U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

27–516 2018

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF WILDFIRES: 

PERSPECTIVES OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 4, 2017 

Serial No. 115–61 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, CaliforniaL RUIZ, 

California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 7 

WITNESSES

John Bailey, Professor, Oregon State University, College of Forestry ................ 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 170 

Jim Karels, State Forester, State of Florida ......................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 173 

Knox Marshall, Vice President of Resources, Murphy Company ........................ 31 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 178 

Christopher Topik, Director, Restoring Americas Forest, The Nature Conservancy ..................................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 182 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of the Western Governors’ Association ................................................ 81 

National Climate Assessment 2014, chapter 7 on forests .................................... 96 

EPA report entitled, ‘‘Climate Change Indicators in the United States: 

Wildfires’’ .............................................................................................................. 116 

Climate Central report entitled, ‘‘Western Wildfires: A Fiery Future’’ 1

Climate Central article entitled, ‘‘Wildfire Season is Scorching the West’’ ........ 125 

Climate Central article entitled, ‘‘With Warming, Wesern Fires May Sickent 

More People’’ ......................................................................................................... 130 

Climate Central article entitled, ‘‘Climate Change Behind Surge in Western 

Wildfires’’ .............................................................................................................. 134 

Article entitled, ‘‘In the West, communities pioneer cooperative approach to 

fighting wildfires,’’ Christian Science Monitor, September 21, 2017 ............... 140 

Article entitled, ‘‘Climate Change Expected to Fuel Larger Forest Fires— 

If It Hasn’t Already,’’San Diego Tribune, July 4, 2017 ..................................... 151 

Article entitled, ‘‘Heat Waves and Wildfire Signal Warning about Climate 

Change (and Budget Cuts),’’ Union of Concerned Scientists, June 19, 2017 .. 155 

Article entitled, ‘‘A Warmer World is Sparking More and Bigger Wildfires,’’ 

Yale Environment 360, October 2, 2017 ............................................................ 161 

1 The information can be found at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if18/ 

20171004/106463/hhrg-115-if18-20171004-sd007.pdf. 

(1) 

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF WILDFIRES: 

PERSPECTIVES OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Shimkus, McKinley, Harper, Olson, 

Johnson, Flores, Hudson, Walberg, Carter, Walden (ex officio), 

Tonko, Ruiz, Peters, Green, DeGette, Ca ́ rdenas, Dingell, Matsui, 

and Pallone (ex officio). 

Also Present: Representatives Schrader and McMorris Rodgers. 

Staff Present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Mike Bloomquist, Deputy Staff Director; Allie Bury, Legislative Clerk, Energy/Environment; Kelly Collins, Staff Assistant; Zachary Dareshori, Staff Assistant; Wyatt Ellertson, Research Associate, Energy/Environment; 

Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy/Environment; Jordan 

Haverly, Policy Coordinator, Environment; A.T. Johnston, Senior 

Policy Advisor, Energy; Ben Lieberman, Senior Counsel, Energy; 

Mary Martin, Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy/Environment; Drew 

McDowell, Executive Assistant; Katie McKeogh, Press Assistant; 

Annelise Rickert, Counsel, Energy; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; 

Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Energy; Jason Stanek, 

Senior Counsel, Energy; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, External 

Affairs; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Jean Fruci, Minority 

Policy Advisor, Energy/Environment; Caitlin Haberman, Minority 

Professional Staff Member; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor 

and Staff Director, Energy/Environment; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach, and Member Services; and C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Subcommittee on Environment will now come 

to order. 

The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

First of all, actually, even before I start, we are also going to be 

joined by two of my colleagues from other subcommittees: ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Feb 14, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-61 CHRIS
2 

gressman Schrader from Oregon; I think Cathy McMorris Rodgers 

from Washington State is also going to come. 

By the rules of the committee, they are not allowed opening 

statements. They can ask questions once all the members of the 

subcommittee have. They are both from the great Northwest, along 

with the chairman of the full committee. So we look forward to 

their participation, and we welcome them to the subcommittee. 

This subcommittee has jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act, and, 

for that reason, we frequently hold hearings about EPA regulations 

and policies designed to address air pollution. Today, we will address a source of air pollution so bad that it accounts for some of 

the Nation’s worst air quality episodes, and that is the wildfires occurring across the U.S., especially out West. 

While most of the focus during and after these fires is on the ecological and economic harm and the loss of life, the public health impacts from these wildfire air emissions also deserve congressional 

attention. 

The statistics are staggering. So far this year, there have been 

almost 49,000 wildfires in the United States, destroying nearly 8.5 

million acres. And the emissions from these fires can have serious 

impacts on air quality over a range that can stretch for many 

miles. As a result, millions of Americans can be exposed to pollutants found in wildfire smoke, sometimes for extended periods of 

time. 

Nearly every other significant source of combustion, from vehicles to power plants to factories, are subject to very stringent controls, but the emissions from wildfires are completely uncontrolled. 

Worst of all, the sharp increase in particulate matter emissions 

from wildfire smoke can contribute to eye and respiratory irritation, impaired lung function, bronchitis, and exacerbation of asthma, especially in vulnerable populations. 

In looking for solutions to these wildfires and the resulting air 

quality impacts, it is important to note how much greater wildfire 

risks are on Federal lands as compared to state or private lands. 

Often the largest and most polluting fires originate or involve Federal lands. Many point to active management of state and private 

forests as a reason behind their relatively lower risk of catastrophic 

wildfires. There are a number of preventative measures that have 

a proven track record for reducing both the extent and severity of 

wildfires. Where these measures are used, we see a much lower 

risk. 

I look forward to learning more about active management from 

our distinguished panel of forestry experts. 

One successful forest management strategy is prescribed burns, 

in which small, deliberate fires are set that significantly reduce the 

risk of far more damaging wildfires later on. Unfortunately, at 

least in some places, government restrictions impeded the use of 

prescribed burns, due in part to concerns about their air emissions 

from them. But these restrictions may be counterproductive if prescribed burns help avoid much greater air emissions from wildfires. 

These are the kinds of policies we need to review. Congress 

should be looking at any and all ways to address wildfires and 

their emissions and, most important of all, the policy measures 

that can help prevent or minimize wildfires in the first place. 

3 

With that, I am ending my opening statement, and, seeing no 

other colleague asking for the remaining time, I yield back mine. 

And I now turn to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. 

Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

This subcommittee has jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act, and for that reason 

we frequently hold hearings about EPA regulations and policies designed to address 

air pollution. Today, we will discuss a source of air pollution so bad that it accounts 

for some of the nation’s worst air quality episodes, and that is the wildfires occurring across the U.S. and especially out west. And while most of the focus during 

and after these fires is on the ecological and economic harm and the loss of life, the 

public health impacts from these wildfire air emissions also deserve Congressional 

attention. 

The statistics are staggering. So far this year there have been almost 49,000 

wildfires in the United States destroying nearly 8.5 million acres. And the emissions 

from these fires can have serious impacts on air quality over a range that can 

stretch for many miles. As a result, millions of Americans can be exposed to the pollutants found in wildfire smoke, sometimes for extended periods of time. 

Nearly every other significant source of combustion—from vehicles to power 

plants to factories—are subject to very stringent controls. But the emissions from 

wildfires are completely uncontrolled. Worst of all are the sharp increases in particulate matter emissions from wildfire smoke, which can contribute to eye and respiratory irritation, impaired lung function, bronchitis, and exacerbation of asthma, 

especially in vulnerable populations. 

In looking for solutions to these wildfires and the resulting air quality impacts, 

it is important to note how much greater wildfire risks are on federal lands as compared to state and private lands. Often, the largest and most polluting fires originate on or involve federal lands. Many point to active management of state and private forests as a big reason behind their relatively lower risk of catastrophic 

wildfires. There are a number of preventive measures that have a proven track 

record for reducing both the extent and severity of wildfires, and where these measures are used, we see a much lower risk. I look forward to learning more about active management from our distinguished panel of forestry experts. 

One successful forest management strategy is prescribed burns, in which small 

deliberate fires are set that significantly reduce the risk of far more damaging 

wildfires later on. Unfortunately, at least in some places, government restrictions 

impeded the use of prescribed burns, due in part to concerns about the air emissions 

from them. But these restrictions may be counterproductive if prescribed burns help 

avoid much greater air emissions from wildfires. These are the kinds of policies we 

need to review. 

Congress should be looking at any and all ways to address wildfires and their air 

emissions, and most important of all, the policy measures that can help prevent or 

minimize wildfires in the first place. Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for calling this important hearing. 

Thank you to our witnesses for being here this morning. Gentlemen, thank you for making the effort. I appreciate the opportunity 

to hear more about wildfires and the serious air quality issues they 

are causing. 

This year, there have been over 49,000 fires in the United States, 

which have burned approximately 8.5 million acres. 2017 has been 

the most expensive year for firefighting yet. The United States Forest Service has spent more than $2 billion. In addition to these tremendous costs, public health is also at risk. Smoke, which includes 

4 

particulate matter and carbon monoxide, is choking people in communities around the country, particularly out West. 

As these forests burn, a significant amount of greenhouse gas 

pollution is also released. Undeniably, all of these issues have become increasingly worse in recent years, so this is an important 

hearing. 

Many of my Democratic colleagues and I often speak about the 

dangers associated with poor air quality. And it is clear that 

wildfires pose significant health, ecological, and fiscal challenges. 

Today, we will hear much about the consequences of these fires 

to both human health as well as forest health. We will also hear 

about the changing philosophies on forest management. 

I know work is being done to promote forest management techniques, such as prescribed burns and other tools, to improve forest 

health and reduce the harm of smoke. To that end, EPA updated 

its Exceptional Events Rule to allow the pollution from prescribed 

fires to be considered exceptional as long as certain smoke management practices are followed. 

But we would be remiss if we only discussed the consequences 

of wildfires while ignoring the driving cause of these increasingly 

numerous and severe disasters, that being climate change. The 

2014 National Climate Assessment identified the relationship between climate and fire. Very plainly, it found that, ‘‘forests in the 

United States will be increasingly affected by large and intense 

fires that occur more frequently.’’ 

Atmospheric and oceanic warming, higher temperatures causing 

drier fuels and forests, changes to snow pack, and years of drought 

are already coalescing to increase the length and depth of fire season. This issue is not going away, and, in fact, climate change will 

continue to exacerbate the problem, so we cannot ignore the causes. 

I am sure that improved forest management can help mitigate 

some of the dangers and costs, but these bigger climate issues must 

be considered. 

Our forests are capable of capturing and storing significant 

amounts of carbon, which can continue to reduce carbon pollution 

and help meet emissions reduction goals. Because forests provide 

opportunities to reduce future climate change by storing carbon, inevitably they must be part of our climate solution. But having more 

and more acres burn without addressing the underlying causes will 

only make our air quality and greenhouse gas pollution issues that 

much worse. 

So I ask that we keep the causes in mind as we think about how 

to help ensure our fellow Americans are able to have the air quality they expect and deserve in order to live a healthy life. 

With that, I again thank you, Mr. Chair, and yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 

Walden from the State of Oregon, who is living this as we speak. 

And the chairman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

5 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the chairman, and I commend him and Mr. 

Tonko for your statements on this matter. And it is time that we 

looked at air quality as part of the overall mix. 

Oregonians have been living with this problem in the rural West 

for years—smoke-clogged skies from catastrophic fires. Just this 

summer in my home State of Oregon, we watched as fires burned 

more than 678,000 acres. That is equivalent to two-thirds the size 

of Rhode Island. And over $340 million has been spent so far to 

fight those fires—state, local, Federal costs. 

And you can see the impacts. I have a photo up here. Sue from 

Rogue River sent me this. This is what it looked like in her pasture 

during one of these fires. It is really dense smoke. You may think 

that is fog. That is smoke from a fire that burned more than 

190,000 acres. 

And what you have to understand is that didn’t burn off in the 

morning. That was there probably for a month. This is what we are 

facing throughout the Northwest, throughout the West every summer. In these basins, the smoke settles in like that, and there it 

sits. 

Across Oregon, schools were forced to close because the air quality was so bad they didn’t want the children in the schools. Some 

high schools had to travel hours away for football games. The 

Mighty Oregon Ducks had to go over to the Oregon coast to practice because the air quality in Eugene was so bad. Annual community events, from the Sisters Folk Festival to the 30th anniversary 

of Cycle, Oregon, to Shakespeare plays in Ashland—all cancelled. 

Nine plays, $400,000 lost to the Shakespeare theater, just in nine 

plays. 

That is just the direct cost. I can’t tell you how many people I 

talked to who had health issues develop that never had them before, people that had to go see physicians or go to the hospital because the air quality was so bad. 

We know that wildfires pour significant amounts of pollution into 

our air. And, according to the EPA, forest wildfires emitted an annual average of 105.5 millions tons of carbon dioxide into the 

United States between 2000 and 2005. And, in fact, in 2005 alone, 

wildfires resulted in more than 126 million tons of carbon dioxide 

emissions in the United States. 

And in a fire that I remember, the 2002 Biscuit Fire in southwest Oregon, the carbon dioxide emitted during that fire amounted 

to almost one-quarter of the total of carbon dioxide emitted in Oregon for the entire year. So, to Mr. Tonko’s point, this is a contributing factor to additional carbon and other pollutants in the atmosphere. 

It doesn’t have to be this way. Fuel loads continue to build up 

in our forests because of broken Federal forest policies that have 

led to a lack of management. As you can see in the next chart that 

we are going to put up, between 2011 and 2015, Federal forests in 

Oregon grew by 1.3 billion cubic feet. Of that, 9 percent was harvested; 29 percent, that represents how much timber died; and the 

remaining 62 percent, or 822 million cubic feet, remains as fuel for 

fire. The point is our forests are not static but our management is. 

6 

Reducing that fuel load reduces the severity of a fire and the 

emissions. In fact, a 2014 study by the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, 

the Nature Conservancy, and the Forest Service showed that fuel 

treatment projects can reduce size and intensity of fire between 30 

and 76 percent. Treatment also reduces carbon emissions from 

these fires by up to 85 percent. 

Now, we are always going to have fire, but we can reduce the 

risk and intensity through proper management. And when we do 

get fire, we must get in and clean up and replant. To our colleague’s point, healthy, green forests sequester carbon. Old, dead, 

dying forests emit it. And forest fires do the worst in that respect. 

The forests are really our lungs, and we should restore forests that 

are destroyed by fire. In fact, a study by the Forest Service’s Pacific 

Northwest Research Station found that younger growing stands of 

trees absorb more carbon than far older stands. 

We also need to consider how we choose to fight fire and the impacts of letting fire burn within wilderness areas simply because of 

that management designation. I have had a lot of complaints from 

people I represent and people throughout Oregon who are concerned that part of the Forest Service policy is ‘‘let her burn.’’ And 

that is because it is in a wildness area, and they are not supposed 

to use intensive forest fire practices. 

I understand that, but my concern is, does that take into account 

what happens to people who have to suffer from the smoke from 

those fires? The communities in my district, like Grants Pass and 

Medford, that saw days on end of ‘‘very unhealthy,’’ or worse air 

quality during the Chetco Bar Fire. That fire was spotted at a 

quarter of an acre on July 12 in wilderness. It has now burned 

191,000 acres. 

These decisions on how, when, and how aggressively to fight fire 

matter. They matter to our forests, to our habitat, to our watersheds, and to the air quality in our communities. So let’s have less 

of this ash and less of the ruin and better air quality. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Today, we’re taking a long overdue look at an air quality issue that has affected 

Oregonians and those living across the rural West for years—smoked clogged skies 

from catastrophic wildfires. Just this summer in my home state of Oregon, we 

watched as fires burned more than 678,000 acres—equivalent to two-thirds the size 

of Rhode Island—and over $340 million has been spent—so far—to fight them. 

And you can see the impacts. Sue, from Rogue River, sent me these pictures of 

what looks like fog on her pasture. In reality it’s dense smoke from a fire that 

burned over 190,000 acres. 

Across Oregon schools were forced to close because of smoke and poor air quality. 

Some high schools traveled hours away for football games, and my Oregon Ducks 

had to practice on the Oregon coast to get away from the smoke. 

Annual community events, from the Sister’s folk festival, to performances of the 

Britt Festival in Jacksonville and the famous Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland were canceled. Communities have watched timber jobs disappear as more and 

more of our federal land has become locked up. Those same communities are now 

watching tourism dollars slip away as visitors stay away from the smoke. 

In meetings across my district earlier this month, I heard similar stories in different communities of people that were finding themselves visiting a doctor, only to 

learn their respiratory challenges were a result of the smoke. 

We know that wildfires pour significant amounts of pollution into our air. According to EPA, forest wildfires emitted an annual average of 105.5 million tons of carVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Feb 14, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-61 CHRIS
7 

bon dioxide in the United States between 2000 and 2005. In 2005 alone, wildfires 

resulted in more than 126 million tons of carbon dioxide in the United States. And 

in a fire that I remember—the 2002 Biscuit Fire in southwest Oregon—the carbon 

dioxide emitted during that fire amounted to almost one-quarter of the total carbon 

dioxide emitted in Oregon that year. 

It doesn’t have to be this way. Fuel loads continue to build up in our forests because of broken federal forest policies that have led to a lack of management. As 

you can see in this chart, between 2011 and 2015 federal forests in Oregon grew 

by 1.3 billion cubic feet. Of that, only 9% was harvested, 29% dies, and the remaining 62%—or 822 million cubic feet remains as fuel for fires. 

Reducing that fuel load reduces the severity of a fire and the emissions. A 2014 

study by the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy and the Forest 

Service, showed that fuel treatment projects can reduce the size and intensity of fire 

between 30 and 76 percent. Treatment also helps reduce carbon emissions from 

these fires by up to 85 percent. 

Now, we’re always going to have fires but we can reduce the risk and intensity 

through proper management. And when we do get fire, we must get in and clean 

up and replant. Just like private forest managers do. These forests are our lungs 

after all, and we should restore forests that are destroyed by fire. In fact, a study 

by the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station found that younger, 

growing stands of trees absorb more carbon than far older stands. 

We also need to consider how we choose to fight fire, and the impacts of letting 

fires burn within wilderness—simply because of its management designation—on 

air quality. 

For communities in my district like Grants Pass and Medford that saw days on 

end of ‘‘Very Unhealthy’’ or worse air quality during the Chetco Bar fire, which was 

spotted at 1⁄4 of an acre on July 12th in wilderness, and has now burned over 

191,000 acres, these decisions matter greatly. 

There are plenty of questions to explore today and I look forward to exploring 

them a bit more depth over the course of this hearing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone from New Jersey, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This year has been a terrible year for natural disasters. Record 

numbers of wildfires and catastrophic hurricanes have claimed 

lives and property across the country and in the U.S. territories, 

and the human and financial costs of these events are extremely 

high and still rising. Recovery takes years, and some places never 

fully recover. 

Climate change, in my opinion, is having the effects that were 

anticipated by the scientific community, and yet the Trump administration and the congressional Republican leadership continue to 

stick their heads in the sand. And they do so at all of our peril. 

It is long past time for us to deal with the realities and risks we 

face due to the change in climate. We need to do a much better job 

of protecting communities by making them more resistant and resilient to natural disasters, and we need to slow the pace of climate 

change. And we need to adapt to the changes that we are facing. 

All of this is critical, and it simply cannot be done until the Republican leadership actually acknowledges that it is indeed a problem. One would hope that the hurricanes and fires of the recent 

months have served as a wake-up call for some of my Republican 

colleagues, and we will see. 

8 

Now, turning to wildfires, I expect all of our witnesses today will 

point out that fire is and always has been part of the lifecycle of 

forests. In fact, many ecosystems are well-adapted to fire. Some 

systems require periodic burning to remain healthy to regenerate. 

In fact, some of the problems we are experiencing today are the unfortunate result of having suppressed fires in these systems for too 

long. 

But severe drought, high seasonal temperatures, expansion of 

native pest species, and the introduction of invasive species also 

play a role. Climate change coupled with the buildup of brush, 

small trees, and other forest fuels has resulted in more frequent 

fires that burn hotter over more extensive areas. 

The Forest Service recently announced that the firefighting costs for this season have exceeded $2 billion, and we haven’t yet 

reached the end of the fire season. The costs for firefighting have 

been climbing, and if we do not change our management of these 

systems and invest more in preventative management, we can expect the costs to continue to grow. 

But proper management does not mean simply increasing timber 

harvests. Logging does not prevent wildfires or minimize the impact when fires start. We need comprehensive ecosystem management that includes prescribed fires, selective harvesting, and reforestation. And we need greater public education, involvement, and 

participation, especially by communities living near and around 

forests to help them reduce their fire risk. 

This hearing will highlight the air quality problems associated 

with wildfires. Smoke from those fires contains particulate matter, 

carbon monoxide, and other harmful gasses. It is a serious health 

hazard, particularly for those who suffer from asthma and other 

respiratory diseases, and it is a significant threat for the firefighters who respond and spend weeks fighting to control and put 

out the blaze. 

The intense smoke also adversely affects visibility across large 

areas—we saw a picture that our chairman put up—and that impacts transportation, recreation, and tourism. Longer, more intense 

fire seasons expose many people in these areas to months of poor 

air quality. 

Forests are a great resource. They provide tremendous economic 

and ecological benefits. They protect water quality, provide raw 

materials, and they support numerous recreation and economic activities. They are home to a diverse array of plants and animals. 

And these systems are among the most effective at absorbing and 

storing the excessive carbon we continue to pump into the atmosphere. 

So, managed properly, they will continue to provide a full array 

of benefits, though we must acknowledge and respond to the threat 

that climate change presents to these systems and the communities 

that live near them. 

I would like to yield the remaining minute to Mr. Schrader, my 

colleague from Oregon. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I think I have a slide I would like to put up on the screen too. 

Wildfire treatment and forest management must work hand-inglove together. The Eagle Creek Fire, burning close to Portland, baVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Feb 14, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-61 CHRIS
9 

sically devastated our iconic Columbia River Gorge, denuding popular and previously spectacular hiking trails that now will not be 

available for years to come. 

But there is a more dangerous and insidious problem in our Federal forests that has gone almost completely unnoticed. That is the 

carbon emissions from dead and diseased trees in our forests. According to the Oregon Global Warming Commission, Oregon’s forests are responsible for 75 percent of all long-term emissions produced statewide by all other sectors. And the bulk of that is from 

tree mortality, not just wildfires. 

More chilling yet, although Federal forests occupy 50 percent of 

Oregon’s forests, they account for 70 percent of yearly emissions 

due to tree mortality, while private forests only occupy 33 percent 

of state forestland and emit 16 percent due to tree death. 

Active forest management is essential to preventing harmful 

ozone-depleting emissions. And, fortunately, there is legislation 

being developed to put healthy forest stewardship back into our neglected national forest treasures. 

I look forward to the panel today. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We now conclude with members’ opening statements. The chair 

will—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, a point of order, just for a second. 

That photo, by the way, is about 10 miles from where I live, that 

he had up there, in the gorge. That is the scenic Columbia River 

Gorge, national scenic area. 

That fire burned 14 miles in one night, headed toward Portland 

when the winds were blowing. Then it shifted and came toward 

where I live. So they had to shut down barge traffic on the Columbia River—first time, I think, in history. That is the mighty Columbia River. And the railroads and the freeway were all shut down. 

So thank you for the indulgence. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection. Obviously, it is a catastrophe, 

and we appreciate the adding to the photos with the real-life observations and the concerns, and part of the reason why we are here 

today. 

We have now concluded with members’ opening statements. The 

chair would like to remind members that, pursuant to committee 

rules, all members’ opening statements will be made part of the 

record. 

We want to thank our witnesses for being here today and taking 

the time to testify before the subcommittee. 

Today’s witnesses have the opportunity to give opening statements, followed by a round of questions from our members. 

Your full statements have been submitted for the record. We usually go about 5 minutes. As you see, this is not a highly contentious, controversial, mean-spirited hearing, so if you go over, that 

is going to be cool. But just don’t go too long over the 5 minutes, 

because yes, then it will become contentious by members. 

I will introduce you one at a time as you give your opening statements. 

And, with that, I would like to first start with Mr. John Bailey, 

Professor at Oregon State University, College of Forestry. 

10 

Again, your full statement has been submitted for the record. 

You have 5 minutes. Welcome. 

STATEMENTS OF JOHN BAILEY, PROFESSOR, OREGON STATE 

UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF FORESTRY; JIM KARELS, STATE 

FORESTER, STATE OF FLORIDA; KNOX MARSHALL, VICE 

PRESIDENT OF RESOURCES, MURPHY COMPANY; AND 

CHRISTOPHER TOPIK, DIRECTOR, RESTORING AMERICAS 

FOREST, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BAILEY 

Mr. BAILEY. Thanks for the opportunity to address this subcommittee and generally talk about these important topics. 

And beyond my background and the research in teaching, in fire, 

my basic philosophy is research, curiosity, education, social engagement, and commonsense solutions. And I think this is an example 

where we can really make progress on that. 

I am going to make six points today. 

The first, and it has come up, that the wildfire and associated 

smoke is just inevitable. And it was mentioned that these systems 

have evolved with fire, and it is just part of the Western world. 

And so we have to be careful about complaining about the numbers 

of acres and numbers of fires, because it is inevitable and these 

systems burn. And really what the issue is about the 

uncharacteristic behavior and the fuel accumulations and those 

kinds of things that we have out there right now. 

I am sorry that my predecessors created that illusion, that fire 

was somehow un-normal and destructive and catastrophic. Some of 

that was our own fault, with Smokey Bear. Some of it we can 

blame on Walt Disney and Bambi. But whatever the reason is, we 

have to update our thinking on what is the role of fire out there. 

And, fortunately, we have a lot of available science and technology and research to continue looking at these issues and help 

us regain, you know, some ability to view and manage fire as a 

natural part of the system. And that will have impacts on our 

human communities and air quality. 

And one of the changes I definitely want to make in the light of 

climate change is, rather than repeating that our policy is suppression, we need to just get that word, ‘‘attempt’’ suppression, in there 

all the time, because these wildfires are inevitable. 

Number two has already been mentioned. 2017 has been an impressive year. It will set some records, but all the numbers are not 

in yet. And it is the collision of climate and the accumulated fuels 

that have been referenced. We have an unprecedented amount of 

fuels on many, many of our acres out there. And what is a bigger 

concern for these large fires and landscape-level fire is that those 

acres are better connected than they have ever been, and fire flows 

across the landscape much like water. 

So these are unprecedented conditions. Our ancestors would not 

have feared these climate conditions unless they would have had 

these kinds of fuel conditions. And so we have to view them together and treat them together. 

Number three, holding to our current course and hoping that this 

is going to get better on its own would be a terrible mistake to 

11 

make. And remember that part of the definition of ‘‘insanity’’ is to 

keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome. In fact, 

there is a pathological side to this, where doing things like 100-percent suppression or 100-percent attempting suppress actually 

makes the problem worse in the long run. And so we don’t need 

to keep doing things that we know are making it worse. 

Number four, this is a complex issue. It has already been mentioned that we can’t just log our way out of this. This needs to be 

a comprehensive view. Our forests are scenery. As we saw, they are 

wild areas, they are recreational opportunities, they are watersheds that protect our water supply and fish. These hillsides are 

wildlife habitat. Yes, they are timber, they are fiber, they are carbon, they are ecosystems, and there are things that we haven’t 

even thought about yet. 

But they are also fuel. And when I look at them, I see fuel. And 

we need to think about them as fuel, and they are going to burn. 

Sustainable forest management, as we have talked about, ecosystem management, will yield, plenty of fiber and wood to meet 

the needs of society and the planet, and that is fine. In fact, in the 

near term, we have a backlog that we can remove from our hillsides. 

Number five, a lot of the biomass is actually fine fuel. And that 

is going to be the role of prescribed burning, because that is about 

the only way to get rid of that fuel accumulation that is out there 

on the landscape. And that is a wonderful tool that we have. And 

using fire to limit future fire is an age-old proposition and approach. And it is much like vaccination; we can vaccinate our landscapes by using good, sound management, including prescribed fire. 

And, finally, number six, we are straddled with a legacy of accumulated outdated thinking as much as accumulated fuels for this. 

And like our views on fire, also logging, and our old thoughts about 

timber battles and all—we have to get beyond the idea that preservation works in any meaningful way. These are dynamic systems, 

like I mentioned, that are going to burn. So we can’t just set them 

aside and let them do their own things. 

The good news is there are abundant win-win-win situations that 

we can move forward with. And the forestry profession and Oregon 

State University forestry will contribute to that as best we can. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bailey follows:] 

12 


27516.001

Testimony of 

Dr. John D. Bailey 

Professor of Silviculture and Fire Management 

Oregon State University, College of Forestry 

Before the Subcommittee on Environment 

"Air Quality Impacts of Wildfires: Perspectives of Key Stakeholders" 

October 4, 2017 

Thank you for the opportunity to give testimony on the linkages between air quality, wildland 

fire and active forest management. Wildland fire is one of the most pressing challenges affecting fed era 

land management in the western United States. While complex, there are straightforward science-basec 

forest management approaches that can be taken to address this challenge taking human impacts, like 

air quality, into consideration. My name is John Bailey, and I'm a professor at Oregon State University, 

currently as the Maybelle Clark MacDonald endowed chair in the College of Forestry. My career in 

research and teaching includes the southwestern U.S. and, most recently, Oregon. My work has focusec 

on silviculture, or tree growing, forest restoration and management, and fire as wildland fire and 

prescribed burning. I am a 35-year member of the Society of American Foresters, since I was a student 

and firefighter at Virginia Tech. Beyond being a professor and a scientist heavily engaged in these 

topics, I am a long time forester, a father, and a concerned resident of Oregon who cares about public 

land management and air quality. My testimony today represent my opinion based on my knowledge 

and experiences. It will underscore the recognition that wildfire is inevitable, but available science can 

inform sustainable forest management practices that reflect broad land-management objectives and 

help us regain some control over when and how our forests burn. 
13 


27516.002

The year 2017 has been another impressive year for wildland fire in Oregon and the West. The 

region is experiencing a recent trend for large acreages of large fires that alter our landscapes in ways 

we often do not like and that cost us billions of dollars in attempted fire suppression and subsequent 

fire management. While there is significant annual variability in fire seasons (meaning where and when 

forests are dry and fires are actually ignited) that makes it difficult to describe this trend, our average 

acreages and expenses for the last 15 years is now greater than the maximums seen in the previous 

decades. More than half of the last 15 years have been record years for wildland fire, costs of 

suppression, and smoke emissions. Local and regional air quality data supports this trend, particularly 

for communities like Sisters, Bend, Medford and Ashland in Oregon. And while air quality is a regular 

concern for many, this year's heavy smoke into the Portland metro area from the Eagle Creek fire has 

catalyzed many Oregonians into action on this issue. 

This issue is about climate patterns and accumulated fuels. 

Weather and fuels form two sides of the fire behavior triangle- topography is the third but is 

only the "surface" for weather and fuels. Weather has to be understood and regularly monitored from 

the perspective of fire managers; fuels have to not only be understood and monitored, but can be 

actively managed! Recent patterns in atmospheric and oceanographic warming, snow pack depths and 

longevity, and drought have all combined to increase the length of fire seasons- and these burning 

conditions and chances for ignition have now combined with an unprecedented amount of fuel on the 

landscape, particularly federal lands, to now stretch our fire management services beyond their 

capabilities. Most climate modeling projects continued lengthening and deepening of fire seasons 

based primarily on higher temperatures and resultant drier fuels in the forests, which strongly suggests 

that wildland fire will continue to be major issue at least in Oregon and the West Combined with 

increasing amounts of fuel on the landscape, both in terms of the total quantity on many acres and the 
14 


27516.003

connectivity between those acres, the stage is set for continued increases in large wildfires that burn 

increasing large areas at high severity. 

This increase in large wildfires will have significant impacts on the ecology of many forest types 

across the West, but they are impacts from which forests can recover particularly if we can moderate 

the fire behavior with our management practices. Further, there are potentially crippling effects on 

economies and human communities, including fatalities in the workforce and general public. For 

example, the Douglas Complex fire in southern Oregon and Canyon Creek Complex fire near John Day 

are two examples of tens of thousands of acres of forest uncharacteristically burned, having impacts on 

wood volume availability and forest sector activity, millions of dollars spent of relatively ineffective 

suppression activities, community evacuations based on the advancing fire and smoke (with associated 

human health costs), hundreds of homes and other buildings/property destroyed, local and regional 

economies reworked, and lingering impacts to communities as they recover and rebuild. And both fires 

had human casualties. The Eagle Creek fire this year, still burning, has altered the Columbia Gorge 

landscape, required evacuations, closed down the tau rism economic engine for that area for most of a 

month, threatened historic landmarks, cost us millions of dollars in attempted fire suppression and fire 

management, and will likely cost more millions in rehabilitation and restoration. At least everyone went 

home from that fire, and Portland has healthy air once again. 

But holding to our current course, steadfast in our inattention and inaction on this issue, will 

only mean that there are many more large and negative wildfires to come. We as a society don't have 

to just let it happen. My research along with others nationally and internationally attempts to advance 

our understanding of fire ecology, fire science and management, prescribed fire and thereby change the 

wildland fire management system and the landscape. This work goes well beyond grants and 

publications and students; I believe we are approaching a crises that will propel us into a whole new way 
15 


27516.004

of managing our lands sustainably and adaptively in the face of changing climate. I want to prepare the 

next generation to deal with that, and I need your help to do it. 

More active land management with an eye to fuels management. 

Our wonderful forest landscapes are more than trees and logs. We cannot reduce this issue to 

logging- we cannot log our way to success. Our forests are scenery, wild areas, recreational 

opportunities, watersheds forourfish and ourselves, wildlife habitat, wood for timber and fiber, carbon, 

biomass, ecosystems, and FUEL. Forests are all these things, and most all of ourforests is fuel. Most 

western ecosystems evolved with fire as an integral process, which limited the accumulation of fuel. 

Our ancestors on these lands used fire as a tool, managed their lands and considered the fuels. We can 

and should manage our lands sustainably as fuel. 

More prescribed fire before wildland fires and during wildland fires. 

The solution to unwanted wildfire behavior is NOTto pressure young men and women to take 

more risks by using more aggressive tactics on the fireline and more expensive technology attempting to 

suppress fire. The solution is to harness the expertise and dedication of federal, state, tribal, NGO, and 

private sector fire managers to use active and sustainable forest management today, including fire as 

one of the tools, to help mitigate the effects of future fires. There are opportunities every year to 

remove and alter the fuels on the landscape and to use prescribed fire and natural ignitions to burn 

more than a century's worth of accumulated fuels. Using fire under milder weather conditions is not 

without risk because it is impossible to predict fire behavior with precision. But increasing the tempo 

and scale of active management and burning under more favorable weather will help reduce the 

inherent and ever-present risk of wildfire more than relying entirely on a failed suppression model as 

the first, last, and only line of defense against conflagrations. 
16 


27516.005

Events like the Douglas and Canyon Creek Complex fires have many causes, but the most critical 

mistake was the Forest Service's inability to treat (i.e. burn) surface fuels years before these fires. The 

Eagle Creek fire burned like it did last month because of decades of choices to not alter the fuels, 

including choices to suppress fire even on good days for burning. This was not a failure by the Forest 

Service personnel it was a failure of regulation that gave greater weight to mild smoke impacts in the 

near term over massive smoke impacts in the long term. It was a failure of Congress in not funding fuel 

reduction at the same level they fund suppression. It was a failure of media outlets in perpetuating the 

myth that all wildfires can and should be extinguished. And it was a failure of society to pay attention to 

the emerging problems. 

More uncharacteristic wildland fire is inevitable until these problems are addressed. 

Wildland fire is as inevitable the weather, and hurricanes, and floods, and disease. So we, as a 

society, have preventative measures we can take: preparations and vaccinations of sorts. Like 

vaccinations and building our resistance to diseases, we build resistance to wildland fire with fire. 

Active land management including prescribed fire treatments will be essential to our ability to provide 

the wonderful range ecological and socioeconomic benefits of our forests; however, we are falling 

further and further behind in the implementation of treatments. This is particularly true in and around 

human communities, receptor areas where air quality is strictly regulated, and other highly valued areas 

of our forested landscapes. There are many groups working on revisions to smoke management rules 

that will allow "vaccination"- a little smoke when we can influence the amount and location in 

exchange for unregulated wildfire smoke. But there is regulatory resistance. 

In conclusion, we are saddled with a legacy of outdated thinking in addition to accumulated 

fuels- and we are moving quickly into an uncertain climatic future. Wildfire is inevitable. Our forests 

will continue to burn regardless of what we say or do today. But we can better choose when and how it 
17 


27516.006

burns, and how it can be consistent with broad land management objectives. There are abundant winwin-win situations at hand if we choose to act proactively and wisely. Thank you again for the 

opportunity to speak with you today. 
18 


27516.007

One-page summary for Bailey testimony, October 4, 2017 

Wildfire is inevitable; available science can inform sustainable forest management practices that reflect 

broad land-management objectives and help us regain some control over when and how our forests 

burn, with resultant impacts on the land, human communities and air quality. 

The year 2017 has been another impressive year for wildland fire in Oregon and the West. Climate 

change combined with increasing amounts of fuel on the landscape, both in terms of the total quantity 

on many acres and the connectivity between those acres, and set the stage for continued increases in 

large wildfires that burn increasing large areas at high severity. 

Holding to our current course, steadfast in our inattention and inaction, will only mean that there are 

many more large and negative wildfires to come. We as a society don't have to just let it happen. 

Our wonderful forest landscapes are more than trees and logs. We cannot simplify this issue to 

"logging"- we cannot log our way to success. Our forests are scenery, wild areas, recreational 

opportunities, watersheds for our fish and ourselves, wildlife habitat, wood for timber and fiber, carbon, 

biomass, ecosystems, and FUEL. 

We need more prescribed fire before wildland fires and during wildland fires. Active land management 

including prescribed fire treatments and fire use will be essential to our ability to provide the wonderful 

range ecological and socioeconomic benefits of our forests; however, we are falling further and further 

behind in the implementation of treatments. 

We are saddled with a legacy of outdated thinking in addition to accumulated fuels- and we are moving 

quickly into an uncertain climatic future. But we can choose when and how the forests burn, and how it 

impacts future generations. There are abundant win-win-win situations at hand if we choose to act 

proactively and wisely. 
19 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The chair now recognizes Jim Karels, State Forester from the 

State of Florida. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JIM KARELS 

Mr. KARELS. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member 

Tonko, Full Committee Chair Walden, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today on this important issue of air quality and wildfires. 

My name is Jim Karels. I am the state forester and director of 

the Florida Forest Service. And I am here today testifying on behalf of the National Association of State Foresters, of which I have 

been a past president, and I am the current Wildland Fire Committee chair. I have spent 36 years in the fire and forestry business 

across the country, and I am honored to share some of those experiences with you today. 

NASF represents the directors of the state forestry agencies 

across the country. We deliver technical and financial assistance, 

along with wildfire and resource protection, on two-thirds of the 

766 million acres of forest in this country. 

We do that with support from the United States Forest Service, 

state and private forestry programs, and state and volunteer fire 

assistance grants, which provide equipment and training to the 

firefighters who respond to state and private land fires, where over 

80 percent of the Nation’s wildfires start. 

As was mentioned, a very challenging year—49,000 fires, 8.5 million acres, with still more activity and potential in California for 

the fall and parts of the Southeast. 

Florida was not immune to wildfire activity this year. Southwest 

Florida, in a span of 4 months this spring, evacuated 5,000 homes 

and inundated cities like Naples and Fort Myers and surrounding 

communities with smoke and air quality issues. And, at the same 

time, on the Georgia-Florida line, the 150,000-acre West Mims Fire 

impacted rural communities, natural resources, and air quality 

issues for cities as large as Jacksonville. 

Fire is a natural part—well, let’s back up, because I left out the 

West. The western states all summer long grabbed the headlines 

of the issue of smoke, hundreds of fires blanketing communities 

across the western U.S., with smoke endangering citizens and 

wildland firefighters and impacting, like I said, communities large 

and small. 

Fire is a natural part of our ecosystem. There are beneficial fires. 

These fires thin our forests, they reduce the fuels, they improve the 

wildlife habitat, and they improve our forest health. However, we 

are seeing more and more of the catastrophic fires, like this summer, that are very costly and that produce a tremendous amount 

of air pollution. 

While burning, forest produces numerous hazardous chemicals in 

its smoke plume. The pollutant of most concern is that particulate 

matter that was spoken of, microscopic particles, 2.5 microns in 

size, that penetrate deep into the lungs and cause breathing issues 

and negative issues on our health. 

20 

We know the effects of exposure of these particulate matter are 

felt most in our sensitive populations: our children, our elderly, and 

those that have existing conditions. 

We know the effects of prolonged exposure is also a significant 

issue. Our bodies can eliminate this particulate matter during a 1- 

or 2-hour or even a 1- or 2-day process, but those prolonged events, 

weeks and months on end, as the Congressman said in Oregon and 

stuff, that has significant impact on your health, whether you are 

a citizen, whether you are a firefighter. And I can speak firsthand 

on experience of wildland fire safety and smoke later on, if wanted. 

Wildfire smoke also has impacts on our communities in many 

ways beyond the simple human health. Tourism revenue suffers. 

Children suffer from the canceled outdoor events and the inability 

to recreate outside. Motorists face significant driving issues. Wildfire smoke is a major issue across our country. 

So what do we do to address the issue of these mass amounts 

of wildfire smoke during the fire season? The state foresters believe 

wholly in prescribed fire during the right times of year and targeted hazardous fuel reduction projects. 

With respect to prescribed fires, I mentioned it is part of our forest ecosystem. However, it is better that fire happens under that 

controlled system of a fire manager where we know the winds, we 

know the temperature, we have predetermined boundaries, and we 

are able to notify the public ahead of time, rather than this uncontrolled, catastrophic large fire. And those prescribed fires, many 

times, help to reduce the number of catastrophic fires in the future. 

In Florida and across the country, we also engage in forest 

thinnings and targeted hazardous fuel removal for fire-resilient 

landscapes. We do that with our private landowners, we do that on 

our state forests, and we work with our U.S. Forest Service partners through the Good Neighbor Authority in Congress to reduce 

those fuels. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Karels follows:] 

21 


27516.008

Testimony of Jim Karels, Florida State Forester 

On Behalf of The National Association of State Foresters 

Submitted to the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

Subcommittee on the Environment 

For Hearing on 

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF WILDFIRES: 

PERSPECTIVES OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS 

October 4, 2017 

Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and Members of the 

subcommittee. My name is Jim Karels, State Forester and Director of the Florida Forest 

Service, as well as past President of the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) and 

current Chairman of the NASF Wildland Fire Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak 

with you today and submit written testimony as the Committee considers the significant impacts 

of wildfire smoke on citizens and communities across the country, as well as the preventive role 

prescribed fire and hazardous fuels reduction can have in mitigating smoke impacts. 

The NASF represents the directors of the state forestry agencies in all 50 stales, eight territories, 

and the District of Columbia. State Foresters deliver technical and financial assistance, along 

with protection from wildfire and protection of forest health, water, and other ecosystem services 

for more than two-thirds of our nation's 766 million acres of forests. Through the State Fire 

Assistance (SFA) and Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) programs, state agencies equip 

prescribed fire managers and wildfire initial attack resources for state and private lands, which 

represent over two-thirds of our nations forests and where over 80% of the nation's wildfires 

start. 
22 


27516.009

In addition, state agencies work closely with our federal partners in managing complex multijurisdiction landscapes. We often say "fire knows no borders", and thus aim to carry out 

management and planning across ownerships. To this end, with the authority granted by 

Congress in the 2014 Farm Bill, over 30 states have signed "C3ood Neighbor'' agreements with 

the federal government, including in my own state of Florida. These agreements allow states to 

help perform watershed restoration and forest management such as by addressing hazardous 

fuels on federal lands in critical fire risk areas. 

While the duties of state agencies vary from state to state, all share common forest management 

and protection missions and most have statutory responsibilities to provide wildland fire 

protection on all lands, public and private. As such, we are intimately aware of the increasing 

occurrence of wildland fire and associated smoke impacts in nearly every state. 

Summary of Regional Fire Activity 

The fire season that is currently winding down has been one of the worst in recent memory. 

Nearly 50,000 fires have burned 8.4 million acres across our country since January 1, with 

significant fire activity still expected before the year is out in California and parts of the 

southeast. Federal fire suppression costs in Fiscal Year 2017 exceeded $2 Billion dollars for the 

Forest Service alone, not to mention the suppression expenses at the Department of the Interior, 

State Agencies. Volunteer Fire Departments, and other cooperators. 
23 


27516.010

Last fall, we experienced a rash of large fires across the southeastern United States, including the 

Great Smoky Mountains wildfire complex in Tennessee that swept into Gatlinburg, taking the 

lives of 14 individuals and capturing the nation's attention for its intensity and smoke impacts. 

In the spring of 20 17, the West Mims fire in the Okefenokee swamps of Georgia and Florida 

burned for over two months, consuming over 150,000 acres and blanketing the region in smoke 

which impacted fire responders, local communities, motorists, and more. The spring also saw 

over 5,000 homes evacuated due to threats from wildfire in southwest Florida over a 4-month 

period, as well as hundreds of fires burning across the Southwestern US challenging firefighters 

early in the western fire season. 

Despite a winter with significant snowfall which was expected to minimize the summer fire 

season, spring and summer droughts brought rampant wildfire to the Pacific Northwest and 

Rocky Mountain geographic regions this year as well. Significant fire activity in nearly every 

state brought to bear nearly every fire resource available in the country. 

Over the past 12 months, there has been virtually no area of the country immune from wildfire 

incidents and the associated smoke impacts. This year has been particularly noteworthy, in that 

fires and their impacts have not been localized to the forest-based communities most experienced 

with living with fire. Large cities, often far from the forests on fire, have experienced 

significantly reduced air quality, impacting human health, community events, tourism, 

recreation, and much, much more. 
24 


27516.011

Our Nations Forests and Wildfire 

Fire is a natural phenomenon for nearly every forest ecosystem in this country. Fire has shaped 

the occurrence and distribution of different ecosystems for centuries, simultaneously impacting 

the human and natural communities that live in and around those forests. Over the past century, 

a culture of fire suppression has unfortunately removed the natural role of fire from the public 

consciousness; however, when combined with a reduced level of forest management in many 

areas of the country this culture has also led to the build-up of hazardous fuels to historic levels. 

Despite our attempts to manage away wildfire, our forests are currently as fire-prone as ever. 

