U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

55–124 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–290 

CLIMATE CHANGE ON FEDERAL FORESTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON MANAGING FEDERAL FORESTS IN RESPONSE 

TO CLIMATE CHANGE, INCLUDING FOR NATURAL RESOURCE ADAPTATION AND CARBON SEQUESTRATION 

NOVEMBER 18, 2009 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JEFF BINGAMAN and LISA MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming ............................................. 3 

Batten, Kit, Ph.D., Science Advisor, Office of the Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................. 6 

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota ........................................ 4 

Law, Beverly, Professor, Global Change Forest Science, Oregon State University, and Ameriflux Network Science Chair, Corvallis, OR .............................. 30 

Oneil, Elaine, Ph.D., M.S., BSF, RPF, Research Scientist, School of Forestry, 

College of Forest Resources, University of Washington and Executive Director of Corrim (Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials), 

Seattle, WA ........................................................................................................... 35 

Risch, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator From Idaho ........................................................... 5 

Tidwell, Tom, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ........................ 12 

Wood, Christopher A., Chief Operating Officer, Trout Unlimited, Arlington, 

VA .......................................................................................................................... 43

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon ...................................................... 1 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 55 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 77 

(1) 

CLIMATE CHANGE ON FEDERAL FORESTS 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Good afternoon to all, and welcome. The purpose of today’s hearing in the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests is to explore 

how the relevant Federal agencies are managing Federal forests in 

response to climate change, including for natural resource adaptation and carbon sequestration. 

I know in my home State, we understand how important it is to 

manage forests with an eye to the future, to preparing for both the 

stresses that climate change will place on our forests, and for the 

opportunities they have to be part of the climate solution. These 

are certainly among the top concerns facing the Department of Agriculture and the Interior Department, and we look forward to 

hearing from them today. 

The country’s forests already provide a wide array of benefits— 

clean water and air, fish and wildlife habitat, timber and recreation. But, perhaps most timely is their potential to contribute to 

tackling the issue of climate change. 

In particular, I see two significant opportunities for the Federal 

forests. First, they could provide renewable energy, biomass energy 

from the millions and millions of acres of land that are dangerously 

overstocked and ready to explode into the next inferno; and second, 

they can sequester carbon to help battle climate change. In my 

view, it is time to manage the nation’s forests, to address climate 

change, and unlock their potential. 

Substituting renewable biomass from forests for fossil fuels will 

help reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases that fossil fuels 

would have created. In addition, thinning Federal forests and restoring their health will also help protect them from insects, disease, and unnatural forest fires which release still more carbon 

into the atmosphere. Healthy forests lock up carbon dioxides 

through sequestration and provide an opportunity to create carbon 

offsets. These offsets can be used to help minimize the cost of car-
2 

bon reduction in other parts of the economy, and finally, provide 

a way to truly account for this economic benefit that Federal forests provide to our environment. 

There is no doubt that climate change is having a significant impact on Federal forests. In recent years, forests have suffered from 

wildfires and bark beetle outbreaks that not only clearly prove that 

climate is, in fact, changing, but also that our forests are surprisingly sensitive to that change. These findings will require forest 

management actions that help make them more resilient to the impact of climate change. 

In my part of the country, particularly in our dry forests, this 

means that forest restoration and thinning activities are urgently 

needed to save the very forests that have the potential to be part 

of the climate change solution. 

I am very much aware that these issues are not without controversy and uncertainty, and I know the nation’s land managers 

are faced with a daunting challenge, and know that they are dedicated to building a healthier future for our forests. So, they’re going 

to face some important questions in the days ahead. How can be 

forests be managed so that they can withstand the ongoing and expected impact of a warming climate? What are the best tools for 

making sure that fish and wildlife adapt to a changing climate? 

What is the best way to manage forests for carbon sequestration 

while working to reduce emissions? These are difficult questions to 

answer given the daunting complexities and uncertainties that are 

involved, but I have faith that our witnesses are up to this challenge. 

In a few minutes, we are going to hear from Dr. Kit Batten, a 

science advisor of the Department of the Interior, and Tom Tidwell, 

the chief of the Forest Service at the Department of Agriculture. 

We welcome both of you this afternoon and are anxious to hear 

your testimony. 

I’m going to recognize the ranking minority of the subcommittee 

for any statement, and Senator Johnson, as well. 

I want to tell my colleagues that this will be perhaps a hectic 

afternoon. I may have to step out and take several calls in connection with some of the discussions going forward with respect to 

healthcare. Both of my colleagues, I know, have a great interest in 

this, as well, so my hope is, is that we will be able to work together 

and keep this going. At the very worst, we would have to take a 

short recess, but I hope that that won’t be the case. 

So, I’d like to recognize Senator Barrasso, the ranking member 

of the subcommittee, for his statement. Senator Johnson and I 

have been involved in these issues together since our days in the 

other body, and he’s got a great interest in this, as well. So, let’s 

begin with Senator Barrasso’s opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bingaman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, which addresses an important 

topic—how to manage national forests in response to climate change. There is no 

doubt that our Federal lands play a unique and essential role in our response to 

climate change, and that role demands unique responsibilities of our land managers 

and special considerations for policy-makers. 
3 

The science is clear that climate change already is having significant impacts on 

our forests, and land managers across the county are faced with the difficult challenge of managing them in light of these impacts. 

To help address these problems, I recently introduced legislation to facilitate natural resource adaptation across the Federal land management agencies, States, and 

tribes. 

I believe that coordination and communication among the various land managers 

will be vital to ensuring that our forests and other public lands become more resilient to climate change. 

In my opinion, it is clear that land managers will need to use a variety of tools 

to successfully manage our forests in light of a warming climate. Adaptation and 

carbon sequestration are two of those tools. 

Our Federal land managers already consider the protection of stored carbon and 

the sequestration of additional carbon as an important part of their mission-and I 

think that is appropriate. But I am very skeptical about managing-much less marketing-Federal lands with a singular objective of sequestering carbon. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to thank you for scheduling this hearing today. 

Forest adaptation and climate change, as well as carbon sequestration, are extremely important issues, especially given the increasing risk of catastrophic wildfires and the continent-wide 

incidences of bark beetles that are killing our forests. 

Mr. Chairman, while we like to focus on all of the good things 

that are happening in our forests—and there is a lot—we cannot 

ignore some of the not-so-good things that are happening, such as 

forest fires or the 300,000 acres of forest killed by insect and disease in the Intermountain West. Research has shown that, as carbon dioxide levels increase in the atmospheres, plants actually 

grow better. They become more efficient carbon sinks, and they 

provide the soil and moisture conditions which benefit the trees. 

Research also tells us that about half the carbon dioxide sequestered by a tree is stored in its wood and in its needles, and the 

other half is stored in the soil that the tree grows in. When trees 

are harvested and converted into lumber for housing, then carbon 

within them is sequestered for decades, if not centuries. The soilbound carbon dioxide is slowly released over time. 

When a tree dies in the forest, the tree almost immediately begins to decompose and release carbon right at that point. Perhaps 

even more devastating is when those stands of dead trees burn. 

Most of the carbon stored within the soil is volatized and released 

into the atmosphere. 

Now, I know we’re going to hear, a little bit later, mention from 

Ms. Oneil in her testimony, but it bears repeating, that between 

2002 and 2006 wildfires in the United States emitted the equivalent of between 4 to 6 percent of all manmade emissions of carbon 

dioxide for the country for those same years. Wildfires in California 

from 2001 to 2007 released 277 million tons of carbon dioxide from 

both the fire and the decay of dead trees. This is the equivalent of 

the emissions from half of the registered automobiles in California 

for an entire 7 years. 

So, we all know the importance, and we all love our public lands. 

