurance that encourages unwise construction in high risk 

areas sends the wrong message to communities regarding the environmental 

impact and danger of living in hazard-prone coastal areas and floodplains— 

areas that may be increasingly vulnerable given the potential impacts of climate change. 

3. Cost taxpayers billions. Experience with the NFIP shows, and the American 

Academy of Actuaries confirms, that adding federally-backed wind insurance 

will not be actuarially sound despite language the contrary. Taxpayers nationwide will be left to pay the cost of wind damage, which would more than triple 

the government’s exposure under NFIP. 

4. Discourage the provision of wind insurance by the private market. 

Similar problems apply to the creation of new federal natural catastrophe programs that would require the federal government to provide loans intended to bail 

out state natural disaster catastrophe funds or require the federal government to 

provide government reinsurance for a state’s property and casualty insurance program. 

Positive Steps to Protect Our Coastlines and Wildlife 

There are many steps we can take to mitigate losses and protect our ocean, coastal and wildlife resources. Among them: 

1. Incorporating climate change in risk assessments and risk mitigation. The scientific community should be encouraged to translate the localized impacts of 

climate change for planning purposes—flood, shoreline and inundation maps 

should reflect local climate change impact assessment, including scenario assessments. 

2. Requiring risk-based land use planning. This would include the integration of 

natural hazards into land use planning with goal of protecting development 

and wildlife from extreme weather and erosion. 

3. Designing infrastructure to consider natural hazards and climate change. 

4. Strengthening ecosystems as part of risk mitigation strategies. Coastal wetlands, barrier islands and natural coastal vegetation serve as buffers from 

ocean-driven extreme events. Make them part of an adaptation strategy. 

5. Insisting that insurance for properties in coastal zones be risk-based as a 

means to set more appropriate risk-based costs for building in environmentally 

sensitive or high risk areas, such as along our nation’s coastlines. 

Additional Considerations 

The RAA is also part of the Building Code Coalition whose goal is to enact legislation to amend the Stafford Act. This legislation would enhance existing mitigation 

programs by encouraging states to adopt nationally-recognized model building codes 

for residential and commercial structures. With billions of dollars paid by the federal government and the private sector for disaster relief and rebuilding of communities, legislation that would enhance FEMA’s ability to ‘‘prepare for, prevent, respond to and recover from disasters’’ is critically important. 

There are several other statutes that are not traditional areas of expertise of the 

insurance industry where there may be opportunities to adopt legislative changes 

and move them closer to implementation. For example, during this year’s consideration of the economic stimulus package, many members of our Coalition supported 

an increase in funding to FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program. This program provides funds to states for community-based hazard mitigation activities 

identified in a State Mitigation Plan such as increasing building elevations, floodVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:13 Jul 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47756.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
58 

proofing, improving the survivability of existing and new buildings, and relocating 

willing sellers from natural disaster prone areas. In addition, we advocated for an 

effort to ensure that infrastructure projects funded through federal appropriations 

consider, and incorporate measures to reduce, the risks of the potential impacts of 

natural disasters, such as windstorms and floods, particularly in light of the anticipated effects of global climate change. Our Coalition also supported a tax credit proposal that would have provided homeowners with a credit of up to $1500 for actions 

taken to make their homes more structurally sound to protect them against risks 

posed by natural disasters. 

Hazard mitigation programs are well-established as a cost-effective means to reduce the impact of natural disasters. For example, in 2007, the Congressional Budget Office found that projects funded through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program 

between 2004 and June 2007 resulted in a reduction of future disaster spending of 

approximately three dollars for every dollar spent on these projects. Similarly, in 

2005, a Congressionally-mandated study by the Multihazard Mitigation Council (an 

advisory body of the National Institute of Building Sciences) concluded that cost-effective mitigation saves an average of four dollars for every dollar spent. 

Land-use planning, largely the purview of local governments, is also key to reducing development in environmentally-sensitive, high-risk coastal areas. Our Coalition 

supports the Coastal Barrier Resources System which prevents structures proposed 

for construction in undeveloped, environmentally-pristine areas from purchasing 

federal flood insurance. The Coastal Zone Management Act could provide a tool— 

essentially a climate adaptation tool—to ensure states are planning for the potential 

risks posed by the impacts of climate change. If blended with the State Hazard Mitigation Plans already required by the Stafford Act and approved by FEMA, the combination provides states with the planning tools they need to develop and implement 

a climate adaptation plan. 

Conclusion 

I would like to commend the Committee for recognizing the importance of risk 

management to the conservation of our ocean, coastal ecosystems, and wildlife resources in an increasingly dynamic and unpredictable environment. Clearly all 

stakeholders must work together to ensure environmentally-sound and fiscally responsible policy that will ultimately reduce the costs borne by federal and state governments, insurers/reinsurers, and the American taxpayers, as well as save lives, 

protect habitats, and ensure our coastal areas thrive for generations to come. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Nutter. I will now recognize Dr. Rothschild to testify. Please begin. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN ROTHSCHILD, Ph.D., MONTGOMERY 

CHARTER PROFESSOR OF MARINE SCIENCE, SCHOOL FOR 

MARINE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. ROTHSCHILD. Thank you, Madame Chairman, committee. I 

have been asked to address information products, services, and 

tools to address conservation, and to protect and conserve the 

ocean. 

In the early 1900s, conservation was a concept. At the time many 

people thought our natural resources were unlimited. This suppressed actions that would have prevented irreversible effects of 

human activity that we see today. 

Clearly, the global human population explosion, consequent saturation of the atmosphere and ocean with pollutants, and mismanagement of resources, places conservation beyond a mere concept. Conservation is now an imperative. 

The conservation imperative requires action. This is easy to say, 

but difficult to implement. 

The difficulty arises from the fact that we do not have the budget 

resources to address the total array of conservation problems. As 

59 

a result, we have to focus on the problems that are most critical. 

We have to ask the right questions. It is not so easy to conduct the 

concrete analysis required to identify the most critical questions. 

We have to produce the concrete quantitative analysis necessary 

to ensure that we are making the best program investments. 

Let us take an example from fisheries. The Magnuson-Stevens 

Act has a number of goals. One is to eliminate overfishing; two is 

to fully utilize optimal yield; and three is to take account of economic and social fabric of fishing communities. 

To take these goals seriously and efficiently balance them, we 

need to fill in serious and material shortfalls in our information 

base. For example, standard fishing conservation management 

practices only account for being able to manage one species at a 

time. We don’t have the techniques to manage the interaction between two species, let alone a whole ecosystem. 

The techniques do not account for changes in physical environment. Something as simple as water temperature is not accommodated in fishery management. 

Fishery management techniques do not presently account for ecosystems, and, as a consequence, can’t really deal with issues of climate change. The fishery management techniques that are used 

don’t take into account economics even, and sociology, even though 

these are well-known components of fishing. 

And finally, there is not an end-to-end systems engineering approach to ensuring coordinated and coherent cost-effective management of the entire process. 

In my view, we need a three-year effort to retool fishery management. The effort would be initiated with the creation of three centers that focus on our greatest shortfalls in science, engineering, 

and technology. 