What Federal, State and local fire managers as well as scientists and researchers have leamed 

over the past decades is the critical role of hazardous fuels management in mitigating wildfire 

impacts. Solely focusing on wildfire suppression and ignoring proactive forest management 

does not lead to the least amount of fire in the long run; the fuel continues to build up to the point 

where eventually wildfires become unmanageable under initial attack. The task for wildfire 

managers is to manage the risk to communities and ecosystem values in both the short-term and 

long-term by implementing a coordinated and science-based program of fuels reduction, fire 

suppression, and community planning. Where forests of different ownerships exist in close 

proximity to each other. it is critical that these decisions about suppression and fuels treatments 

get made in a collaborative and cooperative way. This is especially true for federal lands on 

which fire management has a direct impact to adjacent state and private lands and/or 

communities. 
25 


27516.012

Hazardous fuels reduction has two main components; prescribed fire and silvicultural thinning. 

Both activities have a beneficial impact on mitigating wildfire emissions by reducing 

combustible material in the woods and allowing fire to play its natural role in the ecosystem. In 

many parts of the country, especially on federal lands which have not seen regular management, 

forest stands are too dense to conduct prescribed fire and thus forest thinning is a crucial first 

step in managing hazardous fuels. Subsequently, prescribed fire is an important tool to maintain 

the "investment" of a thinned and resilient forest, and to keep the likelihood of catastrophic 

wildfire at a low level. 

Wildfire and Air Quality 

The air quality impacts from forest fire smoke have long been scientifically documented. Of 

primary concern is particulate matter (PM), which is produced from the combustion of woody 

material. Specifically. particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5) is of concern for 

individuals exposed to wildfire smoke due to its ability to penetrate deep into the lungs and 

respiratory system. PM 2.5 can cause both shon-tcrm health effects such as eye, nose, throat and 

lung irritation, coughing and shonness of breath, as well as long-term effects on respiration and 

the worsening of medical conditions such as asthma and heart disease. Air quality impacts from 

wildfire often hit the hardest in sensitive populations (i.e. children, elderly and those with preexisting conditions). In addition to human health, reduced air quality from wildfire smoke can 

impact tourism, recreation, education. and a variety of other aspects of community life. 

The differing air quality impacts from prescribed fire compared to unplanned wildfire are 

important to recognize. One of the keys to prescribed fire for hazardous fuels management is 
26 


27516.013

that it is done in seasons and under conditions where fire managers have the ability to control fire 

location, spread, intensity, and many other parameters. Weather forecasting and state-of-the-art 

smoke modeling software allow for fire managers to tailor ignition locations and times to meet 

smoke management objectives. While each state has different laws and regulations around 

burning permits and number of allowable burn days, fire managers work within these parameters 

and laws to manage a minimal amount of smoke now in avoidance of the potential for a much 

greater amount in the future. 

The beneficial impact of managed prescribed fire on air quality emissions has been recognized 

by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its rulemaking over the past two years. In 

both the updating of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM 2.5 (81 CFR 

164, pg. 58010) and the updating of the Exceptional Events Rule (81 CFR 191, pg. 68216), the 

EPA clearly documents the role of wildfire as an emissions source and the relevance of 

prescribed fire use and fuels management to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. It is 

becoming increasingly evident through science and experience that without prescribed fire and 

the small amount of managed smoke that comes with it, we are perpetuating the conditions that 

generate catastrophic air quality issues and put communities and individuals at risk. 

State Examples of Managing Prescribed Fire for Air Quality 

Despite the ecological and social diversity across our nation and the different forest management 

and wildfire challenges states face, there is a common effort among state foresters to focus on 

increasing the usc of prescribed fire during favorable conditions in order to reduce the likelihood 
27 


27516.014

of catastrophic fire and smoke from wildfire. l would like to share examples of two state efforts 

with you today. 

Florida 

Land managers in Florida have realized the benefits of prescribed fire in maintaining healthy 

ecosystems. As Florida's population rapidly increased in the latter half of the 20th century, it 

became necessary to address the impact prescribed burning had on air quality. ln the late 1980s, 

the Florida Forest Service (FFS) developed the Certified Prescribed Burn Manger program to 

educate prescribed fire practitioners regarding their legal and good-neighbor responsibilities 

along with basic information on fire behavior, smoke management and other topics. In 1999 the 

FFS developed its first smoke management plan (SMP) approved by EPA. Florida's current SMP 

(dated 20 14) was developed in conjunction with the Florida Dcpat1mcnt of Enviromncntal 

Protection and the Florida Highway Patrol. 

By following the guidelines in the SMP, Florida is able to conduct one of the largest prescribed 

burning programs in the nation. Each year the FFS authorizes an average of2.3 million acres of 

silvicultural and agricultural burns with minimal impact on the state's 20 million residents. This 

is done using weather forecasts and sophisticated smoke models to determine the best days to 

conduct a burn while minimizing impacts from prescribed fire emissions. 

Oregon 

In Oregon, prescribed burning is utilized to meet a variety of land management goals, including 

hazardous fuel reduction. Annually, landowners, public and private, initiate approximately 3,000 
28 


27516.015

prescribed burns on about 200,000 acres. Oregon has accomplished this effort with limited 

smoke impact to its communities, averaging only seven intrusions (visible ground level smoke) 

into its communities annually. Oregon's robust smoke management program provides a daily 

forecast utilized by burn managers to achieve its goal of maximizing burn opportunities while 

minimizing community impacts. In contrast, wildfires burn approximately 500,000 acres 

annually across the State, and as seen in recent years, wildfires present significant health and 

economic impacts. Like in most areas of the country, there is a recognition in Oregon that still 

more collaborative work needs to be done to increase the use of prescribed burning and reduce 

the potential for large catastrophic wildfires. To this end, Oregon is currently reviewing its 

smoke management program to balance risk of intrusions with reduced wildfire risk. 

The Need to Fix Wildfire Funding 

It is impossible to talk about managing for healthy, resilient forests, and reducing the number of 

catastrophic air quality events without mentioning the detrimental impacts of the current way of 

budgeting for wildfire suppression, and recognizing the critical need for change. 

Today's fire seasons are on average 78 days longer than in the 1970s and are projected to grow 

hotter, more unpredictable, and more expensive in the coming years. When wildfire strikes, the 

funds used to combat these disasters come directly out of the budgets for the USDA Forest 

Service and the Department of the Interior Agencies. Over the last few decades, the USDA 

Forest Service budget for fire suppression has grown from less than 20 percent to more than 50 

percent of the agency's total budget. 
29 


27516.016

As wildfire eats up a significantly larger share ofthe agency's budget, critical funding that 

supports federal, state and private forests is also impacted. Those impacts include a decrease in 

the ability to thin forests to create more resilient conditions. Compounding the issue is a practice 

known as "fire borrowing", which occurs when the agency runs out of appropriated funding in a 

given year. Fire borrowing robs money from non-wildfire programs to pay for the current year's 

fire suppression needs. 

America's forests urgently need a fix that will fund these catastrophic wildfires the same way 

other natural disasters are funded. On the heels of one of the worst fire seasons ever, State 

Foresters request Congress to urgently address this issue in a way that ends "fire borrowing" and 

also addresses the rising costs of suppression's impacts on other agency programs and budgets. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today on behalf of the National 

Association of State Foresters. Wildland fire response is one of the most challenging facets of 

our jobs. As State Foresters, we believe we need to be doing significantly more hazardous fuels 

reduction all across this country and are working towards this goal. Such treatments allow us to 

put fire on the landscape at times and under conditions that minimize impacts, including smoke 

emissions. These treatments reduce fuel loading in the forests so that when wildfires inevitably 

occur, they burn with less intensity, reduced spread and fewer smoke impacts on communities 

and firefighters. 
30 


27516.017

Where forests of different ownerships exist in close proximity to each other, it is critical that 

decisions about suppression and fuels treatments get made in a collaborative and cooperative 

way. This is especially true for federal lands on which fire management has a direct impact to 

adjacent state and private lands and/or communities. We look forward to continuing our strong 

working relationships with the federal agencies, and to working with Congress to enable more 

good work to be done on the ground. 
31 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your testimony. 

Now we turn to Knox Marshall, Vice President of Resources, 

Murphy Company. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF KNOX MARSHALL 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you. 

Chairman Walden, Chairman Shimkus, and Ranking Member 

Tonko, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today on this 

very important issue. 

As Congressman Walden and Congressman Schrader have pointed out, they have witnessed this firsthand. We appreciate their 

leadership on this important issue. 

My name is Knox Marshall. I am Vice President of Murphy Company, located in Eugene, Oregon. We are a wood products manufacturer, and we rely on the forest for the wood products we need to 

support our business. We are deeply committed to the 750 people 

we employ and the communities where our operations are located. 

These wildfires are having disastrous effects on our public forests, human health, and public safety. While many natural disasters are beyond our control, in the case of forest fires, we can use 

active forest management to reduce the size and the severity of 

these disasters and their impacts on direct air quality while, also, 

we can produce renewable, climate-friendly wood products used by 

Americans every day. A true win-win. 

If the goal of our public policy is to have less toxic air, less carbon pollution, healthy watersheds, resilient forests, and sustainable 

wood products that create family-wage jobs in rural communities, 

we have to manage our forests now. 

Chairman Walden noted some of the serious impacts to air quality and public health. My written testimony includes examples of 

what happened this year in Oregon and Washington when we were 

blanketed by smoke and ashes for the entire summer—the worst 

I can remember in my career, going back 25-plus years. Nationally, 

we set new records for the number of acres burned and the cost of 

fighting these wildfires. Not records anyone in this room probably 

wants to set. 

Unfortunately, these trends will continue unless changes are 

made to our Federal forest management and our Federal forest fire 

suppression practices. There is an urgent need to address the root 

cause of worsening catastrophic wildfires. It is forest health. While 

we can’t prevent all fires, science does tell us that we can reduce 

the size and severity of wildfires through active forest management, including timber harvesting, mechanical thinning, and prescribed fire. 

Nearly a century of fire suppression and the more recent lack of 

active forest management of our Federal lands have resulted in 

overstocked forests that are the root cause of the mass mega-fires 

and the insect mortality we are seeing in Western forests. Where 

we once had 50 to 100 trees per acre, we now have 500 to 1,000- 

plus trees per acre. To that effect, it is no surprise that 60 million 

acres of Federal forestlands are at high risk to catastrophic wildfire. 

32 

Each year, Federal agencies are only able to mechanically treat 

about 200,000 acres, and we continue to fall further and further behind on this trajectory. It is also true that warming temperatures 

are exacerbating the forest health crisis, which is precisely why 

Federal agencies must act quickly to correct these overstocked forest conditions. 

We need to take a smart, proactive approach to fighting 

wildfires, like the approach taken by many private and state forest 

managers. These mega-fires lead to massive emissions of CO2. The 

reality is that responsible forest management and fire suppression 

will limit the emissions of CO2 and sequester carbon in the wood 

products produced, used every day in construction of our homes. 

I want to emphasize the need for Congress to give our Federal 

land management agencies new legal tools to reduce the time and 

cost required to plan forest management projects, particularly 

under the National Environmental Policy Act. It will also require 

smart legal reforms to discourage serial litigants who sue to delay 

and stop these projects. 

I also personally have serious concerns, along with other forest 

managers in the West, about the growing risk to our own private 

forestlands. Lack of active management on neighboring Federal 

lands, in what we believe is a growing failure of the foresters to 

aggressively attack forest fires when they are small and highly capable of being extinguished, poses a severe risk to the assets that 

sustain our business that we have purchased. A lot of times, the 

fire lines have become the private property lines on these massive 

fires, because where the management has taken place becomes a 

natural firebreak. 

The agency’s current approach to fighting fires is imperiling 

much of the West and harming the air quality in a significant manner. The choice to let the fire burn needs to be thoroughly reviewed 

and utilized only in exceptional circumstances where the risk of 

fire growth is absolutely minimal and these ecological benefits are 

absolutely certain. 

Absent any reform, state and private landowners need sufficient 

authority to perform initial attack suppression activities on Federal 

lands and/or the ability to hold Federal agencies liable for damages 

to the private lands from the fires that originate on Federal lands, 

similar to the liability we face as landowners if we have fires burn 

onto Federal lands. 

Thank you, and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:] 

33 


27516.018

TESTIMONY OF KNOX MARSHALL 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT 

October 4, 2017 

Chairman Walden, Chairman Shimkus, and Ranking Member Tonka, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today before the Subcommittee about the serious impacts catastrophic 

wildfires are having on our environment and communities. Congressman Walden has seen this 

devastation first-hand and we appreciate his leadership. While many natural disasters are beyond 

our control, we can use active forest management to reduce the size and severity of these 

wildfires while also producing renewable, climate-friendly wood products used by Americans 

every day- a true win-win. 

My name is Knox Marshall and I am the Vice President of the Resources Division at 

Murphy Company, a family-owned wood products manufacturer headquartered in Eugene, 

Oregon. Murphy Company is a long-time Oregon employer that dates back to 1909 and is 

presently led by CEO John Murphy, the grandson of one of our founders. W c employ over 

750 workers in family-wage jobs at four wood products manufacturing plants in Oregon and one 

in Washington. The Oregon facilities include a veneer plant in White City, softwood plywood 

plant in Rogue River, a hardwood plywood specialty plant in Eugene and a laminated veneer 

lumber ("LVL") facility in Sutherlin. In Washington, we own and operate a veneer plant in 

Elma to augment our supply of raw material for our Oregon facilities. In recent years, we've 

also invested in private forestlands to help meet our company's raw material needs. 

In my more than 20 years in the wood products industry, I have never seen a wildfire 

season in Oregon that was as harmful to our communities as this 2017 season. Oregonians 

suffered through smoky conditions for weeks on end throughout much of the state, including 
34 


27516.019

southern Oregon, the Willamettc Valley and central Oregon. School days were curtailed, 

sporting events like Cycle Oregon cancelled, and events like the Britt Music Festival and the 

Oregon Shakespeare Festival saw dramatic declines in attendance or were cancelled. 

A devastating fire in the Columbia River Gorge resulted in thick ash deposits throughout 

much of the Portland area, brought recreation in this National Scenic Area to a virtual halt for 

several weeks, and closed Interstate 84 for weeks to travel and commerce. For several days in 

September, Portland had the worst air quality in the nation. Beyond the eye and respiratory tract 

irritation, wildfire smoke is also responsible for more serious disorders, including reduced lung 

function, bronchitis, exacerbation of asthma, and premature death. Studies have found that fine 

particulate matter is linked (alone or with other pollutants) to increased mortality and 

aggravation of pre-existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease. 

Active Management Needed to Restore Forest Health, Limit Catastrophic Wildfire. 

Unless changes are made to our federal forest management and fire suppression practices, 

the terrible impacts to air quality, habitat, and communities inflicted by wildfires in 2017 will 

become the norm rather than the exception in future years. Aggressive action niust be taken to 

address the root cause of the worsening catastrophic wildfires poor forest health. While we 

can't (and shouldn't) prevent all fires. science docs tell us that we can reduce the size and 

severity of wildfires through active forest management, including timber harvesting, mechanical 

thinning and prescribed fire. 

Nearly a century of fire suppression and the more recent lack of active forest 

management on our federal lands have resulted in overstocked forests that arc at the root cause of 

the massive mcgafires and insect mortality that we arc experiencing now. For example, forests 

in California's Sierra Nevada once had 50-100 trees per acre, but now we sec 500-1,000 trees per 

2 
35 


27516.020

acre. It is no surprise that over 60 million acres of national forestland are at a high risk of 

catastrophic wildfire. Each year we fall further behind as federal agencies are only able to 

mechanically treat a small percentage of the at-risk acres each year. In fact, in recent years 

mechanical harvests on our national forests have been limited to about 200,000 acres annually. 

The statistics speak for themselves. Compared to the 1970s, our current wildfire seasons 

are an average of78 days longer, arc less predictable and arc more catastrophic. This was a 

finding by the U.S. Forest Service. According to a recent study from the Oregon forest 

Resources Institute, more than 350 million individual trees are standing dead in the 14 million 

acres of national forestland in Oregon. And in Califomia, the epicenter of that state's bark beetle 

epidemic where an estimated I 02 million trees have died is on national forests. 

It is true that warming temperatures are exacerbating the forest health crisis, which is 

precisely why federal agencies must thin their overstocked forests to improve their resiliency and 

take a smart, proactive approach to using prescribed fire and fighting catastrophic wildfires -like 

the approach taken by many private and state forest managers. Consider that of the over 500,000 

acres that burned in Oregon this year, over 90 percent occurred on national forests, which make 

up about 48 percent of Oregon's total forestland. These catastrophic fires lead to massive 

emissions of C02- often exceeding some of our region's largest sources of C02 emissions. 

Changes Needed to Federal Firefighting Policies. 

Without a change in management strategy by our federal land managers, the risk to our 

federal lands will grow every single year. And this risk is not confined to the federal lands on 

which many of this year's catastrophic wildfires originated, but increasingly threatens adjacent 

private forestland, homes, and other structures. 

3 
36 


27516.021

Consider what happened to part of the 50,500 acres that our company owns in southern 

Oregon. In early August of this year, southern Oregon was hit with four straight days of 

lightning strikes. The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), which has lead firefighting 

responsibility on private land and land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, fought 

every lightning-caused fire quickly and effectively. ODF's focus on aggressive initial attack put 

out over 90 fires within less than one week. The Forest Service, on the other hand, deployed 

very few resources and watched most of the fires burn in the hope that the fires would yield 

positive ecological benefits. In dense, high-risk forests in the late summer, this type of "let it 

burn" approach is an unwise and often dangerous strategy based on hope rather than common 

sense. It also ignores the reality that our federal forests are overloaded with fuels that are ready 

to burst into the next catastrophic wildfire. 

Looking across Oregon and elsewhere in the West, the Forest Service strategy of waiting 

and hoping that fires will burn themselves out is not working. When a fire is len acres or less, a 

small crew and a bulldozer can often knock it down and ultimately put it out. But when fires are 

left to burn in risky conditions, they accumulate acres and ultimately consolidate into larger fires, 

so-called ''Complex" fires. These fires arc extremely difficult to contain in our overstocked 

forests, are doing little to help the ecology of the landscape, and pose huge risks to private lands 

and homes. 

The Seattle Fire started on the Siskiyou National Forest and received no initial early 

attack. It ultimately grew and merged into other fires that were renamed the Miller Complex 

fire. This conflagration burned onto our company's property and heavily damaged 

approximately 60 acres of merchantable timber. ODF attempted to aid the Forest Service in 

protection of this private land, hut received so little cooperation from the federal government that 

4 
37 


27516.022

ODF was ultimately was in no position to mount a full-scale attack to stop the fire on the 

adjacent federal lands 

Murphy Company has serious concerns about the growing risk to our own forestland due 

to the combination of a lack of active management on federal lands and the consistent failure of 

federal agencies to aggressively attack forest fires when they are small and highly capable of 

being extinguished. Unfortunately, when a fire is burning the federal agencies place a relatively 

low priority on the risk posed to private forest lands, which is forcing companies like ours to 

consider taking proactive measures to limit damage to these high value assets. As you may 

know, federal government is immune from liability if they allow their forestland lands to remain 

overstocked and don't prevent the resulting fires from spreading to neighboring private 

forestlands. Private forestland owners can and have been held liable for the damages caused by 

allowing fires to start and spread to adjacent federal lands. This double standard is a serious 

concern to private forest landowners who border federal land. 

There is a growing interest within our company and among other private landowners in 

determining whether the Public Necessity Doctrine gives private landowners the right to fight a 

fire in a national forest, including wilderness areas, where the fire presents a serious risk to 

nearby private forestland due to the lack of initial early attack by the federal government. Both 

Oregon and Washington have statutes which empower a landowner to go onto a neighbor's 

property to fight a fire on that propmiy. 

Suggested Solutions. 

On behalf of my company and the entire forest products industry in the Pacific 

Northwest, I urge the Congress to take the necessary, proactive steps to restore more active 

management to our overstocked and diseased federal forests. This will require giving federal 

5 
38 


27516.023

agencies new legal tools to reduce the time and cost required to plan and implement forest 

management projects. It has been estimated that Forest Service employees spend approximately 

40 percent of their time completing environmental reviews and other paperwork required by the 

current system of analysis paralysis. According to a recent GAO study exploring National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews of Forest Service projects. the Environmental Impact 

Statements prepared for some forest thinning projects take an average of nearly 5 years to 

complete at a cost of up to $1.2 million each. The problem is made worse by serial litigants who 

sue to delay and stop projects, forcing federal land managers to "bulletproof' NEPA documents 

and expend limited agency resources defending projects from the never-ending procedural 

lawsuits. 

Legislative proposals such as H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal Forests Act, would help 

our federal land management agencies increase the pace and scale of forest thinning and 

restoration, as well as promptly salvage burned timber and restore the forest with new plantings 

as soon as possible. H.R. 2936 would also end the nonsensical practice of "fire borrowing" 

where the Forest Service is forced to dip into its management accounts when it exhausts its 

appropriated wildfire suppression funding. We must end this practice. However, we must also 

remember that tire borrowing and the growing cost of wildfire suppression are high-profile 

symptoms ofthe underlying illness- overstocked and unhealthy forests. If we do not address 

forest management, this underlying problem will continue to worsen, forcing more and more 

funding fixes in the future. 

Meanwhile, the "let it burn" policy being followed so often by the Forest Service is 

imperiling much of the West and harming the air quality for residents in a significant manner. 

This policy needs to be thoroughly reviewed and utilized only in exceptional circumstances 

6 
39 


27516.024

where the risk that the fire will grow is absolutely minimal and ecological benefits of allowing 

the fire to freely burn arc abundantly certain. Congress should also ensure that state and private 

landowners have sufficient authority to perform initial attack suppression activities on federal 

lands or make federal agencies liable for damages to private lands from fires that originate on 

federal land similar to the liability we face if we let wildfires burn onto federal lands. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify and welcome any questions you may have. 

7 
40 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. Thank you for yielding 

back. 

The final member on the panel is Mr. Christopher Topik, Director, Restoring America’s Forest, with The Nature Conservancy. 

Thank you, sir. And you are welcome for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER TOPIK 

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

And, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and members of the 

committee. I would like to associate myself with all the opening 

statements of the committee leaders. A lot of good words were said 

in that messaging, as well as with my colleagues here. 

I am representing The Nature Conservancy. We are a large conservation group. Our mission is to conserve lands and waters, upon 

which all life depends, and I would like to say also air, which is 

even more fundamental. 

I have been involved in this issue for a long time at a policy 

level, and I am finding it hard not to say once again what we have 

been saying for years: An ounce of prevention is worth more than 

a pound of cure. 

And we go to these hearings year after year. It is almost repetitive. I have looked at some older statements. Once again, a terrible, terrible fire year. Once again, really bad impacts from smoke. 

I have experienced smoke impacts myself, personally, and with elderly family members, so I know it is a real problem. And yet we 

still often fail to invest in the kind of preparedness that we know 

is important. 

Air quality and the other negative impacts of these extreme 

wildfires can indeed be reduced if we do more forest restoration appropriately and we bring back more healthy fires. And that is part 

of a conundrum here, to understand that it is absolutely vital to 

get more fire on the landscape, but fire that we are controlling and 

will end up having the burns happen. And so that is the big challenge that we have. 

We need to be able to adjust our thinking to long-term solutions 

and not just short-term solutions. And without a clear focus on forest resilience, we are going to continue to have these smoke problems. 

All levels of government need to work with and support local 

communities to learn to live with fire and smoke. The challenge we 

often have with local air agencies, the only thing they can control 

is the prescribed fires; they can’t control wildfires. And so they 

often have limited airshed space, and so that is what they restrict. 

So this is a key area of importance that your committee can have 

a very major role in helping us look at long-term solutions and 

long-term benefits of getting the right kind of controlled burns on 

the landscape. 

The preparation and risk reduction does work. We have seen it 

in many, many places. People have seen it. I know a Sisters, Oregon fire was greatly reduced when it hit some areas that had been 

treated, and I have seen it myself in some other extensive areas. 

So it is something we need to invest in upfront. 

I am a forest ecologist trained in forestry and biology, but this 

is really a social problem. It is a people problem. And so we are 

41 

just not putting the attention we need to in working with people 

and communities. And a little bit of money invested in helping 

communities work—and I can talk for a moment about some solutions—really does work. And that is something we just need to do 

a lot more. 

I also can’t pass up the opportunity today to once again say we 

need to fix the emergency fire suppression funding problem. We 

have been saying that for years and years. It is quite embarrassing. So I am very grateful for members that are here for working on fixing the fire suppression funding so we can do the upfront 

investments. And that solution needs to stabilize Federal budgets 

for upfront work. It needs to include disaster funding for fire. Fire 

is the only disaster that doesn’t get funding through the disaster 

fund. And we need to reduce harmful borrowing of non-fire funds. 

With respect to the forest management reforms, I am real concerned that we be careful with taking too many shortcuts that 

avoid the use of science and local community involvement. I am 

very nervous about having very large projects approved without 

having local and science, and I think that that will have harmful 

impacts. 

The NEPA process can be streamlined, but it needs to be able 

to be done, to actually bring people in and build trust, and be able 

to look at cumulative impacts of lots of activities. 

Some key projects and programs The Nature Conservancy is involved in are wonderful examples, and they are really quite inexpensive, and I encourage you all to look at these: the Fire Learning 

Network, the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network, the 

prescribed fire training networks. 

Today, there are, I think, five training programs going on today, 

October 4, around the country, helping bring communities and first 

responders together to learn better how to use fire for controlled 

burning. And that is the kind of real collaboration we need to focus 

in on, bringing local communities to learn fires before, during, and 

after the fires, working together, and bringing the full cycle of solutions together. 

I know I have been in Ashland, Oregon, a number of times, and 

there we are able to—we and many others are working together on 

a variety of solutions, all aimed at building the resilience that reduces the fire impacts. 

So, with that, I want to thank you for the chance to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Topik follows:] 

42 


27516.025

Statement of Christopher Topik, Ph.D. The Nature Conservancy 

"Using Good Science, Collaboration and Planning to reduce impacts of forest wildfires 

on communities and air quality" 

Submitted to the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

Subcommittee on Environment 

For Hearing on Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 10: AM in 2123 Rayburn House Office 

Building 

The title of this hearing is, "Air Quality Impacts of Wildfires: Perspectives of Key 

Stakeholders" 

Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonka, and Members of the Committee, 

and especially Full Committee Chairman Walden, thank you for the opportunity to 

participate in this important hearing about the impacts of wildfires on air quality. My 

name is Christopher Topik and for the past 6 years I have been the Director of the 

Nature Conservancy's Restoring America's Forests Program. The Nature Conservancy is 

an international, nonprofit conservation organization working around the world to 

protect ecologically important lands and waters for people and nature. We have 

hundreds of expert staff working all over the United States on related issues to bring 

science and community engagement together. Our mission is to conserve the lands and 

waters upon which all life depends. Prior to this job I worked as a forest ecologist at the 

USDA Forest Service for 16 years (10 years in support offorest management in the 

Oregon and Washington Cascades) and then 15 years as majority professional staff for 

both parties on the House Interior and Environment Appropriations subcommittee, 

responsible for the budgets and oversight of important natural resource and science 

agencies, such as the USDA Forest Service, BLM, and US Geological Survey. 
43 


27516.026

The short version of my testimony is that we, at all levels of government, need to 

work with and support local communities to prepare for fire and to learn to live with fire 

(and smoke): we can reduce the harmful impacts of smoke if we increase and improve 

the usc of safe fire. We need to alter the situation that has been so clearly displayed 

during this terrible wildfire season- by accepting that preparation and risk reduction 

works and reduces the multiple, negative of uncontrolled fires. We need to invest in 

upfront appropriate management, largely determined at the local level, to change our 

current emergency based culture of fire with a better, integrated use of good fire to 

reduce loss of property and harmful smoke impacts. Science and evidence based 

analysis of communities and landscapes is essential to guide our activities, and to do so 

at a much larger scale and pace. If we take too many shortcuts we can make large 

mistakes that can have harmful impacts on forests and communities that will last for 

years. 

Once again I have to say that this has been a terrible wildfire season so far, fully 

recognizing that in many years the worst events can happen in October or even 

November. I know that the members of the Committee will join me in thanking the hard 

working and dedicated federal, state and local employees who have labored long this 

year to reduce impacts to communities and our environment. 

There have been many costs this year- and not just the monetary costs of fire 

suppression, which set new federal records. I also mean costs like the long term health 

impacts of smoke, such as those experienced in Montana especially, which will reach far 

past the many weeks of dangerously bad air quality during this summer's extreme 

wildfires. One thing that all the Congressional Representatives should agree on is the 
44 


27516.027

need for a comprehensive fire suppression funding fix. We have gone too long without 

regular and timely funding for emergency services for fire. And we need to get serious 

about investing in the up-front forest and land management, using locally based 

strategies, to reduce fire risk. 

The tragic disasters that have struck the United States this year demonstrate that 

we all need to invest in preparedness and risk reduction. We have such good evidence 

that relatively small investments in helping communities reduce risks pay off in a big 

way, not just financially but also in reduced impacts to lives, health, and prosperity of 

our citizens. The appropriate application of science and environmental reviews is an 

integral part of such preparation. 

Fixing fire funding is of national importance. The health and social impacts of 

wildfire smoke this summer were debilitating- from Portland Oregon's more than two 

million metro residents to Seeley Lake, Montana's less than two thousand people. The 

costs and negative impacts of extreme wildfires can happen anywhere and have large 

impacts on urban, suburban, and rural citizens. Half of Americans get their water from 

forests; forests are the cleansing agents that help clear our air and that sequester 

massive amounts of carbon emissions. All Congressional districts and States will benefit 

from science based fire management solutions. 

National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy 

There are many good things going on in America on this front. First and 

foremost, the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy 

(https:l/www.fs.fed.us/restoration/cohesivestrategy.shtml) provides an action plan that 
45 


27516.028

has been approved by all levels of government, from cities, counties, states, tribes and 

federal agencies, along with industry and NGOs. This approach requires: (1) better fire 

response (including use of managed fires), (2) appreciation of fire adapted landscapes; 

and (3) enhanced community adaptation. 

It is clear from fire science and social science literature that fire is a key part of 

nature, and will continue to be such despite human efforts to stop it. Much of North 

America incudes natural ecosystems where fire plays a necessary and normal role- and 

as a result native species and habitats are fire adapted. As we occupy and alter more and 

more of the landscape, we also must learn to live with natural processes and use them to 

our benefit. Different ecosystems need different types of fire to remain healthy. 

Likewise, the human-created infrastructure in these varying types of landscapes require 

different strategies if they are to continue to co-exist ·with nature. As our climate 

continues to warm in the coming decades, scientists anticipate even more extreme 

weather and fire events will become the new normal. 

Smoke management is indeed an important component of fire management. I 

have had personal experiences with wildfires and I have seen the impacts on my elderly 

family members suffering during wildfire events in California. Recent science on 

western U.S. wildfire smoke emissions and forest management indicates that controlled 

burning is the most efficient and effective way of reducing overall smoke impacts on air 

quality in fire prone landscapes. A comprehensive, recent paper (Lin, et. al; .J 

Geophysical Research Atmospheres, Vol122, issue 11, .June 16, 2017 "Airborne 

measurements of western U.S. wildfire emissions: Comparison with prescribed burning 

and air quality implications") indicates that smoke from controlled burns has only 1/10 
46 


27516.029

the negative impacts of smoke from uncontrolled wildfires. Much of our American 

forest and shrub lands are ecologically primed to burn at some time, so to really reduce 

smoke impacts on air quality, we need to invest in more deliberate use of controlled 

burns. 

In areas where the cultural use of fire has not been lost, or where it has been 

reestablished, we have a much greater chance to minimize destructive megafires. These 

areas include some southern forests dominated hy longleaf pine and increasingly, areas 

of shortleaf pine in places like Arkansas. Other pyrogenic landscapes, such as the 

chaparral or shrub of extensive areas in California and surrounding states, will most 

certainly burn at some time- and they can burn explosively. Defensible space, sufficient 

ingress/egress routes, and controlled burning in the cooler and wetter months are 

essential to protect people and property. 

There are also millions of acres of dry forests, especially in the western states 

dominated by pines, where our previous over-zealous fire suppression policy led to 

extensive areas of dense unhealthy forests that burn explosively. Many of these areas 

would benefit from strategic fuels treatment, followed by controlled burning, to return 

them to the frequent, low intensity fire regimes that dominated this part of the continent 

for thousands of years. The Forest Service estimates that there are about 11 million acres 

in the National Forest System that are not in reserved areas or municipal watersheds 

that would benefit from strategic fuels treatment and controlled burns. I encourage 

those here today to focus on these areas that are known priorities with well accepted 

scientific treatments, rather than pursue more general demands to increase timber 

harvests. 
47 


27516.030

Almost everyone agrees that healthier fire on the landscape- from grasslands to 

shrub lands to forests- would be beneficial. There have been substantial increases in the 

amount of good fire on the landscape in recent years, yet we are having a hard time 

making the dramatic increases in acres treated that are necessary to effect real change. 

The scale and pattern of current treatments is not even close to being commensurate 

with the need for restoration and maintenance. Besides the clear need for more 

controlled burns on all ownerships of fire-prone lands, we also need to be more 

aggressive about using wildfire events, where safe, to increase acres treated. Fire use is 

not without risks, but if leaders clearly articulate the benefits, we could implement much 

healthier and lower impact burning. I am encouraged by the desire of the Wildland Fire 

Leadership Council to take on the issue of smoke management so that we can better 

understand the trade-offs between smoke during controlled conditions versus the 

devastating air quality suffered during catastrophic and enduring fire events. 

Communities will fare better when they can play a role in deciding when, where, and in 

what duration smoke affects them. Controlled burning provides this opportunity. 

Proven Solutions: Fire Learning Network and Fire Adapted Communities 

Learning Network 

I encourage the Committee to look at examples of successful programs that are 

helping people learn how to live with fire and smoke while strengthening local 

partnerships and increasing capacity for cross-boundary restoration and fuel reduction. 

The Fire Learning Network (http://'h'\Vw.conservationgateway.org/fln), a cooperative 

program of the US Forest Service, Department of the Interior agencies-Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service and National 
48 


27516.031

Park Service-and The Nature Conservancy, has a 15-year proven track record of helping 

restore our nation's forests and grasslands and making communities safer from fire. 

Since its start in 2002, the FLN has supported 162landscapes in 40 states and worked 

with more than 1,440 partner groups. Through collaboration, the Fire Learning Network 

helps build trust and understanding among stakeholders, access training and capacity 

building that helps fire professionals work with local communities, and builds public 

support for forest and fire restoration- all while also benefitting from being in a national 

network that increases knowledge sharing and generating new ways of doing business. 

Recent examples of the Fire Learning Network's success relevant to controlled 

burning and smoke management include: 

In both central Oregon and Ashland, FLN partners are seeing the importance and 

the power of having a multi-faceted strategy about smoke outreach. The partners 

are reaching an ever-growing and diverse audience oflocals and visitors who care 

deeply about the region's forests. Key communications, delivered through social 

media, TV, radio, newspapers and at movie theaters during the spring controlled 

burn season, helped increase support more broadly for tolerating associated 

smoke when paired with proactive protection and mitigation strategies for 

smoke-sensitive populations and individuals. 

In California, our work with a diverse partnership of N a tiona! Forest, Tribes, 

communities and CALFIRE through the Western Klamath Mountains and 

California Klamath-Siskiyou FLNs has led to community engagement in 

planning, training, and implementation, which resulted in significant 

improvements of fuels treatment, forest restoration, and community wellbeing. 
49 


27516.032

These efforts, along with the initiation and expansion of Prescribed Fire Councils 

in the west, started with important discussions about smoke in WA, CA, and OR 

and have also been key in influencing the Western Regional Cohesive Strategy 

Team to expand their leadership to further enable important collective impact 

towards the goals of the Cohesive Strategy. 

And specifically, today (October 4), there are five Prescribed Fire Training 

Exchanges (TREX) currently taking place in New Mexico, California, and 

Washington, where professional fire workers from across the country (and even 

internationally) are building local fire management capacity while completing 

controlled burns and other fuel reduction treatments that help communities and 

ecosystems. Participants get hands-on experience in ecological burning, receive 

training in communicating with the media, develop their fireline qualifications, 

and learn about local ecology and conservation issues, all in a setting that 

emphasizes safety, ]earning and cooperation. 

The most cost effective and under-valued solution to harmful fire is through 

structured engagement of communities at risk. It is essential to develop local skills and 

local visions for how communities should take action to protect themselves and their 

surrounding wildlands. Different places will have different needs and differing cultures 

will, and should, generate different solutions. As a nation we don't hesitate to respond in 

massive fashion during immediate emergencies, but we are not so good at funding the 

preparedness that we all know has a great return on investment. It is encouraging that 

the US Fire Administration is taking a more holistic view of fire preparedness and 

hazard mitigation; other governmental bodies and industries should do the same. 
50 


27516.033

Another example of a cost effective program is the Fire Adapted Communities 

Learning Network (http://fireadaptednetwork.org). Launched in 2013, and rooted in 

the lessons of the FLN, FAC Net now engages well over 100 community leaders in 28 

states, ranging from small communities in the ;vildland matrix to huge cities like Austin, 

Texas. The purpose of these networks is to significantly accelerate the spread and 

adoption of concepts and actions that will help communities help themselves become 

better adapted to fire. 

The values of the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network are: 

• Adaptation is critical to a positive future. 

• Collaboration and partnerships are keys to successful adaptation. 

• Investment in local-level capacity, partnerships and responsibility yields the best 

outcomes. 

• Supporting the coordinating function within communities is essential to leveraging 

the range of resources, institutions and individuals necessary to build fire adapted 

communities. 

• Investing in learning across communities and geographies is a strategy that works at 

multiple scales, including: 

• Facilitating the adoption of best practices and innovations; 

• Building a community-of-practice to fuel inspiration and innovation; 

• Aggregating lessons learned to advise the design of programs and policies in support 

of fire adapted communities; and 

• Leveraging lessons learned to inform policy and resource allocation, as appropriate. 
51 


27516.034

Proven Solutions for Federal Forests: Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration and Joint Chiefs' I.andscape Restoration Partnership 

Nearly half of America's forests are publicly owned, highlighting the need for 

collaborative active management. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Program of the USDA Forest Service (CFLR) demonstrates that collaborativelydeveloped forest restoration plans can be implemented at a large scale with benefits for 

people and the forest. This is a model approach that brings citizens, local government 

and federal staff together to determine effective management that is locally appropriate 

and provides jobs, sustains rural economies, reduces the risk of damaging fires, 

addresses invasive species, improves wildlife habitat, and decommissions unused, 

eroding roads. This program should have its authority extended to 2024, and funding 

increased to at least $6o million per year. A funding increase will guarantee the existing 

23 successful projects can continue, and additional critical projects across America can 

begin. 

The Joint Chiefs' Landscape Restoration Partnership of the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Forest Service provides targeted funds that help 

local communities and land owners, including cities and counties, to do cross-boundary 

work to improve conditions on both public and private lands together. It is a great 

example of USDA Secretary Perdue's call for shared stewardship of our nation's forests. 

So far more than 50 individual projects are completed or under way to improve forest 

and rangeland ecosystems so they arc healthy and resilient. Such healthy lands produce 

better water and less harmful smoke when experiencing ;vildfires. 

Federal Policy needs: 
52 


27516.035

The Congress can make a real difference at reducing wildfire smoke impacts by 

supporting policies that maintain healthy and resilient forests. We need to increase the 

long-term protection of forest resources from threats such as catastrophic wildfire, 

insects, and diseases- and promoting the use of fire as an important forest management 

tool will help us achieve the goal of maintaining healthy and resilient forests. We cannot 

just log our way out of the fire problem. Appropriate timber harvest, when coupled with 

fire that emulates natural processes, is one of the tools needed, but we need to 

implement the entire forest restoration package. This will vary tremendously depending 

on the natural and cultural environment. 

State and Private Forests: 

1. Create incentives for increasing prescribed burning and other forest management 

on state and private forests and grasslands by formally addressing the challenges 

to using this tool. Use the Farm Bill and other legislation to prioritize projects 

that use prescribed burning and other forest management activities through 

Conservation Title programs. 

2. Provide adequate Federal resources to encourage states, tribes, and counties to 

implement the Cohesive Strategy. 

3. Find new funding mechanisms, such as Forest and Water Funds, that support 

enhanced forest restoration projects. These projects can reduce the impacts of 

harmful, extreme wildfires through the use of established funding sources that 

would be leveraged with non-federal funding sources. 

Public, including National Forests: 
53 


27516.036

1. Invest in reducing wildfire risk by restoring healthy forests. 

2. Create an Accelerated Landscape Scale Restoration authority 

3. Extend the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program to 2024, 

4. Improve existing U.S. Forest Service authorities: 1) Good Neighbor Authority, by 

allowing road access; and 2) Stewardship Contracting, 

5. Any fire suppression funding solution must be comprehensive by including the 

following three criteria: 1) address the continued erosion of agency budgets that 

results from the increasing ten-year fire spending average, and stabilize the level 

of funding for suppression within the agencies; 2) access disaster funding for 

extraordinarily costly fires, including those that may be calculated as part of the 

ten-year average; and 3) significantly reduce the need to transfer from nonsuppression accounts and programs. 

Conclusion 

In a recent (September 15, 2017) Washington Post perspective, Sarah Coefield, 

air quality specialist with the Missoula City-County Health Department, helps us frame 

this discussion by her statement: "We live in a fire-adapted ecosystem, and, out of 

necessity, we're becoming a smoke-adapted community. The valley rain and mountain 

snow are coming. We will stop and breathe the clean air. And then we will get ready for 

next year." 

It is time for concerted action by the Congress and others, I thank the Committee 

for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the need to improve our investments and 
54 


27516.037

procedures regarding '-"ildfires and their impacts on air quality. The Nature 

Conservancy is ready to join '-"ith you around the nation to push for and implement 

solutions at both the federal and local levels. 
55 


27516.038

One-page Summary for 10-4.17 hearing of House Energy & Commerce Committee 

Air quality and other negative impacts of extreme wildfires can be reduced if we increase 

forest restoration and bring back healthy fires that reduce the risk of dangerous fires that 

produce massive smoke emissions. 

All levels of government, need to work with and support local communities to prepare 

for fire and to learn to live with fire (and smoke): we can reduce the harmful impacts of smoke if 

we increase and improve the use of safe fire. 

We need to alter the situation that has been so clearly displayed during this terrible 

wildfire season- by accepting that preparation and risk reduction works and reduces the 

multiple, negative of uncontrolled fires. 

We need to invest in up-front appropriate management, largely determined at the local 

level, to change our current emergency based culture of fire v.~th a better, integrated use of good 

fire to reduce loss of property and harmful smoke impacts. 

We need to fix the broken federal emergency fire suppression funding situation. 

Science and evidence based analysis of communities and landscapes is essential to guide 

our activities, and to do so at a much larger scale and pace. If we take too many shortcuts we can 

make large mistakes that can have harmful impacts on forests and communities that v.'illlast for 

years. 

Proven programs exist that need to be emulated and expanded. Prime examples are the 

Fire Learning Network and the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network. Other key, 

though much too small, programs include the ,Joint Chiefs' Landscape Restoration Partnership 

(NRCS plus Forest Service) and the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program at the 

Forest Service. 
56 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. We thank you 

for your testimony. 

Now we will go to the questions. I will start first, and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

So this subcommittee is the Environment subcommittee, and a 

lot of our focus is going to be on air quality and issues. So the forestry debate, for some of those who live in the West, they know it, 

but this is like ‘‘Forestry 101 for Dummies’’ for us, so I have a couple quick questions. 

Mr. Bailey, you said ‘‘fuels.’’ So define ‘‘fuels’’ for those of us who 

are not from forest areas. 

Mr. BAILEY. Sure. Do I have a 45-minute lecture here? No. All 

right. 

So we would first divide living fuels versus dead fuels. But, of 

course, the heat of the fire converts a living fuel into a dead fuel. 

But living fuel would be all the things that you would visualize 

when you walk through the woods out there. The dead fuels include those aerial fuels up above the ground surface—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So it is not just dead trees. 

Mr. BAILEY. Not just dead fuels—it is a whole—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Is the dead trees the predominant fuel that we are 

talking about in this debate? 

Mr. BAILEY. No. The dominant fuel that is driving fire-spread on 

an individual hillside or across an entire landscape are the fine 

surface fuels, some living, some dead, because they are so reactive 

to the fire flaming front as it comes through. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. 

Mr. Karels, you used the terminology ‘‘hazardous fuels’’ in your 

statement. So what is a hazardous fuel? Or is it the same thing? 

Mr. KARELS. I think it is the same thing. It tends to become a 

hazard when it gets too heavy, when the fuels build up to where 

there are ladder fuels, ground—the surface fuels the doc talked 

about that has a ladder all the way to the tops of the trees. So you 

haven’t thinned it; that forest is not open. There is not a prescribed 

fire program that is reducing the ground-floor fuels. Now you have 

a ladder to the top. Now you have pictures like the one you showed 

on the Columbia Gorge where the fire is going 150 feet high. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So is the ladder to the top dead trees? 

Mr. KARELS. Not just dead trees. When you have a drought, 

those live trees, fuel moistures go very low. The conditions underneath preheat, and it takes the live trees just like it takes the dead 

trees. 

So you have a combination of both. You have a combination of 

hazardous fuels that are dead trees and all—really, what we call 

all that ladder fuel in between. If you have a scattered, thin forest, 

you don’t have those ladder fuels going to the top, and you tend to 

have a lower surface fire that is easier to suppress than the heavy 

fuels, the hazardous fuels that take it into the crown and run with 

it, run 14 miles in a single day. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me ask a question. With the hurricanes that 

just went through Florida, was there a lot of toppling of trees so 

that there is a buildup of fuels in the State of Florida now? 

57 

Mr. KARELS. In the southwest portion of the state, there was. It 

will significantly increase the hazardous fuels through that lower 

portion of Florida, from about Orlando, Tampa, down. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Is the State of Florida trying to manage that excess fuel? 

Mr. KARELS. We are beginning that process. Really, right now, 

Chairman, we are just digging out. I am surprised I am here today, 

because I had 500 people in response right up to last week. But 

that is our next step, to start to deal with those fuels. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And let me go to Mr. Marshall. 

Did you say something about break fuels? Or—— 

Mr. MARSHALL. My specialty is fuel reduction, removing the fuel 

so there is lower risk of fire. What you will see in the West a lot 

of times is, fire doesn’t acknowledge property lines or section lines, 

so where you have these checkerboard ownerships, we have implemented on our own forestlands, a thinning regime so that we actually reduce the fuel load, so when the fires come off the Federal 

lands, there is a chance to stop them because of our significant investments in these lands. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And so let me go to the question I was supposed 

to ask from committee staff, and that is to Mr. Karels. 

One study indicates that wildfires burning within 500 miles of a 

city routinely caused air pollution to be 5 to 15 times worse than 

normal and 2 to 3 times worse than the worst non-fire day of the 

year. How does that track with your experience? 