We all want them to maintain a resiliency that allows them to respond to changing environmental conditions. Forests are not as 

fragile as we humans sometimes believe them to be. They have sur-
4 

vived dramatic climatic changes in the past, and they will continue 

to do so in the future. They have survived dramatic events like volcanoes, floods, and fires; they also likely will adapt to a changing 

climate, if and when that occurs. 

The real question is how best to manage the lands to produce the 

resource values that we need and that we desire while adapting to 

changes in our forests and in our climate. Mr. Chairman, I think 

it’s important that any carbon sequestration plan for our Federal 

forests consider the following: 

How much carbon is released as a result of fires, insect, and disease, and ultimately, the decomposition of dead trees? What is the 

total energy cradle-to-grave carbon cost of the various management 

plans in each forest type? 

Allowing forests to grow for 300 hundred years may be a great 

idea on the west side of Oregon, but, as Senator Udall and I are 

experiencing, we can’t expect lodgepole pines to survive 150 years 

in the Intermountain West. Logging some or all of this material 

might be wise, in terms of carbon and the future. Is there a management strategy to remove material that might burn or rot, and 

turn that material into products that will store carbon while improving the health of the forest? 

Finally, how do we account for those fire and insect events that 

occur in the wilderness and other protected areas? 

So, we have to be able to answer questions like these as we look 

at ways to reduce our carbon footprint. 

Mr. Chairman, thanks for the time of the committee, and I look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator JOHNSON. I am pleased that as the committee continues 

to examine a range of climate change issues, that the Public Lands 

and Forest Subcommittee is examining the effects of changes in our 

climate and public forestlands. 

The clear evidence suggests that the worldwide accelerated release of greenhouse gas emissions is resulting in observable 

changes to regional climates. For the forestlands in the West, including my State, the Black Hills, these changes in climate could 

produce dramatic effects on forest health. Even modest changes in 

temperatures that result in milder winters and hotter and drier 

summers can create the conditions for insect epidemics, leaving in 

their wake millions of dead standing trees and increasing the risk 

of catastrophic wildfires. 

In the Black Hills and in large areas covering Wyoming and Colorado, hundreds of thousands of acres of lodgepole and ponderosa 

pine are infected by a mountain pine beetle epidemic. Although 

these epidemics historically come and go, the severity and depth of 

the current infestation is causing uncertainty and concern that permanent changes in temperature and moisture will further strain 

the forest health of the Intermountain West. 

In the near term, public land managers must develop strategies 

for combating insect infestations and forest land thinning projects 
5 

to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire. While these acute 

issues must be tackled immediately, I hope that today’s hearing 

produces a better understanding of how our public forestlands can 

be managed in a manner that adapts to climate changes while 

meeting the important regional and national purposes. Specifically, 

I am looking for insights and answers to how individual forest 

management plans incorporate climate change impacts into strategies for effective forest health stewardship, timber sale management, as well as recreation and public enjoyment. 

Again, thank you, Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Barrasso, for holding this important hearing, and I look forward to 

hearing from the panel. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator Johnson. We look forward 

very much to working with you. I remember our efforts and discussions on timber payments and the counties, and it will be great to 

team up with you. 

We’re also very glad to have Senator Risch on this subcommittee, 

as well. He has a great interest in these issues and, I think, is 

going to be a very good partner in these efforts, on the basis of our 

discussions. 

So, Senator Risch, welcome, and any statement you’d like to 

make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM RISCH, U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator RISCH. Thank you so much, Senator Wyden, for holding 

this important hearing. 

This is a subject that’s particularly important to Idaho and to the 

Intermountain West. As you travel across the State of Idaho today, 

the landscape that’s been described, particularly in the lodgepole 

pine habitats, is very troubling. 

When I was in forestry school, I visited a number of these places, 

and it’s saddening—it’s very saddening to go back, at the present 

time, and see what’s happened to the condition of those. A lot of 

them are just waiting for a match to strike, and it’s going to be 

very catastrophic, particularly in the central parts of Idaho, where 

we have large stands of lodgepole pine, similar to the stands that 

are in the Yellowstone Park. A fire there will be just as catastrophic as it was in the Yellowstone ecosystem. 

We all know that we’re going through these cycles of drying conditions and wet conditions. Last year in Idaho, we had a particularly wet winter, followed by a wet spring, and things were actually 

pretty good in the ecosystem. But, for some years prior to that, we 

had drought conditions, and those drought conditions, of course, 

weaken the tree. The tree is not able to pitch out the attacks from 

the pine beetles. As a result of that, your get massive stands of 

these standing matches, if you would, ready to burn. 

So, it’s important that we have this hearing, and I’m very interested to hear what the witnesses have to say. With that, Congress 

hopefully will be able to create some unique ways of addressing the 

situation. 

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator Risch. 

All right, let’s welcome Ms. Kit Batten and Mr. Tom Tidwell. We 

will make your prepared statements part of their record—part of 
6 

the record in its entirety. I know there is always almost a compulsion to kind of read statements, and if you could take a few minutes and summarize your principal views, we’ll make your prepared statements a part of the record in their entirety. 

Dr. Batten, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF KIT BATTEN, PH.D., SCIENCE ADVISOR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Ms. BATTEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss the impacts of climate change on the ecosystems 

managed at the Department of the Interior, including forests and 

woodlands. I am Dr. Kit Batten, science advisor to the Deputy Secretary of the Interior. 

My written testimony today highlights the impacts of climate 

change on these lands, and describes how sustainable public land 

management can help forests and other ecosystems adapt to and 

mitigate climate change. I would like to summarize the main points 

for you, and I ask that my complete statement, as you just said, 

be entered into the record. 

Senator WYDEN. It will be done, without—— 

Ms. BATTEN. Thank—— 

Senator WYDEN [continuing]. Objection. 

Ms. BATTEN [continuing]. You. Thank you. 

In the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs all oversee the management of 

forestland in the refuges, parks, public, and tribal lands under 

their jurisdictions. 

A recent report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and 

the Subcommittee on Global Change Research predicts that 

forestlands will respond in different ways to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other factors related to climate change. 

With warmer temperatures, tree species may respond by migrating 

both northward and to higher altitudes. Thus, species with restricted ranges may be most vulnerable, while species with broader 

climate tolerances may be able to adapt more easily. Species composition of forests may also change dramatically. Climate change 

may favor drought-resistant species, such as juniper is some areas, 

which are expected to migrate into higher-elevation forests, and 

could compete with other forest types for moisture. 

Southwest woodlands are at a high risk of conversion to desert 

shrub and grassland. Wildlife and plant communities may migrate 

as temperature, habitat, and water resources change. Climate 

change may result in an increased establishment of invasive species, such as tamarisk, that not only pose a risk of displacing desirable native plant species, but can also consume water in already 

dry areas, leading to increased competition for this important resource. 

Finally, forest seed production could be impacted due to its cyclical nature and response to temperature and precipitation. Seedling 

establishment, survival, growth, and vigor are all critically depend-
7 

ent on available soil moisture, and would be reduced during periods 

of increased drought. 

Insects, pathogens, invasive species, drought, and increased wildfire activity are all risks for forests and woodlands as a result of 

climate change. In fact, the Department’s land and wildlife managers are already confronting many of these impacts. 

In the interior forests of the Rocky Mountain States, a combination of warmer winters over the past decade, drought stress, and 

a prevalence of overmature, overstocked, even-aged, single-species 

forests have created a perfect condition for proliferation of bark 

beetles and increased vulnerability for fire. 

Approximately 800,000 acres of BLM-managed forestlands in 

Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are suffering from mountain pine beetle attack, and are at risk of widespread mortality. 

Similar effects are seen in Rocky Mountain, Yellowstone, and other 

western national parks. 