The first center would be a national center for ocean ecosystem 

research, which would focus, organize, and program an in-depth 

understanding of ocean ecosystems, particularly as they relate to 

fisheries and the waste-sink capacity of the ocean in an environment that is changing because of the climate. 

The second national center for fishery management systems 

would develop a systems engineering approach to fishery management, including the end-to-end balancing of data acquisition, control rules for management, and dissemination of information to 

managers, legislators, and the fishermen. 

And finally, a national center for fishing engineering would focus 

on the green issues of improving the efficiency of fishing gear, separating good fish from bad fish, big fish from little fish, reducing bycatch, and improving fuel utilization, and less influence of bottomtending gear on the bottom organisms. 

I see the creation of these centers by using existing resources 

and personnel. The answers to the questions that are posed essentially relate to creating a capability. That is what these three centers are intended to do, is to create a capability which does not 

presently exist to address the most critical conservation issues, 

using our fishery resources as a model. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rothschild follows:] 

60 

Statement of Brian J. Rothschild, Montgomery Charter Professor 

of Marine Science, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth 

The Subcommittee recognizing ‘‘that the conservation of our ocean and wildlife resources will be ‘...impacted by a host of challenges, including climate change, energy 

development, the economic downturn, and federal budget deficits’,’’ has asked my 

views ‘‘regarding: 1) the information, product, and service needs necessary to address conservation in a dynamic era; and 2) new tools, which Congress may consider...to protect and conserve...ecologically healthy oceans.’’ 

In the global and national context, the substantial environmental challenges that 

we face are intertwined with the ever-increasing human population and consequent 

food and water shortages; growing limitations in waste-management options; and 

declining societal welfare. The concentration of population into cities located on 

coasts or large waterways continues unabated. The differences in priorities between 

the rich and the poor are significant challenges to any comprehensive approach to 

coastal and ocean conservation. 

In addressing these issues, we have sometimes arrived at simplistic definitions 

and approaches that are potentially ineffective in solving the problem. These simplistic approaches are evident in terms of both what we know and what we do not 

know and in terms of the conceptual underpinnings for policy. 

For example, while everyone knows that climate change is affecting the ocean, 

many think that the effect is limited to sea-level rise and increased ocean temperatures. However, the increased heat has significant influence on ocean stability and 

hence on nutrient cycling and ocean productivity, affecting at the fundamental productivity and organization of the ocean ecosystem. 

With regard to conceptual underpinnings, when we think of the challenges facing 

our ocean resources, we naturally think of ‘‘conservation.’’ In the early 1900s, society 

became aware of the need to conserve our natural resources. At that time, ‘‘conservation’’ was an important concept. While, at that time, some had the prescience 

to understand its importance, others perceived resources to be virtually limitless 

and suppressed actions that would have prevented the irreversible effects of human 

activity that we observe today. 

But, conservation is no longer a concept, it is an imperative. Taking into account 

the involvement of a burgeoning global population, a growing scarcity of many resources, and the complex character of global environmental change requires establishing the conservation imperative. An imperative requires action! And it is obvious 

that plans for action need to be constructed in the context of shrinking budgets and 

the need to preserve and even create employment. 

How do we address the conservation imperative in time of scarce possibly shrinking budget resources? 

In a time of shrinking budgets, we have to ask the right questions to ensure that 

we focus our resources on the most important problems. As an approach, we might 

start by listing all of the perceived conservation issues that concern us. We would 

find some issues would be relatively easy to identify. Other issues would be extremely complicated. Some of the complicated issues would be oversimplified to the 

extent that their supposed solutions would not result in the intended effect and, in 

fact, some of the unintended consequences might be negative. 

In addition, we would almost certainly find that the magnitude of the total perceived required effort would far exceed resources needed to address the issues. (Let 

us not forget that some environmental issues are global in scope.) 

The actions implied by the conservation imperative require us to select the most 

important conservation programs given a fixed budget. What are the smart choices? 

Are some remedies simplistic? Can we make everything pristine? How do we factor 

in sustainability and balance the political realities of resource use? 

At the end of the day, we need a concrete quantitative analysis to assure us that 

we are asking the right questions. Without such analysis, how can we be sure that 

the budget and personnel are appropriately allocated? As important, are we organized to maximize our capability to address the right questions in a cost effective 

way? 

Let’s examine the specific case of the conservation and management of fish stocks. 

The conservation of fish stocks is governed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This legislation requires that management strike a balance among competing goals: 1) eliminating overfishing, 2) fully utilizing optimum yield, 3) taking into account the economic and social fabric of fishing communities, and 4) utilizing the best available 

science in the process. 

In the context of the conservation imperative in this particular application, we do 

not have the tools to address the balance among controlling fishing, obtaining the 

optimum or maximum yield, and balancing the needs of society. 

61 

The core science equations used in fishery management are not realistic. The 

ocean environment drives variations in fish stock abundance, yet it is not included 

in the core science equations. Many fisheries catch many species at the same time, 

yet the core equations are only capable of dealing with a single species at a time 

(not two species and certainly not entire ecosystems). The population dynamics of 

fish populations are dependent upon the ecosystem within which they live, yet ecosystems are poorly understood. In particular, the component of the ecosystem that 

drives fish recruitment—the dynamics of the plankton and their interaction with 

physical forcing—is in particular even less understood. Despite the fact that there 

is considerable information on fishery economics, that information and associated 

body of theory is almost never used in fishery management. 

Existing data on fisheries is dependent to a significant degree on results from research survey vessels. Because these vessels are very expensive to operate, it is difficult to assemble frequent relatively real time data. The reliance on survey vessels 

meets some needs but suppresses obtaining data from fishing vessels. Data from 

fishing vessels satisfies the need to know how effective each fishing vessel is, a critical need in management, and provides basic data. 

The nature of the core science equations, the data necessary to fuel the core equations, and the flow of information comprise a system. This system has neither been 

specified nor analyzed in the context of a systems engineering problem. Experience 

shows that managing without using a systems context is very expensive. Adopting 

a systems approach would improve the quality of management without increasing 

costs. 

At stake is the fact that the legal requirement of the MSA, to balance the competing goals of suppressing overfishing, attaining optimum yield, and taking into account the economic and social needs of fishing communities are poorly addressed. 

So, how do we develop the capability to address the conservation imperative in 

fisheries? We need to develop a critical-mass effort in three essential areas. To do 

this we need to develop a sending-a-man-to-the-moon approach. We need to focus 

many existing efforts in three national research centers. 

There needs to be a National Center for Ocean Ecosystems Research (NCOER). 

Virtually every fundamental problem that relates to our resources—fisheries and 

the waste-sink capacity of the ocean—can be found in the structure and functioning 

of the ocean ecosystem. The NCOER would focus on critical problems in our understanding of ecosystems, particularly the role of the plankton as it affects fish population dynamics. It is important to recognize that understanding ecosystems is also 

critically important to understanding the very important role plankton play in driving the ocean and atmospheric component of global change. A particular issue of 

concern is the interaction among species of fish, recruitment dynamics, and scenarios that result from a changing climate—the linkages we need to forecast our 

nation’s fisheries resources, and other species of concern. This would address critical 

components of the identification of conservation imperatives. 