Mr. KARELS. It tracks fairly well, Chairman, and, again, it depends on the winds. It depends on the conditions and where and 

stuff. But those are what we tend to call large, catastrophic fires, 

they put a tremendous amount of smoke, a tremendous amount of 

particle matter. And it is not uncommon for impacts 200, 300, 400 

miles way. 

I will give you an example. We impacted the city of Chicago in 

2007 from one of the swamp fires on the Georgia-Florida line. And 

just depending on how the winds are, it is that much of an impact 

with those heavy fuel loadings and those really large fires. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thank you for your answers. 

Now I turn to the ranking member, Mr. Tonko from New York, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And, gentlemen, again, welcome. 

As you heard during opening statements, all the evidence points 

to a trend in recent years of more numerous and more severe fires. 

My supposition is that this is due to a number of factors, some of 

which involve forest management, but many are associated with 

the effects of climate change. 

According to a 2015 United States Forest Service report, ‘‘The 

United States burns twice as many acres as three decades ago, and 

Forest Service scientists believe the acreage burned may double 

again by midcentury.’’ 

A 2012 Climate Central report found that burn season is 2 1A1⁄2

months longer than it was 40 years ago and that, for every 1-degree Celsius temperature increase the Earth experiences, the area 

burned in the Western United States could quadruple. 

So, Dr. Bailey, do you agree with this assessment? 

58 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes. I have read those reports and others. It is consistent. 

Mr. TONKO. So what are the specific driving factors for the longer 

fire season in recent years? And do you believe these factors are 

strongly associated with climate change? 

Mr. BAILEY. From my reading, yes. Based on the warming, the 

reduced snow pack, the small change in seasonality of precipitation. 

And some of it is our definition of the fire season. It is not a 

hard-and-fast thing. It relates to the deployment of resources and 

that kind of thing, as well. 

But I don’t think there is any question that it is. The fuels dry 

out sooner. We have to get our resources out there sooner. And 

they are out there later in the fall. So that is what translates to 

the longer fire seasons. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And, Dr. Topik, what is your view of that assessment? 

Mr. TOPIK. Well, I certainly agree with that assessment. I would 

also point out, the challenge here is not just the number of acres 

but the type of acres. And so—— 

Mr. TONKO. Meaning what? 

Mr. TOPIK. What I would like to see us have is lots of acres burn 

in a very low-intensity fashion, producing low emissions, low harmful smoke, rather than these big, bad, nasty fires. And so I also 

agree with my colleagues that we do need to do a lot more active 

management, but that has to be followed up with controlled burns 

to actually bring back the kind of resilience that, in a long term, 

will work. 

And, certainly, the climate change connection is real, and it is 

part of the problem of the vacillation of extremes. And so it just 

points to the need, I think, the opening statement remarking how 

important forests are for sequestering carbon. I mean, they are now 

sequestering, what, 13, 14 percent of the Nation’s fossil fuel emissions. And so this is an area where we can intervene for all these 

benefits that our panel has discussed. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And I believe that it is clear that any long-term preventative 

plan for wildfires and the dangerous air pollution they produce 

needs to get to the root of the problem and get serious about addressing climate change as a national priority. 

The 2014 National Climate Assessment found that, as temperatures increase to levels projected for the midcentury and beyond, 

Eastern forests may be at risk of die-off. Many Americans, including Members of Congress, typically see wildfires as a Western 

issue. 

So do any witnesses, particularly Mr. Karels, want to comment 

on whether there will be an increasing wildfire risk to the Eastern 

United States? 

Mr. KARELS. Again, that is hard to say. Go back to Mr. Topik’s 

discussion, is the type of fuels. When our fuels get heavier, when 

we don’t manage the forest, when we don’t prescribe burn, the 

numbers are going to go up and the impacts are going to go up. 

When you can prescribe burn, significant number of acres to 

make a difference, you have the opportunities to have these lowVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Feb 14, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-61 CHRIS
59 

intensity fires that are, one, easier to suppress, or we can manage 

without the smoke impacts, without the timber losses, and still 

have fuel reduction efforts. 

So I look at it as more of how we manage our forest. If we keep 

our forest healthy, we can keep the numbers and, really, the real 

impact to our citizens down. 

Mr. TONKO. And are there any different forest management techniques or strategies to regulate or manage these fires in the East? 

Mr. KARELS. In the East, especially the Southeast, prescribed fire 

is a significant tool. Florida burns 2.3 million acres a year with 

prescribed fire. Every year, among 20 million people, we burn that 

many acres each year. With the fuel growth in that subtropical environment, you would say, that is what keeps us from having absolutely catastrophic fire every year down there. 

And much of the Southeast does a very good job in that prescribed fire. It has been part of a culture, and the laws and stuff 

allow it. That is low-impact. You do have some smoke; you do have 

to manage it. But that is what our business does, is prevent impact 

to the citizens. 

So there are tools like that, and there is active forest management in the East, very much so. The Southeast is the wood basket 

of the world. And that active management helps reduce the fuels 

and those hazardous fuels I talked about earlier. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Karels. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 

Walden, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman. 

And I think we have a couple other slides. 

I actually took this out of an airplane, flying back here. That is 

Mount Hood that rises 11,238 feet. So the fire picture you saw from 

Mr. Schrader was the face of this fire. This is up on top, then, a 

day or so later, looking out. You can see how that smoke just covers 

everything. That was all burning. They had 10 helicopters trying 

to put out that fire, and it was so smoky they often couldn’t fly the 

helicopters. 

Go to the next one. 

This gives you a shot from the Washington side of the Columbia 

River. That is, I don’t know, probably a half-mile, mile across river 

as it burns, and this is looking the other direction. But it just tells 

you this went on for weeks. And this is just one example of multiple fires. 

And I want to follow up with Dr. Topik. 

On your point about fire funding, we are all in. In fact, I was in 

a meeting in the Speaker’s office with a number of the Westerners 

last night again, and he is being very helpful and supportive. I 

have great confidence that this administration is going to replace 

the funds, over $600 million, hopefully in this next tranche, so that 

we can get the money back into the account for the Forest Service. 

But you are spot-on. Every year, we repeat this stupid, stupid 

cycle of robbing the accounts that would do the forest thinning to 

pay for the firefighting while the fires are going on. So we don’t do 

the preventive work because you have to pay for the fire. Then we 

60 

replace the money when it is too late to do the preventive work because winter has set in. And then we repeat it. It makes no sense. 

It is four to five times more expensive to fight fire than to do the 

treatment. 

And while prescribed fire is very important and a subject of our 

hearing—and I know the CDC and the EPA are looking at studies 

on the effects of prescribed fire smoke versus wildfire smoke, and 

I think we are going see it is dramatically different because you 

can manage it. We can do even better than that by thinning out 

the forests and getting them back in balance. 

So we are trying to solve the fire borrowing issue. We are trying 

to solve the fire funding replacement issue. And, again, I think the 

Trump administration is fully on board to do that. But we need the 

management tools to be expanded in the proper way. 

You mentioned the Ashland Watershed Project. That is, I think, 

being done under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which I 

helped write, I don’t know, a number of years ago. And I have been 

up on that project. It is expensive to do, but it is incredibly important to do to save that watershed above Ashland. 

But I want to go to our forestry professor from Oregon State University, because I would like you to answer about stand densities. 

We have talked about the fuel loads. But some of these stands on 

a given acre on the east side of Oregon should have how many 

trees in a dry forest environment versus what they have today? 

Mr. BAILEY. It would cover a spectrum. The driest end, the ponderosa pine with a little juniper underneath, might be as low as 20 

trees per acre, so truly a savannah or a woodland instead of a forest. 

Mr. WALDEN. And on those sorts of forests today that have been 

left untreated and unburned, how dense is that? 

Mr. BAILEY. Some of them that I have gone into are a thousand 

stems per acre. 

Mr. WALDEN. A thousand trees per acre where it should be 20. 

This is the fuel loading. And every year some of those die, the 

growth continues. It is like just adding more gas into another can. 

And you just wait. 

We get dry lightning in the West. Here, you get these thunderstorms and it rains and washes everything. We just don’t get the 

rain. It shuts off. We went, I don’t know, 88, 90 days with no rain 

this summer. It is not abnormal, a little abnormal. And temperatures are rising, the climate is changing, I get all that. But we have 

this building fuel load that we need to deal with. 

And on the west side, in terms of overstocking, what forest? 

Mr. BAILEY. Well, similarly, there is less of a frequent fire history on the west side. The Douglas fir forest, including down into 

your part of the country, probably we had surface fire in there 

maybe every 40 to 70 years or so, historically. But those stands 

also are more dense because we have been excluding fire longer 

than that. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

I want to quickly, in the remaining few seconds I have—Mr. 

Marshall, thanks for being here, first of all. From your perspective, 

there was a lot of discussion about how fires are fought on Federal 

land, within certain designations on Federal lands, versus state 

61 

lands, county lands, tribal lands, and private lands. What did you 

see this summer? What should we know? 

Mr. MARSHALL. There is a little bit of a perception, I believe, that 

we need to understand fire and understand its healthy impacts, but 

my perception is we are seeing that that really has a window, just 

like we are seeing the window of these fires blowing up and being, 

in my opinion, truly catastrophic. 

So I heard a lot about healthy fire, healthy fire from the agencies 

where, on the lands that you referenced that are Federal, we are 

seeing initial attack, stop the fires, mitigate the risk. 

Mr. WALDEN. You are also doing active management then. 

Mr. MARSHALL. And we are actively managing, so we see ground 

fire, so my perception is that there is a little bit of an understanding that we need fire, but it isn’t understood when that time 

is, and so the Federal agencies are backing off a little more regularly than we see the other agencies, and the fires are getting bigger, faster, and more severe. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The chairman’s time is expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you. I want to just start by thanking Chairman Walden for his comments about wildfire funding. In the 113th 

and 114th Congresses, I supported the Wildfire Disaster Funding 

Act and even led a discharge petition to bring the bill up on the 

floor, because we don’t want to be spending prevention money on 

fighting fires, and we do that, as I understand it, because of a fealty to this year-by-year scoring, and it is the silliest thing to say 

we are going to save money this year, but we know that it is going 

to cost us more next year. We ought to just understand, make a 

decision like a business or a family would here, and spend money 

on prevention to save money later. And so, I would say to the 

chairman I would love to work with you on that. There are a lot 

of nonsensical things that we come across here, but I think that is 

just idiotic. 

I know that the Nature Conservancy has done some work on a 

carbon offset program, and that is a California kind of thing. We 

have a cap and trade system there that is not the Federal Government’s approach, and I understand that in California, that the 

trading of offsets has been able to reduce emissions, but I would 

like to ask maybe Dr. Bailey and Dr. Topik in particular, can you 

tell me what Federal policy is missing? If you could change three 

things, what would you change? I will start with Dr. Bailey. 

Mr. BAILEY. So could you ask the question again? 

Mr. PETERS. What is Federal policy missing? So I hear a lot of 

violent agreement about the need to deal with forest fires. Where 

are we falling short? What would you like to see us change? You 

are talking to the decisionmakers in the Federal Government, what 

would you like to see done differently? Or more or less? 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, so the forest service, sometimes we are guilty 

of criticizing the forest service for not doing this or doing this. But 

they are a great group of individuals, and they are doing as best 

they can with the laws, the rules, the administrative rules and 

policies and case law that drives them to this situation where they 

have a hard time doing their job as foresters in my opinion. 

62 

So we are probably overdue for an overhaul that updates the sets 

of rules that they operate under, now that we have a better understanding of the role of wildfire. 

Mr. PETERS. So the rules that govern the forest service are too 

restrictive in terms of allowing them the freedom that they need 

to do their jobs. 

Mr. BAILEY. To do their jobs. 

Mr. PETERS. Dr. Topik? 

Mr. TOPIK. I am going to cheat a little bit here, but the first 

thing is really getting serious and implementing and funding the 

National Cohesive Strategy for Wildland Fire Management. There 

we have a well-thought-out plan that has been agreed to by the 

League of Cities, by the National Association of Counties, by the 

states, by the tribal organizations and all the Feds, and it calls for 

some really important action. And so the strategy can make a big 

difference. So that is one thing. 

Secondly, I mentioned before the fire suppression funding fix. I 

would love to see that in the next disaster relief bill. And then, I 

think, the third thing is the social engagement, the small amounts 

of money to fund people to help bring communities together so that 

they can learn and bring science together with collaboration at a 

local level. 

Mr. PETERS. When a community comes up against science and 

doesn’t agree with the science, what do you do then? 

Mr. TOPIK. It is pretty amazing. What I have seen in practice, 

for instance, in Bend, Oregon, in the Nature Conservancy, we have 

a guy who is just so good at doing GIS, geographic information systems, so in real time, you can sit down and have the scientist with 

people do what-if scenarios. And so that is not free. It takes time. 

So I think that is the kind of thing we need to invest in, so that 

the science is directly understandable and displayed to people. 

Mr. PETERS. Do you disagree with Dr. Bailey’s assessment that 

the forest service’s hands are tied by political constraints? 

Mr. TOPIK. Well, I would like to see them do a lot more, and I 

know they want to do more, and I think, once again, if you look 

at the real buying power, I was one of the, I hate to admit it, so 

long ago, I was one of the authors of the National Fire Plan back 

in 2001 and we did an initial rapid increase in funding for the engagement, including hazardous fuel reduction and community engagement and restoration. And then it just waned. And the real 

buying power has dropped dramatically, and so that is a big problem. When you have Federal agency staff you have merged countless numbers of ranger districts where I used to work anyway. 

Mr. PETERS. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to each of 

you for being here, and certainly what difficult times we have had 

in certain places in our country, particularly in Oregon, and you 

look back and certainly we can come up with the causes and reasons why this was worse. But would it be safe to say that each of 

you agree that if we actively manage forests, that that significantly 

63 

reduces the risk and severity of wildfires. Does everybody agree 

with that? 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes. 

Mr. TOPIK. Yes. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Obviously how we go forward is going to be 

most important, because there are other spots just waiting for another tragic wildfire that impacts a community. So what I want to 

ask each of you, and if you can just briefly, if you could say what 

would be maybe the top regulatory or legal impediment to forest 

management? Is there something that just, Hey, this is it, this is 

the top thing, and we could start with you, Mr. Bailey. 

Mr. BAILEY. In my experience in working with the collaborative 

groups, that is where the action is going to be in the future, is the 

NEPA process itself is applied at such a small scale, individual 

projects of just a couple acres, it still needs to go through this involved NEPA process that I think is well beyond when that law 

was written and what NEPA was intended for, and we tend to just 

over apply it for relatively small, meaningless activities. 

Mr. HARPER. So, Dr. Bailey, if we were able to speed up that 

timeline and not make it on every small thing, that is going to 

have a positive impact? 

Mr. BAILEY. The process and the timeline it is very important it 

is going to be hard to speed it up, but we don’t need to apply it 

on a 20-acre thinning. We can apply it on a 50,000-acre landscape 

management plan. 

Mr. HARPER. All right. Thank you. Mr. Karels? 

Mr. KARELS. I think I am pretty close with Dr. Bailey. Allowing 

those larger landscape scale projects, that categorical exclusions 

allow them to implement some of these practices that reduce the 

fire threat. An example with putting a state agency in a state forest and a national forest beside each other, and we can implement 

the same project in one month on a state forest, which may take 

3 to 5 years on a national forest. And it is not because they don’t 

want to do it; it is because, as has been said, their hands are tied 

of going through that very intensive process, and then sometimes 

the legal battles that come out of it. 

Mr. HARPER. And so those impediments, as you are saying, differ 

between Federal, state, and privately owned lands. So that creates 

different time frames is what you are saying. Would that be correct, Mr. Karels? 

Mr. KARELS. Correct, yes. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. And, Mr. Marshal, tell us what we can do? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I agree completely with my two colleagues. We 

have a problem with the planning and the NEPA process. We see 

successful instances throughout the west where this moves quickly, 

and we get good products where we have, for lack of a better term, 

a social license within the community, because the community is 

well-educated to Dr. Topik’s point. What doesn’t still insulate us 

from the success of those projects is somebody coming in and sticking a cog in the spokes of the wheel and stopping the whole project. 

So we still see great projects moving forward. Things are getting 

done. But then we move to another region where there is a negaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Feb 14, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-61 CHRIS
64 

tive view of restoration efforts, and it can just stop with a lone 

legal challenge. 

Mr. HARPER. And having unmanaged, how should we say, surface fuel is going to be a problem to deal with if we don’t solve it. 

Dr. Topik, I would to hear your view. 

Mr. TOPIK. Just to change the theme a little bit, we do need to 

invest some money in this activity in getting people together and 

getting the communities together. So I think we have to be serious, 

also, about providing funds so local communities can work together 

and get projects done at big scale, like the others have said. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you all for being here. My time is almost expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair now 

recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of the witnesses for being here today. Already this year we have seen many 

natural disasters hit communities across the United States: hurricanes, flooding, tornados, and hail, have taken lives and destroyed 

property. Unfortunately, we can add devastating wildfires to this 

list. These wildfires have burned more than 8 million acres of land, 

have serious consequences. They degrade drinking water quality, 

destroy wildlife habitat, and limit outdoor recreation. And as we 

have learned from our witnesses, they impact our air quality. 

I have repeatedly highlighted for this committee how the Sacramento region in California, in my district, struggles with air 

quality, and in the summer, wildfire smell contributes to our air 

quality challenges. I call them ‘‘challenges’’ because we view poor 

air quality as a problem that can be solved. I am pleased that our 

witnesses share that view that there are proactive and environmentally friendly steps we can take to reduce fire risk and improve 

air quality. 

Dr. Topik, in 2014, the King Fire burnt over 97,000 acres in the 

American River Watershed near Sacramento. The fire caused particulate matter pollution to reach unhealthy and hazardous levels 

over the large region in Northern California. I understand The Nature Conservancy has partnered with environmental groups, local 

agencies, and the forest service to speed watershed restoration in 

the American River Watershed under the French Meadows Forest 

Resilience Project. 

Dr. Topik, how does this project and other Nature Conservancy 

collaborations help us better manage our Federal lands to approve 

the health of our forests and protect our air quality? 

Mr. TOPIK. Thank you. I am not an expert in that specific project, 

but I have been nearby to other places. I think the key there, as 

in many places, is getting people together to have a joint vision, 

and actually implementing it. And so in French Meadows and nearby—elsewhere are studies in the Mokelumne River, which provides 

the water for East Bay. We have done analysis that shows getting 

in and helping treat these areas pays, just like the full committee 

chairman has said, it pays. So I think that is a key. 

Last week, as part of the forest climate working group, I heard 

some fascinating work in California regarding forestry and the use 

of carbon offsets that Mr. Peters had talked about. And so there, 

65 

I think, State of California alone is committing $200 million for all 

kinds of forest-resilient treatments, and I think getting that kind 

of cooperative work is vital. 

I wanted to—I didn’t mention in my statement, but a really good 

comprehensive research summary paper by Scott Stephens, Brandon Collins, Eric Biber, and Peter Fule has a very good discussion 

of air quality in the San Joaquin Valley, and I encourage you to 

take a look at that. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. Dr. Bailey, as you say in your testimony, you have had a tough fire season throughout the west, including in California. In California, we have already had 230,000 

acres impacted by wildfires. This is 30,000 acres above the 5-year 

average, despite the fact that we have had one of the wettest winters on record. 

Dr. Bailey, how much of impact does winter precipitation have 

on the strengths of summer fires and the length of the fire season? 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, it is a little counterintuitive. And actually, 

when I talk to students, I usually explain the great old adage that 

if it is a dry winter and a dry spring, all of us firefighters are 

going, oh, yes, it is going to be a good fire year because it is dry 

and the fire season starts early. And if it is a wet winter and a wet 

spring we go, oh, it is going to be good fire year because it grows 

all of those fuels, and particularly those fine fuels, they become 

more abundant and more continuous than they typically are. And 

so when it does inevitably dry out, as it does in Oregon and California, and they inevitably catch on fire, it burns very continuously. 

So either way, and that is part of the lesson of the wildfire being 

inevitable. Either way, we get a fire season. 

Ms. MATSUI. So a wet season we are going to have fire. 

Mr. BAILEY. Always have, 10-, 15,000 years. 

Ms. MATSUI. All right. Sacramento County has a large population 

of approximately one and a half million people located near many 

Federal and state lands. 

Dr. Topik, have you seen any unique challenges with addressing 

wildfires are in close proximity to large urban centers? 

Mr. TOPIK. It is really hard to convince people that suffering 

from smoke from controlled burns is worth it, and so I understand 

that and realize that and have seen it, but that is why we need 

to get better tools and get people together to actually see that they 

can have benefits. And I referenced, in my statement, a comprehensive science review paper on air quality and smoke, and they are 

saying that controlled burns are going to produce perhaps as little 

as one-tenth the amount of smoke as wildfires. And so convincing 

people and bringing people into that conversation is absolutely essential. 

Years ago, I was in Florida where they have to do controlled 

burns constantly for longleaf pine every 4 years, and the people 

with their rows of $1-million houses with swimming pools next to 

the state park, they were just told ahead of time when they were 

going to do a burn, and everybody covered their pool up, but that 

didn’t happen overnight. It took a lot of people. 

Ms. MATSUI. Education is necessary. Thank you very much, and 

I yield back. 

66 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady’s time is expired. The chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair, and welcome to our four witnesses. 

This is a very important hearing for me. My wife spent a lot of 

time as a young girl in Sun Valley in Ketchum, Idaho. She loved 

it so much, last Thanksgiving we bought a small condominium in 

Ketchum, a fire zone in Idaho. We have spent the last half year 

calling our landlord every 2 weeks to make sure our condo is not 

threatened by fire. 

My home State of Texas doesn’t have much public land, so we 

don’t have the problems of mismanagement by the Federal Government. We can have some big fires. The fire on the screen was historic Bastrop County, Texas, September through October of 2011. 

This image is from our state capital, Austin, Texas. It is 33 miles 

east of Bastrop. The Gulf Coast surface winds tend to blow from 

the southeast so that smoke blew over Austin, Texas and probably 

San Antonio. Higher up, the jet stream takes that smoke to the 

east. It came over my home town of Sugar Land, Houston, Texas 

and probably Dallas and Fort Worth, as well. 

Also, right there by Bastrop is a very special part of Texas. It is 

unique. It is called the Lost Pines. Those pine trees are 150 miles, 

many of the pine trees in Texas. Somehow they settled around 

Bastrop. They were threatened by that fire. That fire put most of 

my state out of compliance with the Clean Air Act. My state asked 

for an exceptional events exception. They were denied by the previous administration multiple times. Look at that photo. Is that 

massive wall of fire and smoke unexceptional? No. That is very exceptional. That is rare. 

So my question, Mr. Karels, is can you talk about what your 

work could do to actually improve air quality before we have a fire 

like that? 

Mr. KARELS. I don’t think, from our end, we have the ability to 

improve air quality to start. What we do try to do is reduce the 

fuels ahead of time, so that do we tend to have less of those catastrophic events. I was there. I have seen your Lost Pines and the 

homes that were lost in that Bastrop fire. But doing the reduced 

fuel efforts, active management, prescribed fire, reduces the catastrophic events that we tend to have. 

Now working very closely with EPA and with your States from 

my end, it is our State DEP, which is our State EPA, working 

closely with them, having smoke management plans and dealing 

with it, knowing the context for those exceptional events like that 

is the key in trying to, I think, reduce the impact, because, yes, I 

agree with you, that was very much an exceptional event, but we 

are forced, then, to come back and say we got to approve that. But 

with a wildfire that size, that should be something that should be 

done, should be something we should be able to easily approve. 

Mr. OLSON. Any change you want from EPA to help you out with 

this effort to stop those fires like that that Bastrop county had in 

2011? 

Mr. KARELS. Could you repeat that? 

Mr. OLSON. Any questions, something you would like EPA to do 

that they are not doing now to help you avoid something like we 

had in Bastrop? 

67 

Mr. KARELS. I think EPA, in at least some regions of the country, 

is better in recognizing that there are issues like prescribed fire 

that do cause particulate matter and do cause smoke, but it is 

needed to reduce the catastrophic events. So in some areas, they 

are starting to recognize that. That is what we want to do is recognize that doing treatments on the land is important to prevent 

these really bad days, air-pollution days that big wildfires cause. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. I am running out of time. One other 

question for the record about the Western States Air Resources 

Council and the comment to the EPA’s proposed revisions to the 

exceptional events rule and their quote was, ‘‘Ideally, EPA should 

work with State and Federal fire reporting agencies to develop a 

database of their emissions of significant wildfires.’’ And so, I 

would like to submit it to you guys. Is that a good idea? Is that 

working? So we can get some intelligence beforehand how, we can 

stop these fires from getting out of control. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back his time. So he is going 

to submit that question for you for response, and we will do a 

statement at the end of the hearing to tell you how many days. If 

you would do that, we would appreciate it. 

The chair now recognizes Congressman Ruiz for 5 minutes, Dr. 

Ruiz, I should say. 

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

Wildfires are a longstanding and frequent threat to western 

states, particularly California, and have only increased in intensity 

and frequency over the years. While wildfires present a clear threat 

to property and public safety, they also significantly affect, as we 

know, the air quality by increasing the number of toxic particulates 

in the air. The effects of smoke range from eye and respiratory irritation to more serious conditions like bronchitis, stunted lung development in children, increased asthma attacks, and even for 

some, premature death. So we need to find solutions to mitigate 

these public health risks before they become worse. 

I work in the emergency department in the desert, and sometimes when patients come in with smoke inhalation, or if there is 

a wildfire, people with allergies, they come into the emergency department and not only it affects their own personal health, but as 

you can imagine, the economic burden for a community, for a family, and for society is really high. 

In California, we all know that climate change has exacerbated 

severe weather patterns, and we are seeing more intense and more 

frequent fires. There are other factors that dry up or kill these 

vegetation and make them prone to burning as well. But there is 

more and more abundant fuel that make conditions ripe for uncontrollable wildfires, and that is exactly what has happened. 

Wildfires are more severe than ever before, forcing thousands of 

Southern California residents to flee their homes, putting at risk 

the lives of our men and women who are our heroes who go out 

to put out the fires. 

In my area in the south coast, air quality management district, 

which manages the district I represent, has issued frequent smoke 

advisories this year, warning residents of the harmful air quality 

from the smoke and ash. Smoke that wafts over from wildfires in 

San Diego and Santa Barbara fills the sky of Coachella Valley, that 

68 

is the Palm Springs area in Southern California, endangering the 

health of my constituents. And although most wildfires occur in 

western States where the fires are large and numerous enough, the 

small particulates can be carried thousands of miles, and those 

small particulates, as you know, can cross the lung-blood barrier, 

so you breathe it in. Whatever goes in there goes straight into your 

blood. That can be very harmful for individuals across the Nation. 

So without a doubt, the number and size of wildfires will continue to grow, so we have to consider more adaptive solutions and 

strategies. 

Mr. Topik, you mentioned in your testimony that relatively small 

investments in our community’s ability to prepare for and respond 

to fires has resulted in reduced negative impacts to the lives, 

health, and prosperity of our citizens. Can you expand on these 

small investments and their beneficial impacts on the public 

health, and also, the economic impact that we are saving? 

Mr. TOPIK. Thank you. I think the answer is predicated upon 

this science that suggests controlled burns are going to have less 

harmful smoke than smoke would happen from wildfires. And so, 

given that, the kind of community activities—I had the unfortunate 

experience of going almost every year in the previous decade to 

Southern California during the fire disasters, including the time, 1 

million people were evacuated in San Diego County and a score of 

people died, and so these are terrible situations. But getting communities, and in that case, some of the richer communities, Santa 

Fe, they had fire safe zones—they hadn’t been able to plan ahead, 

and they had the resources to do it. Other places, we saw places 

where people just didn’t have the resources. So getting the communities together, and I wanted to mention for Texas, the Austin area 

is one of the members of the Fire Adapted Communities Learning 

Network. And I think that is really important. 

Mr. RUIZ. Can I ask you all some technical questions? There are 

different ways that we can prevent or mitigate future fires, but 

how about the wildfire resistant vegetation, how does that work, 

Mr. Karels? Planting these resistant vegetation, what are these resistant vegetation? How much of an impact does that make? 

Mr. KARELS. And you are able to get it in each state, look at, 

they will put a brochure out, and some vegetation burns readily 

and is very dangerous to be close to your homes, and other vegetation doesn’t, and that is what they call fire-resistant vegetation, 

just types of vegetation that doesn’t readily burn. They also incorporate that in with defensible space, and that means moving the 

vegetation that does burn away from your homes a minimum of 30 

feet, ideally more than that, to prevent home loss. So that is kind 

of what that fire resistant vegetation is. State of California would 

give you those plants that are less likely to burn that are good 

around your homes. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the recognition. Important topic that we are talking about today. 

Mr. Karels, the EPA has tightened national ambient air quality 

standards for ozone and particulate matter in the last few years. 

69 

Do lower air quality standards make it more difficult for fire managers to pursue effective fire management policies? 

Mr. KARELS. They can. However, if ahead of time, you have your 

partners, you do in your state—and this is a state-by-state issue, 

even though we are dealing with EPA—it is a state-by-state issue. 

If you have your smoke management plan that you worked with 

your state EPA, and from our end we also work with our state 

highway patrol because of the safety issues of smoke on the highway. And we developed together those three agencies’ smoke management plans that EPA then approves, and with that approval, 

that brings everybody together in that partnership. 

Fire doesn’t know any boundaries, so just about everything we do 

to reduce the threat, whether it be air pollution or a threat to our 

forests or communities has to be partnerships from the Federal, 

state, and local. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. So how can wildfire emissions affect an 

area’s ability to comply with these national air quality standards? 

Mr. KARELS. If a wildfire would exceed those air quality standards, you have exceedance, and then you have, as a state agency, 

as a state, you have to then go to EPA and say this was a wildfire 

event and prove that that reason that air quality had an exceedance, or in other words, a bad air quality day, was because of those 

wildfires. But you have to work with EPA and your local state environmental protection to deal with that exceedance issue. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. And maybe you just answered this, but if they 

cannot comply for whatever reason, what then happens? Are they 

fined? Is there some penalty? 

Mr. KARELS. If they can’t comply, and what EPA then—and I am 

not the expert on this, I have to be very careful—one of the three 

of you are any better at it? I am more than willing to give it. 

EPA can come in and say this is an impact area. I am forgetting 

the terminology they use. That then makes you adjust what smoke 

and what air quality issue you have in that area. So if it is a wildfire, you always want to come back, and if it is a wildfire that exceeds EPA’s requirements for air quality, you want to come back 

in and work with them to not put this as an area that then has 

future economic issues with all air quality issues. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. Well, you note that—and I quote out 

of your testimony, ‘‘The task for wildfire managers is to manage 

the risks to communities and ecosystem values in both the shortterm and long-term by implementing a coordinated and sciencebased program of fuels reduction, fire suppression, and community 

planning.’’ Tell me more about community planning. 

Mr. KARELS. As I said earlier, fire knows no boundaries, so 

whether that fire comes from state jurisdiction or Federal jurisdiction, it comes into that community, that community has to be prepared, too. Just like you want under the national cohesive strategy 

for wildfire, you want fire-resilient landscapes. You also want fire 

resilient communities, communities that are prepared for fire, especially in the west where it is something that you see significantly. 

They are prepared for fire. They know they have a plan. They have 

the strategic boundaries to treat strategic fuel breaks. They know 

what to do in the way of evacuations. They have defensible space. 

All of that is fire planning, as well as the suppression effort. The 

70 

local fire department, the state jurisdiction, and the Federal jurisdiction are all working together ahead of time so they have a good 

response. That is that community planning that helps to reduce 

that threat to the community. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. In the short amount of time, would any of the 

other panelists like to comment on community planning? 

Mr. BAILEY. I will always take an opportunity to talk. When we 

came back to this idea of fire-resistant vegetation and all that kind 

of stuff, the only thing I would add to that is, fire-wise construction 

of the actual homes that are in the community and getting the 

community on board and supporting each other to do that work, because often, if you can bring in one dump truck and get rid of a 

bunch of things that will get a bunch of neighbors together to clean 

their gutters, all the weeds underneath their deck and all that kind 

of thing, because as often as not, I see houses catching fires and 

burning up the vegetation, rather than the vegetation catching on 

fire and burning the house. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Got you. OK. Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman’s time is expired. We have a lot of 

Californians on this committee, so another Californian, Congressman Ca ́ rdenas, from Los Angeles, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you very much. Can one of you gentlemen 

help clarify if this statement is true, that the States are not penalized in the event of a wildfire because of EPA’s exceptional events 

rule, and as well, are exempt when there is a controlled burn as 

long as there is a smoke management? Is that afforded to the 

states? Is that an accurate statement? 

Mr. BAILEY. It is outside of my area. I know that when the 

exceedances, or when you apply for that extraordinary event kind 

of thing and it is denied, it becomes an exceedance, and they somehow accumulate and all that kind of stuff. The problem, in my 

mind, is that the wildfire smoke is largely unregulated, whereas 

the small amount of prescribed smoke is regulated. And so if that 

is the only thing that you can regulate, including like your child’s 

behavior, if there is only one little thing that you can do, that is 

what you crank down, and yet all this crazy other stuff is going on 

that you have no control over. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. So apparently, the exemption exists. It doesn’t 

mean if you applied that you are going to get it. That is the issue. 

OK. 

I constantly think about our responsibility as a community, 

whether it is private-public sector, et cetera, private property, public property, is pay now or pay later. I think that this dialogue that 

we are having today, there is a dynamic of pay now or pay later. 

If we can do prevention and intervention, et cetera, whatever government it is, whether it is local government or assistance by the 

Federal Government to help with that prevention, I think that 

what we will have is less wildfires, less catastrophe, less need to 

ask for an exemption by the EPA, et cetera. 

So I think that the question begs is have we had, in recent time, 

in the last 10 or 15 years, any decent or expansive cost-benefit 

analysis at the Federal level? And/or have we seen any really good 

studies at the state or local level that we can actually apply across 

71 

jurisdictions, so we can actually, maybe, start encouraging and/or 

helping with best practices? 

Mr. BAILEY. I think most of the studies are going to be a smaller 

scale. It is not something you would call a comprehensive national 

assessment of whether the National Fire Plan money or the Hazardous Fuel Reduction Act paid for itself or so, I haven’t seen that, 

but certainly, I have seen the smaller-scale analyses. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. So it sounds like some jurisdictions have taken 

upon themselves to try to figure out if they can get at some bestpractice proof, but it sounds like, from what your answer is, that 

at the Federal level, we haven’t funded a nice, comprehensive 

study, at least in our lifetimes of considering these issues? 

Mr. BAILEY. Or I haven’t seen it. I don’t know, Chris? 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. That is what I am saying. There is a lot of collective knowledge here at the table, there is not an absolute answer, 

but it sounds like we really haven’t seen that sponsored from the 

Federal level, again, by the collective folks that we have in front 

of us. 

Mr. TOPIK. Just briefly, I think we need more of that study, but 

there is some really good work done at Northern Arizona University Ecological Restoration Institute that was done directly for the 

OMB to help address some of these questions looking at the successful impacts of hazardous fuel reduction, and so, I commend the 

work of those folks. It is quite pertinent to this. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Mr. Topik, can you explain the process for cleaning up fuel loads on private lands, and also on Federal lands? And 

what about companies’ utilities that have easements on public 

lands? What is the climate like right now when it comes to that 

activity? 

Mr. TOPIK. With respect to the utilities, that is really important. 

It is exciting to see, for instance, in Colorado, Xcel Energy 

partnering with the forest service and other large landowners to 

get work done on a broader scale, not just under their rights of 

way, but areas near their rights of ways. And so, those kind of 

partnering, Denver Water, helping commit monies to protect— 

there is so much room to also then bring together corporate money, 

and new financial instruments. There are people developing resilience bonds for impact investing. So there is a lot of things that 

are out there, but there is a lot of need for more of that. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. So you just described some good practices of pay 

now rather than pay later. For example, when it comes to utilities 

aren’t down power lines the cause of sometimes some tremendous 

fires, because of downed power lines? And with all due respect, if 

that utility is screaming bloody murder like, Hey, can we please get 

in there and actually cut back so we don’t have that incident occur, 

and if they are thwarted, then oops, we may have a wildfire that 

could have been prevented, correct? 

Mr. TOPIK. I definitely support utilities having ready access to 

keep control. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hudson, for 5 

minutes. 

72 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for calling this very important hearing. And thank you to all the witnesses 

for excellent testimony. This is certainly an important issue, not 

just for the west, but all across the country, and, back home in 

North Carolina, we like to talk about common sense, and I think 

this really just boils down to the Federal Government allowing 

commonsense practices and then the kind of things that you have 

talked about. Mr. Karels, did I say that correctly? 

Mr. KARELS. Karels. 

Mr. HUDSON. Correct me. Karels. I am sorry. You mentioned in 

your testimony the Good Neighbor authority. You talked about the 

Good Neighbor authority allows states to engage in work on Federal lands, including increasing the opportunities for the Federal 

forest management activity by using state resources. In my district 

in North Carolina, we have the Uwharrie National Forest, and we 

have seen, in the case of our forest, many of the roads have degraded significantly, and with travel, age, elements. I have seen, 

firsthand, this is more than just a headache for residents that have 

to use the forest road to access their homes, but it is a real safety 

issue, because fire trucks and ambulances can’t get down these 

roads when we have major rainstorms. So it is a real safety issue 

for us. 

And my understanding is the Good Neighbor authority currently 

is limited because there is a prohibition on all roadwork, even repair and maintenance and reconstruction activities on existing forest service roads, which, as you know, are key parts of forest management activities. What kind of real-world problems have you encountered in your state because of prohibitions of roadwork with 

the Good Neighbor program? 

Mr. KARELS. In our state we signed the Good Neighbor authority 

agreement with both the national forest in Florida, and actually 

the national forest in Alabama. We are a little bit oddball that we 

would sign with adjoining state, but they butt up against a very 

large state forest we have. 

If you are going to do activity in the forest, fuel reduction, forest 

thinnings, any of that, you have to maintain the roads. For us in 

the south, those roads are sandy. Those log trucks will quickly sink 

down, and if you are not able to at least keep them to a minimum 

standard to move equipment back and forth, you can’t accomplish 

the task. So that is a limitation. It is very much a limitation in the 

west. This Good Neighbor program is an excellent program, and it 

is growing over—I think over 30 states have signed in. A lot of 

projects are starting. But we can continue to improve it, and your 

thoughts are right online in the ways that we can improve it with 

the next farm bill, or whatever that may be. 

Mr. HUDSON. So in your opinion, if we can do a legislative fix to 

allow roadwork to be part of that, that would be an improvement? 

Mr. KARELS. At least maintaining those roads, yes. 

Mr. HUDSON. Anybody else want to jump in on there? I am seeing nods. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I would definitely agree. We see circumstances 

where the roads potentially have even been abandoned, and it 

makes it very difficult to put a full-front attack on stopping a fire, 

especially even in the instance where it could be a community or, 

73 

public or private resource is impacted. So certainly, that would 

help a lot to be able to address the roads and have that part of the 

Good Neighbor authority. 

Mr. HUDSON. I appreciate that. And even beyond the safety interests, if you are concerned about erosion and the impact, and 

even particulate matter in the atmosphere. In many cases, being 

able to pave a road is better than having a gravel road that is deteriorated and you have got lots of environmental impact. So anyway, 

I appreciate your thoughts on that. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for having 

this hearing. I had the good privilege to be out in Montana and 

Wyoming in August, and performing a wedding ceremony of one of 

my staffers out there, and with a backdrop of West Glacier a little 

hazy, a little hazy. Two weeks later, they closed it off. Heading 

down a few days after that to Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons, 

and out to the Big Horns and seeing still all of the haze there from 

the fires and smelling the smoke in certain places, very concerning. 

I have seen too much of that happening, and if there are ways 

that we can get a handle on it, and use appropriate forestry tactics 

to make sure that the forests grow well, and we have the resources 

continued, that is a great thing, but it just seems like that we are 

seeing these resources subdued by fire and other things. So I appreciate this hearing today. 

Some states seem to be doing better than others in reducing the 

risk, and, Mr. Karels, is this due to differences in the way states 

approach management? And are there lessons from states that 

have lower wildfire risks that can be applied to states with higher 

risk? 

Mr. KARELS. Any state can have a high risk, whether it be Michigan, Florida, or Oregon, depending on a given year. Some of the 

benefits are the state laws that are in place that allow you to do 

these treatments on a larger scale, and I really look at it on a larger scale, landscape scale to make a difference. So the laws that are 

in place many times are one of the key issues of being able to implement those treatments on a landscape scale size. States and regions are very different. I can say Florida does a lot of prescribed 

fire, and they do. And saying Oregon should do the exact same 

thing is all but impossible because of the different geographic 

areas, the different mountainous terrains and all that, but the laws 

that allow you to do it at the right time are critical in each of those 

states, and go back to that partnership issue. It takes the efforts 

of all the agencies coming together. I was in discussion with California not that long ago on this same issue of how do you work to 

increase your fuel reduction with prescribed fire, and what laws do 

you have to have in place to make this effective? And it really 

takes all those agencies involved in a partnership to do this. 

Mr. WALBERG. Let me jump on that a little bit. You know that 

culture fire suppression has led to the buildup of hazardous fuels 

to historic levels. If you could snap your fingers and change Federal 

policies, get to us, reduce red tape and improve coordination, how 

long would it take to see meaningful reduction in the wildfire risk? 

74 

And I open this up to the others on the panel, too, but, Mr. Karels, 

I will give you first shot on it. 

Mr. KARELS. If I could snap my fingers and say we can do everything we possibly can right now, we are going to get better, but it 

is going to take years. It is going to take years. It is going to take 

education with the citizens in those areas. But the opportunities to 

reduce that threat are significantly there. I want to give you a 

quick example. 

About 33 years ago I worked on the Black Hills National Forest 

in South Dakota, and we had a very active forest management program, and we had an active fire program, and we did a fair amount 

of prescribed burning in that Ponderosa Pond ecosystem. I went 

back there 2 years ago, the first time in 33 years, 31 years later, 

and I could not believe the difference in that forest in the density 

and the fuels, and a lot of that is active management. It has taken 

us 31 years to get there in that case. If we could snap our finger, 

maybe we could start turning the corner in 5 to 10 years, but that 

would just be my estimate. 

Mr. BAILEY. It is a big backlog. It is a big debt to pay back in 

terms of the biomass accumulation across the landscape and the 

smoke that is hidden in that biomass that is going to be released, 

so it is going to be a big effort. I have been involved in a big, comprehensive modeling effort that looked at even quadrupling the 

rate of treatment, which I would do if I were made king, but it is 

still going to be years, decades to pay back that debt. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, I appreciate that, and I know my time is expired, but those are resources we sometimes forget about, and hurricanes and all that go on are a tragic loss, but I think of all that 

went on out west this summer as well that we didn’t hear all that 

much about, but it was impacting our country, its citizens’ enjoyment of those resources, et cetera, for an awful long time. So hopefully we can get it taken care of. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back the time. The chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

this particular panel and this hearing, because numbers of us have 

been talking about the effect that deforestation has on a climate 

change, and you have heard some from the other side make that 

comment about climate change, and NPR just made a statement 

the other day that said, again, it is kind of axiomatic, but they said 

that deforestation is a major contributor to climate change. 

I think a lot of us would agree Al Gore’s book talks about 25 to 

30 percent of the anthropogenic global warming is contributed from 

the deforestation around the world, 25 to 30 percent. Interestingly 

enough, putting that in perspective, that is five to six times the 

percent contributed from fossil fuels, from coal. So instead of dealing with this deforestation and forest fires, Congress has been 

spending the last 10 years fighting coal. 

So I am delighted that we are having this adult conversation 

about our forests, and how we can protect them. We know in the 

Amazon, in 2014 they had 1,900 square miles they deforested. The 

next year they increased 24 percent. They went up to 2,300, and 

this last year they went up another 29 percent, and there is where 

75 

that deforestation is taking place in one of the major areas after 

almost 3,000 square miles is being deforested. 

But in America, we are still attacking fossil fuels rather than addressing this larger issue. And then, I am trying to avoid for West 

Virginia the fires like you are seeing in all the photographs here 

have been about Oregon. And we have the Monongahela National 

Forest in the southeast portion of the state that has been considered by some, it has become a nursing home for trees, because for 

whatever has happened over the years, the forester division has 

not been thinning that out. 

And so I am very curious, I know I am not going to hold you to 

the 28 trees per acre up to a thousand, that is just a grab number, 

and that is fine. I don’t know what the number should be, but I 

know that the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania has dramatically thinned out its crop, but we are not doing that in West 

Virginia. We are allowing it essentially to continue to grow older 

and older and older, and we are not thinning that out. 

When the answer to Harper’s question was timber management, 

it could reduce forest fires. If that is the case, to protect West Virginia’s forest, how could I get our national forest to thin out the 

MOG? Or am I going to experience a fire like you are having in 

Oregon? 

Mr. BAILEY. It is more complex I think than just asking them to 

thin out the forest. It is to get them to view it comprehensively, including, as a fuel and as a fuel bed for some potential fire, particularly in an extreme drought year like the Gatlinburg area got this 

past year or, of course, something like that, because that forest will 

burn. It is capable of burning, as well. And this is not actually 

about deforestation, at least in the United States. Long ago, we 

kind of turned that corner and said we weren’t going to deforest, 

which is a land use change to something else. 

We manage our forests extremely well thanks to our laws here, 

and deforestation in the U.S. is really different. And even the 

wildfires themselves are not deforestation. Even clear cutting in 

the history of the Monongahela, that is not clear cutting. All those 

areas will be forests again. And so it doesn’t contribute to that part 

of the message about climate change and deforestation. And they 

the best way to go is sustainable management that is resilient to 

the fires that are going to—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I just want to see that we have some timber 

management in the MOG. I am trying to find ways how to take 

care because otherwise I think we are going to have a real problem 

here in that upcoming future. So I thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want 

to thank you for having this hearing. This is extremely important, 

as you know, and as I want the panelists to know, who I also appreciate being here, I represent southeast Georgia. I represent the 

entire coast of Georgia and almost half of the Georgia-Florida State 

line. The West Mims Fire was in my district, Mr. Karels, so this 

is something I am very familiar with. Help me to understand, not 

all forest fires are the same, especially in the swamp, because as 

I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, the peat catches on 

76 

fire, and it is underneath, and when you put water on it you can’t 

necessarily put it out because the water table has to rise enough 

to get it out underneath, so it smolders for a longer time. Is that 

right? 

