[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

THE ROLE OF FEDERAL
LANDS IN COMBATING
CLIMATE CHANGE

=======================================================================

OVERSIGHT HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS

AND PUBLIC LANDS

of the

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

__________

Serial No. 111-7

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-754 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Jeff Flake, Arizona
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Louie Gohmert, Texas
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Rob Bishop, Utah
Jim Costa, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
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

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS

RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Elton Gallegly, California
Grace F. Napolitano, California John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Jeff Flake, Arizona
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Carolina
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Louie Gohmert, Texas
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Islands Mike Coffman, Colorado
Diana DeGette, Colorado Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Tom McClintock, California
Lois Capps, California Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Jay Inslee, Washington officio
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio

CONTENTS

----------
Page

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

Statement of Members:
Capps, Hon. Lois, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 3
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington, Prepared statement of................. 3
Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin, Prepared statement of........................ 5
Shea-Porter, Hon. Carol, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Hampshire................................. 5

Statement of Witnesses:
Armstrong, Thomas R., Senior Advisor for Global Change
Programs, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Brunello, Anthony, Deputy Secretary for Climate Change and
Energy, California Natural Resources Agency, Sacramento,
California................................................. 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
DellaSala, Dominick A., Ph.D., Chief Scientist, National
Center for Conservation Science & Policy, and President
Elect, Society for Conservation Biology, North America
Section, Ashland, Oregon................................... 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 66
Frank, Billy, Chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission, Olympia, Washington............................ 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Harmon, Mark E., Ph.D., Richardson Endowed Chair and
Professor in Forest Science, Department of Forest
Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon..................................................... 55
Prepared statement of.................................... 57
Jungwirth, Lynn, Executive Director, Watershed Research and
Training Center, Hayfork, California....................... 89
Prepared statement of.................................... 90
Kimbell, Abigail, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture................................................ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
McCarthy, Forrest, Public Lands Director, Winter Wildlands
Alliance, Teton Village, Wyoming........................... 96
Prepared statement of.................................... 98
Ridgeway, Rick, Director of Environmental Initiatives,
Patagonia Company, on behalf of Freedom to Roam, Ventura,
California................................................. 83
Prepared statement of.................................... 85
Spiering, Eugene D., Vice President for Exploration, Quaterra
Corporation, Kanab, Utah................................... 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Williams, Jack E., Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Trout Unlimited,
Medford, Oregon............................................ 73
Prepared statement of.................................... 75

Additional materials supplied:
Sierra Pacific Industries, Redding, California, Press release
submitted for the record................................... 39

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``THE ROLE OF FEDERAL LANDS IN COMBATING CLIMATE
CHANGE''

----------

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands

Committee on Natural Resources

Washington, D.C.

----------

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul M.
Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Hastings, Napolitano,
Holt, Heinrich, Christensen, Kind, Capps, Inslee, Herseth
Sandlin, Sarbanes, Shea-Porter, Tsongas, Coffman, and Lummis.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me call the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands oversight hearing to
order. The subject of this hearing is the role of Federal land
in combating climate change, and today our Subcommittee will be
conducting an oversight hearing to explore the role of Federal
lands in combating climate change.
This will be the first in a series of hearings our
Subcommittee will conduct on climate change. Today's hearing
will focus primarily on the Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management lands. We expect to schedule a future hearing on
National Park Service lands and climate change.
The impact of climate change on our Federal lands is
staggering. Science shows that climate change will cause a
spread of invasive species, threaten native species, endanger
watersheds, cause habitat loss, and increase the intensity and
length of the fire season on our public lands.
Today, we will be hearing more on these impacts and
suggested policy solutions by reputable scientists, such as
Mark Harmon from Oregon State University.
Climate change not only threatens the world-class resources
of our public lands but also the millions of Americans who
depend on and enjoy our Federal lands.
Today, we will also be hearing from witnesses about the
role of rural public lands communities in combating climate
change. We will receive the perspectives of Indian Country, the
Human Power Recreation Community, and the hunter-angler
community on this topic.
There are two potential climate change solutions that I am
particularly interested in exploring today.
The first is climate change adaptation. Rick Ridgeway from
Freedom To Roam will testify today about connecting habitat in
order for wildlife to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
The second solution we will explore is whether some of the
key laws under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural
Resources adequately reflect the reality of climate change.
These laws include the National Environmental Policy Act
[NEPA], as well as various organic acts for land management
agencies.
The State of California has moved far beyond the Federal
government in this area by releasing a draft guidance for
integrating climate change into the California Environmental
Quality Act. Today, we will be hearing from Mr. Tony Brunello
about California's efforts, and perhaps this can provide good
guidance on our Federal efforts.
President Obama has made climate change a top issue on his
agenda. Today, I am pleased that we are joined by
representatives of the Obama Administration to hear what
ongoing work and future plans are for combating climate change
on our public lands.
Climate change on Federal lands will be a key agenda item
of our Subcommittee and this Congress. I feel strongly that
while our public lands are threatened by climate change, they
are also critical in finding solutions to combat climate
change. As Congress goes about developing climate change
legislation, I will work to ensure that there is a role for
public lands. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today, and I will turn to the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee, Mr. Hastings, for any comments that he may have.
Sir?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands

Today our Subcommittee will be conducting an oversight hearing to
explore the role of federal lands in combating climate change. This
will be the first of a group of hearings our Subcommittee will conduct
on climate change. Today's hearing will focus primarily on Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, and we expect to
schedule a future hearing on National Park Service lands and climate
change.
The impacts of climate change on our federal lands are staggering.
Science shows that climate change will cause a spread of invasive
species, threaten native species, endanger watersheds, cause habitat
loss, and increase the intensity and length of the fire season on our
public lands. Today we will be hearing more about these impacts, and
suggested policy solutions, by reputable scientists such as Mark Harmon
from Oregon State University.
Climate change not only threatens the world class resources of our
federal lands, but also the millions of Americans who depend on and
enjoy our federal lands. Today we will be hearing from witnesses about
the role of rural public land communities in combating climate change;
and we will receive the perspectives of Indian country, the human-
powered recreation community, and the hunter-angler community on this
topic.
There are two potential climate change solutions that I am
particularly interested in exploring today. The first is climate change
adaptation. Rick Ridgeway from Freedom to Roam will testify today about
connecting habitat in order for wildlife to adapt to the impacts of
climate change.
A second solution we will explore is whether some of the key laws
under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources adequately
reflect the reality of climate change. These laws include the National
Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, as well as the various organic acts
for the land management agencies. The State of California has moved far
beyond the federal government in this area by releasing draft guidance
on integrating climate change into the California Environmental Quality
Act. Today we will be hearing from Mr. Tony Brunello about California's
efforts, and perhaps this can provide good guidance for federal
efforts.
President Obama has made climate change a top issue on his agenda.
Today I am pleased that we are joined by representatives of the Obama
Administration to hear what their ongoing work and future plans are for
combating climate change on our public lands.
Climate change and federal lands will be a key agenda item for our
Subcommittee this Congress. I feel strongly that while our public lands
are threatened by climate change, they are also critical in finding
solutions to combat climate change. As Congress goes about developing
climate change legislation, I will work to ensure that there is a role
for federal lands.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today. I would
now like to turn to Ranking Member Bishop for any opening statement he
may have.
______

Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being
here today. I have to say that I am pinch-hitting today. The
Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop of Utah, has a
conflict, and so I am sitting in for him. I will submit my
statement for the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington

Mr. Chairman, America has a vast expanse of public lands that are
rich in resources. If we use these gifts wisely they can be a bountiful
asset as we seek to overcome our current economic problems and increase
our security through improved access to domestic supplies of energy,
minerals, food, timber and other necessities.
Public lands also will play a significant environmental role as we
look for ways to build up our production and transmission of energy
from non-polluting sources including solar, hydro, nuclear and wind
energy.
One thing is certain: we cannot meet any of our economic,
environmental, lifestyle or national security objectives unless we make
intelligent choices regarding the use of public land.
There are two major issues I would like to see addressed at this
hearing.
First we need to know what new costs will be imposed on the
American people by the whole range of restrictions, investments, taxes
and cap and trade proposals being talked about to combat climate
change.
Second, before we act, we need to understand the magnitude of the
effect alternative energy sources--particularly wind and solar--will
have on public land. It has been estimated that tens of thousands of
square miles would be have to be used to meet a fraction--even one
fifth--of our power needs using wind power. Solar power raises similar
questions.
Perhaps it is time to apply the precautionary principle to some
proposed green governmental actions such as subsidies, regulations,
taxes and schemes that purport combat global warming.
______

Mr. Grijalva. Let me now turn to a Member of the Natural
Resources Committee, Ms. Lois Capps, for any comments she might
have.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just say thank
you for holding this hearing. I believe this is a very
important topic for us to be addressing, particularly under the
umbrella or the rubric of climate change. The role of public
lands in combating and adapting to climate change is a very
real challenge before us.
I want to thank the witnesses who have traveled to be here
with us today, and one is in the third panel, who is my
constituent, or, at least, from Ventura County, which I
represent, and that is Rick Ridgeway. I appreciate his being
part of our panel today of witnesses. Rick is the Vice
President of Environmental Programs at a very well-known
company called Patagonia, which is headquartered in my
congressional district and one of America's leading green
businesses.
Patagonia helped found Freedom To Roam, a national campaign
to create, restore, and protect wildlife corridors. I am proud
of the continued expansion and success of Freedom To Roam, and
I look forward to your presentation, Mr. Ridgeway.
Mr. Chairman, climate change is a very real and present
problem. Human activities have changed the climate of the
earth, and I think today's hearing is particularly important
for the western states of the United States because many
scientists are now saying that the American West will
experience the effects of climate change sooner and more
intensely than perhaps most other regions.
My home State of California has a lot at stake when it
comes to global warming. Our scarce snow and water right now is
already being impacted. Crops, such as California wine grapes,
are already on the brink, and the warming climate is
contributing to longer, wildland fire seasons with more extreme
events. We can all attest to that anecdotally, and there is
scientific evidence now as well.
We have a world-class tourist industry which has flourished
because of our natural beauty, but the impact of climate change
on winter snowfalls, agriculture, and our public lands poses a
major threat to the economic vitality of my state.
This hearing today is exceedingly important to help us
learn what is known and not known about the impacts of global
warming, and so I thank you for having this hearing. I look
forward to the expertise of our witnesses, and I will yield
back.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me now ask our colleague, Mr.
Coffman, if he has any opening comments.
Mr. Coffman. Mr. Chairman, I think I will pass until it is
time for questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Heinrich, any comments?
Mr. Heinrich. Yes, Chairman. Thank you. You know, I come
from the State of New Mexico and have a bit of a history in
water management. I was chair of our water utility authority in
the metropolitan Albuquerque area for some time, and one of the
things that we have seen is a real change in how precipitation,
and, particularly winter precipitation, is being impacted by
climate change.
Our functional water storage, much like in California in
the Sierras, is high in the mountains. It is on Forest Service
lands. We are seeing that snows not only run off much more
quickly and much more intensely, but, oftentimes, sublimate
directly to where it never makes it to the reservoirs in the
first place. Many of these impacts have huge ramifications for
not only our public lands but our entire population.
So I think this is a timely issue. We have certainly seen
changes in our fire regime throughout the Intermountain West,
and, particularly, in New Mexico, that are very concerning to
people who live in the urban wildland interface, and being
proactive with these issues, I think, is a credit to this
Committee, and I am looking forward to hearing what our
witnesses today have to say. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me ask Ms. Shea-Porter, do you
have any opening comments?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROL SHEA-PORTER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Ms. Shea-Porter. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am also
grateful for this hearing because we have a beautiful White
Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire, and there was a
hearing, about a year and a half ago, and they talked about
some of the impact of the climate change, and we had people
coming who had been trappers, who had been hunters, fishermen,
and also people who depended on our cold season for
snowmobiling and other economically viable activities--skiing,
of course, is critical--and what they were all saying was they
were seeing such changes.
They were seeing ticks, for example, in January and
February, which we never had. They were seeing birds that
should not be in our area earlier or later. They were seeing
changes in the leaves and many, many signs of changes. The
people who produce maple syrup were talking about the impact on
their business.
So this is very critical, and it is a very timely issue,
and I am grateful that we are having this hearing. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Ms. Tsongas, any comments?
Ms. Tsongas. I do welcome your testimony. I have a daughter
who was one of the many 12,000 young people who arrived
yesterday in town, Power Shift, to address the issue of global
warming and climate change.
So this is very timely, and I look forward to your
testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Kind?
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have a
statement that I would like to submit for the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kind follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ron Kind, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wisconsin

I would like to start by thanking Chairman Grijalva for calling
today's hearing on this very important topic. As the evidence of
climate change's effect on wildlife and their habitats continues to
mount, the need to plan adequately for these and future impacts grows
more and more urgent. This committee began delving into the topic
nearly two years ago with a hearing in the Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Oceans Subcommittee and subsequent inclusion of funding for planning
and adaptation on federal lands during the development of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007. Today's hearing, I hope, will be
another step forward in our understanding of the implications of
climate change for public lands and the various purposes for which they
were established, and our developing effective policies for addressing
these challenges.
Clearly, as I'm sure we will hear more about today, the challenges
to our public lands will be difficult and varied. Federal land units,
from the very small to the very large, are already susceptible to
events influenced by climactic variability, which include drought, wild
fires, impaired air quality, and severe storms. Climate change may
alter the frequency and severity of these kinds of events. Dealing with
these changes will require additional financial resources, as well as
the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions and evolving
priorities.
Many of our National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, National Forests, and
Bureau of Land Management lands serve vital ecological roles as
sanctuaries where plants and wildlife can thrive without the pressures
of excessive human development and interference. This role will become
even more important as climactic pressures build. Due to their strong
ecological integrity relative to other areas, these lands stand the
best chance of withstanding changing conditions, and wildlife will
increasingly utilize them as homes or as migration corridors as they
seek new habitat.
The prospect of greater reliance on federal lands by wildlife
raises the need for better management to protect wildlife and their
habitat. Unfortunately, there currently is no statutory or regulatory
requirement to manage and maintain wildlife populations during the
planning process for the Forest Service or the BLM, which together
oversee 457 million acres, or about 65 percent of our public lands.
Given the increasing importance of these lands in the future, it is
critical that we institute policies that put wildlife on solid footing
in our multiple use federal lands. That is why last year I introduced
America's Wildlife Heritage Act.
My bill would require the Forest Service and BLM to do their best
to maintain viable, or self-sustaining populations of native and
desirable non-native species on their lands. This would be implemented
through the periodic management planning process and subsequent
monitoring activities. Such planning and monitoring would revisit and
improve upon former Forest Service rules and expand them to the BLM for
the very first time.
The Bush Administration's decision to repeal the Forest Service
rules while also pursuing a lopsided focus on resource extraction on
public lands has been extremely damaging to wildlife. Most of the
evidence for this, however, is anecdotal because the federal government
does not require adequate monitoring of most wildlife species, so very
little accurate data exists. What is clear is that wildlife management
must not be subject to administrative fiat. The America's Wildlife
Heritage Act would provide the needed permanency in the form of a
forward-looking law that incorporates the most up-to-date scientific
principles and enough flexibility to make them workable.
As this Congress moves toward a bold new effort to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in our country, I hope this committee and the
agencies under our jurisdiction will be equally bold in their efforts
to mitigate and adapt to the changes these gases have caused and will
continue to cause. We cannot look to the past and rely on the same
tools we have used before; rather, we must look to new ideas to build
on what we have learned. I would like to thank all of the witnesses for
being here today and say that I look forward to hearing your ideas for
how we can move in that direction.
______

Mr. Kind. I also want to thank you for holding this very
important and timely hearing. I think all of us have been
looking forward to hearing testimony from some of the experts
on the impact of climate change on our public lands and on
wildlife, in particular.
It is one of the reasons why, last year, I introduced
America's Wildlife Heritage Act. It would require, for the
first time, because, right now, there is no statutory or
regulatory requirement for the Forest Service or BLM to take in
the impact of climate change on wildlife populations on our
public lands. We are talking about 457 million acres, close to
65 percent of the public lands with those two entities alone,
and there is nothing in the planning process, either
statutorily or regulatory, that would require them to measure
that impact on wildlife and their habitat.
So, hopefully, I will be able to work with this Committee
as we move forward this year on that legislation and hear the
testimony from our witnesses here today that can provide us
further guidance on what practical steps we can take to deal
with such a huge and growing issue.
So thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing
the testimony.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me thank my colleagues for their comments
and turn to our first panel. I will begin with Chief Gail
Kimbell, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. Welcome
again, and we look forward to your comments and testimony.
Please.

STATEMENT OF GAIL KIMBELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Ms. Kimbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here
today to discuss the very important role that national forests
and national grasslands play in addressing climate change.
I am accompanied today by Dr. David Cleaves, who is our
acting deputy chief for Research and Development.
I would ask that my full statement be read into the
record----
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
Ms. Kimbell [continuing]. Thank you--and I will summarize
my statement.
We have before us significant challenges and opportunities
in managing our nearly 200 million acres of national forests
and grasslands in a changing climate. Decisions being made
today by policymakers and resource managers have implications
through this century and beyond. History will judge the leaders
of our age, including my own leadership, as chief forester, by
how well we respond to this challenge.
Our national forests and grasslands provide a wide spectrum
of ecosystem services that are so very important to our
society. They include clean water, clean air, outdoor
recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and forest products.
They also include natural resource-based jobs, renewable
energy, and carbon sequestration.
However, observations show that climate change is currently
impacting the nation's forests and grassland ecosystems in
significant ways and, likewise, their ability to provide those
ecosystem services.
The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests and
grasslands for present and future generations. Recognizing the
changing context of our environment, we have developed a
Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change. The
Strategic Framework lays out seven key goals to help us set
priorities and make informed decisions for sustaining forests
and grasslands. I will focus on the first three of these goals:
science, mitigation, and adaptation.
The Forest Service has over 100 years of research and
investigation that provide a firm, scientific foundation for
our understanding of forests and grasslands and their
management. Climate change has changed many assumptions.
We have over 20 years of focused climate change research
and over 30 years of air pollution effects research. Thirteen
Forest Service scientists shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
as part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Forest Service and university and private sector
research partners provide an evolving science and technology
base for use in managing national forests and grasslands. We
use that science in adaptation and mitigation to enhance the
ability of the national forests to adapt to the stresses of
climate change and to provide clean water, clean air, and other
ecosystem services. Some ecosystems adapt rapidly enough to
maintain productivity in the face of climate change. However,
climate change impacts other forest types more significantly
and exceeds their capacity to adapt.
Managers and policymakers need to be nimble to use new
science to adapt to changing conditions. The scope of climate
change and its impacts are not always easy to predict. Dealing
with risks and uncertainties introduced by climate change is
becoming a more prominent part of every district ranger's and
every forest supervisor's decision process.
In some cases, failing to take management action can result
in allowing catastrophic disruption to an ecosystem and its
ability to provide for the things we have come to expect from
our public lands: clean water, clean air.
Each year, the Forest Service treats millions of acres of
national forests to make them more resistant and resilient in
the face of intense wildfire activity, insect and disease,
tropical storms, and flooding. This same work helps to make
these same lands more resilient and capable of sequestering
more carbon.
The Forest Service is working to identify different ways to
utilize wood fiber and small-diameter material. When woody
materials are removed in forest-restoration projects or any of
our projects, it not only reduces the risk of damage from
wildfire and other disturbances; it provides a source of
cellulose for bioenergy or for other wood products and
decreases emissions from forest fires. This work provides jobs,
green jobs, and can contribute to the long-term economic health
of rural communities.
Ultimately, the issue that might bring people to
understanding the importance of the health of their national
forest ecosystems is water. In the West, 60 percent of
municipal water originates on national forests. It is critical
that those forest soils, those forest stands, the hydrologic
systems, be able to function in the way they were designed to
deliver clean and abundant water to streams and rivers for
later use by not only the plants and animals that depend on
them along the way but the ever-growing human population.
Water is already a scarce commodity in many places across
the United States, and the health of our forests is a critical
consideration of how to manage in an era of climate change.
Our national forests play a vital role in helping our
nation respond to the challenges of a changing climate. The
Forest Service is working to improve the health and
sustainability of the national forests, which, in turn, will
help these ecosystems adapt to the effects of climate change
and permit them to absorb great quantities of carbon from the
atmosphere.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues with
the Subcommittee. I will be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kimbell follows:]

Statement of Abigail Kimbell, Chief, Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me today to discuss the important role national forests and
grasslands play in addressing climate change. Healthy, resilient
watersheds represent one of the best insurance policies we have in a
changing climate. I will focus my remarks on the science-based
management approaches we are employing to enhance the capacity of our
national forests and grasslands to adapt to the effects and mitigate
the impacts of climate change.
Forest Service Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change
Our national forests and grasslands provide a wide spectrum of
ecosystem services on which society relies, including clean water,
scenic beauty, outdoor recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, natural
resource-based jobs, forest products, renewable energy, and carbon
sequestration. However, observations show that climate change is
currently impacting the nation's ecosystems and services in significant
ways and those alterations are very likely to accelerate in the future,
in some cases dramatically. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CCSP. May 2008. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 (SAP 4.3):
The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water
Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States, P. Backlund, A.
Janetos, and D. Schimel, lead authors. A report by the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program (CCSP). Abstract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Service's mission is to sustain the health, diversity,
and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the
needs of present and future generations. To improve our ability to
carry out our mission in a changing climate, the Forest Service
developed a Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change.
The Strategic Framework identified seven key goals to help us set
priorities and make informed decisions for sustaining forest and
grassland resources:
Science--Advance our understanding of climate change.
Adaptation--Enhance the capacity of forests and grasslands to
adjust to the impacts of climate change.
Mitigation--Promote the management of forests and grasslands to
reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases.
Policy--Integrate climate change considerations as appropriate into
Forest Service policies, program guidance, and communications.
Sustainable Operations--Reduce the environmental footprint of our
operations and facilities.
Education--Advance awareness and understanding.
Alliances--Establish, enhance, and retain strong alliances and
partnerships.
These interrelated goals can assist our thinking in how we
accomplish our work on National Forest System lands in the face of
changing environmental, social, and economic conditions. To achieve
these goals, the Forest Service will work collaboratively with the
public and a broad range of agencies and partners. We recognize these
goals will not be realized immediately. However, we plan to make our
goals a reality over time through the ongoing implementation of actions
to address climate change.
I highlight below our efforts on three Strategic Framework goals
directly related to federal lands and climate change: Science,
Adaptation, and Mitigation.
Science
Science that advances our understanding of the environmental,
economic, and social implications of how climate change impacts forests
and grasslands is essential for scientists, managers and policymakers.
There is a wide range of existing science that needs to be translated
into land management applications, tools and information. In addition,
citizens knowledgeable about climate change and its impacts on
ecosystems will be better prepared to participate in decisions and
actions affecting their national forests and grasslands.
Climate change presents significant challenges to sustainable
management of National Forest System lands. Decisions being made today
by policymakers and resource managers will have implications through
the next century. Recent reports from the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program (CCSP) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
highlight the impacts of climate change on forests and grasslands.
These impacts include changes in precipitation and water availability,
shifts in plant and animal distribution, and longer, warmer growing
seasons. In 2008, the CCSP released a Synthesis and Assessment Report
on the Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water
Resources, and Biodiversity. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id., p. 118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report found that:
Climate change has very likely increased the number and
frequency of forest fires and insect outbreaks in the Interior West
(Colorado and the Great Basin), the Southwest, and Alaska, and will
continue to do so.
Rising CO2 will very likely increase
photosynthesis for forests, but this increase will likely only enhance
wood production in young forests on fertile soils.
Nitrogen deposition and warmer temperatures have very
likely increased forest growth where adequate water is available and
will continue to do so in the near future.
The combined effects of rising temperatures and
CO2, nitrogen deposition, ozone, and forest disturbance on
soil processes and soil carbon storage remain unclear.
Projected increases in temperature and a lengthening of
the growing season will likely extend forage production into late fall
and early spring, thereby decreasing need for winter-season forage
reserves.
Climate-change-induced shifts in plant species are
already under way in rangelands. Establishment of perennial herbaceous
species is reducing soil water availability early in the growing
season.
The Forest Service has a long history of researching and tracking
many aspects of national forest and grassland ecosystems. We have over
two decades of focused climate research, three decades of air pollution
research, and experience in scientific assessments that provide a firm
scientific foundation for addressing the challenges of managing these
ecosystems relative to climate change. Over the years, nearly 125
Forest Service scientists have published climate change research
reports and peer-reviewed publications. Thirteen Forest Service
scientists were involved in the climate change work of the IPCC that
shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, the Forest Service
and its research partners in the university and private sectors have
established a strong science base for informing management practices
under a wide range of stressors and management objectives. This science
base is being blended with newer findings to provide an evolving
science and technology base for use in managing national forests and
grasslands in a changing climate.
The Forest Service recently completed the Global Change Research
Strategy for 2009-2019. The Strategy is aimed at providing science
related to climate change for land managers, policymakers, scientists,
and citizens. Our research will focus on adaptation, mitigation,
decision support, and science delivery with support from research from
other areas such as land use change, interactions between fire and
fuels management, carbon cycles, ecosystem management, insects and
disease, water, air, soils, wildlife, and social and economic sciences.
The Forest Inventory and Analysis Program has tracked changes in
the extent, health, and productivity of forests since the 1930s. In the
early 1990s, additional forest health indicators were added to the
program and this data can be used over the long term to detect changes
in forests at regional and national levels. In addition, the nationwide
network of federal experimental forests and ranges provides up to 100
years of data on climate, hydrology, soil productivity, and
silvicultural treatments from selected locations representing all the
major forest types in the United States. Further scientific support
comes from partnerships with universities, federal and state agencies,
non-governmental organizations, and the forest industry.
The challenge is to translate this science into information, tools,
and technologies that people can use. In addition, we have important
science gaps that need to be addressed. Climate models lack the ability
to provide projections at the detailed scale that is most useful to
land managers and local and regional planners. We lack critical
information to determine the stresses of a warming climate and carbon
dioxide on plant growth. We need more science about the timing, scale,
and location of climate change impacts. Our scientists are looking for
better ways of forecasting how terrestrial ecosystems will change in
response to a changing climate and how the changes will affect animals
and plants that depend on these ecosystems. The Strategic Framework,
the Research Strategy and the USDA science strategy recognize these
gaps, and the Forest Service is working with USDA and other federal
agencies and partners to address them.
Adaptation
The goal of climate change adaptation for forests and grasslands is
to enhance their ability to adapt to the environmental stresses of
climate change, which will help to ensure their ability to serve as
fully functioning ecosystems that provide a broad range of ecosystem
services. The ability to adjust to climate change is critical because
of its expected effects.
Even under the most optimistic carbon dioxide emission scenarios,
important changes in sea level, regional and super-regional
temperatures, and precipitation patterns will have profound effects.
Management of water resources will become more challenging. Increased
evidence of disturbances such as forest fires, insect outbreaks, severe
storms, and drought will command public attention and place increasing
demands on management resources. Ecosystems are likely to be pushed
increasingly into alternate states with possible breakdown of
traditional species relationships, such as pollinator/plant and
predator/prey interactions, adding additional stresses and potential
for system failures. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id., Abstract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some forest systems may experience near-term productivity
increases, but over the long term, many such systems are likely to
experience overall decreases in productivity that could result in
economic losses, diminished ecosystems services, and the need for new,
and in many cases significant, changes to management regimes.
4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id., Abstract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managers and policymakers will need to be nimble in using new
information to adapt to changing conditions because the scope of
climate change and its impacts on ecosystems are difficult to predict.
In addition, dealing with risks and uncertainties introduced or made
worse by climate change will need to be a more prominent part of our
management decision processes. In some cases, failing to take
management actions will result in significant disruptions to
ecosystems, so we must maintain as many options as possible now and in
the future for handling unexpected events and conditions.
The primary focus of climate change efforts on National Forest
System lands is to facilitate the adaptation of ecosystems to the
effects of these changes. Each year, we manage millions of acres of
National Forest System land to make forests and grasslands more
resistant to wildland fires, insects and diseases, and more resilient
to major disturbances such as intense wildfires, tropical storms, and
floods. For example, we conduct prescribed burning and thin dense
stands to reduce competition, alter species composition, reduce fuels,
and improve forest health. These same treatments help our national
forests and the species that depend on them adapt to the stresses
associated with climate change.
Water is one of the most critical ecosystem services provided by
forests and grasslands. Water quality, quantity, and the timing of
water flow have important environmental, social, and economic
consequences. Forests in the United States provide 53% of the Nation's
drinking water to more than 180 million people, with 66 million relying
directly on National Forest System lands as their water source. Plants,
animals, natural and managed ecosystems, and human settlements are
susceptible to variations in the storage, fluxes, and quality of water,
all of which are sensitive to climate change. Precipitation,
streamflow, and stream temperatures are increasing in most of the
continental United States. The western United States is experiencing
reduced snowpack and earlier peaks in spring runoff, and we are seeing
increased drought severity and duration in the western and southwestern
United States. 5 Clearly, we need effective approaches to
address these changes, and we are developing a water strategy to
address these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id. Executive Summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More extensive application of these efforts is vital for adaptation
of national forests and grasslands, and will need to be part of future
research, planning and management actions. To accelerate our learning
and understanding, we are practicing science-based adaptive management,
an approach that promotes learning through doing. This approach
involves actively making decisions and monitoring results to improve
our understanding about the complex systems we manage.
Some management actions may need to be expanded, such as planting a
more diverse species mix in reforestation efforts that may be better
adapted to future climate projections. New management strategies may be
useful, such as assisted migration of species and solutions to moderate
extreme stream flows. Specific techniques need to be continually
developed, tested and evaluated. Monitoring the effectiveness of our
actions is a critically important component of this adaptive adjustment
process.
Mitigation
Adaptation and mitigation activities are inherently interrelated.
The goal of climate change mitigation for forests and grasslands is to
reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases by removing carbon from the
atmosphere while sustaining these ecosystems. To significantly reduce
its greenhouse gas emissions, the United States will need to implement
a variety of mitigation strategies, including sequestering more carbon
in forests, grasslands, wetlands, soils, and wood products, planting
trees, implementing carbon capture and storage from point sources, and
conserving energy through multiple options, including product
substitution and use of alternative fuels. A wide variety of strategies
can cumulatively contribute to a significant decrease in emissions.
Net carbon uptake by terrestrial ecosystems in the United States,
coupled with storage in wood products and landfills, currently offsets
about 12 percent of United States greenhouse gas emissions from fossil
fuel combustion and cement production. 6 Management of
forests and grasslands to enhance terrestrial carbon storage, including
planting trees and avoiding forest conversion, has considerable
potential as an important component of the global capacity to mitigate
effects of fossil fuel emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ US EPA. April 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2006. USEPA #430-R-08-005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The long-term ability of forests to sequester carbon depends in
part on their resilience. Mitigation is actually dependent on how
successful we are in keeping forests well-adapted to the changing
climate we are trying to remedy. The interplay between mitigation and
adaptation can result in delicate balances and difficult tradeoffs in
our decision-making.
Active management may increase the resiliency of forests and arid
lands to respond to climate change. Forest thinning can reduce fire
intensity, increase drought tolerance and reduce susceptibility to
insect attack. Grazing management and control of invasive species can
promote vegetation cover, reduce fire risk, and reduce erosion.
7 These management practices, designed to restore ecosystem
health, may in the near-term reduce total stored carbon below current
levels. However, in the long-term the overall capacity of these
ecosystems to sequester carbon can be enhanced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ CCSP. May 2008. SAP 4.3. p. 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As one of the mitigation strategies, the Forest Service is looking
at ways to use smaller diameter woody biomass from overcrowded forests.
Biomass removal through forest restoration projects reduces the risk of
damage from wildfires and other disturbances and provides a source of
cellulose for bio-energy and wood products. The removed biomass also
decreases the net effective emissions from disturbance events, offsets
fossil fuel emissions, and increases long-term carbon storage. The
Forest Service Bioenergy and Bio-based Products Strategic Direction was
recently completed and is aimed at providing science to analyze and
inform policy and develop a variety of tools useful for landowners and
land managers. We are working to provide the science and technology to
effectively utilize this type of biomass.
The implementation of restoration activities and increases in
renewable energy products and bio-fuels can provide jobs for
economically depressed areas with high unemployment and contribute to
the long-term economic stability of rural forest communities.
Sustainable forest management can provide woody biomass materials that
could be used in the future production of renewable energy which may
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The 2007 Energy Act amended the Renewable Fuel Standards to
increase annual amounts of transportation fuel required to be obtained
from renewable fuels. The Clean Air Act defines renewable fuels as
transportation fuel produced from renewable biomass. The 2007 Energy
Act's definition of renewable biomass excludes materials from federal
lands except those obtained from the immediate vicinity of buildings
and other areas regularly occupied by people, or public infrastructure,
at risk of wildfire. We continue our analyses of these and other
provisions of these laws, and are in the process of developing policy
considerations to utilize woody biomass from federal lands through
improvement in infrastructure to process woody biomass, better the
economic utility of this biomass as a source of renewable energy, and
enhance cost-effective forest restoration treatments that improve
forest health and reduce risk of wildfire.
Conclusion
The changing climate is shifting precipitation patterns, vegetation
and species distribution, and disturbance patterns, none of which
respect administrative boundaries. We are taking science-based adaptive
management approaches today to improve the health and sustainability of
our national forests and grasslands, which in turn will help these
ecosystems adapt to the effects of climate change and mitigate the
amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Private forests and rangelands also
have a very significant role to play in combating climate change. We
are working with partners to adapt our forest and rangeland management
programs to anticipate the effects of climate change and mitigate the
potential impacts across all ownerships.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues with the
Subcommittee. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______

Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Chief.
Let me ask Mr. Thomas Armstrong, Senior Advisor for Global
Change Program, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the
Interior. Sir, welcome.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS R. ARMSTRONG, SENIOR ADVISOR FOR GLOBAL
CHANGE PROGRAM, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR

Mr. Armstrong. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to participate on
behalf of the Department of the Interior in today's hearing on
combating climate change and the role of Federal lands.
My name is Tom Armstrong, and I am the Senior Advisor for
Global Change Programs at the U.S. Geological Survey. I also
represent the USGS and the Department of the Interior as a
principal member of the U.S. Climate Change Science program.
Perhaps no subject relevant to public resource managers is
as complex and challenging as global climate change. DOI is
focusing its resources on better understanding the impacts
related to climate change and helping to identify potential
adaptation strategies for managing our natural resources and
vital ecosystems in the face of these changes.
Let me give you some specific examples of climate-change-
related impacts on DOI lands, waters, and other resources.
The Bureau of Land Management is a steward of the national
system of public lands: 258 million acres of surface lands and
700 million acres of subsurface Federal mineral estate,
encompassing climate-sensitive arctic tundra, coastal forests,
and the vast mountain deserts, and rangelands of the American
West. They provide water resources, wildlife habitat,
recreation opportunities, forest products, livestock forage,
and mineral and energy resources.
The National Park Service units represent a wide range of
ecosystems scattered across the Nation that present a
tremendous opportunity to observe the effects of climate change
on resource conditions that scientists and managers have
documented over decades.
Begun almost nine years ago, the National Park Service
Natural Resource Challenge Initiative has funded parks across
the Nation to conduct inventories and initiate climate-
relevant, viable science monitoring of national resources under
the NPS's jurisdiction. This information has provided timely
examples of the effects of climate change now visible in many
of the nation's national parks.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists working on
the ground are observing changes in many of our natural systems
as well. These changes are more acutely evident in arctic
ecosystems, where observations include wetland drainage,
earlier green-up of arctic vegetation, and changes in the
hydrology of glacially fed streams.
Increased arctic temperatures have also contributed to
earlier onset of snowmelt and the lengthening of the melting
season, resulting in decreased total ice cover at summer's end.
Climate change in the arctic will continue to affect the
habitats of ice-dependent species, such as the polar bear and
the walrus. Now, let me briefly discuss how we are focusing our
resources to combat climate change and its impacts.
The USGS is collecting, monitoring, analyzing, and
providing scientific information about natural resources
conditions, issues, and problems for use by decisionmakers in
the Department, at all levels of government, and by the general
public. This information, coupled with its effective
dissemination, is the key to combating the effects of climate
change.
To this end, the USGS has created a climate effects
network, an early warning system on the effects of climate
change, as well as the National Climate Change and Wildlife
Science Center for understanding fish, wildlife, and related
habitat response to changing climate.
The efforts of USGS will result in new knowledge and tools
to support land and resource managers, citizens, and other
stakeholders in managing and making decisions that will be
cost-effective, provide for more resilient ecosystems and
watersheds, and, ultimately, safer communities.
The Administration recognizes the important role science
plays in understanding and addressing the impacts of climate
change. The President's 2010 budget blueprint includes more
than $130 million in additional funding for the Department to
monitor, adaptively manage, and assess the impacts of climate
change on the nation's lands, fish, waters, and wildlife. While
more details relating to the Department's budget will become
available as the planning process continues, this is an
important endorsement of the need for scientific analyses to
understand and address these changes.
The Department of the Interior has a natural leadership
role among Federal agencies addressing climate change on
Federal lands and can bring all of its resource management,
scientific, and information capabilities to bear in
accomplishing this goal.
All of the Department's land-managing bureaus have taken
actions to identify and address the impacts of climate change,
but the complexity of the problem and the scope of the issues
demonstrates that more work is, indeed, necessary.
As Secretary Salazar assembles his team, the Department
will work with its counterparts in this Administration to
address the important issues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present my
testimony, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you
and the other Members may have for me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Armstrong follows:]