There needs to be a National Center for Fishery Management Systems (NCFMS) 

applying a systems engineering approach to the technical requirements of fishery 

management. This center needs to focus on the requirements for fishery management and the alternative approaches to meet these requirements. NCFMS would develop the procedures for development of end-to-end fishery management systems facilitating sampling theoretic data collection; efficient and focused use of simple fishery control rules; and rapid information reports to managers and various user 

groups. The focus would be on developing simpler, more cost-effective techniques 

that effectively sample the catch and provide advice on optimum yield—a critical aspect of the conservation imperative. 

There needs to be a National Center for Fisheries Engineering (NCFE). NCFE 

would focus on the improvement of fishing gear and fishing strategies to reduce bycatch and fuel consumption. New net systems and ways of sensing fish from fishing 

boats would be a priority with the thought-in-mind that these would do a better job 

in saving fuel and separating wanted fish from unwanted fish—both conservation 

imperatives. Much of the work in this Center would be undertaken in collaborative 

programs with the fishing industry—a possible target for stimulus funding. 

To respond to the second question posed by the subcommittee concerning new conservation tools, I think that the most productive effort is to take an end-to-end systems approach to fisheries management. This has essentially not been done, and because of this, we are not sure whether we are asking the right questions or being 

cost-effective in our approach to management. 

A priority focus establishing the three Centers would involve a refocusing and retargeting of existing personnel and budget resources. In the short term, we could 

continue to manage fish under the existing system. I envision after a three-year 

carefully phased effort, the three Centers would arrive at an innovative approach 

62 

to fishery management, effectively providing new and more cost-effective conservation tools. This approach would not only enable a much clearer public perception 

of our nation’s fishery resource management process, but also achieve solid definable 

results in balancing overfishing, optimum yield, and the economic needs of communities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Dr. Rothschild. And I will now recognize Members for any questions that they may wish to ask. And 

this will alternate between the Majority and the Minority 

Members. 

I will begin with a few questions for Dr. Pomponi. 

Your testimony outlined several areas of research that need further study to make adaptive management more effective, and enhance our ability to predict impacts of climate change. 

Can you prioritize these research needs? 

Ms. POMPONI. Probably the greatest need—well, in fact the greatest need would be to get a better understanding of kind of the baseline data. 

But I think the greatest, to enable us to do that, I think we are 

going to have to develop the infrastructure, put the infrastructure 

in place. We have already got part of that in place, in terms of our 

observing systems; but I think being able to establish a regional 

approach that is integrated across many regions, to be able to provide the data so that we can effectively communicate among regions and convert those data into information that can be used by 

resource managers, I think is going to be probably the greatest priority. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So, improving the infrastructure on the current 

infrastructure? 

Ms. POMPONI. Yes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Now, how will these critical research 

programs facilitate better decision making with regard to the 

threats of sea-level rise and ocean acidification? 

Ms. POMPONI. I think if we are going to adapt, we need to know 

what we are adapting to. And as I mentioned, that requires data 

and models and predictions. 

If what we expect is going to happen in terms of sea-level rise 

occurs, there will be habitat loss; there will be shifting ecosystems. 

That is going to affect not only our natural resources; it is going 

to affect our infrastructure, our coastal infrastructure, public 

health, national security. 

We need to reduce those uncertainties in our predictions in terms 

of sea-level rise. We need to reduce the uncertainties into what marine life is going to survive in a warmer and more acidic ocean environment. 

So, that is the type of information that we need to provide to better formulate our predictive models, and be able to provide more 

information, so that we can manage to these, adaptively manage to 

these changes in the environment. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And Doctor, what new technologies are on the horizon that will enable better ocean management? 

Ms. POMPONI. I think there are some exciting new biological and 

genomic sensors that are going to help us, tags that we can put on, 

on larger animals. More sophisticated molecular tools that help us 

to understand what is actually living in the ocean environment. 

63 

From an engineering standpoint, gliders that enable us to assess 

the environment on a more comprehensive scale, on a broader 

scale. 

I think that it is important for us to maintain the continuity of 

our remote sensing data. So, satellite observations from space are 

going to be extremely important to continue that, to make a commitment to continue that. 

And I think probably even most important out of this is that we 

need to make sure we can get the agencies to coordinate acquisition 

of data, the management of data, and the dissemination of those 

data to our end users. I think more than anything else, I mean, we 

have information, we have data. We need to be able to coordinate 

that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. We have to share it. 

Ms. POMPONI. Yes, and share it. Get it back in a usable format 

to the users. 

Ms. BORDALLO. What are your immediate and long-term infrastructure needs, and how can we reduce the costs? 

Ms. POMPONI. Probably the more immediate ones are getting the 

ocean-observing system in place, and making sure that we have an 

integrated system across the United States. It is going to be costly, 

it really is. 

And so the key here is going to be, I think, to engage private 

partnerships, to get private partnerships involved; and to make 

sure that we are making best advantage, making optimal use of 

the existing facilities, so that we truly are integrating them. 

But I would be remiss if I didn’t say that I think we need to 

make a commitment to our academic research fleet. That is, we 

really do need to improve our research vessels that are going to be 

able to go out and service ocean observatories, take other additional measurements, and be able to integrate what we are finding, 

what we are learning from our satellite observations with what we 

are learning in situ in the ocean. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Doctor. And now I would 

like to recognize our Ranking Member here, Mr. Wittman from the 

State of Virginia. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. 

Dr. Jackson and Dr. Pomponi, I just wanted to point out I appreciate your advocacy of the ecosystem approach in marine management. I think that sort of holistic approach is extraordinarily valuable. 

It has been, though, it seems somewhat difficult to the U.S., because of things like the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act, that elevate protection of certain species at 

higher levels than others. 

And with that in mind, can you comment about how you see the 

U.S. approach to an ecosystem paradigm or framework in managing our marine resources? How can we do that, based on these 

existing Acts that sort of create a tiered approach to this ecosystems management? 

Ms. POMPONI. If I may go first? I think the key to that is going 

to be to get the agencies that are responsible for these, these regulatory policies to work together. I mean, we are dealing with a situation right now where we are trying to come up with a plan for 

64 

environmental management prior to putting in some offshore renewable energy prototypes. 

And it really does involve working with a variety of agencies to 

make sure that we are taking care of, you know, we are addressing 

each of these regulatory policies. I think that is probably, it might 

be a Pollyanna approach, but it is the simplest approach. And it 

is one actually that is working right now, I think. 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, I think I will just add very simply to that. I 

think that the ecosystem approach could provide you a tool to focus 

the efforts of multiple government agencies and non-governmental 

organizations on a single, a single objective, if you like, for a subregion. 

It also enables trade-offs to be made. And we have heard that 

this morning in the Subcommittee. First to identify what those 

trade-offs could be, and for decision makers and yourselves to understand what is the consequence of those trade-offs, including 

with predicted species, and make better informed decisions. 