Mr. KARELS. Yes. All the way to North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan, you have peat or what 

we call muck fires, pocosin fires, and those are organic soils that 

are burning. And in the swamp in your district, that West Mims 

Fire was the Okefenokee swamp. We have tried for 30 years to suppress fires, and then we figured out going into the swamp is just 

throwing money away, and both the Federal Government and the 

State government actually figured that out. And what we have 

done is put what is called swamp’s edge break around that 

600,000-acre essentially wilderness, managed by U.S. Fish & Wildlife. 

The one thing that I think is a shining star there that can be 

looked at all across the country is we have what is called the Great 

Okefenokee Association of Landowners. That is state agencies, 

Georgia and Florida, that is Federal agencies, Fish & Wildlife, U.S. 

Forest Service. But the key is that is all the private timber companies around there as well, and they all are in this together fighting 

fire and dealing with this situation that really expands those partnerships, and in most cases, works very well. We struggled this 

year with it, and we are coming back and looking at how do we improve on it, but that organization is ideal organizations to implement in the west, too. Where you bring everybody together and everybody has a voice. 

Mr. CARTER. Now, you just mentioned something I want to ask 

you about. As I understand it, the West Mims Fire was started by 

lightning. It started in the Okefenokee National Forest, and the 

Federal Government didn’t do anything until it started to get to 

the edges where it would impact the private landowners. They said 

they wanted it to burn. Is that the policy? 

Mr. KARELS. It isn’t always that they want it to burn, but it is 

good for the swamp to burn, but backing, and that is the U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Service. Backing them is that we have, since the 1980s, 

tried to go in and put those fires out in the swamp. You can’t get 

people and equipment in there, so you mostly are dropping it with 

expansive air operations, and you can’t put the fire out in that peat 

with that. So essentially when those fires start out there, we prepare on the outside almost like a prescribed burn. We start to build 

our lines and begin the suppression effort around the swamp, rather than go in and try to fight it, knowing that we can’t put it out 

in that swamp. 

Mr. CARTER. All right. Two things real quickly. First of all, you 

said earlier that the states have the plans for preventative burning 

and everything, and they are approved by the EPA. What about in 

the national forests like the Okefenokee, is that still done by the 

State of Georgia, or is that done by EPA itself or who? 

Mr. KARELS. Well, each State is different, but, for example, in 

Florida because we implement the Clean Air Act for our Department of Environmental Protection with EPA, the National Forest 

and all the Federal agencies come to us for an authorization to 

burn. So we oversee that program even for the Federal agencies as 

77 

well, and that is a little bit different in each State. Georgia does 

the same thing. So the Fish & Wildlife if they have got to get a 

prescribed burn, they go to the State of Georgia. 

Mr. CARTER. Did they ever do a prescribed burn in the Okefenokee? 

Mr. KARELS. They do on the edges in the uplands on the edges. 

Mr. CARTER. But it is such an enormous area. 

Mr. KARELS. Again, most of the Okefenokee is in Georgia, so I 

don’t watch it on a day-to-day basis, but what they try to be careful 

of is they don’t put it into areas where they know that it may, with 

weather changes, continue to burn until it becomes a catastrophic 

fire. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, Georgia is the number one forestry state in 

the Nation. I mean, this is extremely important to our state, especially to my district. I don’t know if this will make you feel any better, and it probably won’t, but this is not an uncommon problem 

that we are dealing with in that getting funding for preventative 

measures, almost across the board, is difficult a lot of times. I am 

a healthcare expert, and it is difficult to convince Congress sometimes if we will just put money toward this, it will save us so much 

down the line, and the same thing with the preventative burning 

and all the things we can do in forestry. In all fairness to Members 

of Congress, we are just trying to put out fires, so to speak, with 

our budgets. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. Time is expired. 

Mr. CARTER. I just wanted to make sure I got that in, Mr. Chairman, and I yield. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman’s time is expired. So we heard from 

the next gentleman early in the hearing, and he has been here the 

whole time. Congressman Kurt Schrader was very excited to be 

able to attend and participate in this hearing because of the challenges that the State of Oregon has. I appreciate him being here 

the whole time, and now I yield to him for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHRADER. I appreciate it very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

this is a really important hearing, and I appreciate all the witnesses making the trek out here, and I love my fellow Congressman from Georgia, and I would agree that Georgia does a heck of 

a lot of timber, almost as much as the great State of Oregon. And 

we would like to do more; Georgia has a little friendlier environment, which I would like to get to on our side of the continental 

divide. 

Just for the record, the photo I put up, that is 48,000 acres, folks. 

That is 48,000 acres. And it is only 46 percent contained, and it 

is supposed to burn until Christmas. It will continue to burn until 

Christmas. The train is so steep, it is tough to put out, if you will. 

So this is an ongoing problem that started on Labor Day, and it 

will burn for basically 3, 4 months here. 

So this is a real big issue, and I am glad the panel is here and 

we are attending to it. I would like to reemphasize the fact that 

forest mortality is an issue, too. The wildfires are a big deal, and 

for short periods of time, they put out horrible emissions. The 

chairman himself had a jar full of that ash that fell over the biggest city in the State of Oregon called Portland, Oregon, and that 

brought it home to a lot of my Portlandia folks that this is real. 

78 

This is real, and it is right next door. That fire was next to Greg’s 

home. It is just a few miles away from Portland at the same time. 

Dr. Bailey, prescribed fire, glad to hear that seems to be unanimous treatment that we should be employing, perhaps more of. In 

some areas it is easier than others. In some areas the overgrowth 

is pretty thick, and I assume some thinning would have to be done 

before we could get to prescribed fires. Is that accurate? 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes. And I think, in fairness to Mr. Marshall, that 

is going to be primarily Federal lands, where it is longer rotations, 

uneven age management, broad management objectives. Some mechanical thinning, partial harvesting, followed by prescribed firing 

is the way I see the solution, and I think the research supports 

that. 

On private land, really, the opportunity to treat these fuels is at 

the end of the rotation and before you start another one. And so, 

for them, we are talking about very effective site preparation burning. 

Mr. SCHRADER. OK. 

Mr. BAILEY. But that site prep burning has gone away for many 

companies in many parts of the Oregon landscape because of the 

air quality management rules. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Right, that seem to be backwards, as we heard 

here today. 

Mr. Marshall, I would like to have you comment a little bit about 

the culture of the Forest Service. Apparently, there is great variation. I know the categorical exclusions we put in the farm bill 

were categorically denied by a good friend of mine in the great 

State of Washington and has seen little use in that state as a result. I know our own state forester is not a fan of categorical exclusions to treat some of the salvage issues and some of the real problems we have in our state. 

And I guess I am worried about the culture of the Forest Service 

itself. Have you seen any change, in your experience, sir? 

Mr. MARSHALL. The culture encompasses a wide spectrum of philosophy. We do see, within the same region, Region 6, the most familiar that I am with—— 

Mr. SCHRADER. Sure. 

Mr. MARSHALL [continuing]. We see areas where they are very 

aggressive, very proactive, very engaged with The Nature Conservancy and others, and moving forward with good projects, good outcomes, good outputs, for the industries in those areas. We do see 

other areas where it diminishes rapidly. 

And it is a tough culture to change, in my opinion. You see those 

cultures, and you want support to move them forward. And we are, 

through collaborative efforts—I am on the Olympic Peninsula Collaborative myself—trying to make those opportunities and educational process to change the culture. 

But it is difficult. I am seeing personally, it is easier to change 

the culture of maybe some of the opponents than it is maybe with 

some of the agencies. We need leadership. We need the people in 

this room to direct those leaderships to get those cultures in line 

with focusing on good outcomes that all four of us here agree on. 

79 

Mr. SCHRADER. I would agree. I think there is great variation. 

And, hopefully, with the right leadership in the various regions, we 

can get to that. I think that would be critical. 

Dr. Topik, constant litigation is the bane of forest management 

in the Pacific Northwest. Without changing that, we are doomed to 

a cycle of rural poverty the likes of which this country has never 

seen before. It is absolutely unconscionable, what goes on there. 

Every single project gets sued by some radical environmental organization—thank God, not The Nature Conservancy—and it becomes 

impossible to do the smallest of projects out there. 

It would seem to me that there is some middle ground here, as 

you all have talked about, appropriate give-and-take, judicial review perhaps on the front end of a forest management plan or a 

landscape portion of a management plan. 

But do you think it is reasonable, after we have gone through 

that battle and come to some accommodation, some collaboration 

hopefully, that it is fair to litigate on every single project within 

that management plan? 

Mr. TOPIK. Well, I certainly don’t favor frivolous litigation and 

lawsuits, by any stretch of the imagination. I am nervous about 

giving special treatment to some areas. 

Oregon now has, what, 38 collaboratives underway in eastern 

Oregon alone? And you are not seeing the litigation on these. 

So I think a little bit of investment would be one heck of a lot 

cheaper than dealing with the lawsuits. So that is something I 

would like to see us invest in. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Very good. 

Before I yield back, if I may, Mr. Chair, there is legislation out 

there that is talking about maybe using arbitration as an alternative to the constant litigation, particularly once these large forest 

plans and landscape management plans have been approved. 

We, again, want to make sure that everyone gets a chance to collaborate and have their 2 cents at the table, but, unfortunately, 

there are very unreasonable people still out there that make it difficult to get to that. And I urge this committee and others to be 

thinking about perhaps an alternate way to get to some accommodation at the end of the day. 

And I really appreciate you having this hearing, Mr. Chairman 

and Mr. Ranking Member. Thank you so much. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Dr. Topik, go ahead and respond. 

Mr. TOPIK. Was there time to comment briefly on—— 

Mr. SCHRADER. Yes, sure. 

Mr. TOPIK. I want to see negotiated settlements where you bring 

parties together and have a judge or an arbiter, whoever, come up 

with new and novel solutions. The legislation that I have seen 

doesn’t allow that. It allows either this or that and doesn’t allow— 

so I think the concept is sound. I think some of the details need 

fixing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you. 

Thank you, panel, for being here. 

Seeing that there are no further members wishing to ask questions for this panel, I would like to thank you all for being here. 

Before we conclude, I would like to ask for unanimous consent 

to submit the following documents for the record: a letter from the 

80 

Western Governors’ Association; the National Climate Assessment 

2014, chapter 7 on forests; EPA, ‘‘Climate Change Indicators in the 

United States: Wildfires’’; Climate Central report, ‘‘Western 

Wildfires: A Fiery Future’’; Climate Central articles ‘‘Wildfire Season is Scorching the West,’’ ‘‘With Warming, Western Fires May 

Sicken More People,’’ ‘‘Climate Change Behind Surge in Western 

Wildfires’’; Christian Science Monitor; San Diego Tribune, ‘‘Climate 

Change Expected to Fuel Larger Forest Fires—If It Hasn’t Already’’—you guys are on this climate change thing, aren’t you?— 

Union of Concerned Scientists, ‘‘Heat Waves and Wildfire Signal 

Warning about Climate Change (and Budget Cuts)′′; Yale Environment 360, ‘‘A Warmer World is Sparking More and Bigger 

Wildfires.’’ 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Again, we appreciate it. We have learned a lot. I 

think I get a college credit now for Wildfires 101 in my forestry 

class. So we would like to again thank you. 

And the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

81 


27516.039

October 3, 2017 

Honorable john Shimkus 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko: 

Honorable Paul Tonko 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Western Governors appreciate the attention you are bringing to the impacts of wildfires on air 

quality and emissions in tomorrow's Subcommittee hearing. To inform the Subcommittee's 

consideration of this subject, I requcsl that the following attachments be included in the permanent 

record of the hearing: 

The August 11, 2016letter from Western Governors to the Environmental Protection 

Agency [EPA), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and the White House 

discussing background ozone in the West and the Exceptional Events Rule; and 

The Fehruary 3, 2016letter from Western Governors to EPA articulating concerns 

regarding the retention of the "not reasonably controllable or preventable" criterion 

and the deference accorded to federal land managers and federal fire managers in the 

proposed Exceptional Events Rule and Draft Guidance. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Attachments 
82 


27516.040

WESTERN 

GOVERNORS' 

ASSOCIATION 

Steve Bullock 

("lt)\Trnor '-1{ l\.1ontana 

Chair 

Dennis D~mg::tard 

C:ilWCITH)r (JfS(luth Dakota 

Vice Chair 

James D. Ogsbury 

Exl'curin~ Director 

! ClOO Hru;1dway 

Smte l "100 

tkn\'(:r, CU 80202 

h1)-023-917B 

F1x K~ )-l H-7 )t)9 

400 N. Ctpnol Srrct•t, N.W. 

Suite "'76 

W<t:-hing:ton, D.C 200\ll 

202~624-5402 

Fnx 202-624-7707 

August 11, 2016 

Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (110JA) 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dr. Howard A. Shelanski 

Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

Eisenhower Executive Office Building 

1650 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20503 

Brian C. Deese 

Assistant to the President and Senior Adviser 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20500 

Re: Background Ozone in the Western United States and the Exceptional Events 

Rule 

Dear Administrator McCarthy, Administrator Shelanski, and Mr. Deese: 

Western Governors write regarding final revisions to the Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) Exceptional Events Rule (EER) which is now 

undergoing White House Review, Western Governors are concerned that the 

EPA decision to lower the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 

ground-level ozone under the Clean Air Act (CAA) is likely to cause areas in the 

West to enter non-attainment status based on high levels of uncontrollable 

background ozone through the final EER. We strongly urge EPA to adjust 

criteria to properly account for events that contribute to background ozone 

concentrations, which are impossible for states to controL 

The CAA obligates all states to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS, SIPs are intended to reduce emissions only 

from sources over which states can exert con trot not including nJtural or 

international sources, However, various events and conditions result in elevated 

levels of background ozone, which states cannot and are not expected to controL 

Such events and conditions include wildfire, lightning, biogenic emissions, 

stratospheric ozone intrusion, and transported ozone from international and 
83 


27516.041

Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Dr. Howard A. Shelanski 

Brian Deese 

August 11, 2016 

Page 2 

interstate sources. These events may be discrete (such as a wildfire or stratospheric intrusion) 

or may present as a periodic or ongoing condition (such as transported ozone). All result in 

emissions over which states have no control. Comments submitted to EPA by the Western 

States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) artfully elaborate challenges faced by western states as 

a result of these background ozone contributors and are supported by Western Governors.' 

Upon lowering the NAAQS for ground-level ozone in 2015, EPA affirmed that, "[u]nder the 

[CAA] states are not responsible for reducing emissions from background sources."' The 

agency recognized that certain areas of the West are particularly susceptible to high background 

ozone levels and pledged to, "work directly with responsible air management agencies in these 

areas to ensure that all CAA provisions that would provide regulatory relief associated with 

background ozone are recognized."3 

Western Governors value the agency's statements from late 2015. As stated in WGA Policy 

Resolution 2014-13, State Clean Air Act Authority and Air Quality Regulation, Western Governors 

believe EPA should engage states as co-regulators and should ensure state agencies and 

representatives have a robust voice and play a meaningful role in any EPA rule promulgated 

under the CAA.' We recognize the critical importance of maintaining air quality in the West 

and appreciate the opportunity to work with EPA to achieve this. 

In that regard, Western Governors have significant concerns over the lack of CAA tools 

available to account for ozone NAAQS exceedances resulting from factors outside state control. 

As noted in the EPA Memorandum, the CAA contains provisions to ensure states must address 

only man-made sources within their jurisdiction and must impose emissions controls only to 

the extent they are reasonably available 5 The existing regulatory framework, however, lacks 

effective tools to identify emission sources outside state control. Methods of accounting for 

background ozone sources identified by the EPA are insufficient. 

In addition, although the proposed EER can be useful to account for ozone contribution from 

discrete events such as wildfires and stratospheric intrusion, the rule could be improved. 

1 May 11, 2016 Comments from WESTAR to EPA, Western Stntes Responses Regarding Background Ozone and 

Recommendations for Additional Efforts in the Western U.S. Available here. 

2 October 1, 2015 Memorandum from janet G. McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Air 

and Radiation, to Regional Administrators, Region 1-10, Paragraph D of Attachment (EPA 

Memorandum) . 

.l ld. 

4 Section B(1 )(a) of WGA Policy I<esolution 2014-13. Attached and incorporated by reference. 

5 !d. 
84 


27516.042

Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Dr. Howard A. Shelanski 

Brian Deese 

August 11, 2016 

Page 3 

Western Governors suggested several such improvements in our February 3, 2016 comments in 

response to EPA's proposal 6 

Even with our suggested improvements, however, the EER is not an adequate mechanism to 

account for factors such as lightning, biogenic sources and transported ozone. These sources 

arc inherently difficult to measure and establish in a state's exceptional event demonstration. 

Identifying and quantifying the role of these factors and making a judgment about their relative 

importance is an onerous, if not impossible, undertaking. Prior to implementation of the 

NAAQS for ozone and before finalization of the revised EER, it is vital that EPA recognize the 

inadequacy of CAA mechanisms states have at their disposal to account for ozone-contributing 

factors outside state control and develop a more workable framework. 

Western Governors believe the states- and in turn EPA- would benefit from a more holistic 

approach under which states could aggregate multiple ozone-contributing factors to prove a 

single exceptional event exceedance demonstration. This approach would be in line with EPA's 

shift to a "Clear Causal Relationship" standard outlined EPA's proposed revisions to the EEIU 

Under such an approach, there would be no onerous requirement to differentiate and quantify 

contributions of various background sources or to utilize multiple CAA provisions to account 

for various background ozone contributors. Rather, the focus would be on showing that these 

sources, rather than controllable man-made emissions, are the principal contributing factor in a 

monitored NAAQS exceedance. 

A potential path to implement this approach would be: 

Revision to the EER so that, either individually or in the aggregate, all factors 

contributing to high background ozone levels could be considered as "exceptional 

events," for which states are not held responsible. 

The approach could also be incorporated into Appendix U of the CAA, which sets out 

the methodologies EPA uses to interpret exceedanccs of the ground-level ozone NAAQS 

and assess factors contributing to NAAQS exceedanccs. 

Western Governors are supportive of efforts by WESTAR and EPA to collaborate to address 

issues posed by background ozone in the West. Western Governors would like to be helpful in 

the development in this process. We look forward to working with EPA and other partners. 

We believe development of a state-EPA collaborative workplan with defined timelines 

6 Attached and incorporated by reference. 

7 Section V(B)(c) of proposed EER. 
85 


27516.043

Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Dr. Howard A. Shelanski 

Brian Deese 

August 11, 2016 

Page 4 

consistent with this letter, the EPA Memorandum, and WGA Policy Resolution 2014-13 would 

be a positive step toward state and federal partnership on the issue of background ozone in the 

West. Western Governors will be following up to assure that its views are considered during 

final review of the EER revisions. 

Sincerely, 

Governor of Montana 

Chair, WGA 

(:'. ;()r Dennis 

~~v\-M Daugaard ~ 

Governor of South D ota 

Vice Chair, WGA 

cc: Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, EPA 
86 


27516.044

Western Governors' Association 

Policy Resolution 2014-13 

WESTERN 

GOVERNORS' 

ASSOCIATION State Clean Air Act Authority and Air Quality Regulation 

A. BACKGROUND 

1. Clean air is essential to strong communities and quality of life. Various factors, some of 

which are caused by anthropogenic activities and some by natural phenomena, 

influence air quality in the West. 

2. The Clean Air Act (CAA), which established a regulatory structure for monitoring and 

improving air quality, is premised on a system of cooperative federalism under which 

states and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) work together as co-regulators. 

3. States have statutorily recognized authority to manage air quality within their borders. 

The CAA recognizes that states should take a lead role in implementing various 

provisions of the Act, largely because factors affecting air quality often differ based on 

local industry, geography, population, meteorology and other state-specific or regional 

factors. 

4. In addition, many Western states have requested and been granted broad delegated 

authority to implement CAA programs. Under the delegated authority framework, a 

state may assume primary responsibility for the development, implementation, and 

enforcement of CAA requirements, using an approach that makes sense within its 

jurisdiction, subject to minimum requirements established by EPA. 

5. Delegated authority is particularly important in the West. The region's unique aspects 

extreme variations in geological features, a largely arid climate, vast areas of high 

altitude, and vacillating weather patterns-- influence the movement, composition, and 

quality of air. Many Western states are also home to industrial operations and growing 

population bases, which impact air quality in the region. 

6. \Vestern Governors recognize the value and strength of cooperative federalism in air 

quality management and also believe the current relationship can be improved. Federal 

agencies are increasingly challenging state implementation plans (SIPs), asserting 

additional federal regulation or oversight, and often requiring duplicative 

documentation. These federal actions can disregard state expertise and dilute the 

statutorily defined authority of states to design, implement and manage delegated 

environmental protection programs. 

7. The current fiscal environment exacerbates tensions among states and federal agencies 

responsible for air quality regulation. States are required to expend limited resources to 

Western Goven1ors' Associntion 1 of4 PoliciJ Resolution 2014-13 
87 


27516.045

manage regulatory programs over which their strategic control is sometimes 

undermined. 

B. GOVERNORS' POLICY STATEMENT 

1. State Authority under the CAA: As is the case with other federal environmental 

statutes, states have significant regulatory responsibility under the CAA and are tasked 

with developing implementation plans to accomplish CAA objectives. New EPA 

regulations, rulemaking, and guidance should recognize state authority under the CAA, 

as well as under other federal environmental statutes. Western Governors have 

specifically enumerated their state consultation objectives for federal agencies 

including EPA-- in Western Governors' Association Policy Resolution 14-09: Respecting 

State Authority and Expertise. 

Regarding the CAA, Western Governors state the following: 

a) Treatment of States as Co-Regulators: In determining rules to pursue, and how 

to pursue them, EPA should take into account state views and opinions to a 

greater extent. Western Governors urge EPA to engage the states as coregulators and to ensure that state agencies and representatives have a robust 

voice and meaningful role to play in the development of any EPA rule 

promulgated under the CAA, particularly in the early stages of rule development 

and before significant momentum precludes state participation or renders it nonmeaningful. 

b) State Implementation Plans: Despite statutorily required state implementation 

responsibility, the recent Regional Haze Rulemaking1 demonstrates EPA's 

willingness to second guess state technical expertise and site-specific decisions, 

challenge state SIPs, and pursue takeover of state-implemented programs.' EPA 

should follow the provisions of the CAA and defer to states with respect to 

implementation of its existing and newly promulgated rules. Prior to any 

intervention in slate programs, federal agencies especially EPA should 

consult in a meaningful way, and on a timely basis, with states. 

c) Early Action Credit: In its review of SIPs, EPA should take into account and 

provide due credit for proactive actions taken by states to improve air quality 

and reduce emissions deemed detrimental to air quality. Early action credit 

1 "Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

Determinations," 70 FR 39104 (6 September 2005), pp. 31513- 31608. 2 EPA claimed that the state plans it overturned were inadequate. Disagreeing with that assessment, 

Oklahoma, Wyoming, North Dakota and Arizona are all legally challenging EPA over the rule as of the 

date of this Resolution. 

Western Governors' Association 2 of4 Policy Resolution 2014-13 
88 


27516.046

should recognize a full range of actions taken by states including, but not limited 

to, state-specific emissions reduction programs, renewable energy standards and 

objectives, and energy efficiency and conservation programs. 

d) State Flexibility to Determine Implementation Methods: Western Governors 

believe states arc best positioned to understand available technologies and 

methods for use in their SIPs. In reviewing SIPs for emission reduction or other 

air quality programs EPA should allow states the flexibility to integrate a variety 

of tools and compliance methods at their disposal. In this time of fiscal 

uncertainty, such flexibility would allow for creative and effective methods of 

emission reductions, while also allowing states to use and develop new means of 

meeting EPA requirements. 

2. Coordination of EPA Rulemaking Actions: EPA should ensure that newly 

promulgated rules are drafted and issued, where appropriate, in coordination with 

existing regulations, taking into account elements and requirements common to both. 

Where new rules are related to regulations already in place, coordination among them 

would enable states to develop plans addressing the requirements of both rules, thereby 

saving time and money of the states while also ensuring that SIPs are developed in a 

manner to address multiple EPA rules. 

3. EPA Support and Technical Assistance: EPA should provide states and local entities 

with adequate support and technical assistance to help them comply with regulations 

promulgated under the CAA. New requirements that impose additional burdens on 

states should be accompanied by adequate funding to enable states to implement the 

requirements. 

4. Prioritization of Rules: EPA should collaborate with states to identify priority areas 

and focus on programs that provide the greatest benefit to air quality. This 

prioritization would allow states to focus on and devote necessary funding and staff 

resources to areas of the greatest concern. 

5. EPA Adherence to Schedule: When engaged in the rulemaking process, EPA should 

adhere closely to the timelines in the CAA. Variation from these timelines results in 

undue strain being placed on state efforts to work with EPA, develop state responses to 

EPA rulemakings and determine appropriate tools to incorporate in SIPs. 

C. GOVERNORS' MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 

1. The Governors direct the WGA staff, where appropriate, to work with EPA, 

Congressional committees of jurisdiction, and the Executive Branch to achieve the 

Western Governors' Association 3 of4 Polictj Resolution 2014-13 
89 


27516.047

objectives of this resolution including funding, subject to the appropriation process, 

based on a prioritization of needs. 

2. Additionally the Governors direct the WGA staff to develop, as appropriate and timely, 

detailed annual work plans to advance the policy positions and goals contained in this 

resolution. Those work plans shall be presented to, and approved by, Western 

Governors prior to implementation. WGA staff shall keep the Governors informed, on a 

rc•gular basis, of their progress in implementing approved annual work plans. 

Western Govcnwrs' Association 4 of4 Polictj Resolution 2014-13 
90 


27516.048

WESTERN 

GOVERNORS' 

ASSOCIATION 

Matthew H< Mead 

( JllVCrnor l)fWyoming 

c:hairman 

Steve Bullock 

( J()\'t.'lTl\.)f of tv-1\mtana 

Vice Chair 

James D< Ogst>ury 

Executive Director 

16~:o Bw.1dw<1y 

~U![f' t 700 

Dl~!"'vt~r, (\) SC202 

)0}-62 )-9578 

hn< 30 V:i 34- 7J09 

400 N. Capitol Street, N.W. 

Suite J76 

\Va:-.hingtun, D.C. 20001 

202-624-14Cl 

Fax 202-624-7707 

\\'\\'\\',\\'L'"tg<W.t)l"~ 

February 3, 2016 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA Docket Center 

Docket No< El'A-HQ-OAR-2013-0572 and 

Docket No< El'A-HQ-OAR-2015-0229 

Mail Code 2821T 

1200 PennsylviJ.nia Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Ms< Palma: 

The Western Governors' Association (WGA) appreciates the opportunity to 

comment on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule, 

Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events (the Exceptional Events 

Proposal), promulgated under section 319(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the 

related Draft Guidance on the Preparation of Exceptional Events Demonstrations 

for Wildfire Events that May Influence Ozone Concentrations (the Draft 

Guidance), both published ;\Jovembcr 20, 2015 (80 FR 72839)< 

STATEMENT OF INTEREST 

WGA represents the Governors of 19 western states and 3 US--flag islands< The 

association is an instrument of the Governors for bipartisan policy development, 

information exchange and collective action on issues of critical importance to the 

western United States. 

Western Governors recognize the critical importance of maintaining air quality 

in our states and the western region and appreciate the opportunity to work with 

EPA to achieve this< As stated in WGA Policy Resolution 2014-13: State Clean 

Air Act Authority and Air Oualitv ~1atillJ.J.,. Western Governors believe EPA 

should engage states as co-regulators and should ensure state agencies and 

representatives have a robust voice and play a meaningful role in any EPA rule 

promulgated under the CAA. 

Western Governors previously expresse-d concern that the 2007 iteration of the 

Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events rule (the 2007 Exceptional 

Events Rule) did not adequately address factors impacting air quality over which 

states have little or no control. Western Governors also requested that 

substantive consultation, as describPd in WGA Policy Resolution: 2014-
91 


27516.049

Beth W. Palma 

February 3, 2016 

Page 2 

09: Respecting State Authority and Expertise occur prior to publication of the Exceptional 

Events Proposal.' 

Background of Western Governors' Position 

Under section 319 of the CAA,2 the term "exceptional event" refers to either a natural event or 

an event caused by human activity lhat is unlikely to recur at a particular location. Exceptional 

events can affect air quality but are not reasonably controllable or preventable by states. Section 

319 of the CAA further states, "EPA may exclude air monitoring data influenced by exceptional 

events from use in making designations" provided states establish certain criteria. 

The exceptional events rule is intended to ensure a state is not required to submit a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to address monitored air quality data from sources over which states 

have little or no control. The current exceptional events submission process is lengthy, 

inconsistent and ambiguous. As a result states, out of practical necessity, address exceptional 

events in a SIP. Given time and resources needed to create or modify a SIP, an efficient, 

consistent exceptional event submission process is vital. 

Western Governors support EPA's effort to improve the exceptional events rule and submission 

process. A review of EPA's proposal shows that, while the agency has taken state concerns into 

account in certain circumstances, there are several additional steps the agency should take to 

ensure states' obligations are commensurate with regulatory authority delegated to states in the 

CAA. 

EPA Change to "Clear Causal Relationship" Standard 

The 2007 Exceptional Events Rule requires exceptional event submissions to establish that, 

"there would have been no exceedance or violation but for the event" (i.e., the "but for" 

standard).' It is extremely difficult to quantitatively establish that a particular exceptional event 

was the sole cause of a monitored National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

exceedance. 

Western Governors appreciate EPA's proposed shift to a "clear causal relationship" standard 

and removal of the "but for" test. This change will bring directives of the exceptional events 

'Prior related WGA communications are: March 17,2015. comments to EPA on the proposed rule. 

National Ambient Air Quality (NAAQS) Standards for Ozone (79 FR 75233, December 17, 2014), and 

August 27,2015, letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy requesting substantive consultation with 

states on the then-expected revisions to the Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events rule. 

2 42 U.S. C.§ 7619 Air Quality Monitoring. 

3 40 C.F.R. 50.14(c)(3)(iv)(D). 
92 


27516.050

Beth W. Palma 

February 3, 2016 

Page 3 

rule within the statutory requirements of CAA section 319(b). It will enable states to establish a 

clear causal relationship between a monitored NAAQS exceedance and an exceptional event. 

This standard will allow for reliable and consistent reviews. 

EPA Effort to Streamline State Submission Processes 

Western Governors support EPA's effort to streamline the exceptional event submission process 

when circumstances surrounding an event arc clear. EPA plans to codify certain fire-related 

definitions and exceptional event demonstration factors. While we raise some concerns in these 

comments, we hope EPA's effort will help with a common understanding of relevant terms. 

Western Governors agree with EPA's proposed rebuttable presumption that every wildfire on 

wildland satisfies the "not reasonably controllable or preventable" criterion unless the record 

shows otherwise 4 EPA's inclusion of this proposed directive in section 5 of the Draft Guidance 

will help address longstanding concerns about the extraordinary commitment of resources 

required in an exceptional event submission. 

Role of Past Occurrences in Exceptional Event Submission 

The Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) has previously expressed concern to EPA5 

about the agency's interpretation of the "not reasonably controllable or preventable" aspect of 

an exceptional event submission within the meaning of the 2007 Exceptional Events rule. It is 

WESTAR's position- and that of Western Governors- that EPA's past interpretation required a 

state to implement an undefined set of emission control or prevention measures in anticipation 

of uncontrollable events that may occur in the future.' 

Section 319(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the CAA states an exceptional event, whether caused by natural 

phenomena or human activity, is one that is, "not reasonably controllable or preventable." 

EPA's past approach to the criterion, as described in section V(E)(2) of the proposal, has been: 

An exceptional event must be "not reasonably controllable." Under EPA's 

interpretation, this means if a set of measures to reduce the magnitude and impact of 

event-related emissions should reasonably have been in place for emission sources that 

contribute to emissions, then those controls must have been in place; and 

1 Section V(F)(2)(c)(ii) of the Exceptional Events Proposal. 

5 l'ublic Hearing Testimony of Dan Johnson, Executive Director of WE STAR: Proposed Exceptional Events 

Revisions. Testimony given before the Environmental Protection Agency. December 8, 2015. 

6 Id. 
93 


27516.051

Beth W. Palma 

February 3, 2016 

Page 4 

An exceptional event must also be "not reasonably preventable." Under EPA's 

interpretation, this means if a set of measures to stop or avert the event should reasonably 

have been in place (for human activity-caused sources), then those measures must have 

been in place for the event. 

The Exceptional Events Proposal retains this interpretation and section 5 of the Draft Guidance 

incorporates this approach. This interpretation, as a pre-condition for approval of an 

exceptional event request, requires states to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction any state 

emission control or prevention measures that "reasonably" could have been in place at the time 

of the events were in place. This would require control measures in all areas that might 

experience dust events, wildfire events, or volcanic events. 7 

Natural emission sources in western states are often on federal land. Under EPA's 

interpretation states would be required to take undefined emission reduction steps to account 

for future events that are both uncontrollable and unpredictable, but that also may occur under 

federal managers. 

This approach creates a potential disadvantage for western areas in attainment with current 

NAAQS that are home to expanses of federal land. It could require state implementation of 

proactive emission control or prevention measures prior to event occurrence and prior to a 

finding of NAAQS non-attainment. 

States should not be held accountable for determining on a prospective basis: 

What control or prevention measures EPA or federal land managers (FLMs) would find 

"reasonable" under the exceptional events rule; or 

What unforeseen and uncontrollable NAAQS pollutant emitting events may occur in the 

future. 

EPA should consider relevant control measures included in recent non-attainment or 

maintenance SIPs as sufficient to meet the "not reasonably controllable or preventable" 

criterion. This concept should apply in attainment areas as weiJ.S 

7 Section V(B)(l) of the Exceptional Events Proposal notes volcanoes are known to vent plumes of sulfur 

dioxide (S02) as well as particulate matter (both P!Yho and PMw) precursors. 

H /d. 
94 


27516.052

Beth W. Palma 

February 3, 2016 

Page 5 

Prescribed Fires, Wildfires and Deference to Fire Managers 

State and local agencies are responsible for achieving or maintaining NAAQS attainment status. 

Consequently, Western Governors have concerns about substantive changes EPA proposes to 

address NAAQS impacts from wildfires. The changes could detrimentally affect state and local 

agencies by necessitating an exceptional event submission under the exceptional events rule. In 

particular, Western Governors are concerned about EPA's proposed deference to a land 

management agency representative conducting prescribed fires to declare a prescribed fire a 

wildfire because a unilateral FLM decision to prescribe a fire, and later declare it a wildfire, 

would necessitate action- or additional action- by a state. 

The proposed rule's language regarding exceptional event submissions by FLMs exacerbates 

Western Governors' concern. The proposed rule requires the FLM's "discuss[ing] such 

submittal with the state" before submitting it to EPA. However, it does not require the FLM to 

integrate a state's concerns into its submittal to EPA. Therefore, a FLM's submittal to EPA 

could conflict with a state's position. We also recommend that western states with existing, 

comprehensive state air quality regulatory programs should have the option of being the lead 

entity, instead of the EPA, for the receipt of exceptional event submissions from FLMs or from 

state land or fire managers. 

Finally, Western Governors seek to clarify in the proposed rule on the application of definitions 

of wildfire' and wildland'" to areas of the wildland urban interface (WUI). Wildfire can begin 

in a wildland area and progress through the WUI into suburban areas. Also, air pollution 

emissions originating in a wildland area can have subregional effects beyond the wildland area 

or WUI. The proposed rule should clearly state that in those cases, the entire fire progression is 

a natural event for the purposes of an exceptional event submission. 

SUMMARY 

Western Governors appreciate those state concerns addressed in the Exceptional Events 

Proposal and Draft Guidance, including the "clear causal relationship" standard and EPA's 

effort to better streamline the state exceptional event submission process. WGA continues to be 

concerned by the retention of "not reasonably controllable or preventable" criterion (and its 

interpretation) and the deference accorded by EPA to FLMs and federal fire managers. While it 

is Western Governors' position that there is a vital need for a more active federal role in forest 

9 El' A's proposal would also revise the definition of a "natural event" so that an event with a mix of nonanthropogenic emissions and reasonably controlled human-affected emission sources may be considered 

a natural event. Section V(D)(2) of the Exceptional Events Proposal. 

'

0 !d. Section 1 of the Draft Guidance also incorporates relevant definitions, including the definition of 

"wildland" EPA plans to adopt. 
95 


27516.053

Beth W. Palma 

February 3, 2016 

Page 6 

management, that role must respect state authority and not create unnecessary burdens on state 

or local regulators. Western Governors ask EPA to address these concerns before finalizing the 

Exceptional Events Proposal and Draft Guidance and lo engage western states as partners to 

identify workable solutions for all parties involved. 

Sincerely, 

_/~~ Matthew H. Mead 

Governor of Wyoming 

Chairman, WGA 

Governor of Montana 

Vice Chair, WGA 
96 


27516.054

Climate Change Impacts in the United States 

Convening Lead Authors 

Linda A. Joyce, U.S. Forest Service 

Steven W. Running, University of Montana 

Lead Authors 

David D. Breshears, University of Arizona 

Virginia H. Date, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Robert W. Ma!msheimer, SUNY Environmental Science and Forestry 

R. Neil Sampson, Vision Forestry, LLC 

Brent Sohngen, Ohio State University 

Christopher W. Woodall, U.S. Forest Service 

Recommended Citation for Chapter 

Joyce, L.A., S. W. Running, D. D. Breshears, V. H. Dale, R. W. Malmsheimer, R.N. Sampson, B. Sohngen, and C. W. Woodall, 2014: Ch. 7: Forests. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The T!Jird National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, 

Terese (T.C.} Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 175-194. doi:10.7930/JOZ60KZC. 

On the Web: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/reportlsectors/forests 

175 
97 


27516.055

3. could emerge as a new market lor wood ami could aid inlhe restoration ollotesls 

insects, and lire. 

4. 

Forests occur within urban areas, at the interface between 

urban and rural areas (wildland~urban interface), and in rural 

areas. Urban forests contribute to clean air, cooling buildings, 

aesthetics, and recreation in parks. Development in the 

wildland-urban interface is increasing because of the appeal 

of owning homes near or in the woods. In rural areas, market 

factors drive land uses among commercial forestry and land 

uses such as agriculture. Across this spectrum, forests provide 

recreational opportunities, cultural resources, and social 

values such as aesthetics.1 

Economic factors have historically influenced both the overall 

area and use of private forestland. Private entities (such as 

corporations, faml!y forest owners, and tribes) own 56% 

of the forestlands in the United States. The remaining 44% 

of forests are on public lands: federal (33%), state {9%), and 

county and municipal government (2%), 2 Market factors can 

influence management objectives for public lands, but societal 

values also influence objectives by identifying benefits such 

as environmental services not ordinarily provided through 

markets, like watershed protection and wildlife habitat. 

Different challenges and opportunities exist for public and for 

private forest management decisions, especially when climaterelated issues are considered on a national scale. For example, 

public f~rests typically carry higher levels of forest biomass, 

are more remote, and tend not to be as intensively managed as 

private forestlands. 1 

11llture of 

llioenergy, 

Forests provide opportunities to reduce future dim ate change 

by capturing and storing carbon, as well as by providing 

resources for bioenergy production (the use of forest-derived 

plant-based materials for energy production). The total 

amount of carbon stored in U.S. forest ecosystems and wood 

products (such as lumber and pulpwood) equals roughly 25 

years of U.S. heat-trapping gas emissions at current rates of 

emission, providing an important national "sink" that could 

grow or shrink depending on the extent of climate change, 

forest management practices, policy decisions, and other 

factors.'l' 4 For example, in 2011, U.S. forest ecosystems and 

the associated wood products industry captured and stored 

roughly 16% of all carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuel burning 

in the United States.3 

Management c:hoices for public, private, and tribal forests 

a!l involve similar issues. For example, increases in wildfire, 

disease, drought, and extreme events are projected for some 

regions {see also Ch. 16: Northeast; Ch. 20: Southwest; Ch, 

21: Northwest, Key Message 3; and Ch. 22: Alaska). At the 

same time, there is growing awareness that forests may play 

an expanded role in carbon management. Urban expansion 

fragments forests and may limit forest management options, 

Addressing climate change effects on forestlands requires 

considering the interactions among Jand~use practices, energy 

options, and dim ate change.5 

U5. GLOBAl. CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 176 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
98 


27516.056

7, FORESTS 

Key Message 1: Increasing Forest Disturbances 

Climate change is inc:re.asing the vulnerability of many forests to ecosystem 

and tree mortality through insect infestations, drought 1 and disease ou·wreaKs. 

Insect and pathogen outbreaks, invasive species, wildfires, 

and extreme events such as droughts, high winds, ice 

storms, hurricanes, and landslides induced by storms a are all 

disturbances that affect U.S. forests and their management 

(Figure 7.1). These disturbances are part of forest dynamics, 

are often interrelated, and can be amplified by underlying 

trends- for example, decades of rising average temperatures 

can increase damage to forests when a drought occurs.9 

Disturbances that affect large portions of forest ecosystems 

occur relatively infrequently and in response to climate 

extremes. Changes in climate in the absence of extreme dim ate 

events (and the forest disturbances they trigger) may result in 

Forest Ecosystem Disturbances 

Natufal Variability Moderate Severity 

r::=:J 

increased forest productivity, but extreme dim ate events can 

potentially overturn such patterns. 10 

Factors affecting tree death -such as drought, physiological 

water stress, higher temperatures, and/or pests and pathogens 

- are often interrelated, which means that isolating a single 

cause of morta!lty is rare.11'

12'

13 However, in western forests 

there have been recent large-scale die-off events due to one 

or more of these factors, 14'

15'1

u and rates of tree mortality are 

well correlated with both rising temperatures and associated 

increases in evaporative water demand.17 In eastern forests, 

tree mortality at large spatial scales was more sensitive 

A Montana saw mil! owner inspects a lodgepole 

pitch tubes that show tt1e tree 

unsuccessfully, to defend 

beet!e. The bark beetle is 

Figure 7.1. An example of the variability and distribution of major ecosystem 

disturbance types in North America, compiled from 2005 to 2009- Forest disturbance 

varies by topography, vegetation, weather patterns, climate gradfents,. and proximity 

to human settlement Severity is mapped as a percent change in a sate!Hte·derived 

Dfsturbance Index. Whit~ areas represent natural annual variability, orange 

represents moderate severity, and red represents high severity,6 Fire dominates 

much of the western forest ecosystems, and storms affect the Gulf Coast Insect 

damage is widespread but currently concentrated in western regions, and timber 

harvest is predominant in the Southeast. (Figure source: modified from Goetz et 

aL 2012;7 Copyright 2012 American Geophysical Union). 

Warmer winters allow more insects to survive 

the cold season, and a longer summer anows 

some insects to complete two llfe cycles in a 

year instead of one. Drought stress reduces 

trees' ability to defend against boring insects_ 

Above, beetle-killed trees in Rocky Mountain 

National Park in Colorado. 

U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 177 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STArES 
99 


27516.057

to forest structure (age, tree size, and species composition) and 

air po!!utants than climate over recent decades. Nonetheless, 

mortality of some eastern tree groups ls related to 

temperature18 and is expected to increase as climate warms. 

Future disturbance rates in forests will depend on changes 

in the frequency of extreme events as well as the underlying 

changes in average climate conditions.!l,zo Of particular concern 

is the potential for increased forest disturbance as the result 

of drought accompanied with warmer temperatures, which 

can cause both wildfire and tree death. Temperatures have 

generally been increasing and are projected to increase in the 

future (see Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate). Therefore, although 

it is difficult to predict trends in future extreme events, 21 

there is a high degree of confidence that future droughts will 

be accompanied by generally warmer conditions. Trees die 

faster when drought is accompanied by higher temperatures, 

so short droughts can trigger mortality if temperatures are 

higher. 22 Short droughts occur more frequently than long 

droughts. Consequently, a direct effect of rising temperatures 

may be. substantially greate;1 tree mortality even with no 

change m drought frequency. 

Given strong relationships between climate and fire, even 

when modified by land use and management, such as fuel 

treatments (Figure 7.2), projected climate changes suggest 

that western forests in the United States will be increasingly 

affected by large and intense fires that occur more 

frequent!y. 16'

23'2

u 5 These impacts are compounded by a legacy 

of fire suppression that has resulted ln many U.S. forests 

becoming increasingly dense. 26 Eastern forests are less likely 

to experience immediate increases in wildfire, unless a point is 

reached at wh!ch rising temperatures combine with seasonal 

dry periods, more protracted drought, and/or insect outbreaks 

to trigger wildfires- conditions that have been seen in Florida 

(see Ch. 17: Southeast). 

Rising temperatures and C02 levels can increase growth or 

alter migration of some tree species;~.n however, the relationship between rising temperature and mortality is complex. For 

example, most functional groups show a decrease in mortality with higher summer temperatures (with the exception of 

northern groups), whereas warmer winters are correlated with 

higher mortality for some functional groups,18 Tree mortality 

is often the result of a combination of many factors; thus increases in pollutants, droughts, and wildfires will increase the 

probability of a tree dying (Figure 7.3), Under projected climate 

conditions, rising temperatures could work together with forest stand characteristics and these other stressors to increase 

mortality. Recent die~offs have been more severe than projected.11'14 As temperatures increase to levels projected for 

mid~century and beyond, eastern forests may be at risk of dieoff!9 New evidence indicates that most tree species can en7: FORESTS 

Chmate change ls contributing to increases in wildfires across 

the western U.S. and Alaska 

dure only limited abnormal water stress, reinforcing the idea 

that trees in wetter as well as semiarid forests are vulnerable 

to drought-induced mortality under warming climates. 2s 

U,S, GLOBAL CH>\NGE RESFAI1CH PROGRAM 178 CliMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
100 


27516.058

7: FORESTS 

Forest Vulnerabillty to Changing Climate 

Large-scale die-off and w!!dfire disturbance events could have 

potential impacts occurring at local and regional scales for 

timber production, flooding and erosion risks, other changes 

in water budgets, biogeochemical changes including carbon 

storage, and aesthetics. 29'

30'31 Rising disturbance rates can 

increase harvested wood output and potentially lower prices; 

however, higher disturbance rates could make future forest 

~igure 7.3. The fig~re sho~s a c90ceptua! 

climate envelope analysis of forest vulner~ 

ability under current and projected future 

ranges of variability in climate 'parameters 

(temperature and precipitation, or alter.: 

natively, drought Qur8tion and in~ensity}. 

Climate mqdels project incre~slng teinper~ 

atures across the U.S. hi comin9 decades, 

but a range of lncfeasing ·OJ oecreasing 

precipitation depending on f:egion. Epis?dic 

droughts (where evaporation far exceeds 

precipitation) are also eXpecteq t6" ln.crease 

in duration and/or intensity (see Ch. 2: 

Our Changing Climate). The overall result 

will be increased vulnerability of f<?rests 

to periodic widespread regiof!al mortality 

events resulting from trees exceeding their 

physio!ogica! stress thresholds.11 (Figure 

source: Allen eta!. 2.01011), 

investments more risky (Figure 7.4). Western forests could 

also lose substantia! amounts of carbon storage capacity. 