Pinyon pine forests have experienced widespread both mortality 

in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona. 

Climate change adaptation strategies can enhance the ability of 

our ecosystems, such as forests and woodlands, to adapt to or withstand current and projected climate change impacts. Departmental 

bureaus are working with each other and our external partners to 

adapt our forest and woodland management programs to anticipate 

and adapt to the effects of climate change and mitigate the potential impacts across our lands. 

Key strategies in the Department include reducing stressors, encouraging diversity, such as through fire management and control 

of invasive plants, forests pests, and pathogens. To assure that our 

adaptation strategies are grounded in sound science, Secretary 

Salazar has created a new climate change strategy for the Department of the Interior through Secretarial Order Number 3289, 

which he signed on September 14 of this year, and it’s entitled, 

‘‘Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, 

Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources.’’ This order establishes a new departmentwide strategy to address climate 

change, with an emphasis on climate change science, adaptation, 

and mitigation, and it recognizes the value of relying on partnerships with other agencies, States, and adjacent landowners, to respond to climate change. 

Forestlands also play an important role in climate change mitigation by sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through 

photosynthesis and storing this carbon in tree—in the trees biomass, soils, and wood products. The use of biomass, such as waste 

material from timber harvests, as a substitute for fossil fuels, 

which emit more greenhouse gas emissions for generating power, 

is expected to increase as bioenergy facilities come online. 

The Department is actively engaged with partners who are interested in acquisition and restoration projects resulting in carbon sequestration. For example, more than 22 million trees and 40,000 

acres of restored habitat have been added to the national wildlife 

refuge system, and such partnerships have resulted in the restoration of more than 80,000 acres of native habitats, benefiting fish, 

wildlife, and migratory bird populations in bottomland hardwood 

forests in the Southeast. 
8 

In the Sacramento Delta of California, the USGS and its partners are developing a process to farm carbon by restoring wetland 

vegetation and rehydrating and restoring organic peat soils. This 

not only sequesters carbon, but provides wildlife habitat, and actually increases the soil elevation in restored areas, decreasing the 

stress across delta levees. I actually have a short factsheet on that, 

that I’d also like to submit for the record. 

Senator WYDEN. Without objection, it’s ordered. 

Ms. BATTEN. Thank you. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is also exploring new habitat restoration techniques that could enhance carbon sequestration in the 

Florida Everglades and across the expansive coast and wetlands of 

the Carolinas. 

Finally, the Department, through the U.S. Geological Survey, is 

developing a methodology to measure and assess biological carbon 

sequestration and greenhouse gas fluxes, and will use this methodology to conduct a national assessment of ecosystem carbon storage 

and greenhouse gas fluxes. This methodology will be released in 

2010. 

Restoring the health and maintaining the resiliency of our nation’s public lands, including forests and woodlands, is crucial to 

ameliorating and adapting to the effects of climate change. Much 

has been learned as this effort has evolved. Most importantly, the 

Department has recognized that landscape-scale problems require 

landscape-scale responses. The impacts of climate change do not 

distinguish between lands managed by different Federal agencies. 

The development of successful science-based adaptation and mitigation strategies is critical to the health of these resources and to 

the human communities and fish and wildlife that are dependent 

on them. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy 

to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Batten follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KIT BATTEN, SCIENCE ADVISOR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to discuss the impacts of climate change on the ecosystems managed by the Department of the Interior, including forests and woodlands, wetlands, and many others. I am Dr. Kit Batten, Science Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of the Interior. My testimony today highlights the impacts of climate 

change on these lands and describes how sustainable public land management can 

help forests and other ecosystems adapt to and mitigate climate change. 

The Department manages over 500 million acres of land—one-fifth of the nation’s 

land mass—and these lands include many types of ecosystems, from coastal estuaries to riparian corridors along our nation’s rivers to prairie wetlands to alpine forests. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of 

Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs all oversee the management 

of forest land in the refuges, parks, public and tribal lands under their jurisdictions. 

Forests and other lands and waters managed by the Department’s bureaus provide 

critical ecosystem services, such as wildlife habitat for a variety of species, clean air 

and water, biodiversity, pollinator services, cultural heritage resources, recreational 

opportunities, forest products, and mineral and energy resources. 

POTENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS TO FORESTS

Perhaps no resource management issue is as complex and challenging as climate 

change. Climate change affects biota, water, ecosystems, cultures, and economies. 
9 

1 Climate Change Science Program, The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States, Backlund, et al. (2008). 2Stonestrom, D.A. and J.R. Harrill, Ground-water recharge in the arid and semiarid southwestern United States-climatic and geologic framework. U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper, 1703-A: 27 (2007); IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and 

Vulnerability (2007); Barnett, T. P., and D. W. Pierce (2008), When will Lake Mead go dry?, 

Water Resour. Res., 44, (2008). 3 Backlund, Peter, et.al. (2008). 

4 IPCC Fourth Assessment WG II (2007). 

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) notes that climate change is expected to affect precipitation patterns, vegetation types and distribution, wildlife habitat and behavior, wildfire frequency and 

risk, sea levels, and the spread of pests and diseases. These, in turn, will affect a 

broad range of human activities. 

With specific regard to forest and woodland plant species, a recent report by the 

U. S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research predicts that these lands will respond in different ways to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other factors related to climate change.1 With warmer 

temperatures, tree species may respond by migrating both northward and to higher 

altitudes. Species with restricted ranges may be most vulnerable, while species with 

broader climate tolerances may be able to adapt more easily. Alpine forests are at 

risk of loss because there will be no place for them to migrate. However, forests in 

the Pacific Northwest, west of the Cascades, may benefit by increased growth if both 

temperature and precipitation increase as forecasted in some climate change models. Interior Northwest forests may suffer as warmer winters decrease the retention 

of snowpack. 

Species composition of forests also may change dramatically. Climate change may 

favor drought-resistant species such as juniper in some areas. Juniper woodlands 

are expected to migrate into higher elevation forests and could compete with other 

forest types for moisture. 

In addition, changes in biodiversity are possible with changes in species mix and 

habitat. Southwest woodlands are at high risk of conversion to desert shrub and 

grassland. Wildlife and plant communities may migrate as temperature, habitat, 

and water resources change. Climate change may result in increased establishment 

of invasive species such as tamarisk that not only pose a risk of displacing native 

plant species but can also consume water in already dry areas, leading to increased 

competition for this limited resource. 

Finally, forest seed production could be impacted due to its cyclical nature and 

response to temperature and precipitation. Seedling establishment, survival, growth, 

and vigor are all critically dependent on available soil moisture, and would be reduced during periods of increased drought. Insects, pathogens, invasive species, 

drought, and increased wildfire activity are all risks for forests and woodlands as 

a result of climate change. 

CURRENT LANDSCAPE CHANGES

In fact, the Department’s land and wildlife managers are already confronting the 

impacts of climate change on the lands they manage. Reduced snowpack combined 

with earlier melting and runoff—particularly in the Northwest and MountainWest—is leading to decreased recharge of groundwater systems, increasing stress on 

public water systems and altering river flows, temperature, depth, and other characteristics of spawning environments for fish.2 Our Arctic parks, refuges, and public 

lands are seeing some of the earliest impacts of climate change—for example, melting sea ice threatens marine mammals as well as coastal communities, and contributes to a warming feedback loop—melting ice reduces albedo, which only leads to 

greater melting of sea ice. Thawing permafrost not only destabilizes buildings, 

roads, and facilities and disrupts the structural basis of large regions of interior 

lands, but also leads to even greater amounts of greenhouse gas emissions into the 

atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and methane, which only reinforce the warming 

cycle. 