So, this may not necessarily require a substantially increased investment; it is just refocusing where the investment goes. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. Mr. Nutter, you say that programs 

should focus on people, and not insurance companies; and that 

measures should be designed to protect the property, not support 

artificially low insurance rates. 

Can you tell me, does this type of program exist today? And if 

so, where? And can you tell us where it has been successful, and 

maybe give us some examples of its application? 

Mr. NUTTER. Certainly. Let me start with where it exists today, 

and that is inappropriate, it would seem to us. The National Flood 

Insurance Program, which is a FEMA-run program, has somewhere 

between 25 percent and 30 percent of its insured policies are subsidized. In other words, they are not based upon true actuarial 

risk. It is an example of really encouraging and facilitating development in coastal areas. 

Insurance is regulated at the state level, so I think the answer 

to your question is that some states have done a good job in finding 

that balance between consumer protection of insurance rates, and 

finding a risk-based rate. 

The state that has the most difficult time with this is really Florida, largely because it is so exposed to extreme natural events. It 

is very heavily populated, mostly, say that 80 percent of the people 

who live in Florida are exposed to hurricanes. And they have struggled with finding the balance between actuarially sound insurance 

rates that send a clear message about what the risk is, and making 

certain that insurance is available to people. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Rothschild, one last question. In your testimony you refer to simplistic definitions and approaches that have 

been potentially ineffective in solving the problems that we face in 

our marine environments. 

Can you give some examples of what definitions and approaches 

you mean? And maybe some effective ways with which to deal with 

these concepts. 

Mr. ROTHSCHILD. Well, one simplistic approach is the concept 

that we can rebuild fishery stocks in a 10-year time period. And 

65 

empirical observations show that sometimes fishery stocks take 

many more years than that 10 years, or a shorter period of time. 

And the approach to dealing with this really relates to having a 

better understanding of the dynamics of ecosystems. And I propose 

that we have a national center to study those components of ecosystems. 

It is very difficult to have an ecosystem approach to management 

in fisheries when the most sensitive aspect of fish population dynamics is recruitment. And that is a problem—in other words, the 

number of young fish that are born each year. And that is a problem that is unsolved. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Dr. Rothschild, thank you. I think that is very insightful. I think sometimes there is a tendency to oversimplify 

issues that we all know are extraordinarily complex, and all interrelated as to the ecosystem and other aspects of what we deal with. 

So, I think that holistic approach in trying to go away from some 

of the more simplistic ways to say well, it is as simple as A produces B, is where we need to go. And I appreciate your insights 

there. 

Thank you, Madame Chairman. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Wittman. And 

now I would like to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Madame Chair. 

Dr. Jackson, how does IUCN envision the Federal government 

fully implementing and enforcing existing laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management 

Act, and the Endangered Species Act? 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, thank you. I will just say that I am not expert 

on the U.S.; my expertise is in international work. 

But I think coming from that perspective, there are many eyes 

on the U.S., particularly on the excellent legislation that has been 

put in place over many years. And it is, I think I mentioned in my 

testimony about leadership of the U.S. 

And I think a key thing here is the implementation that was in 

my statement, the implementation of that legislation, if fully followed, will solve many of the environmental problems we have had, 

particularly on an ecosystem-based level. 

But more than that, it shows international leadership that these 

things can be done, they should be done, and they can be done economically by investing in good legislation and in good implementation of that. 

This morning we heard also about the need for more integration 

across those various pieces of legislation, across the various agencies. So, I think the comment in my statement was more keep up 

the good work, and take it forward; rather than shy away from the 

economic crisis, and go backwards. 

Mr. KILDEE. Let me ask you this. This is kind of a general problem we find in government. 

We have good laws, like NEPA and the National Forest Management Act and the Endangered Species Act. Those are authorization 

bills, and authorization bills are somewhat like a get-well card. You 

know, if I have a friend who is ill, I will send my friend a get-well 

66 

card that expresses how I value my friend, how I feel about my 

friend. 

What my friend really needs is the healthcare card. That is the 

appropriation. 

Is there a difference, do you see a difference, a significant difference, between our sentiment expressed—and thank God they 

are, and I supported all of these things—in the authorization bills, 

and the actual health card bill, the appropriations to make sure 

these Acts actually carry out their purposes? 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, definitely a difference. I think if we don’t follow up with investment in the legislation, in the ability of agencies 

to implement those things, then it does remain as a get-well card. 

To me this is an issue of decision making. If you understand the 

degree of dependency we have on natural—— 

[Electronic interference.] 

Mr. JACKSON.—is that sufficient for what you get in turn? Internationally, a recent study showed that we get somewhere around 

$33 trillion a year from ecosystem services, comparing that to gross 

national product globally of $16 trillion a year. But if you look at 

the investment in economic issues versus environmental issues, I 

think we are fundamentally failing to understand where our dependency lies as human beings. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much. I yield back, Madame Chair. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Kildee. 

And now I would like to recognize the gentleman from the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Mr. Sablan. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. And I 

am very happy that you continue to give some attention to the 

issues that are very important to the area we represent. I come 

from the Northern Mariana Islands, a part of Micronesia. 

And I am very pleased with the commitments or the attention 

that the oceans and climate change has been, are being given, because frankly, whether it involves that we are concerned about the 

polar bears in the Arctic or whether we are concerned about the 

inhabitants of an island in the Kiribas, climate change are indeed 

affecting these people and these mammals, these species. 

Dr. Pomponi, obviously despite that sometimes governments give 

their departments, their patients healthcare cards, sometimes patients compete for attention from doctors. 

So, the testimony highlighted the need for continued coordination 

among Federal ocean agencies. And that problem was highlighted 

in the report of the Commission on Ocean Policy. 

But can you tell us, please tell us how the lack of coordination 

has affected your own work through time? 

Ms. POMPONI. I think that the fact that there are multiple—you 

know what, I will give you one good example. I thought of actually 

just one example. 

One is that my own work involves marine natural products drug 

discovery. It is discovery of novel compounds from marine organisms that can be used to treat diseases, like cancer. 

The National Science Foundation doesn’t fund drug discovery, 

and the National Institutes of Health doesn’t fund kind of oceanVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:13 Jul 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\47756.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
67 

related work. So, that type of research often falls between the 

cracks. 

So, that is one example that I can give you from my own personal experience. And so, for example, when you go to the National 

Science—and there has been an approach to address that, and that 

is the establishment of these ocean, the centers for oceans and 

human health, that have been joint ventures between the National 

Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Environmental 

Health Sciences. 

There are just a few of those. And the funding for those programs has dwindled. It has been drastically reduced. But that is 

an example of where going to a single agency is not, is not effective, but efforts have been made to collaborate among two or more 

agencies, to provide the necessary resources to address ocean and 

human health issues. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you, Doctor. Now we really need that health 

card. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SABLAN. Dr. Jackson, in your submitted, your written testimony, you have said that the ocean drives weather patterns and 

so many other things. But I agree with you that marine ecosystems 

often extend across political jurisdictional boundaries. 