Statement of Dr. Thomas R. Armstrong, Senior Advisor for Global Change
Programs, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to participate on behalf of the Department of the Interior
in today's hearing on combating climate change and the role of Federal
lands. My name is Thomas R. Armstrong, and I am the senior advisor for
Global Change Programs at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). I also
represent the USGS and the Department as a Principal member of the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
The Department has a natural leadership role among Federal agencies
addressing climate change on Federal lands and can bring all of its
resource management expertise, capacity for alternative energy
development, and scientific and information capabilities to bear in
accomplishing that goal. As Secretary Salazar assembles his team, the
Department will work with its counterparts in the Administration to
address these important issues.
My statement today largely focuses on the USGS's role with regard
to climate change research and science, focusing on climate impacts on
our natural resources, including water, land, and wildlife. In
addition, Section 711of the Energy Independence and Security Act (P.L.
110-140), enacted into law in December 2007, authorized the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the USGS, to develop an
assessment methodology and conduct a national assessment of geological
storage capacity in collaboration with other relevant agencies. The
USGS's ability to collect, monitor, and analyze relevant data allows it
to provide scientific information about natural resource conditions,
issues, and problems to decision-makers in the Department, at all
levels of government, and the general public. This information--
baseline scientific information, trends detection, modeling and
forecasting, together with the effective dissemination of information
and decision support tools--is key to understanding and addressing
climate change and its effects.
The Administration has recognized the important role science plays
in understanding and addressing the impacts of climate change. The
President's 2010 Budget Blueprint includes more than $130 million in
additional funding for Interior, of which $40 million is shared with
the States to monitor, adaptively manage, and assess the impacts of
climate change on the Nation's lands, fish and wildlife. While more
details relating to the Department's budget, and these particular
activities, will become available as the planning process continues,
this is an important endorsement of the need for scientific analyses to
understand and address these changes.
My statement also includes summary information on the impacts of
changing climate as seen on the ground by the Department's land
managing bureaus and the Bureau of Reclamation, as well as a brief look
at adaptation and mitigation issues facing the bureaus as they carry
out their missions. I am also joined by representatives from the Bureau
of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, who are here to answer any questions you might have
with respect to their programs.
Background
Perhaps no subject relevant to public land managers is as complex
and challenging as global climate change. The Department of the
Interior manages one in every five acres of the U.S. land mass. The
bureaus within it operate dams and irrigation facilities that provide
water to farmers and manage leases from which one-third of the Nation's
domestic energy supplies are produced. Lands and waters under the
Department's management jurisdiction account for significant
contributions to our alternative energy supply from sources such as
biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind power. Our wildlife refuges and
national parks provide important wildlife habitat and manage extensive
areas of shoreline and important wetlands. In Alaska alone, where the
most tangible effects of climate change are being seen in the United
States, the Department manages tens of millions of acres of public
land, parks, and refuges.
Climate change affects biota, water, ecosystems, cultures, and
economies. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) notes that climate change is expected to
affect precipitation patterns, vegetation types and distribution,
wildlife habitat and behavior, fire frequency, sea levels, the spread
of pests and diseases, as well as a broad range of human activities. In
order to effectively manage its lands and trust resources, the
Department, working within the broader U.S. interagency climate change
science framework, has a responsibility to further the scientific
understanding of climate change processes and impacts. USGS scientists
were contributing authors of the Climate Change Science Program's
Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4: Preliminary Review of Adaptation
Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources, drawing on
their expertise to identify adaptation strategies for National Parks
and National Wildlife Refuges. The USGS conducts scientific research to
understand the likely consequences of climate change, especially by
studying how climate has changed in the past and using this historical
record to forecast responses to shifting climate conditions in the
future; distinguishing between natural and human-influenced changes;
and recognizing ecological and physical responses to changes in
climate. These strengths allow USGS to play a critical role in
conducting climate change science across the Nation's terrestrial,
freshwater, and coastal systems--within and beyond Federal lands--and
in providing objective science to assist decision-makers.
USGS Climate Change Science
Using these integrated assets, the USGS is creating a Climate
Effects Network, an early warning system on the effects of climate
change. USGS is also developing a National Climate Change and Wildlife
Science Center for understanding fish and wildlife responses to
changing climate and for testing and validating related adaptation
decisions by land managers and other stakeholders. The efforts of USGS
will result in new knowledge and tools to support land and resource
managers, citizens, and other stakeholders in making decisions that
will be cost effective, provide more resilient ecosystems and
watersheds, and safer communities.
The USGS provides on-the-ground scientific information from its
numerous observation and monitoring networks and research activities.
These observations and related research efforts are important
components for building climate models, especially those that deal with
the impacts of climate change to terrestrial, freshwater, and marine
ecosystems. The ability to provide ground-truthing across multiple
scientific disciplines in a wide variety of spatial and temporal scales
enables the USGS to play a key role within the climate science
community as we, and others in the international community, strive to
develop adaptation and mitigation measures.
Regarding climate impacts on Federal lands, USGS findings and data
provide critical information to decision-makers regarding many
important climate-related issues, such as:
Proliferation of invasive species and impacts on
biodiversity, habitat, and ecosystems. The USGS is conducting several
major studies throughout the United States looking at the evolution of
forest and rangeland communities as a response to warming climate and
changes in precipitation. The U.S. Forest Service, several land
resource bureaus of the Department, and numerous State resource
agencies are important stakeholders.
Current and future trends of climate warming in the
Arctic and resultant permafrost degradation and impacts on energy and
transportation. The USGS is conducting several coordinated studies on
the North Slope and Yukon Basin of Alaska. Emphasis is on permafrost
and climate effects monitoring and related ecological and socio-
economic changes. This work is a partnership with the U.S. Forest
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, the National Park Service, the University of Alaska, Alaska
State agencies, and various Native communities.
Coastal erosion in Alaska. A recent study, led by the
USGS, finds that average annual erosion rates along part of the
Beaufort Sea climbed from historical levels of about 20 feet per year
between the mid-1950s and late-1970s, to 28 feet per year between the
late-1970s and early 2000s, to a rate of 45 feet per year between 2002
and 2007. While the findings could represent a short-term episode, the
study, published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters,
could represent the future pattern of coastline erosion in the Arctic.
Consequences of abrupt changes in climate including sea-
level rise and impacts to low-lying coastal communities. USGS projects
include two Priority Ecosystem Studies in the Chesapeake Bay and the
Everglades. The USGS is collaborating with many partners, including the
Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the land
management bureaus within the Department.
Impacts of climate change on land use and landscape
change. In partnership with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and NOAA, the USGS is involved in a variety of
activities that are critical to understanding the impacts of climate
change on public lands. These include monitoring of coastal zone
topography and bathymetry; the production and distribution of national
topography data; and improving our knowledge of topographic surface
change through Landsat, and light-imaging detection and ranging (LIDAR)
and radar imaging of the U.S. national land surface.
Future availability of water for people and ecosystems.
Specific projects underway include hydroclimatology studies in the
Pacific Northwest and arid Southwest to assess current and future
changes in water availability for these regions, and to identify
associated impacts on dam and reservoir management strategies. The
Bureau of Reclamation and several State water agencies are principal
stakeholders for this work.
Scientific findings related to climate change must be effectively
conveyed and delivered in a timely manner so that decision-makers are
informed by the most relevant, up to date, objective information
possible. Furthermore, scientists must provide this information with
accurate estimates of uncertainty so that conclusions and
recommendations drawn from scientific studies can be properly
evaluated. The CCSP, of which both the USGS and the Department are
members, is actively involved in developing a more effective decision
support strategy for all interested stakeholders.
Although science has come far in understanding the impacts of
climate change on people and ecosystems, many significant challenges
and unique opportunities to better understand the long-term climate
future for our planet remain. These include:
Developing a holistic, earth-systems science approach to
help communities and natural resource managers prepare for climate
change impacts;
Developing a better understanding of how the earth and
its physical and biological processes interact, and with this
understanding respond to climate change over the short-term and well
into the future;
Forecasting climate-related impacts for physical and
biological systems;
Forecasting precipitation changes as a consequence of
changing climate;
Determining how global warming may alter the frequency,
intensity, and paths of strong storms, including hurricanes, as well as
their impacts on coastal communities and natural resources; and;
Understanding effects of climate change on entire
ecosystems.
Included below is a summary of the impacts of changing climate on
our bureau assets and resources and a brief look at adaptation and
mitigation issues that the bureaus are currently facing. As can be
seen, all the Department's land managing bureaus have taken some
actions to identify and address the impacts of climate change, but the
complexity of the problem and the scope of the issues to be addressed
means more work is necessary.
Bureau of Land Management
The BLM is steward of the National System of Public Lands, 258
million acres of surface lands and 700 million acres of subsurface
Federal mineral estate that are tremendously diverse. Encompassing
Arctic tundra, coastal forests, and the vast mountains, deserts, and
rangelands of the American West, they provide water resources, wildlife
habitat, recreation opportunities, forest products, livestock forage,
and mineral and energy resources.
The effects of climate change may already be apparent on public
lands managed by BLM. One example is the desertification of public
lands as a result of an increase in the frequency and duration of
drought, which has recently been linked to long-term changes in the
climate system. This has been accompanied by reductions in surface flow
and groundwater levels, and a reduction in water availability.
Vegetation in some places has converted to more drought hardy species,
accompanied by or resulting from the expansion of non-native and other
undesirable species. In some instances, species numbers have been
reduced and, in affected habitat, some species have been lost. The
overall results of these changes are more fragile ecosystems, a greater
susceptibility to the outbreak of attacks by parasites and disease,
increased vulnerability to wildland fire and erosion, and an overall
reduction in carrying capacity. In Alaska, increased melting and other
loss of glacial masses is seen and permafrost melting is occurring,
resulting in loss of soil stability and increased erosion.
As a bureau, BLM is beginning to address climate change as a
comprehensive factor in general management planning, and to identify
the effects under cumulative impact analysis in environmental
assessments. At this point, however, there is little guidance in
dealing with this issue; as knowledge of climate change processes
matures, the bureau's ability to address it will evolve and almost
certainly improve. The BLM is currently working on refinements to
enhance integration of science, planning, and project implementation.
The BLM is also working to increase its ability to monitor, assess,
predict, and respond to landscape changes over time, and is also
continuing and expanding science research partnerships with the USGS,
Department of Energy, other agencies, and universities.
The BLM is also implementing programs to address climate change on
a broader scale. Maintaining and restoring healthy, resilient
ecosystems is crucial to ameliorating and adapting to the effects of
climate change. Much has been learned as this effort has evolved. Most
importantly, the Bureau has recognized that landscape-scale problems
require landscape-scale responses. Effective management must apply
science, integrate disciplines, involve partners, coordinate
jurisdictions, and link local actions to regional management strategies
and priorities. Examples include the Great Basin Restoration Initiative
underway in Nevada, Oregon, and Idaho, and the Healthy Forests
Initiative, which focuses on restoring forest ecosystems across public
lands.
The BLM is providing opportunities for increased production of
renewable energy through permitting on public lands of wind, solar and
geothermal generation projects--of which there is vast potential--and
projects for use of woody biomass resulting from forest management. The
BLM's completed programmatic plans estimate that, by 2025, wind energy
capacity on public lands could reasonably increase five-fold from
current levels. The projected increase for geothermal energy is even
greater. Fully 90 percent of the existing and future geothermal
resources in the United States are on Federal lands, and geothermal
energy capacity could reasonably increase 15-20-fold by 2025.
Similarly, solar energy on public lands holds great potential, and BLM
is currently completing a programmatic environmental impact statement
to assess potential development scenarios for solar energy and to help
facilitate the development of solar energy projects on the public
lands.
The public lands may also have an important role in efforts to
mitigate emissions through terrestrial and geologic carbon
sequestration. The capability to capture and store carbon dioxide in
geologic formations could have a significant role in mitigating carbon
dioxide emissions, which are a key factor in climate change. Geologic
carbon sequestration is also considered especially important because it
could enable the more climate-friendly use of the Nation's vast coal
resources. However, the challenges of geologic carbon sequestration are
complex and significant, and many technological, scientific, legal and
logistical questions exist. The BLM is working in cooperation with the
Department of Energy to assess the feasibility of geologic
sequestration, and BLM is currently preparing recommendations regarding
the potential administration of geological sequestration projects on
public lands.
Finally, BLM is implementing policies and practices that result in
reduction of energy and other natural resources used by the bureau, as
well as production of pollutants that exacerbate climate change
effects.
National Park Service
National park units represent a wide range of ecosystems scattered
across the nation that present a tremendous opportunity to observe the
effects of climate change on resource conditions that scientists and
managers have documented over decades. Begun almost nine years ago, the
National Park Service Natural Resources Challenge Initiative has funded
parks across the nation to conduct inventories and initiate vital signs
monitoring of natural resources under the NPS's jurisdiction. The
combination of these sources of information, long-term legacy
monitoring data, and new inventories has provided timely examples of
the possible effects of climate change now visible in parks.
Based on NPS and other collaborative research, climate change
presents significant risks and challenges to national parks. Warming
temperatures have caused accelerated melting of mountain glaciers,
reduced snowpack, and changes in timing and amount of stream flow. As
noted above, these impacts are particularly felt in Alaska, where
melting sea ice threatens marine mammals as well as coastal
communities, and thawing permafrost is contributing to the loss of
buildings, roads, and facilities and disrupting the structural basis of
large regions of interior Alaska. Shoreline vulnerability maps for
parks, created by the USGS, predict that rising seas will erode beaches
and coastlines and submerge wetlands and Native American cultural
artifacts at coastal park units. Inundation of coastal estuaries,
intertidal zones, and beaches will result in beach loss. Elevated water
temperatures are causing coral bleaching and disease, and aggravating
water quality problems that lead to harmful algal blooms. Estuaries,
which are essentially fish nurseries that filter pollutants and protect
the coast from storm surges, will be submerged faster than new sediment
can build up. Valuable habitat for eelgrass beds, foraging waterbirds,
shorebirds and nearshore fish will be lost. While some impacts are
already measurable, the long-range effects of climate disruption on NPS
natural and cultural resources, park infrastructure, and visitor
experience are not currently known.
Because climate change has been identified as one of highest
priorities for the NPS, many actions and activities have been
undertaken at parks and within regions. The NPS is now in the process
of developing a strategic framework for action that will detail long
and short-term actions in three major areas: mitigation, adaptation,
and public communication. The NPS has hired a Climate Change
Coordinator, created six ad-hoc working groups--Legal & Policy;
Planning; Science; Resource Stewardship; Greenhouse Gas Emission &
Sustainable Operations, and Communication--to explore key goals and
strategic actions that need to be addressed at park, regional, and
national levels; and has held a series of regional and interagency
workshops to explore climate change impacts and coping strategies and
to develop action plans. In conjunction with the Environmental
Protection Agency, in 2003 the NPS initiated the Climate Friendly Parks
Program to promote sustainable operations in parks and create action
plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with almost 50 parks now
participating. The NPS also created the Environmental Management
Systems Programs with the goal of sustainable park operations and
reduction of environmental impacts. Finally, NPS formed a service-wide
Climate Change Response Steering Committee to foster communications,
provide recommendations, and serve as an advisory body to NPS
leadership; the Committee adopted the NPS Ocean Park Stewardship Action
Plan in 2006 to guide actions to reduce ocean-related climate change
impacts.
Looking to the future, the NPS will seek opportunities to
capitalize on, and expand, the potential that units of the national
park system provide for understanding long-term effects of climate
change, testing innovative measures for adapting to climate change, and
informing the public about climate-change-caused effects on natural and
cultural resources and on the ability for visitors to experience
enjoyable park visits.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The Service is a field-based organization, and biologists working
on-the-ground are observing changes in many of our natural systems.
Like the other land managing bureaus, these changes are more acutely
evident in Arctic ecosystems where, in addition to the previously
mentioned changes, observations include wetland drainage earlier
``green-up'' of Arctic vegetation, and changes in the hydrology of
glacially-fed streams. Increased Arctic temperatures have also
contributed to the earlier onset of snow melt and the lengthening of
the melting season, resulting in decreased total ice cover at summer's
end. Climate change in the Arctic will continue to affect the habitats
of ice-dependent species such as polar bear and walrus.
Like the polar regions, the Northwest and the Mountain-West have
been experiencing reductions in annual snowpack, with USGS estimating
that climate changes over the last 50 years in these areas have led to
as much as a 17 percent decline in annual winter snowpack. The result
has been a decreased recharge of ground water systems, increased stress
to public water systems, changes in the timing of river ice-outs, and
reduced river flows that affect temperature, depth, and other
characteristics of spawning environments for fish such as Pacific
salmon. Snowpack declines also have been accompanied by earlier annual
peaks in river run-off, as documented in stream gage monitoring and
analyses across the lower 48 States and throughout Alaska. As snow pack
melts earlier throughout the western United States, reservoirs designed
upon 20th century hydrology may not be able to adequately store the
runoff. Predictions of less frequent, but more intense, summer storms
may exacerbate storage and supply concerns.
Land managers face the growing reality that these recent
observations may not be part of annual or even decadal change in
weather patterns, but are possibly linked to a long-term change in the
climate system. If this is the case, the implications for wildlife and
fisheries management are substantial and will require extensive changes
in the design and placement of projects to store water, protect and
restore habitats, and manage populations.
Service biologists are also noting changes in abundance and
distribution of species, including the expansion of pests and invasive
species. Expansion of the mountain pine beetle into higher latitudes
and elevations--areas once too cold to support it--is well correlated
with observed temperature changes. This range expansion is increasingly
impacting forest habitats, not just killing trees, but making these
landscapes more susceptible to catastrophic wildfires and creating the
potential to drive fundamental shifts in ecosystem function and
structure. While some species will adapt successfully, some will not.
Species most at risk are those that are unable to generalize or adapt.
Long-distance migrants and birds with limited geographical ranges, for
instance, may not be able to adjust to the changes caused by rising
temperatures. Species at the end of geographical or elevational
gradients will have difficulty adapting because they have nowhere to
which they can migrate. Increased competition for habitat and the lack
of suitable or available food in new locations would mean that a shift
poleward may change the size of bird populations and composition of
bird communities adapting to climate change.
Other significant changes associated with increased warming include
rising sea levels and water temperatures that pose threats to marine
habitats, coastal wetlands, and estuaries which are part of more than
160 National Wildlife Refuges the Service manages along the nation's
coastline. Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, part of the Alligator
River National Wildlife Refuge Complex along the North Carolina coast,
is losing ground annually to the Atlantic Ocean. The projected rise in
sea level over the next 50 to 100 years will likely transform large
expanses of marsh to open water, forest to marsh, and complicate
habitat conservation for species such as the Federally endangered red
wolf and many other species of birds and wildlife.
While the primary factor causing incidents of harmful algal blooms
in the Gulf of Mexico is nutrient runoff, increased ocean temperatures
are also accelerating the intensity of these blooms, or ``red tides.''
These increased incidents can cause significant fish kills, contaminate
shellfish and, when inhaled, can create severe respiratory irritation
to human. Increased ocean temperatures also contribute to more frequent
and more intense events of coral bleaching and disease which can stress
and kill corals. With the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels,
our oceans are becoming more acidic. As oceans absorb more carbon
dioxide, the availability of carbonate ions is reduced. Reef-building
organisms and shellfish require an abundance of carbonate ions to build
their skeletons and shells.
The Service has established an impressive track record of adapting
and mitigating strategies, including pioneering partnerships in habitat
restoration and terrestrial sequestration. The Service is also
beginning to address the potential for significant sea level rise. A
comprehensive modeling effort using what is called the Sea Level
Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) has been undertaken to determine the
potential effects of sea-level rise on coastal National Wildlife
Refuges. The SLAMM model simulates the dominant processes involved in
wetland conversions and shoreline modifications during long-term sea
level rise. SLAMM results will be crucial elements in developing refuge
and landscape-scale adaptation strategies and in revising refuge
comprehensive conservation plans.
The Service is working with other agencies, States, and partners to
understand developments as quickly as possible and develop the capacity
to respond to impacts on lands it manages and trust species under its
jurisdiction.
Bureau of Reclamation
The Bureau of Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of water in the
country, bringing water to more than 31 million people and providing
one out of five Western farmers with irrigation water for 10 million
acres of farmland. Reclamation is also the second largest producer of
hydroelectric power in the western United States, with 58 powerplants
annually providing more than 40 billion kilowatt hours--enough
electricity to serve 6 million homes.
There is extensive study and discussion within the scientific
community about the potential impacts of a changing climate on western
water resources. For example, in 2007, a report from the National
Academies of Science on Colorado River Basin Water Management concluded
that ``higher temperatures will result in less upper basin
precipitation falling as snow, increased evaporative losses, and will
shift the timing of peak spring snowmelt to earlier in the year.'' The
need to increase the predictive capabilities of climate change models
was discussed earlier in this statement. As those improvements occur,
Reclamation will be looking to where and how to incorporate new climate
change information.
Fortunately, Reclamation possesses operational flexibility to
respond to hydrologic change and fulfill its mission to deliver water
and power in the West. Drought, flood, and wide climate variability are
all common occurrences in the western United States. Given its mission,
Reclamation must manage with this variability in mind. However,
solutions and strategies for incorporating climate change science into
water project operations is an emerging effort being undertaken by all
western water management interests, not just Reclamation. Identifying
the information needed will require coordinated participation from all
the organizations that can provide expert climate and hydrologic
sciences.
Reclamation works with its many partners to better understand and
incorporate climate information into western water resource management,
including the USGS. The Reclamation Research and Development (R&D)
Office is working with climate change experts in the USGS to help
define the impact of changes in climate variability and climate change
on western water resources.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is a growing consensus that changes in the
natural and human systems related to the effects of climate change must
be better understood, monitored and forecasted so that all of the
Nation's resources can be effectively managed and protected. The
Department's bureaus are in an important position, partnering with
USGS, to evaluate and develop responsive strategies for the impacts
that we are observing and cataloging on resources in the Arctic, water
resources in the southwest, and on the abundance and distribution of
wildlife.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony on behalf of the Department. I will be pleased to answer
questions you and other Members of the Subcommittee might have.
______

Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Mr. Anthony Brunello, Deputy Secretary for Climate Change
and Energy, California Natural Resources Agency. Mr. Secretary.

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY BRUNELLO, DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR CLIMATE
CHANGE AND ENERGY, CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY,
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Brunello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
Members. My name is Anthony Brunello. I am the Deputy Secretary
for Climate Change and Energy at the California Natural
Resources Agency.
Federal lands account for approximately 43 percent of
California's total land ownership and are explicitly linked to
our ambitious climate change and energy goals across the state.
Of our 32 million acres of forest land, the Federal government
manages over 13 million acres that emit and sequester vast
amounts of greenhouse gases annually.
National forests in California are estimated to be net
carbon sinks throughout the entire year, making our forests a
primary contributor to our national net sinks total.
The BLM oversees vast landscapes in California, with
enormous solar, wind, and geothermal energy potential, holding
the key to powering millions of homes in the West with
renewable energy. And the National Park Service manages habitat
for many wildlife and aquatic species that could become extinct
due to increasing temperatures, shifting precipitation, and
rising sea levels.
How the Federal government will require its agencies and
projects to account for, mitigate, sequester, and monitor
greenhouse gases and how to adapt to future climate impacts
should be carefully weighed with their economic, environmental,
health, and safety considerations while complementing existing
state climate policy efforts.
California has a detailed and aggressive portfolio of
regulations and incentives to reduce the state's greenhouse gas
emissions, increase its resilience to anticipated climate
impacts, and to promote the sustainable development and
utilization of renewable energy resources that we hope will
match Federal efforts.
In my submitted testimony, there is much more information
on our regulations that I discuss there.
For the remainder of my time, I would like to highlight
four opportunities for the Subcommittee to continue to provide
climate and energy policy leadership on Federal lands,
including, first, work to maintain and increase carbon stocks
on public lands and, in particular, by reducing catastrophic
wildfire.
California's forests are already under threat, as has
already been mentioned, from development, wildfire, insects,
pests, disease, and now climate change. Wildfires, in
particular, are a major driver of forest carbon loss in
California and for the nation. Over three million acres of
Forest Service land in California suffered wildfire damage
between 2000 and 2008, with over 300,000 acres completely
deforested.
Climate scientists are predicting that the situation will
only worsen as temperatures rise. California has been working
closely with the Forest Service, over the last three years and
further, to improve our climate-related efforts, but these
efforts have been marginally funded and need additional
support.
Support should be provided to help reforest areas
devastated by wildfire, fund the expansion of the Forest
Inventory Assessment, which is absolutely essential to
understand and have better accounting for carbon on our
national lands, and expand forest fuels treatment on public
lands using sustainable harvesting practices in allowing woody
biomass to be characterized as a renewable fuel.
This last point is sensitive between the Forest Service,
industry, and the NGO community, but a solution is needed to
reduce fire risks and to meet our national climate and energy
goals.
Second, consider state actions to assess greenhouse gases
and environmental impact assessments, such as the California
Environmental Quality Act, to inform similar efforts for the
National Environmental Act. This includes basic ``do's,'' such
as counting of projects' greenhouse gas emissions and
mitigating for those emissions, to ``do not's,'' such as taking
away authority for lead agency discretion.
The third point: Increase public lands' resilience to
future climate impacts, which has already been discussed today.
In particular, states need better coordination amongst Federal
agencies, and this is key: more and better policy-oriented
research and more funding to implement these efforts. The cap-
and-trade bill will not stop expected sea level rise,
temperature rise, or reduce rainfall over the next century.
Adapting to these impacts is a necessity.
The climate-adaptation text of last year's H.R. 6186
climate legislation introduced by Representative Markey is a
good place to start.
The fourth point: Ensure Federal land management agencies
have the financing, policies, and authority to quickly and
effectively process renewable energy applications in
sustainable locations. This would include providing full
support for recently created BLM renewable-energy coordination
offices that will expedite the permitting of wind, solar,
biomass, and geothermal projects, along with needed electrical
transmission facilities.
More details of these measures can be found in my submitted
testimony.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity, and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brunello follows:]

Statement of Anthony Brunello, Deputy Secretary for Climate Change
and Energy, California Natural Resources Agency

Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee; thank you for the opportunity to appear today to
offer testimony regarding the role of federal lands in combating
climate change in California. My name is Anthony Brunello and I serve
as the Deputy Secretary for Climate Change and Energy for the
California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA).
Federal lands account for approximately 43% of California's total
land ownership and are explicitly linked to California's ambitious
climate change and energy goals. For example, of the 32 million acres
of forestland in California, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages
over 13 million acres that emit and sequester vast amounts of
greenhouse gases (GHG) annually. Unlike most of the U.S., California
forests are estimated to be net carbon sinks throughout the entire
year. making California forestland a primary contributor to the large
estimated net carbon sink of U.S. forests. The U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) oversees vast landscapes with enormous solar, wind,
and geothermal energy potential holding the key to powering millions of
homes in California with renewable energy. And the U.S. National Park
Service (NPS) manages habitat for many wildlife and aquatic species
that could become extinct due to increasing temperatures, shifting
precipitation and rising sea levels.
How the federal government will require its agencies and projects
to account for, mitigate, sequester, and monitor GHGs, and how to adapt
to future climate impacts, should be carefully weighed with their
economic, environmental, health and safety considerations, while
complementing existing state climate policy state efforts. I hope my
testimony provides insight into California's climate policy context as
the Subcommittee develops new climate policies for federal lands.
California Climate Policies Related to Public Lands
California has a detailed and aggressive portfolio of regulations
and incentives to reduce the state's GHG emissions, increase its
resilience to anticipated climate impacts, and to promote the
sustainable development and utilization of renewable energy resources
to meet state energy and climate goals. California's central climate
policy is the Global Warming Solutions Act (or Assembly Bill 32, AB32)
signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2006 to reduce state GHG emissions
by roughly 28% below 1990 levels by 2020, and by 80% by 2050. This is a
mandatory economy-wide target providing broad authority to our state
air regulating body, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), to use
regulatory and market-based mechanisms, such as a cap and trade system
to reach this target.
In December of 2008 CARB adopted the AB32 work plan (referred to as
``the Scoping Plan'') to reduce an estimated 172 million metric tons of
CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2E) by 2020, which includes
measures related to public lands. Although AB32 is a state law, USFS
and BLM were directly engaged with state efforts led by CNRA to meet
forestry and renewable energy goals, in particular. For the forestry
sector, the Scoping Plan sets a target for the entire state to
sequester 5 tons or greater across all lands including federal lands.
Senate Bill 97 (SB97) was passed by the California State
Legislature in 2007 requiring the state to provide technical guidance
within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for how
individual projects should assess GHG activities from their project
activities. The guidelines will be complete by the end of 2009, but
current plans require all projects to: provide an analysis of the
potential effects of GHGs on the environment; provide a calculation of
GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; determine the
significance of potential impacts assessed and supported by substantial
evidence; avoid duplicative and costly analysis where it is possible to
tier from state or regional efforts; adopt feasible mitigation where
there are significant impacts; and allow Statements of Overriding
Consideration.
Regarding renewable energy, Governor Schwarzenegger signed
Executive Order (EO) S-14-08 in November 2008 requiring California
utilities to get 33 percent of their electricity load from renewable
energy sources by 2020. This order sets a renewable portfolio standard
that leads the nation. A key constraint in reaching this goal is
efficiently permitting renewable projects on public lands. The EO
requires state agencies to develop a new streamlined review and
approval process for renewable energy sites and to cooperate, through
an MOU with BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), to create
a streamlined process that will make it easier for wind, solar and
geothermal sites to be built in California.
Regarding climate impacts in California, Governor Schwarzenegger
signed EO S-13-08 also in November 2008 to enhance the state's
management of climate impacts from sea level rise, increased
temperatures, shifting precipitation and extreme weather events. The EO
initiated California's first statewide climate change adaptation
strategy with multiple Agencies and Departments to be complete by June
2009, requested the National Academy of Sciences to assess sea level
rise impacts specific to California, and ordered state agencies to plan
for sea level rise in designated coastal and floodplain areas for new
projects. Given the serious long-term threat of sea level rise and
other climate impacts to California's water supply and coastal
resources, an adaptation plan is the first step in reducing assets at
risk from climate change (largely from wildfire and flooding) that
could significantly alter our state's economy, population and natural
resources.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There are several opportunities for the Subcommittee to continue to
provide climate and energy policy leadership for federal lands.
California's recommendations below are based on four general goals
including: (1) maintain and increase carbon stocks on public lands (in
particular in reducing catastrophic wildfire); (2) increase public land
resilience to future climate impacts; (3) ensure federal land
management agencies have the financing, policies, and authority to
quickly and effectively process renewable energy applications in
sustainable locations; (4) and consider state actions to assess GHGs in
Environmental Impact Assessments, such as in the California's
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), inform similar efforts for the
National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA).
I. Maintain and increase carbon stocks on public lands
California's forests are under threat from development, wildfire,
insects, pests, disease and climate change. Wildfire, in particular, is
a major driver of forest carbon loss in California, and for the nation.
Over 3 million acres of USFS land in California suffered wildfire
damage between 2000 and 2008, with over 300 thousand acres completely
deforested. Climate scientists are predicting that the situation will
only worsen as temperatures rise.
California has been working closely with USFS Region 5 over the
last 3 years to improve carbon accounting in state and federal forest
lands, to develop joint forestry GHG emission reduction and forest
adaptation projects and plans, and to develop markets for biomass
residue from forest thinning (fuel hazard reduction and forest health)
and timber harvesting. But, these efforts have been marginally funded
and need additional support. We recommend the following specific
activities to ensure we are increasing carbon stocks on public lands.
1. Reforest areas that have been devastated by wildfire--As
mentioned, over 300,000 acres have been completely destroyed and
deforested from fire over the last decade. Restoring and reforesting
these lands could require over 30,000 acres per year that could
eventually sequester 2-5 tons per acre per year. For the 300,000 acres
of planting there is a potential of sequestering 2-8 MMTCO2E
every year. Replanting has the additional benefit of reducing mudslides
and promoting habitat restoration.
2. Fund the refinement and expansion of the USFS Forest Inventory
Assessment (FIA)--The FIA is essential in developing, tracking, and
monitoring any national climate change policy efforts regarding land-
use GHG emissions and sequestration. The refinement and expansion of
plots in California are essential to demonstrating the contribution of
forests to GHG reduction and to ensuring that California forests meet
our state climate goals. FIA data will also, assumedly, be used to set
state and national baselines for any carbon compliance effort including
forests as a carbon offset.
3. Expand forest fuels treatment on public lands using
``sustainable harvesting'' practices and utilize extracted woody
biomass to supplant carbon-based fuels--A key ``no regret'' climate
policy on federal lands is to support expanded fuels treatment that can
reduce GHG emissions, reduce fire hazards, and improve public health.
Current estimates indicate that less than 100,000 acres of USFS land
are receiving fuels treatment annually, which could easily be doubled
pending environmental review and, most importantly, funding under the
Forest Land Use Management Plans. Estimates of biomass residue
available through fuels treatment could be in the range of 500,000 to
1,300,000 tons that could be used for the production of liquid fuels,
electricity, or thermal energy.
4. Support research that tracks, monitors, and models GHG
emissions from catastrophic wildfire, and research that shows project-
level GHG benefits from fire mitigation and adaptation efforts. The
USFS has a strong research program that already has accomplished a
great deal of important research about the relationship between forests
and climate change. Supporting research that provides a foundation for
tracking catastrophic wildfire GHG emissions and actions to reduce
these fires will help the policy discussions move from arguing the
science, to actually supporting projects to reduce these risks. One key
component will be to finish life cycle biomass utilization analysis
(this has been started, but needs further support). Completion of this
research with additional efforts, will better establish the
relationship of the utilization of biomass from fuel hazard reduction
treatments as a feed stock source for the production of bioenergy
(liquid fuels, heat, and electricity).
5. Work with states to define how biomass extracted from private
and federal lands could qualify as a renewable fuel under national
renewable energy programs--Currently, the Federal Energy Policy Act of
2005 excludes the use of biomass produced from federal lands. Due to
the size of the federal ownership in California this excludes
approximately half of the biomass that could be used to meet the
state's Renewable Portfolio Standard for increasing the amount of
renewable energy. Governor Schwarzenegger has stated that 20% of
renewable energy goals and 20% of renewable fuels should be produced
using biomass feed stocks. It will be extremely difficult for
California to meet these objectives if federal law prohibits use of
biomass from federal lands. We welcome the opportunity to work with the
Subcommittee on this topic.
II. Consider state actions to assess GHGs in Environmental Impact
Assessments, such as in the California's Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), to inform similar efforts for the National
Environmental Quality Act (NEPA)
In California, SB 97 (as summarized above) requires the state to
develop guidelines for CEQA concerning GHGs that reinforce CEQA's
traditional framework for analysis. SB 97 is one piece of a larger
state approach to regulate and control the destabilization of
atmospheric conditions via analysis and mitigation such as AB 32.
However, unlike the holistic and retroactive approach of statutes such
as AB 32, SB 97 only addresses project-specific impacts via the
development and permitting processes throughout California, and only
applies to projects falling within the discretion of ``lead agencies''.
Further, CEQA, unlike other regulatory processes, only addresses
specific impacts from projects through litigation.
NEPA is the federal counterpart to CEQA, but is in no way governed
or otherwise controlled by CEQA or its analytical approach. Like CEQA,
when federal actors engage in activities that could impact the
environment, they are required to analyze the potential impact of those
activities. NEPA regulators may choose to look to the CEQA guidelines
as an example of how to prepare for this analysis in NEPA documents.
Since NEPA and CEQA environmental review are often done together, use
of CEQA's approach to GHGs could prevent inconsistent results
analytically. Below are two specific recommendations including:
1. As currently written, draft CEQA guidelines show a number of
project recommendations that could be a helpful starting point for NEPA
regulators--These Guidelines include: an analysis of the potential
effects of GHGs on the environment; a calculation of GHG emissions from
direct and indirect sources; determination of the significance of
potential impacts assessed and supported by substantial evidence; avoid
duplicative and costly analysis where it is possible to tier from state
or regional efforts; adopt feasible mitigation where there are
significant impacts; and Statements of Overriding Consideration will be
allowed. The amended Guidelines will not proscribe thresholds of
significance, require a hierarchy or menu for mitigation, or mandate
compliance with statewide plans for greenhouse gas mitigation.
2. Consider use of general principles now being used under CEQA
Guidelines:
Lead agencies will maintain traditional discretion to
establish thresholds and adopt mitigation measures;
The GHG guidelines will not assume climate change is the
impact, but rather allow lead agencies to develop science that fully
describes potentially significant outcomes as a result of GHG
emissions;
Focus on tiering from regional and statewide plans for
the reduction of GHGs that will assist local lead agencies in
efficiently engaging in their obligations;
Prevent conflation with other, related statutes;
Consider all interested stakeholder views are considered
to ensure impartiality and fairness
III. Reduce climate change risks to public lands in California
California is already experiencing climate change impacts. For
example, it is scientifically documented that sea levels have increased
by 7 inches in San Francisco Bay over the last century, increasing
coastal erosion and pressure on levees for California's water supply in
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The state has also seen increased
average temperatures, more extreme hot days, fewer cold nights, a
lengthening of the growing season, shifts in the water cycle with less
winter precipitation falling as snow, and both snowmelt and rainwater
running off sooner in the year. 1 The greatest link with
federal lands, besides water, is the risk facing California forests and
public lands as warmer and drier conditions lead to longer and more
intense wildfires. In the next three decades the trend of these
characteristically intense wildfires are projected to significantly
increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Moser, Susanne C., Guido Franco, Sarah Pitiglio, Wendy Chou,
and Dan Cayan (2008). The Future is Now: An Update on Climate Change
Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California, California
Climate Change Center and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-
Related Environmental Research Program, Sacramento, CA, report in
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EO S-13-08 provides direction for California's state agencies to
develop multi-sector, multi-agency climate adaptation strategies by
June 2009 based on climate change science funded by the California
Energy Commission. Seven separate working groups were established
(forestry, public health, infrastructure, oceans, agriculture, water,
biodiversity and habitat) and have been coordinating adaptation
strategies to reduce our risk to climate impacts.
Early state implementation efforts have shown several key areas
where federal lands and federal management agency assistance will be
instrumental to reducing California's climate risks. These include:
1. Establish a federal climate policy adaptation team made up of
all federal agencies to translate known science into actionable climate
adaptation strategies--For climate adaptation strategies on public
lands to be implemented, they will require policy changes that go
beyond any single agency. A working policy team should coordinate and
develop strategies based on collective science in cooperation with
states. California's existing climate adaptation coordinating structure
and policy guidance would and should fit directly with federal agency
needs.
2. Support the National Oceanic Administrative Agency's (NOAA)
concept to develop a National Climate Service to coordinate climate
research, and provide support to states to develop climate
vulnerability studies--Climate change science and adaptive responses to
climate change are being developed in every other state separately at
all levels of tribal, public, and private sector organizations. Most of
this work should be coordinated within one central federal entity.
These diverse decision-makers require better access to relevant and
usable scientific information, and assistance in how to use it
appropriately and effectively. Thus, it is not enough to just do more
research; what is required is improved linkage and collaboration
between the sciences and the decision-makers who can use scientific
findings. The proposed NCS by NOAA could and should be this vehicle,
but a final NCS should be developed in partnership with the states and
provide support to their state climate adaptation strategy efforts.
3. Fund more climate change research, especially related to
economic impacts, to improve regional and state-level information on
climate change and resulting impacts, and toward assessing climate
mitigation and adaptation project effectiveness--One of the most
critical challenges that agencies and stakeholders face in managing
climate change risks is the lack of scientific understanding. In some
instances, it is a matter of gathering and making available the data
and information that have already been collected. In other instances,
it is a lack of continuous data that would be needed to detect change
and determine environmental trends and causes. Identifying the costs
and benefits of implementing specific adaptation strategies as well as
of more general, over-arching strategies, such as a research program
dedicated to adaptation, is a common need across sectors.
4. Establish a system of Sustainable Habitat Reserves across
federal lands in partnership with state and local partners--To protect
fish and wildlife across California from increasing threats to their
habitat, the federal government should work toward establishing a set
of habitat reserves for vulnerable species.
IV. Ensure BLM and USFS have the financing, policies, and authority to
quickly and effectively process renewable energy applications.
EO S-14-08 advances California's renewable energy goal of serving
33% of our demand by renewable energy resources. In particular, the EO
directs state agencies to create comprehensive plans to prioritize
regional renewable projects across all California lands based on an
area's renewable resource potential and the level of protection for
plant and animal habitat.
To implement and track the progress of the EO, the California
Energy Commission (CEC) and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
signed a Memorandum of Understanding formalizing a Renewable Energy
Action Team (REAT). The REAT has started the Desert Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan in the Mojave and Colorado Desert regions and
identify other preferred areas that will benefit from a streamlined
permitting and environmental review process. This will dramatically
reduce the time and uncertainty normally associated with building new
renewable projects.
1. Support the California REAT process to ensure BLM and FWS are
able to support state and federal renewable energy goals
2. Ensure full support for recently created BLM Renewable Energy
Coordination offices that will expedite the permitting of wind, solar,
biomass, and geothermal projects, along with needed electrical
transmission facilities. The action was taken to achieve the
Congressional goal in Section 211 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
which calls for the development of 10,000 megawatts of non-hydropower
renewable energy projects on public lands by 2015.
3. Ensure the USFS finalizes its renewable energy policy
assessment in the near future and work with California to update
individual forest plans to incorporate these policies when complete.
The Forest Service owns and manages nearly one-quarter of all the land
in California. However, unlike the BLM, USFS does not have a
consistent, statewide policy with regards to the development of
renewable energy. Currently, individual National Forests typically
determine the treatment of renewable energy on Forest Service lands
inconsistently. As one might imagine, this leads to inconsistencies
between Forests, even within the same Region.
CONCLUSION
Thank you Chairman Grijalva and members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to appear today to offer testimony about how the nation can
combat climate change on public lands. California is pleased to serve
as a resource to the Subcommittee for future planning efforts.
______

Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Mr. Billy Frank, Chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission. Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF BILLY FRANK, CHAIRMAN, NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES
COMMISSION, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON

Mr. Frank. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
for gathering everybody here today to listen to some of our
maybe bad news and, hopefully, good news.
Climate change; we have to adapt to it, we, all of us, not
just the Indian tribes throughout our country, and we have
adapted to so many things and changes that happened throughout
our thousands of years here.
My name is Billy Frank. I am the Chairman of the Northwest
Indian Fisheries Commission, and I have been coming back and
forth here for the last 30 years testifying in front of the
U.S. Congress, and I am happy to be back here again. I have
about 50 more years to go, Mr. Chairman, so hang with me.
You know, if there is any legislation to be legislated into
law, we want the tribal governments to be a part of that. We,
on the Pacific Coast, where I live, in the State of Washington,
and represent 24 tribes along the Pacific Coast and up and down
the Columbia River and the Snake River. We sit on the U.S.-
Canada International Treaty. We have our science team, our
infrastructure together. We manage the Pacific salmon from
Alaska clear down to Mexico and the State of California and
throughout the United States here, and we are natural resources
managers.
When we are talking about natural resources, we are talking
about warming of the water that is affecting our fish runs. We
see our forests gone. We see nothing holding the water back
anymore. The forests have been cut down, clearcut, and old-
growth timber gone, very important to the natural resources,
the food chain of our life, the cycle of life.
As I travel throughout all of our land along the Pacific
Coast and throughout the Southwest here, I have witnessed
things that are happening, such as the Barrow, up with the
Eskimo villages up there falling into the sea, into the Arctic
Ocean, the Bering Sea. I have witnessed these things, and it is
not good to witness these things, and where are these people
going to go?
I just came from Hawaii on a two-day meeting, and the
people are preparing, in the Pacific Rim, to start moving
people from these islands. Where are they going to move them
to?
These are real things that are happening in our world, in
our little world, around us. We have to start addressing these
things, the U.S. Government and our leadership throughout our
country, and, hopefully, we have a new day coming right now
that we can organize and start addressing some of these things.
How climate change is affecting the tribes, and what we can
do about it; we can do a lot of things. We have a lot of
technology right now. We have streams that are warming up, you
know, from what I just indicated about the habitat. We have to
think about how we can cool those streams down so when the
salmon come home, and our life comes home, back to Puget Sound
and along the Pacific Coast, that we can start making the water
temperature maybe cooler instead of hotter.
You know, these things are very important to life that
exists out there, and the food chain is in serious condition in
the Pacific Ocean. We have dead zones along Florence, Oregon,
clear up into Kalaloch Beach in the State of Washington. We
have these all documented by the University of Oregon and the
University of Washington and California. Everything that is
dying is coming to shore. We have pictures of this. This is
serious.
Now, I do not know whether anybody in this room knows about
these things, but we know what is going on. We are there. We
are managers along the Pacific Ocean, our tribes. Within Puget
Sound, we have dead zones in Hood Canal. We have dead zones in
South Puget Sound, where I live, you know, 50 miles south of
Seattle. We have dead zones up into the Georgia Straits into
Canada. All of these things are not good things to hear.
Now, what can we do about it?
We can uphold the Interior and Commerce Departments'
commitments to abide by the terms of Secretarial Order 3206;
what we negotiated with the Secretary, and it took us three
years to do that, the Indian tribes.
Implement salmon recovery plans and other natural resource
restoration plans while supporting and harmonizing the exercise
the tribal rights, the 1855 treaties.
Develop and coordinate with tribes on national energy
policies to address climate change that is compatible with
treaty rights and fish habitat [e.g., reduce peak demands
through conservation and offset climate change pressure on
salmon].
Involve tribes in climate change solutions in Indian
Country, including carbon offsets, habitat protection, and
energy conservation.
Reach out to the tribes as governmental partners to address
climate change.
We are collaborators. We collaborate with the State of
California, the State of Alaska, and the States of Washington,
Oregon, and Idaho. Throughout all of the nation, we are
collaborators. We try to keep the wheels on the wagon in
managing our natural resources, and we all have to do that
together. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frank follows:]

Statement of Billy Frank, Jr., Chairman,
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Chairman Grijalva and honorable members of the Subcommittee, I am
Billy Frank, Jr., Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission. It has been my pleasure to testify in front of the
committees of the United States Congress for more than thirty years on
behalf of the twenty Treaty Indian Tribes in Western Washington. Today
I will share my thoughts with you pertaining to tribes and climate
change--the impacts we are witnessing and the things we tribes propose
be done about it.
I have been fortunate to be able to travel extensively across this
continent and spend time with my Indian brothers and sisters of many
tribes. I can personally attest to the fact that the impacts of climate
change are, in fact, hurting both people and resources in the
continent's interior and from coast to coast. When Hurricane Katrina
ripped through the south in 2005, much attention was devoted to the
unfortunate victims in New Orleans. But no one heard of the Chalmette
Tribe that was completely washed away. Everything they had was
destroyed, after having lived near what is now New Orleans for
thousands of years. In Alaska, more than 125 Alaskan Native
organizations have signed a resolution urging stronger action from
Congress, as they rightfully blame climate change for endangering their
lives and culture as even the mighty polar bear finds it harder and
harder to survive, and peoples' houses fall into the sea, giving way to
melting ice. On the East Coast, storms rage more severe due in some
measure to dynamic changes in the Gulf Stream, and our own Pacific
Ocean temperatures and de-oxygenated currents have resulted in killer
storms and massive fish kills. All of these impacts, and much more, are
brought about or enhanced by climate change, and as you know the vast
majority of scientists today attest to the fact that man's pollution
and exploitation are the primary cause of this phenomenon. As an
indigenous person, whose parents told him the stories and taught him
the things their parents taught them, I bring to you today the memories
of a thousand generations, accumulated from this continent. As such I
can tell you that there has been climate change before. But there has
never been climate change like we are seeing today, and certainly not
the kind of impact brought on so widely through the infestation of man.
As a representative of tribal leaders, I speak to you today on
behalf of our people and our culture. I also speak to you on behalf of
our jurisdiction. Let there be no mistake. This is a jurisdiction-
related issue. Tribes are sovereign governments, and have been for a
long, long time. They provide services to their citizens and watch out
for their interests, as best they can, a task made much more difficult
by the broken promises of our federal trustee. Tribes are also
sovereign nations, and in that capacity, many of them signed treaties
with the United States as they were asked to relinquish millions of
acres of land for settlement. Treaties are, by definition, contracts
between sovereign nations. They are also, as defined in the United
States Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. When our leaders of
seven generations ago signed treaties with officials of your
government, they reserved certain rights and resources, on and off
reservation, which have nonetheless been consistently trampled upon--a
fact made all the more unbearable by the blind eye that past federal
officials have turned to our plight.
The fact is that the tribes are typically hit first and hardest by
the impacts of climate change. One of the primary reasons this is true
is that our cultural resources, our foods, our water, our medicines--
everything that makes us who we are--is hit first and hardest. We live
on the oceans and on the rivers. We work hard to protect our people and
our resources, but we still too often find ourselves ignored by our
trustee, and we find that the states and counties allow people to move
in on our lands overharvest our cultural resources--from berries to
mushrooms--that make us who we are, even as the waters warm and the
forests turn brown from intensifying heat and resulting insect
infestations and rot. We see lights from houses built high on our
hillsides now, and fear the impacts of the poisons that fill our rivers
and seas.
Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along
with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing
buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual
increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking fails to
consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores
recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth's climate repeatedly
has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of
doing so in the future--to a degree that we, nor our ancestors, have
ever experienced before--largely due to man's impact.
Our traditional knowledge and science demonstrates that Earth's
climate can shift gears faster than anyone ever thought possible,
establishing new and different patterns that can persist for decades
and even centuries. Strange as it may seem, even as the Earth continues
to warm gradually, large regions may experience disruptive shift into
colder climates. Our ancestral memory, is backed by archaeological
science. It fools some people to see more snow in some areas, but the
fact is that this trend may well continue, and even bring us closer to
another ice age. There are those who still foolishly say it is arrogant
for man to think his activities can impact the weather. Yet, I say the
real fool is one who thinks he can predict, with full accuracy, what
will occur when mankind messes--as he already has--with Mother Nature.
Sadly, we have passed the tipping point with climate change.
Thousands of scientists here in the United States and all over the
world agree this is true. The United States has been shamefully slow to
respond to this massive problem, and has, in fact, continued to be the
world's greatest consumer and polluter--choosing for years to pretend
the problem doesn't exist, and in some cases even denying it. There
will be many changes due to man's transgressions and disrespect for
Mother Earth. There will be sea level rise and there will be some
species we cannot save. There will be changes in our forests and there
have already been many changes in our waters. The fact is that we must
take firm action now, and listen no longer to those who would deny,
very foolishly, that climate change, does not exist. It does, and we
are in it.
Anticipated Impacts on The Northwest
Global warming modeling published by the University of Washington's
Climate Impacts Group in two reports commissioned by King County and
the Puget Sound Action Team found that the Pacific Northwest warmed up
faster (2.3 degrees) than elsewhere on the planet (1.1 degrees
Fahrenheit) during the 20th century.
By 2050, average annual temperatures for the Pacific Northwest
could be up to 5 degrees higher than they were during the last 30 years
of the 20th century. What will this likely mean to us in the Northwest?
1. Wetter winters with more intense rainfall. Drier summers.
Earlier spring snowmelt. More frequent and more intense storms.
2. Significant retraction of the snowline in our mountains due to
warmer winters--reducing our water ``warehouse.''
3. Rise in sea level by as much as 3.3 feet in the South Sound
and 1 foot at Neah Bay by 2100
4. Increased acidification of ocean water will slow or impair
growth of shellfish and other species, and some species may not
survive.
5. Earlier onset of spring (already 2 weeks early in parts of the
Puget Sound region).
6. Inundation and shift of habitat types in existing salt
marshes, mud flats, and beaches.
7. Change in salinity, stratification, nutrient cycling and ocean
productivity affecting the Puget Sound food web and expanding the
existing dead zones.
8. Lack of summer creek/river flows to maintain salmon runs in
some watersheds, severe reductions in others.
9. Disruption to species when spring conditions trigger earlier
hatching and migration or warm winter temperatures cease to trigger
hibernation.
10. Increases in pests and diseases that affect crops, shellfish
and forests throughout the region.
11. Intensified storm water problems: far more massive and regular
flooding, erosion, and combined sewer overflows.
12. Favorable conditions for even more invasive species.
13. Negative economic effects on fisheries, hunting and gathering
as well as agriculture, forestry, tourism, and even hydropower.
Our new President speaks very affirmatively, as do Members of
Congress, about the fact that climate change is a reality. The fact
that your members have brought ``non-believers'' in climate change
before you to effectively and courageously accuse them of lying for
profit speaks for itself. We applaud that, and we plead with you to
take strong and collaborative action now. There is no time to waste. We
are now in a position of adapting to pending change and trying to
minimize effects. These are efforts that the Federal and Tribal, as
well as State governments must work on together--cooperatively--at
every opportunity.
Intertwined with climate change and every bit as severe is ocean
acidification. Our oceans are poisoned. Man has put too many poisons
into the air for far too long, creating challenges with acid rain which
we have known about and done little about, for decades. The problem is
not just atmospheric; it has reached into both surface waters and
ground waters and the pollutant-problems have multiplied many times
over. We have come to realize that no place on Earth is safe from this
challenge. Even Alpine Lakes--places as high as one could possibly
hike--are as polluted as every other part of the Earth. The same carbon
dioxide that is creating the warming effect in our atmosphere is
dissolving in our oceans, creating a dangerous increase in the PH of
our oceans. Together, we must work to remedy this situation. There is
nowhere else to go!
So, What Can We Do Together?
First, I want to re-emphasize that tribes have not been sitting on
their hands. Our scientists and other workers are actively working,
stretching every possible dollar, in watersheds throughout our region,
to restore habitat, from stream banks to wetlands, and we work hard to
convince our state and local governments that it makes no sense to keep
on with business as usual, placing natural resource management on the
back burner. Even in tough financial times, if we do that, what makes
sense to place on the front burner? Education? What sense does it make
for us to educate our children in the classroom if we simultaneously
trash the planet that sustains them? Jobs? There ARE no jobs without
natural resources and the environment. Natural resource management must
be placed on the front burner where it belongs. Period.
In the Northwest, there are important instances in which this has
led to highly positive results, ranging from the U.S.-Canada Salmon
Treaty to the Timber-Fish-Wildlife/Forests and Fish program. But,
frankly, because we live in a ``growth'' region, much of the urban
sprawl has continued and it has been a huge challenge to catch up with
the impacts of growing exploitation and development. Part of the lesson
man must learn from history is that it is suicidal to overpopulate,
over-develop and over-exploit. The impacts of all environmental
problems are inter-related, and sustainability is key to all
environmental challenges, including climate change.
We have participated, government-to-government, with such processes
as the Puget Sound Initiative, and more to the point with climate
change, the Governor's Climate Change Initiative. This initiative,
launched by Governor Gregoire in 2007, convened a task force and a
number of subcommittees. Two related legislative bills, and climate
change-related bills currently being considered by the State
Legislature, are just starting points. Along with other participants,
we realize that a resilient system would be more able to handle change.
We must create robust habitat areas, such as wide stream riparian zones
and multilayered intertidal shoreline and upland areas. For example, if
increasing water temperatures or a drop in water volume will stress a
stream, a thick canopy of tree cover can help minimize the impact.
We also know it is important to make hard decisions that are fair
but effective. We recognize the need to focus resources in areas that
will give longer-term benefits. For example, modeling shows that
rainfall-dependent (i.e., lower lying) watersheds will be less affected
by global warming than snow-fed watersheds. Such conditions should be
considered as we plan for restoration and protection work. The need for
water reclamation is very apparent. Reclaimed water is water that has
already been used for one purpose, has been treated and can be reused
for certain types of use (irrigation, for example). Due to state
mismanagement, our rivers are over-allocated, and we must build the
infrastructure now for distribution of reclaimed water--it isn't cheap.
We will not be able to afford to use potable water for nonpotable needs
in the future. It is critically important to leave water in creeks and
rivers to support fish wildlife. It is a treaty-protected right.
We have a major problem with storm water in the Northwest. We need
to reduce the need for storm water combined systems by separating
sanitary waste from storm water. New capitol improvements must consider
the effects of long term climate change to ensure that salmon and other
natural resources critical to tribes will have enough water. Toxic
chemicals and nutrients in urban runoff must be curbed. Standards must
be adopted to greatly reduce impervious surfaces and infiltrate all
storm water on-site, rather than conveying it to streams.
Septic systems have got to be cleaned up or replaced with clean and
efficient sewer systems. It is urgent that we eliminate septic system
problems because their contributions to dead zones, such as those in
Hood Canal, will be amplified by climate change.
It is important to support the efforts of tribes with forest lands
to consider setting Cap and Trade programs, which can be effective
tools for reducing pollution and protecting human health and the
environment. These systems provide efficient incentives for early
pollution reduction and innovations in control technologies and work
well inter-governmentally, providing multiple benefits, including
greenhouse gas emission control.
Today, most regulatory actions taken by local, state and federal
agencies--those which ARE enforced--are taken without consideration of
potential climate change impacts. For example, new coastal structures
should be designed for a higher sea level or buildings must be set back
so that structural controls are not needed at all. We must be vigilant
that regulations and ordinances are completely thought out. Wherever
possible, the choice must be made to keep open spaces rather than
build, to go with permeable rather than impermeable surfaces, and to
end forestland conversion. Society needs to go on a Low-Carbon Diet.
From driving vehicles fewer miles and carpooling/using mass transit to
planting more trees and weatherizing houses and apartments, every
citizen can and must be educated to help reduce the output of
greenhouse gases.
People have got to be made more aware of Environmental Justice. The
most needy in our society may be forced to pay more of their budgets
for basic needs such as drinking water, energy and food because of
climate change. Also, as has been pointed out, tribes live close to the
water. It's our culture, and we depend very directly on the fish and
wildlife that depend on a healthy ecosystem. We stand to lose the most
from the impacts of climate change.
For many people, the issue of climate change feels like a distant
idea, not an imminent threat. They're wrong, and they need to know it.
We must all understand that action is needed--now. Education is, of
course, one of the great things we can do--together. Tribes have too
often been a voice in the wilderness on natural resource issues. We
have warned, almost always without being heard, that Mother Earth must
be respected, that she is fragile and delicate--that we must never take
more than we need as humans, and always use all that we take. We have
warned, for a very long time, that we must always think of the needs of
our descendants to come--for seven generations and more, and be aware
that every action we take today affects those descendants in either a
good or a bad way. These principles, known by many today as
sustainability, are as valuable as they ever have been. Had they been
heeded when we began to warn non-tribal people about them, we would not
have the climate change challenges we face today. These lessons, which
have been passed to us by our ancestors, must become part of all of our
legacies. As I have pointed out, we know we have passed the tipping
point with climate change. There are motions in action upon our Mother
Earth which we cannot stop. But we can adapt, and we can do things to
minimize their impact. The lessons of our ancestors are lessons of
respect, human dignity and brotherhood. They are lessons of hope.
The State of Washington passed legislation three years ago, HB
1495, as well as subsequent legislation, which made it easier for
tribes and Indian teachers to convey these lessons of Traditional
Knowledge, from our culture of stewardship to our languages, in
classrooms across the state. Although many more of our people now
complete high school and achieve higher education degrees than before,
we ask you to consider increasing your commitment to Indian education.
We ask you to consider legislation that would achieve similar tasks as
HB 1495 on a national scale. We also ask that Congress take a stand to,
once and for all, acknowledge that tribes, and the stewardship ethic we
hold dear, has much to offer all citizens across this great nation,
particularly in this time of dire environmental challenge. Let it be a
message of truth--that in building this nation, much has been taken
from the tribes unfairly, and that the human rights of the Indian
people, including their treaty-protected rights, have never been
understood or enforced--and that the time has come for the Native
People of this land to receive their due acknowledgement, rights and
respect. Let this statement from Congress also be one to educate your
citizens about the great value of considering our long held values as
values that have much to teach citizens from all walks of life who now
call themselves Americans.
Change and/or enforce the Rule of Law. In some cases, you will need
to develop new laws. In some cases, you will need to enforce existing
laws. But you must work with us to identify those things that are
harmful to our people and our culture--and to stop/control them. As it
is, and as it has been from the beginning of our contact with one
another, your people are harming these precious things. It is a direct
violation of our treaties and of your trust responsibility to us. When
it comes to climate change, it must begin with an assessment. Our
scientists work in our watersheds and on our marine waters day in and
day out, year in and year out. This assessment must be done in
collaboration with us. It is a little known fact that the Tulalip
Tribes have achieved the first ever full-river climate change
assessment--anywhere. In a nutshell, it was found that the removal of
the forest canopy and wetlands had weakened the abilities of the system
to withstand floods and other impacts that will be greatly increased by
the sea level rise and increased storms resulting from climate change.
Effective actions obviously begin with knowledge, and that tribe is
working to remedy that situation with new ideas as well as traditional
ones--and, like other tribes facing similar problems, will continue to
need your help to do so.
There is need for a comprehensive collaborative natural resources/
environmental management plan--not just in our Pacific Northwest, but
nationwide--that incorporates tribes across the country and the Federal
as well as other governments. There is need for legislation calling for
such a plan, and for adequate funding to back it up, and there is need
for such a plan NOW. We wish to work with you to develop this
legislation, as decision-makers.
We have a new Administration and I think there is no surprise in
the fact that this is something our Indian Nations have prayed for and
are thankful for. Our budgets have been cut back, and we have been
virtually ignored for far too long. But there is new hope on the
horizon. The President's selection of Carol Browner, former Director of
the Environmental Protection Agency, as his Climate Change Director,
certainly helps substantiate that hope. When she was EPA Director, she
selected one of our tribal leaders from the Pacific Northwest, Terry
Williams from the Tulalip Tribes, to head her new Office of Indian
Affairs. It was the first time in the history of the United States that
such an office had been formed by the EPA, and Terry did a splendid
job. We look forward to more of the same.
I must be honest. We are still waiting to see some desperately
needed financial support for natural resource management requests.
Those must be honored because they are needs that directly affect our
treaty-protected rights and they are most assuredly inter-related with
resources impacted by climate change. We will be watching that closely,
of course.
But today I will simply remind you that we face a huge challenge
with climate change, and that it is a challenge we must all face--
together.
Realizing this, the tribes served by the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission and those served by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission conducted high level meetings and strategy sessions leading
up to the inauguration of President Obama, and, together, published a
booklet that we make available to you today. ``Treaty Tribal Natural
Resources Management in the Pacific Northwest includes the specific
requests being made, collectively, by the 24 treaty fishing tribes of
the Pacific Northwest. These requests focus on the needs of salmon and
other natural resources, and on the Federal trust responsibilities to
the tribes. We ask you to note that among these priority needs and
requests is the following statement on climate change:
``Climate change is real and its effects are already being felt in
the rivers and streams of the Pacific Northwest. Tribes are leaders in
the region in restoring riparian habitat, which is a key measure to
address climate change effects. Natural resource management, climate
change and energy independence are closely linked as the Northwest
endeavors to safeguard salmon and other species.''
We ask you to further note that we made five priority requests of
the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress to fulfill its trust
responsibilities as they relate to climate change. We ask you to
support these priority requests:
1. Uphold the Interior and Commerce Departments' commitments to
abide by the terms of Secretarial Order 3206: American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act.
2. Implement salmon recovery plans and other natural resource
restoration plans while supporting and harmonizing the exercise of
tribal treaty rights.
3. Develop and coordinate with tribes on a national energy policy
to address climate change that is compatible with treaty rights and
fish habitat (e.g., reduce peak demands through conservation and offset
climate change pressures on salmon).
4. Involve tribes in climate change solutions in Indian Country,
including carbon offsets, habitat protection, and energy conservation.
5. Reach out to tribes as governmental partners to address climate
change.
I thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I ask that you
continue to consider tribal input on climate change as well as all
natural resource and environmental issues on an ongoing basis, on a
government-to-government basis.
Our strength in facing the many challenges that exist today will be
greater with greater understanding of treaty-protected rights, the
Federal Trust responsibility to the tribes and the responsibilities we
all share to the generations to come.
Thank you.
______

Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Before we begin with questions or comments from my
colleagues, let me indicate that I anticipate that we will be
called to a 3:30 vote, somewhere around that time, so we will
recess and return after those votes are done.
Let me ask Chief Kimbell a couple of questions. We are
going to hear from witnesses later about the importance of old-
growth forests in combating climate change, based on the amount
of carbon stored in mature, old forests. Has the Forest Service
conducted any studies on this particular subject, this matter?
Ms. Kimbell. Yes. The Forest Service has conducted studies
on the amount of carbon sequestered in different kinds of
forests and the rate of carbon sequestration. So much depends
on the health and vigor of those forest stands, where those
forests are located, and their risk or susceptibility to
catastrophic wildfire.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Under current law, the National
Forest Management Act and NEPA, are those sufficient to deal
with the impacts, the mitigation, and the adaptation that might
be required by agencies, such as the Forest Service, in the
future? I guess the question is, do we need updates on those
laws to deal with this?
Ms. Kimbell. When NEPA was passed in 1969 and the National
Forest Management Act in 1976, I do not think anybody could
have foreseen the kinds of change and the rate of change that
we are going through right now, and, no, the language that is
in those two acts does not begin to address the rates of change
that we see in the ecosystems that we work in.
In January, the Forest Service issued direction to all of
our field units to incorporate discussion of climate change in
all of our environmental analyses and in the national forest
planning process. Along with that, we have a group of
scientists working together, not just Forest Service scientists
but working with others, and looking at the global information
available on climate change and working to try and scale that
down to different scales so that it can be, at least, referred
to in an environmental analysis.
It is so very hard to predict what might happen in one
single location, given the kind of global information that we
have right now that has been through a peer-review process and
science.
So we do have a team of people that is working together to
try and help us scale down that information to make it more
usable at the local level, and we hope to have something very
soon. But we did issue direction in January, and we think we
can work within the regulatory framework to continue updating
that information.
Mr. Grijalva. But there needs to be, at some point, a
revision update of the particular laws that I referenced.
Ms. Kimbell. It could be in statute, but it might very well
be in the regulation.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Armstrong, in the last administration, adequate
protection of our natural and cultural resources was on the
back burner as we moved forward on expedited energy permitting.
Moving forward now, how will you see adequately protecting the
integrity of natural and cultural resources on these public
lands in reference to the whole discussion we are having today
about climate change and the need to protect and conserve those
areas?
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Chairman, I think that everybody at DOI
would agree with your statement that we need to take a balanced
approach when we look at climate change and its impacts, the
relationship to energy resources and natural and cultural
resources as well.
At the Department of the Interior, including USGS, who I
work for, the science wing of the Department of the Interior,
we are constantly striving to better understand that balance
and to achieve that balance, and I know that that issue is of
paramount importance to Secretary Salazar. But early in the
start of his tenure, I am sure he will be giving great thought
to that and bringing his forming team together to address that
issue more effectively.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. You are very kind.
One other point: Presently, Mr. Armstrong, does the Bureau
of Land Management currently have the capacity to monitor the
impacts of climate change on the vast resources that they are
responsible for managing?
Mr. Armstrong. I think that the Bureau, from my personal
experience as the scientist in charge of the U.S. Geological
Survey and my interactions with scientists and managers at the
Bureau of Land Management, they do a very good job, a very
effective job, of managing their natural resources through
monitoring programs.
But I will say this, that the Department of the Interior,
across all of the career employees I have ever talked to, we
realize that no single bureau can do it alone. It takes not
just the entire Department working in unison to coordinate and
communicate its vast fleet of monitoring assets, but we need to
work with other Federal agencies, such as NASA, NOAA, the U.S.
Forest Service, which we work very closely with, to provide
additional information on monitoring on and off the Bureau of
Land Management's jurisdiction.
In order to really understand climate change, we need to
get beyond just the immediate jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National
Park Service and look at the system in totality, and, in order
to do that, we all need to be working together with state and
local agencies, with tribal organizations, with academia. It
really is that large of a problem. We all need to be working
together.
Mr. Grijalva. That leads me to the question for Mr.
Brunello. In your testimony, you recommend the formation of a
Federal Climate Change Adaptation Team. We just heard Mr.
Armstrong speak somewhat to that. How important is that
coordinated Federal effort, over different boundaries of our
land management agencies, to deal with this subject area?
Mr. Brunello. I am glad you asked that one. It is dear to
my heart.
I think, right now, in California, as an example, we are
developing our statewide adaptation strategy. What is helpful
for all of us, as you move ahead in any new effort, is you stay
in your stovepipe, and so here, in the natural resources
agency, we have energy, water, Fish and Game, and other
committees that are in our jurisdiction, many areas that will
have environmental impacts.
What we have learned is we cannot really develop
thoughtful, thorough adaptation strategies unless we
communicate with our public health officials, for example, or
our air regulators, or our Department of Transportation. It
does not work.
So what really needs to happen is to step even outside of
the land management agencies. For example, the transportation
issues you will discuss in this coming year; that is huge. That
area, for us in California, is what guides a lot of our habitat
restoration efforts.
So what we are trying to accomplish is challenging. It is
not easy, by any means, but what has to happen is to have the
Federal entities have some type of framework that are the
policy people having discussions that are using information
that is fed up to them on adaptation measures so they can talk
and discuss and work things out. It is not going to work if it
is just the science, and that is what we are learning.
To do an adaptation strategy requires three things. First,
you need good science, so you need to support the science; but,
second, you need to have strategies that actually allow you to
adapt to future climate impacts; and then the third part, which
we have all missed the boat, is actually to act, and we want to
get beyond research and to actually fund action.
I know that is tough in all of our budget climates,
specifically, in California, but, really, you have to move to
actually fund things. That does not mean all new resources. It
may mean just including things in new roads or in development
of new properties along the coast that are going to experience
sea level rise.
So I think having it outside of just the land management
agencies is fundamental in where you move forward.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Last question: Chairman Frank, what would be the immediate
steps that the Federal government could take to improve the
involvement of tribes, Indian Country, in the climate change
adaptation efforts, policy efforts?
Mr. Frank. One of the things I see is that we are not
included a lot of times within the state and then a lot of
times within the Federal government. It seems to me, like, when
the states and the Federal government include the tribes, they
have success, but when they do not include the tribes, they do
not have success.
I see too many people micromanaging our resource,
micromanaging it from the outside, and they are old, retired
people that are going around, and they want to make money now;
they are consultants, you know. We have to stop.
Mr. Grijalva. Like some Members of Congress.
Mr. Frank. Yes. I mean, it has got to stop. We have to
start managing. We cannot be walking around, saying, ``Hey, we
are going to study this one more time.'' We are studying it.
This is real. This climate change is real, and it is upon
us, and the temperatures are warming up, the floods are coming,
and the storms are here, and we have to adapt to that, but we
have to put it together. We have to manage together.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hastings?
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief Kimbell, in
your written testimony, you made reference to managing forests
and, specifically, thinning forests. You did not say that
orally. If you did, I apologize; I did not hear it. Would you
elaborate briefly on that?
Ms. Kimbell. I would be happy to. Thank you.
The reference to thinning forests; I think we have some
fabulous examples just from the last several fire seasons. One
I will point to, since there are so many folks here who are
familiar with California, is the Angora fire near South Lake
Tahoe, where, through extended public involvement and work in a
collaborative process, there was a whole series of hazardous-
fuel-reduction projects identified, including thinning.
When the Angora fire was started by a campfire, it burned
very quickly through a whole drainage and burned quite a number
of homes. The fire behavior was monitored in both the areas
that had been thinned and the areas that had not been thinned.
The fire mortality was measured in the areas that had been
thinned and in the areas that had not been thinned, and there
were significant differences in the intensity of the fire, the
fire behavior, and the mortality of the remaining trees in
those areas.
I think that that is just one example. We have many others
around the West, and we have quite a few in the East now. We
have a fabulous example in Florida, where the fire that was
burning in the Okefenokee Swamp two years ago, when it came out
into the Florida forest lands, the way it burned through areas
that had not been treated was very, very different from the
areas that had been thinned, and where the areas had been
thinned, actually, firefighters were able to suppress that
fire.
Mr. Hastings. Well, I want to congratulate you. I have
always felt that that is an integral part of managing our
forest lands.
Today, we got a news release from Sierra Pacific
Industries, in Redding, California, saying that they are
closing one-half of their two-mill complex, and it is the small
log complex. The significance, I think, of Sierra Pacific is
because this is part of the Quincy Library Group negotiations
that everybody up and down the West Coast, and probably
nationwide, was aware of because it was a very difficult
agreement that was put together. But everybody felt that it was
going to work, and, as a result of that, Sierra Pacific built
this small log facility.
They are now closing it because, as they say, in their news
release, there is not a sufficient amount of small logs coming
off national forest lands to keep this mill going. In fact,
they cite that the target of the Quincy Library Group was
whatever it was, but they have only been able to log about 20
percent of the target because of litigation. Do you have a
comment on that?
Ms. Kimbell. Well, I would add to litigation the incidence
of wildfire.
I visited on some of those forests last summer after the
great, big fire siege that started in late June, with all of
the lightning that hit across Northern California, and there
were a number of those projects that the Quincy Library Group
had worked so hard on for so long that had come through the
appeals process and litigation, and those projects were ready
to be implemented when the fires burned through those projects
and changed the condition rather dramatically.
Mr. Hastings. I mean, it begs the larger question, it seems
to me, if we are going to look at climate change and how to
somewhat mitigate what would happen with natural forces, like
forest fires, for example, and I heard that the forest fire in
Australia put in the air more than double what Australia
civilization puts in the air in one year, that national forest.
But it disturbs me to see that a mill is closing down because
they cannot get small logs. Small logs are essentially what you
thin, and they can only get 20 percent of the target.
So that leads, I guess, to a larger question that I would
like to ask all of you. If litigation is somewhat of a problem
that affects climate change, is there a place for looking at
the regulations that guide us on this that should be looked at
and perhaps changed?
I would ask this of Interior and BLM, specifically, because
you have more open lands where, presumably, alternative energy
sources, like wind and solar, would be in place. Would you be
in favor of reducing some of the regulatory measures so you
would not have the litigation to cite these potential projects?
Ms. Kimbell. I think Mr. Brunello answered this question in
his oral comments, to some extent, the need for adaptive
management.
Mr. Hastings. Well, I know my time has run out here, but go
ahead and respond, and I will make a statement, and maybe you
can respond to that one.
Mr. Armstrong. The fundamental thing in California, which
we are continually addressing, is the fires are not going to
stop, and that is a fundamental issue, in our mind, is that we
see the fires getting worse, they are year-round, and they are
going to continue to happen.
So as you discuss about how can you feasibly and
economically use the dead and dying wood there, we can keep
wrestling about the science and keep wrestling with options,
which I think we have to do, but we keep seeing the fires. So
we are looking for all different----
Mr. Hastings. Well, maybe a short response to that is to
use that biomass in some way to create electricity. It seems to
me to be an obvious thing to look at. If you are going to have
these fires all of the time, and it is predictable where it is,
why do you not go in and thin it and use that biomass? That
might be one thing you ought to look at.
I have to say this because, last week--California is
supposedly the forerunner of alternative energy sources, and I
found out, for goodness sakes, that they are going to buy wind
energy from my district--apparently, Con Edison, or whoever it
is down there in Southern California could not build enough
wind energy to satisfy your constitutional needs, or, at least,
statutory needs, of so much alternative wind, so now you are
going to buy it from my state.
I find that just absolutely incredible. I guess we do not
mind the business, but, for goodness sakes, if you are going to
have all of these regulations, then why do you not become
sufficient?
The wind always blows on the ocean. It seems to me that
that would be a pretty good place to put wind farms. Has that
ever been talked about?
Mrs. Capps. It sure has.
Mr. Hastings. It has?
Mrs. Capps. Oh, yes.
Mr. Hastings. And what has been the response?
Mr. Brunello. In my testimony as well, one of the things
that we are pushing right now is to try and have our utilities,
and all utilities across the state, have 33 percent of their
electricity drawn from renewables. So we are doing a number of
efforts, and the state Governor, Schwarzenegger, just announced
that they did a complete reorganization of all of our energy
agencies so we can align our transmission-corridor-permitting
authority.
We are also looking at, with BLM, Fish and Wildlife
Service, how we can improve our land-permitting system so that
we can have large, consolidated--we call them ``NCCPs''--
Natural Community Conservation Plans so that you are not having
different little blotches all over the state for wind or solar
or geothermal but try and consolidate in areas that have a low
impact.
So we are focusing very much with our Federal partners.
Mr. Hastings. Well, so far, you have focused them in
central Washington. I guess I should be thankful for that.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. I ask
unanimous consent that the press release from Sierra Pacific be
part of the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection, sir.
[The Sierra Pacific press release submitted for the record
follows:]

Sierra Pacific Industries
P.O. Box 496028
Redding, CA 96049-6028
(530) 3788000
,-- , For Immediate Release Contact: Mark Pawlicki
March 2, 2009 530-378-8000
Sierra Pacific Industries Announces Mill Closure at Quincy,
California--Blames Environmental Litigation and Market Conditions

Anderson, CA--Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) today announced it
will close its small-log sawmill located in Quincy, California on May
4, 2009. According to SPI, the challenging lumber market combined with
litigation over timber harvests on nearby national forest lands were
the primary drivers behind the decision to close the plant.
``We are deeply saddened over this announcement, as many hard-
working, dedicated employees who have been with the company for a long
time will be unemployed,'' said area manager Matt Taborski. ``The
reduced availability of national forest timber resulting from
litigation forced SPI to transport logs over long distances at greater
cost to keep the mill running,'' he added. ``Today's lumber prices are
not sufficient to cover these increased costs. To make things worse,
environmental litigation has not only reduced the mill's raw material
supply, but also increased the risk of wildfires in the area,'' he
continued.
This mill is part of a two-mill complex--one cutting small diameter
logs and the other cutting large diameter logs into lumber for domestic
consumption. About 150 employees will be affected by this closure.
Approximately 160 will remain employed at the large-log facility and
biomass electric generation plant.
The Quincy mills rely in large part on the sale of national forest
timber for their raw material. Sierra Pacific constructed the small-log
mill when it appeared the Berger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest
Recovery Act (QLG) would pass in Congress. That law approved in 1998,
promoted tree thinning on national forest timberlands to reduce the
threat of wildfires while providing raw material for local
manufacturing. It was anticipated that the QLG Act would result in the
harvest of enough small diameter trees to run the mill.
Unfortunately, environmental activists have brought a series of
appeals and lawsuits against these projects, drastically reducing the
amount of timber available for harvest. Overall, the Forest Service has
been able to achieve less than 20% of its QLG sawlog sales target due
to appeals and litigation. Nearly two-thirds of the current year's
timber sale program is enjoined or withheld from sale pending the
outcome of litigation.
Workers at the Quincy mills are represented by the Carpenter's
Industrial Council. Employees and union representatives were informed
of the mill closure during meetings today. Sierra Pacific spokesman
Mark Pawlicki stated, ``SPI will consider affected employees for other
potential opportunities within the company for those who are interested
in relocating or transferring.''
Sierra Pacific Industries is a third-generation family-owned forest
products company based in Anderson, California. The firm owns and
manages nearly 1.9 million acres of timberland in California and
Washington, and is the second largest lumber producer in the U.S.
Sierra Pacific is committed to managing its lands in a responsible and
sustainable manner to protect the environment while providing quality
wood products for consumers.
______