Vegetation in some places has converted to more drought-hardy species3 and, in 

some instances, species numbers have been reduced or lost.4 Our scientists are also 

noting changes in abundance and distribution of species, including changes in migration patterns; the expansion of pests and invasive species; increased vulnerability 

to wildfire and erosion; and overall changes in carrying capacity and the ability of 
10 

5 IPCC Fourth Assessment WG II (2007); Parmesan (2006) Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change, Annu. Rev. Ecolo. Evol. Syst. 37: 637-69. 6 Bentz, B., J. Logan, J. MacMahon, C. Allen, et al. 2009. Bark beetle outbreaks in Western 

North America: Causes and consequences. Chicago, IL: University of Utah Press. 42 pp. Also 

Logan J.A.; Powell J.A. 2001. Ghost Forests, Global Warming, and the Mountain Pine Beetle 

(Coleoptera: Scolytidea). American Entomologist. 160-172; Kurz, W.A. et al. Mountain Pine Beetle and Forest Carbon Feedback to Climate Change; Campbell, Elizabeth M. 2007. Climate 

change, mountain pine beetle, and the decline of whitebark pine, a keystone species of highelevation ecosystems in British Columbia, Canada. Ecological Society of America meeting, August 2007, San Jose, CA. 

ecosystems to support different species populations.5 Many of the iconic wildlife species that the Department manages from the Arctic to the Everglades will see their 

habitat and ranges affected by global climate change. 

In the interior forests of the Rocky Mountain States, a combination of warmer 

winters over the past decade, drought stress, and a prevalence of over-mature, overstocked, even-aged single species forests have created perfect conditions for a proliferation of bark beetles. The stressed condition of the forests makes them more 

susceptible to fatal insect attack.6 Approximately 800,000 acres of BLM-managed 

forestlands in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are suffering from mountain 

pine beetle attack and are at risk of widespread mortality. The effects of bark beetle 

infestation can also be seen in forests in Rocky Mountain, Yellowstone, and other 

western national parks. Similarly, pinyon pine forests have experienced widespread 

mortality from bark beetle attack in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona. As 

noted in the previous paragraph, forestlands suffering from these stresses—especially in combination with drought—are also more susceptible to wildfire, increasing 

the threat of catastrophic fire in the wildland-urban interface areas across the West. 

ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES

Climate change adaptation strategies can enhance the ability of ecosystems, such 

as forests and woodlands, to withstand, or adapt to, current and projected climate 

change impacts. For example, a healthy forest—a species-diverse, multi-aged forest, 

with proper stocking densities—is resilient in response to environmental stresses, 

better able to resist insect attacks and diseases, and less vulnerable to catastrophic 

wildfire. Restoring forest health on our public lands through active management is 

one way to promote adaptation to climate change. 

The Department of the Interior is on the front lines of protecting our country’s 

water, land, marine, fish, wildlife, tribal, and cultural heritage resources from the 

effects of climate change we are witnessing—from the Arctic to the Everglades. The 

realities of climate change will require the Department to change how we manage 

the resources we oversee. To assure that our climate change adaptation strategies 

are grounded in sound science, Secretary Salazar has created a new climate change 

strategy for the Department through Secretarial Order #3289 (September 14, 2009): 

‘‘Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, Land and Other 

Natural and Cultural Resources.’’ This Order establishes a new Department-wide 

strategy to address climate change, with an emphasis on climate change science, adaptation, and mitigation. 

This Order also recognizes that the Department must rely on important partnerships to respond to climate change, including the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change, the White 

House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science and Technology 

Council, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Department of Agriculture, 

the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Tribal governments, State and local governments, universities, non-governmental organizations, 

and private landowners. 

Specifically, the Order establishes the following: 

• DOI Climate Change Response Council: Composed of the Secretary (Chair), 

Deputy Secretary (Vice-Chair), Counselor to the Secretary (Vice-Chair), Assistant Secretaries, Bureau Directors and the Solicitor, the Council will help coordinate activities within and among the Department’s agencies and bureaus to develop and implement an integrated strategy for responding to climate change 

impacts involving the resources managed by the Department. • Regional Climate Change Response Centers: Eight Regional Climate Change 

Response Centers will deliver climate change impact science, modeling, and 

forecasting to DOI natural and cultural resource managers within a region; synthesize, integrate, and communicate climate change impact data gathered by 

the Department and external partners; develop management-relevant adapta-
11 

tion tools that the Department of the Interior’s resource managers and its partners can use when managing resources in the face of a changing climate; and 

help to educate the public about climate change impacts within the region. • Landscape Conservation Cooperatives: Interior bureaus and agencies, guided by 

the Climate Response Council, are working to stimulate the development of a 

network of collaborative ‘‘Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.’’ These cooperatives will work interactively with the relevant DOI Regional Climate Change 

Response Centers and help coordinate landscape-scale adaptation efforts with 

federal, Tribal, state, and local governments, and private landowner partners. • DOI Carbon Storage Project: DOI is working to develop measurement and 

verification methodologies and carry out assessments of carbon storage in geologic formations (geological carbon sequestration) and in plants and soils (biological sequestration) in a manner consistent with the Department’s responsibility to provide comprehensive, long-term stewardship of its land, water, marine, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources. • DOI Carbon Footprint Project: DOI is developing a unified greenhouse gas emission reduction program, including setting a baseline and reduction goal for the 

Department’s greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. 

As an example of what this will look like on the ground, the BLM is conducting 

a series of eco-regional assessments to improve our understanding of the existing 

condition of BLM-managed landscapes, identify potential impacts from climate 

change, and develop and implement strategies and conduct on-the-ground restoration projects on the public lands to help native plant (including forest) and animal 

communities adapt to climate change. These assessments will work with and contribute data to the Regional Climate Change Response Centers and be used in conjunction with climate change models to aid BLM and other managers within Landscape Conservation Cooperatives in developing regional adaptation strategies that 

promote sustainable land stewardship across the landscape. 

Strategies to protect forest ecosystems managed by DOI focus primarily on increasing the resilience and the natural capacity of these forests to adapt to new conditions. Key strategies are to reduce stressors and encourage diversity, such as 

through fire management and control of invasive plants, forest pests, and pathogens. Successful adaptation efforts must involve cooperation and collaboration with 

adjacent lands and partners. 

The same sustainable management activities used on our public lands to restore 

forest health and help forests adapt to climate change impacts can also contribute 

to minimizing GHG emissions. Forestlands play an important role in climate change 

mitigation by sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and then storing this carbon in tree biomass, soils, and wood products. Forests can also provide biomass for energy production, which can supplant the use of 

fossil fuels that emit greater amounts of GHG. The use of biomass (e.g., waste material from timber harvest) as a substitute for fossil fuels for generating power is expected to increase as bioenergy facilities come on-line. 

BIOLOGICAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION

Forests, range lands, wetlands, and other landscapes play a vital role in the carbon cycle. These natural systems take in and store carbon dioxide in plants and 

soils. Secretarial Order 3289 established the DOI Carbon Storage Project through 

which the Department is developing methodologies for both geological and biological 

carbon storage, and is working with states, Tribes, localities, private landowners, 

and other stakeholders to execute on-the-ground restoration projects that sequester 

carbon, consistent with our existing stewardship responsibilities. 

The Department is actively engaged with partners, including the Trust for Public 

Land and the Conservation Fund; energy and other industrial companies, and the 

Carbon Fund, who are interested in acquisition and restoration projects resulting 

in carbon sequestration. Our partners secure lands and sponsor habitat restoration 

through carbon sequestration value in the form of credits, as calculated through 

methods developed by Environmental Synergy, Inc. and the Conservation Fund. 

These partnerships have so far added 40,000 acres of restored habitat to the National Wildlife Refuge System and restored more than 80,000 acres of native habitats benefiting, fish, wildlife, and migratory bird populations in bottomland hardwood forests. More than 22 million trees have been planted through this partnership. 