For example, an increase in wildfires, insect outbreaks, and 

droughts that are severe enough to alter soil moisture and 

nutrient contents can result in changes in tree density or 

species composition. 10 

Key Message 2: Changing Carbon Uptake 

U.S. forests and associated wood products currently absorb and store the of 

about 16% of all carbon dioxide (CO,) emitted by fossil fuel burning in the each year. 

Climate change, combined with current societal trends in land use and forest 

management, is projected to reduce this rate of forest C02 uptake. 

Climate-related Ellecls on Trees and Forest Productivity 

Forests within the United States grow across a wide range of season in the last thirty years, yet earlier spring growth may be 

latitudes and altitudes and occupy all but the driest regions. negated by mid-summer drought. 34 

Current forest cover has been shaped by climate, sol!s, 

topography, disturbance frequency, and human activity. 

Forest growth appears to be slowly accelerating (less than 1% 

per decade) in regions where tree growth is limited by low 

temperatures and short growing seasons that are gradually 

being altered by climate change (for species shifts, see Ch. 8: 

Ecosystems). 32 Forest carbon storage appears to be increasing 

both globally and within the United States. 33 Continental-scale 

satellite measurements document a lengthening growing 

By the end of the century, snowmelt may occur a month 

earlier, but forest drought stress could increase by two 

months ln the Rocky Mountain forests. 35 1n the eastern United 

States, elevated C02 and temperature may increase forest 

growth and potentia!!y carbon storage if sufficient water 

is available. L3J.,J6 Despite recent increases in forest growth, 

future net forest carbon storage is expected to decline due to 

accelerating mortality and disturbance. 

U.S. GLOBAl. CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 179 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
101 


27516.059

Forests can be a Source - or a Sink - for Carbon 

" g> 

~ r 

~ 

t; 

g £ 

j 

~ 

j 

£ 

5 ~ 

Set1ue~;!roition and 

From the onset of European settiement to the start of the 

last century, changes in U.S. forest cover due to expansion 

of agriculture, tree and settlements resulted in 

net emissions of carbon. More recently, with forests 

reoccupying !and previously used for agriculture, technological 

advances in harvesting, and changes in forest management, 

U.S. forests and associated wood products now serve as a 

substantial carbon sink, capturing and storing more th.an 227.6 

million tons of carbon per yeaL 3 The amount of carbon take.n 

up by U.S. !and is dominated by forests \Figure 7.5}, which have 

annuaity absorbed 7% to 24% of fossil fuel carbon dioxide {C02} 

emissions in the U.S. over the past two decades. The best 

estimate is that forests and wood products stored (!bout 16% 

(833 teragrams, or 918.2 million short tons, of C02 equivalent 

in 2011) of all the C02 emitted annually byfossi! fuel burning in 

the United States (see also "Estimating the U.S. Carbon Sink" In 

Ch. 15: Blogeochemica1 Cycles).:. 

Forest Growth Provides an Important Carbon Sink The future role of U.S. forests in the carbon cycle 

will be affected by climate change through changes 

in disturbances (see Figures 7.3 and 7.4), as well 

U S, GLOBAL CHANGF RESE,ARCH PROGRAM 180 

as shifts in species, ranges, and productivity 

(Figure 7.6). Economic factors will affect any 

future carbon cycle of forests, as the age class 

and condition of forests are affected by the 

Efforts in forestry to reduce atmospheric C02 

levels have focused on forest management and 

forest product use. Forest management strategies 

include land"use change to increase forest area 

{afforestation) and/or to avoid deforestation and 

optimizing carbon management ln existing forests. 

Forest product-use strategies include the use of 

wood wherever possible as a structural substitute 

for steel and which require more carbon 

carbon emissions offset 

from using wood rather than alternate materials for 

a range of applications can 

carbon content of the product. 

CliMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
102 


27516.060

!n the U.S., afforestation (active establishment or planting of 

forests) has the potential to capture and store a maximum of 

225 million tons of additional carbon per year from 2010 to 

211039'

48 (an amount almost equivalent to the current annual 

carbon storage in forests). Tree and shrub encroachment into 

grasslands, rangelands, and savannas provides a large potential 

carbon sink that could exce;8

d half of what existing U.S. forests 

capture and store annually. 

Expansion of urban and suburban areas is responsible for much 

of the current and expected loss of U.S. forestland, although 

these human-dominated areas often have extensive tree cover 

and potential carbon storage (see also Ch. 13: Land Use & Land 

Cover Change).'11 In addition, the increasing prevalence of 

extreme conditions that encourage ~~ldfires can convert some 

forests to shrublands and meadows or permanently reduce 

7, FORESTS 

the amount of c~~bon stored in existing forests if fires occur 

more frequently. 

Carbon management on existing forests can include practices 

that increase forest growth, such as fertilization, irrigation, 

switching to fast-growing planting stock, shorter rotations, 

and weed, disease, and insect control.so In addition, forest 

management can increase average forest carbon stocks by 

increasing the interval between harvests, by decreasing harvest 

intensity, or by focused density/species management. 4

'

51 Since 

1990, C02 emissions from wildland forest fires in the lower 48 

United States have averaged about 67 million tons of carbon 

per year.52'

53 While forest management practices can reduce 

on-site carbon stocks, they may also help reduce future 

climate change by providing feedstock material for bioenergy 

production and by possibly avoiding future, potentially larger, 

wildfire emissions through fuel treatments (Figure 7.2),1 

Forests and Carbon 

U.S, GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 

Figure, 7.6. Historical, c-urrent, 

and projected annual rates of 

forest ecosYstem, and harvested 

wood product 'C02 net emissions/ 

sequestration in the U:S. from 

1635 to 2055. In the top panel, 

the c)'\ange in 'the historical annuaf 

carbon emissions (black lln'e} in 

the early 11lOOs corresponds to the 

peak in the transformation of large 

parts ofthe U.S, from forested land 

to a'gricu1tural land uses, Green 

shading shows thls decline in forest 

land area. In the bottom panel, 

future prOjectlQns shown under 

higher (A2) and lower (B2 and 

A1B} emissions sceharibs show 

forests as carbon sources (due to 

loss o!for-est ar~a and accelerating 

disturbance r;:ltSs) ratherthan sinks 

in the latter half of this c~ntury, 

The A1 B scenafio assumes similar 

emissions to the A2'scenario used 

in this report through 2050, and a 

slow decline thereafter. (Data from 

Birdser. 2006;" USFS 2012;" EPA 

2013.') 

181 GLIMATE GHANGE IMPAGTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
103 


27516.061

J, FORESTS 

Key Message 3: Bioenergy Potential 

as a new market for wood and could aid in the 

killed by drought, insects, and fire, 

Bioenergy refers to the use of plant"based material to produce 

energy, and comprises about 28% of the U<S. renewable energy 

supply (Ch. 10: Energy, Water, and Land). Forest resources 

potentially could produce bioenergy from 504 mi!lion acres of 

timberland and 91 million acres of other forested !and (Figure 

7.7). Bioenergy from all sources, including agricultun>l and 

forests, could theoretically supply the equivalent of up to 30% 

of current U.S. petroleum consumption, but only if al! relevant 

policies were optlmized.45 The maximum projected potential 

for forest bioenergy ranges from 3% to 5% of total current U.S. 

energy consumption. 54 

Forest' biomass energy could be one component of an overall 

bioenergy strategy to reduce emissions of carbon from fossil 

fuels, 5

5 while also improving water qua!itl6

'

57 and maintaining 

lands for timber production as an alternative to other 

socioeconomic options. Active biomass energy markets using 

wood and forest residues have emerged in the southern and 

northeastern United States, particularly in states that have 

adopted renewable fuel standards. The economic viability of 

using forests for bloenergy depends on regional context and 

circumstances, such as species type and prior management, 

land conditions, transport and storage logistics, conversion 

processes used to produce energy, distribution, and use. 58 The 

environmental and socioeconomic consequences of bioenergy 

production vary greatly with region and intensity of human 

management. 

The potentia! for biomass energy to increase timber harvests 

has led to debates about whether forest biomass energy 

leads to higher carbon emissions. 44'

59 The debate on biogenic 

emissions regulations revolves around how to account for 

emissions related to biomass production and use. 60 The forest 

carbon balance naturally changes over time and also depends 

on forest management scenarios. For 

Location of Potential Forestry Biomass Resources example, utilizing natural beetle-killed 

forests will yield a different carbon 

balance than growing and harvesting a 

Figure 7.7. Potential forestry bioenergy resources by 2030 at $80 per dry ton 

of biomass based on current forest area, production rates based on aggressive 

management for fast~growth, and short rotation bioenergy plantations, Units are 

oven dry tons (ODT) per square mile at the county level, where an OOT is 2,000 

pounds of biomass from which the moisture has been removed. Includes extensive 

material from existing forestland, such as residues, simulated thinn!ngs, and some 

pulpwood for bioenergy, among other sources. (Figure source: adapted from U.S. 

Department of Energy 2011"). 

U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 182 

live, fast-growing plantation. 

Markets for energy from biomass 

appear to be ready to grow in 

response to e~ergy pricing, policy, 

and demand, although recent 

increases in the supply of natura! gas 

have reduced the perceived urgency 

for new biomass projects. Further, 

because energy facilities typically buy 

the lowest quality wood at prices that 

rarely pay much more than cutting 

and hauling costs, they often require 

a viable saw timber market nearby to 

ensure an adequate, low-cost supply 

of materla!.61 Where it is desirable to 

remove dead wood after disturbances 

to thin forests or to dispose of 

residues, a viable bloenergy industry 

could finance such activities. However, 

the bioenergy market has yet to be 

made a profitable enterprise in most 

U.S. regions. 

CliMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
104 


27516.062

7, FORESTS 

Key Message 4: Influences on Management Choices 

Forest management responses to climate wm be influenced by the changing 

nature of private forestland ownership, of forestry markets, emerging 

markets for bioenergy, and U.S. climate change policy. 

Climate change will affect trees and forests in urban oreas, manage forests in the face of climate change will be affected 

the wildland~urban interface, and in rural areas. It will also primarily by market and policy incentives, not climate change 

challenge forest landowners managing forests for commercial itself. 

products, energy development, environmental services such 

as watershed protection, or the conversion of forestland to 

developed and urban uses or agriculture. With increases in 

urbanization, the value of forests in and around urban areas in 

providing environmental services required by urban residents 

wl!l increase.41 Potentially the greatest shifts in goods and 

environmental services produced from forests could occur 

in rural areas where social and economic factors will interact 

with the effects of climate change at landscape scales. 

Owner objectives, markets for forest products, crops and 

energy, the monetary value of private land, and policies 

governing private and public forestland a!! influence the 

actions taken to manage U.S. forestlands (56% privately 

owned, 44% public) (Figure 7.8). Ownership changes can bring 

changes in forest objectives. Among corporate owners (18% 

of all forestland), ownership has shifted from forest industry 

to investment management organizations that may or may not 

have active forest management as <1 primary objective. Non~ 

corporate private owners, an aging demographic, manage 

38% of forestland. Their primary objectives are maintoining 

aesthetics and the privacy that the land provides as well os 

preserving the land as part of their family legacy. 62 

A significant economic factor facing private forest owners is the 

value of their forestlands for conversion to urban or developed 

uses. Economic opportunities from forests include wood 

products, non-timber forest products, recreation activities, 

and in some cases, environmental services.1

'

41 Less than 

1% of the volume of commercia! trees from U.S. forestlands 

is harvested annually, and 92% of this harvest comes from 

private forest!ands. 2 Markets for wood products in the United 

States have been affected by increasingly competitive global 

markets/3 and timber prices are not projected to increase 

without substantial increases in wood energy consumption or 

other new timber demands. 41 Urban conversions of forestland 

over the next 50 years could result in the loss of 16 to 31 million 

acres. 41 The willingness of private forest owners to actively 

The abi!ity of public, private, and tribal forest managers to adapt 

to future climate change will be enhanced by their capacity 

to alter management regimes relatively rapidly in the face 

of changing conditions. The response to climate change may 

be greater on private forestlands where, in the past, owners 

have been highly responsive to market and policy signals.64 

These landowners may be able to use existing or current 

forest management practices to reduce disturbance effects, 

increase the capture and storage of carbon, and modify plant 

species distributions under climate change. In addition, policy 

incentives, such as carbon pricing or cap and trade markets, 

could influence landowner choices. For human communities 

dependent upon forest resources, maintaining or enhancing 

their current resi!ience to change will influence their ability to 

respond to future stresses from climate change. 65 

On public, private, and tribal lands, management practices 

that can be used to reduce disturbance effects include 

altering tree planting and harvest strategies through species 

selection and timing; factoring in genetic variation; managing 

for reduced stand densities, which could reduce wildfire 

risk; reducing other stressors such as poor air quality; using 

forest management practices to minimize drought stress; 

and developing regional networks to mitigate impacts on 

ecosystem goods and services.u0

'

66 Legally binding regulatory 

requirements may constrain adaptive management where 

pl.ants, animal\, ecosystems, and people are responding to 

cl1mate change. 

lack of fine-scale information about the possible effects of 

climate changes on locally managed forests limits the ability 

of managers to weigh these risks to their forests against the 

economic risks of implementing forest management practices 

such as adaptation and/or mitigation treatments. This 

knowledge gap will impede the implementation of effective 

management on public or private forestland in the face of 

climate change. 

U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 183 Gl!MATE cHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
105 


27516.063

Forest Private 

O'%Corpwute 

NoDa~il 

Public and Private Forestlands 

Non-forest 

Pubae 

Priviil!i!l 

bkes~RH-ats 

7, FORESTS 

Figure 7.8. The figure shows forestland by ownership category in the contiguous U.S. in 2007,41 Western forests 

are moSt often loCated on public lands, while eastern forests, especially in Maine and in the Southeast, are more 

often privately held. {Figure source: U.S. Forest Service 201241} .• 

U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 184 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
106 


27516.064

REFERENCES 

P,'\'W'GTR-8!0. l! S. Department of ,\g-ncullurc, Forest Sen ic-c, 

Panfic Northwest Rt·~c~rch St;\tJOn, 265 pr. [/\v,uhblc onlmc at 

hI tp:/ ;\vww u~da.gov /( )(~' i ( l! m ~lte_c Inn gc !c ffl'ct~ _20 1 ::.; j' s_ 

{ 'hmatdl l4°';)20opr.pdfj 

;)mnh, \V. B., P. D. ;.,!ik~, C [ {, P<:n:-y, :tnd S. ,\.Pugh, 2009: l{orcst 

Rc~uurcc;; of the Umted St,<tcs, 2007. Ccncra! Tn:hmcd Report 

\'..:'0-78. 336 pp., U.S. Dcprtrtmmt llf ,\piculture Scr\'icc, 

\'1/a~hm~ton, D.C. !,\va!labk nnlmc at http ;/W\\'W kfcJ.us/m~ 1 

pubc,/gtrlgtr_wo78 pdfl 

J!J>,\, 20H: ·\nncx 3.12 !\kthodology for c~nmatmg n;;t nnhnn 

~t<lck ch,mges in forest land f('Hl<limng forc~t lands 

1990-:1

0/f. EPA .fJO.R.13-00I, 

l:.S. !·:nvironmcntal Protection .\g-cncy, ,\-2S4 :\ 303.!,\YaiLlbk 

Dak·, \'.! l, L, ,\. _loycl', S. !\1cNuhy, R. P Nct!son, t\1. P. \1 

D. Flannigan. P. J llan~un, l ,. C. I dand, \.E. J ,ugo, C. J. Peter~on, 

D. Simlwr!off, F. J. Swan~on, H. J- Stocks, and B. ~L \Votton, 200[; 

Climate chan~e and forr~t dgturlunces BioSrimte, 51, 

dod 0.16-1-1 /C1006-35GB(2001)051 ]0723-u:afd ]2.0.co;2 

knt~ch, ,-\., ,, Krcylmg, anJ C. Bcierkuhnlcin, 2007; A new 

gcnrration of dim:-~tc-ch.anr,c cxpcnmcots: En:nts, not trends 

h-olif1tn in Erokgy a!!rl the EilviJWIJ?ltll!, 5, 365-374, dot: !0-1890/!5-1-0-

9295(2007)5 ]365: A :\iCOCl ':J2.0.C< U. 

10 l !Jckc,.J D, .\llcn, A. R. Dc~ai. ~L C Diw·c, R. 1-! !all, l T 

[ !oy.g, D. :-.1. h,l~luan, D. !'v!oo:rc, K. [I_ Raffa, R.N. SturrocK, anJ 

J. \'ogdmann, 2012: Fffcct~ of biotic dJ:>turbann.:s on forest carbon 

cycling in the United Stat('S and Can,tda. C!o!xli Chan,~f BIOlog.)', 18, 

7-34, d{w!0.1111/i.l365-24R6.201!.02543.x. fi\v;ubblr unlhw ,\! 

bnp· //onlindihmr~' wikyxotn /dr>t/1 0 ! 029/20051(; 000 l OJ /full] 

on!tne hrtp:i/www.<.T,t.gov/chm:H<.chal1g~.:/!)owoio:.dd 11 :\ikn, C. D., .-\. K. Mac<~hdy, IL Ch.enchnunt, D. lhchder, 

gh~:smi~swn:;/t S-( ;j !(; -lnv{·ntory-2011 ,\m)o._Compkrc_ 

RcporL!}dfJ 

\\ioodall, C \'\i., K. Skog, ). E. Smtth, :tnd C ll. 2011: 

\Luntl:nancc tore~t {'ontnbutton to global carllon cydc~ 

(cntcnnn J\:atil/tlll! Repm1 011 Ju,,·t<JJ!Iab!f Fon:Jti '" ~'0!0. FJ-9i9, { ;, 

Dcpartnwnt 

of .\gnculturc, hm:st Scrvic(•, ll-S9- 1 !-65. fAYailahlc oniinc 

at http://www. fs. lnLu~/te~l\l n h/'u~t:<in/201 OSustaln.tbitity H.cpor 

t/donun..:nt~/drJft2010~mt<tnubtlityreport.pdfl 

lhk, \'. ll., lt .\, Efroymgoo, and K. L Kline, 2011: The Lmd 

me-climate change-l'nngy n<·xu~. Landowpf Ero!qli__l', 26,755-713, 

Uoi:lU l007/sl0980-01l-9606-2. 

\ldJrcx:kr, D. ]., 1\L /.hao, anJ S. \'-\' Runmng, ~009. 'l~s!ing ~t 

\10DlS global di~turb,lnce mdcx aero~~ ;-lorrh ,\mnit<L Rewotf 

113, 2103· 2! 17, doL10.1016/j.r~c.2009.05 016 

c;ol't:-:, S. J., H. Boml·!.arnberty, B. Llw, f. A. f f1ckc, (:. 1 luang, 

H. ,\. lloughton, S. i\kNuhy, T. ()'fblloran, ~t !lannon,-\ J. fl 

\fcdden~. F.~.:( Pf(')k:r, D \hldn:x:k·r, and E. S. !·CI~hchkc, :10!2: 

( )b;;erv,\!'Jon~ and a~sc~sment \lf furcst or bon dynJmics following 

Jisrurbanc{' m l'-:orlh :\m<:rica. )t;:mm! 117, 

C02022, doi:10.l\l:?.9/20ll_!t;OOJ733 j,\vaibbk on!Jnc ar http:// 

on hm.:h!Jr,\ry.wde) .com/do1/ l 0.! 019/20 ll_! ( ;ou 1733/pdf) 

~ McDowell, :'I·L \\:nncticr, T. Ka;;.brrgn, .\. Rigling, D. D 

Br{·~hcar~, L. ! L llogg, P. (;onzalcz, R. Fcn;:hJm, /,_ '/.hang,_!, 

CJ::trn, ~- Dcmtdova, L-! L Ltm, (;_ Allard, S. \'(.'_ Running, ;\ 

SC'merci, and?\:. Cobb, 20!0: ,'\global overview of drought and hclttnduccd tree mnnalit~· reveal~ cmrry,tng climate chan,I!C n~k~ for 

f(lre~ts /lf!d /lfa~~t~gmmtt, 259, DG0-684, dodOJOlG/1 

forn:o 2009.09.001. j.\va1bblc onhne at http://www.~cimcnlirn:t 

rom,/:;ucncc/artich.:/pii/S03781!170')006!5X I 

12 Uukr~,l. S., J. Ponou~, D. Orwig,_]. !C Garna~, \', L Rodj.;cr~, !"..: 

lkwcc, B. Cooke. K. .\, ThcohariJe~, b. E. Stange, R, f Jarring ton, 

!-Ehrenfeld, j. {;un'vmh, )_,L Lcnlan, K. Stmson, R. \Vtck, anJ 

:'11. 1\yrt'S, 2009: Rcspon~es of in~t·ct pe~tg, pathogen~. anJ uwasivc 

plant ~pcnr:s to climate change in thr: forc~t$ of northea!itl'rn Nonh 

,\mcnca: \'1/hat can predict~ CmMdiat; }o11rmlf ofFon·..-t Kmanh, 

39,231-248, dorlO ll19/X08-l7!. lr\vailablc online :n http: '/www 

nt\ re~can:hrrc~q·om/--10!/pdf; 10.1139/X08-17ll 

~fcDowcll, K, \\'. T. Pock man, C. D. :\llcn, D. D. Hrc~hears, 0:. 

Cobb, T. Ko!b, J. Plaut, J, Sperry, t\. \'('c~t, -\. Yrpcz, and D. 

G. \Vdliams, 2008: Mcchanl'ms oC pbnt ~urYlval anU mortality 

dunng drou!-jht: \X'hy do wrnv plants ~nrvivc \vhilt others succumb 

ro dtou).';bt? 178, 719-7Y), doi:10.11ll/j.HG9" 

8137.2008.02,f36.:..:. 1:\v~ttlllb!e on!tnt· M http://otl!inehbory.w!ky. 

com/d01/lO.llll/i 1469 8137.1003.02436 .. '-/pdfl 

U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 185 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
107 


27516.065

H Raffa, K. F., B. ll. ,\u.knna, B . .J. Bentz,,\. L Carro!l,.J. ,\. l hckc. 

1\1. c;. Turocr, and \X/. ll. Romme, 2008: Cros~~sca!" dnvet~ 

of natural di~tu1h<H1C'.'S prone to anthrop<)g-cnK :tmplifictuon 

The tlynanucs of bark beetle cruptton~. 13iaJmt!N, 58, 501-517, 

Joi:10.Hi41/b580607. ].\vathbk onlmc at http://www.istor.or_g/ 

"-tablc/pdfplu~/Jt).1641 I BS80()07.pd f] 

15. \',w i\·Lmtgern, P .J., ~. L. Stephenson,). C Byrw:, L D. l!anid~, 

). F hanklin, P. '/ .. hilc, i\1. t·:.!Ltrmon, .\._!. Lmon,J. 1\.l. Smith, 

:\. l L "Ly!or, and T. T \'~Nen, 2009· \X'Kkspre;H.ltncn;a;;c of tlxc 

monalny nit(.':< in the western L'nitcd State~ . . fdena:, 313, 

dod0.11:26/~clencc 1165000. 

!6. \\"Jlhams, A. P., C. U. 1\llcn, C. l. 1\ld!ar, T. \X'. Swetnam, J. 

\i1Lhadscn, C). Still, \lnd S. \V. Lcat·itt, 2010: Fnre~t fL'Spnnses to 

mne:t~mg ariJtty and warmth m the sou\hwestern limkd State::. 

1{17, 21289~21294, 

Jo::10.1073/pna~.0914211107. [:\V:l1lablc onl1n~ http://\V\VW 

pnas.org/n mtcnt/1 07 /SOj: 1289.fcl11 i 

17 Williams. :\. P., C. D. ,\!len. /\. K. ?\1:1cahdy. D. <irifhn, C. :\ 

\\'nodhousv. D- 1\L l\kko, T \V . .Swettl>lm,S. ,\. R;:msdKr, R. Seagu, 

f!. D. Cn,~ino-:'\Lly\'r.(. S. [)~an, E. R. Cook. C. G:mj);Oda)!An\ilf!l'. 

~!. Ca1, and :--.l. G. :-lcDowdl, 2013: T~mpcraturc a potent 

duYer of regional forest drought stre~~ ,md ttt•c rnortal!ty 

22 ,\dams, l L D., 1\L Guardwia-Claramonte, C. A. [htrron-(;affonl, 

J. C. Villcy.as, D. D. Brc~h('ars, C B. Zou, P. A Troch, and T E. 

! luxman, 2009: T~mperattHC S<'Jl$itivtt\' nf droughHndurcd tree 

mnnaltty portend~ increa~cd regional du: off unUer p;lobal-ch:tngc· 

rypc drought. Proaedit(~Jrj'the NatiiJnc:JA,t~dfi!!J' ~~f.fcieun, 106, 7063~ 

7066, dot:l 0. J073/pnas.090143810G. 

23. Hmvnun, ]), i\1. J. S., ,1. K. B,!lch. P. ,\rtaxo, W. J BonJ, J. ~L 

Carl~on, ).L .-\. Cochcme, C. 1\L D':\nt(JO!O, R. S. Dchil'~, ). C 

Doyk, S. P.! larmon, F! !.Johmton,.J. E. Kedey, \L ;\,Krawchuk, 

C..\. Kul!,J. B. Manton, :-...1. r\. ,\lotitz, L C. P:rnlt1Cl', C L Roo~, 

,\_ c. ::\cott, T. \V. ~wernam, c; R. van der \'1'/crf, and s. J. Pyne, 

2009: ]IJre 111 the l~arth ~ystem. 324, 481·484, doi:10.1126/ 

scwncdl6388G. 

Keane, R. l·~.,J. K. -\~ce, P. Fuh\J. 1':. Keeley, C. Kcy,S. (;_ J(itchcn, 

R~ i\!!lkr, and L. i\. Schulte, 2009: Ecohg1caJ l'ffl'cts of large fires 

on t:S landscape~: Benefit or utastrophe? lnternatwnai )!)lima! ~( 

Wild/and Fin:, 17, 696~712, Joi:!0.1071/\X'F071--18 

Littell, J. S., D. 1\lcK{'nzic, D. L. Pncr~on, :md A. L \Vestcrling, 

2009: Clim,\te ;1nJ wildfire an·a burned m WC$(Crn lJS ccoprovince~. 

1916·2003 F},,-qfo_f!/~"(1/ App!i::atio!IJ, 19, 1003-1021. doi:1D.1890/07-

1183.l 

C!xm~t, 3, 292·297, dodO W38/nchmatc1G9.1. I \\"aibble 2.+ \:RC, 2011: C!mM!i! Stabi!i:;,arion Conantr:t!ions. and 

online N;"ttinnal Research Council. The ,il http://wwwmnurc.corn/ndimatc/J()Un\a];\·3/n3/fXlf/ 

nd!matc·l693.ptlf] 

lB Dietze, M. C., and P. R. \1oornoft, 2011: Tree mortahty in the 

ca~t<·rn ;"tml central United State$: Patterns and driver~. Clo/Ja/ 

C!)(mp;' Riolt!Jf,)\ 11,5312-.3326, doi:10.1lll/j.J3(J.:-;<?A8G.201l.O:?A/"7.x 

19 Dak, \'. f L, ivL L. Th,up, K. 0. Latl!lOHl, anJ D. C. ! lodr;es, 

20]0 ;"\loJehng trans1ent n·~ponsc of forests to dim:<te ch;mgc 

q( T!x Total Em;f!wlment, 408, 1888-1901, doi:l0.1016/j. 

>~ritotcnv.2009.1l .osn 

0.'~1!!nnal /\cademie$ Pres,;, 298 pp. [Av::tibblc online at http.// 

\\"WW.nap.cdu/uttahlg. php?rccord_td"' 12877! 

\\,'J,•m:rling, ;\, L., ;"\.{.(;.Turner, E, ,\, Jl. Smithwick, \V.II. Rommrc. 

and .\L C. Rpn, 2011: Connnu~d w,tnnnlg could tramform 

Greater Ycl!o,v::tone fire repme$ by mid<:~lst century. Proceedings 

qf lh~ ,'\'a!illlfa! AcadtJJ!) 108, 13165-13170, doi:l0.1073/ 

pnas.11Hl199108. j,\vaiL1ble onlim· at http://www.pn;ts.or,g/ 

r:otllt'nt/(."Mly/21")! 1/07 /2D/1110!99!08.almnKt; http://www.pml~. 

org/r:ontent/! U8/.l~/1.3l65.fu 1!. pdf] 

:lnHth, i\!. D., 2011 ,\n ccologiol pcrspcctlw on extreme 26 Covi-ngmn. \\i. W", P. %. J!uli:, !vi. M. i\!oorc, S. C l !art, T E.l<olh,J 

clmuttc cvtnt~: ,\ synthct!c ddinninn ant.! framework tn guide 

future re~earch. Jouma! '!l L~m!"'r,), 99, G5(J- (163. d\)1:10 1! 11/j.l365-

27,1S.2\J1l.01198.x. 

21 fPCC, 2012: ,\lm;at,ing Ritk.> 

/ldt1iltm: Cfimate ChaJ~f/ AdaptatioN . .rl Jpeoiu! Report 1(lFOrki;.~~ GroNps 

I m;d l1 '!/ tbf Intergol•fr!fmenkli Pam/ 011 Climate Change. C. R. Fidd, 

\'. Harros, T F ;\rocker, D. (!in, D. (. Dokken, K. L. l ·:bi, ~L D. 

Ma~rrJ.ndrca, K . .J. i\lach, (;.-K. Jllmncr, S. K. ,\!len, \L Ti)1;nor, 

and P . .\1 .\ltdgky. !·:ds. C;~mbndgc Cnt\"t>rsity Pre~~, 582 f!P 

j.\\·llllabk un!nlt at htq)'//Jpcc-wg2.gt)\/~RI·:X/Jm::tgc~/uplmd<./ 

SH.l'.X-.\!l_FlN·\L pJf! 

U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 186 

::---...:. l\!a~t, S. S. S:tckttt, and :-.1. R. \Vagncr, 1997: Re~tonng cco$ptcm 

lH.';lhh m ponderosa pine forc~t:: of the Southwt~t. Jol(rtW! f!(Pore.>t~")', 

95, 23~29. jAvailahk onlitw ~t lntp:jlwww.wgcntaconnect.com/ 

wntcnt/ ... af fJnf/1 997 /OOOOOU95/00000004/artLl00091 

Rhodt$,J. _]..and\'\.', L. Raker, 2008: Fin,· probability, fuel treatment 

cffcnivcnc~s and ecological Hadcoff~ 1n wew:rn U.~. public fon·~ts 

TIN Opn 1, 1 7, (bi:I0.2174/187~39fl60080101 

0001. {,\vatlablc onlinc at http://www.benthamscwnct·.com/open/ 

rof~ci1/at tt'k~/\'0 0 l/1 'I'( )J ,'~C l !. pdf! 

~wanwn, "-L E., J. F. Fr:mkhn, R. L. B('schta, C i\1. Cri~:ahllh, D. 

,\, DellaSab, R. L. ! lutto, D. B. Linden mayer, and F. J. ~\V~Ul$01L 

2010: The forgotten $tagc of forest wcce$S1on: Earlr~~uccc~~ional 

ecn~ystcm$ on forc~t ~It<.:~. 

Jl7, 125, Joi:lO. !890/090157 

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN !liE UNITED STATES 
108 


27516.066

S\vcmam, '!'. \V, and c; !f. Ba!San, 2003: Ch. 6: "!'n:L·-nng 

reconstructions of fire and cbmate 1n~rory tn the Sie1Til Nevada 

qfthe Jr8.ftm1 

Veblen, \'\'. Baker, C. :.Jonu:ncgro, and T \V Swetnam, l•:ds., 

.Spnnger, 1'i8-195 

S,1xc, l !., D. S. 1<:11~\\"orth, and ]. ! leath, 2008: Yrrc and for('st 

funniontng in an enriched CCh atmo{phcrc. "'\-ew P~;t&kgl"t, 139, 

39S-43G, doi: l0.1U.JG/J.l4G9- 8 !37.1998.00221.x. 

\'l:ooda!L C W., C. ).J. Oswa!r, J. ,\_ \X'cstf.1t!, C l!. Perry, ,\f. D. 

~dsnn, and.\. 0. !'mky. 2009. ,\n l11lhcatnr of tree mJgnmon in 

fore:.!~ of the eu::tem L'nneJ States. E(l)/~~1 lltid Jfc<IMl'/fJlfllt, 

tvkKcm:tc, D., 1\. E. I k~~!, and D. L. Pncn:on, 200!: Recent 

gwwth of comkr speucs of western North .\merica: i\ssesomg 

sputi::ti puttern~ of radial gro\\·th trend~. Ca1!arliar1 Journal f!/ Fore.'f 

31, 526-)38, do1"10.1139/x00-l91. ll\vai!able online at 

http:i/www.nrcre~carchprt~s cnm/Uoi/r<if/1 0 1139/x:00-1911 

.D. Pan, Y., R .. \. Binhcy,J. Fang-, R. 11oughton, P. Kauppi. \'{1, 1\ 

Kur;;, 0. L. Phillip~ .. '\. Slnndcnko, S. L. Lc:wi~, J. C. Can:~ddl, 

P. Ct:us. !\. B. ]acbon, S. \\'. P;lc.d:l, .\. D. !\lcCutrc, S. Pi:w, ;\. 

RauttJmcn, S. Sirch, and D. Haye::, ~Ol1: r\ large .wd persistent 

otrb(m ~ink 1n the world'~ for~.:~t~. Srimre, 333, 988-993, dm:J0.1126/ 

~ncncc.l201609. 1-'\va!lablc onlmc at http://www.ltcruaf.edui 

pdf/1 "i45_Pan_Bmlsey_.201l.pdf! 

257, !43~-14-14,drn:10.1016/i.forcw,::,008.1:20!3 .)·1-. :\n~crt, .\., S. Biraud, C. Bonflls, C. I !enning-, \X'. Buermann, 

28 Choat, H., S . .J:tn~cn, T J. Brodnbb, f I. Cochard, S. Ddzon, R 

Bk!Sk.lr, S. J. Bucct, T. S. l;cdd, S. ill. Cleason, C. (~. ! l.1ckc, ,\, 

L jacob~cn, F. Len~. ll. Malwrah. J. \!aruno \'da!u, S \layr, 

1\kncurcmj, P. l \Jjrchdl, .\. ~.~rdini, _! Pmcrmann, R. H. Pratt, 

I S Sperry, !\l.\\'e~toby, ! . .1- \X'nght, and l~. 1-.mne, Glob:<! 

J. Pinzon, C.J- Tllckcr, and l. Fung, 2005: Drier summer~ onccl 

nut the co~ uptake enhancem{'l1t induced by w:trnwr ~rring~ 

PrOi'ftditl~~" !he ?\'ati011ai Aradell!)' 102, 10823-!0827, 

doi:1l).!073/pna~.0501G-l-7102. !:\Yadahle online at http://www. 

pn~~ (lrg/wnrcnt/102/.11/10823 full.pdf~-htnl!j 

convergmce m the,. nln<.'rabdtty of fore~ts ro dmught . . Yatm'f, 491, 15. Boi~vcmle, and S. \Y.J. Runmng, 2010: Simulations show 

7')2-755, doi:10.1038inatmel1688 

.\d.nns, 1 L n, .\. r<. :\lJcalady, C. D. Bre~Jwar::, C. D. ,\llen, 

:--.:. L. Stephenson, S. R. S~k~ka, T. E. lluxman, and 0J. c; 

Jccreastng nlrbon ~tocks and potcnti·al for carbon cmJ~~ion~ tn 

Rocky ~lountain fnre~t~ (Wer the next century. Ewio,giwi AfipiimtioliS, 

20, 1307-13!9, dod0.1890/09-0504.l 

\icDowd!, :?.010: Clim:\le-mduccd tm.:: mortality: Earth $y~rem %. 1\1c~hhon, S. 0.!., (;. C. Parker, und D. R. i\ldlcr, 2010; Evidence 

con~C(jUe-nces. Eo;, Traniohfirm.•·. /1meriaw Geop~;·.li,u! Ullioll, 91, for a rec('nt inrn•asc in for~·~t grmvth. Pro<ndir(~J SatiMa! 

lS·f, dot:10.!029/20lOFOl7000J 1071 36i1-3615, doi·10.J073/pnus.09!2376107. 

f,\vaihbk onlme http://www.pna~ or)!/contcnt/ 

.\nJerq:;).;, \V. R. L., J. ~!. K~\tH', and L. D. L .. \ndereg-g-, 2012· carly/20l0i02/02/0012376!07.fldl.pdf+htmll 

C(l!lSl'(]UCnces of \Vidc~pread tree mort,litty tnpgercd by dwught 

and temperature strc~~- J'\'otur~ C!iHMft C/_i,lft[!,f, 3, 30-36, dot:10.1CJ38/ 

nclimatt·l635. 

Ehrenfeld, .L C., 2010: Eco~ystcm coMC'fU('fiCC~ of biologteal 

inn~ion~. Arli!ll<il Rtf.•ie;p q{fim!~g)'. 41, 59~ 

1:10, dnt·10.tl46/annurev-ccol~ys-!02209 1·1·1-650 

30 Brc~heun;, D.[).,],_ ]J}pt•z llnffman. and l .. J. (;r<~umlich, ?.01!: 

\\-"hen eCO$)-'Stem crash: Prepanng for btg, fa~t, pan.:h_v 

dinn\ll' chanRt'. /lM/310: A fMmu! ?i' Jbe fluma!r 40, 

2()3, dor I 0.1007 is! 3:280-0l0-01C>6--l-. 

31 C;lmpbdl, j. L, L. E Rmrad. S. [<'. Chri~tnphcr, C !'. Dri~co!l, L J 

hnLintlcz, P. !\!. Groffman. D.! loul~e,_l Ktekbu$ch, :\.! l. ;-,bgtll, 

l\1. J. \1itchdl, and S. \' Ollmgcr. 2009: Comc-,luences of cl!matc 

change lor btogcochvmtcd cycling m forest~ of nonhea~tern 

Bird~cy, R., K. Prcgitzcr, and :\. Lucio..:r, 2006: 1.-or('st carbon 

managcmcnttn the United State~: l G00-21 OO.Joumal~fENvimnmental 

Q!!ali(), 35, 1-1-61-1469, dot:!0.213.J/j<xj2005.t)1G2. 

38 ~kKmlcy, D. C., ).L C. Ryan, R. ,\, Hird~<-'!-, C. P. Ghrdina, ,\1 

1·:. ! brmon, ! .. S. llc:tth, R. ,\_ ! Iough ton, 1t B. _hrk~on, J. F 

\lorri~on, B. C. i\!urray, D. !c. Patakt, and!(, E. Sko,q, :201!: A 

~ynthc~i~ of current knowledge <m forc~ts and carbon storage in the 

L:nttcd St,l!es. EoJ!og1•a! App/i,.':tliom, 21, 1902-197.4, UOJ:10.1890/10 

0697.1. !.\\-atlab!c onlmoc a! http.//128.10..J..7!.228/documnts/ 

pdf!011/fpl_201l_mckmky00l rdfj 

J9 Fl\\, 20\15: (;reenhousc Cas \!ttiga:ion Potential in U.S. Forestry 

and .\gncu!ture 430-R-05~006. l'.S. t~nvironmental 

Prott•ction ,\g,ency, \\ a~hingtnn, D.C. 

!'orth .\mntca. Canad!dll Journal q( 39, 264-284, ~0. Coodak C :\1. _!. "\pp;;, R. 1\, Binhey, C B. l"tdd, L. S, !lcath, 

doJ·l0.1139/X08-!04 

32. Bol~Ye111.1t', C., :tnd S. \X'. Running, 2006: 1 mpacts of dim ate change 

on natttr.l.l forest producttVlty--evtdct\cc ~tnn' the m1ddk oF the 

20th cmtury. G!ob,1/ Cha!lg~ Bio!GJ:), 12, 862-882, dol:10.1111/J 1365~ 

2 }.%.2006.011J4.x. 

U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 187 

R. A.! loughton,J. C. .Jenkins, U. fL Kohlmaier, \V. Kurz, S. Liu, S. 

Liu, G.--j. Nahuur$, S. \hls~on, :1nd .'\. /. ::-;hVJdenko, .2002: Forest 

carbon sinb !ll the l\orthcm [ lemisphere. Em!o,~iwl /If'plic<1tio.!l.f, 

12, 891-899, doi. 10.1 B90/J 051-0761 (2002)0 12[0891 :1 ~csiTl\! j2.0 

C0;2 

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITEO STATES 
109 


27516.067

41 lJSFS, 201:2· Future o! .\rnerica'~ forest aml rangdands: 20!0 

Rc~ourt'c'S Planntng .\ct a~s,·ssmcnt. (;cm·ral Tcchninl Report 

\'I/0-H7. 198 pp., Li.S. Dcpa.rtmcnt of .\griculture, U.S. Forest 

Scn:Kc, \X':~shingron, D.C. !Available online at http:/hv\vw.fs.fnl 

us/ rc~ca rc h /publ ic111l n1.<. /g rr/ g1 r _ \V( 18!. pdf I 

42 Sohngcn, R, ;llld S. Brown, 2D06: 'rhc inflm:nn: of convcr:;-ton of 

fo1c~t types on c::trbon S('questrntion and other eco~ystcm sctVICCS 

w rhc South Central Un!tcd State~. }i;o!op'm! E.m10mic.r, 57,698-708, 

dm:l 0.1016/ ).t'('oiccon. 2005.06.(){) !. 

ChPi, S. \'\'., B. Snhngcn, and R. ,\!i)!_, 201 !: An as~cs~ment of 

the influenn: of b10cnergy and marketed bnd amcnuy value~ on 

land uses Jn the !\fidwe~tcrn US 70, 713-720, 

doi·IO l016/j.tCOiecon_2Q;O.l !.005. 

\n economic 

apprnacb to a~~c~~ the fore."\ carbon implte~tions ofb10ma~~ energy 

b!i!ironm<'llia/ (')' Terh!!olo,u, 46, 5M4-SG7l, dnd0.1021/ 

-15. t)()E, 2011: U.S. Billion:ron Upd:ttc: Hi(lmass Supply for a 

Hwcm·rm· and Bmpwduns ln<Justry. OR~L/T.\l-2011-224. R. D 

Pcrlack, an,l B. J. Stoke~, !~Js., 1?.7 pp., U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of the Hiom:1ss Program, Oak RiJg<' ~arional Laboratnry, 

Oak Hidgc, T~-1.\v:ulabk online ar http:/ W\Y\I.d.u.'n:.encrgy guvi 

bHmlass/pdt~;Otllton_ton_updatc.pdf! 

·J.6. Running, S. W., R. R. ]'.;cmani, F..\. I kinsch, :\L Zhao, l\L Hccvcs, 

and l!. ! Llshtmoto, :?:004: ,\ nmtumou~ .~<ltcl!!tt- .. di·rtvt•d mca~\tre 

(If gliJbal tcrrcstnal primary production. 54, 547-560, 

Joi.l\l.l64l/O(H)6-3568(2004)05410547· \CS:'\!OC]Z 0.0 );2 

j;\vaihhk onlirK \lt hrtp / t('OCJq.atT.n.l~~l.gov/pub~/pdfd2U!l4/ 

l{unn nJg __ lSin~z wnu:. pJ f! 

4/ Sathre', ]\.,and f. O'Connor, 2010: Meta-analysis of gn'cnho\.Nt: g;<,; 

,lt~p!an:ment factor~ of wood product ;;ub~tlftltton. Em'iron!!WiM/ 

13, 104 ! l4, dm:10J016/i.cnvm.2009.]1_ 005 

·18. CCSP, 1007: TIM l'int Jta!f ~/ tbe Carbo!! R:>port (-fOCCR).' 

Sor!h Amtrimn Carbon BHrfget aNd I mplication,J&r the G'!oba! CarboN (l'tk 

.-1 Repm·t ~J tht Li.J. (."!inJafr Cbange .fcii'JI(f Prop,mm all(i the J~rb:omm:f!N 

f !arden,). \V,;;;. E. Trnmborc, i).J. Srocks,.:\,! lirsch, S. T. Gowef, 

K. P. O'Nl'lll, and I~. S. Kastschkc, 2000: The role of fitc in the 

boreal carbon budget. G/oba!Chmt€tBiolo_f,)', 6, 17-'1 184, dor10.1046/ 

j.1J65 ·2486.2000.06019.x. !,\vmlabk unhne ;tt http://onlindibrary 

W!lcy.nJrn/ J( 11/ l 0.! ().! G/j.l365 2-186. 2000.06019-x/pdf! 

50. ,\lbaugh, T J., ll. L(·e ,\!len, P. :vL Dough-erty, and K. 11. 

]nhn~cn. 2004: Long term growth rc·sponsts of loblolly pine to 

nptimnl nutrimt ;nHl water rc·source av,1ilabthty. I7oresr Em!o,gy a11d 

i\lmw~e!Jlf!l/, 192, J.J9, d0!:1U.l016/j.foreco.~004-.01.0()2 

:\tbJ.ugh, T.J., I L Lee .\lien, 13. R. Zuttcr, and I L E. Qutcke, 2003: 

Vcgctat10n control and feruhzation in midrotatwn P.inlf.l' tmda 

stand~ tn the southeastern UnJtcd States. Am:alf q(Foren J,imre, 60, 

619 62-+, doi:10.105l/forc,;t:200:1054. 

.\lien, 1!. 2008: Ch. 6: S!lv1cultural treatment~ to enhance 

producti\'!ty. T!x Forr.<!.r I landbook, !/oifmu :!: .rlpj){Jillg Fornt .ftitth"e 

jOr.fustaiiNb!t.\Jrmagtma;t,J. Fvans, f·:d., Bbck\vdl Scicm:c l.td, 129-

!39. 

,\mishc•v. D. Y., and T. lL Fox, 2006: Tlw cffen of weed nmtrol 

anJ f~'rtthzation on ~urvinl and growth of fnur pme ~pccie~ m 

the \'irgmia Piedmont. Dco!~~y and i\lmtq~n7h'tl/, 236,93-101, 

doi: 1 0.\016/j. forew.2006.08. 339. 