And so my question is, implementing existing law and accurate 

valuations for understanding that this Subcommittee on Insular 

and Ocean and Wildlife had oversight responsibility for certain 

agencies under NOAA or the Department of the Interior. 

What would be the focus of policy reforms to increase the commercial rewards for conserving biodiversity, and increased penalties for biodiversity laws? 

Mr. JACKSON. I am not sure if I am qualified to answer that 

question. In fact, I don’t think I can talk about national legislation 

to that extent. I am sorry. 

Mr. SABLAN. All right. So, my other question is how do you envision regional ocean management agreements governing the range 

of activities and process currently affecting marine ecosystems? 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes. I think you mentioned before that the, many 

of these marine ecosystems cross political jurisdictions, not just 

internationally, cross internationally. And an area of substantial 

weakness at the moment in international law is, it relates to the 

high seas, particularly to the U.N. Floor of the seas. 

I think that you could show considerable leadership here in engaging in these issues, at least from the agencies’ perspective, with 

research into understanding the opportunities and constraints of 

improving that. We talked before about the ecosystem approach, 

applying that to the international high seas. 

It is something that is not impossible for several governments to 

come together, perhaps also with the private sector, the fishing industry, with the conservation community, to look at how can this 

be done in an effective manner, to yield longer-term benefits, both 

in terms of in biodiversity, but also in terms of economics of making those fisheries more sustainable. This is particularly important 

for island communities that are heavily dependent on those fisheries. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you, Chair. 

68 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman from the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Marianas, Mr. Sablan. 

I would like to recognize the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, 

Mrs. Christensen. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Madame Chair. I just have 

maybe a few questions. But I would just like to point out that this 

afternoon at Salt River in the Virgin Islands is a meeting on the 

Joint Institute for Caribbean Marine Studies, a marine research 

and education center that the University of the Virgin Islands is 

collaborating with several other universities. And we have been 

working on it for years. So, hopefully, we will be able to contribute 

to the kinds of research that we are discussing today, and do it in 

the right way. 

It started out as a reef research center. So, the fact that it has 

gone from reef to marine, I think we are heading in the right direction. We are not just focusing on one, one entity in the oceans. 

Mr. Nutter, we live on, I represent the U.S. Virgin Islands. We 

can’t move from our coastal areas or get out of the way of the hurricanes. 

And I have been here 12 years, and we have not been able to 

really pass any good legislation to provide for disaster insurance 

and windstorm insurance. I believe early on there was one, H.R. 2 

it might have been, that was around for several years, where states 

were required to put together an entity to provide reinsurance. 

You seem to not want the Federal government to do it. But do 

you have any opinions about that approach? Or is there some kind 

of regional approach where risk could be spread? We would look at 

that, but it seems like no matter where you are, you are subject 

to some kind of a disaster. 

So, if you can understand what I am asking. 

Mr. NUTTER. I think I do, and I appreciate the frustration of 

dealing with a very high-risk area that has hurricane exposure, has 

lived through many difficult time periods. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And is experiencing some of the effects of climate change. 

Mr. NUTTER. Absolutely. Certainly the companies that we represent, the reinsurance companies, do in fact provide a risk-spreading mechanism for insurers that provide insurance to homeowners 

in a variety of areas. I am not as familiar with the Virgin Islands 

perhaps as I should be to answer your question. 

But it seems no question that, that a solution clearly is hazard 

mitigation, to see that the Federal government does provide sufficient funding for the Virgin Islands and states to give people 

against their taxes, for instance, for providing mitigation against 

natural hazards—shutters, improved roofs, those kinds of things— 

so that people survive these natural disasters. 

And those kinds of efforts would seem to me to go a long way 

toward moderating the cost of insurance and the availability of insurance in particularly high-risk areas like that. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Well, we have done some of those things. We 

haven’t gotten tax credits for them. And our insurance costs didn’t 

go down commensurate to the fact that we did apply new building 

codes, new roofing standards, and so forth. But thank you for your 

answer. 

69 

Dr. Pomponi, I have listened, and I went through your testimony 

last night on ecosystem-based management. And obviously it brings 

together all of the ecosystem and managing, the marine resources. 

And as I understand it, it also coordinates activities between those 

entities that impact adversely or positively on the marine environment. 

But in my district, and I suspect others, it is the fishing community that bears the brunt of any restrictions or attempts to address 

for any, the reduced fish resources of marine resources, or adversely impacted marine resources. 

So, in your experience, how have we been able to address points 

toward non-point-source pollution and development, and their impact on our marine resources. Because we haven’t been able to do 

it successfully. 

Ms. POMPONI. And in my experience, we are not doing it successfully in many other areas, as well. So, it is not only the Virgin Islands. 

By the way, the reason I am a marine scientist today is because 

of an experience I had in the Virgin Islands when I was in college, 

so that is what led to me going into this field. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Great. 

Ms. POMPONI. I think that in general, any group that is targeted—let me give you an example. In the state of Florida, nonpoint-source pollution that is attributed to nutrients coming in 

from septic tanks has been a very great cause of concern. 

And so, you know, what has happened in our state is that there 

is legislation that has been passed that is going to reduce that, 

both point and non-point-source pollution from nutrients, sewage 

going into our coastal environments. 

But it is a balancing act for each of these. I know that the fisheries are often targeted. And I think that when we start looking 

at establishment of these marine protected areas or habitat areas 

or particular concerns, we have to be really careful in terms of saying OK, which areas are ones where fishing can occur, or which 

areas are ones where bottom-trawling should definitely not ever 

occur. 

So, it just requires more detailed information about the environment itself, about the actual impacts of the environment, and being 

able to show that there is a true cause-and-effect relationship. 

Does that sort of answer your question? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I think it begins to get to it. I think, you 

know, sometimes it is just politics that gets in the way. 

Ms. POMPONI. The public, yes, the political will. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Yes, and the need for development. And I listened to Nature Conservancy, you know, talk about trying to bring 

some balance. But sometimes in a small community, that balance 

is very difficult to achieve. 

Thank you, Madame Chair. I don’t have any other questions. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands. 

And I just have a couple of wrap-up questions here. 

First, for Mr. Nutter. In a recent chartered Insurance Institute 

report, the CEO writes, and I quote, ‘‘In reality, climate change is 

here now. And it is as much opportunity as risk for those who are 

wise enough to adapt early on.’’ 

70 

So, how can the government help the insurance and reinsurance 

industries adapt and create opportunities in these times? And how 

can the government provide better climate-change information, so 

the reinsurance industry can reduce or mitigate for risk? At what 

scale is this information needed? 

Mr. NUTTER. That is a very good question, and I think the scale 

is really the answer to your overall question. 

Climate science that is being pursued by the National Science 

Foundation, the University Center for Atmospheric Research, and 

other climate researchers really need to localize as much of the climate information as possible, in order to do financial planning for 

the insurance industry or local planning for local governments in 

dealing with infrastructure—bridges, levees, roads, that sort of 

thing that localize climate information—would make a huge difference in helping everyone assess the risk, both to storm surge, to 

increase in intensity or severity of storms, as well as increased precipitation. 