In the Sacramento Delta of California, USGS and partners are developing a process to ‘‘farm carbon’’ by restoring wetland vegetation and re-hydrating and restoring 

organic peat soils. Carbon farming works through the sequestration of carbon in native plants such as tules and cattails, which in turn decompose very slowly and cre-
12 

ate new peat soil. This effort is not only sequestering carbon, but is also providing 

wildlife habitat and increasing the elevation of the soil surface in restored areas, 

decreasing the stress across Delta levees. Additional scientific work is necessary to 

learn how to maximize growth rates and minimize decomposition rates, verify 

greenhouse gas benefits over several years, and minimize any potential adverse environmental impacts, such as methane and nitrous oxide emissions. 

In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service is exploring new habitat restoration 

techniques that could encourage carbon sequestration in the Florida Everglades and 

across the expansive pocosin wetlands of the Carolinas. A project at Pocosin Lakes 

National Wildlife refuge involves verifying carbon sequestration benefits of the 

pocosin hydrology restoration work that began in the 1900s. 

In accordance with responsibilities mandated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Department (through the U.S. Geological Survey) is developing a methodology to measure and assess biological carbon sequestration and 

greenhouse gas fluxes, and will use this methodology to conduct a national assessment of ecosystem carbon storage and greenhouse gas fluxes. This methodology will 

be released in 2010. 

Scientists, using geospatial data, remote sensing applications, and ecosystem modeling, have developed research and working models to describe storage and fluxes 

of carbon in relationship to climate change and land use for large-scale landscapes. 

These efforts will be expanded into a national framework that is adaptive, incorporating new information about carbon cycling and sequestration as it becomes 

available. Best management practices for carbon sequestration in saline and freshwater wetlands, soil and sediments, permafrost areas, hardwood and coniferous forests, grasslands and rangelands are needed for use by public, Tribal, and private 

land managers. 

OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES

The Department is working to increase its ability to monitor, assess, forecast, and 

respond to landscape changes over time, implementing programs to address climate 

change on a broad scale. Restoring the health and maintaining the resiliency of our 

nation’s public lands (including forest and woodland ecosystems) is crucial to ameliorating and adapting to the effects of climate change. Much has been learned as this 

effort has evolved. Most importantly, the Department has recognized that landscape-scale problems require landscape-scale responses. The impacts of climate 

change do not distinguish between lands managed by different federal agencies. 

The various bureaus at the Department of the Interior are working with each 

other and external partners to adapt our forest and woodland management programs to anticipate and adapt to the effects of climate change and mitigate the potential impacts across all lands. As mentioned earlier, coordination is one of the 

keys to our success. Secretarial Order #3289 establishes a new Departmental strategy to promote Department-wide coordination as well as coordination with outside 

partners on climate change science and resource management strategies for understanding and responding to climate change impacts. 

CONCLUSION

Climate change is impacting all of our ecosystems, including our forests and woodlands. The development of successful science-based adaptation and mitigation strategies is critical to the health of these resources and the human communities, and 

fish and wildlife that are dependent on them. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy to answer any 

questions that you might have. 

Senator WYDEN. Doctor, thank you. Very helpful. 

Mr. Tidwell, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for inviting me here today to discuss how we need to be managing the national forests and grasslands in response to climate change. 
13 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your opening remarks. 

I appreciate your understanding of these issues, and I can tell you 

that I share those concerns. 

You know, climate change is altering our landscapes, altering the 

national forests and the grasslands. That change will likely accelerate in the future. 

Climate change will also have a variety of effects across different 

parts of the country. But, what will—what’s probably more problematic is that the level of disturbances—these level of disturbances are going to increase, and their frequency will increase. 

When I talk about ‘‘disturbances,’’ I’m talking about wildfire, about 

floods, insect and disease outbreaks. Our response to these changes 

is going to be increase our—increase our focus on restoration. 

The goal of the Forest Service is to restore the forest and grassland health so that we have healthy, functioning ecosystems, so 

they can withstand the stressors from climate change and they can 

continue to deliver all of the ecosystem services, all of the benefits 

that we need and want from our national forests, but especially 

water. With the increase in disturbances, watershed management 

is going to only increase in its importance, and it’s essential that, 

as we go about designing our restoration work, that we focus on 

the benefits to watershed health. 

Now, we cannot do this alone. You know, these changes are occurring on a landscape scale, and we must work together with our 

partners across all jurisdictions to restore healthy, functioning ecosystems. We need to work on all the landscapes that we share. 

Secretary Vilsack has helped in this regard by giving us direction 

that we need to take a more all-lands approach. Now, this will require additional collaboration, but it’s essential that we work with 

our Federal—the other Federal agencies, the States, the local communities, tribal, and private landowners to be able to take on the 

restoration that needs to occur at a landscape level. 

Last year, the Forest Service developed a strategic framework for 

responding to climate change to help us set priorities. This framework has seven goals: science and management, adaptation, mitigation, policy, sustainable operations, education, and alliances. 

Now, these goals will not be realized immediately, but we already 

have made a good start. 

Now, before I close, I’d want to just say a few words about 

science, adaptation, and mitigation. Forest Service researchers 

have been in the forefront of climate change science. Our challenge 

now is to transfer that knowledge to the land managers so we can 

make a difference on the ground. We now have developed tools that 

actually help our land managers and help the public to understand 

the carbon consequences of various project designs. 

On the national forest system, we’re now designing projects to 

help us—systems adapt to climate change. Our restoration efforts 

can make these systems more resilient, more resistant to the climate changes that we are seeing. For example, with an overgrown 

stand of ponderosa pine, we can make it more resistant to climateinduced drought and wildfire. We can also introduce more diversity 

into the species mix, for that will help these systems adapt. We 

also need to look at expanding restoration of wetlands, of flood 
14 

1 CCSP. May 2008. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 (SAP 4.3): The Effects of Climate 

Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United 

States, P. Backlund, A. Janetos, and D. Schimel, lead authors. A report by the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program (CCSP). Abstract. 

plains, to reduce the effects of floods, but also to prolong seasonal 

water flows. Now, mitigation is another part of that strategy. 

Now, carbon likely will not be the primary management objective 

for the national forests, but it will be one of the ecosystem services, 

one of the benefits that we will manage for and we will factor into 

our decisions, and we can tailor our restoration treatments to increase carbon storage over the long term. 

Now, net carbon uptake by our terrestrial systems in the United 

States, coupled with wood products and landfills, currently offsets 

about 12 percent of our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Now, 

our goal is to hold that steady, and hopefully be able to increase 

that. 

Now, whether we’re talking about the life cycle or the effects of 

climate, we need to understand that, even with the level of science 

that we have today, there is much that we need to learn. Now, 

we’re going to be—it’s going to be necessary for us to be flexible 

and adaptive in our management. You know, the value and the importance of the national forests are just going to increase, and especially provide us the opportunities to help address the effects of climate change. 

This concludes my opening remarks. Thank you again for the opportunity, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me 

today to discuss the important role National Forests and Grasslands play in addressing climate change. As you may know observations show that climate change 

is already altering our Nation’s forests in significant ways and those alterations are 

very likely to accelerate in the future, in some cases dramatically1. These alterations present significant challenges to sustainable management of these forests. 

Decisions being made today by policymakers and resource managers will have implications through the next century. 

Secretary Vilsack is asking the Forest Service and our sister agency, the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), to adopt an ‘‘all-lands approach’’ in our restoration efforts. Our approach takes actions across large landscapes so that our actions will make a substantive difference. It also, will include close collaboration on 

our part with Federal, State, local, tribal, and private landowners, land managers, 

and other stakeholders. 