Mr. Grijalva. Mrs. Capps, any questions, comments?
Mrs. Capps. Please, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, to Mr. Frank, my constituents of the Chumash Nation
will be very pleased, Chairman Frank, to know of the wisdom
that you have shared with us, wisdom that comes from the ages,
and you spoke on their behalf as well, so I thank you for that.
I also want to thank all of the witnesses for your
excellent testimony and to remind you, Chief Gail Kimbell, that
we met, I believe, in Santa Barbara, when you were honored by
the Forest Service Foundation a few years ago, and it is a
pleasure to have you be here today.
I have a question for you, and I also cannot skip by my
Californian, Mr. Brunello, for a question as well in this short
time.
Of course, the warming climate is contributing to longer
wildland fire seasons with more extreme events, greatly
increasing the risk to human lives and buildings, particularly
within the wildland-urban interface. I do not have to remind
you of three major incidents in Los Padres National Forest,
which are close to homes in my district, in the last year and a
half, most recently, the Tea Fire last fall, just a few months
ago, in which over 230 homes and part of a liberal arts college
were burned to the ground; the Gap Fire, earlier that summer;
and also, significantly, the Zaca Fire in the summer and fall
of 2007, one of the largest fires in the history of California.
Over 200,000 acres burned over a three-month period of time. We
still have the ash in our neighborhoods from that particular
fire.
Wildland fires are likely to become increasingly difficult
to manage unless we can figure out fire-dependent ecosystems in
the near future and also do some really serious, long-range
planning, which you have touched upon, and I thank you for
that.
As you described the way the Forest Service is
collaborating among fire and climate scientists, maybe you
could be specific. I am thinking particularly of the homeowners
in Santa Barbara who want to rebuild those homes, and I have
heard of--I will set this out for you--some adaptive-management
strategies.
I heard of one called ``Firewise,'' and maybe you would
describe it for us because it is going to make a tremendous
difference. As Tony said, we are going to continue to have
fires. What we have to learn to do is be smart in adapting to
them.
Ms. Kimbell. And thank you for that. ``Firewise'' is a
wonderful program that we implement across the country, but it
helps communities be able to help private landowners design
their homes, design their facilities, and design their
landscaping with fire in mind. So it provides information about
different kinds of building materials, different kinds of
landscaping, and spacing.
We share responsibility for this program with the state
foresters, and we deliver it. California certainly has a very
active Firewise program, as does Nevada, as do most of the
states that have heavy fire programs.
There is fabulous information available there, and I
encourage not only the forestry community to be interested in
it but certainly communities who are setting standards and
guidelines for the construction of homes, whether they are
being reconstructed or brand-new construction, for the
construction of homes and businesses in fire-prone areas.
Mrs. Capps. And, Mr. Chairman, if I could request that
Chief Kimbell maybe submit a document to that for the record of
this testimony, I would appreciate that.
Ms. Kimbell. We would be happy to.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you. Mr. Brunello, you spoke already
about projections to programs and plans enhancing our ability
to manage our public lands using the science that is available,
and you really touched us when you said, We have to act. We
cannot just study this any longer; we have to act.
Specifically, what lessons can be learned and applied at
the Federal level from California's efforts to integrate
climate change into CEQA, into the California design?
Mr. Brunello. That is probably for a whole hearing.
Mrs. Capps. I know it is. I am so sorry, but I want to get
it out, at least, to start.
Mr. Brunello. Exactly. We had a bill called S.B. 97 that
was passed two years ago that was to provide guidance for all
projects on how to account for greenhouse gas emissions. So it
was probably hastily completed, many would say, and what we are
learning is that there is a very narrow focus, looking
specifically at projects and, more, in particular, projects
that are litigated. But what we have found, particularly in the
testimony, it hits on start with the basics, account for
greenhouse gas emissions on projects.
There is debate about what thresholds do you use for
greenhouse gases. Should it be zero? Should there be some
formula?
We are finding it very difficult, but we know that people,
at least, have to track their emissions and to mitigate for
those emissions, so that is a primary thing you should walk
away with.
How you deal with climate impacts is exceptionally
challenging--that is something that I know was mentioned by the
Chairman--and, in particular, what we are finding in our
science is that you really need to ask three questions, and I
think, on some areas, we are just not there yet. We are trying
to push as much as we can, but what impacts happen where, when?
Mrs. Capps. Yes.
Mr. Brunello. Three very basic questions, but if you are
looking at specific projects, with NEPA, in particular, it is
very difficult to answer those questions.
The final big question is cumulative impacts, and I would
leave it with what is even more important, is that there is
comprehensive climate legislation that is passed and that
specific projects, as you are doing a CEQA or a NEPA analysis,
and they will go together, link with that broader structure
because if NEPA is done on its own without the bigger context,
it creates a number of difficulties.
Mrs. Capps. That is a very good summary, for starters.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Bishop? No? Excuse me. Mr. Coffman?
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Bishop, for holding this hearing today. Our public lands are a
valuable resource. They provide many opportunities for outdoor
recreation and hold vast energy deposits.
Trees also act as carbon repositories. As they grow, they
absorb carbon. When trees die, they cease to absorb carbon and
begin slowly releasing it back into the atmosphere. This carbon
can also be released rapidly during forest fires.
In Colorado and across the nation, we have vast swaths of
standing dead trees waiting to erupt in flames. This will
threaten lives and property. It will also release tons of
carbon into the atmosphere. Each year, millions of tons of
carbon are released into the atmosphere by carbon. According to
the National Center for Atmospheric Research, during Colorado's
2002 fire season, just as much carbon was released into the
atmosphere from forest fires as was released from the entire
state's transportation emissions.
Now, we have a choice. We can push policies that will
prevent catastrophic fires, or we can go with the status quo
and allow hazardous fuels to continue choking our forests. I,
for one, hope we will pursue proactive policies of active
forest management.
Chief Kimbell, thank you for your time today. A 2007 report
by the University of Colorado and the National Center for
Atmospheric Research estimated that fires release about 290
million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year. It seems to me
that reducing forest fires would reduce carbon emissions. What
are the main obstacles in the way of doing fuel treatments in
our forests and getting ahead of these fires before they start?
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. Since the start of the
National Fire Plan, together with Department of the Interior
agencies, we have treated over 30 million acres of public lands
for hazardous fuels. About 19 million of that has been on
national forests and grasslands.
The Colorado situation is something we have spent
considerable time talking about. We focused resources there,
last year and this year, to work together with the State of
Colorado to treat lands. We are working with Denver Water. We
are working with a whole host of interests in that front range
country and what some people like to call the ``back range.''
Challenges to being able to conduct those treatments are
partly around just the social license to be able to conduct
those treatments. There are many people who really do not want
activities on their public lands and are very vocal about that,
very active in that, and these are public lands. We manage them
for the public. We do it in a collaborative process. We
encourage public involvement, to a great extent, in everything
we do. Part of it is social license and the ability, then, to
be able to move projects forward in a timely way.
The Forest Service has a research project--it is actually
in California--the Alder Springs project, where we are working
hard on managing, analyzing, and measuring a whole carbon
budget around the issue that you raised with the amount of
carbon being produced in a fire versus the carbon that might be
removed and put to another product while another healthy, green
stand is allowed to get started and to start sequestering
carbon rather than emitting carbon. But the Alder Springs
project has a lot of great potential to be able to teach us a
lot, and there are some similar projects around the country.
Mr. Coffman. Would any other panel members like to comment
on that?
[No response.]
Mr. Coffman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Heinrich, any questions?
Mr. Heinrich. I do. Chief Kimbell, it is great to have you
here today. Are you familiar with the Gila National Forest in
New Mexico?
Ms. Kimbell. I have read a lot about the Gila, never spent
a lot of time on the Gila.
Mr. Heinrich. I would encourage you to spend time there. It
is an incredible place.
My background, for a number of years, I worked as a guide
outfitter, taking kids into the back country, and managed a
540-acre forest property that had been cut around the turn of
the century back in probably the 1910's. That property had
incredible proliferation of small-diameter trees because of the
combination of fire-suppression and previous management
activities.
You know, I am somebody who has literally cut down tens of
thousands of trees, and I do not apologize for that fact
because we were trying to restore a forest condition, but I
think this broad-brush approach that says that the only way to
reduce, you know, the potential for catastrophic wildfire is
sometimes simplistic.
The example I would give is that the healthiest forest I
have ever seen is in the middle of the Gila wilderness, and the
reason why it is so healthy is because it has never been fire
suppressed. The Ponderosa pines are three-to-four-feet thick.
There is very little underbrush to create ladder fuels to the
surface.
So, I guess, one of my questions revolves around the fact
that if we are going to do these treatments that put us back on
the track within ecosystems that are fire-adapted, and anytime
you are dealing with Ponderosa pine, you are dealing with a
fire-adapted ecosystem, is it feasible, even, to do those
treatments, other than concentrating them around the urban-
wildland interface, but in the broader areas, where we want to
restore a more natural condition, a condition that is better
fire-adapted? If not, do we need to then rely on the judicious
use of prescribed fire to create that natural condition?
Ms. Kimbell. Well, you are absolutely right. There is no
one answer. There is no cookie-cutter approach to dealing with
the health of forest land. Some of our employees like to talk
about how forests are really the lungs of the earth, and a
healthy forest is taking in a lot of carbon and putting out a
lot of oxygen.
Part of what we have learned in our climate change research
is that there are very different things going on in different
places in the country, and we cannot assume that what is going
on in New Mexico is the same thing that is going on in Florida.
That is the important part of stepping down some of this global
science that we have and being able to step it down to a more
local area so that we can look at the opportunities in
different places to be able to improve that forest's ability to
be able to sequester carbon and provide all of the services
that we look to have off of those National Forest System lands.
With that, in many of our Forest Service regions, we have
taken a regional approach to look at the priorities for
treating lands to prevent those catastrophic wildfires and the
effects of those catastrophic wildfires.
So there are many places that are prioritizing treatments
that may be far outside the wildland-urban interface, but some
other areas that might need some address to be able to perhaps
prevent that fire, when it does get started, from roaring into
Big Sur or wherever else, into Evergreen, Colorado, and to be
able to improve the health so that that forest is able to
handle precipitation, so it is able to sequester carbon, so it
is able to provide the recreation resources that we count on
from our public lands.
So, yes, we are looking at the whole spectrum of lands and
not just in the wildland-urban interface.
Mr. Heinrich. Just a quick followup. Do you have a sense
for the relative cost? What does it cost these days to go in,
and I know it varies widely by forest type, but when you have
to manually thin an acre of forest, what does that generally
cost the public?
Ms. Kimbell. There is no single number I can quote you. A
key component is in what might be available in the local
community to be able to use that woody biomass that might be
cut, that might be removed, where there is an outlet for that
that makes it much more economical to be able to treat those
acres.
There is a symbiosis here where being able to treat those
acres can also be very, very good for a community, and those
things need to be considered as a whole and not in separate
parts.
You mentioned prescribed burning before. Prescribed burning
in Mississippi is much cheaper than prescribed burning around
Lake Tahoe. There are just different costs. There are different
factors of doing business in a wildland-urban interface on
steep hills with continued drought and other issues versus
doing it in a recurring area that might be a gentler terrain,
and many other factors.
So it is really, really hard to give you a number for what
it might cost for thinning because it really varies, depending
on what the rest of the industry's infrastructure might look
like, or what the economic opportunities are around that
project.
Mr. Heinrich. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Chief Kimbell, if I could just ask one quick
question. So you are recommending that we burn Mississippi. Is
that what you are saying?
Ms. Kimbell. No, absolutely not, but I do recommend that we
keep underburning to be able to do the kind of work we are
doing on restoring long-leaf pine.
Mr. Bishop. Let me ask you about one area that is slightly
different from that because we will have other testimony coming
in later. To try and put some parameters around the magnitude
of the effect of the alternative energy sources, particularly
wind and solar, and how that will have on public lands, some
people have estimated that tens of thousands of square miles
will be needed to meet even a fraction of our power needs, if
we are using wind power; the same kind of concept with solar
power.
Can you put into some kind of perspective the spacing needs
that would be needed for wind or solar as it supplants
traditional forms of power?
I can see, by your face, you want to give me that in
written form.
Ms. Kimbell. I would love to give you that in written form,
Mr. Bishop, if that would be all right with you.
Mr. Bishop. That is fair game. Thank you.
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. For a price.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Ms. Shea-Porter?
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I referenced New
Hampshire in the beginning of my remarks, and we have certainly
had a terrible time. I do not think there are too many people
in New Hampshire who do not believe we are experiencing climate
change.
Our little state had a tornado that impacted 55 miles last
summer. That came after several floods, and then, in December,
we were visited by an ice storm, the likes of which we have not
seen, that put power out for about 450,000 people. It was
really very, very damaging.
In looking at all of this, and knowing that we have 16
miles of ocean--do not laugh, California--they are beautiful--
and we have some stunning mountains, but what is your plan now
for New Hampshire and for the Northeast? We have a variety of
environmental problems, and we have people working on it. The
University of New Hampshire certainly is in the forefront for
this.
What is your plan? Who are you working with right now, and
what is going to be the change in your agency in the way that
you actually implement management for our mountains?
Ms. Kimbell. I have family in New Hampshire and Vermont,
and they have not complained about the snow this year. They
have just loved the snow, but they were very unhappy about the
power outages. They are all skiers.
The work we are doing in the White Mountain National Forest
and in the Green Mountain National Forest is very important. We
have been working together with not only those universities--
the University of Vermont, my alma mater, and the University of
New Hampshire--but also with landowners in Maine, New York,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
We have a research station, we have people actually
physically located in New Hampshire and Vermont who are working
together with all of those different entities, looking to
incorporate the climate change science into our on-the-ground
management so that Dr. Cleaves' staff is working with the
staffs on the national forests to do a technology transfer, but
also working with the state foresters to ensure that technology
transfer.
We just recently published a paper where we noted the
migration of a number of hardwood species that, with
monitoring, we have been able to demonstrate that there are 30,
I think, hardwood species that are actually moving in their
range. They are moving northward. It has been the subject of
anecdotal kinds of conversation for many, many years, but now
we actually have the science to show that.
That is the kind of information we want our on-the-ground
managers to have, whether they are working on national forests
or any forest land, to be able to assess what species are going
to fare well on different sites and what species might be able
to provide the most to us, in terms of sequestering carbon and
providing clean water and clean air.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you. So do I have one more minute?
So do you anticipate any changes? There is a lot of debate
about land use up in that area, recreation versus economic
impact there. Do you have any changes planned, or are we going
to see pretty much the same policy of management that we have
had over the past years?
Ms. Kimbell. The White Mountain National Forest recently
completed its land management plan. The piece that needs to be
continually addressed is the adaptive management piece, which I
think is a very good tie to what we have been talking about in
this hearing, with adaptive management related to climate
change. The science needs to continually influence the
implementation of that forest management plan.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mrs. Lummis, any questions?
Mrs. Lummis. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chief Kimbell, welcome. It is nice to see you. I am from
Wyoming.
Ms. Kimbell. The great State of Wyoming.
Mrs. Lummis. The Great State of Wyoming, and I want to
follow up on something that my neighbor to the south, Colorado,
was touching on earlier.
The beetle kill in Colorado and Wyoming is absolutely
devastating. In fact, your own Forest Service predicts that, by
2012, beetles will have killed nearly all of the mature,
lodgepole trees in Northern Colorado and Southern Wyoming.
I believe that my neighbor, Mr. Coffman, and I could agree
to that assessment. It is a frightening prospect.
So my question for you is, what types of adaptive-
management tools would allow you to better manage this
devastating problem? And, furthermore, when you were speaking
earlier, you mentioned treatments for hazardous fuels, and I am
just curious as to what that means in lay language.
Ms. Kimbell. That is an excellent question because we have
gotten wrapped around the axle just a couple of times talking
about hazardous fuels: What are ``hazardous fuels''? Hazardous
fuels are fuels that may contribute to irregular or dangerous
fire behavior so that they might be ladder fuels, as was
discussed earlier. They might be so many tons per acre of a
certain moisture content. It really varies from site to site.
Lodgepole pine is an interesting species, in that we know,
from the fires in 1910, the forests that came back after the
1910 fires and the lodgepole pine type came back almost 30,000
stems to the acre. I worked on a forest in the Great State of
Washington where we had 30,000 stems to the acre, pretty
significant.
Lodgepole pine is a species that is susceptible to insect
and disease, particularly when it reaches some stress level
when it is about 100 years' old. I think we are seeing that not
only in Colorado and Wyoming; we are seeing it in Idaho and
Montana, and, certainly, British Columbia and Alberta have been
through some pretty exciting times with Banff, Jasper, and the
mountain pine beetle epidemic there.
So when I talk about adaptive management relative to
lodgepole pine, there are things we can do to address the
density of forest stands. Certainly, the density contributes to
the physical stress that they experience during periods of
drought.
I also had some discussion with a silviculturist in Vail,
who was talking about the appropriateness of planting different
species perhaps at different elevations to be able to have some
confidence that it would be a long-lived species and to be able
to provide all of the benefits that we look for from trees.
So adaptive management may take a number of different
roles. We are trying to address the issue in Wyoming with our
Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, and we hope to
be able to get on that one right away.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you very much, and I hope to follow up
with you specifically on that point because we are terribly
concerned, so thank you very much for addressing that.
I am wondering, as a followup, whether there is a way to
turn lemons into lemonade here, in that because of the massive
pine beetle kills in areas, is it possible to address the
biofuels issue with pine beetle-killed trees; in other words,
to harvest the dead trees to create biofuels that would help
expand our energy portfolio in this country and diversify it so
we are turning these dead trees that are potential fire hazards
and potential carbon emitters, in the event of a conflagration,
into biofuel, which then actually becomes a diversifier to our
energy portfolio?
Ms. Kimbell. Absolutely, and we do have a part of our
science program that is focused on looking at the opportunity
to create liquid fuel and wood products from cellulose. The
Forest Service is not working on that alone. Certainly, the
Department of Energy has interest in that, and we have been
working internationally with Sweden, Finland, looking at the
potential for converting cellulose into some kind of liquid
fuel, and there is tremendous potential right there in Colorado
and Wyoming.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, I am very pleased to hear that.
Mr. Chairman, just one comment. Mr. Bishop mentioned
earlier about the footprint of wind-energy turbines. One of the
reasons for the spacing requirements is because of the wake
effect. When the wind turbines turn, they create a wake that
affects those wind turbines behind them and behind them, so
spacing becomes a big issue.
So when you are doing a massive wind-energy project, which
is really required in order to justify putting the transmission
lines into it, it takes up enormous acres. So I do think we
have to look at some other alternatives, like offshore, and
improve the technology so that is possible; otherwise, we are
taking what is a very small footprint, with this new
directional drilling of oil and gas, where you can drill 55
wells on one wellpad and recover oil from an octopus-like
structure underground, and, instead, replacing it with
something that really covers thousands, tens of thousands, of
acres of surface and destroys the viewshed. So thanks, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you for being here.
Mr. Grijalva. Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very glad to
see our California representative here, who has been very
active with the Bay-Delta on analyzing the sea level rise. It
is quite important in my Subcommittee on Water and Power, and
power being the energy.
Ms. Lummis, you brought up a great point because I toured
the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) last year. I took
a helicopter tour to check out the forests because the energy
grid goes right through the forest, which is a great issue in
my Subcommittee. And I found out that they are trying to expand
their right-of-way so that they can be able to service the
lines, and they are not able to because of different things
that happened between the agencies. And I would hope that they
begin to talk to each other and be able to allow this to happen
without having a whole gamut of policy decision because this is
beneficial not only for a firebreak but also to be able to
allow servicing the grid energy.
Yes, the pine beetle and the stress that is caused by the
lack of water, supposedly--this is the briefing we were given
when we were there--and the fact that there are, I would say,
millions of trees--from my look at it, I could almost see some
areas that were totally brown--that somehow we would be able to
utilize it, but I am afraid, if you are going to use them for
wood product, unless you treat that wood product, that you are
going to have some kind of a contamination somewhere along the
line.
So, effectively, maybe biofuel would be something that
would be a new energy producer for the area that would create
new jobs and green technology because there are ways of being
able to scrub the smoke coming out. It is happening in
California.
Essentially, I am concerned that maybe the agency is not
necessarily collaborating. Is it because of funding? Is it
because of lack of personnel? These decisions are not made to
be able to allow these expansions to help service the grids and
effectively expand the break, should there be a forest fire.
Ms. Kimbell. As I understand it, there is an environmental
analysis going on over many parts of California and other
places looking at exactly this question.
Mrs. Napolitano. I am talking about Colorado. I am talking
all the way down to Wyoming because we flew all the way
through.
Ms. Kimbell. The discussion I was involved in, most
recently, had to do with California, but, certainly, I know
that there are applications in to be able to widen those
rights-of-way along different transmission lines, especially
through heavily forested areas with tall trees.
Mrs. Napolitano. Correct.
Ms. Kimbell. That environmental analysis is ongoing.
The regional forester in the Rocky Mountain Region is here
in town this week, but he was actually discussing this just
last week.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is there better coordination between the
agencies that would allow for faster, say, working on the
studies?
Ms. Kimbell. I will absolutely check on it. I am not aware
that there is an issue between agencies, but I will check on
that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Would you inform the Subcommittee, please?
Ms. Kimbell. You bet.
Mrs. Napolitano. It is essential since we are looking at
the same issues that would hamper California, as well as other
states.
I looked at some of the information I was given, and it
goes to the effects of climate change in the West, past
outbreaks. I can also attest to the quagga mussels and the
zebra mussels. Aside from the pine beetle, looking at those,
what are the agencies, in collaboration, doing to research and
come up with a way of being able to quell these outbreaks?
Climate change is not going to change from what we are
seeing, so we can expect more. What are we doing to be able to
address these issues?
Ms. Kimbell. Well, the mussels one is very, very
interesting. I know that the Forest Service is working with a
number of different partners addressing the transfer of
different invasive species from one water body to another, and
I think Mr. Armstrong probably has something to offer to that
discussion.
Mrs. Napolitano. Quagga and zebra, both.
Mr. Armstrong. Right.
Ms. Kimbell. Absolutely.
Mr. Armstrong. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in
combination with the U.S. Geological Survey, the Great Lakes
Coalition on Certain Invasive Mussels in the Great Lakes, but
in also marine waters, is looking at the issue of invasives and
their impact related to climate change.
Mrs. Napolitano. But how long are they going to look at it?
You are doing already some studies.
Mr. Armstrong. A lot of work is already going on at the
state level to develop adaptation strategies, going back to----
Mrs. Napolitano. Right. Well, it is not just adaptation; I
believe you found some kind of bacteria.
Mr. Armstrong. There are mitigation strategies, too, with
daughterless technologies and other scientific methods, to
prevent the spread and to actually eradicate the invasives.
Mrs. Napolitano. Right. Well, we were in the research and
development center also, where we talked to some of the people
who are doing the research. The problem is, how long is it
going to take? Can we help expedite? Do you need additional
funding? What do you need to be able, because it is costing
some of the entities millions, if not billions, of dollars, to
address the quagga mussels because they are clogging the pipes,
and, I am sure, when you do one, you should be able to do
others.
Mr. Armstrong. I do not want to give you a figure offhand,
just off the top of my head. What I would like to do is get
that information for you from our folks at the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the GS and get it on the written record
and get that statement to you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, this is the forest disruption
resulting from warming and increased pest outbreaks. That would
include the pine beetle and any other invasive species that we
might want to do.
You might also want to look at--there is some cane in the
resacas in Brownsville that are also affecting the ability of
water to be able to be utilized properly. I mean, I can go on,
Mr. Chair.
There are so many things that I would love to be able to
work in tandem with your Subcommittee because these are issues
that just overlap, and unless we know what you are doing, we
are not able to be able to ask for funding or assistance or be
able to help you address these things.
Mr. Armstrong. As I said, we will get back to you with a
comprehensive assessment of what we are doing and what we need
to do in order to deal with the problems of the invasive
species and climate change.
This gets back to what Chief Kimbell was talking about
before. There is a symbiosis here of wildland fire and forest
fire, as well, with the spread of secondary pests and
invasives, as well, not just the pine bark beetle but invasive
plants and other animals, as well, and we are working, in
cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies, to
try to develop plans to deal with these effects.
Mrs. Napolitano. And that leads to biofuel that you were
talking about being able to utilize that as a way of being able
to take those dead trees and be able to utilize their wood, if
you would.
Mr. Armstrong. Right. I would like to point out, on that
issue, going back to what Chief Kimbell talked about, Secretary
Salazar is developing a DOI Renewable Energy Task Force which
will deal with issues like the transmission lines that you
mentioned before, but also biofuel issues and other renewable
energy sources.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I do not
have anything to yield back, but I certainly look forward to
working with you on this issue.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you so much. Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. It is good to see my good friend,
Billy Frank, here, and I think it is a timely hearing. I met,
this morning, with Henry Cagey of the Lummi Tribe, who was
telling me about this disaster with the loss of the runs, the
Fraser River salmon runs, that has been declared a disaster by
the Secretary of Commerce. It may be associated with climate
change with the different circulation patterns of water
temperature that cause those runs to take a different route
from the Fraser River.
Then, this morning, I met with Vaughan Sharp of the
Quinault Tribe, who is fed in the Quinault River by the
Anderson Glacier. We actually have a picture here showing how
the Anderson Glacier has shrunk to almost insignificance in the
last 30 years.
We have changes, you know, in our neck of the woods that
are affecting the tribes, and my take on this is that, no
matter what we do from a land use policy, no matter what we do
from even a tribal policy, unless we get a handle on carbon
dioxide emissions, we are all in this soup together. And the
people who care about pine beetle kills need to help us develop
a cap-and-trade system and a renewable electrical scanner
system so we can stop putting so much carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere; otherwise, we are all in this soup together.
That is just kind of a general question. I just wonder if
you have any comments in that regard.
Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. You know, the Fraser
River is a giant river in the Great Northwest, and the climate
change has been part of the problem, the beetles have been
another part of them, the siltation of the floods.
The Fraser River is not like the Nisqually River, where I
live. The Nisqually River is 90 miles long, and it comes out of
a mountain. The Fraser River depends upon the snowfall and the
melt and the temperature of that great river. There is a lot of
difference right there.
So you have the temperature cooling and the temperature
warming, and, you know, it is devastating to the sockeye
salmon. The sockeye salmon go up into the lakes and spawn up in
that beautiful country up there in British Columbia, and, you
know, it goes back to, we are beyond the turning point of
global warming right now, and something has got to be done.
This is a real thing that is happening out there, and we
are all talking about it, but the status quo has got to change.
The status quo of us, the government, the states. The State of
Washington alone puts in less than 2 percent of their budget on
natural resource. What does that tell you? Less than 2 percent
on natural resource. I do not know what the Federal government
does on their budget on natural resource. That tells you nobody
cares about natural resource, and if nobody cares about natural
resource, there is not going to be education, there is not
going to be no economy, and there is not going to be cutting
any trees down. Mills will be closing, and they are closing
right now.
Mr. Inslee. Mr. Chairman, some people do care about it. We
just invested $70 billion in the stimulus package to try to
develop a clean energy economy so that these problems will not
happen.
If I can ask Ms. Kimbell, if a person here in Congress
really cared about the death of these trees, and I certainly
do--I was in the Sawtooth a couple of weeks ago seeing the
devastation there and the pine beetle--would you recommend that
we find a way to reduce CO2 emissions so that we can
stop climate change so we can stop the predation going on in
the forests? Is that the most important thing we could do to
prevent this loss?
President Obama has called for a cap-and-trade system and a
renewable electrical standard and a variety of methods to
reduce CO2. What would you say about that?
Ms. Kimbell. I do not think we have time to do one without
the other. I think we need to be thinking about forest health
while we are addressing CO2 emissions. Forests
currently sequester 10 percent of the carbon that we produce in
the United States, and if we can help forests sequester even
more than the 10 percent they currently sequester, we will all
be better off. Forests are the lungs of the earth. There is a
lot of work we can do with forests to help them be better lungs
for us while we are also addressing the total carbon emissions.
Mr. Inslee. But would you agree, we can spend the entire
Federal budget on forest health, but if CO2 levels
get to 900 parts per million in the atmosphere, with the
enormous climate change that would be associated with that, we
are not going to save these forests.
Ms. Kimbell. I think we have a lot of opportunity to save
these forests while we are also working on the President's
proposed cap and trade.
Mr. Inslee. I think I hear a ``yes'' in there somewhere,
that you think we have to do a cap-and-trade system if we are
going to save these forests, or something to stop the
CO2 rise.
Ms. Kimbell. While we are also addressing forest health.
Mr. Inslee. Right. Thank you.
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Question?
Mr. Coffman. May I ask?
Mr. Grijalva. Sure.
Mr. Coffman. The ability of the forests to sequester
carbon; you know, when we look around the globe, there has been
so much deforestation, there has been such horrible land-
management practices, looking at Brazil and what they have
done.
I mean, the fact is, could we not offset a great deal of
our carbon emissions by promoting not just healthy forests but
a reforestation, not just in the United States but globally,
through our foreign policy, and would that not make a
significant difference when we talk about issues like global
warming?
Ms. Kimbell. Certainly, afforestation and reforestation are
important parts of any address to forestry as a part of our
address to climate change. Both here in the United States and
internationally, the Forest Service is involved in almost every
continent, working with different nations, working with
different natural resource management issues, and the health of
forests is really critical amongst them.
We do work in Brazil, where we have actually worked with
people on low-impact logging. We have looked at the different
kinds of gases emitted by different kinds of forests in Brazil.
I would not trade places with some of the issues that they have
in Brazil right now in trying to address that whole social
issue, all of the social questions, around how to manage the
Amazon. They have some real tough issues that they are up
against.
But the Forest Service is working with a number of other
nations in looking at forests, forest health, afforestation, as
well as reforestation, and we need to be working on that right
here at home as well.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Coffman.
We are going to recess. We have a vote that is going on.
Let me thank the panelists, and also, you know, the issue of
wildfire came up over and over today from the Members.
I and Chairman Rahall will be reintroducing the Flame Act
one more time. I would suggest to my colleagues to look at the
piece of legislation so that we do, on the issue of fire
suppression, create a different funding stream so that much of
the money that is now being used by the Forest Service can be
used for reforestation, better stewardship, et cetera, et
cetera.
So thank you very much, and we should be back within 35 to
40 minutes. Thank you.
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you, Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., a short recess was taken.]
Mr. Grijalva. We will reconvene the oversight hearing
today. We just finished those votes. Those are the last votes
for the day. Some of my colleagues might or might not return,
but all of the comments that you have, and any responses to any
questions I may have or Mr. Bishop may have, will all be part
of the record, and if there are additional questions,
colleagues will submit them to us, and we will forward them to
you for a response. So I appreciate your indulgence, and I am
looking forward to your comments.
Let me begin with Mr. Eugene Spiering, Vice President for
Exploration, Quaterra Corporation. Sir, your comments.

STATEMENT OF EUGENE SPIERING, VICE PRESIDENT FOR EXPLORATION,
QUATERRA CORPORATION, KANAB, UTAH

Mr. Spiering. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Eugene
Spiering. I am the Vice President of exploration with Quaterra-
Alaska.
What I would like to say is that the Federal lands could
have a dramatic role in combating climate change while
decreasing our nation's dependency on foreign energy supplies
if, and only if, these lands are managed to encourage and
promote uranium mining and the production of nuclear energy.
Although wind and solar energy may represent important
components of an equation toward the mitigation of carbon
dioxide emissions, the large-scale application of these
techniques will result in a massive degradation of Federal
lands and leave a lasting legacy of a failed government program
that will embarrass its supporters and infuriate future
generations.
Twenty percent of this nation's electrical energy is
generated by 103 reactors producing 100,000 megawatts of
electricity. Palo Verde, a single generating station located 45
miles west of Phoenix, produces 3,800 megawatts of clean,
nonpolluting electrical energy, or approximately 3.8 percent of
this nation's consumption. This power station uses only
wastewater from the City of Phoenix for cooling, stores all
high-level, radioactive waste on site, and, with all attendant
facilities, disturbs a total surface area of 4.5 square miles.
To produce an equivalent amount of energy by wind
generators would require a disturbance of 760 square miles, and
solar panels would require 190 square miles. The amount of land
disturbed by solar- and wind-generating systems is enormous
when you compare it to nuclear powerplants. Wind generators
have an average operating capacity of 25 percent compared to 97
percent by nuclear plants.
When considered with land-disturbance caused by thousands
of miles of powerlines and hydroelectric storage facilities for
this intermittent power, the total disturbance of wind power is
approximately 160 times the total disturbance of nuclear energy
for a similar generating capacity.
Solar energy disturbs over 40 times the surface area of
nuclear power and costs over five times more per kilowatt hour.
If 20 percent of the electrical power used by the U.S. was
produced by wind energy, the facilities would cover a surface
area of 20,000 square miles, an area slightly less than the
entire State of West Virginia. Because the efficient use of
wind generators requires a location along hilltops and
ridgelines, more than 80,000 miles of horizons in the U.S.
would be bristling with windmills and powerlines, a sight that
many would not like to experience.
As the wind generators reach the end of their estimated 25-
year life, maintenance may no longer be feasible or possible
due to changing economic or political environments, and
thousands of miles of rusting junk will remain as a monument to
yet another failed energy policy.
The U.S. will remain dependent on foreign energy during the
waning phases of the world's oil production. The Executive
Secretary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, set
up by the United Nations, stated, at Bali, that ``I have never
seen a credible scenario for reducing emissions that did not
include nuclear energy.''
A recent British white paper on nuclear power concluded
that ``nuclear power is the most cost-effective, low-carbon-
generation technology available.''
There are now 196 nuclear powerplants with a net capacity
of 170,000 megawatts in operation in Europe. There are 14 new
units under construction, and moratoriums against building new
reactors and mandatory phaseouts of existing nuclear-generating
facilities are being lifted in Switzerland, Sweden, Italy,
England, as well as several Eastern European countries.
Approximately 80 percent of France's electric energy is now
generated by nuclear power. Thirty-three reactors are currently
under construction globally, and 94 are estimated to either be
on order or in the advanced planning stage. There are proposals
for an additional 222 reactors.
This is the way the world is responding to the climate
change and energy. If the U.S. truly wants to use public lands
to fight global warming without the disturbance of enormous
land areas and thousands of miles of scenic vistas, the only
effective and cost-efficient manner is to encourage and promote
uranium mining and the production of nuclear energy on Federal
lands.
This is truly an issue that transcends politics. Nuclear
energy is critical to the economy and future well-being of our
nation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spiering follows:]

Statement of Eugene D. Spiering, Vice President of Exploration,
Quaterra Alaska Inc.

Federal Lands could have a dramatic role in combating climate
change while decreasing our nation's dependency on foreign energy
supplies if and only if these lands are managed to encourage and
promote uranium mining and the production of nuclear energy. Although
wind and solar energy may represent important components of an equation
toward the mitigation carbon dioxide emissions, the large scale
application of these techniques will result in a massive degradation of
Federal lands and leave a lasting legacy of a failed government program
that will embarrass its supporters and infuriate future generations.
Twenty percent of this nation's electrical energy is generated by
103 reactors producing 100,000 megawatts of electricity. Palo Verde, a
single generating station located 45 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona
produces 3800 megawatts of clean, non polluting electricity or
approximately 3.8 percent of our nation's consumption. The Palo Verde
power station uses only waste water from the city of Phoenix for
cooling, stores all high level radioactive waste on site, and with all
attendant facilities disturbs a total surface area of 4.5 square miles.
To produce an equivalent amount of energy by wind generators would
require a disturbance of 760 square miles and solar panels would
require 190 square miles.
The amount of land disturbed by solar and wind generating systems
is enormous when compared to nuclear power plants. Wind generators have
an average operating capacity of 25% compared to 97% by nuclear plants.
When considered with land disturbance caused by thousands of miles of
power lines and hydroelectric storage facilities for the intermittent
power, the total disturbance of wind power is approximately 160 times
the total disturbance of nuclear energy for a similar generating
capacity. Solar energy disturbs over 40 times the surface area of
nuclear power and costs over 5 times more per kilowatt hour.
If 20% of the electrical power used by the U.S. was produced by
wind energy, the facilities would cover a surface area of 20,000 square
miles; an area slightly less than the entire state of West Virginia.
Because efficient use of the wind generators requires a location along
hill tops and ridge lines, more than 80,000 miles of horizons in the
U.S. would be bristling with wind mills and power lines; a sight that
many would not like to experience. As the wind generators reach the end
of their estimated 25 year life, maintenance may no longer be feasible
or possible due to changing economic or political environments and
thousands of miles of rusting junk will remain as a monument to yet
another failed energy policy. The U.S. will remain dependent on foreign
energy during the waning phase of the world's oil production.
The Executive Secretary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by
the United Nations Environment Program) stated at Bali that: ``I have
never seen a credible scenario for reducing emissions that did not
include nuclear energy.''
A recent British White Paper on nuclear power concluded that
nuclear power is the most cost effective low-carbon generation
technology available. Volatility in oil prices and the clash between
Russia and Ukraine over gas pipelines has made nuclear power--with
virtually zero carbon dioxide emissions--a more attractive option for
Europe. There are now 196 nuclear power plant units with an net
capacity of 170,000 MW in operation in Europe and 14 new units with
under construction in five countries. Moratoriums against building new
reactors and mandatory phase outs of existing nuclear generating
facilities are being lifted in Switzerland, Sweden, Italy, and England
as well as several eastern European countries. Approximately 80% of
France's electrical energy is now generated by nuclear power. According
to BHP Billiton, 33 reactors are currently under construction globally,
another 94 are estimated to be either on order or in the advanced
planning stage while there are proposals for a further 222 generators.
There are those that want to stop uranium mining in the U.S. and
fear the use of nuclear power. This is understandable considering the
amount of misinformation cited in newspapers and editorials by a few
activists. Why should we trust this industry? Perhaps we should try to
inform ourselves on how the rest of the world is dealing with these
issues and learn why so many of the world's scientists are encouraging
the use of nuclear energy. Gwyneth Craven in a recently published book
titled Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy,
published by Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House, Inc., 2007,
provides a well-researched and readable examination of nuclear energy
from mining and energy production to the final storage of waste.
If the U.S. wants to use public lands to fight global warming
without the disturbance of enormous land areas and thousands of miles
of scenic vistas, the only effective and cost efficient manner is to
encourage and promote uranium mining and the production of nuclear
energy on Federal lands. This is truly an issue that ``transcends
politics''. Nuclear energy is critical to the economy and future well
being of our nation.
______

Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your comments.
Dr. Mark Harmon, Richardson Chair and Professor in Forest
Science, Oregon State University, welcome, and I look forward
to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF MARK E. HARMON, Ph.D., RICHARDSON CHAIR AND
PROFESSOR IN FOREST SCIENCE, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY,
CORVALLIS, OREGON

Mr. Harmon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee
Members, for inviting me to testify. My name is Mark Harmon. I
am a professor at Oregon State University. I am here to
represent myself.
I have studied the problem of carbon in forests for almost
three decades, published numerous articles, conducted lots of
studies, and taught courses on the subject. I am here to
provide information and insights.
U.S. forests currently offset about 10 percent of the
nation's greenhouse gas emissions. They could be managed to
offset more--perhaps that amount could be doubled so we could
gain another 10 percent--but it would be part of a bridging
strategy.
So forests cannot solve the entire problem, and they can
only help for a limited time, say, about 50 to 100 years, but
this is still a significant contribution to the issues we face.
There are many misconceptions about carbon in forests. Many
proposals are based on these misconceptions, and they are going
to prove counterproductive.
There is a tendency to only look at the inputs to the
forest system or the outputs, depending on what people are
trying to sell. I think this is really misleading. As
scientists, we have to look at what is coming in and what is
going out simultaneously.
A good analogy for carbon in a forest is like a leaky
bucket. A leaky bucket can store carbon, but you have to have
carbon coming in, and the amount that stays in depends on the
number and size of the leaks. So if we want more carbon in that
carbon bucket, we have to put more in at a higher rate, or we
have to do something to alter the nature of those leaks.
How do we decide what to do? There are a lot of proposals
out there. Well, this is sort of like buying a house, but
instead of checking for dry rot, we need to check for a few
other things.
For example, are all of the carbon stores being counted?
There is a tendency to leave out key pools in the analysis.
Has a starting point been specified? How do we know where
we are going on any journey if we do not know our starting
point, and we do not know how far or what direction?
How long will it be until the project pays off? Forests are
slow systems. They have time lags. Many of the projects that
are proposed will pay off perhaps in centuries, and we really
need a quicker solution.
Are the practices truly renewable? Forests are potentially
a renewable resource, but it depends on how they are managed.
What other processes will occur when we take an action? For
every action, there is an opposite reaction, so how will that
affect what happens?
Finally, how does this policy work over a large area and
over a long time period? We have to evaluate projects in that
way.
Now, there are a number of actions that will work, and
there are some that will not work. Stopping or slowing
deforestation will definitely work. Afforestation--that is,
adding forests to areas that once had forests and now do not;
that definitely works.
Lengthening the interval between disturbance to harvest
actually increases the amount of carbon stored in a forest.
Likewise, taking less each harvest or each disturbance leads to
more stores. This is like plugging the holes in the leaky
bucket.
A couple of things that simply do not work: Converting old-
growth forests to younger plantations simply does not store
more carbon. You are taking a system with high carbon stores,
converting it one-to-one with lower. There is no way you go
from here to there without losing carbon. It is that simple.
Now, I have a number of concerns. One is carbon is not the
only reason we are managing forests. We clearly need a balance.
We heard about treatments for fire fuels and reducing those.
Studies are showing that that actually does not save much
carbon. It actually emits more carbon, treatments do, than the
fires do themselves.
However, we need to protect people's homes. We have to have
defensible zones. We need to restore some ecosystems back to
their original structure. Those are very good reasons to be
harvesting and doing treatments, but, from the carbon
perspective, they are not.
We need a thoughtful, transparent, accounting system that
does not have unintended consequences, and some schemes do have
these consequences. We need a reliable monitoring system that
can be verified independently.
And, finally, one last comment is that continued climate
change really endangers forests serving as places to store
carbon. If we wait too long, we are actually going to have
forests become part of the problem and part of the solution,
and that is one of my greatest concerns that I have.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harmon follows:]