So, I think the answer to your question is that if we could set 

a priority that we need to have localized impacts of climate change, 

as best we can get it, that would make a large difference in how 

we assess the risk, and how we manage the risk. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, thank you very much. And Mr. Nutter, in your opinion, if we do a better job of recognizing and mitigating the risk of natural hazards in the coastal zone, can we expect to see more and better opportunities for fish and wildlife conservation as a collateral benefit? 

Mr. NUTTER. It is a question for me? Certainly, the coalition that 

we are working with that involves a number of environmental 

groups, the Consumer Federation of America, a number of taxpayer 

groups, is really seeking to find that balance between proper landuse management that preserves coastal ecosystems that can be 

used as buffers for extreme weather events, as well as to allow the 

development that Mrs. Christensen was talking about, to find that 

balance. 

So, absolutely. Trying to find that coordination between preserving coastal areas that provide habitat, as well as provide protection for people, would be the best long-term solution to providing 

local land-use planning and financial management. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Dr. Rothschild, did you want to comment on 

that? 

Mr. ROTHSCHILD. I didn’t have anything to add. 

Ms. BORDALLO. You just agree, right? 

Mr. ROTHSCHILD. Yes, right. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. I have one that, well, this takes me 

home. 

Dr. Jackson, I am particularly interested in the section of your 

testimony that discusses mitigation banking in the context of wetlands. So, I would appreciate your thoughts on how mitigation 

banking might be utilized in Guam. 

Could the principals underlying the development of wetland mitigation banks be employed to mitigate any adverse ecological impacts of the current military buildup? 

71 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes. I think the simple answer is yes, I think they 

could be. There have been, the early development of them, which 

was pioneered here in the United States, has been very promising. 

I think you have to keep in mind they are a tool, a tool that 

needs to be used with other regulatory mechanisms, not just to be 

based on financial mechanisms. But they are a very promising tool. 

The user-pay system I think is the basic principle behind it, and 

the precautionary principle behind that again. 

So, I think for Guam, yes, they could be. You know that you have 

also the environmental challenges, invasive species being a particular one. And we also know how that was introduced, some of 

those species introduced into Guam via the military. And I think 

that that principle of wetland banking or biodiversity banking 

could certainly be applied more generally, which would help with 

mitigation efforts, but also help with a broader understanding of if 

you have to make a change, then who is responsible and who 

should pay. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you, Doctor. 

Do you have any questions, our Ranking Member? Mr. Kildee? 

[No response.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. I want to thank the witnesses on the second 

panel for their participation in the hearing today. It was certainly 

very informative. And Members of the Subcommittee may have 

some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you 

to respond to these in writing. 

The hearing record will be held open for 10 days for these responses. 

And if there is no further business before the Subcommittee, the 

Chairwoman again thanks the Members of the Subcommittee and 

our witnesses for their participation here this morning. 

And the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Capps follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of California 

Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for holding this hearing today to explore how 

we might better manage the oceans and our wildlife resources as we move forward 

in the 111th Congress and in working with the new Administration. 

Thank you also to our witnesses who have traveled to testify before us today. 

I represent a district that spans more than 200 miles of coastline, and includes 

two national marine sanctuaries, a national forest, a national estuary program, two 

national monuments, and a national park. The well-being of my district depends almost entirely on the health of our oceans and the welfare of our natural resources. 

Our country is in the midst of a financial crisis and we face difficult choices. However, we cannot let these challenges deter us from investing in our future. 

One of the best ways to invest is by protecting some of our nation’s biggest economic drivers—our oceans and our coasts. 

We need to reauthorize the National Marine Sanctuary Act. Our national marine 

sanctuaries are some of our nation’s greatest treasures. 

We need to make sure that our Sanctuary Office has the tools to employ adaptive, 

ecosystem-based management that ensures that all the ecosystem services our Sanctuaries provide—from tourism to sustainable fisheries—remain intact. 

I look forward to delving into this legislation in the coming months. 

It is also crucial that we reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act, and include in it the tools we need to mitigate global warming and adapt to our changing 

72 

environment. In the coming weeks, I will introduce two bills to begin to address 

these issues. 

The first is the ‘‘Coastal State Renewable Energy Promotion Act’’, which will provide grants to states to survey the coastline to identify areas suitable for renewable 

energy development. 

The second is the ‘‘Coastal State Climate Change Planning Act’’, which will provide assistance to coastal states to voluntarily develop climate change adaptation 

plans. 

These two policies will help our nation on its path to energy independence, and 

assist us as we prepare for an uncertain future on a warming planet. 

We also need to continue to invest in the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP). CELCP provides states with matching funds to purchase 

significant coastal and estuarine lands. 

For example, in my congressional district I’ve worked collaboratively with environmental groups, willing sellers, and the State to conserve lands and waters 

around Morro Bay, on the Gaviota Coast, and near the Piedras Blancas Light 

Station. 

These projects have offered numerous benefits to local communities by preserving 

water quality, natural areas for wildlife and birds, and outdoor recreation opportunities—thereby protecting for the future the very things we love about the coasts. 

This hearing could not come at a more opportune time. As we move forward as 

a new Congress and with a new Administration, I look forward to working together 

to better manage the oceans and our wildlife resources. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by John Baughman, 

Member, Sporting Conservation Council 

Questions from Ranking Republican Member Henry E. Brown, Jr., SC 

A. North American Model of Wildlife Conservation 

Mr. Baughman, thank you your excellent testimony and references to the North 

American Model of Wildlife Conservation. 

Notwithstanding the durable success and accomplishments of the North 

American Model, in your opinion, under the present ‘‘user-pays-user benefits’’ system of financing conservation, can we maintain funding for existing programs let alone take on new initiatives? 

We cannot meet the needs of existing programs and take on new initiatives without doing something to increase revenue for federal and state programs. We could 

expand the user-pays concept to more adequately provide for conservation of all species and all forms of wildlife-related recreation and enjoyment by increasing the categories of outdoor equipment that are subject to a federal excise tax (e.g. binoculars, 

sleeping bags, backpacks, hiking boots, bird seed, outdoor guidebooks, etc.). This has 

been suggested and congressionally pursued in the past, but it met resistance due 

to the complicated taxing and collection mechanisms and the political unpopularity 

of supporting any new tax. Other user fees such as permits for general access to 

federal and state lands, permits for certain wildlife viewing areas, etc. could be implemented, but again it results in a complicated system of collecting and administering lots of small pots of money, and the public eventually pushes back when 

subjected to the inconvenience of lots of small user fees. A more logical approach 

would be to dedicate a small portion of federal and state revenues for conservation 

of fish, wildlife, and their habitats, so that in affect, all Americans are sharing in 

the costs of conservation. The revenues need to be dedicated, so they don’t drop to 

zero every time there is a war or healthcare crisis. Revenue from new Outer Continental Shelf or new onshore energy production, or revenue from trading carbon 

credits have been proposed as reasonable sources. 