CLIMATE CHANGE—MANAGING UNCERTAINTY

In the uncertain environment of climate change, risk management will become 

critical. This is managing ecosystems for resiliency to prepare for uncertain future 

outcomes. I have spoken many times in the past about our desire to restore the 

health of the nation’s forests. When we use the term restoration, we do not mean 

returning a stand or forest to a previous condition but rather bringing back some 

of its previously lost ecosystem functions or returning its ability to withstand otherwise mild disturbance events. Our approach is to make forests and grasslands more 

resilient to disturbances under a range of future conditions. 

To help the land management professionals deal with this uncertain environment, 

the Forest Service developed a Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate 

Change to guide our actions in addressing climate change. The Framework envisions a future where ecosystem services are sustained and forests and grasslands 

are adapting successfully to a changing climate and our management actions are 
15 

contributing to mitigating impacts of climate change. The Strategic Framework 

identifies seven key goals: 

• Science—Advance our understanding of climate change and its impacts and develop effective ways to improve science delivery to managers. 

• Adaptation—Enhance the capacity of forests and grasslands to adjust to the impacts of climate change. 

• Mitigation—Promote the management of forests and grasslands to reduce the 

build-up of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. 

• Policy—Integrate climate change considerations as appropriate into Forest 

Service policies, program guidance, and communications. 

• Sustainable Operations—Reduce the environmental footprint of our operations 

and facilities. 

• Education—Advance awareness and understanding of climate change implications among Forest Service employees and the public. 

• Alliances—Establish, enhance, and retain strong alliances and partnerships. 

These goals have helped us organize our thinking about climate. Forest Service 

goal implementation teams are recommending key actions that the Agency can take 

for the short-term and to position itself for the long-term. I recognize these goals 

will not be realized immediately, but we have already done much. The Science, Adaptation, and Mitigation goals are most germane to today’s topic, so I will focus my 

testimony there. 

CURRENT STATE OF SCIENCE

Having science that advances our understanding of the environmental, economic, 

and social implications of how climate change affects forests and grasslands in the 

future is essential for managers and policy officials to make informed decisions. The 

Forest Service already has wide breadth of experience with managing and responding to weather extremes and natural catastrophes. The scientific community has 

generated an even greater abundance of knowledge and produced an extensive literature on the subject. These two bodies of knowledge, that of managers’ and of scientists’, is being transformed into best management practices, land management 

tools, and information. In addition, we are communicating through various means 

to citizens the effect of climate change and its impacts on ecosystems so they will 

be better prepared to participate in decisions and actions affecting their National 

Forests and Grasslands. 

The Science & Management goal will be forwarded by Forest Service Research & 

Development. As you may be aware, the Forest Service has amassed over two decades of focused climate change research, three decades of air pollution research, and 

a century of experience in scientific assessments and research that provides a firm 

scientific foundation for addressing the challenges of managing these ecosystems relative to climate change. 

I need to stress again, however, that we are a long way from knowing all we need 

to know about the impacts of climate change on forests and grasslands. In some 

areas of study we have significant science gaps that need to be addressed. Climate 

models lack the ability to provide projections at the detailed scale that is more useful to land managers and local and regional planners. To address this gap, our scientists are working with the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and USGS to improve these models. Our scientists are 

also looking for better ways of forecasting how terrestrial ecosystems will change in 

response to a changing climate and how the changes will affect animals and plants 

that depend on these ecosystems. The Strategic Framework recognizes these gaps 

and I want to assure you that the Forest Service is working with USDA and other 

Federal agencies and partners to address these and other issues. 

ADAPTATION AND CARBON SEQUESTRATION

I want to now switch my attention to how we are beginning to adapt our National 

Forests and Grasslands to a changing climate. During my many years with the Forest Service, I have come to realize that effectively accomplishing our mission will 

require us as land managers to anticipate and adapt to the profound environmental 

stresses of climate change. These systems must be capable of delivering the ecosystem goods and services that this country needs, such as pure, clean water; habitat for wildlife and fish; opportunities for outdoor recreation; wood products; and energy. These systems can create local economic opportunities to support local communities. I want to assure you that we at the Forest Service are committed to success 

in this enterprise. 
16 

2 CCSP. 2008: Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global 

Change Research. [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, 

M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, USA, 873 pp. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-4/final-report/ 

#finalreport 

Scott, D. and C. Lemieux. 2005. Climate change and protected area policy and planning in 

Canada. The Forestry Chronicle 81(5):696-703. 3Fettig, Christopher J.; Klepzig, Kier D.; Billings, Ronald F.; Munson, A. Steven; Nebeker, 

T. Evan; Negron, Jose F.; Nowak, John T. 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management 

practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 238: 24-53. 

Graham, Russell T.; McCaffrey, Sarah; Jain, Theresa B. 2004. Science basis for changing 

forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

43 p. 4 CCSP. May 2008. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 (SAP 4.3): The Effects of Climate 

Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United 

States, P. Backlund, A. Janetos, and D. Schimel, lead authors. A report by the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program (CCSP). 

Many of the same management techniques used to restore forest health can be 

used to help forests adapt to climate change impacts. Forest Service land management professionals know they will need to be vigilant, strategic and flexible in using 

new information to accommodate changing conditions because the scope of climate 

change and its impacts on ecosystems are difficult to predict. In addition, our management decision processes will need to include ways of dealing with risks and uncertainties introduced or made worse by climate change. In some cases, failing to 

take management actions will result in significant disruptions to ecosystems, so we 

must maintain as many options as possible, both now and in the future, for handling unexpected events and conditions.2

In addition, we are designing a better science-based adaptive management approach to, promote learning through doing, monitoring, and modifying. This approach involves actively making decisions and monitoring the results of those decisions to improve our understanding about the complex systems we manage. Some 

management actions may need to be expanded, such as reforestation with a more 

diverse species mix that may be better adapted to future climate projections. 

Our land managers are also learning from their close working relations with our 

scientists. The West Wide Climate Initiative (WWCI), a partnership among scientists and managers at the three western Forest Service Research Stations and 

National Forests, is developing decision-support tools to help managers address climate change and adaptation in national forests and national park units representing major regions of the West. These case studies are on the Olympic National 

Forest and Olympic National Park, the Tahoe National Forest, the Inyo National 

Forest and Devils Postpile National Monument, and Shoshone National Forest. 

With these pilot projects the Forest Service is analyzing projections of future vegetation and developing specific adaptation strategies to promote resilience of national 

forest resources to climate change. 

Another management responsibility is mitigating the effects of climate change. As 

we all know, to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the United States 

will need to implement a variety of mitigation strategies. These strategies include 

storing more carbon in forests and wood products implementing greenhouse gas capture and storage from point sources, and reducing fossil fuel use through multiple 

options. For instance, biomass from restoration and hazardous fuels reduction 

projects can be used for energy production. 

However, the issue is complex and requires both science and thoughtful land management policy. However, the potential of some of our forests to store additional carbon may be limited because of management designation, accessibility, and/or stand 

characteristics. In many areas our forests contain overly-dense stands that are 

under stress and have become more susceptible to wildfire, insects, and disease3. 

Management actions, designed to restore these forests and grasslands and protect 

communities, such as thinning or allowing fire to resume its natural role as a 

cleansing and regenerative force, can improve the ability of these ecosystems to 

adapt to the continually increasing stress of changing climate and may have the increased benefit of sequestering more carbon over the long-run through increased net 

growth.4

While healthy functioning forests may serve as a means to sequester carbon, 

under current practices, many of our western forests are at risk of turning from a 

carbon sink to a carbon source. Projections indicate that while these forests continue 
17 

5Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, D. R., and T.W. Swetnam, 2006,. ‘‘Warming 

and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity’’, Science 313(5789): 940-943. 

Haynes, R.W., et al. 2007. The 2005 RPA timber assessment update. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-699. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 212p. 