Statement of Mark E. Harmon, PhD, Richardson Endowed Chair and
Professor in Forest Science, Department of Forest Ecosystems and
Society, Oregon State University

Introduction
I am here to represent myself and offer my expertise to the
subcommittee. I am a professional scientist, having worked in the area
of forest carbon for nearly three decades. During that time I have
conducted numerous studies on many aspects of this problem, have
published extensively, and provided instruction to numerous students,
forest managers, and the general public.
Recently there has been an increasing interest in using forests as
a way to remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it over the long-
term as part of a greenhouse gas mitigation strategy. U.S. forests
currently remove an equivalent of 12% of this nation's carbon dioxide
emissions; there is excellent potential to increase and maintain this
carbon ``offset'' as part of a bridging strategy. The following
testimony reviews, in terms as simple as possible, how the forest
system stores carbon, the issues that need to be addressed when
assessing any proposed action, and some common misconceptions that need
to be avoided. I conclude by reviewing and assessing some of the more
common proposals as well as my general concerns about the forest system
as a place to store carbon.
My key points: 1) Forests are leaky carbon buckets, 2) Forests can
play an important, but limited roles in sequestering carbon, 3) All
carbon pools need to be examined when thinking through the merits of
carbon policy, 4) To increase the sequestration of forest carbon, we
need to either increase carbon inputs, decrease carbon outputs, or put
forest carbon somewhere else, 5) Forests are best seen as a bridging
strategy in carbon mitigation, 6) Seemingly ``good'' forest carbon
ideas when examined at the stand level at a point in time dissipate
when looked at the forest level over time, and 7) With accelerating
climate change, forests may shift from being part of the carbon
solution to being part of the carbon problem.
The Basic System: Forests as Leaky Carbon Buckets
Carbon is stored in multiple ways in the forest system: in the
forest itself and the carbon harvested from the forest. Living plants
store carbon above- and belowground. The longer lived the plants or
their parts, the more that they store. This is why forests contain more
live carbon than grasslands: their parts have longer lives. When plants
or their parts die they start to decompose, but some carbon can be
stored as dead biomass. The slower the decomposition rate, the more
that will be stored. This is why dead wood in a forest can be an
important carbon store. Decomposition of dead plants eventually leads
to the formation of soil carbon, which due to its relatively slow
decomposition rate can accumulate to high levels. So despite a low live
carbon store, grassland can store a great deal of carbon in the soil
because it produces many dead roots that end up as soil. Harvest of
wood and bark can also store carbon, but as with other parts of the
forest system, it is subject to carbon losses, specifically during
manufacturing, use, and disposal. In the case of biomass energy, the
harvested carbon is theoretically stored as unused fossil fuel carbon.
Given the longevity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the fact
that this fossil fuel carbon may be eventually burned, ``carbon''
biomass energy must delay the use of fossil fuels for many decades to
be an effective storage mechanism.
Photosynthesis, respiration, and combustion are the major processes
that control how much carbon enters and leaves the forest system. These
processes interact to control the carbon store of forest systems.
Forests are biological systems and as such are ``leaky'' with regards
to carbon. That is. there is one way in which carbon comes in
(photosynthesis) but many ways it goes out (respiration of plants,
decomposers, and consumers, combustion, leaching, and erosion). A key
concept to understand is that leaky systems can store carbon, but the
amount they store is related to the amount that is coming in versus the
proportion that is leaking out. By analogy a bucket with leaks can
store water, but to do so it needs a constant input of water. However,
the larger the leaks the less water that is stored regardless of the
amount of flow into the bucket. The same can be said of a bank account;
one can spend money and still accumulate wealth as long as money is put
into the account. Returning to the forest system, photosynthesis is
constantly causing carbon to flow into the bucket or account.
Increasing the input of carbon by increasing the rate of photosynthesis
will increase the average forest carbon store. Decreasing the
respiration rate of plants or decomposers or the losses from combustion
will also increase the average forest carbon store. However, regardless
of cause these net increases will eventually slow and then cease as the
forest system comes to a new balance.
Disturbance, be it natural or human-induced, influences the balance
of carbon several ways. Some disturbances, such as fire, directly
release carbon to the atmosphere. All disturbances convert living plant
biomass into dead biomass, subjecting the forest system to additional
respiration losses (essentially more leaks). Disturbance temporarily
reduces photosynthesis; which means that the average carbon input to
the system is decreased by disturbances because it takes some time to
restore the photosynthetic capacity of forests. The effect of
disturbance depends on the frequency and the severity (i.e., amount of
carbon removed) of the disturbance. The more frequent disturbances
appear in forest systems, the more that is removed, and hence less
carbon is stored on average. Decreasing the interval between
disturbances effectively increases the number of leaks in the bucket.
The same effect is true for disturbance severity; the more severe the
disturbance is in directly removing carbon, the less stored on average.
Increasing disturbance severity effectively increases the size of the
leaks in the bucket.
The Effects of Natural Disturbances versus Harvest
Whether trees killed by fire or windstorm are salvaged makes
relatively little difference in carbon storage. Whenever there is a
natural disturbance it is often suggested that harvesting dead trees
will release less carbon than letting them decompose naturally. This is
based on the assumption that natural processes will rapidly release
carbon and timber harvesting will not. This assumption is not supported
by the likely rates of carbon release from these two processes. Setting
aside the fact that harvest and transport of wood currently requires
carbon-based energy, there is an inevitable release of carbon during
the manufacturing and use of forest products. Depending upon the type
of wood product produced, the amount of carbon released during
manufacturing is equal to 25-50% of the harvested amount. In many cases
harvested forests are burned for site preparation, a process that
removes approximately 5-10% of the forest's carbon. Combined with
manufacturing losses, this means that timber harvest reduces total
forest carbon stores by 10-25%. When products are in use, their life-
span has a wide range from less than several decades to centuries. This
yields a rate of loss of between 1 and 10% per year. While surprising,
these values are not that different for natural disturbances. Consider
the amount of loss during a fire, the natural disturbance that removes
the most carbon. A common assumption is that much of the wood burns in
a fire, although if that were true there would be no debates about
salvaging wood. Analysis after fire indicate that, while small material
can be totally consumed, it is rare that harvest sized wood is
consumed. Losses from roots and the soil are minimal. Taking all the
carbon stores of a forest into consideration, the range of carbon
losses from fire consumption is probably between 5 and 15%, generally
lower than range for timber harvest and products manufacturing. After
the fire, the newly killed trees decompose. For the US, the range of
wood decomposition rates for the size of material harvested is between
1 and 10% per year. That is very similar to that of forest products!
Although all these numbers are approximate, they do indicate that
salvaging fire-killed trees is not substantially better for carbon
storage than simply allowing the trees to decompose, and in certain
situations might be considerably less effective in storing carbon.
Things to Consider: Framing the Analysis of Carbon and Forests
There are a number of general things that should be examined
whenever an action regarding carbon and forests is considered.
Unfortunately this has not always been the case.
1. All the relevant carbon stores need to be examined. Many
projects are considered from the point of view of just live carbon.
This may be quite natural to do as we have the most data and
understanding of live trees. However, it must be realized that other
important carbon stores in forests do not behave the same as live
trees. Dead trees, for example, often reach their highest store after
disturbance, whereas live trees reach their lowest store at that point.
By only considering live plants it is highly likely that the rate of
forest carbon uptake is overestimated, in some cases by substantial
amounts. A related issue is that the changes in all the carbon pools
need to be considered for a total accounting. For example, harvesting
wood does increase stores in the wood products pool, but it also
decreases stores in the live and dead wood pool in the forest.
2. The starting conditions are key and yet are often ignored. The
starting and end points need to be specified. Often a proposed action
gives the end point, but not the starting point. This would be similar
to describing a trip by only giving the destination. One will have no
idea of the direction or the distance to be traveled. For example, if
one is planning on establishing a short-rotation forest plantation on
agricultural land, then more carbon will be stored. Establishing the
same type of plantation by converting an old-growth forest will result
in a net loss of carbon to the atmosphere.
3. Our actions to increase carbon stores can take decades to have a
positive effect. Not every action in forests leads to an
``instantaneous'' response. It takes time to implement policy actions
because the area involved is quite large. This means that the effect of
any proposed policy needs to consider the long-term: many decades to
centuries. Once treated forests take many years to adjust to any action
that is imposed. For example, it takes years to decades for a planted
forest to establish full photosynthetic capacity. It also takes years
to decades for the dead material created by a disturbance caused by
nature or humans to decompose away. This means that temporal lags can
be expected in any projected gains. Thus, it may be eventually possible
to gain carbon by converting an older forest to a younger biomass
energy plantation, but it may take many decades or even centuries for
this to occur. This is time we do not have.
4. Forests are potentially renewable, but this is not a fixed
property of forests. It is generally assumed that forest related carbon
in the form of wood and biofuels are renewable. There is logic to this
in that trees can be harvested and can regrow. Resources that can
regrow are potentially renewable, but a resource is not renewable
automatically because it is grows or is a tree. To determine if a
resource is renewable we need to compare the regeneration and removal
rate. We also need to understand that removal of trees can and does
affect carbon pools other than trees and these can decline when trees
are harvested. Given we are considering the entire forest carbon
system, this mean that harvesting a renewable resource such as trees
leads to an non-renewable loss elsewhere in the carbon system.
5. Forests are systems that have feedbacks which can strongly
influence carbon effects of actions. For example, increasing the growth
rate of trees can lead to higher carbon stores in forests, but a larger
live tree store also means that more plant material will die during the
course of forest growth or harvest. More dead plant material means more
losses via decomposition or combustion if there is a fire or harvest.
This means that the gains from increases in forest growth feedbacks to
result in decreased net carbon increases in time. As another example,
it has been stated that forest fire frequency and severity will
increase in the future. That may be the case, but it also should be
noted that it is generally difficult to increase the severity and
frequency of fires for any length of time, in part because more
frequent fires eventually lower the fuel level, and fuel level is
related to fire severity.
6. Estimating carbon effects of policies need to look at whole
forests over time, not single stands at a point in time. The way a
forest system behaves depends on how large an area that is considered
and how long a time period it is considered. Perhaps no other issue,
termed scale by ecologists, has lead to so much confusion and frankly
wrong-headed notions in terms of forest carbon management. It is
perfectly true that young forests of a certain age do remove more
carbon in a course of a year than an older forest. This would be useful
information if forests never changed their ages. The high rate of
uptake of some young forest occurs because even younger forests have
lost carbon. Since one cannot have a young forest without have an even
younger forest, comparing the just one year in the life's forest is
completely misleading. Recall that when forests are disturbed by nature
or humans the forest initially loses carbon. Over a long time period
forests gain carbon and eventually lose some of it when disturbed
again. If the average carbon stores of a young forest is compared to
that of an older forest, then one finds that the older forest stores a
good deal more carbon. Therefore one is unlikely to gain carbon from
the forest site if one converts from an older to a younger forest
system. When one considers a small plot of land, the carbon balance
seems to moving from losing to gaining to losing carbon over time.
However, when one considers many plots of land that are going through
these cycles at different times, then one sees a relatively steady
store of carbon. This is analogous to a bank in which one person puts
in funds and another removes them. As long as there is not a run on the
bank, the amount of funds is relatively constant (at least that is the
hope). This is quite relevant in terms of carbon policy, because small
land owners will see boom and bust cycles in their carbon stores and
this may make buying their carbon credits very unappealing. If many
small land owners aggregate their carbon projects, then it is possible
for the buyer to see a steady store or supply of carbon.
Using Forests to Sequester Carbon from the Atmosphere: increase carbon
inputs, decease carbon outputs, or put forest carbon somewhere
else
US forests are currently removing carbon from the atmosphere and
are likely to remain doing this for some time, perhaps decades.
Eventually, as in all leaky systems, the rate of carbon removal is
likely to slow and eventually cease. At this point the forest will be
in rough balance with the amount coming in about equal to the amount
going out. This ``saturation'' behavior is one reason forests are
considered a bridging strategy and not a lasting solution to the
problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
To continue and enhance the removal of carbon by forests, it will
be necessary to take direct actions. Put simply, to remove more carbon
from the atmosphere with forests it will be necessary to increase the
average amount of carbon that forests store or increase the efficiency
or manufacture of wood products and the length of their storage in use.
As stated above, the average carbon store as well as the carbon balance
of any forest is controlled by the amount input via photosynthesis
versus the amount lost via respiration (e.g., plants and other
organisms such as decomposers) and the amount lost via combustion. Both
the average carbon store and the carbon balance vary over time, in
part, because the factors controlling photosynthesis, respiration, and
combustion vary over time. Therefore it is useful to distinguish
between short-term and relatively minor variations in forest carbon
caused by yearly variations in climate versus those caused by changes
in policy or long-term changes in climate. It is the latter two that
will change the balance and store of carbon in the long-term.
Before presenting the range of possible management options it is
worth reminding ourselves that carbon is not the only reason we manage
forests. Forests provide humans clean water, habitat for many animals,
plants, and other organisms, harvested goods of all sorts, recreation,
and many intangible benefits. Not all these objectives will be
compatible with maximizing carbon stores in forests. Moreover, there
are certain management actions such as thinning certain forest types
(e.g., Ponderosa pine) that may be necessary to maintain these forests
despite the fact that carbon stores will be decreased. We cannot be so
single minded about carbon that we create a host of other problems.
There are many proposed steps and multiple viable strategies and
that can be taken with regard to increasing forest carbon. Admittedly
this can be confusing for those looking for a ``one-size fits all''
approach. On the other hand it does offer flexibility that will allow
one to tailor approaches with specific situations on the ground.
Essentially one can increase carbon stores of by increasing the input
to the forest, decreasing the output from the forest, putting the
carbon from the forest somewhere else, or some combination of these.
The following reviews specific approaches that have been proposed
recently:
1. Slowing that rate of deforestation (i.e., the permanent removal
of forests) will definitely slow the release of carbon to the
atmosphere. Depending upon the period examined, deforestation is
estimated to have added 20-30% of the increased carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution. While
deforestation for agricultural purposes is generally low in the US,
considerable forest land is being converted to housing and industrial
use, which can have the same effect as deforestation, particularly if
clearing is extensive.
2. Planting new forests is generally a good practice to increase
carbon stores, particularly on lands that once held forest many years
ago. Much of our nation's current forest-related carbon removal from
the atmosphere is associated with the reestablishment of forests in the
eastern U.S. after agricultural abandonment. The best opportunities are
on marginal agricultural lands as the impact on food production is
reduced. Planting forests on degraded agricultural land can increase
the store of carbon both above- and belowground (i.e., soils). Forests
can also be reestablished on lands with low stocking of trees after
regeneration failures. Planting trees on what have been traditionally
grassland systems can lead to reductions in soil carbon stores, in part
because trees do not produce as many dead roots as grasses. Care needs
to be taken in assuring that these losses belowground do not exceed
those gained aboveground.
3. Biomass energy has the potential to offset fossil fuel use and
hence reduce carbon release to the atmosphere under certain conditions.
However, there are several factors that must be considered before this
potential is realized. Biomass energy is not necessarily renewable; it
is only renewable when the resource is allowed to fully regenerate.
Forests, by their very long-term nature, take years to regenerate their
biomass and one cannot assume that all forest practices lead to a
renewable resource. When using biomass energy, it must be borne in mind
that one is substituting energy and not carbon. Because biomass
contains less energy per unit carbon than fossil fuels, some fossil
fuels are required to produce the same amount of energy, and so removal
of one unit of carbon from the forest results in less than one unit of
fossil carbon from being unused or stored. It therefore may take
several cycles for carbon benefits to accumulate to the point that they
offset losses in the forest. This is why the carbon benefits of biomass
energy can be delayed if natural forests storing a more carbon are
converted to plantations that store less carbon. This suggests that if
biomass energy is to be part of a forest strategy, it is best employed
with afforestation efforts or in forests that are already young.
Although it is usually assumed that fossil fuel use is decreased when
biomass energy is used, this is not necessarily true. Given the
lifespan of carbon in the atmosphere, the delay in fossil fuel use has
to be substantial to be effective. Simply delaying the use a few years
does little to reduce the rate of overall carbon emissions. The
argument that the increase in fossil fuel related carbon would have
been worse without biomass fuels would have merit if the issue was to
just slow the increase in these releases. However, the issue that
confronts us is how to decrease the current release rate of fossil fuel
carbon.
4. Converting older forests to younger forests rarely stores more
carbon. Such action increases the leakiness of the forest bucket
(recall major losses discussed above in site preparation, manufacturing
losses, and the increased frequency of disturbance). An exception is
when a frequent natural disturbance is replaced by a less frequent
harvest (which by the way rarely happens). Another is when an
inherently very slowly growing natural forest is replaced by a much
faster growing plantation. That too is fairly rare. Two of the best
ways to store more carbon in forests is to extend the interval between
harvests or take less per harvest. Basically both actions make the
forest bucket less leaky. Depending on the length of the rotation or
the amount of harvest, one can either enhance or reduce the store in
forest products. While longer rotations can lower the average amount
that is harvested, the material that is harvested tends to be more
suitable for long-term use and hence may store more as wood products.
5. It is possible to increase forest system carbon stores by
increasing the growth rate of trees. Depending on the forest, this can
be achieved by using superior genetic stock, planting faster growing
species, fertilization, irrigation, or speeding the rate of tree
regeneration. In most cases the increases in tree growth do not offset
the losses from converting older natural forests, and in all cases it
may take several harvest intervals before gains are fully realized in
wood products stores. Usually the goal of increasing the growth rate of
trees is to shorten the interval between harvests. If this practice is
followed, then the gains of carbon in the forest itself will be
minimal. On the other hand it may result in increased wood products
stores, but that depends on the types of products produced. It should
also be noted that thinning of forests does not increase the rate
carbon is added to forests. It does allow the remaining trees to grow
faster and become larger faster, but one must remember that it does
this for fewer trees. The claim that thinning increases forest
production is really based on the amount harvested, not the amount of
carbon entering the forest: these are two completely different things.
6. Reducing fuels in forests have few benefits from a carbon
storage standpoint. Recently it has been proposed that reducing fuels
in forests would reduce fire severity to the point that more carbon
would be stored in forests than allowing them to burn untreated. This
practice can have benefits for ecosystem restoration in some forest
types (for example, Ponderosa pine), but there appear to be few
benefits from a carbon storage perspective. There are many reasons for
this result. First, to reduce fuels one needs to reduce carbon stores,
so there would have to be major changes in fire severity and size to
offset these losses. Second, the difference in the effects of severity
on carbon stores is less dramatic than generally imagined. As indicated
above, a very light fire might results in forest losses on the order of
5% of total carbon in a forest, whereas for an extremely severe fire
these losses might be on the order of 15%. Third, one cannot anticipate
where fires will occur, so a large proportion of the forest area needs
to be treated. In contrast, a small proportion of the forest area may
burn in the next few decades, which results in more losses from the
treatment than the fires (bear in mind the total effect depends on both
the area involved and the average loss per area). The most likely case
where removal of fuels will result in a long-term carbon benefit would
be if, without fuel treatment, the fire severity increases to the point
that tree regeneration is greatly delayed. However, this regeneration
delay has to be substantial to have much of an effect.
7. Forest products do store carbon; whether they actually increase
the forest system carbon stores is a more complicated issue. Given that
the basic material of forest products, wood, is approximately 50%
carbon, harvesting wood and placing it into forest products can
definitely store carbon. However, this gain is at the expense of
storing carbon in the forest, and it is completely possible there will
be no net gain in the total forest system carbon stores. Harvest of
wood removes carbon from the forest which means the parts of the forest
that depended on that carbon will decrease in stores. Manufacturing of
wood into products results in a loss of carbon as does the use and
disposal of wood products. Overall, the effect of harvesting carbon is
to make the overall forest system leakier. If wood products are to be
used to store carbon, then the efficiency of converting wood into long-
lived products needs to be increased, and the life-span of these
products needs to be lengthened considerably (see above). There have
been proposals to harvest wood from forests and store it in a location
where it cannot decompose by burial on land or sinking it into oceans
or lakes. I suppose this would be the ``ultimate'' wood product in
terms of carbon storage. Assuring that there is no decomposition may
prove challenging: wood is decomposed quite quickly in oceans, for
example, organisms such as shipworms readily eat wood as any naval
historian can attest. Wood is not the most concentrated form of carbon
and the sheer volume to be stored would likely dwarf those of current
landfills and interfere with other land-uses. Also it may not prove
particularly popular. Finally, the harvest of wood causes other parts
of the forest to temporally lose carbon which would introduce time lags
into the gains offered by this scheme.
8. Substitution of wood for more energy intensive materials has the
potential to decrease fossil fuel carbon releases, but how much of this
potential will be realized is difficult to quantify. It has been
proposed that substitution of wood for more energy intensive materials
will reduce the rate that fossil fuel carbon is released into the
atmosphere. While wood is generally less energy intensive than many
alternative materials, the difference between materials has been
decreasing and not all the energy for these is supplied via fossil
fuels. Currently, steel and concrete utilize three times the energy of
wood. However, most buildings are mixtures of wood and other materials,
so the energy savings of a building primarily constructed of wood is
30% relative to those primarily made of other materials. As noted
above, harvest results in the release of carbon from the forest and
while not fossil fuel-related, these losses need to be deducted from
any gains. Many homes and small commercial building already utilize
wood to a high degree. It is therefore not clear how large the
substitution effect can become in the US. Finally, although it has been
stated by some that the substitution related carbon offset never
decreases and accrues each harvest. However, there are reasons to
suspect this claim. This would only be true if wooden buildings lasted
forever or the supply of buildings increased without limit. It is far
more likely that buildings will have a finite life-span and need to be
replaced, which also means wooden buildings cannot increase without
limits. Since that is true, then in time harvests are maintaining the
store in buildings and there is no net gain in this form of carbon
offset. So depending on how much carbon is actually offset, this might
be part of a bridging strategy.
Concerns
Despite the reality that U.S. forests are currently removing carbon
from the atmosphere and the great potential for forests to play a role
in offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, I do have several concerns.
Liquidation of forest carbon stores can be the potential unintended
consequence of carbon policy. To have forest play a greater role than
they do currently, we will have to do something different than business
as usual. We must assure that additional carbon is stored due to new
actions, a concept usually called ``additionality.'' Despite the need
for this concept, it must be acknowledged that it means those with
practices that have lead to the lowest carbon stores have the most to
benefit from changing their practices. The role of those that have
already changed practices or have always managed in a manner to keep
carbon stores high has to be recognized and encouraged. Little will be
gained if the only way to have carbon store increases counted is to
first lower carbon stores. Given the time lags inherent in the forest
system, this will be totally counterproductive.
Making sure carbon stores are real: the need for a national
accounting, verification, and monitoring system. We must make sure that
any gains in forest carbon stores are real, which means they will have
to be monitored and verified. This needs to be done at two levels. The
first would be at the level of specific projects. The second would be
at a national level, which would involve more than simply adding up all
the projects, in part because there will be many forest areas without
carbon projects that need to be considered in the national balance
sheet. The often stated claim that methods do not exist to monitor
changes in forest carbon is completely puzzling given that scientists
developed these methods decades ago. There are many existing methods
and systems that can be modified to achieve the goal of monitoring and
verification. They could be substantially improved with further
investments, but are sufficient to start the process now. National
guidelines or protocols, similar to those developed by California,
would greatly aid in assuring monitoring and verification is
trustworthy. At least at the project level, where the goal is to
support a carbon credits market, these protocols can be flexible as
long as there are discounts or deductions for uncertainty about how
much additional carbon is being stored. That way the project managers
can decide the tradeoff between the gain in carbon by lowering
uncertainty versus the cost of a more expensive and comprehensive
measurement program. It should also be noted that these estimates of
carbon gains need to be conservative, because failing to count storage
will do far less environmental harm than over-counting. Another
possible role for the government would be to support detailed studies
of proposed projects to fully understand the carbon impacts of the most
commonly proposed projects. While there is a great deal of scientific
research in this realm, it has not generally been of an applied a
nature. It is unlikely that all forest projects will be able to afford
detailed measurements of all the carbon pools and processes. These
studies would allow others to more fully anticipate the likely carbon
gains and costs of proposed projects and in fact streamline the
verification process because certain practices would have been proven
to work under certain conditions. Finally, it is important that a
system be established to rank the quality of the carbon as opposed to
the quantity of carbon. This might be similar to that used for rating
bonds; however, as we have all just learned to work this system needs
to be independent of those buying and selling carbon credits.
Despite the potential for forests to contribute to the challenge of
reducing our nation's greenhouse gas emissions, I do believe that the
forest system's limits have to be fully recognized. Even if we could
double the current rate that forest's are removing atmospheric carbon,
it would amount to approximately 20% of the current fossil fuel release
of carbon dioxide. This is quite important, especially since it can be
achieved with largely with today's technology. But clearly forests
cannot be used to solve the entire problem.
My greatest concern: with continued warming forests can shift from
being part of the carbon solution to being part of the carbon problem.
Forests cannot continue to accumulate carbon forever, so it can be part
of a bridging strategy, but we need to use the time it buys us wisely.
This brings me to my greatest concern which involves the role forests
will play if the climate continues to warm as projected under a
business as usual scenario. If we do not act soon to reduce the rate
the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are released, we may
create a climate that will make forests start a net release carbon to
the atmosphere. This could come about in several ways, but many of the
effects are likely to be caused indirectly by increased drying of
forests. This will mean that wildfires become more extensive and more
severe, that insect outbreaks become more extensive and more severe,
and that even trees in so-called ``undisturbed'' forests start to die
at faster rates. If this starts to happen then the leaks from the
forest carbon system will increase and eventually less will be stored.
Not all the carbon will be released all at once as is often implied, it
will happen gradually, but if forests reach this point then they will
start to contribute to the problem we are trying to solve. Further, it
may also become part of a vicious cycle in which more tree die which
releases more carbon which warms the climate even more which causes
more drying, which causes more trees to die, etc. Forests are not the
only part of the natural world that may act in this manner; thawing
currently frozen soils in the north could cause yet another vicious
carbon release cycle to begin. To assure that this does not happen we
need to act on a number of fronts and to decrease carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere as fast as we
possibly can.
Summary
Forests are currently storing considerable carbon in the U.S. and
are currently offsetting approximately 10% of the nation's carbon
dioxide emissions. Forest systems can be managed in a wide range of
manners to sustain and perhaps even increase their ability to remove
carbon from the atmosphere. Some of the actions being proposed will
definitely not store more carbon in forests, but there are many that
will. To assure that forest projects in fact remove atmospheric carbon,
it is essential that the actions conform to rigorous scientific
principles, that increases of stores be monitored and verified. Forest
systems can be a good share of the nation's solution to decreasing the
accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but they cannot be
used alone. It is highly likely that unless other steps are taken that
the positive role that forest could play will become diminished and
even switch to a negative one. We must also make sure that actions
taken to increase the role of forest as carbon stores does not create
other problems in terms of what we expect forests to do for us.
______

Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Dr. Dominick DellaSala, Chief
Scientist and Executive Director of Programs, National Center
for Conservation Science and Policy. Welcome, and your
testimony, please.

STATEMENT OF DOMINICK A. DELLASALA, Ph.D., CHIEF SCIENTIST AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS, NATIONAL CENTER FOR
CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND POLICY, ASHLAND, OREGON

Mr. Dellasala. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Dominick DellaSala, and I am the chief
scientist for the National Center for Conservation Science and
Policy in Ashland, Oregon, and I am also the incoming President
of the Society for Conservation Biology, North American
Section. SCB has a global membership of over 11,000 scientists
and resource managers, two-thirds of whom reside in the United
States.
Throughout my testimony, I emphasize that the longer we
delay action on climate change, and the more we release
dangerous greenhouse gases, or GHGs, into the atmosphere, the
worse the situation will become for Americans and the rest of
the world.
The rapid climate change we are experiencing is the result
of three factors: one, human-caused releases of several gases
that contribute to the warming of the earth; two, the loss and
degradation of forests and pollution-related changes to the
oceans; and, three, changes in ice, precipitation, water
temperature, wind, and currents caused by climate change that
themselves speed up the climate change process, which is called
``feedback loops.''
Major shifts in these changes can be tipping points that
cause chain reactions in global weather patterns and other
climate change events. So, as a safety net for humanity, some
of our most able scientists have called for a target of the
equivalent of 350 parts per million of GHGs in the atmosphere
as a midterm safe limit. We are at, currently, 387 parts per
million of CO2 and climbing at a rate of two parts
per million per year.
The further away from the 350-parts-per-million limit we
get, the more likely it is that climate change will trigger
truly catastrophic events.
Depending on how you measure them, Federal public lands
cover about 30 percent of our nation's land base. They are
strongholds for essential and irreplaceable benefits, such as
biodiversity, clean water, flood control, and carbon
sequestration. These benefits are severely threatened by
climate change and certain management activities, but these
lands also hold part of the climate change solution as well.
Now, I would like to emphasize three main points from my
testimony, which also includes 14 closing recommendations and
three supporting documents.
First, the Nation needs a comprehensive, national goal with
early and aggressive measures to reduce GHGs and particulate
emissions to reach a 350-parts-per-million equivalent target.
There are two measures that Congress can require Federal
agencies to contribute to that goal.
First, this Committee should direct the Secretaries of
Interior and Agriculture to report back on what authorities
they already have under existing laws to reduce net GHGs and
how they initially plan to use them.
Second, Congress and/or the Administration should convene a
committee of scientists to determine how best to retrofit
existing regulations and statutes to address cumulative causes
and impacts of climate change arising from GHGs and land use.
As an example, Congress can direct Federal agencies to
measure the likely impact of GHGs from actions on public lands
and compare alternatives as they comply with NEPA. Alternatives
can be selected to optimize carbon sequestration and/or reduce
emissions. This is especially important in evaluating
cumulative effects from energy resources, livestock raising,
and logging on public lands in a climate change context.
Second, the primary goal of public lands should be the
protection of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and
optimization of carbon storage. Federal agencies should be
guided by the same consistent mission in this regard and
provide the core for a network of public and private lands
managed for ecosystem services.
To illustrate how far away from this vision we are, if you
look at the recent decision by the Bush Administration to
rescind the NFMA wildlife viability regulations and the fact
that BLM does not even have a requirement to protect viable
populations of wildlife--also, in my region, in Western Oregon,
the BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions, or so-called ``WOPR,''
would increase old-growth logging by 400 percent, releasing the
CO2 equivalent of driving one million cars for 132
years while further stressing our ecosystems.
Now, to help public lands adapt to, and mitigate against,
climate change, Congress should direct the agencies to retain
existing stores of carbon in mature and old forests as the
nation's carbon trust; reduce existing ecosystem stresses from
land management, and maintain viable populations.
My third, and final, point is that Congress should set more
conservative limits on both BLM and Forest Service energy
development. The BLM recently has indicated it will allow
additional oil and gas development across vast areas on top of
extensive areas already leased. Congress should call for a full
accounting of emissions and ecosystem degradation of already
developed leases to better understand and mitigate these
impacts.
Now, in light of the likely impacts of additional drilling,
let us not make matters worse. Congress should, therefore,
impose a moratorium on further lease development and require
revocation of any leases that are incompatible with climate and
biological security.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, as you and the Subcommittee
contemplate legislation for public lands to adapt and mitigate
to climate change, we urge that public lands be managed for
their irreplaceable contribution to biodiversity and ecosystem
services by developing a national, comprehensive plan to bring
down and keep GHG emissions at safe levels; reduce our
dependency on fossil fuels, while developing renewable energy
sources, and ensure the continuation of a biologically diverse
and robust system of national forests and BLM lands. Thank you,
and I look forward to questions later.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DellaSala follows:]

Statement of Dominick A. DellaSala, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, National
Center for Conservation Science & Policy, and President Elect, Society
for Conservation Biology, North America Section