Are there specific strategies you might be able to recommend to broaden 

the number of user groups that might pay into a system of wildlife conservation to diversify and increase available sources of funding? 

See the above item. My suggestion is to pursue reasonable, sustainable funding 

from a portion of the rents, royalties and/or other receipts from new energy production, or a portion of any income received due to carbon trading protocols established 

by future climate change legislation. Every state should also have a significant, sustainable stream of state generated funding to support conservation within their borders. Congress could provide incentives to encourage states to generate this funding 

that would compliment—not substitute for—federal revenue. 

73 

B. Clarification of Landscape Conservation Recommendation 

Mr. Baughman, in your statement you recommend that the Congress authorize and the Administration implement landscape-level programs to 

treat at-risk forest, grassland, and wetland habitats? 

Can you please explain what you mean by ‘‘at risk’’ habitats? 

Habitats, just like species (e.g. Threatened and Endangered species) can be at 

risk; in fact, habitat degradation is one of the most common causes of jeopardy to 

species at risk. In the West, the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem is at risk due to effects 

of long-term drought, over-grazing, and invasive species—particularly cheat grass 

which results in a more frequent fire cycle that can completely eliminate sagebrush 

over vast areas. As the sagebrush disappears, sage grouse, sagebrush sparrows, and 

mule deer disappear too. 

Would the migratory bird Joint Ventures be a model that might serve as 

a template for these broader ‘‘landscape’’ initiatives? 

The migratory bird Joint Ventures are excellent examples of ‘‘landscape’’ initiatives, as are the efforts that are being supported by the Healthy Lands Initiative. 

All of these efforts treat the causes, rather than the symptoms, of habitat loss over 

wide areas, and they deliver conservation through partnerships and highly leveraged funds. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Dr. Peter Kareiva, 

Chief Scientist, The Nature Conservancy 

Questions from Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo 

Dr. Kareiva, please respond to the following questions regarding decision support 

tools and valuing ecosystem services. 

1. What is the biggest limiting factor in getting ecosystem services valued 

appropriately when making decisions? 

At this moment in time there are two limiting factors. The first is simply that 

most decision-processes in the USA do not build in any sort of comprehensive ecosystem service valuation, and most decision-makers are not yet aware of this approach. That is changing. 

The second big limitation is that we lack easy-to-use tools that can help public 

institutions do these valuations in a scientifically credible manner using widely 

available land or coastal marine management data. A major goal of the Natural 

Capital Project is to develop these tools and to make sure they are consistent, transparent and scientifically credible. It will likely be 2-5 years before the tools have 

been sufficiently developed, and easy-to-use web interfaces allow non-specialists to 

begin using the tools in routine planning exercises. 

2. If the decision-support tools you discuss lead to a decision to halt a 

development project, won’t that mean fewer jobs for public works? 

First, one of the greatest values of decision support tools that rely on maps of ecosystem services is that they generally do not lead to prohibitive decisions such as 

‘‘no development’’, but instead provide guidance about where to move the development or how to do the development differently to reduce degradation of ecosystem 

services. Unlike prescriptive regulations, ecosystem service analyses point to options. 

Second, thoughtful valuation of ecosystem services will often lead to a new kind 

of development project—development projects that restore or build up ecosystem 

services. Examples of these include reforestation on steep slopes, floodplain restoration, planting out oysters to rebuild oyster reefs and so on. These all are labor intensive. 

Lastly, we should not forget that ecosystem service valuation can reveal that a 

development project that might produce jobs in one place, could reduce jobs elsewhere because of undesirable ecosystem impacts. Thus ecosystem service assessments should provide a more complete ‘‘jobs analysis’’ than decisions that do not 

take into account impacts on ecosystem services that are often felt downstream, offshore, or twenty years later. 

3. How close are we to realizing your vision of a network of tools that can 

accurately assess threats to our most vulnerable ecosystems? 

As I mentioned above we are 2-5 years from having a portfolio of web-based tools 

that could be widely and easily applied. At this point in time the tools require a 

team of PhD scientists to do the analyses. Frankly how fast it happens depends on 

74 

the resources available to the Natural Capital Project and to scientists doing studies 

that connect land use and coastal marine activities to ecosystem services. 

4. What policy frameworks could Congress propose to ensure these tools 

are explicitly and systematically integrated into decision-making by individuals, corporations and governments? 

There are many options for this. One possibility is to use the existing EIS framework, and require an ecosystem services assessment as part of that EIS process. 

Ecosystem service assessments could also be required of U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Projects. Some have argued that we should institutionalize ecosystem service 

assessments as a routine component of policy analyses concerning everything from 

energy options to transportation systems. This is being experimented with in some 

states. Secondly, for those cases where the private sector requires licenses or some 

sort of ‘‘approval’’, ecosystem service assessments could be required. 

Finally, it may be fruitful to include ecosystem service valuations into national 

accounts of productivity or well-being. Some countries, such as China are even experimenting with identifying certain counties as especially important because of 

their ecosystem services, and to then track the ‘‘productivity’’ of these counties in 

terms of both traditional metrics of economic production ‘‘but also an accounting of 

the value of the ecosystem services. In that way, if a county achieves economic development at the cost of degraded ecosystem services, that degradation could be subtracted from its more traditionally reported productivity. Similarly, Canada is constructing a ‘‘well-being index’’ that will be used as an alternative measure to GDP 

to gauge the well-being of Canadians. It includes, among other things, a measure 

of ecosystem health—using the same ideas that have inspired China to embrace a 

more thorough accounting, whereby a degradation of ecosystem health counts negatively toward the overall human-well being index. 

In general, consideration should be given to applying these tools explicitly and 

systematically as new legislation is developed. For example as we grapple with the 

adaptation provisions of climate change legislation, care should be taken to require 

that these tools be used to ensure that ecosystem service assessments are an integral part of both domestic and international adaptation programs. The same could 

be said of legislation governing the development of new energy sources. 

5. Can decision support tools and accurate ecosystem service valuations 

provide short-term economic benefits, in addition to long-range sustainability benefits? 

Of course they can. Imagine a big infrastructure or energy project that is conducted without any ecosystem service assessment. Then that project will either proceed or not, and if it proceeds it will produce the jobs and economic benefits directly 

related to the project. Now imagine the same project that has been evaluated using 

an ecosystem service assessment and has been found to produce some negative impacts that need mitigation action. Then the very same project produces its original 

job and economic benefits, but now also has a mitigation component that represents 

additional jobs. In some ecosystems, habitat restoration and mitigation can also enhance fisheries productivity, increase recreation opportunities, and even enhance 

water quality and human health. 

In a climate stressed world, natural ecosystems can be especially beneficial in a 

way that would be revealed by a careful ecosystem service valuation. As a result 

of climate change it is already evident that heat waves are more common and more 

severe. These heat waves actually are a significant source of mortality in cities, 

which because of all the concrete and lack of vegetation can act as heat sinks with 

temperatures as much as 10 degrees higher than nearby rural landscapes. An ecosystem service assessment of climate mitigation could lead to investment in more 

green space in cities, and ultimately a cooling effect that reduced the health costs 

of urban heat overloads—which preferentially put children and the elderly at risk. 