Border~. B. R. !':, \X,'tll, \!arhwitz, :\.Clark, R. !Icndrkk, 

R. ()_ Tcskey, and Y. %hang, 2004: Effect of complete competition 

conrroi and annml fertilization on stem gro\vth and canopy 

rd:tttOlH for a Lhronoscquc-nn' of loblolly puw plantations in the 

lower coa~tJ.l plain of Ccorgta. and .\1anaEtlllmt, 192, 

!:\vadahlt: onlme at hnp·//www.~r~.f~ wJa.gov/puhs/i•l/ 

j:t_bt)rd('r~Onl.jldfl 

1\il~~nn, U., ;mJ I! L. r\lkn, 2003: Short-and long-t~·rm effect:: 

of slte preparation, fcrtdinrion and vegetation control on growth 

an,l ~rand development of planted loblolly puw. Fornt Etollzv r1r.d 

.ilfamJp_p;.;tJI!. 175, %7-377, dm:l0.10!6/S0378 1127(02)00140-8 

li\V:ttbbk onhnc at http://www.f~Lor~t.t'du/ltcp/Biscuit/Blst·uit_ 

files/ Rc fs/ ~1 tllson%2DF! ~ 1\! 2003%20ncg~ o20hcrb%20e rfn: t. 

pdf! 

01/ Global 0Jatw Rmard;. 5!. Balboa~:\turia~, \\L R. Rodrigue7-SO'J.11eiro, /\. ;\h:rino, 

aml.'bNmwon"mda<te:.2. ·\.\I/. Kmg, L. Dilbng. G. P. /:immcrman, 

D. !\1. f,.,,imutt, R. r\. !loughton, G. II. Marl.Hld, .-\. :1.. Ro~c, and 

'l. J. Wilbank~, Eds. Chmatc Chan~l' SncnC(' Progr.un, pp. 

{:\vat!able onlitw at http://nh:~c omLgo\'/S< )CCR/pdthap2-2-

final.;dl pdf! 

40 Balohi, M. S., ,\. D. 1\.lcGu\re, P. Duffy, :\L l'bnnigan, D. \\'. 

KJCklrghtcr, and J. 1\Idi!lo, 2009: Vulnerability of carbon storage 

m :-.Junh :\mencan boreal fore~(~ to w!ldfir{'S during the 21H 

century. C!oba! C&cwg,e BifJlQj!.)', 15, 1491·1510, dodO 1111/i 1.%5 

2--18Ci.2009.01877.x 

U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 188 

and J. (;. :\!v.uez-Conz;\lc;.-, 2006: Temporal variatton~ ;tnd 

dt~rribntion of -t:Hrbon ,:tock~ in ,\bovefiround bton1<1% of radi,ua 

pine J.nd maritime pine pure stands under differmt si!vicultural 

dternativcs. Fon:Jt Eto!O,I;,)' and l!iaN.'{~m;wt, 237, 29-3R, docl0.10!6/j. 

forcco.200G. 09.024 

!lannon, 1\.L E., .and H. Marb, 2002: Effects of ~ilvtnlltural 

practice~ on carbon ~tores in Dough.s~fir-westem hemlock fnn;sts 

in the Pacific )';orihwe~t, liS.\.; Result~ from a stmulation modeL 

C!:madran Jourwf q/ Fon•.ft Re.rearch, 32, 863-877, dm:l0-1139/xOl 

216. 1.\v,ulahk online at http.//www.mcn:~earchprc~,.com/doi/ 

ab~/10.1!39/xOi 2161 

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
110 


27516.068

ll:lnnnn, \! .\. )..lorcno, and 1. B. Dornmgo, 7.00'): l·:ffrcb 56 J)a!c, \'. 1!., It J,uwrann:, P . .Mu!holhmd, anJ (~. 1'. Robertson. 

of parttal h:Hvcst on the carbon ~tore~ m Dough~·fir/wc~tcrn 

hnnlock forcsJS: ~\ smmbt1on ~tudy 12, 777-79t 

dot:l0.\007/~!0021 009 

_I tang,!!., :VI.!. ,\pr~. C. Pcng, Y. Zhang,andJ. f,in. ?.002: :\!oddlmg 

the tnflucnrc of harvcsung on Ch!!wse bordl lorc~t urbon 

dvnal11!C~ <Wd .\fiUh{£_Nrlfli!. 169, 6)~82, doi-10.!016/ 

Stl378-1127(0:2;0n299-2 

Katpamen. '!'., j. Liskt, .\. P11~~lllcn, anJ "!: fCtqahmen, 200-i: 

J\!amtgmg cnrbon ~illks by rbangmg mtatton length Hl Europl·an 

7, dod() 1016/j 

cnvsn 2UO-Ul3 001 

Seely, B., C. Welham, and ll K11nmins, 2002: C:ubon ~cquc~tr.ttlon 

1n ;~boreal fon"it cco~v~rcm: Rcwlt:; from the n·o~ystem wnulano11 

model, FORFC \ST 

dot 10.1f.ll6/;;0}78-1l27~02;00303 ·1 

S-2 LP,\, 2009: Ch "7: Land u>c, hnd-usc· dlJngc, MHl fon.-~tf) 

qi U .. L Ga.r 1990 :..'007. l' S. 

ht 1 p./ /www.cpa.gm·/climarcc h :tngc /I )0\vn loads/ghgnn 1 >~JOn,_; 

(1S-C;! [(;.!n\·cntor)<'.Ul2 \:haptcr-7 l,t '],l.'l :J!.pdfl 

Inventory of L1

S Cru:nhou~e ( ;;;~ !':mis~ion;; :ltid Sink,· 

1900 2U!l tiS. l~nv!ronmcnta! Protection \j.;cncy, \X'a~h!tlgton. 

D.C. l:\va1labk onlmc at !mp:/hvwwcpa.g(J\'/chmatcrhangc/ 

l)uwnl(l>Hh/j2hgcmt,;~!ons/l 'S.{; ll(; -lmTntun;-20: 3-:'>Lt1n-Tn:t 

pdfj 

5-~ Srn1th, \X'. K., C. C. Ckvvbnd, S. C !Zed, N_ L l\lillcr, ,tnd S 

Htocncrgy potcnu;d nf the t'nttc·d St.1tl"S 

cmt~tr,nJwd l;~· ,;atdllll' ob~,·n·:Hwn,; of cxt~\lng proLluctt\"it) 

Lun>r Ti-dmo/~2), 46, 3536-354·1, d01:"!0.1021/ 

cs20393Sd. 

[ l:thi.:rl,! [.,!..:: -1 [. l~rb, Ji Kr:\u~mann. S. Runn1ng, T. D. Scarrhtngcr, 

anLl S. \..\'. Ko!by, 70t3: Bioencrgy: !low much c:tn we oqwct for 

:"l(l)rp 8, ()31()().1, doi.101083/17+8 

')3:?:6/S/3/031004. 1.\YMbhk onlmc ::~t http-//10p~ncnrc top. 

cng/17-18 9J:?:(l/8/3/CJJ 100+/pJf/17 H\ ')J26_8_3_U3111CH.pdt) 

:\5. Perlack. 11.. D., I" L. \\"nght, .\. F Turholh.\·o, R. L. Cr.dum, H. 

J. Stnkv~, .uul D. C. !·:rbach, 2U05. Htonu~~ a~ h·cUsrock for a 

Buwnerby anLl BioproJuct~ lndu~try: The Technicall·ca~JbJltt\' of a 

Bdllon-"1 {m .\nntu! Supply, 7S pp., Oak Ridge 0-atlon~t! Laboratory, 

()Jk R1dgc, T~-1.\\aibbk online M hnp.//ww\.vl.ccre.cn<.'tgy g(ov/ 

bHJC1\etgy/pdf~/final_btlit(J1lton_ \ mon_rcpmt 2.pdfj 

/.crbc, .J. L 2006: Th(•rm.\1 t·nngy, ckctnctty, and tran~port:ttion 

fuel~ from wood 

Biocncrgy sustainabtlity at the tr"giona! ~<·ale. R,d!I~JiY aJI!I 

15, [i\va!labk onl!nc ;n http://wwwccologyamhm:tct) 

1lf)!:/Yoll:'i/iss,ihrt23/] 

:17. Robertson, C. P., \'. I! Dale, 0. C:. Docring, S. P. lfambt1rg, J 

\L :>ddi!!o, .\-L ,\1. \''/andn. \X.'.). Parton, P. ll. :\dlcr, j. !".Barney. 

R. \1. Cru<;c, C. S. Duke, P. ;\{. Fcarnside, R F Follett, ! L K 

c;1bb~, j. Co!dcmbcrg, D. 1 • .1\J!adenoff, D. OJim:t, .\1. \'\". Palmer, 

.'\. Sharpie;·. L. \V,1!larc, K. C. \'\"c·,1tl1l'r~, J t\. \'\'tcn~. and \V. \\'. 

\X'tlhdm, :?:008 .. \gnndtun· Su~ta.m<~b!c bwfnd~ n·dux 

322, -+9~50, doi: l0.1126hncnrc. !161525 

58. Efroyrnson, R .. \., Y. II. Dale, K. L. Klmc, ,\.C. ;'deBride, 

J. 7\1. Bielicki, R. L. Smith, E. S. Pansh, P. E. Sclnvcizer, 

and D. i\!. Shaw, 2013: Environmental indicators of hiofuel 

sustainability: \\'hat about context[ b"llt'irommtJtaf,\Iana..~wNnl, 

51, :291 306, d01: l0.10(J"7 /s002(J7 012-9907-5. 

~RC, 20!!: RtJ1C"Wahlc Fuel Standard: Potential Economic 

and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofue! Policy, 250 pp., 

:--.;atJonal Rcsc,trch Council, The ~'ational ,·\cadcmic;; Press, 

\'\'ashington, D.C. [.\,;ail·.iblc online at http://www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php~record_id- n 105 J 

59. Aright, R. :\f., F. Cherubini, R . .-\strup, N. Bird,.\. L. Cm.vie, 

:0..1. J. Ducey, Cf. :'1.-[adand, K Ptngoud, L Sa..,.olaincn, and A-\. 

H. Stramman, 20t2: "\comment to "Large scale b10cnergy 

from addinonal harvest of forcsr biomass i~ nett her 

su!'t::Unablc nor greenhouse gas neutral": l mportant msights 

beyond greenhouse gas accounnng. Global C!Ja11~~e Biolo,v· 

Bioemrx_y 4, 617-619, doi:10.1111/j. 1757-l707.2012.01190.x. 

Hudiburg, T. \\".'.,H. E. La\V, C. \X'irth, and S.J.uyssaert, 2011; 

Rcg10nal carbon <h()xide imphcations of forest 

production. ,\'atun· Clil!lak 0Huz~e, 1, 419-<123, 

nc!Jmatc1264. 

~chulzc, I::. D., C. K6rner, n. E. Law, H. Haberl, and :-1. 

Luyssaert, 2012: Largc~scalc biocnergy frnm additional 

harvest of forest bJOmass 1s neither sustainable nor 

greenhouse gas neutral. G/oba!Cha11_ge Bwl~~)' 8iornet;tzy, 4, 611-

616, doi:10.11!1/j.175'7-17l)7.20l2.011(i9.x. !.\nilable online 

at http://o;oils-lab.cfr.\va:-.hington.eclu/Publ!cations/.Schulrzeetal201:2.pdfl 

Zanchi, G., 0J. Pena, and N. Bird, 2012: Is \Voody bioenergy 

carbon neutral? A compan<tlve assessment of emissions 

from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fueL GCB 

Bionm:v', 4, 761 772, doi:10J1 J1fi.1757·l"7{)7.201L011-l9.x. 

U.S. GLORAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 189 GLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
111 


27516.069

60. EP.-\, 2012: s.-\B RcYicw of EPA's Accounting FramC\VOrk for 

B1ogcmc C()z EmlSSlOOS from Srat10oary :;ources (.:-cptcmbcr 

2011). FP,\-.'1,\BT?AllL 81 pp., LJ.S. Envtronn1{:ntal 

Protection .-\gcncy, \'\iashmgton, D.C. f:\vailahle online at 

hrrp://~·oscmitc .cpa.gov/sab/sabpn,ducr.nst/0/57 B7 \4F 

1987 D7 F'"3R5:2S;_ \8""'00'"797-F6j$Fllc/EP.\- S ,\13 -12-011-

unsigncd.pdf] 

61. (Jalik, C. S., R. _\bt, andY. Wu, 2009: Forest bJomass supply 

1n the southeastern C:nited :-.rates -Implications for industrial 

roundwood ~nd lnncnergy production. ]oumai~(l:rmJI~y, 107, 

6? 

62 Burlcr, B. J, 2()(lg; hmdy forest owners oft he Cnited States, 

2006 . .-\ Tcchntcal Document ;.;upporting the Forest Sen·ice 

2010 RP.\ :\SS('Ssment. Gt·n. TC'ch. Rep. ~RS-17, -;'2 pp., 

l'S Dep<Utment of Agnclllrure, Foresr Service, ~orrhem 

Research Station, ::-..:cwtmvn Square, P~\. [.\vailabk onlme at 

hup:/.iw\V\V.nrs. fs.fcd.us/pubs/gtr/ g tr~nrsT.pd f] 

63. Inn:, P. J., .-\. Schuler, II. Spelter, and\'(', Luppold, :200-:: 

Globalt:;oatton and Structural Change in the l;.s. Forest 

Sector: • \n Evolving Context for Sustainable Forest 

.:'\[;uvgernent. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-FO, 62 

pp., U.S. Depa.rlrnent of ,\griculture, Fore~1 ServJCe, Forest 

Producrs Laboratorr, i\bJison, \\'L [:\vailable onlim: at 

http://www.fpl.fs fed.us.id,>cumnts/fplgtr/fpl_f!;td70.pdtl 

6~. \'rear, D. ::\., and J. E Prcstcmon, 20[\.l: Ch. 1-1: Timber 

market research, priv~He forests, and policy rhetoric. Gel/mil 

Ted111i.-:,t! Report SRJ?i, tiS. Depanmcnt of _ \griculmre, 

Forest Scr\'icc, Southern Rc:-:.earch Station, 289~301. 

[.hailable onlint~ at htlp://www.srs.fs.usd;l.gov/pubsigtr/ 

gtr_srs075/grr_srs(FS \\"carUOl.pdf] 

65. \'\"car, D., and L "\. JoJTe, 2012: Clnnale change, human 

commumues, and forests 111 rural, urban, and \\·lldlandmban mtcracc environments. l~ffed.r ofC!Jmal!r- T ;nuz!HI!(v am! 

CIHIII,~e on l'oreJf /1 Comprehen.>iw Sdma .~'rnt!NJiJ }Jr 

the U.S. Ems! SrY!or: c;wem! Tedmictli Ref:ort P.\:rr:cTR.-8:-'0, 

J \L \"ose, D. L Peterson, and T. Parel-\X'eynancl, Eds., 

l!.S. Department of .\gnculrllre, Forest SrrvKE\ Pacli1c 

Climate1114n1

o20opt.pdf] 

66. Joyce, L. ;\.,G. :1\L Hlate, J. S. Ltttdl, S. G. ,\[c~ulty, C. I. 

J\lillar, S.C. :\'loser, R. P. _:...:cllson, K. O'Halloran, anJ D. L, 

Peterson, 2008: Ch. 3: :'-Jat10nal forests. Pre!!ll!lflri~J' Rt!'itH' of 

/ldaptaliolf OptioH,i_(or Clm!a!e.Semitif'r' Em~T!Ii'I!JJ awf Re.romru. 

El Report I~· the US. CiitJhllf Chm~~" St~tlh·e Pr~t._~mm a11d thl' 

SubtoJJJJJJilla on G'loba! C/;mw Rmanh, S. If. Julius, ancl J. .\L 

\V"est, Eds., C.S. Env1ronmenral Protection ,-\gcncy, 3- J to 

3 1:?:7. [,\v:~ilable online at http://do"l.vnloads.dinntcsucnc('. 

go\'/sap/sap4--J./s.-1p·l"'~ fin,tl-rcporr~Ch3-Forem.pdfj 

:-.hllar, C I., ~- L. Stephenson, and S, L. Stephens, 2007: 

Climate change and forests of the future: ::-.1anaging in the 

face of uncertainty. Ec·olo<~im/ /1pp/i(tt/ion.>, 17, 2145-2151, 

dod0.1890/06 Pl3.1. f.-\vailable online at http://www.istor. 

org/sl able /pd fplus/4006 191-:'.pdfl 

6-;'. :\fillar, C. L, and C. \'\i, Swanston, 2012: Ch. ~: Strategies 

for adapting to climate change. t~(}frt.r ~/ CliJ!!a!ir Var!d/)!)i(t' 

al!ri ChmiJ!,f on l'ore.J/ hto{}:rtem.r: ,; tomj:nrbm.riw unthm.r 

for the [ r.s. jOmi .rer/()J: Gemm! Techniml Report P,'-.:w:c;nz 870, 

J. 0-f. Vose, D. L Peterson, and T. Patel-\Veynand, Eds., L'.S. 

Departm_ent of ,\griculture, L:.S. Forest Service, Pacific 

l"'orthwest Resc>1rch Station, 125-192. t"\vailahlc online at 

http:/ h ndiaenvironmcntportal.org,.in / Ci les/ fi le/Effects0:020 

of~{, 2 0 C 1 j mat ic 0 'a 2 0\' a riabil it y0, 02 Oand0/u2 0 Chan gc 0, o2 0 

on~ 'o.::O!'ortsr 0

, o20Ecosystems.pdU/pagc=275 J 

68. 0-lcDowcll, ~- G., D. J. Becrling, D. D, Breshears, R. _\. 

Pi:::.her, K. F Raffa, and ~t Stitt, 2011: The interdependence of 

mcchantsms untlerlying climate-driw:n w:gctation mortality 

b·olog_;· c__'<-< h/;oiH!ion, 26, 523-532, doi:10.1016/i. 

rree,2011.06.003. 

69. :\lildrcxlcr, D.J., ~L Zhao, I .. ·\, I I6nsch, aml S. \\?.Running, 

2007: ~ \ new satellite-based methodology for continental 

scale disturbance detection. II.mlogiml App!iratiotH, 17, 235 

250, d01:l0.1890/1051 0761(2007)0!7[0135:.\~S~IFC]2.0. 

C0;2. 

:o. CCSP, 2000: T!Jrnbold.l' qlCiimalf Chmw iH Em.rptmu. A report 

l:y tbe U.S. CJimrtlf Chan,ge Jdmte ProJ!,mll1 af/d tbi' Su/Jtomlm/lee 

011 C:!obcli Chmw RmardJ. U.S. Climalr: Cbm{~l! J{:imce Prosmm 

,fyn!beJi.r rl!!d /lmJ.rlllml Prorilfd 4.2. C. D. _·\!len, C. Birkeland, 

L Chapin. F.S., P. :\I. GroHman, G. R. Guntenspergen, .-\. K. 

Knapp,"\. D. :\kGutrc, P.J :\fulholhnd, D.P. C. Peters, D. 

D, Rohy, and G. Sugihau, Eds. U.S. Geological Sun'ey, 15"7 

U.S GlOBAL CHANGE RESEAf1CH PROGRAM 190 CliMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
112 


27516.070

Process for Developing Key Messages: Although it is difficult to detE!ct a trend in disturbances because 

A centra! component of the process was a workshop held in July they are inherently infrequent and it is impossible to attribute an 

2011 by the U,S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service to individual disturbance event to changing climate, there is nonetheguide the development of the technical input report (TIR). This less much that past events, including recent ones, reveal about 

session, along with numerous teleconferences, led to the founda~ expected forest changes due to future climate. Observational 17 

tiona! TIR, "Effects of Climatic Variabllity and Change on Forest and experimental22 studies show strong associations between forEcosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. For- est disturbance and extreme climatic events and/or modifications 

est Sector,"1 in atmospheric evaporative demand related to warmer temperature. Regarding eastern forests, there are fewer observational or 

The chapter authors engaged in multiple technical discussions via experimental studies, with Dietz and Moorcroftts being the most 

teleconference between January and June 2012, which included comprehensive. 

careful review of the foundational T!R and of 58 additional tech* 

nica! inputs provided by the public, as wei! as other published 

literature and professional judgment. Discussions were followed 

by expert deliberation of draft key messages by the authors and 

targeted consultation with additional experts by the lead author of 

each message. 

KH MESSAGE #1 TRACEABLE AccouNT 

Climate change is increasing the vulnerability of many forests to ecosystem changes and 

tree mortality through fire, insect infestations, 

drought, and disease outbreaks. 

Description of evidence base 

The key message and supporting text summarizes extensive evidence documented in the TIR, "Effects of Climatic Variability and 

Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector."! Technical input reports (58) on a 

wide range of topics were also received and reviewed as part of the 

Federal Register Notlce solicitation for public input. 

Dale et aL8 addressed a number of climate change factors that will 

affect U.S. forests and how they are managed. This is supported 

by additional publications focused on effects of drought and by 

more large-scale tree die-off events,11'

12 wildfire, ~' 23 25 insects 

and pathogens. 11'

22 Other studies support the negative impact 

of climate change by examining the tree mortality rate due to rising temperatu~;s, 11 14 15 16 11 19 22 which is projected to increase in 

some regwns. 

Pollution and stand age are the most important factors in mortality. Tree survival increases with increased temperature in some 

~roups. However, for ~~her tre~, group~ survi\~l decreases with 

mcreased temperature. In additiOn, th1s study needs to be considered in tile context that there have been fewer severe droughts 

in this region. However, physiological relationships suggest that 

trees will generally be more susceptible to mortality under an extreme drought, especially if it is accompanied by warmer temperatures.13'68 Consequently, it is misleading to assume that, because 

eastern forests have not yet experienced the types of large-scale 

die-off seen in the western forests, they are not vulnerable to such 

events if an extreme enough drought occurs. Although the effect 

of temperature on the rate of mortality during drought has only 

been st10wn for one species, 22 the basic physiological relationships for trees suggest that warmer temperatures will exacerbate 

mortality for other species as we1!. 13'

68 

Figure 7.1: This f1gure uses a figure from Goetz et aL 20127 which 

uses the MODIS Global Disturbance Index (MGD!) results from 

2005 to 2009 to illustrate the geographic distribution of major 

ecosystem disturbance types across North America (based on Mildrex!er eta!. ?.007, t:0096

'

6

\ The MGDI uses remotely sensed information to assess the intensity of the disturbance. Following tile 

occurrence of a major disturbance, there will be a reduction in Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVJ) because of vegetation damage; in 

contrast, Land Surface Temperature {LST) will increase because 

more absorbed solar radiation will be converted into sensible heat 

as a result of the reduction in evapotranspiration from less vegetation density. MGD! takes advantage of the contrast changes in 

EVI and LST following a disturbance to enllance the signa! to efU.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 191 CliMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
113 


27516.071

fectively detect the location and intensity of disturbances (http:// 

www.ntsg.umt.edu/project/mgdi). Moderate severity disturbance 

is mapped in orange and represents a 65%-100"/o divergence of 

the current~year MODIS Global Disturbance Index value from the 

range of natural variability, High severity disturbance (in red) signals a divergence of over 100%.7 

New information and remaining uncerta;nties 

Forest disturbances have large ecosystem effects, but high interannual vanabi!ity in regional fire and insect activity makes 

more frequent!y. 16'

23'25 This is based on the strong relationships 

between climate and fvrest response, shown observational!y17 and 

experimentally. 12 Expected responses wf!l increase substantially 

to warming and also in conjunction with other changes such as 

an increase in the frequency and/or severity of drought and amplification of pest and pathogen impacts. Eastern forests are less 

likely to experience Immediate increases in wildfire unless/until a 

point is reached at which warmer temperatures, concurrent with 

seasonal dry penods or more protracted drought, trigger wildfires. 

of trends more drff1cult than for changes in mean conditions. KEY MESSAGE #2 TRACEABlE AccoUNT 

Therefore, there is generally less confidence in assessment of fu- U.S. forests and associated wood products cur~ 

ture projections of disturbance events than for mean conditlons rently absorb and store the equivalent of about 

(for example, growth under slightly warmer conditions}. 21 16% of a!l carbon dioxide (C02) emitted by fossil 

There are insufficient data on trends m windthrow, lee storms, 

hurricanes, and landslide-inducing storms to infer that these types 

of disturbance events are changing. 

Factors affecting tree death, such as drought, warmer temperatures, and/or pests and pathogens are often 

means that isolating a single cause of mortality is rare. 

Assessment of confidence based on evidence 

Very High. There IS very high confidence that under projected 

climate changes there is high risk (high risk high probability 

and high consequence) that western forests in the United States 

fuel burning in the U.S. each year. Climate change, 

combined with current societal trends in land use 

and forest management, is projected to reduce this 

rate of forest C02 uptake. 

Description of evidence base 

The key message and supporting text summarizes extensive evidence documented in the TIR, "Effects of Climatic Variability and 

Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector."1 Technical input reports (58) on a 

wide range of topics were also received and reviewed as part of the 

Federal Register Notice solicitation for public input. 

will be affected increasingly by large and intense fires that occur A recent stud/ has shown that forests are a big sink of C02 naModerate evidence (several 

sources, some consistency, 

methods vary and/or documentation !imlted, etc.}, medium 

consensus 

Inconclusive evidence (limited sources, extrapolations, 

inconsistent findings, poor documentation and/or methods not 

tested, etc.), disagreement or 

lack of opinions among experts 

U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 

tionally. However, the permanence of this carbon sink is contingent on forest disturbance rates, which are changing, and on economic conditions that may accelerate harvest of forest biomass. 5

6 

Market response can cause changes in the carbon source/sink 

dynamics through shifts in forest age,39'

40 !and-use changes and 

urbanization that reduce forested areas,41 forest type changes, 42 

and bioenergy development changing forest management. 41'

4

M 4'

45 

Additionally, publications have reported that fires can convert a 

forest into a. shrubland or meado~, 25 with frequent fires permanently reducmg the carbon stock. 

New information and remaining uncertainties 

That economic factors and societal choices will affect future carbon 

cycle of forests is known with certainty; the major uncertainties 

come from the future economic picture, accelerating disturbance 

rates, and societal responses to those dynamics. 

Assessment of confidence based on evidence 

Based on the evidence and uncertainties, confidence is high that 

climate change, combined with current societal trends regarding 

!and use and forest management, is projected to reduce forest 

C02 uptake in the U.S, The U.S. has already seen large-scale 

shifts in forest cover due to interactions between forestland use 

and agriculture (for example, between the onset of European 

settlement to the present), There are competing demands for how 

forestland is used today. The future role of U.S, forests in the 

192 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
114 


27516.072

carbon cycle will be affected by climate change through changes 

in disturbances (Key Message ll, growth rates, and harvest KEY MESSAGE #4 TRACEABlE AccouNT 

demands. Forest management responses to climate change 

will be influenced by the changing nature of private 

KEY MESSAGE #3 TRACEABLE A~:CDUNT forestland ownership, globalization of forestry marBioenergy could emerge as a new market for kets, emerging markets for bioenergy, and U.S. eliwood and could aid in the restoration of forests mate change policy. 

killed by drought, insects, and fire. 

Description of evidence base 

Description of evidence base The key message and supporting text summarizes extensive eviThe key message and supporting text summarize extensive evi- dence documented in the TIR, "Effects of Climatic Variability and 

dence documented in the T!R, "Effects of Climatic Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science SyntheChange on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthe- sis for the U.S. Forest Sector."1 Technical input reports (58) on a 

sis for the U.S. Forest Sector."1 Technical input reports (58) on a wide range of topics were also received and reviewed as part of the 

wide range of topics were also received and reviewed as part of the Federal Register Notice solicitation for public input. 

Federal Register Notice solicitation for public input. 

Studies have shown that harvesting forest bioenergy can prevent 

carbon emissions 5

5 and replace a portion of U.S. energy consumption to help reduce future climate change. Some newer literature 

has explored how use of forest bioenergy can replace a portion of 

current U.S. energy production from oil. 20'

45 Some more recent 

publications have reported some enwonmental benefits, such 

as improved water qua!it/6

'

57 and better management of timber 

!ands,<~-s that can result from forest bioenergy implementation. 

New information and remaining uncertainties 

The implications of forest product use for bioenergy depends on 

regional context and circumstances, such as feedstock type and 

prior management, land conditions, transport and storage logistics, conversion processes used to produce energy, distribution 

and use. sa 

The potential for biomass energy to increase forest harvests 

has led to debates about whether biomass energy is net carbon 

neutraL 5

9 The debate on biogenic emissions regulations revolves 

around how to account for emissions related to biomass production and use, 60 Deforestation contributes to atmospheric C02 concentration, and that contribution has been declining over time. 

The bioenergy contribution question is largely one of incentives 

for appropriate management. When forests have no value, tlley 

are burned or used inappropriately. Bioenergy can be produced 

in a way that prov1des more benefits than costs or v1ce versa. 

The market for energy from biomass appears to be ready to grow 

in response to energy pricing, policy, and demand; however, this 

industry is yet to be made a large-scale profitable enterprise in 

most regions of the United States. 

Assessment of confidence based on evidence 

High. Forest growth substantially exceeds annual harvest for 

normal wood and paper products, and much forest harvest residue 

is now unutilized. Forest bioenergy will become viable if policy and 

economic energy valuations make it competitive with fossil fuels. 

The forest management response to climate change in urban areas, the wildland-urban interface, and in rural areas has been 

studied from varying angles. The literature on urban forests identifies the value of those forests to clean air, aesthetics, and recreation and suggests that under a changing climate, urban communities will continue to enhance their environment with trees and 

urban forests. 1

'

41 !n the wildland-urban area and the rural areas, 

the changing composition of private forest landowners will affect 

the forest management response to climate change. Shifts in 

corporate owners to include investment organizations that may or 

may not have forest management as a primary objective has been 

described nationally. 1

'

2 Family forest owners are an aging demographic; one in five acres of forestland is owned by someone who 

is at least 75 years of age.62 Multiple reasons for ownership are 

given by family forest owners, including the most commonly dted 

reasons of beauty/scenery, to pass land on to heirs, privacy, nature 

protection, and part of home/cabin. Many family forest owners feel 

it is necessary to keep the woods healthy but many are not familiar 

with forest management practices. 62 Long-term studies of the torest sector in the southern United States document the adaptive 

response of forest landowners to market prices as they manage to 

supply wood and associated products from their forests; 54 however prices are less of an incentive in other parts of the United 

States. 1

A

1 Econometric approaches have been used to explore the 

economic activities in the forest sector, including interactions with 

other sectors such as agriculture, impact of climate change, and 

the potential for new markets with bioenergy. 43.44 An earlier study 

explored the effects of globalization on forest management63 and 

a newer study looked at the effect of U.S. climate change po!icy,67 

One of the biggest challenges is the lack of climate change information that results in inaction from many forest owners. 62 

New information and remaining uncertainties 

Human concerns regarding the effects of climate change on 

forests and the role of adaptation and mitigation wH! be viewed 

from tile perspective of the values that forests provide to human 

populations, including timber products, water, recreation, and 

aesthetic and spiritual benefits.1 Many people, organizations, inU.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 193 CliMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
115 


27516.073

SlltUtiOns, and governments influence the management of U.S. 

forests. Economic opportunities influence the amount and nature 

of private forestland (and much is known quantitatively about this 

dynamic) and societal values have a strong influence on how pubHe forestland is managed. Hawever, it remains challenging to proj~ 

ect exactly how humans will respond to climate change in terms 

of forest management 

Climate change will alter known environmental and economic risks 

and add new risks to be addressed in the management of forests 

in urban areas, the wildland-urban interface, and rural areas. The 

capacity to manage risk varies greatly across landowners. While 

adaptation strategies provide a means to manage risks associated 

with climate change, a better understanding of risk perception 

by forest landowners would enhance the development and implementation of these management strategies. Identification of appropriate monitoring information and associated tools to evaluate 

monitoring data could facilitate risk assessment. Information and 

tools to assess environmental and economic risks associated with 

the 1m pacts of climate change 1n light of spcc1f1c management decisions would be informative to forestland managers and owners. 

Assessment of confidence based on evidence 

Given the evidence base and remaining uncertainty, there is 

medium confidence in this key message. Climate change and 

global and national economic events will have an integral impact 

on forest management, but it is uncertain to what magnitude. 

While forest landowners have shown the capacity to adapt to 

new economic conditions, potential changes in the international 

markets coincident with large-scale natural disturbances enhanced 

by climate change {fire, msects) could challenge this adaptive 

capacity. An important uncertainty is how people will respond to 

climate change in terms of forest management. 

U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 194 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 
116 


27516.074

Wildfires 

Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Wildfires 

www.epa.gov/climate-indicator~ Updated August 2016 

Together, forests, shrubland, and grassland cover more than half of the land area in the United States.' 

These ecosystems are important resources, both environmentally and economically. Although wildfires 

occur naturally and play a long-term role in the health of these ecosystems, climate change threatens to 

increase the frequency, extent, and severity of fires through increased temperatures and drought (see 

the U.S. and Global Temperature and Drought indicators). Earlier spring melting and reduced snow pack 

(see the Snowpack indicator) result in decreased water availability during hot summer conditions, which 

in turn contributes to an increased wildfire risk, allowing fires to start more easily and burn hotter. An 

increase in the length of the fire season has been observed in some areas.' In addition to climate 

change, other factors-like the spread of insects, land use, fuel availability, and management practices, 

including fire suppression-play an important role in wildfire frequency and intensity. All of these 

factors influencing wildfires vary greatly by region and over time, as do variations in precipitation, wind, 

temperature, vegetation types, and landscape conditions. Therefore, understanding changes in fire 

characteristics requires long-term records, a regional perspective, and consideration of rna ny factors. 3 

Wildfires have the potential to harm property, livelihoods, and human health, particularly as population 

centers expand into wild land areas. The recreation and timber industries depend on healthy forests, 

and wildfire smoke has been directly linked to poor air quality and illness, even in communities far 

downwind. Fire-related threats are increasing, especially as more people live in and around forests, 

grasslands, and other natural areas. 6 The United States spends more than $1 billion every year to fight 

wildfires and spent more than $2 billion in 2015. 7 These efforts have resulted in the deaths of hundreds 

of firefighters since 19108 

Beyond the human impact, wildfires also affect the Earth's climate. Forests in particular store large 

amounts of carbon. When they burn, they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which in turn 

contributes to climate change. 

This indicator defines wildfires as "unplanned, unwanted wildland fire[s]" in forests, shrubland, and 

grassland, where "the objective is to put the fire out."" This indicator tracks three aspects of wildfires 

over time: the total number of fires (frequency), the total land area burned (extent), and the degree of 

damage that fires cause to the landscape (severity). The total area and total number of fires are tracked 

by the National Interagency Fire Center, which compiles reports from local, state, and federal agencies 

that are involved in fighting wildfires. The U.S. Forest Service tracked similar data using a different 

reporting system until1997. Those data have been added to this indicator for comparison. Wildfire 

severity is measured by comparing the "greenness" of satellite images taken before and after a fire to 
117 


27516.075

&EPA Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Wildfires 

;vww.epa.gov/climate·indicators Updated August 2016 

classify how severely the land has been burned. Burn severity provides an indication oft he ecological 

damage and how long the effects of wildfires are likely to last 

Although some nationwide fire data have been collected since the early 1900s, this indicator starts in 

1983 (Figures 1 and 2} and 1984 (Figures. 3, 4, and 5), when nationwide data collection became more 

complete and standardized. 

Since 1983, the National Interagency Fire Center has documented an average of 72,000 wildfires 

per year (see Figure 1). Compiled data from the Forest Service suggest that the actual total may 

be even higher for the first few years of nationwide data collection that can be compared. The 

data do not show an obvious trend during this time. 

The extent of area burned by wildfires each year appears to have increased since the 1980s. 

According to National Interagency Fire Center data, of the 10 years with the largest acreage 

burned, nine have occurred since 2000, including the peak year in 2015 (see Figure 2). This 

period coincides with many of the warmest years on record nationwide (see the U.S. and Global 

Temperature indicator), 

The late 1990s were a period of transition in certain climate cycles that tend to shift every few 

decades, 10 This shift-combined with other ongoing changes in temperature, drought, and 

snowmelt-may have contributed to warmer, drier conditions that have fueled wildfires in parts 

of the western United States. 1

U 2 

Of the total area burned each year from 1984 to 2014, the proportion of burned land suffering 

severe damage has ranged from 5 to 21 percent {see Figure 3). 

Land area burned by wildfires varies by state. Fires burn more land in the western United States 

than in the East, and parts of the West and Southwest show the largest increase in burned 

acreage between the first half of the record (1984-1999) and the second half (2000-2014) (see 

Figures 4 and 5). 
118 


27516.076

&EPA Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Wildfires 

www.epa.gov/climate-indicators- Updated August 2016 

Figure 1. Wildfire Frequency in the United States, 1983-2015 

"' Ql 

.. 

1!::: 

.... 

0 

.. 

Ql 

..Q 

E 

:I 

z 

200,000 

160,000 

120,000 

80,000 

40,000 

0 

1980 

Forest Service Wildfire Statisti~s National interagency Fire Center 

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 

Year 

2015 

This figure shows the total number of wildfires per year from 1983 to 2015. These totals include all 

reported wildfires, which can be as small as just a few acres. The two lines represent two different 

reporting systems; though the Forest Service stopped collecting statistics (orange line) in 1997 and will 

not update them, those statistics are shown here for comparison. 

Data source: NIFC, 2016; 13 USDA Forest Service, 201414 

3 
119 


27516.077

&EPA Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Wildfires 

www.epa.gov/climate-indicators- Updated August 2016 

Figure 2. Wildfire Extent in the United States, 1983-2015 

12 

Forest Service Wildfire Statistics National Interagency Fire Center 

'Vi 10 ill 

.. 

u 

I'll 

c 8 § 

5 6 "C 

ill 

c 

.. :I 4 

..Q 

Ill 

ill 

... 2 <C 

0 

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 

Year 

2015 

This figure shows annual wildfire-burned area (in millions of acres) from 1983 to 2015. The two lines 

represent two different reporting systems; though the Forest Service stopped collecting statistics (orange 

line) in 1997 and is not planning to update them, those statistics are shown here for comparison. 

Data source: NIFC, 2016; 15 Short, 2015 16 

4 
120 


27516.078

&EPA Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Wildfires 

www.epa.gov/climate-indicators- Updated August 2016 

Figure 3. Damage Caused by Wildfires in the United States, 1984-2014 

Vi' 

<II 

.. \J 

Ill 

c 

~ 

! 

"0 

<II 

c 

.. ;::): 

.c 

It) 

Gl 

.. 

c:C 

10 

II Increased greenness 

Unburned to low 

8 Low 

Moderate 

II High 

6 

4 

2 

0 

1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 

Year 

2008 2012 

This figure shows the distribution of acreage burned by large wildfires, based on the level of damage 

caused to the landscape-a measure of wildfire severity. Large wildfires are defined as fires with an area 

larger than 1,000 acres in the western United States and 500 acres in the eastern United States. The total 

acreage shown in Figure 3 is slightly less than the total in Figure 2 because Figure 3 is limited ta large 

fires and because a few areas did not have sufficient satellite imagery to a/law damage ta be assessed. 

Data source: MTBS, 201617 

5 
121 


27516.079

oEPA Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Wildfires 

www.epa.gov/climate-indicators- Updated August 2016 

Figure 4. Average Annual Burned Acreage by State, 1984-2014 

2 3 

Slales colored ligh! gray !lid noi have any fires !hal werfl large enough !o oo iocluded in !his analysis 

This map shows the average number of acres burned in each state per year as a proportion of that 

state's total/and area. Darker-shaded states have the largest proportion of acreage burned. For 

reference, there are 640 acres in a square mile; therefore, an average burned area of 6.4 acres per 

square mile would mean that fires burned 1 percent of a state's total/and area. A few states did not 

have any fires that were large enough to be included in this analysis. Visit this indicator online at 

www.epo.gov/climate-indicators for an interactive version of this map. 

Data source: MTBS, 201618 

6 
122 


27516.080

&EPA Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Wildfires 

www.eoa.gov/climate-indicators- Updated August 2016 

Figure 5. Change in Annual Burned Acreage by State Between 1984-1999 and 2000-2014 

-2 -1 2 4 

did not have any fires that Viere large enough to be fnctuded in this ,analjisis~ 

This map shows how the number of acres burned in each state as a proportion of that state's total land 

area has changed aver time, based an a simple comparison between the first half of the available years 

(1984-1999} and the second half (200Q-2014}. For reference, there are 640 acres in a square mile; 

therefore, a change of 6.4 acres per square mile would mean that burned area increased by 1 percent of 

a state's total/and area. A few states did nat have any fires that were large enough to be included in this 

analysis. Visit this indicator online at www.epa.gov/climate-indicators far an interactive version of this 

map. 

Data source: MTBS, 201619 

Many environmental impacts associated with cHmate change can affect wildfire frequency, extent, or 

severity, including changes in temperature, precipitation, and drought. Human activities and land 

management practices also affect wildfire activity, and preferred practices in wildfire management have 

evolved over time, from older policies that favored complete wildfire prevention to more recent policies 

of wildfire suppression and controlled burns. While this indicator is limited to "wildland" fires, it includes 

fires that encroach on-or perhaps started in-developed areas. Increased development in previously 

wild lands could also influence trends in wildfire frequency and extent. The total number of fires may 

7 
123 


27516.081

&EPA Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Wildfires 

www.epa.gov/climate-indicators- Updated August 2016 

also vary due to reporting irregularities, as fires that split or merge together across jurisdictional fines 

may be counted differently. 

Along with the influence of ongoing climate change, wildfire patterns can be influenced by natural 

climate cycles that tend to shift every few decades. Thus, the approximately 30 years of data shown 

here may not be enough to draw conclusions about long-term trends. While a longer record would be 

ideal, data from before 1983 are not consistent enough nationally to be included in this indicator. 

Data Sources 

The full set of wildfire frequency and burned acreage data in Figures 1 and 2 comes from the National 

Interagency Fire Center, which compiles wildfire reports sent from local, state, and federal entities that 

are involved in fighting fires. These data are available online at: 

www.nifc.gov/firelnfo/firelnfo statistics.html. Additional data were provided by the U.S. Forest Service 

based on a different set of records, referred to as Smokey Bear Reports. Burn severity data and state-bystate acreage totals in Figures 3, 4, and 5 come from a multi-agency project called Monitoring Trends in 

Burn Severity, which maintains a database of wildfire events across the United States. These data are 

publicly available at: www.mtbs.gov/data/search.html. 

1 MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics) Consortium. 2015. National Land Cover Database 2011 (NLCD 

2011) product statistics. www.mrlc.gov/nlcdll stat.php. 

2 Westerling, A.L. 2016. Increasing western U.S. forest wildfire activity: Sensitivity to changes in the timing of 

spring. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 371:20150178. 

3 Stein, S.M., J. Menakis, M.A. Carr, S.J. Comas, S.l. Stewart, H. Cleveland, L. Bramwell, and V,C. Radeloff. 2013. 

Wildfire, wildlands, and people: Understanding and preparing for wildfire in the wildland-urban interface. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. www. fs. fed. us/ open spa ce/fote/wil dfire-report. htm I. 

4 Johnston, F.H., S.B. Henderson, Y. Chen, J.T. Randerson, M. Marlier, R.S. DeFries, P. Kinney, D. Bowman, and M. 

Brauer. 2012. Estimated global mortality attributable to smoke from landscape fires. Environ. Health Persp. 

120(5):695-701. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3346787. 

5 Fann, N., T. Brennan, P. Dolwick, J.L. Gamble, V. llacqua, L. Kolb, C. G. Nolte, T.L. Spero, and L. Ziska. 2016. 

Chapter 3: Air quality impacts. The impacts of climate change on human health in the United States: A scientific 

assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. https://health2016.globalchange.gov. 

6 National Association of State Foresters. 2009. Quadrennia! fire review. www.nifc.gov/po!icies/pol ref QFR.htmL 

7 NIFC (National Interagency Fire Center). 2016. Historical wildland fire information: Federal firefighting costs: 

Suppression only (1985-201S). www.nifc.gov/firelnfo/firelnfo documents/SuppCosts.pdf. 

8 NIFC (National Interagency Fire Center). 2015. Wildland fire fatalities by year (1910-2014). 

www. n ifc.gov /safety/safety d ocu me nts/F a tal iti es-by-Year. pdf. 

9 NWCG (National Wildfire Coordinating Group). 2015. Glossary of wildland fire terminology. Updated October 

2015. www.nwcg.gov/glossary-of-wildland-fire-terminology. 

1

" For example, see: Peterson, W.T., and F.B. Schwing. 2003. A new climate regime in northeast Pacific ecosystems. 

Geophys. Res. Lett. 30(17). 

8 
124 


27516.082

oEPA Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Wildfires 

www.epa.gov/climate-indicators- Updated August 2016 

11 Kitzberger, T., P.M. Brown, E.K. Heyerdahl, T.W. Swetnam, and T.T. Veblen. 2007. Contingent Pacific-Atlantic 

Ocean influence on multicentury wildfire synchrony over western North America. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 

104(2):543-548. 

12 Westerling, A.L. 2016. Increasing western U.S. forest wildfire activity: Sensitivity to changes in the timing of 

spring. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 371:20150178. 

13 NIFC (National Interagency Fire Center). 2016. Total wildland fires and acres (1960-2015). Accessed March 

2016. www.nifc.gov/firelnfo/firelnfo slats totaiFires.html. 

14 USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Forest Service. 2014. 1991-1997 wildland fire statistics. Prepared by 

USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Fire and Aviation Management staff, and supplemented with 

historical records provided by Forest Service staff, April 2014. 

15 NIFC (National Interagency Fire Center). 2016. Total wildland fires and acres (1960-2015). Accessed March 

2016. www.nifc.gov/firelnfo/firelnfo stats totaiFires.html. 

16 Short, K.C. 2015. Sources and implications of bias and uncertainty in a century of U.S. wildfire activity data. Int. J. 

Wildland Fire 24(7):883-891. 

17 MTBS (Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity). 2016. MTBS data summaries. www.mtbs.gov/data/search.html. 

18 MTBS (Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity). 2016. MTBS data summaries. www.mtbs.gov/data/search.html. 

10 MTBS (Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity). 2016. MTBS data summaries. www.mtbs.gov/data/search.html. 

9 
125 


27516.083

CI..:.IMATE CENTRAL Researching and reporting the 

and impacts of climate change 

Wildfire Season Is Scorching the West 

By And:rNJ Thompson 

'nw West is (lh!ar:<.~ as thesnmmeri,\--:Hdfitcscason has gott-en off to an intense start Mnre than ;37,000 fires hm'e 

burned more thm15.2 million Heres nationally sine<..~ th~ beginning ufthe year, wlth 47large fire,~;- burning a<;ross nine 

Shl.tcs as of Friday. 

Smok\7 -n'scsfmm th .. ~ Ga<ldwit1 f'ir.i!, wh((;h b;.!tn.~d more t!w:n 28,ooo <~<:r<'s In Arimna thrml!lh mid.Jufy. 