Chairman Grijalva and members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Dominick DellaSala. I am the Chief Scientist at the National Center for
Conservation Science & Policy in Ashland, Oregon (www.nccsp.org) and
President Elect of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB,
www.conbio.org), North America Section. SCB has a global membership of
over 11,000 scientists and resource managers; two-thirds of whom reside
in the U.S.
Work by SCB scientists and my organization clearly demonstrate that
the accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the global
atmosphere creates and exacerbates risks to biological diversity and
ecosystem services (Conservation Biology 2008, Exhibit A). This
dangerous interference with the Earth's climatic system imposes
unmitigated and unacceptable costs on present and future generations.
Thus, Congress and the Obama Administration should give this issue top
priority not only for the environment but with regard to its
implications for national and economic security (Pumphery 2008), human
health, and quality-of-life.
Federal lands are key to mitigating climate change effects as well
as providing the nation with irreplaceable biological diversity, clean
water, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and other economic
values. Federal lands often contain large blocks of intact and
functional ecosystems with viable fish and wildlife populations most
capable of adapting to rapid climate change in the coming decades.
Therefore, in an era of increasing climate disruptions, federal lands
are our best hope for conserving the ecosystem services upon which
society depends. Managing for the restoration and conservation of those
ecological systems must become the clear and primary goal of federal
agencies. To ensure this goal is met, both the Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must have the same mission so there is
continuity of management across all 457 million acres of publicly owned
lands.
In my testimony, I offer four main points and fourteen closing
recommendations on what Congress and the Obama Administration can do to
combat climate change on federal lands. While the focus of today's
hearing is on federal lands, federal lands should not be used as an
offset for unsustainable practices on nonfederal lands. We also need to
take steps to reduce the impacts that activities on nonfederal lands
have on ecosystems and greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions.
MAIN POINTS
(1) The nation needs a goal with early and aggressive efforts to
reduce GHG and related particulate emissions to reach an atmospheric
concentration of 350 parts per million (ppm) CO2 equivalent
target and a national implementation plan that addresses all major
sources of such emissions by requiring contributions from every federal
agency.
(2) Congress should provide clear direction to the Forest Service
and the BLM to adopt new approaches that optimize carbon capture and
storage and minimize GHG emissions from land management activities,
including energy extraction, on public lands.
(3) Federal agencies should adapt natural resource management to
the changes brought on by climate change by adopting a 3-Rs approach--
Reduce existing stressors to ecosystems and increase Resilience and
Resistance of species and ecosystems to climate change.
(4) Federal agencies need clear direction to prioritize the
preservation and restoration of ecological integrity of public lands so
that these lands will continue to provide Americans with biological
diversity and other sustainable ecosystem services such as abundant
clean water, carbon sequestration and storage, air filtration, flood
control, and recreation.
Each of these main points implies fundamental shifts in how the
agencies are currently doing business. If we do not take these steps,
the forests, rivers, and coastal zones we Americans cherish will
experience unprecedented losses of biological diversity, ecosystem
services and productivity, and recreational values.
I. The nation needs a goal with early and aggressive efforts to reduce
GHG and related particulate emissions to reach an atmospheric
concentration of 350 (ppm) CO2 equivalent target and
a national implementation plan that addresses all major sources
of such emissions by requiring contributions from every federal
agency.
Just months after the release of the IPCC report of 2007, this
Committee heard from Tony Westerling that climate change appeared to be
making western fires more severe than most had expected (Westerling et
al. 2006). Geophysicists, climatologists, and other experts, including
NASA's James Hansen and others (Hansen et al. 2008) announced findings
that the pace of climate change and its impacts had accelerated faster
than projected by the IPCC, recommending C02 levels in the atmosphere
be reduced from the current 387 to 350 ppm through reduced GHG and soot
emissions, reforestation, and agricultural reforms. To reiterate, ``if
the present offshoot of this target is not brief, there is the
possibility of irreversible catastrophic effects'' (Hansen et al.
2008).
Without a national goal for reducing GHG emissions and an
accompanying implementation plan, our nation will find it most
difficult to successfully address the threat of climate change. It is
not sufficient to simply urge or require federal agencies to act. We
must give them a clear direction for action--a goal, a process, target,
and a plan. A national implementation plan would provide benchmarks
against which land use plans and federal actions can be evaluated in
addition to those in existing law. For example, drilling to extract
natural gas increases GHG emissions but may produce lower emissions
compared to other energy sources if it is part of a comprehensive
national plan that selects alternatives with low emissions (Exhibit B)
or combinations of demand and supply measures that result in the lowest
practicable emissions and least ecologically disruptive impacts. In the
absence of such a plan, it is more difficult to fully evaluate GHG
emissions of federal actions and to require appropriate choices. Thus,
Congress should redirect the Forest Service and the BLM to adopt and
then coordinate and implement a comprehensive plan along with the
traditional implementation planning already part of all federal actions
and land-use planning.
We need a national strategy for federal lands that is science-
driven, adaptive in its approach, and comprehensive in jointly
addressing mitigation (i.e., reducing GHG emissions and increasing
sequestration) and preparation (i.e., reducing the vulnerability of
people and ecosystems to the impacts of climate change) alongside
ecosystem services and biodiversity goals. As a first step, this
Committee could request that the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture report back on what authorities they already have under
existing laws and regulations to respond to climate change and how they
plan to use them. In most cases, agencies do not need new authorities
to take action. However, they may need congressional oversight to
ensure they explicitly consider the extent to which their actions drive
climate change and the consequences of climate change for the cost and
efficacy of their plans and projects. This is a matter of good
governance and fulfilling existing mandates and authorities that set
performance goals for agencies, including but not limited to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Water Act, Endangered
Species Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and Clean
Air Act. Agencies must ensure that their plans and programs will be
successful under currently foreseeable climatic conditions (i.e.,
conditions that are more likely to be fundamentally different from the
last century).
Further, to examine the efficacy of current regulations and laws,
Congress should convene a Committee of Scientists to build on prior
efforts used to examine promulgating regulations on national forests
(COS 1999). A science committee should be tasked with determining how
best to comply with existing regulations and statutes such as NEPA, the
National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the FLPMA in the context of
cumulative impacts from climate change and land use.
II. Congress should provide clear direction to the Forest Service and
the BLM to adopt new approaches that optimize carbon capture
and storage and minimize GHG emissions from land management
activities, including energy extraction, on public lands.
The current concentration and rate of increase of carbon dioxide
(CO2) in the atmosphere exceed those of the last 420,000
years (IPCC 2007). This along with emissions of several other powerful
GHGs has resulted in a global average temperature increase of 0.7' C
(1.3' F) over the last century. During the past several decades, we
have recorded increases not only in temperature but in the number and
magnitude of extreme storms, floods, and regional droughts (IPCC 2007).
Such effects already are being felt throughout the nation (e.g.,
Exhibit A), yet they are expected to quickly become more severe in the
coming decades depending on ongoing GHG emissions and land-use
practices. What we do next in response to this pending crisis will
determine whether climate change impacts are merely severe or truly
catastrophic.
In particular, forests both are affected by climate change and can
be an integral part of the solution. Very simply, forests absorb
CO2 from the atmosphere and store the carbon from it in
cellulose (wood) and soil. In this process, they convert CO2
into oxygen that makes life possible. When forests are logged, they
release the majority of this stored carbon, which then contributes to
the greenhouse effect.
Our nation's forests absorb the equivalent of about 10% of our
carbon emissions from fossil fuels (Smith and Heath 2007, Depro 2007).
Many studies have shown that old-growth forests accumulate carbon for
centuries and that these forests are not neutral holders of carbon but
continue to sequester large amounts of it even as they age from 300 to
800 years (Luyssaert et al. 2008). Studies also have shown that when
old trees are cut down and replaced by younger ones there is a net
reduction in carbon stores (Law et al. 2004, Depro et al. 2007). Much
of this stored carbon is released to the atmosphere through loss of
carbon in soils, decomposition and burning of slash left on site by
loggers, and shipping and processing of wood products (Harmon et al.
1990, 2001). The relatively short shelf life of most wood products
exacerbates these losses. The losses are neither trivial nor
compensated by fast growing, young trees; it could take hundreds of
years until the new forests store as much carbon as did the original
old forest (Harmon 2001). Losses of stored carbon are particularly
severe on industrial forest lands where timber harvest rotations are
much shorter (40-100 years) than it takes for carbon stored in the
original old forest to be replenished (Harmon 2001, Luyssaert et al.
2008).
One analysis found that a hypothetical ``no timber harvest''
scenario on public lands would result in an annual increase of 17-29
million metric tonnes (MMTC) of carbon captured or sequestered per year
between 2010 and 2050--as much as a 43% increase over current
sequestration levels on public lands (Depro et al. 2007). In contrast,
moving to a more intense harvesting policy (similar to those of the
1980s) would result in annual carbon releases per year of 27-35 MMTC
between 2010 and 2050 that otherwise would have been sequestered by no
harvest (Depro et al. 2007). These losses would represent a substantial
decline (50-80%) in anticipated carbon sequestration associated with
existing timber harvest policies.
In Oregon, coastal old-growth forests store more carbon per acre
than any other forest on Earth (Smithwick et al. 2002) and they are
rich in unique fish and wildlife species. However, the BLM has
finalized plans to increase logging of old forests in western Oregon
(Western Oregon Plan Revisions, WOPR) by more than 400% in the coming
decade, largely through clearcutting. According to BLM's own analysis,
in comparison to letting these old forests grow, logging would release
approximately 180 million tons of carbon that is currently stored in
these forests. This is equivalent to driving 1 million cars for a
period of 132 years. The WOPR, in particular, is tantamount to
liquidating one of our nation's most significant carbon stores while
putting the viability of several endangered species at risk and
compromising ecosystem services like clean water and air. New statutory
direction is needed for BLM to optimize carbon storage and fish and
wildlife habitat.
In general, changing forestry and other land management practices
on federal land represents one of the most powerful, and, quite
frankly, least costly tools that the nation has in fighting climate
change. Increasing carbon storage on and decreasing GHG emissions from
federal lands is feasible across extensive areas and can be effectively
implemented. To combat climate change on public lands, a fundamental
shift from current forestry practices is needed that: (1) retains
existing stores of carbon in mature and old forests as ``carbon banks''
and (2) allows or helps plantations and other intensively managed
public forests optimize carbon stores by regrowing to older conditions
(Harmon 2001). The Committee also should direct federal agency
divisions that influence state, private, and international forestry and
agriculture to present cooperative and incentive-based plans to address
climate change as federal lands should not be used as an offset for
unsustainable practices elsewhere.
III. Federal agencies should adapt natural resource management to the
changes brought on by climate change by adopting a 3-Rs
approach--Reduce existing stressors to ecosystems and increase
Resilience and Resistance of species and ecosystems to climate
change.
Reducing ecosystem stressors is the single most important change in
management direction to prepare forest ecosystems for the unavoidable
impacts of climate change (SCB 2008). Forests, grasslands, watersheds
and other ecosystems are under increased pressure from all the needs
and demands we place on them. When ecosystems are stressed, they are
less capable of adapting. Stressors of ecosystems include fragmentation
by roads and logging, spread of non-native invasive species by
management activities (e.g., roads and livestock grazing facilitate
expansion of certain weeds), unusually severe fires, high water loss
(through evapotranspiration) from overstocked stands (Moore et al.
2004) and water loss from stream diversions, and fossil fuel
development. Domestic livestock and its associated commodity
distribution chain contribute about 18% of GHG emissions (largely
methane) globally (FAO 2006) and 8% nationally (EPA 2008). Notably,
methane traps 20 times more heat than CO2 (EPA 2008). A
particularly effective way to reduce livestock grazing contributions to
increased GHGs as well as minimize detrimental effects on biological
diversity and watershed function is to provide for the voluntary
retirement of federal grazing permits. An example of this is proposed
in legislation before the House pertaining to the Cascade-Siskiyou
National Monument and establishment of the Owyhee Wilderness (S.22).
In contrast to degraded lands, roadless areas, mature and old-
growth forests, native prairie, and protected riparian areas, have many
built-in mechanisms to allow them to withstand (Resistance) and rebound
from (Resilience) natural disturbances. Such areas also will be more
likely to resist or be resilient to climate change (Paine et al. 1998).
Congress could do two things to guide agencies in this regard: (1)
direct federal agencies to protect roadless areas and watersheds with
low road densities; and (2) provide direction on restoration projects
aimed at building resistance and resilience through decommissioning of
failing roads, thinning of young trees in previously managed and
overstocked forests, and restoring stream morphology and function in
watersheds heavily degraded by logging, livestock grazing, and other
land uses.
I would like to flag two issues: (1) the importance of roadless
areas in climate change preparation, and (2) the limitations and
benefits of thinning. Numerous studies demonstrate the importance of
roadless areas to biological diversity (Strittholt and DellaSala 2001),
drinking water (USFS 2000), and rural economies (USFS 2000). Roadless
areas will become increasingly vital particularly in dry regions that
depend on montane snow pack and as a connected landscape best capable
of enabling fish and wildlife to migrate as the climate shifts.
As to thinning, millions of acres of old forests in the Pacific
Northwest have been replaced with plantations that provide poor quality
wildlife habitat (west of the Cascade Range, USGS 2002) or are now fire
hazards (dry provinces, Odion et al. 2004). Treating these dense
monocultures through variable-density thinning (with stops and gaps in
thinning of trees to create structural diversity) is likely to help
facilitate onset of older forest characteristics (USGS 2002),
particularly if there is no net increase in the density of roads and
soil damage is minimized. Thinning of small trees may reduce drought
stress and fuel loads in dry forests (Brown et al. 2004), and lower
fire risks where the number or severity of fires is expected to
increase due to climate change (Westerling et al. 2006). However, there
are tradeoffs. Fuel reduction methods typically release stored carbon
from decomposition of slash left on site, burning of slash piles,
transport and processing of biomass, and short shelf life of most wood
products (Harmon 2001). The carbon released typically exceeds that of
even the most severe fires as fires are relatively localized events
compared to the extensive thinning efforts required to influence fire
hazard. Thus, more carbon is removed by landscape-scale thinning than
released by fires (Mitchell et al. in press). Also, most of the carbon
in a burned forests remains on site, is stored for long periods as
charcoal deposits, and only slowly decomposes over decades.
That is not to say we should not thin forests as part of
restoration planning, but that we should not expect thinning to
increase forest carbon stores. Interest of federal agencies in thinning
forests is increasing, but thinning of forests should target areas
where it is most needed (e.g., wildland-urban interface and overly
dense young stands), while reducing ecosystem stressors by protecting
large trees, soils, and riparian areas and by restoring stream
hydrology that has been altered by high road densities. Agencies should
use the best science in determining where to apply thinning to any
given location such that this action does not undermine either climate
security or ecosystem health and that its application will comply with
applicable laws.
IV. Federal agencies need clear direction to prioritize the
preservation and restoration of ecological integrity of public
lands so that these lands will continue to provide Americans
with biological diversity and other sustainable ecosystem
services such as abundant clean water, carbon sequestration and
storage, air filtration, flood control, and recreation.
We are grateful for Chairman Grijalva's leadership in protecting
large blocks of intact BLM lands through the National Landscape
Conservation System. Intact ecosystems provide myriad ecosystem
services, including flood control, water storage, carbon sequestration,
and nutrient cycling (http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/
synthesis.aspx). The more ecosystems are stressed by climate change and
land management activities, the more these services will be
compromised. In Oregon, my organization together with the University of
Oregon Climate Leadership Initiative is in the process of completing
pilot projects in four river basins--Klamath, Rogue, Umatilla, and
Upper Willamette (Exhibit A). In each of these basins, we are applying
climate change models (IPCC 2007) and cutting edge, vegetation-climate
projection models developed by the USFS Pacific Northwest Research
Station MAPPS Team. Our approach may serve as a model for federal lands
planning. The results of these studies indicate that striking changes
to forests and rivers could occur in less than three decades.
Anticipated changes include drought stress, snowpack declines of 90-95%
(by 2100), greater rain-on-snow events leading to spring flooding,
rapid snow melt leading to earlier onset of summertime low stream flows
and warmer water, and shifts in the vegetation composition. An increase
in the amount of vegetation consumed by wildfire also is probable. Such
changes also could trigger the demise of threatened cold-water fish
populations causing a cascade of negative ecosystem effects.
National Forests and BLM lands, in general, play an integral role
in maintaining ecosystem services whether in Oregon or throughout the
nation. In particular, federal agencies have numerous regulations and
laws that govern the use of ecosystem services, most notably multiple
use and sustained yield principles. However, in practice ecosystem
services are often pitted against one another (e.g., water and carbon
storage vs. timber production). For instance, intact watersheds, mature
and old-growth forests, and roadless areas act as biological
reservoirs, gradually storing water and slowly releasing it over dry
summer months (Moore et al. 2004). High levels of logging and road
building in a watershed can lead to rapid runoff, diminished
hydrological functions, and losses of water storage capacity that will
only exacerbate water shortages particularly in regions dependent on
snow pack. As snowpack is expected to decline markedly in the coming
decades (Mote et al. 2005), protecting and restoring intact areas
should be a priority of federal land use planning as such lands are
critical to mitigating water losses and maintaining the full range of
ecosystem services.
Landscape connectivity is another critical issue that must be
actively addressed to help fish and wildlife adapt to the many effects
of climate change. The Forest Service and BLM need direction to
undertake an aggressive program of road decommissioning to reduce the
number of roads that have a high likelihood of failure, especially
given anticipated increases in the number and magnitude of storms. Not
only will failed roads pose a risk to human safety and reduce the
quantity and quality of water, but taxpayers will pay far more to
repair damages than to prevent damages. We urge the agencies to spend
at least 60% of new stimulus funds on road decommissioning.
Failure to take action on climate change can have significant
economic impacts (see Exhibit A). For instance, according to recent
economic studies conducted in western states, if GHG emissions are not
reduced, states like Oregon will face some $3.3 billion in annual costs
in the coming decades due to climate change impacts (http://
uonews.uoregon.edu/files/pmr/uploads/OR-Fnl--Rpt.pdf). This loss
represents an individual cost of about 4 percent of annual household
income by 2020. Total annual costs would more than triple by 2080 if
insufficient action is taken to reduce emissions. Researchers projected
an increase in the number and severity of seasonal droughts and floods,
higher air-conditioning costs to cope with higher temperatures, higher
incidence of climate-associated health problems and deaths, and more
wildfires. Similar losses are anticipated for New Mexico (http://
uonews.uoregon.edu/files/pmr/uploads/NM-Fnl--Rpt.pdf) and Washington
(http://uonews.uoregon.edu/files/pmr/uploads/WA-Fnl--Rpt.pdf). Federal
lands can help mitigate these losses if these lands are managed with
sequestration, biodiversity, and ecosystem services (especially water)
as a priority.
CLOSING RECOMMENDATIONS
Climate change represents the most serious threat to our natural
resources and is a growing threat to the nation's security and economy.
To implement the four main actions, I have provided fourteen supporting
recommendations that should be considered in new legislation or
administrative policies (as amended from SCB 2008):
GHG Emissions On Federal Lands:
(1) Require full assessment, disclosure, and mitigation of the
contributions of federal actions to the drivers of climate change (GHG
emissions) and full consideration of how climate change will impact the
cost and efficacy of planned management actions--this should be
required of all federal actions and should include comprehensive cost-
benefit and GHG emission analyses of developing domestic energy sources
on public lands so that the impacts of additional emissions are fully
mitigated in NEPA. As an example, Congress can direct federal agencies
to treat CO2 and methane as a metric in NEPA.
(2) Provide clear guidance to BLM and Forest Service on fossil fuel
leasing, including a moratorium on new leases pending full mitigation
of GHG emissions and watershed impacts--leases for oil and gas
development, in particular on BLM lands, have been handed out in record
numbers in the last few years with little concern for environmental or
atmospheric impacts (Exhibit C). Even though oil and gas development on
federal lands has been rampant, most of these leases have not yet been
developed. Their future development will hamper any attempts to meet
the 350 ppm safety net, in addition to decreasing the resilience of
fish and wildlife populations and ecosystem services to climate change.
Once new oil and gas wells and their associated pads and roads are
developed, their emissions and habitat impacts will continue for
decades to centuries. As the agency is indicating it will allow
additional oil and gas leasing across large areas (http://www.blm.gov/
pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nm/programs/0/og_sale_notices_and/
2008.Par.48580.File.dat/April162008_SaleNotice.pdf), on top of the
extensive areas already leased, a full accounting of emissions and
ecosystem degradation from already developed leases will allow agencies
to implement mitigation and sequestration strategies. For undeveloped
leases, Congress should require revocation of leases as developing
these leases would increase GHG emissions.
(3) The Forest Service should be given control to subsurface
mineral development on the national forest system--the Forest Service
has yet to develop land-use plans for dealing with subsurface mining.
While there is growing interest in developing domestic energy sources,
the more we depend on fossil fuels, the more we will exceed the
recommended 350 ppm safety net and create even greater risks to the
nation. Federal agencies should shift production increasingly toward
renewable energy sources. Areas already developed and degraded for oil
and gas could make ideal sites for solar, wind, or other renewable
energy projects.
(4) Require agencies to analyze both costs and benefits, including
GHG emissions, of all types of energy, biofuels, agriculture and
forestry--guidance is needed for agencies to assess a full range of
alternatives before approving any federal action that would lead to a
net increase in GHG emissions and that all net increases in GHG
emissions should be offset elsewhere by increases in sequestration.
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services:
(5) Prioritize preservation and restoration of biological diversity
and other ecosystem services--on federal lands, priority ecosystem
services largely include capture and storage of carbon, clean water,
flood and drought abatement, biodiversity, and nutrient cycling. High
priority actions include protecting roadless areas and undeveloped
watersheds and reducing existing stressors by restoring degraded lands.
(6) Require that agencies conduct assessments of ecosystem services
and biodiversity potential of all ecosystems in the context of climate
change--this is essential in order to manage ecosystems for resistance
and resilience to climate change.
(7) Require the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to develop
a connected system of lands and waters as a climate change refuge--this
system should be managed primarily for conservation of biological
diversity, ecosystem services, and carbon sequestration while allowing
for dispersal of native species. Protected areas are essential for
maintaining viable fish and wildlife populations and high levels of
genetic and species diversity, which would then be available to
recolonize areas degraded by poor management or climate change.
Roadless areas, riparian areas, old forests, and intact ecosystems are
keys to this system.
(8) Institute a regulatory requirement to conduct analyses of
landscape connectivity when large-scale energy developments,
particularly placement of energy corridors, are proposed for public
lands--this is needed to minimize fragmentation of fish and wildlife
habitat.
Existing Laws and Regulations:
(9) Congress should work with the Obama Administration to override
the Bush Administration's 2008 regulations regarding NFMA and reinstate
the 1982 regulations pursuant to further review by a Committee of
Scientists appointed by Congress or the Administration--the regulations
should be rendered compliant with climate change response, fish and
wildlife viability, and findings of previous science committees (COS
1999).
(10) Revaluate and amend BLM's sustained yield and the Forest
Service's multiple use mandates to be consistent with preserving
biological diversity and ecosystem services in response to climate
change--land-use planning should explicitly be designed to achieve
management goals under plausible future conditions with a clear
objective of reducing existing stressors.
(11) Require federal agencies to modify all land-use plans to be
compliant with NEPA and other environmental statutes in the context of
climate change--this includes assessing cumulative effects of land-use
practices (existing stressors) and climate change within the context of
both mitigation and preparation.
Adaptive Management, Dedicated Funding, and Multi-jurisdictional
Coordination:
(12) As part of adaptive management, apply climate change and land-
use models to address potential impacts of climate change and existing
stressors--this includes modeling effects on vegetation, hydrology,
snow pack, fish and wildlife, fire, and forest productivity with a
temporal extent of decades to a century (e.g., Exhibit A).
(13) Direct federal agencies to cooperate and coordinate federal
management plans across jurisdictions and provide incentives for
technology transfer and climate preparation and sequestration on
nonfederal lands--significant outreach to private landowners, including
timber companies and ranchers, will be needed to implement the 3-R's
strategy and the 350 ppm GHG target across broader planning scales.
(14) Provide dedicated funding to develop and implement climate
change strategies on federal lands--this includes increasing the number
of scientists on the staff of agencies and supporting a National
Science Center for Wildlife Adaptation (e.g., one such funding system
was proposed in the previous Congress in S.2191, ``America's Climate
Security Act'').
Congressman Grijalva as you and the Subcommittee contemplate
legislation for public lands, we urge that public lands be managed for
their irreplaceable contribution to biodiversity and ecosystem services
by developing a national comprehensive plan to bring down and keep GHG
emissions at safe levels, reduce our dependency on fossil fuels while
developing renewable energy sources, and ensure the continuation of a
biologically diverse and robust system of public lands. Thank you Mr.
Chairman. That concludes my testimony.
Literature Cited
Brown, R.T., J.K. Agee, and J.F. Franklin. 2004. Forest restoration and
fire: principles in the context of place. Conservation Biology
18:903-912.
Committee of Scientists (COS). 1999. Sustaining the people's lands:
recommendations for stewardship of the national forests and
grasslands into the next century. USDA Washington, D.C. http://
www.fs.fed.us/news/news_archived/science/cosfrnt.pdf.
Conservation Biology. 2008. Special Section: a synthesis of climate-
change effects on aquatic invasive species. Conservation
Biology 22:518-623.
Depro, B., B.C. Murray, R.J. Alig, and A. Shanks. 2007. Public land,
timber harvest, and climate mitigation: quantifying carbon
sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands. Forest
Ecol. and Management 255:1122-1134.
Environmental Protection Action (EPA). 2008. Inventory of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions 1990-2006.
FAO, 2006. Livestock's long shadow. Environmental issues and options.
FAO of the United Nations. Rome, 2006. (http://www.fao.org/
docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm).
Grant, G. 2007. Running dry: where will the west get its water? USDA
Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Science
Findings Issue 97 October 2007.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, V. Masson-Delmotte, et
al., 2008. Target atmospheric CO2: where should
humanity aim? Published initially in a web-based format by
email to Hansen's list serve. March 31, 2008.
Harmon, M.E., W.K. Ferrell, and J.F. Franklin. 1990. Effects on carbon
storage of conversion of old-growth forests to young forests.
Science 247:699-702.
Harmon, M.E. 2001. Carbon sequestration in forests: addressing the
scale question. J. of Forestry 99:24-29.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change
2007 Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and
III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland.
Law, B.E., Turner, D., et al 2004. Disturbance and climate effects on
carbon stocks and fluxes across Western Oregon USA. Global
Change Biology 10:1429-1444.
Luyssaert, S., E. Detlef Schulz, A. Borner, A. Kohl, D. Hessenmoller,
B.E. Law, et al. 2008. Old-growth forests as global carbon
sinks. Nature 455:213-215.
Mitchell, S., M.E. Harmon, and B. O'Connell. Forest fuel reduction
alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three
Pacific Northwest ecosystems. In press. Ecological
Applications.
Moore, G.W., B.J. Bond, J.A. Jones, N. Phillips, and F.C. Meinzer.
2004. Structural and compositional controls in 40- and 450-
year-old riparian forests in western Oregon, USA. Tree
Physiology 24:481-491.
Mote, P.W., A. F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005.
Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. American
Meteorological Society Jan. 2005:39-49.
Odion, D.C., J.R. Strittholt, H. Jiang, E. Frost, D.A. DellaSala, and
M. Moritz. 2004. Fire severity patterns and forest management
in the Klamath National Forest, northwest California, USA.
Conservation Biology 18:927-936.
Paine, R.T., M.J. Tegner, and E.A. Johnson. 1998. Compounded
perturbations yield ecological surprises. Ecosystems 1:535-545.
Pumphrey, C. 2008. Global climate change: national security
implications. http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/
Smith, J.E., and L.S. Heath. 2007. Land use, land-use change, and
forestry. In Inventor of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and
sinks: 1990-2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Smithwick, E.A.H., M.E. Harmon, and J.B. Domingo. 2002. Changing
temporal patterns of forest carbon stores and net ecosystem
carbon balance: the stand to landscape transformation.
Landscape Ecology 22:77-94.
Strittholt, J.R., and D.A. DellaSala. 2001. Importance of roadless
areas in biodiversity conservation in forested ecosystems: a
case study--Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, U.S.A. Conservation
Biology 15:1742-1754.
Society for Conservation Biology (SCB). 2008. Recommendations for
actions by the Obama Administration and the Congress to advance
the scientific foundation for conservation of biological
diversity. http://www.conservationbiology.org
USFS. 2000. Roadless Area Conservation: Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Washington, D.C.
USGS. 2002. Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests of
western Oregon. Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-
0006.
Westerling, A.L., H.D. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006.
Warming and earlier spring increase Western U.S. forest
wildfire activity. Science 313:940-943.
______

Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me now ask Dr. Jack Williams,
Senior Scientist, Trout Unlimited. Sir?

STATEMENT OF JACK WILLIAMS, Ph.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST, TROUT
UNLIMITED, MEDFORD, OREGON

Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Jack Williams, and I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide my views, as
senior scientist for Trout Unlimited, on the role of Federal
lands in combating climate change.
I have held research and management positions in both the
BLM and Forest Service, so this issue is very close to my
heart.
Trout Unlimited, as you may know, is the nation's largest,
cold-water fisheries conservation group dedicated to the
protection and restoration of trout and salmon and their
watersheds.
In my testimony today, I would like to focus on three main
areas: first, a brief description of how climate change is
likely to impact national forests and public lands and how
these impacts are already being felt; second, I would like to
describe the resources, both natural resources and people in
nearby communities that are being affected by climate changes;
and, third, briefly describe how the problems can be solved;
that is, if we act now and utilize the best available science.
If we fail to act, the costs can be considerable, and our
national forests and public lands may be irreparably harmed.
I think most of you are familiar with the likely impacts of
climate change on national forests and public lands. The
impacts will be severe and include things like a general
warming trend, increased evaporation, drying of forests and
grasslands, increased wildfire intensity and frequency, reduced
snowpack, more winter precipitation falling as rain rather than
snow, earlier peak flows in rivers, less consistent
streamflows, more pronounced storm events, including winter
flooding, and more prolonged drought.
Already, from a fisheries perspective, we see a lot of
these changes, in terms of changes to stream hydrographs,
earlier streamflows, and even earlier emergence of aquatic
insects and changing fish migrations.
What resources and user groups are going to be impacted?
Well, a whole broad spectrum, not just fisheries and wildlife
and overall biodiversity, but outdoor recreation opportunities;
drinking water supplies, both quantity and quality; livestock
raising; timber harvest; other resource extraction; and,
indeed, the safety and economic well-being of nearby
communities.
It is important to realize that we cannot prevent these
climate-driven disturbances to our national forests and public
lands, but it is equally important to realize that we can
moderate the impacts of these changes and reduce the stress to
our natural resources and adjacent human communities.
Let me focus, for just a minute, on three specific problems
that our public lands will face and what we can do about them.
The first is water resources and water quantity. Well,
basically, to help protect water supplies and maintain
streamflows, we need to essentially do the following things. We
need to protect the high-elevation, wet meadows, the wetlands,
the riparian areas, and the riverine floodplains.
Why? Because these are the areas that are sort of the
natural sponges in our watersheds that slow the water and
release it into the groundwater, so they are also our
groundwater recharge zones, which are critical, from a water
supply standpoint. So the proper function condition of those
habitats will be increasingly important as snowpack diminishes.
Water quality. To protect water quality, we need adequately
sized streamside riparian zones and adopt management standards
that emphasize aquatic system protection. These stream zones
should be large enough to provide shade to streams but also
buffer upslope erosion and management.
In terms of increasing floods, we need to help guard
against flood damage by reconnecting rivers to floodplains,
again, focusing on those riparian and floodplain areas because
those are the areas where floodwaters can move into, dissipate
their energy, and also, again, recharge those groundwater
systems.
In general, the agency should strive to improve the overall
health of the land, seeking to restore conditions that allow
the land to help withstand and recover from anticipated
climate-change-drive disturbances.
How can we deal with the uncertainty of climate change? A
solid monitoring and adaptive management program will be vital.
Our ability to adapt is limited by two things: first, our
ability to detect change; and, second, our capacity to
understand its consequences. The Forest Service and BLM
monitoring programs are not adequate for these tasks. To
address that shortcoming, the Federal government needs a new
science initiative, among USGS, the Forest Service, other
Federal agencies, academic institutions, and others, to help
design a program to really help interpret the results of an
integrated monitoring program across multiple jurisdictions.
So, in conclusion, I would say that the actions described
in my testimony have a considerable price, but they also have
broad benefits, not only to maintaining biological diversity
but to sustaining the ecological services critical to meeting
the needs of recreationists, ranchers, other user groups, and
ensure the well-being of nearby communities.
In the end, we must ask ourselves, what is the cost of
inaction? What will it cost to repair damage to our national
forests and public lands?
I would argue that it is less costly and more beneficial to
address these concerns in the near term than to wait until
increased climate-driven disasters befall our lands. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]

Statement of Dr. Jack E. Williams, Senior Scientist, Trout Unlimited

Chairman Grijalva and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide my views as Senior
Scientist for Trout Unlimited on ``The Role of Federal Lands in
Combating Climate Change.'' Federal lands provide habitat for fish and
wildlife species that are of substantial economic, ecological, and
spiritual value, and these lands can play a key role in preparing for
the impacts of climate change. I appreciate your concern in addressing
this issue in a timely manner.
Trout Unlimited (TU) is the nation's largest coldwater fisheries
conservation group dedicated to the protection and restoration of our
nation's trout and salmon resources and the watersheds that sustain
them. TU has more than 150,000 members in 400 chapters across the
United States. Our members generally are trout and salmon anglers who
give back to the waters they love by contributing substantial amounts
of their personal time and resources to fisheries habitat protection
and restoration. The average TU chapter donates 1,000 hours of
volunteer time on an annual basis.
My name is Jack Williams and I serve as Senior Scientist for Trout
Unlimited. Prior to working for TU, I was privileged to serve in a
number of research and management positions in the federal government,
including Endangered Species Specialist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Fisheries Program Manager for the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Science Advisor to the Director of the BLM, Deputy
Forest Supervisor on the Boise National Forest, and Forest Supervisor
on the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. I also have served as
a Professor at Southern Oregon University and retain the title of
Adjunct Professor at that institution.
In my testimony today, I would like to focus on three major points.
First, I will briefly describe how climate change is likely to
impact our National Forests and public lands. These impacts already are
being felt across the country and will become more pronounced and
severe in coming years.
Second, I will describe how these impacts are likely to affect
natural resources and the people and nearby communities that use these
resources. It is important to recognize that a broad spectrum of user
groups will be impacted and that the risks are not just restricted to
fish, wildlife, rivers, and forests.
Third, I will describe how these problems can be solved--if we act
now and utilize the best available science. I will provide specific
examples of what needs to be done and how to do it. If we fail to act,
costs will be considerable and our National Forests and public lands
will be irreparably harmed.
At the end of this document, I will provide a short annotated list
of recent science articles in support of my testimony.
Impacts of Climate Change on National Forests and Public Lands
Climate change is likely to alter weather patterns and storm events
across the United States dramatically with significant negative
consequences for National Forests and public lands. A general warming
pattern will result in increased evaporation rates and drying of forest
and grassland vegetation. These effects will increase wildfire
intensity and frequency, especially at mid-elevations. In turn, these
changes will spark surges in forest pest species and invasive weeds,
triggering a cascade of further alterations in natural ecosystems.
River flows and hydrologic regimes also will be altered, with
consequences not only to fisheries but also to water supplies in
general. More winter precipitation will fall in the form of rain than
snow, especially at lower and mid-elevations. This will reduce snowpack
and increase the probability of rain-on-snow events, likely resulting
in increased winter flooding. With more rain during winter and reduced
snowpack, peak stream flows will occur earlier in the spring and low or
base flows during summer and autumn will be reduced. Stream flows will
be less consistent from year to year.
Overall, storm intensities will be greater. Floods, drought, and
wildfires are all likely to increase. The increased variability and
longer duration of wet cycles and dry cycles will cause considerable
additional stress to natural ecosystems.
In all cases, impacts of climate change on federal lands must be
viewed within the existing management context and conditions of natural
systems. Watersheds, riparian systems, and streams that are in better
condition will be more resistant to disturbance and more likely to
rebound quickly. On the other hand, habitats that are degraded and
fragmented will less able to adapt to climate change risks. The effects
of rapid climate change will be compounded with, and magnify, existing
stressors. In poor-condition lands without adequate protective
vegetation along streams, floods will be more severe with greater
erosion and floodplain damage. If wetlands are drained or filled and
watercourses are channelized, floodplains that normally slow water flow
and soak up winter precipitation to help recharge groundwater aquifers,
instead will speed stream discharge, encourage summer drying, and
deepen droughts.
Natural Resources, User Groups, and Communities will be Substantially
Impacted
Trout Unlimited and our members are especially concerned about the
impacts of climate change on coldwater fishes and the habitats that
support them. We also are concerned about impacts to the recreational
pursuits, such as fishing, hunting, camping, and nature watching, for
which National Forests and public lands are well known. However, we
also realize that the impacts from climate change will be felt far more
broadly.
The effects of climate change on federal lands is likely to
negatively impact many natural resources, user groups, and communities,
creating problems for:
Drinking water supplies--both quantity and quality
Fisheries
Wildlife
Overall biological diversity
Outdoor recreational opportunities
Livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource
extraction
The safety and economic well-being of nearby communities
In short, a very broad range of species, people, and communities
will be under increasing risk unless we take immediate proactive
management actions to prepare. The costs of failing to adequately plan
and prepare will be high, and will be measured in substantial economic
costs to fight large wildfires, deal with multi-year droughts, and
repair damage from broadscale floods, and possibly in increased injury
and loss of life.
It is important to realize that we cannot prevent these climate-
driven disturbances to our national forests and public lands. Emissions
already concentrated in the atmosphere will produce significant changes
in the global climate now and throughout the next century, and ongoing
emissions are likely to increase the severity of change we must endure.
Recently the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
indicated that there is little time for mitigation efforts aimed at
reducing greenhouse gas emissions; the Earth has about six more years
at current rates of carbon-dioxide pollution before it is locked into a
future of severe global warming. We know that change already is
happening, and that we will be subjected to climate change driven
risks. But it equally is important to realize that we can moderate the
impacts of these changes and reduce stress on our natural resources and
adjacent human communities.
Specific Threats and Appropriate Responses
In this section of my testimony, I identify specific resources on
National Forests, National Grasslands, and public lands that will be
threatened by climate change and provide scientifically sound and
proven strategies for resource protection.
Water resources and water quantity. To help protect water supplies
and maintain stream flows, the Forest Service and BLM should restore
high elevation wet meadows, wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains.
These habitats act as natural hydrologic sponges that slow water
discharge and recharge groundwater aquifers, which in turn increases
late-season stream flows. The proper function condition of these
habitats will be increasingly important as snowpacks diminish.
Water quality. To protect water quality, agencies should designate
adequately sized streamside--riparian--zones and adopt management
standards that emphasize aquatic system protection. These riparian
zones should be large enough not only to provide shade to streams, but
also to buffer from upslope erosion and poor management activities.
Agencies also should protect landslide prone areas. Inadequate
protection of these areas will increase siltation and erosion, which
will degrade stream systems, water supplies, and fisheries.
Increasing floods. To help guard against flood damage, agencies
should reconnect rivers to their floodplains. That is, rivers should
not be confined into narrow channels but rather allowed access to
broader floodplains. We also should seek to restore floodplains and
streamside vegetation. These measures transfer flood energies into
well-vegetated floodplain zones while dissipating flows and protecting
soils from erosion. In addition federal agencies should improve
culverts and other stream/road crossings, and decommission poorly
maintained or poorly designed roads. Inadequately sized or designed
culverts and poorly maintained road/stream crossings act like time
`bombs that will plug up then blow out during intense storms causing
massive landslides and debris flows. Severe flooding has substantial
consequences not only to fisheries and wildlife, but also to downstream
communities and recreational facilities.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Example of a re-engineered stream crossing consisting of an
oversize bottomless culvert. This structure provides for free movement
of stream substrates and aquatic species while also providing adequate
flood capacity and roadway safety.

Invasive species. Weedy and invasive species are more likely to
flourish in degraded habitats and to be favored during highly
fluctuating environmental conditions. Some invasive species will spread
more quickly during warming trends and will cause greater harm and be
more expensive to control if left untreated. To better manage invasive
species, we should become more aggressive in programs to detect new
species invasions and in programs to control established exotic
species--both terrestrial invasive weeds and aquatic non-native
species.
Biodiversity loss. To deal with potential loss of plant and animal
diversity, lands and waters should be managed to provide adequate
habitat to support viable populations of native species. Agencies
should manage to protect genetic diversity, including weak stocks and
peripheral populations. High levels of genetic, life history, and
ecological diversity will be necessary for species to adapt to rapid
environmental change.
Increasing wildfire. Wildfires are increasing in western forests
because of reduced snowpack and earlier vegetative drying during
summer. To deal with more frequent and intense wildfires, agencies
should selectively thin forests, primarily in wildland-urban interface
zones and plantations. To prepare aquatic systems, we also should
improve road networks and stream crossings, restore up- and downstream
connectivity, and recover degraded riparian areas. Finally, we should
adopt strong post-fire logging standards that protect soils and stream
systems while providing for adequate recruitment of large wood to
streams. These actions will result in less wildfire damage and
decreased erosion and stream sedimentation. Riparian habitats, old
growth and mature forests, and unroaded areas should be protected as
well because these are the most fire resistant habitats.
Health of the land. In general, agencies should strive to improve
the overall health of the land, seeking to restore conditions that
allow the land to help us withstand and recover from anticipated
climate change driven disturbances. This can best be done by protecting
the best remaining habitats, reconnecting stream and riparian systems,
and restoring degraded areas (see graphic). Watersheds that are in
better condition are more able to withstand disturbances, or if
disturbed, are more resilient to damage from the disturbances. Areas
that may be especially important to protect include roadless areas,
unroaded lands, habitat currently acting as native population
strongholds, and areas of watersheds that produce high quality supplies
of cold water. It is important to reconnect stream systems by removing
barriers to fish movements. These barriers may include small dams whose
water diversion service can be replaced by pumps or other means,
inadequate or poorly-designed road culverts that create conditions that
fish cannot navigate, or dewatered stream segments created by direct
water diversion or by land management practices that cause the stream
to go subsurface (e.g., overgrazing). Overall, it is important to
reduce existing stressors, such as dense road networks or too intense
or inappropriately timed livestock use. These existing stressors are
within our ability to influence, whereas the added stress of climate
change is beyond our ability to eliminate from the next 50 to 100
years, no matter how successful global mitigation efforts prove to be.
How might this be implemented? For the past four years, BLM, TU,
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other partners have been
reconnecting and restoring habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout in the
Maggie Creek drainage in northern Nevada. Reconnection work consisted
of replacing three major culverts that blocked fish passage and
removing one irrigation structure that also blocked fish movement.
Livestock grazing was improved by exclusion fencing along sensitive
riparian areas. Restoration efforts focused on 1,982 acres of riparian
habitat, which included replanting native species and irrigation
improvements. In all, 82 stream miles of Maggie Creek and its
tributaries were reconnected and restored. Total cost was approximately
$600,000 during this four year period. These efforts not only benefited
the threatened trout but also improved conditions for livestock use and
provided increased flood capacity for the road system.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

This approach to improving overall land health via watershed
management can be summarized by the model of Protect-Reconnect-Restore-
Sustain. Healthier lands are more resistant to climate change impacts
and more resilient when disturbed by floods, drought, and wildfire.