Smith, J.E.; Heath, L.S.; Nichols, M.C.. 2007. US Forest Carbon Calculation Tool: 

Forestland Carbon Stocks and Net Annual Stock Change. USDA, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Gen. Tech. Report NRS-13. 

Smith, J.E.; L.S. Heath, 2004. Carbon stocks and projections on public forestlands in the 

United States, 1952-2040. Environmental Management 33(4): 433-442. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Inventory or U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

and Sinks: 1990-2007. EPA 430-R-09-004. 6 USDA. May, 2008. Forest Ownership Patterns and Family Forest Highlights from the National Woodland Owner Survey. U.S. Forest Service. Northern Research Station. NRS-INF-06- 

08. 7 Joyce, Linda A.; Birdsey, Richard 2000. The impact of climate change on America’s forests. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-59. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 133 p.. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/4567 

to sequester more carbon in the short-term, in 30 to 50 years5, disturbances such 

as fire and insects and disease could dramatically change the role of forests, thereby 

emitting more carbon than currently sequestering. Monitoring both climate change 

effects and the outcomes of management actions are key to adapting to a changing 

climate. 

WORKING WITH PRIVATE LANDOWNERS

Although there is much we can do to sequester carbon on federal lands, it is also 

crucial for us to recognize the role that private forest land in the United States can 

and must play in the Nation’s mitigation options for greenhouse gas emissions. People are often surprised to learn that the majority of forest land in the United 

States—about 56%—is owned privately6. An important contribution we can make to 

increase carbon sequestration in and decrease emissions from U.S. forests is by 

working with the owners of these 423 million privately-owned forested acres. 

Privately-owned forests can be converted into subdivisions, other developed uses, 

or agriculture—all land uses that sequester substantially less carbon per acre than 

forest trees and soil7. Even though the private forest landowners of the United 

States are making significant contributions to cleaner air, cleaner water, and carbon 

sequestration simply by maintaining their land in a forested state, they often make 

decisions to convert their forest land. 

Forest Stewardship, Forest Legacy, and the Community Forest and Open Space 

Program are voluntary landowner assistance programs that recognize how important it is that private forestland stays forested and continues to provide these benefits. Landowners across the U.S. can receive assistance with forest management and 

a written forest plan through the Forest Stewardship Program. Today, about 22 million acres of private forest lands are already managed under a current forest stewardship plan and there continues to be enormous demand for the program. The Forest Legacy Program recognizes the public benefits provided by private lands; conservation easements on vulnerable forest lands guarantee that they will not be subdivided or developed, and that they will be able to store carbon in their trees and 

soils. To date, the Forest Legacy program has protected over 1.8 million acres of vulnerable private forest lands from development. 

CONCLUSION

Secretary Vilsack is asking the Forest Service and our sister agency, the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), to adopt an all-lands approach working 

with willing land owners across boundaries when addressing restoration. The Forest 

Service’s Strategic Framework provides a guide to addressing climate change and 

the challenges at spatial and temporal scales unimaginable in the past. Coming to 

grips with climate change will require landscape-scale conservation, working together across borders and boundaries, and focusing on a common restoration vision 

for the greater good. The future of America’s lands and waters, and the future of 

generations who will rely on them, depend on nothing less. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues with the Subcommittee. I 

would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you both very much. I’ve got some questions for you, and I know colleagues do, as well. 
18 

You all, of course, have been intimately involved in these issues, 

and you represent our government in two agencies that are central 

to this debate about climate change. I think this is the first time, 

in this Congress, we’ve looked at Federal lands as it relates to the 

whole debate about climate change. Let me see if I can ask some 

questions to get your position on the record on some of the key 

questions. 

First, we’ll just go to you, Dr. Batten and Mr. Tidwell. What is 

your position on including Federal lands in a cap-and-trade offset 

program? 

Ms. BATTEN. We think that—the Department of the Interior 

thinks that there are tremendous opportunities for the incorporation of offsets into a cap-and-trade program; and, in fact, just as 

you just said earlier, Mr. Chairman, that they can be cost-reducing 

measures that can be incorporated into a cap-and-trade program. 

We’re willing to work with you and provide as much information 

as we can, in terms of the amount of carbon that our ecosystems 

currently store and can store with best management practices, and 

we—as this—as legislation is being developed here in the Senate, 

that includes offsets. We’re happy to provide as much information 

as we can during that process. 

Senator WYDEN. I may have a second round, again, because—the 

fact that today is so busy—to talk about the some of the science 

and policy questions in that, but I’m glad to hear that you all 

would favor Federal lands being part of a cap-and-trade offset program. 

Mr. Tidwell, your position on that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. This is a very important topic that we need to 

spend, you know, time carefully considering. No doubt, this is one 

way to bring considerable investment, you know, to the nation’s 

forests. There is also, you know, some concerns and some questions. You know, and some of those are, like, with the Federal Government setting up the rules and the regulations, should we also, 

you know participate? There is the question about accountability. 

There’s also questions about, you know, how would public lands— 

how would that affect the market for private lands? Then, there’s 

also the—you know, the question—and I pointed it out earlier— 

about how essential it is that—you know, carbon will be just one 

of the benefits that we manage for. 

I think these are, you know, some of the questions that we need 

to address. We look forward to working with the Senate, you know, 

to find our way through this. It has tremendous potential. There’s 

no question—there’s just no question that, in—you know, investing 

in the resiliency of our national forests and grasslands are going 

to have positive-benefit effects. Carbon is part of that overall benefit. 

Senator WYDEN. So, you’re not quite where Dr. Batten is today; 

you didn’t answer ‘‘yes,’’ but you did say you thought that there 

was considerable potential. Is that the word you used? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. Chief, one other question for you, and then 

we’ll have one other for you, Dr. Batten. You all have done a fair 

amount of work with ecosystem services and carbon sequestration. 

My understanding is that the Department has established an office 
19 

for ecosystem services marketing to explore opportunities, to advance payments, to look at a variety of issues. Can you tell me the 

current thinking you have with respect to ecosystem service markets for Federal land and how carbon sequestration could be 

factored into that? I mean, what we’d really like to know is whether it could be a source of revenue for the Federal Government. 

Mr. TIDWELL. That’s one of the things that this new agency that 

we’ve set up is working on, to help address those questions. One 

of the things that that staff is working on is to develop methods 

for quantification of greenhouse gas emissions and offsets. They’re 

also looking at ecosystem services around water quality, around 

biodiversity, and it’s also with wetlands. 

One of the advantages of this group, it’s going to help the USDA 

to have a very—take a consistent approach to answering these 

questions, because this agency will be looking across all of USDA, 

but it’s essential that we—I feel great that we have this staff that’s 

in place now. Sally Collins, who used to be our associate chief that 

I worked with for years, I’m very confident to have her leadership 

in this arena on this agency to help us find these answers, to help 

us kind of work our way through this. 

Senator WYDEN. I’ll have some additional questions. I think we 

will have to have a second round, at least, to get at a couple of 

other matters. 

But, let me recognize ranking minority member, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Batten, if I could—as you know, I’ve been concerned about 

Secretarial Order Number 3289. It relates to climate change. Secretary Salazar wrote a reply to me and to the Western Caucus on 

October 30. The Senate and House Western Caucus, you know, represents just about every Western State. In our letter to the secretary, we expressed concerns, because this Order 3289 will inject 

climate change into all Department of the Interior decisions and activities—it actually said ‘‘activities.’’ So, it could potentially put into 

question past and future management agreements related to oil 

and gas development, renewable energy, recreational use of the 

land, grazing, hunting on public and private property, and wildlife 

protection. I mean, it is a broad, broad area that the Department 

covers. We expressed some concerns that the order was signed by 

the Secretary before Congress, which was currently considering different climate change legislation before Congress could pass any 

kind of a bill. So, the Secretary responded that his order relies on 

existing legal authority to implement these activities. 