("<'(tit: Pn>.~z.\~lt ,Vational J''o''j!Sti:fli(.'kr 

The relatively early acti'~dty is t1Uickly bec::orning the norm, with rising temperatures making the fire season longer than 

it nsed to be. The 1\<lrming fueled hy greenhouse gases is also helping to creut.e more and larger fires a.s it dries out 

nH.n'l:': Vt~g{'tation that -act~ as f11d for fir~.s. 

This U(~w tire situation means that '''\~stem states nC'cd to he hcgtn to rethink how they prepare for :and combat fift;s, as 

well as hm"'· nre-prone land is developed. 

Five farge fires (those of t,ooo acres or more) are- \:urrently raging act·oss Ca!ifomia, the largest of·whic.h i\'l. the 

Detvdk·r Tire nf:'-at Yosemite Nntion<Jl Park, which has burned more than 8:0-.0()0 acr'(:$ since it i_gnitcd on ,Juty ·t6. That 

fire b now75 p(!l't't.""nt cont<~incd, but 1t destl·-oycd dozens of buildings,. including 63 homes. 
126 


27516.084

VVJldf1rC Season Is Scorchmg the West! ('lunate Central 

RELATED I This Map Shows Warming's Fingerprints -on Weather 

These NASA Images Show Siberia Burning Up 

Montana currently has the most large fires of any stalt~, with 14, including the massive Lodgepole Complex fire (a 

series of smaller fires that merged into one), '\Vhich has burned more than 27o,ooo acres in the eastern pot1ion of the 

state, That fire is also weB-contained, but has burned through tens of thousands of acres of rangeland, displacing 

thousands of cattle and burning several structures. An intense drought there has rapidly cured the gras_ses that have 

fueled the fires, 

Oregon has seven large fires burning, ·while Nevada has six and Idaho five. 

Scorching temperatures and dry conditions in recent weeks have helped fuel these fires across the region, which have 

burned 2m ill ion more acres than at this point in last year's \vildfire season, 

Compared to the 1o~year average of wildfire activity, this year is below average for the number of fires, but above 

average for the total number of acres burned, A very active \\'ildfire season in the Central Plains pushed up the acres 

burned; a wet winter meant gras.•:;lands ·were ripe with fuel, and once hot and dt)'Weather came and fires ignited, they 

could take off more quickly than fires that burn through forested areas, Robin Broyles, a spokesperson for the 

National Interagency Fire Center, said. 

A 2016 Climate Central analysis showed that the annual number oflarge tires has tripled since the 1970s and that the 

amount ofland they burn is six times higher than it was four decades ago. 

Hotter Years, More Fires 

Number of Large Fires 

140 

120 

100 

so 

60 

40 

20 

1990 2000 

Number of wilt{fires in these states 

Western 

2010 

While multiple factors, including land use and tree disease, influence fire activity, dimate change is playing a role in 

those trends. A study published in October found that rising temperatures accounted for nearly half oft he increase in 

aeres burned, as they helped to dry out forests and extend the length of the fire season. 

The fire season is 105 days longer than it was in the 1970s, the Climate Central analysis found. 

The lengthening of the fire season has become clear in California, ·which usually didn't see major tires until the Santa 

Ana winds kicked in in the fall and vegetation had dried out over .several months. 

Nm.,· bouts of hot, dry weather are coming earlier and earlier, setting the stage for prime fire conditions. Southern 

California already has a nearly year-round fire season, Scott Stephens, a protl\.<;sor of fire science at the University of 

California, Berkeley, said. 

http 'iw\~ w c!nnateccntra! org.lncws/western-wildfire-scason-of!~to-blazmg-start-21661 [ 1 Oil 0/20! 7 12 05 26 P~l] 
127 


27516.085

http 

With those hol periods likdyrominl-\ earlier and l'arlicr in :"pring and .summer as global temperatures continue to 

··you're going to haw. a longer period where fire can ignite and move,' St<::'phens said. 

Wildfires Are .......... ,, .... ,.,. More Acres !>1illions of Acres Burned 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

1980 1990 2000 2010 

While the past fc>v years in California ha\-'e 5CCn "'lvilchlrcs fudcd by the r~cord-:-:ctting dmught in the state that killed 

off .swaths of trees, this fire season has been helped by the opposite ronditions. Ample winh'r rains allowed grasslands 

tu flmrrish, so \vhen hot, dry conditions came in June, those gnlSf>CS V<'~ .. :r(' quickly cured into pelfcd fire fueL Stephens 

said. 

With the shifts in the fire sca!:'on, po!kymakers and fire managers mny have to begin to rethink some of their 

strat;;:gics for preventing fires, particularly as the longer ftr1..~ season eats into the timr that manag('rs haw: to conduct 

pn.::scribed burns to burn up potential fuel, Steplwns saitL Areas may also han: to do more prescribed bum~ during 

drought years, to redure fnelloads, he ~akl 

Funding for tlrefighting- the costs of which haw topp(•d $1 billion 12 of the past may also have to be 

rethought. Instead of having a seasonal firefighting team, funding may have to be put in place f(ll· a year-round one, 

St('plwm .<>aid. 

l:Iot and dry t'onditions are t:XlW<'h'd to persist across tlH' West over the next could hdp more fire~ 

start and spn'<H.i. Areas in the path of next month's solar eclipse, particularly drought-plagued ?.'Iontana, arc also 

concerned <lbout the influx of eclipse watclwrs who may not be aware of the fin~ dangt't' or the pr<~cautions they'll need 

to take in order to avoid atddentally :.:etting one. 

"It's really important that people recogniz~'' that chwger and are awc:rc ofth(• nuious tlrc restrictions in place, Bro_y·les 

said. 

You May Also Like: 

Comments 
128 


27516.086

Wddf1rc Season !s Scorchmg the West: Chmatc Central 

By Lewis Clewrdon (Central f.Valcs) 

on July ,31st, 2017 

Andrea~ I'm afraid there are three rather obvious gaps in your article. 

Reply to this comment 

By Daue (Basking Ridge, NJ 07920) 

on July 31st, 2017 

Excellent comment l.ewis. Thank you. 

Reply to this comment 

http //www dnnatecentul org!newslwestem-wlldfirc-scason-off.to-bbzmg-start-2166!f10 110i20l7 !2 05 26 P\lj 
129 


27516.087

Vtldf1re $('jll>t)f] Is S~ordung the West l Climate Central 

Enter the word "climate" in the box below: 

(+IVJewourcommcntguldellnes 

Please note: Com=nt moderotion is rnabled. }Our oomment wi/1 not appror until reviewed by Climah! Centro/ staff. Thank voufor your patience. 

EMAIL NEWSLETTER G'!viliootu"llm;;J,;~I g;;;ooi§:•iii®iiir<C::. =::JJ- Copynght©2017CI•ma.teCentral Contact Log•n Terms Contentuomsmg Pnvac:y SiteMap 
130 


27516.088

CliMATE CENTRAl Researching and reporting the 

science and impacts of climate ctwnge 

With Warming, Western Fires May Sicken More People 

t By .John Uplnn 

!I! Follow @johnupton 

Shrouded by smoke h'om a fire in CJ.Hfornia's patched San Bernardino Mountains, ,"lchDols in the Victor Valley dosed 

their doors last \\--cck. The PHot Fire ·was c.onlained on Monday- shm'tly hefort' the D!ue Cnt Fire broke out,. bill<n.ving 

~oot and ash OV('l' tht~ va.lky afresh, for.cing further dosm-cs, 

"Thl:-; is a pretty unprecedented situation;" said Vln!cw: Roberts, a MoJave lkse11 Air Qua1ity Management f)istrkt 

official whose job involves warning rc,'>ldents in the area about air pollution. On Monday, "the sl..)' had tun1ed dark!"' 

she saki. "It looked !ike it was sunset mosr of !ht' day.'' 

Snwkefrum rf1e lJ{uJJCm Fire op(!r southem Ca;/!(r)rn1~l. 

CN::-<fit: Doc: Sea.;l$./flir:J::.r 

As the district warned valle}' residents to "limit time spent outdoors" and to .St'{'k medical C<l.l'e for respiratory ailments, 

sclwol and health dinic closure...;; and mn<:eled sporting eYents were r(>mindt.:rs that health impacts from wik1fircs curry 

furth(:r than the flame;';. 

1n tho We~'it, 1Nhcre popu1atlons Udng ncar forests <lnd r;\:rublands an~ gro\.\oing1 glol).,1.l '""armin.~; is prnjecteJ to fuel 

wor~eni11g wi.ldt1res1 mostly hy dJying out thC'. land. Rcse:ar-eh pubHshed tllis •ve{~k shm-ved hm"'' tho .. lle t(m::es wm eotnbine to muse v•tildfin~ !Xilltttioll to thn~at~n tens of millions more pe<}pk• during the years ahead than are currently 

at risk. 

RElATilD I Cthnate Change is Ti-pping Scales Toward More \'Vildfil'es 

Dead Trees .. '\rlding to CaJif-ornia FirefltJ;ht'l..""~' Battle 

Here's the (!lim-ate Context For the Fort McMurray "\\7Hd1i.re 
131 


27516.089

lv\'tth Wunmng, Western F1rcs :..1ay S1chm More People: Chmate Central 

"When you have a ·wildfire, like a really bad wildfire, you can sec that the air quality is reduced," said Brooke 

Anderson, a Colorado State UniYersityepidemiologist \vho worked on the nev .. -study, published in the journal Climatic 

Change. "These ambient air pollutants can reach a lot of people!' 

Researchers like Anderson have taken to using the term "smoke v.mve" to describe the type of multiday impacts from 

wildfire pollution that were experienced this month in the Victor Valk>y. The Yalley contains hundreds of thousands of 

residents as well as the thoroughfare linking Las Vegas \Vith Los Angeles. 

Anderson and scirntists from Yale and Harvard calculated that 82 million residents of the West will experience smoke 

waves that are two days or longer during a six~year period beginning in the late 2040s. That's a 44 percent increase 

from a six-year period last decade. 

'·We discovered that, indeed, fires will become '\vorse in the future. and that the number of people exposed to what we 

caU smoke waves increases by about 35 million," said Loretta Mickh-'y, an atmospheric chemist at Harvard who help(~d 

lead the study. 

Frequency of smoke waves in the West from 2004 to 2009 (left) tompared with prn}ectionsfor 2046 to 2051 (right). 

Credit.· LiH eta/., "Part!'eulareAir Pollution from Wikftlres in the Wr-stern US underf'limate Chanqf," Climatic Chanye, 2016, 

The researchers combined population projeetions 'vith the outputs of models designed to predict fire risks as 

greenhouse gas pollution continues to build up in the atmosphere. They also used a model to project the spread of 

plumes of air pollution from the flames. 

On a per-county average, the group estimated that the number of smoke \'.mves experienced in the West will increase 

to about 1.5 each year by the 2050s, up from about one today. The smoke waves are also projected to become more 

intense- V•lith air pollution during the worst smoke waves expected to ·worsen more than 400 percent 

Not all counties will be equally affected. Some may experience fewer smoke v.-ave._<; as the climate changes, though 

most v·:ere projcct('d to experience •vorsening conditions. Communities located in or near forests face the WOI":'>t 

impacts. 

"Arizona does get much bigger fires in the future, but because it's so grassy there, there's not a lot of fuel for those big 

fir('o<;,'' Mickley said. "These fires can threaten homes, but you don't get the same massive smoke events." 

The research was lauded by other scientists for its sophistiC-ated and noYel approach. 

"It's as good if not better than anyone else is doing," said Christine Wicdinmycr, a National Center for Atmospheric 

Re..o;;carch scientist who was not involved "\.Vi.th the study. "They've come up with a nice \vay of predicting fires -both 

DO\\' and into the future." 

http i.\\'\vwc1imatcccntrat org/news1wcstcrn-f1rcs-may-si,·ken-more-pcop!c-20621[10/J0/20!7 12 01 25 PMJ 
132 


27516.090

W1th \Vanmng_ Westem Ftres May Stckcn ~1ore People: Chmate Central 

T1w Los Angeles Fire Department responding to the Blue Cut H'flr:ftirc in San Bernardino C'olinty, 

Credit: IAFD/fikkr 

Wirdinmycr said the findings point to a need to better manage Western forests with more prescribed burns, \vhirh 

slmulat<' natural conditions and rlear forest floors of potential fueL "Of course, you're going to get emissions there," 

she saiJ, but risks of smoke \VaYcs from wildfires "might be reJuced.'' 

The research focused on fine s'b:y-darkcning partides called PM2.s pollution. Such pollution is one of the world's main 

kiHcrs, posing risks in particular to ehildren, the elderly and the sick It's released by fossil fuel-burning pmver plants, 

internal combustion engines and ·wood buming. 

"This type of approach provides a mnch more expansive and complete view of the potential consequences for humans 

as we change our climate," said Ke\'in Anchukaitis, a climatologist and geographer at tbc University of Arizona who 

v.-rv.<n't involved \Vith the study. "It shows the complicated yet robust link between climate change and human health." 

The scientists didn't focus on other kinds of air pollution created by wildiires, such as chemicals that eombine in the 

atmosphere to form ozone pollution. 

'The direct effects on human health would be much greater for PM2.5 than for the Dzone," said Lesley Ott, a scientist 

at NASA who \Vasn't involved with the study. '"I11is is prohahly the most direet threat to human health." 

You May Also Like: 

,July Makes 15 Record Hal Months in a Row 

Biomass PmvE'T Slumps as Tndnstry Spar on Science 

Doubts Over California's Cap-and-Trade Program 

Greenhouse Gases. lmpar:.t$ Trends Projections. ClimaM. Extremes, Wildfires, Heslth, Urlired StatJJs. l>o/est 

Comments 

Name (required): 

http /v.'W\<; clnnatecentral org.'newsiwestern,ftres-may~swken·mon:-peoph>20621 flfVJ0/1017 12 07 25 PYlj 
133 


27516.091

With \'Varmmg, Wes!em Fires M11y S1cken More f>~oplc \ Chmal.e Cernral 

Enter the word "climate" in the box below; 

[+j\1ewou.rcomrnentguldelines, 

Pleme note: Commrntmoderarion is enabled. Yourcommentwillnatappearuntil revieu.!fd by Climate Centra/ stojf. Thank !fiJ!l.foryour patirnce. 

EMA!L NEWSLETTER fcrYo"u!j,.!i!m;iio;ijjt g[2;oo;<,jj!h,!ficot==J) ... 

Copynght©2017ChmateCentral. Contact Login Terms Contentl•c:en .. ng Privacy S1h'lMap 

"http://www dimat-ee<:ntn\.1 org(ncv."'S/I.\"'(ls!ern·fir-c;;·may·sick"en·more-poople·20621 [!0110121.1 !7 !2·07:25 ?Ml 
134 


27516.092

CliMATE CENTRAl Researching and reporting the 

and impacts of climate clwn;;e 

Climate Change Behind Surge in Western Wildfires 

Follow @jQhnupton 

Wt•sttrn firefighting vctet>an::; bmeni:ing a "n<~w normal" amid surging f-orest fires h'i:r'l\7 received an {!Xplanation f11r the 

~,k:s.tmctivenes.$ they've been unahk to qudt Ri:;;ing tt•mperatm'C's are flatly !fl bbmc for n:'C<;:nt fear$ome fire ~H~<'I::>ons, 

leading ~dentist;.; rcportt~d Monday. 

The number of atn:~s of fort-~st burning yearly in large W-estern fin~s ballooned nine~fn!d from 1984 h} 201S1 with 

dimntf: fK>llutionlmd mJtural <:hang.:.\" in th-e-·1-v..;-a!herplaying roughly ~~qual rnk~ in drh'ing the tkadly tn:nd, rest~:arth 

p1>hli.shed in P!'(H.i~ediugs of tbe i\~ttiom~_l At:;ld<:m,v uf Sden~es condud-~.:~1. 

']1te J.;r;;kilw J!i1-c ,~IJ!'eod ;;o quiddy in c>Nlll"t>)l'tl Co({[imliil f'<trii<:r thi:; year th(:t SlW'W ~·~identt: died bc:ji.YR they<:m.!/df!NCrtdit; ,fc:/m c~vmn,iCUrrwfc C<:mtra! 

The study showed that mol\~ thun a centUf}' offos5i! fud burning, ddorcstation and farming h~1s h-dpcd push the 

Amcdc.un West into an explosive new \vHdfin: rq;ime, and the findings suggest far \YOrSC could h\' ahc.ad< 

"Th£ authors. dearly de.monstratc that a hnman influence on ·wildland fire as a conseqtwncc of global -warming isn't 

just a p~tHctlon for the future·- it'.<; happening no·w," :::aid Kc•·in Anchukaitis, a Unh'l'.r::iity of Arizona scientist ·who 

,,,,as not lnvo!wd vdth the stlldy. 

Previous {';ff-orts to linK ·western wildi1res i-\ith dirnate change have hint-ed at a prof{}m'ld relationship hut 1ed to 

nnC'onvindng .rc;~;ult!:l, tar~ely ht'i\H\St~ long lists nf factors influcnN' ignition and wiklfh'e propertiC's. 

Monday's study focnM::d on forest dryne&,'l, tdentifyln?, the wmmanding role it ha.<> been playing in driving fire .;. The 

I<t~se:..uthers re:Etd on climate data and modclin~ to ptescl~t a s·wctping n;gional view of 30 yt:ars of worsening forest 

fires, 
135 


27516.093

.'!:mate Change Bchmd Surge m Western Wddf:rcs, Chmate Central 

I Dead Trees Adding to California Firefighters' Battle 

RElATED With Warming) Western Fires May Sicken More People 

Pacific Northwest \Varming May Have Natural Root"i 

"The exact percentage of human contribution remains uncertain, but the overall relationship- an increase in fuel 

aridity, fire days, and fire extent- is clear and significant," Anchukaitis said. "'The statistical analysis is very 

convincing and elegantly done.'' 

Western V~1ldfires have been devouring forests parched by higher temperatures in recent years, Uraining federal and 

local firefighting funds, killing residents unable to flee fast-moving flame<; and filling skies with sometimes-crippling 

levels of air pollution. 

The new rmalysis showed temperature increases caused by rising levels of greenhouse gas pollution have had a drying 

effect on Western forests that caused 10.4 million acres to char in large fires Uuring the three decades. 

That suggests 44 percent of the forest are.'\ that burned during the three decades analy.tcd burned because of tbe 

effects of global warming. The tinU.ing was an estimate, \\;th the researchers concluding global warming likely drove 

between 6 million acres and 16 million acres of forest tire. 

Warming Causes Western Forests to Burn 

23 5 1984 2015 

10.4MIUION 

( 4 4 percent) 

burned 

because 

of global 

warming 

Greenhouse gas pollution was also found to have extended fire,<.; seasons and caused additional days of seYere fire 

danger. 

The "compounding effects" of climate change and natural -v,reather fluctuations are "giving rise to this remarkable 

increase in forest fire acth;ty," said .John Abatzoglou, a geographer at the University of Idaho who coauthored 

Monday's paper. 

Even as greenhouse gas pollution has wanned the planet's smface in recent decades, warming rates across the West 

have been exceptionally rapid. That's largely because of the effects of a slow-moving ocean cycle, the Pacific Dccadal 

Oscillation, which influences the global climate. 

Warming c::n.tst.~d by natural climatic \'ariation was blamed for the burning of 11.4 million acres of Western forests 

during the study period- slightly more than the effects ofv.-arming caused by humans. 

http /tw..,w c.hmatccentra! org!nc.wsic!nnate-change-behmd-surge-western-w!ldf:res-20775[!0/10120!7 !2 08 52 PMJ 
136 


27516.094

C'hmate Change Behmd Surge tn Western W!ldftres! Clnnate Central 

Climate Change Raising Western Forest Fire Risk 

Days with very high wildfire potential 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 1980 2015 

The study focused on the heavy role that temperatures can play on forest fires, ignoring other kinds ofv.ildfires, such 

as those afflicting grasslands, and ignoring other factors that can shape fire sea.sons. Fires need ignition sources to get 

statied- these include lightning strikes, arsonists and campfires. They're also affceted by the thickne..-;s and type of 

vegetation that they consume, which in turn are shaped by weather, climate and \vildfires. 

"While this paper is an important contribution, \-ve still face several open questions about other drivers of change on 

tire regimes," said Max Moritz, a fire ecology and management scientist at the University of California, Berkeley. He 

was not involved "'ith the research. 

"We're going to have more v.-ildfire on many of these landscapes," Moritz said. "We need to re-examine \vhere and how 

we build our communities, so that we can learn how to better coexist with wildfire- similar to how we've adapted to 

other natural hazards." 

California Gov. Jerry Brown and Nevada Sen. Harry Reid have directly linked the "new normal" of Western wildfires 

with global warming, Monday's findings lent scientific credence to the.<>e cJaims. 

"The effect of warming on fire activity is actually exponential," said Park Williams, a scientist at Columbia University 

who produced Monday's study v.1th Abatzoglou. "That mean.s that every degree of warming has a bigger impact than 

the previous degree of"'"-arming." 

A United Nations climate treaty ,..,m take force next month that's designed to spur nations to work together to reduce 

their impacts on the climate, such as by ditching coal energy in favor of cleaner alternatives. Exhaustive work and 

escalating political commitment will be needed if the civilh;ation-saving potential of the Paris climate agreement is to 

be realir.ed. 

"Even though climate is changing gradually, the way that fire responds is not gradua1," Williams said. "As >varming 

continues, there will probably be another leap, where fires are getting quite a hit more energetie- and quite a bit 

larger." 

You May Also Like: 

Oil, Gas and C01.vs Culprits in Methane Spike, Study Says 

191 Countries Strike Deal to Cut Aircraft Emissions 

Landmark Paris Climate Pac.t to Take Effect in 30 Days 

PostBd m Causes, Groenl;ous~ Gases, Impacts, Trends, ProjectionS:, Climate, Extreme~, Wildfir-es, Flora & Fauna. landscapu, United 

Stares. West 

Comments 

http //www clunatecentral org/newsicltmate-change-behind-surge-westem-wddflrcs-20775! 10/10/2017 12 OS· 52 P!vlJ 
137 


27516.095

Chmatc Change Behmd Surge Ul Western Wlldflres! Chmate Central 

Dy Geoff Deaccm (FK) 

on Octob& ut11, 2016 

The increase in forest tire.s is missing from IPCC climate models. 

Climate will be worse than predicted. 

http:/ jw,Nw.brusse\sblog.co.ukjmlssing·feedbacks-ignored-by-ipcc-modclsj 

Replytothiscommcnt 

By entrance (Aust1-in) 

lfwl; were able to solve this main problem O\'erpopulation, we would automatically solve the mentioned problems too. 

I am ready to help. 

Reply to this comment 

By Brother Raphael (massillion, Ohio) 

on October uth, 2016 

l think climate change hns affected the writer's brain .. 

Reply to this comment 

By Nina Ilorsley (Cave Juntion, OR 97523) 

on OctDber 13th, 2016 

:Nor is BL~1 enforcing the laws to prDtect our water suppy, to maintain permanant forest!)' production, all facets, prott.'Ct our water shed. 

Replytothiscomment 

By Mal A.dapted 

on OctobeJ· 18th, 2016 

Ms. Horsely, you are correct that forestry practices, along \Oiith decades of over-zealous v.ildfire suppression, have contributed to greater 

http //www climatecentral nrglnews!clnnate-change-bc!nnd·surge-westem-wl1df1res-20775! !0!!0/2017 !1 08 51 P1-.'IJ 
138 


27516.096

Clnnate Change Behmd Surge m Western Wildfires i ('lunate Central 

wildfire .activity in Oregon. This article explains why they are not the only reason for it. 

Reply to this comment 

lly FRANK PAPCJN (lrirginia beach, va. 2.,1452) 

on Octobvr 17th, 20:16 

I'm 75 years old and remember reading about all of the forcs on the west coast for most of them, even lived there for ;Iwhile.millions of acres 

being hm11ed every yenr, with chocking fumes all over southern California being the normal thing-EVERY YEAR. 1 REASON i MOVED Oln' 

OF THERE. 

WH¥.N THEY USF.D TO Tlt<\CH HISTORY IN SCHOOI. .... 'i, we were taught of the dry spell our ccmntry suffered from that spread a!l acwss our 

arnund.- I remember our government deciding to let them burn--remember? 

1 remember a million areas burning ln a year, more than once. 

do I believe our planet is gcttingwarrner?-AGAIN?--OF COURSE i DO, but that man ls causing it. 

I compare it to a flea on a rhino's hide hurting her. 

I trust my government as mucb as I think that the Rhino can swat that flea off, ifit even knew it was there. 

Reply to this tomment 

By Mal Adapted (Kennewick, lt:4 99336) 

on Octob~ l?f.h, 2016 

Mr. Papdn: 

If you don't trust your government's data, why do you belie\'e it's getting Vr1lrmcr'! \\'hose data do you trust? 

govemment's !lata, but again, if you don't trust you're governments data, whose do you trust? 

Replytothiscommellt 

By Noel D(trlow (SL'otland) 

on October 2.2nd, 2016 

Reply to this comment 

http i/VAvw clunatcccntral org.incws/chm<~tc-change-beh1nd-surge-westem-wikll\rcs-20775[10!!0/2017 !:!-08 52 PM] 
139 


27516.097

C'hmate Change Behmd Surge m Western W1idf1res i Chmatt {'entra! 

Enter the word "climate" in the box below: 

(+J View PU! comment guideline~ 

Plem;e note' Comment moderation is rnabled. YouroommentwW notappcaruntil reviewed by Climate Centro/ stuff. Thank youforyour patimc.e. 

EMAI\.NEWSLETTf:R ('i(Yeioe[jce;;im@ieli"<tgLQ;,_;;:,h!i<e[i"'=· =:=~11111111 

Copynght©2017C~mateCentral Contact Logm Terms ContentL•censmg Privacy SlleMap 
140 


27516.098

ln llK \\est. cnmmunillCS phm.:cr COO!Wl'flli\C apptuach to titihting: \\ildl\n:s- CS.\1oni!or.corn 

ENVIRONMENT 

In the West, communities pioneer cooperative 

approach to fighting wildfires 

InStead of having underStaffed towns try to do their own 

research in the middle of an emergency, the FAC Network offers a cooperative 

model where communities can share beSt practices and get help quickly. 

Andy Nelson/The Register-Guard!AP I Caption 

Jessica Mendoza 

Staffwriter I 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 I LOS ANGELES - "For Annie Schmidt it began in 

http~·/ www.csmonitor.COlWl:nvironmcnt' 20 17/0921/[n-thc~ \\\:st-communitic~·rionccr-coopcrativc-appro;lch-to-fighting·wildfircsf! 011012017 12:1 {):4 2 P1\1j 
141 


27516.099

ln the \\'est. communities pioneer cooperative approach to lighting wi!dHrcs- CSMonitou:om 

2014, with a stranger on a bus. 

Ms. Schmidt was in Colorado Springs for a workshop held by the newly 

created Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network, or FAC Net. On 

the way to a field trip, she found herself sitting beside Justice Jones of 

the Austin Fire Department, discussing his extensive work on post-fire 

recovery. 

Later that summer, as the Carlton Complex Fire ~re t~rou!?>h 256,ooo 

<l~re~ of north-central Washington, Schmidt, then-director of the 

Chumstick Wildfire Stewardship Coalition in Leavenworth, Wash., 

remembered the conversation and called Mr. Jones. "I said, 'I need to 

know everything you know about recovery, like, yesterday,' "she says. 

The information was a godsend for fire managers, who were stretched 

thin as hundreds of homes burned across Okanogan County, Schmidt 

says. "We didn't have the time or resources to have materials 

developed instantaneously," she says. "The ability to reach out and get 

some of these basic questions answered was huge." 

The network is a milestone in the nation's changing attitudes toward 

wildfire, say fire management practitioners. Instead of waiting for the 

federal government or leaving understaffed towns try to do their own 

research in the middle of an emergency, it offers a cooperative model 

where communities can share best practices empowering them to 

participate in developing their own resiliency to wildfire. "That's a 

really big shift in terms of people trying to understand wildfires 

instead of just responding to them," says FAC Net co-director Michelle 

Medley-Daniel. 

Recommended: Fighting wildfires: seven cutting-edge 

technologies 

http:-::://www.csmonitor.com/Environmcnt/20 17/0921 /In-the-Wcs1-communities-pionecN()(lperative-approach-to-fighting-wild!ires[l Oil 0/2017 12:10:42 PM] 
142 


27516.100

In th.c West. communities pioneer cooperative approach to fighting wildfire~- CSMnnitor.com 

As climate change leads to hotter, drier summers, and populations 

grow in fire-prone regions, fire professionals have increasingly turned 

to strategies beyond suppression, or putting fires out as quickly as 

possible. "It's almost a shelter-in-place mentality," says Max Moritz, a 

specialist in fire ecology and management and a professor at the 

College of Natural Resources at the University of California, Berkeley. 

"If we're going to see more events that are more extreme ... we're going 

to have to learn to live in tune with the natural hazards of the 

environment where we are." 

Today FAC Net- born from collaboration among The Nature 

Conservancy, the US Forest Service, and The Watershed Centerconsists of two dozen members, including fire departments, 

non profits, and conservation districts whose goal is to build 

relationships within and among fire-prone communities nationwide. 

Another So or so affiliate groups participate in workshops, access 

resources and tools online, and share with one another decades of 

wisdom around wildfire resilience. 

When 'boots on ground' aren't enough 

For the past century the responsibility of managing wildfires has fallen 

largely to agencies such as fire departments, the Forest Service, and 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency that have dealt with 

fires in a quasi-military fashion. The structured, hierarchical nature of 

that response ensured clear command structures and communication 

in efforts to put out fires. 

But the past 20 years have seen fires grow increasingly catastrophic. 

Part of it was the build-up of small trees, shrubs, and other flammable 

https://W\\w.csmonitor.com!Environment/20 17/0921 /In-the-Wcst-communitics-pionccr-coopcrativc-approach-to-figh!ing-wildfircsfl Oil 012017 12:10:42 PM J 
143 


27516.101

ln the West, communities pioneer cooperative approach to fighting wildrircs" CSMoniror.com 

debris that turned some communities into tinderboxes - a result of 

100 years of fire suppression. As the West's summers grow hotter and 

drier, it has led to fire seasons that are as much as two months longer 

in states such as Montana. 

At the same time, between 2000 and 2010 10 million new residences 

were built in the nation's wildland-urban interface communities that 

either border or are on fire-prone land. As of 2013, 36 percent of US 

homes stood in the WUI, according to joint research from the Forest 

Service, tbe University of Wisconsin, and Oregon State University. 

We had to "dispel this notion that if we only had enough airplanes, 

engines, boots on the ground, we'd be good," says Wendy Fulks, who 

facilitates FAC Net's major partnerships. "We know now that's just not 

going to work." 

Legislation such as the ~e~~l1YT'9!~.S_!~Res_tq£atiog~~l~f?.oo~ and 

the Federal Land Assistance, Managementand ~11~~_e..'!l.e_~! 

~.!'~~2-~_r! of ~~_Q2 catalyzed community preparedness efforts 

across the country. By the time FAC Net was formed in 2013, there was 

a growing sense among practitioners that tbey needed more innovative 

ways of living with fire and that one way to do that was to involve 

more people in their work. The network brought together for the first 

time communities that had for years been working to address wildfire 

issues in relative isolation. 

"So often, we fall into the same routine of having a problem in our 

place and thinking it's just in our place," Schmidt says. But while every 

community has its own unique challenges when it comes to wildfire, 

she notes, they also have plenty in common. "Not only can we learn 

from each other to get better results, we can create new things 

together," she says. "In a capacity-limited, budget-limited world, [that] 

http:;:, \YWW.c.s.monitor.com/Environmcnt12017 /0921 /In-the-\Vcst-communitics-pionceNoopcrutivc-approach-to-fighting-wi!d fires[ 1 0/10/2017 12: I 0:42 PM] 
144 


27516.102

In tlw communifi..::> pioneer coopcrnti,c; approw:h to fightin);! wild !ire~- CS:\h>nitor.com 

is only the way we're going to tackle some of these big problems." 

Learning from others 

The network introduced Schmidt and the Chumstick coalition in 

Leavenworth to the organizers of Project Wildfire in Deschutes County 

and Ashland Fire & Rescue in Oregon. Since 2015, the three 

organizations have been in constant contact and held what they call 

learning exchanges: essentially field trips meant to showcase each 

community's expertise. 

The 2014 and '15 vvi!dfire seasons, for instance, left Washington State 

with plenty of recovery experience to share. Businesses' ability to 

operate during and after a fire was a popular suhject. "If you have a 

wildfire and only half the staff comes in, what's the plan to operate at 

that level? Or say you have loss of a key member [ofyom 

organization]. Who's going to step in and run that business?" says 

Alison Green, program director at Project Wildfire. 

"It broadened out our thinking beyond just fuel-reduction projects and 

llttr~· \\ \\'\V.c~monitor.com 1F.nvironmcnV20 J 71092! i1 tHhc~ \\'csH~ummuni!ics~pionccr-coopcratit t:<tppronch-to-fighting·wildfircsjl (); 1 Oi20! 7 \2:1 0:-12 PI\-! 1 
145 


27516.103

In th~ We:-,t. conmmnitics pioneer cooperative approach to fighting wildfires- CSMonitor.com 

firewise communities," adds Ed Keith, county forester of Deschutes 

County. 

Mr. Keith has in turn provided both Ashland and Leavenworth with 

advice on applying for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's 

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, saving them time and 

resources. "We were able to get a sense of how much work it would be 

and how effective it can be," says Alison Lerch of Ashland Fire & 

Rescue. "We didn't have to do everything anew." 

Chris Chambers, also from Ashland, recalls taking a tour of 

Wenatchee, Wash., following the summer of 2015, when embers from 

a nearby fire ignited sections of the city's dovmtown. "Ashland has a 

similar topography, and it didn't really cross my mind that it could 

impact our downtown area," he says. "It was really eye opening for 

me." 

Getting the network off the ground had its challenges. Investing in 

relationships takes time and energy, and that's a big ask of 

understaffed agencies facing a growing problem. The idea of a nonhierarchical structure can also be difficult to embrace for those used to 

dealing with top-down organizations, says Medley-Daniel, the FAC Net 

director. "It's about accepting complexity ... and it continues to be hard 

to unravel what we need to do," she says. 

But for the most part, the benefits of being part of the network 

outweigh the trouble, FAC Net members say. The network's online 

platform- which include a blog and a forum that works almost like 

Reddit for members- makes it easy for communities nationwide to 

ask advice of each other and share ideas. FAC N ct also provides small 

grants, and its staff helps connect individuals and agencies with 

counterparts that can best help solve their problems. "So we have this 

https:/i\nvw .csmon!tor.com/Environmcnt/20 17/0921 iin-thc-Wcst-communitic:s-pionccr-coopcrative-approaclHo-fighting-wildfircsrl Oil Oil() 17 12:1 0:42 PM 1 
146 


27516.104

ln the West. communities pioneer coopcratiYe approach to fighting wildfires- CSlltfonitor.com 

suite of efforts aimed at helping places move further down the road in 

changing their relationship with fire," Medley-Daniel says. 

It's the personal bonds, however, that members say they value most. 

"It's the in-person relationships that makes you comfortable enough to 

pick up the phone and say, 'I'm about to ask for your time and your 

help,' and they're more inclined to answer,'' Schmidt says. "You're a 

person to them." 

Materia/from Reuters was used in this report. 

Did this story deliver on paths to progress? 

Next Up 

Fighting wildfires: seven cutting-edge technologies 

By Noelle Swan 

FOCUS 

After the fire: Volunteers help Gatlinburg find hope 

By Doug Struck 

httrs:i/~\<n...-.csmonitor.com/Environmcnt/20 17/092! /In-the-\V csi-communities-pioncer-coopcrativc-approach·!o-fighting-wildlires[l 0!1 0/2017 12:10:42 PM I 
147 


27516.105

In the West communities ptoncer cooperative approach to fighting ;vildfires- CSMonitor.com 

FIRST LOOK 

Wildfires threaten much of US West despite a wet 

winter 

By Dan Elliot 

INHABIT 

Climate science slashed in Trump budget. Why does 

that matter? 

By Henry Gass 

PHOTOS OF THE WEEK 

Photos of the week 10/09 

https:i/www.csmonitor.com/Environmcnt/20 17/0921/In-the-Wcst-communities-pionccr-coopcrative-approach-to~fighting·wildtiresf 1 0/! 0/2017 I 2:1 0:42 PM J 
148 


27516.106

ln the Wc~L communiticq pioneer cooperative approach to fighting\\ ildfir~s- CSMonitor.com 

§sas EXPECTT~c EXCEPTIONAL 

In this new series 

explore the potential 

for data and analytics 

to transform our world 

and revolutionize 

business. 

https://v.-w\v.csmonitor.mmll:nvironmcnt:'20 1710921 /ln-thc-Wcst-communitics-pionccr-coopcrativ..:-approach-to-fighting-wildfircs! 1 0!1 0.12017 12:10:42 PM J 
149 


27516.107

!n the \Vest, C(>mmunitics pioneer coopcrati\·e approach to fighting wildfires- CSMonitor.com 

https://1\"Ww.csmonitor.com!Environment/20! 7/092 1/fn·lhc-\Vest·cmnmunities-pinncer-coopcratin~--npproach-i.tl-lighting-wilrl tlre~! 10/10/2017 12:10:42 PM] 
150 


27516.108

Climate dw.ngc cxpct;ted to fuel larger forest fires-·- if it haRn't already -The San Diego L1

nion- l'ribunc 

CARS HOMES JOBS SDBEST CONTACTUS TODAY'SPAPER SOALMANAC MOSTPOPULAR 

Environment 

Climate change expected to fuel 

larger forest fires - if it hasn't 

already 

l'ilc://,commcrcc.us.housc gov/. .. llcaringf~ ! 15th%20Congress%201lc:~.rings/10 17-I 0-04°"o2ot!rg%20(FoJ'CSt%20Fircs)/Docs%20FTR/scLhtm[ 1 0/l 0/20 I 7 1 :22:41 Pl'vl j 
151 


27516.109

Climate change expected to fuel larger forest fires·-· if it hasn't already- The San Diego Union-Tribune 

By Joshua Contact Reporter 

JULY4, 2017,1 ?0 PM 

G Jabal warming will likely heighten the risk oflarge, more difficult to control 

wildfires scorching the western United States. 

It's the main conclusion of a body of science that, over the years, has increasingly drawn 

connections in the West between the prevalence of major blazes and the rising frequency 

of earlier springtime conditions followed by hotter and drier summers. 

nJc:/t/commerce.us.housc.gov/ ... !fcarings/1 I 5th%20Congrcss%201 Iearings/20 17-1 0-04%20Hrg%20(Forest%20Fircs)!Docs%20FTR/sd.htm] tOil 012017 I :22:4 J PM J 
152 


27516.110

( 'limatc change expected to !'ue! larger forest llrcs if it hasn't alrcad) - rhc San Diego Union- rribunc 

"Climate absolutely affects fire because it affects how flammable the fuels are," said 

LeRoy Westerling, a professor at UC Merced who has been studying climate and wildfires 

for the past 15 years. 

"Your drought years are going to be more extreme because it's warmer during the 

drought years, so you have more evaporation, and those preceding years that were wetter 

are retaining less water," added Westerling, who has worked on these issues with 

colleagues at places like UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La 

They and other scientists from Oregon and Washington state to California and Colorado 

have collaborated on improving long-range climate projections, developing more 

sophisticated computer modeling and creating customized equipment to better monitor 

weather and wildfire conditions, among other projects. 

All of this work has continued to proceed despite escalating debate over the scientific 

validity of climate change forecasting in the courts between regulators and major 

companies, in divisive policies from the White House to statehouses to city councils, in 

dueling marketing campaigns between conservationists and the fossil fuel industry, in 

testy exchanges among world leaders about whether particular countries are truly 

committed to lowering their greenhouse-gas emissions. 

This year alone, global warming has been the subject of much attention. 

In his proposed budget, President calls for slashing the budgets of two 

federal agencies most associated with climate change research and enforcement- the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

Then in late May, he announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris 

climate change accord, in which almost every country has pledged to reduce emissions of 

carbon dioxide and other gases linked to Earth's warming. Trump has set off a cascade of 

voices worldwide praising or denouncing the decision. 

Scientists, environmentalists and others have tried to put forth their o\\11 message 

fi!c:///eommcrce.u:;.house,gmL.llcarings/! l5th'~U:20Congrcss%20I lcaring~.'20 17·1 0-04'%201 !rg%20(Forest"!()20Fircs)/Docs%20FTR/sd.htm[ 10/1 0/20! 7 I :22:4 l P\1! 
153 


27516.111

Climate change expected to f'uel !arg~;r forest fires-- if it hasn't nlrcady ·The San Diego Union-Tribune 

directly to consumers, including through rallies such as the March for Science at several 

hundred locations across the U.S. in April. 

The research on climate change and v.ildfires in the western U.S. has largely escaped this 

escalating controversy, perhaps because the body of evidence collected has consistently 

pointed to the same trend of mega wildfires happening more frequently. 

Westerling systematically cataloged wildfires in the western U.S. over several years and 

found that in the mid-198os, fires in U.S. forests steadily started getting larger and 

burning longer. 

The number of fires that burned more than 1,ooo acres on federally managed lands from 

the Pacific Northwest to the Sierra Nevada and through to the Southern Rockies 

increased fivefold in the last three decades, according to his research. 

From 1973 to 1982, the average wildfire burned for six days. Between 2003 and 2012, 

that figure shot up to 52 days. 

vVhile the number ofreported ignitions remained steady, the acreage burned by large 

fires between those time frames increased by up to 1,200 percent. 

At the same time, the so-called fire season expanded. That's the number of days between 

the first and last large blazes of any given year. Since the 1970s, the 10-year average 

increased 84 days from 138 to 222. 

Westerling predicts that as a result, forest compositions in certain regions could 

dramatically change. Instead of large older trees, woodland areas may become populated 

with younger, smaller trees that burn more often. 

If this happens, large forests in California could shift from ecosystems that suck np large 

amounts of carbon dioxide to those that give off significant amounts of greenhouse gas. 

"Over time, what happens in our modeling, is the Sierra Nevada stores less and less 

carbon, and then these areas start becoming carbon sources instead of carbon sinks," he 

said. "So it starts contributing to climate change over the next couple of centuries." 

fi!c:///commcrcc.us.house.gov/ ... Hearlngs/1 I 5th%20Congrcss%201 karings/20! 7-1 0-04%,20Ilrg%20(Forest%20Fircs)/Docs%>ZOFTR/sd.htm(l Oil 0/2017 1:22:4 I PM] 
154 


27516.112

('illllatc change 1::xpcctcd to fud !arger f()fc~t fires if it hasn't a!rcady • rlw San Dwgo Lnion- rribunc 

Twitter: 

Phone: (619) 293-2234 

Sigp: up for Ess.ential c.alifornia and getthe ~op stories from across 

California delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday 

Copyright© 201?, The San Diego Umon·Tnbune 

fik·, /commcrcc<u~.housc.gm·i, l karing~!ll51h'?·020Congress~·i120flcaring:s/20! "1. 1 0-04%101 !rg%20( Forest%20Fircs)/Docs%.>20rTRisd.h!ml! Oil 0.12017 Pt\11 
155 


27516.113

llcat \Vavcs and Wildfires Signal Warnings about Climate Change (and Budg~t Cuts) Union of Concerned Scientists 

About Jain Donate <: ~ 

1:::::: 

I 

Heat Waves and Wildfires Signal Warnings about 

Climate Change (and Budget Cuts) 

RACHEL CLEETUS 

-Tweet SHARE 

Southern California and the Southwest US are 

experiencing a significant heat wave this week. More than 

29 million people in California alone are under an 

excessive heat warning or heat advisory. 

If you live in areas affected by this heat wave, please follow 

health advisories to stay cool, stay hydrated, and stay safe. 

PM EDT 

bttp:llb!og.ucsusa,org/rache:l-cleetm/hcat-\vm cs-and-wildfircs-signaJ-v,:arnings-about-dimatc-changc-and-budgcH:uts{ 1 0!1 0/2017 12:20:52 PM] 
156 


27516.114

!!cat Wa\CS and V..-'ildfircs Signal Warnings about Climate Change (and Budget Cuts)- tJnion of Concerned Scientists 

And watch for wildfire advisories while you're at it. 

Heat waves are dangerous 

Extreme heat can cause heat exhaustion, heat stroke, or 

This post is a part of a series on 

Understanding the Budget 

even death. Symptoms to watch for include dizziness, headaches, nausea, muscle 

cramps, and loss of consciousness. Be especially vigilant for children, the elderly, those 

with pre-existing health conditions, those who work or play outdoors, and your pets. 

(For more on how to stay safe in extreme heat, refer to guidance from the CDC.) 

Unfortunately, climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of 

heat waves. According to the EPA: 

"Nationwide, unusually hot summer days (highs) have become more common 

over the last few decades. The occurrence of unusually hot summer nights (lows) 

has increased at an even faster rate. This trend indicates less "cooling off' at 

night." 

Furthermore, heat waves that arrive earlier in the summer can have worse health 

impacts because people's bodies have had less time to adjust to the warm weather. And 

the longer a heat wave lasts, the more severe the cumulative effects can be. 

On the other side of the world, India has already experienced a serious early heat wave 

in April, and recent research shows that even a small increase in global average 

temperature (which is very likely with climate change) is projected to cause a huge 

increase in heat-related deaths there. 

Hotter, drier conditions also raise risks of wildfires 

http://blog. ucsusa.orglrachel-cleetus/hcat-wavcs-and-wildfircs-signal-warnings-about-cl imatc-changc-and-budgct-cuts[ 1 0/l 0/2017 !2:20:52 PM J 
157 


27516.115

lleat Wa\'G~ and \Vildfires Signa! Warnings about Climate Chang.; (and Budget Cuts)- Union ofConc<.'rned Scientists 

The wildfire season in the Southwest is also underway. Many of the same areas 

experiencing this week's heat wave-including parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and 

California-are also forecast to have an above-normal wildfire risk this month (see 

map). 

That's no coincidence: in many parts of the world hotter, drier conditions are also 

contributing to growing risks of wildfires. 

,o 

Significant Wildland Fire Potential Outlook 

June 2017 

Significant Wildland Fire Potential 

• Above Norme! ..,.... ~:~:;ic Ar!la 

~~ Below J'I.'Onnal Predic!i\f€1 ServiCes 

D Normal Aroa Boundary 

--State Border 

Abovo normol signliicant wikl!ood Tiro po{Gntial indk11iBs a >J.fOat{Jf than usu<~llike!ihood that slgniflt:llnl wildJand firar. win occur, 

SI{Jnlftcanl wildland llH!$ should be ax.peded at t;rplca! tlrl1a'!> <~:nd lnhiNals during normal $i~n!lican! wildhtl1d fir~ ~ll'm!it:l! cor.d!\kln$. 