Dealing with the Uncertainty of Climate Change
Monitoring and adaptive management will be important. Although many
ramifications of climate change are relatively well understood,
researchers uncover new surprises almost daily regarding the pace and
intensity of change. There is substantial uncertainty and rapid
environmental change ahead. National Forest and public land managers
need to be better prepared to identify and track these changes and
better equipped to understand their consequences.
Our ability to adapt is limited by two things: our ability to
detect change and our capacity to understand its consequences. Forest
Service and BLM monitoring programs are not adequate for these tasks.
To address this shortcoming, the federal government needs a new science
initiative among USGS-Biological Resources Division, Forest Service
Research, and academic and non-profit organizational scientists to help
federal land managers design and interpret the results of an integrated
monitoring program across multiple jurisdictions.
Conclusion
The necessary actions described herein have a considerable price,
but they also have broad benefits not only to maintaining biological
diversity, but to sustaining the ecological services critical to
meeting the needs of recreationists, ranchers, and other user groups,
and to ensuring the well-being of nearby communities. The actions I
have described are very low risk steps that have a very high likelihood
of substantial benefit to multiple parties. Many actions create jobs as
well.
National Forests and public lands provide substantial ecological
services that include clean water, clean air, and buffering from
drastic flood and drought. Without adequate effort to sustain these
critical ecosystem services, private property owners, local governments
and the human communities they make up will be excessively burdened.
In the end it is important that we ask ourselves: What is the cost
of inaction? What will it cost to repair damage to our National Forests
and public lands? What will it cost in private property loss and public
safety? I would argue that it is less costly and more beneficial to
address these concerns in the near-term than it would be to wait until
increased climate change driven disasters befall our lands and nearby
communities. The time to act is now. Our National Forests, National
Grasslands, and BLM public lands are national treasures that are
irreplaceable in our lifetimes.
Reference List
Battin, J., M.M. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K.
Bartz, and H. Imakl. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change
on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 104(16):6720-6725. (describes how habitat
restoration can mitigate impacts of climate change for Pacific
Northwest salmon)
Barnett, T., R. Malone, W. Pennell, D. Stammer, B. Semtner, and W.
Washington. 2004. The effects of climate change on water
resources in the West: introduction and overview. Climatic
Change 62:1-11.
Clark, M.E., A. Rose, D.A. Levine, and W.W. Hargrove. 2001. Predicting
climate change effects on Appalachian trout: combining GIS and
individual-based modeling. Ecological Applications 11:161-178.
Flebbe, P.A., L.D. Roghair, and J.L. Bruggnik. 2006. Spatial modeling
to project southern Appalachian trout distribution in a warmer
climate. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
135:1371-1382. (wild trout populations in eastern forests are
likely to suffer large-scale reductions as a result of climate
change)
Harper, M.P., and B.L. Peckarsky. 2006. Emergence cues of a mayfly in a
high-altitude stream ecosystem: potential response to climate
change. Ecological Applications 16:612-621. (documents earlier
aquatic insect emergence from Rocky Mountain streams as a
result of less snowpack and earlier stream runoff)
Heller, N.E., and E.S. Zavaleta. 2009. Biodiversity management in the
face of climate change: a review of 22 years of
recommendations. Biological Conservation 142:14-32. (reviews
science literature on adaptation for climate change)
Hilborn, R., T.P. Quinn, D.E. Schindler, and D.E. Rogers. 2003.
Biocomplexity and fisheries sustainability. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 100:6564-6568. (describes how
remaining high diversity among sockeye stocks in Alaska
maintains fisheries despite environmental change)
Poff, N.L., M.M. Brinson, and J.W. Day, Jr. 2002. Aquatic ecosystems
and global climate change: potential impacts on inland
freshwater and coastal wetland ecosystems in the United States.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Arlington, VA.
Rahel, F.J., C.J. Keleher, and J.L. Anderson. 1996. Potential habitat
loss and population fragmentation for cold water fish in the
North Platte River drainage of the Rocky Mountains: response to
climate warming. Limnological Oceanography 41:1116-1123.
(describes how existing habitat fragmentation contributes to
population vulnerability during climate change)
Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006.
Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest
wildfire activity. Science 313:940-943. (describes how climate
change is increasing wildfire activity in Rocky Mountains)
Williams, J.E., A.L. Haak, H.M. Neville, and W.T. Colyer. 2009.
Potential consequences of climate change to persistence of
cutthroat trout populations. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 29:in press.
Williams, J.E., A.L. Haak, N.G. Gillespie, H.M. Neville, and W.T.
Colyer. 2007. Healing troubled waters: preparing trout and
salmon habitat for a changing climate. Trout Unlimited,
Arlington, VA. (proven restoration tips and tactics; pdf
available online at www.tu.org under Science banner)
______

Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Mr. Spiering had to leave early for a commitment. I think
the hearing went longer than the time he had. I will be
forwarding some questions to him. I think he made a comment
about nuclear power, i.e., through uranium mining, as a
nonpolluting activity.
So my question is going to be about MOAB and the 16 million
tons of waste that is yet to be dealt with; the 500 abandoned
mines on Navajo Country that EPA now is doing in tiers to see
which is the priority they are going to begin the cleanup and
closure of those abandoned mines; and the orphaned mine near
the Grand Canyon that continues to be a problem and polluted
the watershed there.
Those are a consequence of direct uranium mining, and I
understand that nuclear power is not an absolute yes-or-no
proposition that we are dealing with, but there are
consequences, and we are going to forward the questions to him
about those consequences.
In addition, is there any public land, i.e., the Grand
Canyon, in which uranium mining should not be allowed? I think
that is an appropriate question to ask as well.
Dr. Harmon, You raised some serious concerns about the
drying of the forests and the subsequent increase in wildlife
frequency and intensity. Could you give us your prediction on
what we will face in the upcoming fire seasons due to climate
change and how land-management agencies can better be prepared
to deal with that reality?
Mr. Harmon. Well, fire is really a hard thing to predict,
Mr. Chairman, but it is likely, if the current trends continue,
that, yes, we will have warmer, longer growing seasons--that is
good for tree growth, in part. But, in the West, where we have,
in the summer, a shortage of water, that may also mean a longer
period of dry fuels, and so there could be larger fires. They
may or may not be more severe because only in some ecosystems
are fuel levels really higher than we might expect naturally.
It is hard to say what to do because it is starting to
create a problem that is very, very expensive to try to solve.
I think we have to concentrate our efforts on protecting
housing and things where people could lose economic value and
their lives. That would be one place.
Where we can restore a natural fire regime, we should try
to do it because it is just cheaper. That can conflict with the
first priority of protecting people, but there are areas where
this could go on.
One of the things is people have the sense that there is a
tremendous loss of carbon in a fire, and, as my written
testimony shows, the range is about 5 percent of what is in an
ecosystem to about 15 percent. It is not huge. The trees do not
really burn up. If they burned up, people would not be fighting
about timber salvage.
So one thing is people do not like the fires; they are very
emotional about them. They are very dangerous, but they are not
nearly as bad for the carbon cycle as often is portrayed.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Dr. DellaSala, you mentioned that
global warming is already affecting species and natural
resources across the country.
Let me ask you, relative to the public lands, you talk
about changing the mission of the Forest Service and BLM. Do
you think we need to change the Organic Act or the Multiple Use
Sustained Yield Act? Can we accomplish some of this within the
regulatory framework, or is that a statutory issue as well?
Mr. Dellasala. Well, thank you for that question, and, as I
have indicated in my testimony, there are a number of ways that
this Subcommittee could address this.
One is that you could ask the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture whether or not they have the existing structures to
respond to climate change and some of the challenges that we
are now seeing.
Two is that you could request that a committee of
scientists be convened that would take a look at the whole
regulatory package within the context of climate change and
cumulative impacts.
So those are two immediate things. There are other
measures, too, that I would recommend, such as working with the
Obama Administration to restore the National Forest Management
Act viability clause for maintaining viable populations on
Federal lands and working with Representative Kind to make sure
that a similar measure is introduced for BLM lands which are
not managing their wildlife for viable populations.
So there are number of different ways to look at it, but I
think the challenge here is that a lot of those statutes were
put together in the early part, or the midpart, of the last
century, and, quite frankly, they were not up to the task of
what we are seeing now, in the 21st century, with the increased
stress loads that we have put on these ecosystems, in addition
to the climate change impacts.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Dr. Williams, as we focus on the adaptation of our public
lands to a changing climate, in your testimony, you talk about
that healthier systems are more resilient to the change. What
actions could land managers be focusing on today to restore and
rehabilitate wetlands and watersheds?
Mr. Williams. Well, I think you always try to do as many
things with the one stroke as you can.
If we know we are going to have a lot of fires on the
landscape, one of the systems that we need to work on are our
road systems. The national forests and BLM public lands have
huge road networks, and many of these roads are essentially in
a maintenance backlog.
From a fire standpoint and an aquatic systems standpoint,
the culverts are undersized, the roads are poorly managed, and
we need to upgrade those systems, especially in areas that are
likely to fail as a result of fire and then subsequent erosion.
So the road network greatly influences the hydrologic, the
stream network. The culverts and the road crossings are
critical areas because these can build up with sediment and
debris and kind of blow out.
So, on the one hand, the road network is a critical element
to focus on.
The other part of that is really the meadow riparian
habitats along streams and along meadows that are, again, these
kind of natural sponge areas that both soak up the energy and
soak up the water and then recharge the aquifers during rain.
With reduced snowpack, more winter precipitation falling as
rain rather than snow, the health and condition of those lands
are going to be absolutely critical to maintain base
streamflows.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me thank you. Your full written testimony
is part of the record, and if colleagues, as I had mentioned
earlier, have questions, they will submit them, and we will
forward them to you for your responses in writing. Thank you
very much, and thank you for the time.
Let me invite the next panel, please.
[Pause.]
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Let me ask our
colleague, Mr. Holt, for the introduction of one of our
panelists.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for an important
hearing that you have been undertaking today, and I thank you
for inviting the next distinguished and very capable witnesses.
I would like to introduce to you, and to the Committee, Mr.
Rick Ridgeway. He is a legend among climbers, a leading climber
and adventurer: the first American to reach the summit of K-2;
a participant in the first western mountaineering expedition to
Butaan; a person who scaled the first big wall climb in
Antarctica. So he has a number of climbing pelts on the wall
and has, really, a well-earned reputation among explorers.
Mr. Ridgeway is also a documentary film maker and a
photographer and a writer, and, in his free time, Rick Ridgeway
is the Vice President of environmental programs and
communications at Patagonia. He develops, implements, and
promotes the second, two, of the company's three-part mission
statement: to make the best product, cause no unnecessary harm,
and to use business to inspire and implement solutions to the
environmental crisis.
Mr. Ridgeway, I believe, your experiences give you a unique
view of our environment--sometimes from above, sometimes from
beside, sometimes from right in it--and a view of the need to
preserve it.
So we welcome you today, and, Mr. Chairman, I, again, thank
you for setting up this hearing.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Let us begin with Mr.
Ridgeway, Freedom To Roam. Your testimony, sir. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF RICK RIDGEWAY, FREEDOM TO ROAM, VENTURA,
CALIFORNIA

Mr. Ridgeway. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr.
Holt, for the introduction, and, also for the record, the
earlier introduction that Representative Capps so graciously
gave to me and to our initiative, Freedom To Roam, which, while
it was initiated at our company, Patagonia, is now its own
independent organization, and I would suggest to the group that
we are not what you might expect.
We are the only organization I know of that brings together
groups from the Department of Defense and the Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, business leaders from Wal-Mart and
Microsoft, energy providers from BP-America, hunting and
angling groups, including the National Wildlife Federation; the
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; conservationists
from the Defenders of Wildlife; and scientists from the
Wildlife Conservation Society.
We know that the planet is warming. We have read the IPCC
prediction that if nothing is done to adapt to changes that are
now recognized as inevitable, we could lose 40 to 70 percent of
the species on our planet, and a change, on that scale, is
uncharted territory, and no one, including our best scientists,
fully understands the consequences that loss would have on our
own species, but those scientists do know that to adapt to
these inevitable changes, most of the wildlife in our United
States needs the ability to move. It needs the freedom to roam
around in habitats, many of which are on public lands. But if
habitats become fragmented by development or shifted by climate
change, then many will not survive.
But there is solution, and it is based on best science, and
it is this idea of connecting landscapes to give animals the
freedom to roam, but, also, I want to stress, to give people
the freedom to hunt and fish and to hike and to camp and to
ranch and even to do business in ways compatible with wildlife.
Now, before we look into how we propose to achieve that,
let us take a pause to look at where this idea of wildlife
corridors came from.
It was established when Tom Lovejoy, an acclaimed biologist
here in Washington, began long-term study in the Amazon.
Mr. Lovejoy. [On video.] In the late 1970's my Brazilian
colleagues and I--a grand experiment in landscape ecology, and
we persuaded those who were clearing the forests to do it in a
way that gave us a series of forest fragments of different
sizes, and that enabled us, ultimately, to demonstrate how big
a national park should be.
That is a big number--in the Amazon, it is about 1,000
square kilometers--so the question that also arises is, what do
you do if you do not have such a size? Well, then the answer is
pretty obvious, actually. You connect the fragment to other
fragments to larger forests. You create, in a sense, wildlife
corridors so animal species can move around.
Mr. Ridgeway. To illustrate the importance of connectivity
and corridors as an adaptation strategy for climate change, I
want to show you the story of the lynx. Now, the present-day
range of the lynx looks like this, but what might happen as the
planet warms?
Well, scientists, using the most advanced tools currently
available, predict that the habitat of the lynx is going to
shift here by 2060, and it is going to go here by 2100. Now,
you can see that these marooned habitats are likely too small
to sustain lynx populations. So what do you do? Well, you
connect the fragments with wildlife corridors.
But it is not only predators, like the lynx, that need the
freedom to roam, but it is migrating songbirds, counted by the
millions by birdwatchers; it is game birds and waterfowl,
valued by millions of sportsmen; it is big-game species that
all of us celebrate.
Now, take the pronghorn antelope. This is the fastest big-
game animal on the continent. It can run 60 miles an hour, and,
every fall, one group of pronghorn leave the Teton National
Park and migrate south 170 miles to their wintering grounds,
where now, instead of sagebrush, they encounter hundreds of
recently installed gas wells. But there are solutions, from new
technology that, as we have heard earlier, allows gas wells to
be clustered, 25 and more, on a single pad, and this gives the
pronghorn more room to roam.
Well, it is not just gas wells, however, but pronghorn also
have to crawl under fences, and, again, there is a solution in
fences that are designed with a minimum clearance and a bottom
wire with no barbs that allow the pronghorn to freely crawl
under the fences.
So these are solutions, and solutions is what our
coalition, Freedom To Roam, is about. With a steering team that
includes corporations, some of them Fortune 50 companies; that
includes conservation organizations known for their broad-based
inclusion; and government organizations representing every
state's role in providing solutions to protecting wildlife.
But what are those solutions, and what is the roadmap to
protection? Well, we think and propose that it has five steps:
first, to define corridors, to develop a legal definition for
``corridors''; and, two, to use that legal definition to
identify critical corridors across the United States; third, to
give designations to corridors that qualify, beginning with the
public lands; and, four, to work with private landowners to
come up with tools and incentives to live and ranch in ways
compatible with wild animals; and, five, to allocate funds to
support science, to support projects, such as road crossings
and wildlife fencing, to support private landowners.
We know this will require the cooperation of private
citizens, of businesses, conservation groups, and, of course,
governments, but we also believe we can do this because we are
all sensing this new climate, this climate of cooperation that
is driven by climate change, that we are all in this together,
that we all live on the same planet, and, together, we can
preserve the health of our home for ourselves and for our
children and for the wildlife that is part of our American
identity.
So, Chairman, thank you so much, and Members, for the
invitation here to share with you this vision that Freedom To
Roam has.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ridgeway follows:]

Statement of Rick Ridgeway, Director of Environmental Initiatives,
Patagonia Company, for Freedom to Roam, ``A Coalition to Conserve
Wildlife Corridors''

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Rick Ridgeway,
Director of Environmental Initiatives for Patagonia Company. Patagonia
and a group of business and conservation partners have recently formed
Freedom to Roam. This is a new model for landscape protection: a
collaborative effort among businesses and conservation organizations to
bring ecological connectivity to the forefront of public attention
through sound science and effective policies. Freedom to Roam's
continental vision encompasses the United States and Canada while
facilitating local solutions to landscape connectivity.
We're the only organization I know of that brings together groups
such as the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, business leaders
from Wal-Mart and Microsoft, energy providers such as BP America and
Southern California Edison, hunting and angling groups including the
National Wildlife Federation and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership, conservationists from the Association of Fish & Wildlife
Agencies, Defenders of Wildlife, and Yellowstone to Yukon, and
scientists from the Wildlife Conservation Society. We also are working
with the Western Governors' Association and the Department of Defense.
Together this effort is galvanizing policies, practices and on-the-
ground efforts designed to ensure that landscapes across the continent
maintain their ecological integrity.
I am appreciative of the work of Committee Chairman Rahall and
Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva and the members of this Subcommittee on
your efforts to develop tangible solutions in the face of a changing
climate; in particular, for seeking to define the role of federal lands
to lessen the impacts of climate change through sound stewardship. I am
pleased that the Committee and Subcommittee members and their staff are
showing such a willingness to devote their time to address this
critical issue. It indicates to me that you, too, feel that our public
lands heritage is at a crucial crossroads.
The Challenge Ahead
There is no doubt that the planet is warming. The International
Panel on Climate Change predicts that we could lose as many as 40-70
percent of the species on Earth if nothing is done to address the
impacts of climate change. No one, including our best scientists fully
understands the entire gamut of consequences this biological loss could
have on us. But scientists agree that the ability to migrate across the
landscape in response to this phenomenon will be key to the survival of
many North American species in the coming decades. The public lands
will play a critical role in allowing this migration to take place. In
fact, if habitat is fragmented by development and then altered by
climate change, many of our native species won't survive. Thus many in
the scientific community agree that the most effective option we have
to address climate change adaptation for biodiversity is via corridors
and connectivity. (see Heller, N. and E. S. Zavaleta, 2008,
Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a synthesis of
20 years of recommendations, Biological Conservation).
Convergence of Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Connectivity as a Policy
Strategy
In the past year, a steady stream of new policy documents have been
developed by working groups, task forces, committees and other groups
of knowledgeable specialists to assist decision makers in identifying
the importance of protecting ecological connectivity. As a result, new
policies for corridor protection will be central to adaptive management
strategies that seek to address the impact of climate change on
wildlife. In the past six months, three new policy reports were
prepared and circulated by a) the 19 western states via the Western
Governors' Association, b) the U.S. Forest Service, and c) the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. All three reports incorporated corridors in
developing strategies to address climate change.
The first political acknowledgement and support of corridor
conservation occurred in the West, where the 19 states are made up of a
patchwork of federal, tribal, state and local governments as well as
private lands. These are the members of the Western Governors'
Association (WGA) who unanimously passed a Wildlife Corridors
Initiative. In the Initiative's call to action the governors
acknowledged ``[w]estern ecosystems do more than sustain wildlife.
Crucial habitats and corridors provide ecosystem services that range
from enhancing water quality to creating recreational opportunities to
ensuring the pollination of our crops. To a great degree, the viability
of wildlife is an indicator of the functionality of ecosystems--and so
contributes to the sustainability of our communities, our economies,
and our general well-being.'' (see ``WGA Wildlife Corridors Initiative
Report'' 2008 Western Governors' Association, Denver, CO)
The U.S. Forest Service is beginning to develop a response to
climate change. In its recently completed framework on this topic, the
agency spelled out several actions it can take to facilitate
adaptation. This includes a category of anticipatory actions ``intended
to prevent serious disruptions due to changing climate.'' The report
suggests such potential actions as ``...genetic conservation of
species, assisted migration of species to suitable habitat, development
of wildlife corridors to facilitate migration...'' (see ``Forest
Service Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change,'' Version
1.0, October 2008, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently completed its
first draft of a strategic plan to address climate change. Although the
strategy is currently only available for internal review and labeled
``internal discussion draft'' and has not been commented upon by
external entities, it too promotes habitat connectivity to address
habitat fragmentation and climate change. One of the goals in the plan
is to ``deliver landscape conservation that supports climate change
adaptations by fish, wildlife and plant populations.'' One of the
objectives for this goal is for the USFWS to work with partners to
identify and conserve landscape-level corridors to help build
connectivity within and between landscapes. This indicates that habitat
connectivity at two different spatial scales is considered a key
consideration for allowing plants and animals to move and adjust to
changing environmental conditions. (see ``Rising to the Urgent
Challenges of a Changing Climate, Strategic Plan for Responding to
Accelerating Climate Change in the 21st Century [Internal Discussion
Draft].'' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, December 12, 2008,
Washington, DC)
At this time, there is an emerging consensus by the scientific
community, federal agencies, many of the states, and leading national
conservation organizations that it will be necessary to identify and
protect wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity so that wildlife
will be able to adapt to a warming world. Therefore, any future federal
legislative efforts to address climate change will be greatly enhanced
by assuring connectivity conservation.
Federal Legislative Action
The federal government plays an important role in leading the
nation's efforts to identify and protect ecological connectivity as a
climate change adaptation strategy. I believe that the federal
government's land and water management agencies need to have the
appropriate authority, direction, and funding to ensure habitat
connectivity is conserved across all affected landscapes and water
bodies. In addition, the federal government must work with many
partners to further this goal across all jurisdictions, including state
and local governments, tribes and Native Americans, as well as private
land owners.
As I mentioned, the supporters of Freedom to Roam have just begun
to review and collect information on policies and practices to
implement this vision. The following concepts are some of the suggested
methods to achieve the overall goal of improving connectivity
opportunities.
As this Subcommittee and other congressional committees develop
climate change legislation, it would be extremely helpful to consider
the following actions be incorporated as a means of identifying and
protecting wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity as an adaptive
management strategy.
Create a new federal lands designation: wildlife corridor
Perhaps the boldest, most visionary piece of legislation would
create a series of linked ecological networks around the country that
would provide for the migration and dispersal of wildlife and other
native species. Such a system would allow for a level of landscape
connectivity that assures that animals and plants could adjust to
shifts in habitat caused by human activity, natural environmental
cycles, and global climate change. Weaving a web of habitats across the
nation will secure the long-term survival and vibrancy of America's
cherished natural heritage for present and future generations.
In order to ensure that wildlife and other biota can migrate and
disperse safely across landscapes for their continued health and vigor,
a system of connecting habitats could be congressionally designated as
``national wildlife corridors.'' We envision these as part of a
National Wildlife Corridor Conservation System.
National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wildlife Refuges, and
Wilderness areas are national systems developed to serve an important
purpose to conserve our nation's natural heritage. Today, given the
challenges of addressing climate change, our generation has an
opportunity to develop an equally important national system that allows
species to move and adapt. These ``national wildlife corridors'' could
be administered in such a manner as to leave them unimpaired to sustain
flows of wildlife and plants between different areas of a landscape or
region, over time, as well as for the use and enjoyment of the American
people.
Include wildlife connectivity in federal land management planning
Climate change legislation must promote the identification and
protection of connectivity or migration habitat via federal land and
water management agency planning. Currently, I am aware of two examples
of the identification and protection of a wildlife migration corridor
via federal management plans.
The Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming, on the southern end
of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, has completed the first
administrative designation of a wildlife corridor in the nation on
Forest Service lands. This unprecedented action was sought to maintain
secure habitat for the annual migration of a special herd of pronghorn
that moves an estimated 45 miles across national forest lands,
comprising approximately 29,400 acres, in its semi-annual 150-mile-long
trip between their winter range in Upper Green River Basin near
Pinedale, Wyoming, and their summer range in Grand Teton National Park.
This is one of the longest remaining land-based wildlife migrations in
North America, and it is the longest in the lower 48 United States.
Archeological evidence suggests that this wildlife pathway has been
used for over 6,000 years.
To protect this migration, the Bridger-Teton amended its Land and
Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) by identifying the wildlife
corridor on a map and developing a management standard to ensure that
no new projects or activities impede the migration corridor, known as
the Path of the Pronghorn. Such an administrative designation
formalized in the Forest Plan can be replicated on national forests
across the country.
Part of the Path of the Pronghorn also falls on Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) lands in Wyoming. In the recent revision of its
Resource Management Plan, the Pinedale District in Wyoming protected a
portion of the pronghorn migration on their lands by approving the
designation of the Trappers Point as an Area of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC) whose management goal is to preserve the viability of
the big game migration. In future BLM planning efforts, ACEC
designations to protect wildlife connectivity can be utilized as a
means to maintain connectivity.
The Forest Service, BLM and all other federal land and water
management agencies should be provided direction and funding in climate
change legislation to identify and protect key connectivity habitat via
their planning processes.
Provide wildlife connectivity across federal lands highways
The Office of Federal Lands Highways ``provides program stewardship
and transportation engineering services for planning, design,
construction, and rehabilitation of the highways and bridges that
provide access to and through federally owned lands.'' Currently,
maintaining habitat connectivity across surface transportation
infrastructure has not been mandated in any past or current
transportation legislation. To ensure busy roads running through
federal lands provide safe passage of wildlife across transportation
barriers in areas important for connectivity, legislation should direct
the federal land agencies to assure that there are retrofits for
current infrastructure and incorporate wildlife needs into future
development plans for their federal highways. This means terrestrial
and aquatic movement patterns must be considered in relation to the
location, design, construction and operation of infrastructure
projects.
Support state wildlife corridor initiatives
The Western Governors' Association (WGA) Wildlife Corridors
Initiative is a prime example of states taking the lead in developing
new policies to protect wildlife corridors in the face of a changing
climate. The WGA states as well as all others will need support,
cooperation and coordination from the federal government as they embark
on efforts to address habitat connectivity and crucial habitats. One
recommendation from the Initiative's climate change recommendations
pertinent to my testimony today is:
``Western Governors should consider supporting establishment of new
revenue streams to support wildlife adaptation to climate change in any
relevant climate change legislation, such as carbon cap and trade or
carbon tax legislation that may be enacted by the U.S. Congress.''
Federal climate change legislation should make every effort to work
with the states, as the primary authorities responsible for the
management of wildlife, to support their efforts to identify and
protect wildlife corridors. State efforts to develop new plans to
assist fish and wildlife adaption to climate change, and to ensure that
state wildlife action plans address this challenge, deserve greater
federal encouragement and financial support.
Work with Native Americans and tribes
Federally-recognized Indian tribes have jurisdiction over a
reservation land base of more than 52 million acres in the lower 48
states while Alaskan Native lands comprise another 45 million acres. In
addition tribes control natural resources outside of reservations due
to federal court decisions and voluntary cooperative agreements, which
allow co-management status between tribes and states on more than 38
million acres. Climate change legislation that seeks to employ the
conservation of wildlife corridors as an adaptive management strategy
must work with Native American tribes to identify and protect wildlife
connectivity on lands and in waters under their management authority.
Congress should also explore ways to provide Native American tribes
with technical and financial resources necessary to develop and
implement plans to facilitate the survival of species throughout lands
that the tribes directly control or affect.
Support private land conservation
Often private lands are a critical component of many corridors and
therefore are crucial to maintain habitat connectivity. One such
opportunity for legislation would be to develop incentives within the
Land and Water Conservation Fund to target the conservation of
corridors and connectivity on private lands. Another would be for
climate change legislation to create incentives and financial support
to encourage willing land owners to manage their properties so they are
wildlife friendly and allow for the unencumbered passage of species
through their property in key areas. It may also be appropriate for
Congress to consider making permanent existing tax incentives that
encourage land conservation and habitat protection.
Provide new streams of federal funding
Given the immense challenges to protect wildlife in the face of
climate change throughout the nation, the federal government must lend
a financial hand to allow federal agencies, states, tribes and private
land owners to implement protections on behalf of habitat connectivity
and wildlife corridors. It would be appropriate to consider devoting
significant revenues generated by any future climate change legislation
to this purpose. In this regard, I applaud the U.S. House of
Representatives for your recent passage of the FY09 Omnibus
Appropriations bill which will fund a National Global Warming and
Wildlife Science Center and directs the Secretary of the Interior to
coordinate with other agencies in developing a national strategy to
assist the survival of wildlife and ecosystems in the face of global
warming. This legislation provides an excellent beginning to develop
new solutions for federal land and water management and creates
momentum for future endeavors on behalf of wildlife.
Conclusion
Climate change will challenge our ability to maintain our nation's
rich natural heritage. However, most agree that identifying and
protecting wildlife corridors and connectivity habitat is a key
adaptive management strategy worth pursuing. Freedom to Roam
appreciates being part of the growing effort of local, state and
national conservation organizations, and state and federal agencies,
who are working to ensure the long-term survival of America's fish and
wildlife. On behalf of Freedom to Roam, I thank you for the opportunity
to testify and look forward to working with the Subcommittee as it
develops legislation to fully achieve the protection of our nation's
wildlife.
Thank you.
______

Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Next, let me ask Ms. Lynn Jungwirth, Executive Director,
Watershed Research and Training Center. Welcome. I look forward
to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF LYNN JUNGWIRTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WATERSHED
RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTER, HAYFORK, CALIFORNIA

Ms. Jungwirth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very happy to
be here. I work with the forestry community folks around the
West, and we have been working on forest restoration on public
lands for many years.
I am here today to talk a little bit about Federal lands'
role in combating climate change and try to respond to your
challenge, at the opening, to talk about adaptation,
mitigation, and key laws.
So I have my written testimony, but I am just going to try
to respond to what you ask.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Ms. Jungwirth. So, adaptation; what are we doing to try to
adapt to this climate change?
I live in the Trinity Forest. It is a frequent fire forest.
We are seeing rapid change. We are converting to brush fields
on the southern slopes because once the forest burns, it cannot
seem to regenerate itself naturally.
So what are we trying to do? We are trying to put in a
series of strategic fuel breaks that would keep the fires
contained so that they never gain that speed and that intensity
they get as they get larger.
We are trying to work on the riparian areas because the
riparian areas are the areas that are moist enough to slow down
a slow-moving fire and to help you protect that.
We are trying to put fire buffers around the spotted owl
habitat that we are supposed to be protecting, and the coho
habitat in those forests where you have very steep mountains.
When the fire denudes the land, the ground, the erosion that
happens in the key coho habitat is pretty horrific, and it does
not just happen for one year; it goes on and on for years.
So we are working very hard on forest restoration to try to
deal with and to help the forest stay resilient in the face of
climate change.
In terms of climate mitigation, the greenhouse gas
mitigation, the forest fire that was in California last year;
the air quality board did a little study for us, and they
figure 84 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. So that is
12 million vehicle years.
So when they put carbon trading in to try to help cap-and-
trade carbon emissions, GOD is going to be having to come up
with billions of dollars every year. California wants to get to
a level of 427 million tons, 84 million tons in one year of
wildfire. How, in the world, can you affect the manmade carbon
and overcome that 20 percent?
So we have to mitigate it, and we have to slow down the
carbon from those fires. When we do that, our people are
putting those into wood pellets, and they are making
electricity with it.
There is a little guy up in Siskiyou County who has a
nursery. He made some wood pellets to burn for his nursery
heat. It gives him CO2-saturated air for his
nursery. He has got better plants. He took those pellets, used
pyrolysis, made some diesel. It is generating electricity. He
is generating electricity on a scale that you can move through
the local wires. A two-megawatt plant, two megawatts of power,
you can move through the local wires. You do not need huge, new
transmission lines.
So these are the people who are on the ground, who are
trying to be a world-class workforce to try to restore,
maintain, and protect the public lands.
So that is kind of where we are with adaptation and
mitigation. In terms of the key laws, we firmly believe that
the Organic Act, that NEPA, that the Multiple Use Act are so
out of date as to be the impediment.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jungwirth follows:]

Statement of Lynn Jungwirth, Executive Director of the Watershed
Center, Executive Director, Watershed Center, Hayfork, California