6. What are the key actions that the federal government can take to bring 

decision support tools to decision makers? 

There are two major steps the federal government could take. First they could invest in research at universities, and federal agencies and in NGO’s that is aimed 

at testing and validating these tools in an experimental manner. Second they could 

offer incentives to private industry and to public institutions that perform ecosystem 

service assessments of alternative options—those incentives could be more streamlined approval processes and expedited support for development projects that have 

used ecosystem service valuations in their project design. 

75 

7. How can the United States be a leader in implementing these mapping 

and decision-support tools? 

Through its great universities, and some pioneering initiatives surrounding ecosystem services on the part of the USDA and EPA, the U.S. is already the world 

leader in the development of ecosystem service assessments. However other countries such as Australia and China are farther ahead in terms of requiring ecosystem 

service assessments as a prelude to their public planning or infrastructure decisions. 

The U.S. needs to invest heavily in applying ecosystem service assessments to reallife decisions as soon as possible, and then to evaluate the quality of decisions made 

when ecosystem services are considered compared to when ecosystem services are 

not considered. If the U.S. combined such experimentation with its already vanguard research, it would truly lead the world in land-use, infrastructure, and development decision-making. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Jeff Trandahl, 

Executive Director, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

Questions from Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo 

Please respond to the following questions. 

Question 1: Mr. Trandahl, you have testified that Congress should provide 

clear prioritization of federal conservation goals and objectives in order to 

increase conservation funding from private sources. 

How would federal prioritization improve the availability of funding from 

private sources? 

There are un-tapped funding resources for conservation in the private funding 

community. Private funders are seeking leveraging opportunities and enthusiasm by 

the federal government to invest in conservation priorities through collaborative 

public-private partnerships. A new set of federal priorities for conservation, implemented as a single effort, would catalyze private resources for conservation. 

Administrative and/or legislative language that recommends and encourages 

agencies to pool federal resources and combine them with funding from the private 

sector is needed. Incentives for agencies to pool funds in a simple fashion have been 

nearly nonexistent. Encouraging Federal agencies and Departments to pool funds 

and work together would help administrative hurdles and should reduce overall cost 

by limiting total overhead and result in greater conservation outcomes. 

Question 2: Can you help us to better understand why NFWF still finds it 

difficult to convince federal agencies to partner with you? If it is a cultural 

issue, as you describe, what can be done to promote a more constructive 

culture? 

Federal conservation priorities and associated performance measures are needed 

to incentivize public-private partnerships within the agencies. Under the current 

structure, program implementation favors retention of FTE’s and federal resources 

without regard for the potential benefits of establishing meaningful partnerships for 

the strongest conservation outcomes. As stated above, the agencies need specific motivation (via performance measures, statutory requirements or otherwise) to work 

together and partner with the corporate, foundation and non-profits. 

Agencies tend to maintain control and direct oversight of grant programs and 

other conservation initiatives, regardless of the potential efficiency or effectiveness 

gained through multi-sector partnerships. Current measures, i.e. acres/miles restored, do not accurately measure whether or not conservation opportunities have 

been fully maximized. Similarly, assessing matching funds provided by grantees 

only provides part of the actual ‘‘matching’’ funds that are available. To promote a 

more constructive culture, agency performance could be measured according to how 

well their program funds are leveraged with (1) other federal agencies (2) states (3) 

corporations and private foundations (4) non-profit organizations (5) individuals. 

Question 3: What incentives, especially non-monetary incentives, are most 

effective in encouraging responsible stewardship of natural resources and 

in engaging private individuals and entities in promoting such stewardship? Can you think of any examples to show the marked success or failure 

of incentive approaches? 

Safe Harbor agreements are an effective method to motivate landowners to protect wildlife habitats. When faced with a legal threat, private entities are likely to 

avoid conservation opportunities. Another frustration is multi-layered bureaucracy 

and roadblocks which delay progress. Assurances for individuals or groups who are 

76 

meeting and/or exceeding federal requirements that new requirements will not be 

put into place after the fact would ensure responsible stewardship of natural resources. 

Question 4: Could you please be more specific about the other untapped opportunities you reference to establish new partnerships to expand the base 

of funding for conservation? 

As stated in our testimony, the Foundation is currently working with the USDA 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to implement the Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) program. NRCS awards approximately $20 million annually 

to support projects that advance innovative practices and technology to improve 

stewardship on working farms and ranches. This program is highly attractive to private funders as it is geared to ensuring that America maximizes food production 

while enhancing environmental protection goals such as minimizing soil and nutrient runoff, improving wildlife habitat, and reducing water and energy consumption. 

Based on our initial inquiries, we were able to identify 6-10 private funders who 

were excited about the opportunity to work with NRCS and NFWF to leverage funds 

and expand the pool of financial resources to address the high demand for this 

program. 

Similarly, we believe there are other existing federal programs that offer opportunities to generate partnerships within the federal government and private corporations/foundations. There are multiple invasive species programs that involve various 

federal agencies and both public and private lands. Rather than creating more new 

programs that cannot be funded, Congress and the Administration should consider 

a single, inter-agency program that would be attractive to private partners and leverage significant funds to ensure meaningful conservation outcomes. New programs and potential federal funding for climate change adaptation and mitigation 

of energy development offer similar opportunities for public-private partnerships. It 

is critical for the federal government to take full advantage of these partnership opportunities if we want to achieve measurable progress in restoring healthy populations of fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

Question 5: Can habitat be managed in a way that respects private ownership? If so, how? 

Since the majority of land in the U.S. is privately owned, it is absolutely essential 

to manage habitat in a way that respects private ownership. The key to private 

lands conservation has been partnering, identifying common interests, and respecting the landowners’ business and conservation goals. Many of the Foundation’s 

grant programs are focused on providing incentives for private landowners to restore and conserve habitat for wildlife. One example is our Columbia Basin Water 

Transactions Program, a partnership with Bonneville Power Administration, which 

has successfully created a voluntary marketplace for private landowners to restore 

in-stream flows for imperiled salmon, steelhead, resident trout and other wildlife 

species. Through program partners like the Idaho Department of Water Resources, 

landowners have the opportunity to sell, lease, and/or conserve water while maintaining the traditional agricultural uses of their land. 

Question 6: How will the downturn in the economy affect the Foundation 

and its ability to find private/corporate partners? 

To date, the downturn in the economy has not had a significant impact on the 

ability of the Foundation to maintain our private/corporate partners. More than 

ever, our private partners are attracted to the opportunity to work hand-in-hand 

with the federal government and the non-profit community to invest in on-theground conservation. Our annual appropriations and discretionary cooperative 

agreements with the federal agencies are essential to our private partnerships. The 

federal funds provide a base for the Foundation to generate private funding interests in national conservation priorities. 

To ensure success in both private and public investments, we are incorporating 

monitoring and evaluation into our programs in order to measure progress, promote 

adaptive management, demonstrate results, and continuously learn from our grantmaking. 

Æ