Slgniflc!lfl\ Wlklllln<l firS$ me st\11 poss1b!e bill le" H~ely than usual dt.mng !o-recastac! 00\t.'IW oormal pcncds, 

·~· 

Puerto 

~­Rico 

Mnpproduoodby 

Prndir:.!hl<ll'Servh;:el:i. 

Natlona! lnt&rBgenty Fir& Ctlfltw 

Bolse.ldaho 

!"-ued Jun~ 1, 20t7 Ne~l iSlluance July 1, 2017 

Arizona currently has more than 12 active wildfires and the state has already seen 

dozens of fires this year. California has also seen a number of wildfires over the past 

month; officials warn that the risk continues to be high. Ironically, winter precipitation 

in these states has helped provide more fuel for fires, stimulating the growth of brush 

and other vegetation that is now drying out in the hot temperatures. 

http:,fblog.ucsu~a.org/rachcl-d~etus/heat-waves-and-wildlircs-signal-wamings-about-dimate-change-and-hudgct-cuts[ I 0/10/2017 12:20:52 PMJ 
158 


27516.116

!kat Wa>vc~and Warnings alxmt Ciimak Change (and Budget Cuts)- l :nwn of Concerned Scicnti~L'-

experiencing vvildfires, where more than 

··--·o···~··J lost their lives this past weekend after getting 

f1res. The country is, of course, focused on the emergency response and is in 

mourning. eXJ[)ei'Jel:lCingbad wildfires seasons year .. 

"'"'Q'""nrr wildfires. 

Managing the risks of wildfires 

or human activities. Here in 

is 

\vildl1rc. 

the weather, winds, 

climate 

and worsening the risks of 

w!lcttJI!'C··m·nn1e areas also exposes more and property to the 

risks of harmful impacts. The smoke impose harmful health 

manage wildfire risks and impacts, we will have to work on solutions on all these 

fronts. 

Cutting the Forest Service budget is a bad idea 

For instance, the 

for forest health management 

relative to l<"Y 2017 

annualized Resolution level), which would reduce the resources available 

cope with disease and pest outbreaks that trees. The hazardous fuels 

management take hit of WC.<H'"'H)', that there would be less 

http::'b!og.uc~usrt org:rache1-c!ccw~/hc~1-\\ ll\ c~-anJ-\\ ildfircs-,;ignal-\\ arnings-abnut-c!ima!c·ch:mgc-and-budgct-cu1~! 1 \1,'! .[); 2017 
159 


27516.117

!leal Wav~s nnd Wildfires Signal Wamings about Climate Change {and Budget Cuts)- Cnion of Concerned Scientists 

money to manage or thin forests to reduce wildfire risks near where people live. The 

budget also proposes to cut funding for volunteer fire departments. 

Last week Tom Tidwell, Chief ofthc USDA Forest Service, testified about the budget 

before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. At the hearing, there 

was bipartisan push-back to these cuts. Senator Murkowski (R-Aiaska) said: 

"While some of the agency's recommended budget cuts are worth considering, 

others, like the proposed cuts to recreation programs, are concerning. Some could 

impact critica/jorest management activities, like firefighting and hazardous fuels 

reduction. And some appear to contradict other proposals in the budget, so we 

will need to review all of these very carefully, as we work on our budget for the 

next fiscal year." 

And Senator Cantwell (D-WA) said: 

"President Trump's proposal reduces funding for fighting wildfires. This budget 

proposes a decrease of almost $300 million for fighting wildfires and another 

decrease of $so million for preventing wildfires." 

A way forward on wildfire and climate policy? 

Senators Murkowski and Cantwell have a long history of working together to find 

solutions for improving forest management and fixing wildfire budgeting. 

I hope Congress will reject the harmful budget cuts proposed by the Trump 

administration, and step up and pass legislation to address these critical issues as soon 

as possible. People who live in wildfire-prone areas-whether in California, Arizona, 

.Alaska, or Georgia-cannot afford further delays or back-sliding. 

We also have to continue to work with the global community to limit the heat-trapping 

emissions that are driving climate change and worsening the risk~ of deadly heat waves 

and wildfires worldwide-despite the Trump administration's stance on the Paris 

Climate Agreement. 

http:l/blog.uesusa.orgirachel-cleetuslheat-waves-and-wildlircs-signa!-warnings-about-c!irnatt'-changc-and-budget-cutsll 0/10/2017 12:20;52 PMl 
160 


27516.118

!!eat Wmcs and Wildfires Signal \Varnings about Climate Change (and Budget Cuts)· Union of Concerned Scientists 

Tw!O'et Q SHARE 

Posted in: Global Warming Tags: Forest Service, heat wave, Understanding the Budget, 

Wildfire 

Sllpport from VCS members make work like this possible. Will yoH join us? Help UCS afhN,mce independent science for a healthy cnYironment 

and a safer world. 

Hide Comments 

Comment Policy 

UCS ·welcomes ('Ommenls that foster cJyiJ COIW£>rsation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, reRpectful discussion, please focus comments on 

the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attad: .. '>. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive 

will be remoYed. 

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your priYacy and will not display, lend, or sell your 

email addrC'SS for any reason. 

Support Our Work 

Stay Informed 

READ RACHEL'S POSTS > 

MEET OUR OTHER BLOGGERS > 

http://blog,uc~usa.org/rachel·clectuslhcaHYaves-and~wildfircs-signal-warningNibOuH~limatc·change-and-budgct.cuts]l Oil 012017 12:20:52 PM] 
161 


27516.119

Statk f·.\idence: :\ V.'anncr World ls Sparking :V1orc and Bigger Wildfire,;- Yale 1~360 

Firefighters battle a wildfire near Mariposa, California. JOSH EDELSONiAFPfGETTY IMAGES 

Stark Evidence: A Warmer 

World Is Sparking More and 

Bigger Wildfires 

The increase in forest fires, seen this summer from North 

America to the Mediterranean to Siberia, is directly linked to 

climate change, scientists say. And as the world continues to 

warm, there will be greater risk for fires on nearly every 

continent. 

BY NICOLA JONES • OCTOBER 2, 2017 

hrrp:i/c360.yale .cdui!Cnturcs/th~~vidcnce-i~-ckar+>\ armcr-wor!d-mcamHllOrc-wildfirc~[ 1 0/t 0/2017 12:22:03 PM! 
162 


27516.120

Stark Evidence: A Warmer World !s Sparking More 11nd Bigg.cr Wildfires- Yale EJ60 

0 n a single hot, dry day this summer, an astonishing 140 

wildfires leapt to life across British Columbia. "Friday, 

,July 7 was just crazy," says Mike Flannigan, director of 

the wildland fire partnership at the University of Alberta. A state of 

emergency was declared. By the end of summer, more than 1,ooo 

fires had been triggered across the Canadian provinee, burning a 

record of forest-nearly 10 times the average in 

British Columbia over the last decade. As the fires got bigger and 

hotter, even aerial attacks became useless. "It's like spitting on a 

campfire," says Flannigan. "It doesn't do much other than making a 

pretty picture for the newspapers." 

Forest fires are natural. But the number and extent of the fires being 

seen today are not. These fires are man-made, or at least manworsened. 

"Evidence is becoming more and more overwhelming," says 

Flannigan, that climate change is spreading fires around the world. 

Globally, the length of the fire weather season increased by nearly 19 

percent between 1978 and 2013, thanks to longer seasons of warm, 

dry weather in one-quarter of the planet's forests. In the western 

United States, for example, the wildfire season has grown from five 

months in the 1970s to seven months today, 

The number-crunching now shows an increased risk for fire on nearly 

every continent, says Flannigan, though most of the work has focused 

on North America, where there is a larger pot of funding for such 

research. In the western U.S., where fires ravaged Oregon this 

surnmer, the annual has, on average, gone from less than 

250,000 acres in 1985 to more than 1.2 million acres in 2015; humancaused climate change has been blamed for doubling the total area 

hitp:ffc360.yalc.edu/J1::atures!thc·cvidcncc~ls-c!ear·a·'\-vurmer-world-mcans-more-wi!diiresfl Or! 0!20 17 12:22:03 PM) 
163 


27516.121

Stark f'\·idence: A Warmer World Is Sparking More and Bigger Wildfires- Yale E360 

burned over that time. 

Similarly, for fire-ravaged British Columbia, an analysis from this 

July estimates that climate change has made extreme fire events in 

western Canada 1.5-6 times more likely. 

So how much worse are things set to get? 

Pinning any specific environmental event on climate change is a 

tricky business, though the science of weather attribution has grown 

in leaps and bounds over the past decades. Individual Vv'ildfires are 

still near the bottom of the list of things that can easily be pegged to a 

changing climate, thanks to all the other factors in the mix. If people 

break up forests into smaller chunks through logging or agriculture, 

that can limit the spread of forest fires; on the other hand, some trees 

burn faster than others (younger trees are greener, so burn slower), 

and shrubs under a tree canopy can make fire more intense. A 

particularly rainy year can paradoxically increase fire risk if the rain 

comes in springtime, by boosting the volume of vegetation available 

to burn later in the season. Natural weather patterns like El Nifio can 

have a dramatic effect on precipitation, and so on fire. 

Fire management is also a big contributor, leading to some surprising 

trends in the world's total burn area. Globally, 

decreased by about 7 percent over the first half of the 20th century, 

hHp:.'/cJ60.yalc.cdu/fcaturcs/thc-cvidencc-is-c!car-a-warmcr-wor!d-mcans-morc-wi!dfircs[ 10/! 0/2017 12:22:0.1 PM] 

ALSO ON YALE 

Scientists are 

getting far better at 

untangling the 

relationship betv,reen 

extreme weather 

and climate change 

Read more 
164 


27516.122

A W::m11<:r \Vor!d ls Sparking Mono and Bit~-gcr Wildfire~ 

probably due to increased efforts in places like the U.S. to stamp them 

out (though fires have gone up since the 1960s in the western U.S., 

the burned area there wns ach1ally just as bad iu the early 1900s, 

before tire-fighting efforts kicked into high gear). The last half ofthe 

20'11 century saw that global trend reverse, with the area burned 

bumping up by lO percent, thanks in part to an increase of fires set in 

the tropics to dear land. The past 18 years saw burned area decline 

again, largely due to agriculture taking over fireprone grasslands in areas like the African savanna. 

All that makes it hard to pin down why any one given fire happened, 

or eYen why any one region might be seeing more fire, though a 

handful of such have been done. Neve.theless, 

there is still a dear link between general climate trends- in 

particular warming temperatures- and an increased risk for t1re. "If 

\Ve have higher temps~ "ve have a greater probability of fire starting~ 

!lre spreading, and fire intensifying. That's basic physics," says Stefan 

Doerr, a geographer at Swansea University in Wales and a chief editor 

of the International Joumal of Wildland Fire. Warm air holds more 

water. So as air temperatures climb, the thirsty air sucks more 

moisture out of vegetation, making it better firewood. Warmer 

temperatures also lead to more lightning, which sparks some 

destructive wildfires each degree of warming is thought to increase 

strikes by about Earlier snO¥imelts make fire seasons 

longer. And a warmer world is a windier world, bringing the potential 

to further fan flames. 

PM] 
165 


27516.123

Stark J-.yjtlencc: A \\'armcr World !s Sparking More and Bigger Wddf'ircs- Yr!le E360 

Cariboo region. B.C WILDFIRE SERVICE 

Though climate change might also bring more rain to some areas, you 

need a lot of water to offset the impact of temperature: In Canada, 

one study shows, you need about 15 percent more rain to offset the 

increased fire risk from a 1-degree Celsius rise in heat. Climate 

models call for something on the order of a 10 percent increase in rain 

alongside 1 degree of warming in Canada not enough to counteract 

the drying effect. 

Last year, John Abatzoglou ofthe University ofidaho published a 

paper showing that human-caused warming since the 1970s has been 

responsible for about half of the increased dryness of western U.S. 

forests over the last 30 years. And the drier it was, the more forest 

burned. ''It's a complicated issue," says Abatzoglou. ~!But the way we 

see it, how dry fuels are explains about three-quarters of year-to-year 

variability [in fires]." By the train of logic followed by Abatzoglou and 

his colleagues, climate change is to blame for doubling the area that 

burned in the western U.S. between 1984-2015, adding an extra 10 

million acres of charred trees. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's last report, in 

2014, could only pin down strong evidence of major impacts on forest 

h11p·i/d60.yalc.rdu/fl'aturcs:lthc-cvidcncc~i;;~clcar-n·warmn·vror!LI·meam~more-tvl!dfiresll Oil 0/2017 12:12:03 PMl 
166 


27516.124

Stark bnicncc: A Warmer World ls Sparking More aud Bigger Wildfires- '\:'ale E360 

fires due to climate change in three areas: Alaska, some parts of the 

Mediterranean, and eastern Africa. But that was a few years ago and, 

fire researchers argue, it was a conservative view even at the time. 

Today, researchers agree the effects of warming temperatures on fire 

are being felt widely. Even Greenland has had a significant number of 

fires this year, notes Flannigan, who ticks off the many areas where 

climate change is having, or will have, an impact: "Alaska and all 

boreal Canada is already seeing change, and it's going to continue. 

Western U.S., for sure. Southeastern U.S., maybe. Mediterranean, 

yes. Scandinavia, possibly. Sweden had a big fire in 2014 that really 

blew them away. Chile had the worse fire season on record by far. 

Australia, definitely. China, in the northern areas, yes." 

Siberia is seeing its worst fires in 10,000 years, probably due to 

extreme temperature rises in that region. Interestingly, the new 

climate and all this fire looks set to change the types of trees growing 

in the Siberian landscape, to species like 

deciduous conifer larch; researchers think fires there may actually 

level out. 

Australia, which has had horrific wildfires in recent years, added a 

new category atthe upper end of its fire risk scale in 2009: 

"catastrophic." But so far, scientists say, it is difficult to say if, or how 

much, climate change is responsible for that. The fire risk in Australia 

is very strongly affected by natural climate patterns like El Nifio, and 

populations are moving into higher risk areas. "Human interaction is 

probably more important than climate change," says Doerr. 

httr:i/c360 yale.cdutfCatun::s/lhe-c\ idencc-is-clcar·a·wanncr-world-mcans-more-wildfircs[l 0/10/2017 12:12:03 PM I 

The northern forests 

of Alaska, Canada, 

and Siberia have 

emerged as the new 

globa! tinderbox 

Read more. 
167 


27516.125

Stark Evidence A Warmer WorlO ls Sparking More and Bigger Wildfires~ Yale E360 

Nevertheless, climate change is expected to bring warmer, drier 

weather to some parts of Australia, extending the fire season and 

increasing the number of days where risk is particularly high, 

A satemte lm.age shows dozens of wildfires burning across Siberia o-n June 23,2017. 

NASA EAHH-f OBSERVATORY 

While it's clear that a warmed world will likely be a more fiery one, 

the specifics are hard to pin do'l\n. In general, global climate models 

show a patchy map of future fire risk, with the areas of increased risk 

outweighing areas with a decreased chance of fire. The areas of 

increased hazard are scattered widely across the high latitudes, like 

Alaska, where changing climate tends to boost vegetation growth. 

Areas of decreased risk are mainly in the tropics, where rainforests, 

for example, might see more rain. One 2008 study predicted that the 

area burned across Alaska and Canada might increase 3.5-5.5 times 

over 1990 levels by 2100. 

The increased risk for fires means we need to change how we manage 

them, argue Doerr and others. Since World War II, North America 

http:l/c360.yalc.cdu/fCaturesjthe-cvidence-is·clear-a-·warmcr~wor!d·mcnns-more·wlldfires[lO/I0!20!7 !2:22:03 PM] 
168 


27516.126

Stark !:vidence i\ \Varmer World ls Sparking More <Hid Bigger Wi!Jlircs ·Yale E360 

has largely been focused on fighting a war on wildfire, military-style. 

In the U.S., a 2016 paper reports, aggressive fire suppression policies 

mean that only 0.4% of wildfires are allowed to burn; the rest are 

tackled by firefighters. But the strategy of putting out every fire only 

works when there are fewer fires, and when they happen in cooler, 

wetter years. Pumping ever-more money into firefighting tends to 

have only a small effect: one Canadian study showed that to meet a 15 

percent increase in fire load, officials would have to more than double 

their firefighting budgets. 

One alternative is to allow more fire on the land~ cape, to eat up the 

excess fuel and fragment the forests into smaller burnable chunks. 

When you get more than 100 fires lit in a single day, as happened in 

British Columbia on July y, there is no option but to do triage and 

assess which fires to attack and which to leave: "There was no way 

they had enough crews for them all, so they had to choose," says 

Flannigan. But that's what they should be doing all the time, he adds, 

using better models to predict fire growth and assess each fire's 

potential to harm valuable assets like watersheds and buildings. 

Flannigan is working to build artificial intelligence algorithms that 

can better predict the hot, dry, windy days that are particularly 

conducive to fire spread. "Allo\\~ng more fire on the landscape is 

good," says Flannigan, so long as there are the resources and warning 

systems to attack the threatening ones. 

Other sensible options include restricting the type of vegetation 

planted near urban areas, and using prescribed burning and logging 
169 


27516.127

Stark Fsitknce: A Warm..:r \\'or!d Is Sparking More and Bigger Wildfires- Yale E360 

to intentionally break up the landscape. But integrating all the 

different jurisdictions and companies involved with land 

management is a big task that's easier said than done, researchers 

note. The 1988 fire that burned half of Yellowstone National Park, 

Flannigan says, did a lot to help shift attitudes about fire from seeing 

it as evil to natural: Scientists used it as a springboard to talk about 

fire's healthy and rejuvenating effects on a landscape. But official 

policies did change and there's still a long way to go in 

shifting opinions, he says. 

Whatever actions are taken, in the face of climate change we will have 

to accept the idea of more fire in our lives. That means more 

dioxide emitted into the atmosphere as trees and vegetation burn; 

more smoke, with its attendant health problems from pneumonia to 

heart disease; more fire retardant chemicals in our landscape and 

watersheds; more poisons like mercury spread from peatland and 

forest fires; and more black particulates darkening the planet's 

"We do expect to see more years like this one," warns Abatzoglou. 

YALE E360 VJDEO 

With warming, a 

terrifying new 

normal for 

firefighters. Watch 

here 

Nicola Jones is a freelance journalist based in Pemberton, 

British Columbia, just outside of Vancouver. With a background 

in chemistry and oceanography, she writes about the physical 

sciences, most often for the journal Nature. She has also 

contributed to Scientific American, Globe and Mail, and New 

Scientist and serves as the science journalist in residence at the 

University of British Columbia. 

TOP1CS REGIONS 

http://c:360.y<tlc:.cdu/fc:aturcs/the-evidence-is-cleaN-warmcr-world-mean~-morc-\Vildfiresji0/10/2017 12:22:03 PM] 
170 


27516.128

GREG WALDEN, OHEGON 

CHAlRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PAlLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

CfCongnss of tbe mtniteb ~Mates 

]!.Joul.le of l\rprrl.lentatibcl.l 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFicE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 (202)225-7927 

{;(0.?) 2:7~~ J641 

November 9, 2017 

Dr. John Bailey 

Associate Professor 

Oregon State University 

College of Forestry 

204 Peavy Hall 

Corvallis, OR 97331 

Dear Dr. Bailey: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Environment on Wednesday, October 4, 

2017, to testifY at the hearing entitled "Air Quality Impacts of Wildfires: Perspectives of Key 

Stakeholders." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you arc addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Thursday, November 23, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Allie Bury, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to Allie.B]l[y@mail.house.go~. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

Chainnan 

JohnS~~ Subcommittee on Environment 

cc: The Honorable Paul Tonko, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment 

Attachment 
171 


27516.129

Additional Questions for the Record 

Dr. John D. Bailey, College of Forestry, Oregon State University 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

1) Over the last three decades, the amount of timber harvested from federal lands has declined 

significantly while the number and extent of fires on these lands has increased significantly. Is 

this a coincidence or does thinning of forests actually reduce the risk of wildfires? 

Answer: It is not a coincidence that reduced removal of timber/fuel would be related directly to an 

increase in subsequent wildfires. Fuel accumulation is one side of the fire behavior triangle (with 

topography and weather), and we have more acres with high accumulations of fuels than ever in their 

evolutionary history, and those acres are more connected than they have ever been throughout much of 

the West. This accumulation issue is accented by recent climatic patterns that have created longer fire 

seasons and drier fuels, thereby increasing the probability of having ignitions that grow into large fires. 

That said, not all timber harvesting practices reduce the accumulation of fine surface fuels that support 

most fire spread, so timber harvest alone, including thinning, without wise fuel management will not 

solve this problem. We need thoughtful, sustained, active management of our natural resources that 

view the hillsides as fuels- more than just timber or wildlife habitat, scenery, watersheds, recreational 

areas, or carbon. Our forests and associated landscapes are all these things, at the same time, and they 

are fuel ... and they will burn! With today's science, information and tools/technology, professional 

foresters can easily manage our landscapes sustainably to provide for all these things while minimizing 

the risk of wildfire losses. Prescribed fire and "wildland fire use" will be an integral part of that solution. 

The Honorable Debbie Dingell 

1) Most recently, with the release of the Climate Science Special Report in August, scientists 

from 13 federal agencies all con dude and reaffirmed that we are feeling the effects of climate 

change right now. Forest fires were specifically addressed in this report and to quote the 

report directly: "The incidence of large forest fires in the western United States and Alaska has 

increased since the early 1980s and is projected to further increase in those regions as the 

climate warms with profound changes to certain ecosystems." 

a. Professor Bailey, do you agree with this assessment? 

Answer: Yes 

b. Professor Bailey, can you describe how climate change has exacerbated the prevalence and 

destruction of wildfires since the 1980s? And will more wildfires worsen the extent of climate 

change over time? 
172 


27516.130

Answer: Like the first question, we can draw first and foremost on the physical reality that wildland fire 

is regulated by the interaction of fuels, topography and weather. The weather (climate) of the last three 

decades has clearly been warmer, and the National Interagency Fire Center has clear records about the 

beginning/ending of fire seasons for that time period, and therefore their total length. Fire seasons are 

now 30-60 days longer in much of the West relative to previous decades. This increases the length of 

time (weeks) during which ignitions can happen (lightning or humans) as well as the time intervals when 

they can grow quickly to sizes beyond which they can be contained. It also increases the number of days 

or weeks of severe fire weather conditions: high temperatures, low humidity, and high/gusty winds. 

Under these conditions, fires spread quickly and burn the crowns of trees as well as the ground surface, 

killing most or all of the vegetation, and doing the most damage to soil, water and habitat resources 

associated with our forests. A couple dozen additional large fires each year, each with a couple extra 

days of extreme fire behavior, results in some large landscape changes. Paired with the accumulation of 

fuel across western landscapes, this explains the large increase in the number of acres experiencing 

severe wildfire. There are individual case studies (actual wildfires) as well as modeling exercises that 

document and confirm this physical reality. 

There is much less literature to my knowledge about the positive feedback between wildland fires and 

climate change, and it is all modeling exercises of some sort with ranges of input data and assumptions. 

Despite that, it is clear that "megafires" (those of tens of thousands of acres) return massive amounts of 

carbon quickly to the atmosphere that the weeks before had been sequestered on a hillside. Also, 

following severe wildfire, the residual dead carbon composed of standing and downed dead wood 

begins the long process of decomposing and returning to the atmosphere rather than being bound in 

living organisms. Both of those factors "add" carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere in the 

near term (decades) and could accelerate climate change. However, forests also sequester carbon as 

they grow and regrow following fire, such that light, low-severity surface fire releases only a small pulse 

of carbon to the atmosphere that is then quickly recaptured over the next year(s) by the surviving trees. 

Many of our western forests evolved with regular low- and mixed-severity fire, are adapted to such fire, 

and sequester and sustain the maximum amount of carbon under a fire regime with such frequent lowseverity fire. This is because relatively small areas burn at high severity, avoiding the large amounts of 

carbon to the atmosphere for long periods. This difference in fire behavior therefore also speaks to the 

need for sustainable, active management of our nation's resources with acknowledgement that they are 

fuels, and that fire is part of their past, their present and their future- it is only a matter of when and 

how they will burn. 
173 


27516.131

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAiRMAN 

!vir. Jim Karels 

Director, State Forester 

Florida Forest Service 

3125 Conner Boulevard 

Tallahassee, FL 32399 

Dear Mr. Karels: 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR,, NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

l!ongress of tbe Wniteb i>tates 

j!Joulle of i~epm:~entattbell 

COMMIHEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OrFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 MajOIIll' i2D2)775 2~1?7 

M.!l(\!tty (202)225-3641 

November 9, 2017 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Environment on Wednesday, October 4, 

2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "Air Quality Impacts of Wildfires: Perspectives of Key 

Stakeholders." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten bus·iness days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record~ which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Thursday, November 23, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Allie Bury, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to Allic.l:lury0>mail.housc.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

JohnSh~~ Chairman 

Subcommittee on Environment 

cc: The Honorable Paul Tonka, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment 

Attachment 
174 


27516.132

FLOIUPA FOIU!ST SERVICE 

(850) 681·5800 

THE CONNBR BUILDING 

Jtz' CoNNER BouLEVARD 

TALLAHASSEE, FLOIUDA J2J99·1650 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CoNSUMER SERVICES 

CoMMISSIONER AoAM H. PuTNAM 

November 22,2017 

Ms. Allie Bury 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

(Via Email) Allie.Bury@mail.house.gov 

Re: Responses to Questions for the Record on "Air Quality Impacts of Wildfires" Hearing 

Ms. Bury: 

My responses to your questions contained in your letter dated November 9, 2017 are attached. 

It is my understanding these are Questions for the Record following the October 4 hearing 

entitled "Air Quality Impacts of Wildfires: Perspectives of Key Stakeholder", for which I was a 

witness. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify at the hearing, as well as to provide the attached follow-up 

responses. Please feel free to reach out if you have any additional questions or information needs 

in the future. 

Attachments 

~~. 

1-800-HELPFLA -------------------1f·------------------- FIIJDia. www.FreshFromFiorlda.com 
175 


27516.133

November 22, 2017 

Responses to Questions for the Record for .Jim Karels, Florida State Forester 

Hearing: Air Quality Impacts of Wildfires: Perspectives of Key Stakeholders (Oct 4, 2017) 

Questions from The Honorable .John Shimkus 

1. Could you talk about your relationship as a Forestry agency with the regulatory 

environmental agency in Florida and how you carry out your state's prescribed 

burning program? 

a. How does your prescribed burning program fit within state regulations? 

b. How do prescribed burns help the environment? 

c. Do you believe the Clean Air Act would be more effective if it were to provide 

flexibility for the use of ecologically beneficial prescribed burns? 

d. Would any of the other witnesses care to comment on prescribed burns and air 

quality considerations? 

In Florida, the Florida Forest Service has statutory responsibility for the implementation of the 

state's outdoor burning program and works closely with the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection's Division of Air Resource Management, who has air quality 

responsibilities. A long standing agreement between the two agencies has helped define roles 

and responsibilities of each agency and built a strong partnership that has been instrumental in 

the development of one of the most respected prescribed fire programs in the country. In 

addition to annual sit-down meetings with DEP Air, this year we also attended regional air 

quality meetings which included forestry and air agencies from States across the Southeast. 

The Florida Forest Service and the Department of Environmental Protection worked together to 

develop Florida's first Smoke Management Plan which was approved by EPA in 1999. A 

revised Smoke Management Plan was approved again in 2014. Annually the Florida Forest 

Service issues on average about 85.000 open bum authorizations in Florida. Each authorization 

goes through a smoke screening process outlined in the Smoke Management Plan before it is 

approved. 

Prescribed fire benefits the environment through two primary mechanisms. First, fire has a 

natural role in nearly all forest ecosystems, and prescribed fire allows for that role to be played 

under managed conditions. A healthy forest needs to maintain a regular fire return interval to 

thin out some of the trees to help the remaining ones grow, to provide wildlife habitat for species 

that have evolved under regular fire occurrence, and even to release a seed source for the next 

generation of tree growth. 

Second, the use of prescribed fire reduces the likelihood of a catastrophic wildfire, and the 

environmental damage that would come with it, in the future. One of the keys to prescribed fire 

for hazardous fuels management is that it is done in seasons and under conditions where fire 

managers have the ability to control fire location, spread, intensity, and many other parameters. 
176 


27516.134

Weather forecasting and state-of-the-art smoke modeling software allow for fire managers to 

tailor ignition locations and times to meet smoke management objectives. Fire managers work to 

manage a minimal amount of smoke now in avoidance of the potential for a much greater 

amount and the associated environmental and human health consequences in the future. 

The use of prescribed fire is a necessity on the forested landscape, and the regulations around 

Clean Air Act implementation need to recognize this reality. The beneficial impact of managed 

prescribed fire on air quality emissions has been recognized by the US Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) in its Clean Air Act rulemaking over the past two years. In both the updating of 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM 2.5 (81 CFR 164, pg. 58010) and 

the updating of the Exceptional Events Rule (81 CFR 191, pg. 68216), the EPA clearly 

documents the role of wildfire as an emissions source and the relevance of prescribed fire use 

and fuels management to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. It is becoming increasingly 

evident through science and experience that without prescribed fire and the small amount of 

managed smoke that comes with it, we are perpetuating the conditions that generate catastrophic 

air quality issues and put communities and individuals at risk. 

2. In comments to the EPA on its proposed revisions to the Exceptional Events Rule, the 

Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) stated: "Ideally, EPA should work 

with state and federal fire-reporting agencies to develop a database of daily emissions 

for each significant wildfire. Such a database would provide states the opportunity to 

share updated emissions information and thus decrease the resources needed to develop 

exceptional event demonstrations." 

a. Is this reporting and collecting of emissions data happening? 

b. If not, should it be? 

c. In your opinion, what would be the impact on air quality if such a database were 

utilized? 

I am not aware of any efforts by the EPA to comprehensively collect and report the type of data 

described in this question. Currently, each state has its own burn program, and manages and 

tracks burn days and emissions from both prescribed and wildfire in different ways. These 

programs have been developed at the state-level based on state-specific ecological and social 

goals, and are locally successful due to that diversity. If the EPA were to develop a 

comprehensive nationwide database, it would be essential that it did not duplicate or increase 

workload for state agencies, or require program changes of states that eliminated successful 

state-specific attributes already in place. I agree that it would be a positive outcome to reduce 

the reporting burden for exceptional events, and to institutionalize at the EPA the recognition of 

fire emissions as exceptional events. If the process were streamlined such that more prescribed 

tires were allowed to be put on the landscape, I believe there would be a long-term benefit to air 

quality through reduced emissions from unplanned wildfire. 
177 


27516.135

3. Over the last three decades, the amount of timber harvested from federal lands has 

declined significantly while the number and extent of fires on these lands has increased 

significantly. Is this a coincidence or docs thinning of forests actually reduce the risk of 

wildfire? 

There are a number of factors influencing the upturn in devastating wildfires on federal land, 

including increased development in the wildland urban interface (WUI), drought conditions, and 

insect and disease infestations, but certainly a lack of active forest management is among the 

most significant. There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that actively managed forests are 

significantly more resilient to the impacts of wildfire than those that receive no 

management. When fire sweeps through a managed forest, in many cases, it can have beneficial 

impacts. For example, in managed pine stands, fires burn the smaller trees and shrubs and 

prepare the ground for seed from the larger trees. In addition, protection of communities and 

firefighter safety is enhanced as these areas can provide safer areas from which firefighters can 

control oncoming wildfires. It is not a coincidence that reduced timber harvest leading to 

buildup of hazardous fuels has generated larger and more dangerous wildfires on federal lands. 
178 


27516.136

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHA!HMAN 

Mr. Knox Marshall 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FBANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

~;!Congress of tbe mntteb ~tate% 

ft,lou£\e of .l\eprcscntatihc£1 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OmcE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Ma]onty 1202)225··2927 

Minortty (202)225 36<11 

November 9, 2017 

Vice President of Resources 

Murphy Company 

2350 Prairie Road 

Eugene, OR 97402 

Dear Mr. Marshall: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Environment on Wednesday, October 4, 

2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "Air Quality Impacts of Wildfires: Perspectives of Key 

Stakeholders." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten bus"iness days to penn it Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Thursday, November 23, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Allie Bury, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to L\Jiic.l3ury@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

John Shit<{:\-. 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Environment 

cc: The Honorable Paul Tonko, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment 

Attachment 
179 


27516.137

2350 Prairie Rd. • Eugene, OR 97402 • 54L46L4545 PHONE. 54L46L4546 rAX 

November 20, 2017 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

Chairman Shimkus: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify at the hearing entitled "Air Quality Impacts of Wildfires: 

Perspectives of Key Stakeholders" on Wednesday, October 4, 2017. Per your request, please 

find attached my response to your additional question for the record: 

"Over the last three decades, the amount of timber harvested from federal lands has declined 

significantly while the number and extent of fires on these lands has increased significantly Is 

this a coincidence or does thinning of forests actually reduce the risks of wildfires?" 

Sincerely, 

Knox Marshall 

Vice President of Resources 

Murphy Company 

Enclosure: 

Knox Marshall's Response for the Record 
180 


27516.138

Committee Question fo1· the Hccord: 

Over the last three decades, the amount of timber harvested from federal lands has declined 

significantly while the number and extent offires on these lands has increased significantly. Is 

this a coincidence or does thinning of forests actually reduce the risks of wildfires? 

Knox Mnrshall's Response for the Record: 

Over the past I 0 years, an average of 6.8 million acres have burned from wildland tires 

annually .

1 During this period, an average of 202,000 acres have been harvested from National 

Forest System lands.2 While the wildland fire acreage figures include both federal and nonfederal lands, it is noteworthy that 34 times as many acres burned as were responsibly harvested 

from national forests. Policymakers and the American public can draw their own conclusions 

from this data, yet there is a wide body of scientific research suggesting the thinning of forests is 

effective in reducing the risks of wildfires. 

In fact, according to the U.S. Forest Service's Fuels Treatment Effectiveness Database, 90 

percent of fuels reduction projects- whether carried out through logging, thinning or prescribed 

fire- were effective in reducing wildfire severity.3 Researchers from the University of Montana 

found that comprehensive treatment prescriptions desigm:d to restore sustainable ecological 

conditions can move 90 percent of treated acres into a low-hazard condition.4 

The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Forest Service studied the economic benefit in taking 

proactive forest management activities, using the Mokelumne River watershed in the Sierra 

Nevada as a representative case. The research suggested that fuel treatments such as forest 

thilming and controlled burning can save up to three times the cost of future fires, reduce highseverity fire by up to 75 percent, and bring added benefits for people, water, and wildlife. In 

addition, by reducing the size and severity of fires, the carbon emissions from the fires were 

decreased by 38 to 77 percent, suggesting that these activities can help protect the carbon stocks 

sequestered in our forests. 5 

The National Insect and Disease Map, developed through rigorous scientific standards, indicates 

that 60 to 80 million acres of forests arc at risk of insects and disease and arc in need of 

treatment. In 2012, the Science-Based Risk Analysis Report determined that "experience with 

1 National Interagency !'ire Center, Statistics, National Fire News Year-to-Date Fires and Acres (nifc.gov) 2 Harvest Trends on National Forest System Lands, Historic Harvest Records, 1984 to Present. Forest Service 

Activity Tracking System (FACTS) 3 USFS, Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team, Fuels Treatment Effectiveness Database 

(fs.fed.usiadaptivemanagement) 

4 C. Keegan, C. Fiedler, T. Morgan. Wildfire in Montana: Potential hazard reduction and economic effects of a 

strategic treatment program, Forest Products Journal, July/August 2004) 

'Buckley, M., N. Beck, P. Bowden, M. E. Miller, B. Hill, C. Luce, W. J. Elliot, N. Enstice, K. 

Podolak, E. Winford, S. L. Smith, M. Bokach, M. Reichert, D. Edelson, and]_ Gaither. 2014. 

"Mokelumne watershed avoided cost analysis: Why Sierra fuel treatments make economic sense." 

A report prepared for the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy, and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sierra Nevada Conservancy. 
181 


27516.139

fuels treatment projects has demonstrated the value of fuels reduction to reduce wildfire 

suppression costs and protect land and resources ,''6 

Dr. William Stewart, a University of California-Berkeley forestry specialist, writes that 

managing forests to reduce fuel loads "provides immediate dividends," "including fewer fuels 

mean less-intense wildfire, greater firefighter safety, lesser environmental consequence and 

fewer greenhouse gas emissions."7 I agree with Dr. Stewart's assessment, and I urge the United 

States Congress to take action to increase that pace and scale of thinning and other forest 

management activities on federal lands. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Environment 

and to address your additional question for the record. 

6 2013-2027 National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, U.S. 

Forest Service, January 2014 7 Stewart, W, The Multiple Benefits of Managed Forests, University of California-Berkeley, Center For Forestry., 

California Forests, Summer 2010 
182 


27516.140

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Dr. Christopher Topik 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JEHSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

(l[:ongn~~ of tbe Wniteb $tate~ 

f[)oul:lc of l\cprescntatil:les 

COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majo!i!y i?02)27.5-2927 

Mmority {2021225--3641 

November 9, 2017 

Director, Restoring America's Forests 

The Nature Conservancy 

4245 N. Fairfax Drive 

Arlington, VA 22203 

Dear Dr. Topik: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Environment on Wednesday, October 4, 

2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "Air Quality Impacts of Wildfires: Perspectives of Key 

Stakeholders." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record) which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Thursday, November 23, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Allie Bury, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to 1\llie.BurvrwmaiLhouse.gQY. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

Subcommittee 

Chairman 

'""""rc-~ on Environment 

cc: The Honorable Paul Tonka, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment 

Attachment 
183 


27516.141

Christopher Topik, The Nature Conservancy 

Answers to Additional Questions for the Record 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Hearing Wednesday, October 4, 2017, entitled: 

"Air Quality Impacts of Wildfires: Perspectives of Key 

Stakeholders." 

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.: 

1. Forest ecosystems are at risk due to a number of factors including the changes in 

climate. As you and other witnesses pointed out at the hearing, controlled bums should 

be part of a management plan for forests, and gaining support for this management 

practice with managers and the public has been challenging in many areas of the 

country. In general, there is public support for maintaining healthy, resilient forests 

over the long term. However, short-term priorities general dominate budgets and 

management practices. What are some options to inccntivizc federal, state, and local 

forest managers to prioritize long-term goals for fire management or at least weigh 

them equally with the need to address immediate needs? 

Topik Answer: 

I think that it is essential that we do an honest job of assessing our national, state 

and local funding and staffing to implement all three major goals of the nationally 

accepted National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. As I discussed in 

my written testimony, the nation has done a pretty good job of coming up with a 

plan, largely based in science, but we are not doing a good job of building capacity, 

both human resources and funding for the up-front mitigation, forest and fire 

management activities, including maintenance that we know will provide for longterm forest health and reduced catastrophic fires. We can't stop fires from being 

damaging, but we can get our citizens, communities and natural resources much 

more fire ready and understand that fire is also a natural forest process in many 

cases. To date the Congress and most states have been focused on dealing with the 

immediate emergency needs of fire suppression and have under resourced the 

known approaches to improve fire adapted landscapes and communities, 

1. Helping communities and citizens to be fire adapted: 

As briefly discussed in my statement, there are some proven programs that are 

already shov,>ing cost-effective approaches to organize and improve community 

readiness to fire. This means being ready before, during and after fire. These 
184 


27516.142

approaches are not expensive, but they are underfunded and usually get left 

behind when government and the Congress are stressed to fund immediate fire 

suppression needs. Increasing funding for such programs, like the Fire Adapted 

Communities learning network, the U.S. Fire Learning Network, the Co11aborative 

Forest Landscape Restoration Program and the Joint Chiefs Landscape 

Restoration Partnership would provide direct benefits to increase citizen action, 

enhance co11aboration and cost sharing with a wider array oflocal governments 

and industries, and reduce the negative effects of severe 'hildfires. 

A large part of this action is working collaboratively with communities and public 

health officials and providers to understand the need for various kinds of 

contro11ed burning and fire use, managing the short term adverse impacts of 

contro11ed smoke events in order to avoid the really nasty, prolonged impact of 

uncontrolled wildfires that we saw this year in particular. Communities that have 

accepted their shared risk of wildfires and made local investments to become fireready provide public land managers and fire services with the enabling conditions 

and support (i.e., incentive) to make longer-term decisions about how they 

manage fire. 

We also need to establish and implement organized adaptive management 

processes that can monitor and evaluate what specific programs are most effective 

and what impacts they have on overall fire management effectiveness and costs. 

2. Increase resilience of fire adapted landscapes 

There is a great deal known about methods that can increase the resistance and 

resilience oflandscapes, especially forests, to fire. More science is certainly needed to 

directly evaluate ecosystem responses and treatment effectiveness, but we are not 

even utilizing the knowledge we already have. Much of the most problematic wildfire 

impact is in fire-prone landscapes that now are out of whack due to a variety of past 

management practices and a changing climate. This means that we need to 

dramatically increase our ability to bring fire use and controlled burns back, 

including the use of managed wildfires when and where it can be done safely. In the 

long run, I don't see any approach to achieving success on our vast areas of fire prone 

landscapes without such implementation. Logging and vegetation removal alone will 

not do it, although this is often an important part of the process of bringing forests 

back to a healthier condition that will resist extreme damage. 

The policy choice is pretty clear: do we have the political will to invest in proven upfront mitigation and maintenance management techniques that reduce negative 

impacts subsequently? And can we monitor, adapt and determine the other cobenefits of these treatments, such as cleaner water, continuation of business and 

tourism activities, forest product harvest, and fish and wildlife use and enjoyment? 

Adding some honest economic and social calculations, and then following the 
185 


27516.143

evidence, would lead to a much better use of our federal and state resources and 

staffing. 

The Honorable Debbie Dingell: 

1. The President recently announced the United States will be withdrawing from the 

Paris Climate Accord, announcing to the world that the U.S. federal government is 

abandoning its commitment to tackle climate change. Essentially saying that our 

rapidly changing climate isn't worth addressing. 

a. Mr. Topik, in your testimony you mention the need for increased long-term 

protection of forest resources from threats like catastrophic wildfire, insects, and 

diseases. Can we realistically achieve the goal of maintaining healthy and 

resilient forests without acknowledging the threat posed by unchecked warming? 

2. By all reports we are in the middle of the most expensive wildfire season to date, with 

over $2 billion spend this year combating fires according to the U.S. Forest Service. 

a. Mr. Topik, if we fail to properly address climate change now, in your best 

estimate, will combating and preventing wildfires be more or less 

expensive in the future? 

3. In 2016, according to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, there were 

262 reportable fires that occurred on over 3,000 acres in Michigan. The Forest 

Resources Division responded to a total of 384 fires. In comparison to western states, 

this is a low number of wildfire events. 

a. Mr. Topik, if we do nothing to address climate change could wildfires 

spread or increase in non-western states, including Michigan? 

Topik Answers: 

1. It is unlikely that we will be able to develop and implement forestry and integrated 

fire management in the future without careful analysis of the changes that climate 

change has already made and will certainly increase in the coming decades. All 

responsible scientists and industry already recognize that large changes have 

occurred, with the fire seasons now being longer in most all forest types in North 

America and globally. Forestry and integrated fire management is a long term 

endeavor, so caring for forests requires a perspective that looks ahead for many 

decades. Unchecked global warming will change the balance of environments that 

forests and communities face and will certainly also increase the extreme weather 

events that can be the most damaging to people and nature. If society does not 

respond to current climate threats, the increasing global climates will unsettle the 

forests and exacerbate the context for severe fire that we currently have, and require 
186 


27516.144

much more human intervention to provide the vital services, such as our water, 

wood and wildlife, that we need. 

Fortunately, forested landscapes are also one of the greatest natural solutions to 

reduce future climate change. It is \'ita! that society and governments and industry 

invest in proven greenhouse gas reducing management, including extensive 

reforestation, improved forest management, avoided conversion of forests to nonforest, and improved fire management so forests are not lost in the future due to 

catastrophic fires and vegetation change. The recent scientific report by Nature 

Conservancy scientists and partners shows how various activities, including aspects 

of forestry and fire management, can play a major part in mitigating future climate 

change, if we invest. This paper details 20 specific pathways for action -what we call 

natural climate solutions- and finds that they can cost-effectively deliver 37% of the 

emissions reductions the world needs by 2030. 

(see Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Oct. 31, 2017, val. 114 no. 44, 

B. W. Griscom, et. al, 1164s-u6so, doi: 10.1073/Pnas.1710465114) 

2. A future with unabated climate change v.ill also include much more extreme and 

costly damage to communities and habitats. The combination of expanding 

populations into fire prone areas and more extreme weather events that trigger 

catastrophic fires v,ill certainly lead to vastly increased costs of fire suppression and 

costs to society with mortality events and damage to watersheds. The kinds of tragic 

fire events we have seen this year in Northern California and last fall in Tennessee 

will be more common. The future costs of severe fire events in a changed climate 

world v.rill be large in monetary treasure, but larger in human impacts and lost 

opportunities. 

3. Yes, current projections for the US indicate greater wildfires in more areas. The 

specific locales of future v.rildfire events are not knowable everywhere, but it is 

known that climate change '.\ill bring with it greater vacillation in extreme weather 

events. It is just these kinds of extreme events that can bring unexpected and 

unanticipated wildfires to areas that previously have not had such recent 

experiences. That means it is likely that Michigan and other non-western states may 

find themselves facing surprising wildfires more often. 

From a worldv.ide perspective, warming in the boreal and Arctic region is projected 

to be substantially above the global average, a trend consistent with both model 

projections and observations. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC), in the past 100 years temperatures in the Arctic have increased at 

twice the global rate. Boreal forests are expected to be especially sensitive and 

vulnerable to climate change because those ecosystems are naturally sensitive to 

warming, because of the nature of their soils (peat and permafrost are prevalent) and 

the likelihood of increased incidence and extent of fire. Additionally, boreal forests 

themselves have the ability to impact the global climate through radiation balance 

and carbon cycling, leading to interconnected feedback loops between climate and 

forest. i.e. boreal forests are expected to be more problematic for severe fires under 

the projected climate change scenarios. 
187 

Æ 


27516.145

The recent tragic, fire caused mortalities in the southern Appalachians and the 

frequent tragedies in Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma may well be harbingers of future 

problems in places that we don't think of as having fire problems but are in fact 

naturally fire adapted forests and rangelands. This includes areas such as New York, 

New Jersey and the broader Appalachians, as well as the northern forests of Great 

Plains and Midwestern states. It's not just drought that brings on fire events, but the 

combination of increased human infrastructure, inadequate preparation, rainy 

periods that enhance vegetative fuel growth, and extreme, dry windy events. 

Furthermore, non-western areas are greatly impacted indirectly by the costs and 

business interruption that severe western wildfires bring to our entire nation.