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to provide
testimony at this important hearing. My name is Lynn Jungwirth and I am
the Executive Director of the Watershed Center, a small community
forest organization in the town of Hayfork, which lies in the middle of
the Trinity National Forest in California. Since 1993, my organization
has worked at the nexus of healthy forests and healthy communities. I'm
privileged to work with the ``Rural Voices for Conservation
Coalition'', a group of over 40 organizations working in local
community forestry activities in the west. My organization is also a
member of the Nature Conservancy's ``Fire Learning Network'' designed
to help restore fire adapted ecosystems and create fire adapted
communities. My testimony will include both my experiences working in
the Trinity Forest and lessons from the broader experiences of my
colleagues who work in Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico
and Colorado. We have worked diligently over the past 15 years to
promote the hard work of restoration and stewardship of national forest
lands by doing the even harder work of multi-stake holder collaboration
and partnership with the federal agencies.
First, I'd like to thank you for taking leadership in acknowledging
and examining the natural resource aspects of climate change. Your
federal land communities have been proactive partners in figuring out
how to protect the conservation gains of the past 30 years in the face
of climate uncertainty. Rural communities and landscapes need your
attention in preparing for the impacts of climate change. And yet, they
can also play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Through this testimony, I attempt to offer lessons from rural
landscapes and communities regarding the role of national forests in
combating climate change.
Climate change discussions in the U.S. have been framed by the
approaches and agreements that came out of international negotiations
of the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change. These
approaches have been dominated by an urban, industrial perspective that
focuses on transportation, electricity generation, and large-scale
manufacturing as the major sources of anthropogenic (man-caused)
greenhouse gases and seeks to reduce emissions from those sources as
the pivotal strategies for combating climate change. The rural, natural
systems perspective is somewhat different, perhaps because rural
communities and landscapes are experiencing the ecological stresses of
climate change, including insect pandemics, intense wildfires, degraded
fisheries, invasive species, and ecosystem conversion at an observable
rate. We don't actually need the scientists to measure the change in
climate; we are living it. We see the changes on the landscapes, the
issues for forest management and policy, and we are helping develop
responses and solutions. However, the way we see the issues and the
solutions don't neatly fit the urban-industrial intellectual construct
or the existing policy mechanisms or carbon markets.
Urban citizens, of course, are experiencing the effects of climate
change in their communities--through increased temperatures, urban heat
islands, air conditioning bills, and air pollution--as well as through
increased stresses on their urban forests, primarily insects and
disease. Urban communities, however, will also experience the effects
of climate change on rural landscapes through reduction of water
quality and quantity, the growing taxpayers' burden of billion dollar
fire suppression costs, and the social costs of poverty in public land
communities. Urban citizens will soon experience the effects of climate
change policy or regulation in higher costs for energy and incentives
for energy efficiencies.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the
Kyoto Protocol did not address forests for various reasons, such as the
difficulty of measuring carbon flux in dynamic natural systems, the
long-term benefits of forest systems (relative to immediate benefits of
industrial technology change), and the political controversy over
whether forests should be included in carbon offset markets. Only
afforestation and reforestation were accepted in the initial Kyoto
protocol, while a later negotiation following Kyoto accepted forest
management improvements and most recently, avoided deforestation.
Progress on forests is being made through the protocol discussions
at the international level, as well as in various regional and state
protocol, such as those under the Chicago Climate Exchange and the
California Climate Action Registry. But the progress is slow and the
protocols are having difficulty addressing integrated forest
activities, such as thinning forests to reduce wildfire risk and using
the small-diameter woody by-products for community-scale bio-energy to
offset fossil fuels. Nor do the protocols know how to effectively deal
with the environmental and social ``co-benefits'' of forest activities.
While these co-benefits should be seen as providing additional value to
society, beyond the direct carbon benefits, they are difficult to
measure.
Due to the limited experience with carbon markets and accounting,
we are only beginning to learn how to do the hard work of ``full life-
cycle accounting.'' This life-cycle accounting is essential for the
carbon markets to function well and critical to helping illustrate that
the supply chains of many urban products come from rural economies and
rural soil, forests and grasslands.
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
There are five strategies outlined in the McKinsey and Co. 2007
report ``Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What
Cost?'' They are listed with their abatement potential:
1. Increasing energy efficiencies in building and appliances--710
to 870 megatons
2. Increasing fuel efficiency in vehicles and reducing carbon
intensity of transportation fuels--340 to 660 megatons
3. Pursuing various options across energy intensive portions of
the industrial sector--620-770 megatons
4. Expanding and enhancing carbon sinks--440 to 590 megatons
5. Reducing the carbon intensity of electric power production--800
to 1570 megatons
We can expand and enhance carbon sinks through stewardship
activities on public land. In fact, the McKinsey report offers active
management of our private forestlands as the least cost alternative
available to the United States. Healthy, resilient forests sequester
carbon. In the Trinities, we started 12 years ago, thinning overstocked
stands both for hazardous fuels reduction and to improve the quality of
the spotted owl habitat. Subsequent measurement has show increased
growth rates in the remaining trees. The carbon sink is increasing.
What is not so obvious is that forest restoration can also provide
biofuels for transportation, reduce carbon intensive energy use in the
industrial sector through combined head and power biomass plants, and
reduce the carbon intensity of electrical power by co-firing coal
plants with wood pellets and using woody biomass for electrical
generation (a common strategy in the European Union). Four of the five
strategies in the McKinsey and Co. report can be addressed through
forest stewardship activities.
Climate Change and Wildfire: Social, economic and environment issues
There is no discussion in the McKinsey and Co. report on the GHG
emissions from wildfire. However, some studies suggest wildfire and
forest burning account for about 30% of global GHG emissions. Here in
the United States, we average about 100,000 wildfire starts a year.
About 50% of those are from human activity, about 50% from lightning.
The precise quantification of GHG emissions from wildfire is still in
debate. The California North Coast Air Quality Management District used
Air Resources Board methodology to estimate the GHG emissions from two
fire events in Trinity County--the 2002 Megram Fire (100,000 acres) and
the 2008 Trinity Fire Complexes (200,000 acres). The estimates were 1.5
million vehicle year equivalents for the Megram Fire and 2 million
vehicle years for the 2008 Trinity Fire. Vehicle years provides an
urban frame for GHG emissions. For rural communities, however, the
frame is weeks of smoke so thick you can't see across the street,
increased chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in our elders,
salmon streams full of sediment, rivers and ponds filled with debris,
the decline of our tourism/recreation industry, the loss of our
precious timber resources, and, this year, the death of 11
firefighters. These are not the fires of our childhood when low
intensity fires would ``skunk around'' in the undergrowth, herded by
local ranchers and the Forest Service. Those fires were fires of
renewal. Today's fires are those of ecological, social and economic
destruction.
The Trinity Forest
The Trinity Forest is in the Northwest Forest Plan for the Recovery
of the Spotted Owl. The primary driver of management activities in the
Trinity Forest is preserving biodiversity, especially those species
associated with old growth forests. The Spotted Owl plan led to a
dramatic reduction in logging and the subsequent destruction of our
economy (today the unemployment rate in Hayfork is 21.3%). At that
time,(the early 1990s) the theory was that a forest protected from
logging and a landscape of reserves and corridors would protect the
species. Today, Jerry Franklin and Norm Thompson, the architects of
that plan, encourage management in these vulnerable dry forests to
reduce fire intensity and protect old growth forests. Their subsequent
studies have shown increasing die-off in old growth stands due to
changed hydrology. In 15 short years, climate change has dramatically
changed strategies for endangered species recovery and old growth
protection.
The forest restoration activities done today in the Trinity Forest
are often called hazardous fuels reduction, but are actually much more
sophisticated than a simple fuels prescription. Care is taken to
enhance wildlife habitat, protect fire resistant trees, and minimize
soil compaction and disturbance. Experience (and science) has taught us
that the initial thinning must be followed by a prescribed fire and the
area must be maintained by periodic burnings overtime. While these
thinning and burning activities themselves produce some CO2
equivalents, recent studies indicate that such pre-treatments can
reduce the CO2 equivalent emissions of intensive wildfire by
up to 70% in some stands.
There is still much debate among the scientific community as to the
carbon abatement values of such forest management (because of the
carbon released during the thinning and prescribed burn and the
uncertainty about whether treated areas will actually experience
wildfire within a number of years). However, there is little debate
(and significant evidence) that such treatments reduce the intensity
and often stop, wildfires.
There is, likewise, debate regarding the removal of fire-killed
vegetation after one of these fire events. The concern is that such
``logging'' negatively impacts the soil carbon and soil productivity.
The people of Trinity County have now experienced ``re-burns'' in areas
where fire-killed trees were not removed after the 1987 and 2000 fires.
When stands of fire-killed trees dry for 8-20 years and then burn
again, the fire is intense and resistant to control. The soil
volatilizes along with the trees. There is no question that nearly 90%
percent of the tree carbon and most of the soil carbon is released in
this second burn. Ecosystem conversion often follows. The forest moves
back to meadows, then brush fields and then, burning again, remain in
brush. In the words of Tom Jimmerson, an experienced forest ecologist
who lived and worked in the Trinity Mountains and Coast Ranges of
California for years, after studying a re-burn in the Siskiyou
Mountains, ``We just blasted this area back to the stone age.'' Some
have said it would take significant investment in rehabilitating these
sites, once they have been converted, if we want to reforest them.
A few cases studies were examined in a 2007 report for the
California Energy Commission. In ``Biomass to Energy: Forest management
for wildfire reduction, energy production, and other benefits'' the
authors (Ganz, et al) modeled thinning, transporting, and converting
biomass into electrical power in the Sierras and compared those models
to the ``no-treatment'' models. Their findings show clear life cycle
climate change benefits, including a 65 percent net reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions. They also show a 22 percent reduction in the
number of acres burned by wildfire and a dramatic drop in fire
severity, showing a $246 million savings in wildfire damage and $13
million in fire suppression costs. They predict that even greater
reductions could be anticipated by strategically locating thinning
projects in areas of high hazard. They also showed that about $1.58
billion in power revenues, assuming an 8.3 cent kilowatt hour with a
negligible amount of fossil fuel consumed in the harvest and production
of that power.
This study points to the cross sectoral benefits of federal forest
restoration: Jobs, renewable energy, reduced fire suppression costs,
reduced resource damage and protection of wildlife habitat and carbon
sinks. It helps us begin to put a frame of ``ecosystem services''
around federal land management. I believe it is this larger frame
(which will include climate change mitigation) that should and will be
the driver for federal land management for the foreseeable future.
Carbon Markets
For the purpose of carbon markets, there is great uncertainty
regarding forests in general and their ``quantify-ability'' regarding
carbon. The scientific community is careful to bracket their numbers
regarding forest ecosystem carbon above and below ground with the
caveat ``within the limits of current measurements''. Likewise,
estimates of fire CO2 emissions are hampered by our lack of
knowledge about carbon deposition, rates of atmospheric vs. soil
incorporation of dead wood carbon, ``real'' soil loss, among other more
esoteric topics. Undoubtedly, numerous conventions for forest carbon
and forest carbon emissions from wildfire will abound over the next few
years as better minds than mine tease out these important details. The
CCAR in California is taking the lead on this and their work is
enlightened and inspiring.
In most cap-and-trade approaches, forests do not fall under the
cap, but they are still very important as ``sinks'' that sequester and
store carbon and as ``sources'' that emit carbon (through wildfires,
conversion, certain management actions, and mortality). Forest projects
that sequester and store carbon or reduce emissions have been
considered as carbon offset projects, but appropriate protocol for
forest-sector offsets have been difficult to agree upon, partially
because of the technical difficulty in applying ``industrial'' protocol
to natural or biological systems and partially because of disagreement
among policy interests. However, protocol such as the CCAR are moving
forward through transparent, multi-stakeholder, working group
processes. Currently, forest project options are limited to
reforestation, conservation management, and avoided conversion, but the
working group is trying to develop accounting approaches for
appropriately quantifying carbon in harvested wood products.
One of the major protocol challenges is trying to account for the
emissions benefits of integrated, cross-sectoral projects, such as
forest restoration projects that enhance forest health, reduce wildfire
risk and emissions, and provide woody fuels for bioenergy that offsets
fossil fuels. (Interestingly, the CCAR has been able to agree to Urban
Forest Protocol, but only allow the carbon directly sequestered in
trees to be counted, not the avoided emissions associated with the
well-documented energy conservation benefits achieved through shading
homes and buildings.)
In addition, beyond carbon offset markets, attention is needed to
develop forest management strategies that will: 1) help forests and
communities adapt to the unavoidable effects of climate change; (We
need to do vulnerability assessments at appropriate scales and help
communities and agencies understand the management steps we need to
take to keep our forests as forests.) and 2) help develop carbon
mitigation strategies that public and private landowners can take to
manage their forests in ways that will increase sequestration and
storage or reduce emissions--even though they may not meet the same
protocol being developed by the offsets markets.
Federal policy frameworks (e.g., cap-and-trade) that promote the
establishment and trading of carbon credits through markets can help
support rural communities. Such frameworks can stimulate
entrepreneurial activity and encourage investment in forest-sector
projects that provide credible and verifiable carbon benefits, while
also enhancing ecosystem services and providing economic development
opportunities for rural communities. It is critical, however, for these
policy frameworks to:
1. encourage broad and diverse participation in forest-sector
offset projects,
2. ensure that project scale enhances environmental and community
economic gains,
3. maintain the sustainability of natural resources for future
generations, and
4. benefit local communities.
The Cost (and benefits) of Carbon
We believe a cap-and-trade system and markets for carbon trading
are coming. Our vision is a system of Payment for Ecosystem Services
(PES) of which carbon is but one service. We know that water--another
major ecosystem service--is on the horizon as a policy issue with
potentially huge market values and policy implications. We are also
exploring information on ``rights-based conservation.'' However, those
systems are in their infancy and the imperative of climate change
effects on our forests are now. So today the great question is the
source of the money to pay for federal forest restoration. The by-
products of forest restoration and hazardous fuels treatments have
little market value to date, largely due to uncertainty of supply.
Carbon offset markets:
Voluntary markets for carbon offsets, such as the CCAR, will
provide additional revenue opportunities to private landowners, as
these markets evolve and begin to function effectively. (Market
function has a learning curve, as has been learned largely because of
the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Private landowners
will look for innovative ways to participate in these carbon markets,
particularly as market credibility grows and as protocol for broad and
clear participation is improved.
The RVCC also encourages the participation of public lands in
carbon offset markets, so we are pleased to see the recent revision
(December 2008) of the CCAR Forest Protocol to allow this. It must be
clear, however, that public lands also need additional funding, beyond
carbon offsets, for climate change adaptation and mitigation
strategies, as discussed below.
Beyond Offset Markets
For the past ten years, the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition
has brought to congress two fairly detailed discussions: 1) a line-item
by line-item analysis of an integrated forest restoration budget, and
2) a proposal for performance measures and accountability that would
lead to integrated forest restoration implementation. Moving from
appropriated dollars to payment for ecosystem services will take time,
but help to foster an investment in services that will contribute to
resilient communities and landscapes, while also reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.
Traditional appropriations:
The annual appropriations for the federal land management agencies
should continue to support the missions and programs of the agencies,
while focusing on how to integrate climate change and other ecosystem
services issues and developments into these programs. This is a
strategic set of issues for the agencies and policymakers. One day,
perhaps, we will see a line item dedicated to integrated restoration
with clear direction for its use.
Values/Revenues from Emission Allowances:
Policymakers should also include a portion of the revenues
generated through the allocation or auction of emission allowances
under a cap-and-trade system to the forestry programs noted in the RVCC
priorities. Forests and natural landscapes represent an important part
of our national carbon emissions flux, and they do not fit easily into
the urban-industrial framework for carbon offset markets under cap-and-
trade. They need additional sources of funding to address the threats
of climate change, to capture the mitigation opportunities, and to
recognize the essential co-benefits provided by forest-sector projects.
Forest Restoration and Rural Green Jobs
For the past 15 years, my organization and others like it have
operated federal forest restoration and hazardous fuels programs. The
job creation potential of federal land stewardship and restoration is
tremendous. The proper investment of those dollars can create a world
class, highly skilled, knowledge based workforce. Management for
ecosystem services is knowledge intensive and requires a workforce
committed to place.
Those jobs and skills include:
Ecosystem surveys and data collection;
data analysis;
GIS analysis tools;
collaborative facilitation;
road stabilization;
road removal;
in-stream habitat improvement;
wildlife habitat improvement;
riparian protection structures;
boundary line surveys;
forest thinning;
prescribed burning; and
effectiveness monitoring.
This highly skilled ``restoration'' workforce can also be cross-
trained for fire fighting, increasing the number of locally available,
skilled workers for initial attack in fire emergencies. The restoration
workforce will be able to put fuels treatments on the landscape to pre-
prepare for fire suppression activities and thereby reduce the costs of
fire suppression. They will also help in determining the proper use of
fire during the year, and help implement those decisions.
Restoring the federal forests of the west, in order to protect and
enhance carbon sinks and to make the forest more resilient in the face
of climate change has other benefits to rural economies as well. The
by-products of forest management (brush, smaller trees, etc.) can
provide fuel to replace fossil fuels. But, scale is the issue. A
network of small, community-scaled combined heat and energy plants will
not require huge investments in transmission lines (up to 3MW of power
can be transmitted over local lines). Such facilities also allow a
community to diversify its economy, adding dry-kilns, green-houses and
other heat users.
Likewise, as more local renewable power becomes available and as
forested landscapes remains green and healthy, other green economy
sectors may more eagerly locate in rural America. They will not
relocate so easily to a landscape that looks like an ashtray. But,
public policy must deliberately limit the scale and the ownership of
these facilities. We have seen devastation in local communities from
wood energy plants. In the North Eastern United States, for example,
large wood pellet facilities replaced aging pulp mills. Not only did
these 300,000 ton facilities monopolize the market for local wood, but
the pellets were shipped to Europe for co-firing in coal plants. The
locals were left with no ownership of the business, less diversity in
their economic system, less fire wood for their own heating, and they
were not allowed to purchase pellets from the facility. Similar plants
are being built in the South West and in my home state of California.
After a forest burns in a stand replacing fire, the adjacent
community loses many economic options. When the 1987 fires burned
67,000 acres in the Trinity Forest we recomputed the ``allowable sale
quantity''. It dropped from roughly 160 mmbf to roughly 40 mmbf. There
are few stewardship opportunities in a fire-killed forest, aside from
the erosion control efforts immediately after the fire. If the forest
is federal, the fire-killed fuels are currently not removed, new trees
are not planted, and the land is left to recover without the hand of
man. So the community is left with no forest to manage and no forest
products for decades. It is in our best interest, for many reasons, to
help the forest accommodate fire, and not succumb to it.
Our rural federal lands communities are among the most vulnerable
to climate change impacts. Not only is our landscape changing before
our eyes, but when the markets kick in, we will disproportionately feel
the weight of higher energy markets because our options will be more
limited. Higher gas and diesel prices cannot push us to mass transit
where no such systems exist. When higher electrical costs encourage
increasing the energy efficiency of our homes, tax credits will only
incentivize those who pay significant taxes. We are asking for a better
solution for rural America. Help us be energy independent. Help us turn
our forest thinnings into biofuels, heat and electricity. Help our
contractors and workers access the work in the woods that improves the
carbon sink and protects our forests from fire, insects, and disease.
Help us create a network of community scale production facilities for
wood pellets and wood energy.
Beyond the Trinity Forest
Community groups throughout the west have been working against the
odds to restore America's forests. We helped forge the agreements that
led to the National Fire Plan. That agreement included five strategies:
Fire Suppression, Forest Restoration (pre-fire and post fire),
Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Community Assistance, and Accountability.
This integrated approach, which honors all the ecosystem services
of the forest, including the service fire can provide, must be the
basis of national climate policy as well. It speaks to the larger issue
of maintaining our truly ``green'' infrastructure. Through our work
with endless local collaborative groups we have learned that the social
process is the key to creating good solutions and meaningful agreement
regarding forest restoration.
The role of federal lands in combating climate change can be a
national policy decision. How to achieve that, while maintaining
habitat and economies, must be figured out and agreed to at the ground
level. Top down will not work in this instance.
National policy addressing climate change, currently being
developed in Congress will have dramatic effects on rural communities
and landscapes. Specific components of national climate change policy,
such as how resources are prioritized, credit allocation or
distribution, offset eligibility, or the opportunity to participate in
emerging markets will affect rural communities and landscapes.
Therefore, rural communities should have a role in the collaborative
development of those policies. Because of the current uneven playing
field between urban/industrial perspectives and rural/natural systems
perspectives, there are a few principles we'd like you to consider:
1. Federal and state governments should foster the development and
dissemination of reliable climate change information and tools to help
build public understanding of the issues. Governments should especially
help rural communities develop climate change assessments, strategies,
plans, and monitoring schemes. We need to learn together and change
together.
2. Federal and state climate change policies must ensure that low-
income and other vulnerable populations receive assistance with climate
change impacts. Needs of the rural poor may be significantly different
that those of urban low-income areas.
3. Federal and state strategies for public and private forest land
management should integrate climate change considerations within
collaborative, landscape-scale restoration efforts.
4. Markets for forest carbon-offsets and ecosystem services should
encourage broad and diverse participation, provide access and
opportunity for rural communities, and clearly address issues related
to project scale, sustainability, and benefits to local communities.
5. Federal and state climate change policies should provide
technical and financial assistance to rural communities for capacity
building and workforce training to implement both adaptation and
mitigation strategies.
Ending Statement
So why should the federal government play a role in helping to
address these challenges? And how should you proceed? The lands
surrounding these communities are in dire need of integrated
management, and there is an opportunity right now, though the
investment of economic stimulus dollars, the development of new
legislation around fire suppression and climate change, and the
significant investment in renewable energy in the United States to
think critically and act deliberately in ensuring that actions on
federal land are playing a role in climate change adaptation and
mitigation.
Climate change and the physical risks of climate change has led us
to reconsider all of our federal forest management decisions and
strategies on the Trinity Forest. The Trinity Forest is a nice little
forest. It is over a million and a half acres in the Klamath Knot, one
of the most biologically diverse areas on the planet. Please don't
manage it for carbon. Manage it to be resilient. Manage it to prepare
for the impacts of climate change. Manage it to be here for another 400
years. If you do, the carbon sink will come. The GHG emissions from
wildfire will drop. The biofuels can be developed. The renewable energy
will be developed and sustained. The owl and the coho will have a
chance at survival. And so will we.
______

Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Our last panelist, Mr. Forrest McCarthy, Public Lands
Director, Winter Wildlands Alliance. Welcome, and I look
forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF FORREST McCARTHY, PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR, WINTER
WILDLANDS ALLIANCE, TETON VILLAGE, WYOMING

Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am Forrest McCarthy. I live in Jackson Hole in
the Great State of Wyoming, and I am the Public Lands Director
of Winter Wildlands Alliance, and I have been an Alpine
Mountain and backcountry ski guide for almost 20 years.
During my travels, I have become the first person to set
foot on B-15, the largest iceberg ever recorded, near the Ross
Ice Shelf in Antarctica. As a physical geographer, I studied
how rapidly warming temperatures are transforming land cover in
arctic Alaska.
Today, I am testifying on behalf of the Outdoor Alliance, a
coalition of six national, member-based organizations that
represent the interests of millions of Americans who climb,
hike, paddle, mountain bike, backcountry ski, and snowshoe in
our nation's public lands, waters, and snowscapes.
Not unlike indicator species, human-powered, outdoor
pursuits can be seen as ``indicator activities'' because we are
some of the first people to experience the impacts of climate
change on our public lands.
A personal loss for me is the legendary Black Ice Couloir
on the northwest face of the Grand Teton. Today, due to warming
temperatures, all of that ice is now gone, and future
generations of mountaineers will never have the opportunity to
ascend one of the most renowned alpine climbs in North America.
Our community's self-interest in combating climate change
is couple with the insight on how Federal lands can help us
meet this challenge, and we are honored to share those with you
today.
First, Federal lands must facilitate ecosystem adaptation
that protects flora and fauna but also takes into account the
human aspects of the landscape. Adaptation policy should
include preserving and protecting large tracts of open space,
much of it on Federal land. Our system of national trails, and
the critical open space through which they run, from the
Appalachian Trail to the Pacific Crest Trails, is a model of
how this can be achieved.
Taking care of our ecosystems must take precedence over how
we enjoy and profit from them, but there is an argument for
conceptualizing adaptation goals and policies a little more
broadly. Because the ecosystems mean something to people, our
adaptation policy should take into account how climate change
will impact Federal lands as these lands relate to sustainable
human uses, including the associated impacts to the outdoor
recreation economy.
Second, Federal lands must simultaneously be protected as
carbon sinks and thoughtfully developed for renewable energy.
Federal lands contain millions of acres of forests and
grasslands, so they not only store carbon but also remove it
from the atmosphere. Federal lands can thus be used to combat
climate change by maximizing the amount of forest and
grassland.
We support a portfolio approach to land designation that
includes wilderness areas, national scenic areas, national
recreation areas, and, especially, open-space designations in
close proximity to population centers.
To adequately reduce carbon emissions, alternative energy
sources and technologies must be developed and pursued on
Federal land. While the outdoor community welcomes the
development of clean, renewable energy, we insist that this
path is pursued in a balanced manner that takes into account
other aspects and values of Federal land.
An example of this balance is the Federal Power Act's
equal-consideration clause. When rivers are developed for
hydropower, the equal-consideration clause ensures that the
needs of fish and wildlife are addressed, recreational
opportunities of the river are provided, and local communities'
needs are considered.
The role for Federal land is thus to aggressively combat
the increase in atmospheric carbon but not at the expense of
other inherent values of the land.
Third, healthy Federal land is our common ground and can
unify all Americans for the present and future challenges
associated with combating climate change.
Stabilizing our climate will require change and sacrifice,
but there must be some social rewards woven into the plan to
assure that the public is vested in the effort over the long
term.
Healthy public lands provide a tangible benefit for our
sacrifices and commitment to protecting our climate. Our public
lands provide the opportunity for Americans to stay connected
to the natural world, and, through this connection, we will
have the commitment and collective endurance to achieve this
goal of stabilizing our climate.
In conclusion, we believe that facilitating ecosystem
adaptation, protecting carbon sinks while supporting careful,
renewable energy development, and motivating long-term public
support for these challenges through enhanced Federal lands can
be pursued in a manner where they can co-exist and complement
each other.
When climbing North America's highest mountain, Mount
McKinley, climbers make momentous sacrifices. The climb is
expensive, grueling, and dangerous, yet, every year, over a
thousand aspiring summiteers embrace the challenge, yet, every
year, fear, tempered with planning and commitment, the
suffering, with the splendor of the view from the top of North
America, like climbing Mount McKinley, the road to a stable
climate will be challenging and committing. There is a great
deal of fear from inaction, but we have a great deal to gain by
being thoughtful, decisive, and doing this right.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCarthy follows:]

Statement of Forrest McCarthy, Outdoor Alliance

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am Forrest McCarthy. I live in Jackson Hole, Wyoming and I am the
Public Lands Director of Winter Wildlands Alliance. I also serve on the
Teton County Planning Commission, and have been an alpine mountain and
backcountry ski guide for almost twenty years. As a mountain guide, I
have had the privilege to spend a great deal of time in places like
Antarctica, South America, Alaska and my home state of Wyoming.
During my travels I became the first person to set foot on B-15,
the largest iceberg ever recorded, near the Ross Shelf in Antarctica.
My time in the Polar Regions later inspired me to earn a master's
degree in physical geography from the University of Wyoming, where I
studied how rapidly warming temperatures transform arctic Alaskan land
cover. By replicating historic photographs I documented not only the
recession of glaciers, but also the thawing of permafrost and
advancement of shrubs, tundra, and tree cover.
Today, I am testifying on behalf of the Outdoor Alliance, a
coalition of six national, member-based organizations devoted to
conservation and stewardship of our nation's public lands and waters
through responsible human-powered outdoor recreation. Outdoor Alliance
includes: Access Fund, American Canoe Association, American Hiking
Society American Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling
Association, and Winter Wildlands Alliance and represents the interests
of the millions Americans who hike, paddle, climb, backpack, mountain
bike, backcountry ski and snowshoe on our nation's public lands, waters
and snowscapes.
Not unlike indicator species, human-powered outdoor pursuits can be
seen as ``indicator activities'' with respect to climate change because
we are some of the first people to experience the impacts of climate
change on our public lands. Declining snowpack shortens ski and
snowshoe seasons, makes alpine climbing more dangerous and can
eliminate ice climbing altogether. Less snowpack also means less water
in our creeks, rivers and lakes for paddling. Higher temperatures and
prolonged droughts create severe imbalances in forest, alpine, desert,
and river ecosystems that stress native species and degrade the quality
of the outdoor recreation. One of the results of this imbalance,
increased wildfire activity, directly impacts pursuits such as rock
climbing, hiking and mountain biking and our collective ability to
enjoy public lands.
A personal loss for me is the legendary, Black Ice Couloir, a
challenging ice climb high on the northwest face of the Grand Teton.
Today, due to warming temperatures, all the ice is gone and future
generations of mountaineers will never have the opportunity to attempt
one of the most renowned alpine climbs in North America.
The outdoor community's interest in climate protection is
axiomatic--the places where we conduct our outdoor pursuits and that
support the $730 billion annual outdoor recreation economy are
imperiled by a warming climate. Our self interest in combating climate
change, however, is coupled with some distinct insight as to how our
federal lands can help us meet this challenge, and we are honored to be
able to share these insights with you today.
As of late, it seems that the primary role of federal lands in
combating climate change is to passively provide evidence of not only
the existence of climate change, but also the rapidity with which it is
taking place. We envision a more proactive, three-part role for federal
lands in combating climate change.
I. Federal Lands Must Facilitate an Ecosystem Adaptation Policy That
Protects Flora And Fauna, but Also Takes into Account the Human
Aspects of Federal Lands
In prior Congresses, both chambers generated thoughtful legislative
approaches to climate protection. Wisely, some of these approaches
directed towards ecosystem protection some of the revenues from market-
based efforts to cap and reduce carbon. As we understand it, adaptation
is the portfolio of efforts to counteract the effects of a warming
climate on ecosystems and the flora and fauna therein.
Federal lands are where much ecosystem adaptation activity will
take place, and federal land management agencies will likely play a
material role in designing and implementing adaptation policy.
Adaptation policy should include preserving large tracts of open space
through a pragmatic approach ranging from protective federal
designation to voluntary conservation easements. Adaptation must also
include physical structures and land management techniques to
facilitate migration and land use planning that puts a premium on
contiguous open space. Our system of national trails and the critical
open space through which they run, from the Appalachian Trail to the
Continental Divide and the Pacific Crest Trails, may very well assist
in this objective.
A universal aspect of human-powered outdoor pursuits is that they
take place outdoors in a context that includes not only the topography
and gradient of a given place, but the flora and fauna as well. The
ecosystem is not merely the setting for our pursuits; it is the very
substrate. Taking care of the ecosystem must take precedence over how
we enjoy and profit from it. We say this without qualification given
the longstanding conservation and stewardship ethic in the outdoor
community. This said, we also think there is an argument for
conceptualizing adaptation goals and policies a little more broadly.
Long before people recognized the idea of an ecosystem, individual
parts were honored through everything from creation myths and totem
poles to the landscapes of the Hudson River School artists and our
government's foresight in creating a National Park System almost 100
years ago. In addition to being the home to plants and animals,
ecosystems and landscapes mean something to people, particularly to
Americans. We suggest that as adaptation policy is developed and
implemented, some consideration is given to how climate change will
impact federal lands, waters and snowscapes as they relate to
sustainable human uses. Consideration should include not only human-
powered recreation uses, but also the associated economic impacts to
the outdoor recreation economy and other traditional uses such as
hunting, fishing and wildlife enjoyment.
This concept was explored last Congress in the Leiberman-Warner
Climate Security Act of 2008, S. 3036, where a provision specifically
directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to take into
account ``the potential to provide enhanced access to land and waters
for fishing, hunting, and other public recreational uses'' when making
spending decisions for adaptation purposes. S. 3036, 110th Cong.
Sec. 4702(c)(4) (2008). We encourage both chambers to further explore
this concept as it develops climate protection legislation in this
Congress.
II. Federal Lands Must Simultaneously Be Protected As Carbon Sinks And
Thoughtfully Developed For Renewable Energy
Federal Lands as Carbon Sinks
Our federal lands contain millions of acres of forests and
grasslands. As trees, plants and other organic material not only store
carbon, but remove it from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, we
think that another critical role federal lands can play in combating
climate change is maximizing, to the extent practicable, the amount of
forest land, both old growth and reforested areas.
Protecting and enhancing forest carbon sinks can be pursued in a
number of ways, but primarily through land designations and strategic
acquisitions that protect existing forests and reduce development
sprawl. We support a portfolio approach to land designation that
includes wilderness areas, national scenic areas, national recreational
areas, and especially open space designations in close proximity to
population centers. These goals need not wait for climate protection
legislation, but could be achieved, in part, by permanently protecting
inventoried roadless areas in the Forest System, passing the Omnibus
Public Land Management Act of 2008, and reauthorizing the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act before it expires in 2010.
In addition to the protective designations and strategic
acquisitions of federal land itself, there may be a role for federal
land management agencies to facilitate or encourage the protection of
state and private forestland for its carbon sink attributes.
Thoughtful Renewable Energy Development
Despite the great assistance forested federal lands provide in
climate change mitigation from their natural function, such mitigation
will not offset man-made carbon emissions enough to protect the
climate. To adequately reduce carbon emissions, alternative energy
sources and technologies must be developed and much of this development
will take place on federal land. While the outdoor community heartily
welcomes the chance to reduce the nation's reliance on energy sources
and technologies that damage our climate, we insist that this path is
pursued in a manner that takes into account other aspects and values of
federal land. Given the scale of renewable energy projects needed to
adequately deal with climate protection, the landscape impact of
renewable energy projects, including solar arrays, wind farms (and the
necessary transmission lines) may very well dwarf the landscape impacts
of traditional energy projects.
As evidenced by our nation's current hardrock mining policy, when a
single use of federal land is generally allowed to trump all other
uses, the costs will eventually outweigh the benefits (especially if
the policy is essentially left in place for 137 years). Thankfully,
there are other federal laws on the books that balance the multiple
uses of federal land more evenly, such as the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. Sec. 791a, et. seq. In outlining the powers of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to issue licenses for the
construction of hydropower projects, the statute requires FERC to:
[G]ive equal consideration to the purposes of energy
conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and
enhancement of, fish and wildlife (including related spawning
grounds and habitat), the protection of recreational
opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of
environmental quality.
Federal Power Act Sec. 797(e), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 791a (2008).
The practical effect of the equal consideration language, and the
fact that hydropower projects are subject to a fixed term of 30 to 50
years, is that FERC must balance power and non-power values in their
decision process. When rivers are developed for hydropower, mitigation
measures ensure that the needs of fish and wildlife are addressed,
recreational opportunities on the river are provided, and local
communities' needs are considered. In other cases where ecosystem and
recreation values outweigh the value of the river for hydropower
development, projects are not constructed or in some cases removed at
the end of their license term.
The outdoor community believes that analogous language to the
Federal Power Act's equal consideration clause should be used to guide
the pending development of alternative and renewable energy projects on
federal land. We also believe that this language may be appropriate for
other endeavors to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, such as
subterranean carbon sequestration, or other yet to be developed
engineering techniques. The role for federal land is thus to
aggressively combat the increase in atmospheric carbon, but not at the
expense of the other inherent values of the land.
Aside from legislative direction, we also feel that it is incumbent
upon all public lands user communities, from recreation communities to
the businesses that rely on federal lands, to work directly and
proactively with the renewable energy community. We believe this effort
should develop common ground, and possibly some best management
practices for assuring that renewable energy production and
transmission can coexist with other sustainable uses of federal public
land.
III. Healthy Federal Land is Our Common Ground and Can Unify All
Americans for the Present and Future Challenges Associated with
Combating Climate Change
Climate change is typically framed in dramatic and sobering terms.
Currents of fear and guilt associated with an energy-intensive
existence permeate much of the conversation, and there is great anxiety
not only over the changes to the natural world, but the anticipated
changes to the American economy and way of life. Though fear can be an
excellent motivator in the short term, too much of it can lead to
fatalism and apathy. Climate protection legislation is really only one
of the first steps in a nation-wide effort that will last for decades.
Fear must be tempered with hope and the expectation that there will be
some positive developments along the way.
When climbing North America's highest mountain, Mount McKinley,
climbers make momentous sacrifices. Ascending McKinley is expensive,
long, grueling, and dangerous. Yet every year over a thousand aspiring
summiteers embrace the challenge. When climbing McKinley it is critical
that climbers respect the mountain and understand the inherent risks
involved. However, if an expedition exercises careful planning, good
judgment, team work, effective communication, acute awareness, and
commitment, the risks can be managed and the goal of reaching the
summit obtained. Like climbing McKinley, the road to a stable climate
will be challenging and committing; we must not be fearful, but rather
thoughtful, careful and decisive.
Stabilizing our climate will require change and sacrifice, but
there must be some public rewards woven into the plan to assure the
public remains vested in this critical effort over the long term.
Healthy public lands provide a tangible reward for our sacrifices and
commitment to protecting our climate and the ecosystems that depend on
it. Public lands provide citizens with the opportunity to view
wildlife, play in the rivers and snow, test one's skills on a steep
rock or a single track, and experience first-hand the natural world.
The importance of our public lands transcends their value as refuge for
wildlife or as natural carbon sinks, they are the refuges for people as
well. Our public lands provide the opportunity for Americans to stay
connected to the natural world. Only through this connection will we
have the commitment and collective endurance to achieve the goal of
stabilizing our climate.
Conclusion
As Congress pursues this daunting, but profoundly necessary
legislative effort; Outdoor Alliance encourages a central role of
science and perhaps a new level of bureaucratic flexibility to better
cope with the interrelated nature of the challenges ahead.
Because different parcels of federal lands are managed according to
the priorities and peculiarities of the different land management
agencies' organic acts, there is some utility in exploring new ways
that the federal land management agencies can work collaboratively on
climate protection. Likewise, we believe that the three roles for
federal lands outlined in this testimony--facilitating ecosystem
adaptation, protecting carbon sinks while supporting careful renewable
energy development, and motivating long-term public support for the
associated challenges, should be pursued in a manner where they can
coexist and complement each other.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee.
______

Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Let me ask a couple of questions. Mr. Ridgeway, going back
and referencing that fourth point about the involvement of
private landowners in the process of identification and
development of corridors, the discussion today has been about
public lands, but the question is, how should private
landowners be involved and connected to this process that you
pointed out that they are an essential part of as well?
Mr. Ridgeway. Yes. As you point out, Mr. Chairman, private
landowners will be very essential to the protection of wildlife
corridors because, of course, so many of those corridors are on
private lands, and I think we will be discovering, with more
clarity, just where those overlaps are as we begin this process
of identifying further all of the wildlife corridors in the
United States and across North America.
Our coalition wants to bring tools to the table, tools that
can be used by private landowners to allow them to continue to
live and ranch on those lands but do it in ways that are
consistent with long-term survival needs of wildlife, and
tools, such as conservation easements, are very useful toward
those goals. And we want to work together collaboratively, as a
broad-based group, again, to bring the resources to the table
that can be used, in that case, by private landowners to,
again, ranch, maintain, and manage their properties in ways
consistent with the wild animals that are on them.
Mr. Grijalva. Are there particular wildlife corridors that
Freedom To Roam can identify now?
Mr. Ridgeway. Yes. There are many, and they come in two
different categories. There are corridors that migrating
animals use to get from A to B seasonally. There are also
corridors that nonmigrating animals use to get between their
different populations, which, if cut off, ruin those
populations, as you saw on that map with the lynx.
Perhaps one of the best known and identified and understood
corridors in the United States is the path of the pronghorn
that I showed you briefly in our presentation, and that one is
well known because wildlife biologists have collared animals
and followed them as they have gone from beginning to end on
that corridor, and they know the boundaries and the measure of
it very accurately.
Interestingly, that corridor crosses public lands. It
starts in a national park. It then goes across the bridge at
Teton National Forest. It then enters into private lands, and
most of those are ranches, but some of those ranches have
already been subdivided, forcing the animals into the forest,
where they prefer not to go.
Antelope, because of their predators, like to stay in the
open. They have eyes that can see for miles, and they hate
going in the trees, and that path of the pronghorn corridor has
almost been permanently disrupted because of two subdivisions
of ranch lands that, given the resources, might have been able
to avoid that subdivision, and that is, again, the resource
that we want to bring to the table for private landowners.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. McCarthy, the public lands are
being called upon to help address our energy needs. Part of
this whole discussion in the Full Committee and this
Subcommittee will be the calls for increased oil and gas
extraction and also the creation of a new capacity for nuclear
energy production, which involves uranium mining near places
like the Grand Canyon, for instance. But there is also
discussion about creating a balance between the extraction/
protection side of this question.
The user groups you represent, the outdoor industry that
you represent; how would you define that balance?
Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I think the best model for
that, as I mentioned earlier, is the Federal Power Act, with
the equal-consideration clause, that was used on rivers, and,
taking into account the history of damming rivers, that, in
future river projects for energy, other attributes, including
ecological recreation, need to be considered.
I also think a good model is to look at these things
proactively. I know there is an organization in Wyoming called
the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, which has already, in a
Geographic Information System (GIS), mapped out all of the
important areas for wildlife in the State of Wyoming and then
overlaid with wind potential to say, these are the areas that
have critical wildlife value and are not appropriate for wind
development. These are areas that we need to proceed
cautiously, and these are the areas where they do not have any
conflict.
Mr. Grijalva. Regulatory and statutory changes; would that
be part of the equation in developing balance?
Mr. McCarthy. Well, you asked, earlier in the hearing,
appropriate of NEPA, and I think, you know, in consideration of
those projects where environmental assessment of these
projects, is it an appropriate application of that?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Ms. Jungwirth, you mentioned your
experience in your community of Trinity. Could you talk to us
about the impacts that you have seen of climate change that you
have witnessed on Federal lands from that very close
perspective that you have?
Ms. Jungwirth. Sure. We have seen the size of fires move
from a 100-acre fire to a 200,000-acre fire in the period of
about 40 years.
We have increased chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(COPD) in our elders, as the Hoopa Reservation, which is next
door to us, they have really documented that.
We have seen dewatering of streams. We have seen forests
converting to brush fields.
Last year, we lost our tourism and recreation industry that
we were trying to diversify to, as a public land community,
because nobody wants to come and look at an ashtray and breathe
smoke.
We will lose our lake-resort tourism business this summer
because of the low waterflows, and we are also trying to
diversify our economy by growing grapes, and the grape crop--
you know, they will not press smoked grapes. They actually test
for smoke in California to see how bad it is for your grapes,
and our grape crops were thrown in the garbage can.
So it affects every single aspect of our lives.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Holt, any questions, comments?
Mr. Holt. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Mr. Ridgeway, first of all, thank you for coming, and I
commend you on your work for Freedom To Roam.
It seems to me that this is a pretty complicated idea. In
some sense, it is very simple. You just have these corridors,
or ``string of emeralds,'' or however you want to call it, but,
it seems to me, it is really very complicated to figure out how
you can have a corridor that, clearly, if it is going to be
interrupted with fences, well, you might make those fences
passable for pronghorn or lynx. If you design it to make it
passable for them, it might not be passable for other species.
So I wanted to find out how well developed the idea is. I
think there are, certainly, some ecologists at Princeton I know
and at other places who having studying these things, but how
thoroughly is it studied so you can find an optimal design for
these things so that they will pass all of the critical
species, and how do you determine the length? You talked about,
for the pronghorn, you need a couple of hundred miles, I guess,
but, for other species, you might need a thousand miles.
So where does one get the information that puts all of this
together to come up with an optimal design for how the
corridors would be put together?
Mr. Ridgeway. Well, it has to be, of course, based on best
science, and that science is provided by wildlife biologists,
and, as you pointed out, it is specific to species, that
multiple species will use certain corridors, like the pronghorn
corridor is also used by mule deer migrating north and south.
In fact, the mule deer do not have problems with the fences
because they can jump right over them. Pronghorn are forced to
crawl under because, as an animal that runs very fast, they
cannot jump high, so they have to go under.
Again, the solutions are species specific. Again, in the
case of mule deer and pronghorn in that area, in Montana and
Wyoming, one of the critical factors in protecting their
corridors is also protecting them with road crossings. In the
case of both species, they can be lured and directed by fencing
that they cannot get over or under into underpasses, but the
underpasses have to be designed, again, to accommodate the
needs of the specific species.
In the case of a pronghorn, the underpasses have to be wide
enough and open enough and not so tunnel-like that they are
inhibited from crossing under them. A mule deer is easier to
actually get to go through an underpass, and there are many
underpasses that have been finished recently in Southern
Wyoming that are very successfully being used by mule deer.
There is much, much work to be done, by species, to, again,
identify their specific needs, not only where the corridors are
but what their needs are within those corridors. So that is
work still to be done. We believe that our coalition can
provide a great benefit by organizing many of the groups
regionally around the country that are working on different
aspects of this. They are often working independent of each
other.
One of the great jobs that needs to be done, for example,
is to identify where their habitats are going to shift to under
different global-warming scenarios.
There are several groups around the country that are
starting on that right now. We are discovering that they do not
even know about each other yet. Scientists working on habitat
shift, under global-warming scenarios here in Washington, D.C.,
with the Geological Survey, for example, do not know that
colleagues out in California, at the Academy of Sciences, are
doing the same thing.
So we can provide a great service by coordinating those
groups, regionally and internationally, that are beginning the
work, all of the work, that has to be done, and it is very
extensive. It is going to take some years, I think, to achieve
the final goals, but it has to get started now.
Mr. Holt. Which brings me to my next question. On what time
scale are we talking about? If we are going to accommodate
varieties of species and bring together all of this
information, as you say, it is going to take a long time. How
much time do we have? What is the time scale for which we will
acquire land or acquire rights-of-way or whatever else needs to
be done?
Mr. Ridgeway. In my testimony, I said, we are entering
unknown territory here. We do not know the answers to those
questions precisely.
The shift that you saw for the lynx; it was using the IPCC
models developed in 2007 for the most pessimistic predictions
that were out there at that time. We are two years later. The
pessimistic predictions that you saw up there are now the
middle-of-the-ground ones. That is the average that we chose to
present to you. It is a shifting target. There is not much time
on this. We have to get started right away.
We believe the first step, as I said in my testimony, is to
work together with your Subcommittee, especially, to achieve a
definition of what ``wildlife corridors'' are. That is the
first step.
With a definition of what they are, corridors can begin to
be identified and then designated. We would very much like to
work with your Subcommittee to figure out how to make that
happen. Those are the first steps, we believe.
Mr. Holt. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me ask the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms.
Lummis, for her questions or comments.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, first and foremost, I would like to welcome Mr.
McCarthy to our hearing. This is a fellow gentleman from
Wyoming, and I am delighted to see you here and am pleased that
you have chosen to share your time and expertise with us.
You know, as I do, that tourism is Wyoming's second largest
industry and contributes $2.6 billion to Wyoming's economy, and
a lot of that spending occurs on activities on public lands. So
I am delighted that you have chosen to join us today and speak
of your experiences in Wyoming and the West.
Here is a quote that I am going to give to you from Gifford
Pinchot, who was, of course, the first chief of the Forest
Service: ``Conservation is the application of common sense to
the common problems for the common good,'' very much a wise-use
doctrine, and it essentially serves as the last century's
Forest Service motto.
Much of your testimony follows a similar line of thinking;
that is, we pursue new renewable energy projects and fuels-
reduction strategies and other public land uses and that we do
so with moderation in mind.
So my question, Mr. Chairman, is about adaptive management
flexibility, and would you agree that adaptive management
flexibility for our public-land-management agencies is a key
tool to protecting the concept of share use, and what
specifically are your thoughts in that regard?
Mr. McCarthy. Well, thank you for the warm welcome,
Representative Lummis.
``Adaptive management.'' By ``adaptive,'' you are referring
to ecological.
Mrs. Lummis. Correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCarthy. I think I would put a premium on open space.
One of my other hats I wear is I am the planning
commissioner in Teton County, in a county, 97 percent of which
is Federal land. Currently, we are redoing our comprehensive
plan that oversees some of the private lands that include the
path of the pronghorns that Mr. Ridgeway spoke to.
What I would address is we are currently trying to
encourage conservation easements in those places. So putting
together tax incentives and land trades to be able to protect
those areas is one adaptive way I look at to accomplish this
goal.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is music to my ears.
I was involved in the Wyoming Stockgrowers Agricultural Land
Trust, and we hold, along with the other rangeland trusts in
the West, the Partnership of Rangeland Trusts, or ``PORT,'' the
largest number of rangeland conservation easements in the
United States, and it is a magnificent testament to public and
private efforts to conserve land because, of course, wildlife
does not know whether they are on public land or private land.
They migrate according to habitual practices.
So I am delighted to hear you say that. I look forward to
working with you on conservation-easement issues. The tax
advantages that were put into the Farm Bill last year made an
enormous difference in our State of Wyoming, in terms of adding
to the number of conservation easements that were donated for
the tax advantages by people who, but for the tax advantages,
would not have been able pencil out the opportunity to conserve
land in that manner.
So, again, Mr. McCarthy, thank you so much for joining us.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
As this Committee continues to explore this priority issue
of climate change on the Federal lands, I want to thank all our
panelists today for a really excellent start.
So, as we go through this, there are obvious things--
examination of statutory and regulatory issues as this
Administration defines the issue of ``balance'' in terms of
extraction and protection--that will fit into the discussion we
need to have here.
I think the important point, and the impression that I have
from all of our panelists, is this is a real issue, and it has
got to be taken seriously and dealt with seriously.
Thank you very much for an excellent start, and this
meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]