So, the question is, Just because the Secretary has the legal authority to do something, does—you know, does it mean he has to 

do that, he should do it? Or should the Department be taking its 

direction on something as big as injecting climate change, quote, 

‘‘into all land management decisions’’ from the people who are 

elected to represent folks around the country? 

Ms. BATTEN. Thank you for the question. If I may just very 

quickly clarify a statement that I made earlier, the administration 

has no official position on the use of public lands in the offset program; however, we stand ready to provide as much knowledge that 

we have, in terms of the science that’s available and best manage-
20 

ment practices. We stand ready to work with you in the development of this legislation. 

To answer your question, sir, I understand the concerns that you 

just presented, and I want to comment on a number of them. 

Secretary Salazar is faced, as the Secretary of the Department 

of the Interior, with managing 20 percent of our nation’s terrestrial 

lands, 35,000 miles of coastline, 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf, and millions of acres of national monuments, parks, 

and refuges. So, as a result, all of those land management decisions, resource management decisions—we need to be considering 

climate change as the driving force in making decisions about how 

best to protect those resources and those lands for our communities 

and for fish and wildlife, and in order to continue to be able to provide the water, land, marine, cultural, and fish and wildlife and 

other resources that we have been tasked to oversee thus far. 

So, in so doing, recognizing that climate change is such a challenge for all managers, both public and private across the United 

States at this time, we are including the consideration of climate 

change in making decisions about how to manage our resources, 

moving forward. 

In terms of existing agreements that we have, we look forward 

to continuing our relationships with our Federal partners, our 

State and local partners, and additional private land partners, in 

terms of making—forging agreements, making sure that we’re taking in the inputs, in terms of designing strategies that—for adaptive management of our landscapes. But, this is not a change from 

the past; this is a continuation of the type of interactions that 

we’ve had in the past with the American citizens and other Federal 

and State agencies. 

Senator BARRASSO. When you said that this climate change will 

be ‘‘the driving force’’—I mean, people are concerned about agreements that are already in place and what, retroactively, is going 

to happen. 

Ms. BATTEN. Climate change is certainly a driving force, in terms 

of land and natural resource management. So, is land-use change 

and other forces. As we move forward, with the continued balanced 

energy strategy that the Secretary is committed to, in terms of oil, 

coal, and gas development, as well as renewable energy development, we will consider climate change as we’re developing these resources and providing transmission to connect these resources to 

the populations that need them, and doing so in an environmentally sustainable way. 

Senator BARRASSO. So, what’s going to be the impact on agreements that have already been—— 

Ms. BATTEN. There is nothing in this secretarial order that addresses any existing agreements. This is about unifying all of the 

bureaus’ work on climate change science, on adaptation strategies 

and mitigation strategies, so that we can design a unified way to 

move forward in order to best protect and continue to provide the 

services that our bureau and our Department is committed to do. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, perhaps in a second round I’ll have a few more 

questions. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you. Very good. 
21 

Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Chief Tidwell, if climate change means a 

warmer, drier climate with a higher risk of catastrophic forest fires 

and pine beetle epidemics, what specific management strategy is 

the Forest Service considering to increase the resiliency of the national forests to catastrophic disturbances? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you, Senator. 

Yes, our information, our science, indicates that, with these 

warmer and drier seasons that we’re having, we’re seeing a direct 

effect on fire, and that we are experiencing, you know, larger fires, 

more intense fires than we have in the past. 

Some of the things that we are looking at doing, and have been 

doing, is to recognize that. Where we can, to get in and do some 

strategic thinning to reduce the stand density is one way to help 

mitigate some of the effects of these large fires. It’s essential, you 

know, to be able to place these treatments on the landscape where 

they’ll be effective. We primarily look at around our communities 

and key watersheds, but there’s also opportunities to look at places 

where we can break up the fuel loading across watersheds. 

That’s probably one of our best opportunities that we have to get 

in and do some thinning. Then, often follow that with prescribed 

burning to just reduce the overall fuel loading so that when we do 

get the fires, we don’t see probably as large as fires, and we definitely will not see the level of intensity. 

Then, the other benefit is that, when wildfires do burn into these 

treated areas, the fire behavior lessens, and our suppression actions are much more effective to be able to get in and to control 

those fires. 

Senator JOHNSON. Would you discuss the value of diversity of age 

classes; for example, having representative proportions of all age 

classes, not just old or mature trees, especially in forests like the 

Black Hills National Forest, where we’ve seen examples of catastrophic fires and beetle epidemics? Would you agree that forest diversity is a key component of forest management, similar to planning a stock portfolio? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. You know, species diversity and also age diversity are two other things that we want to look at to increase 

that, especially in the—you know, some of the areas in the Intermountain West with lodgepole pine, where we have the hundreds 

of thousands of acres of, basically, even-aged pine. One of the 

things we want to work with in the future is to be able to break 

that up so we have more age diversity, and then, where we have 

the opportunity, to also increase the species diversity so that when 

we do get these large-scale events, we won’t have that continuous 

fuel loading across, you know, the hundreds of thousands of acres 

that we do have in some places now. 

Senator JOHNSON. How do you envision individual forest plans 

developing specific strategies and approaches in response to climate 

change? How would you account for differences between Black Hills 

ponderosa pine forests, New England maple forests, and West 

Coast Douglas-fir forests? What is your timeline to incorporate climate change into the forest plans? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We’ve issued direction to our forests and grasslands, that they need to factor in, you know, the current science 
22 

that we have about climate change into their plans and also into 

their project designs. Where we have the opportunity to be doing 

forest plan revisions, we’ll be able to factor that in—you know, into 

that plan. 

But, even today, that—when we’re designing projects, it’s essential that our managers are factoring in the latest science, and also 

the changing climate that we’re seeing. For instance, in the Pacific 

Northwest, on the Olympic National Forest, folks have been noticing how we’re getting much more winter runoff, in that our infrastructure, when it comes to culverts and bridges, is no longer large 

enough to be able to handle those winter flows. We recognize that, 

and are in—and need to get in there and restore some of those 

drainages. But, one of the things is to increase the culvert size. So, 

just to be able to deal with these winter stream flows that are different than what we’ve seen in the past. 

You know, in other areas that—we have to look at to really factor in how—what—a change in climate, and to make sure that 

we’re not creating some expectations that are not available anymore, you know, with our ecosystems and with the changing climate. One of the things we have to factor in, Do we need to, you 

know, consider different species from what we’ve—maybe have considered in the past? We need to look at our thinning standards, 

that there may be some places we actually need to be thinning to 

at a much higher level to make sure that we can maintain the 

vigor and the resiliency in the stands. But, each of these situations 

are going to be unique. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, you 

know, climate change is going to have a variety of effects across the 

country. Depending where you’re at and the type of ecosystems 

you’re dealing with, we’ll have to factor in that science to help us, 

you know, make the right decisions, not only with the plans, but 

with our project design. 

Senator JOHNSON. My time is expired. 

Senator BARRASSO [presiding]. Thank you. 

Senator Wyden had to step out for a few moments, and asked 

that I call on Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Tom, you used a statistic, right at the end of your 

talk, or your statement, and it went over the top of my head. 

What—the offset statistic that you used—what was that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. That with the terrestrial ecosystems, plus the wood 

products and landfills, that together they intake 12 percent of the 

greenhouse gas emissions in this country each year. 

Senator RISCH. Now, is that Forest Service property, or is that 

all property, or—what is that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. That’s all. 

Senator RISCH. All property. What—any idea what percentage 

the Federal share would be of that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. You know, Senator, I don’t have that figure today. 

I can get back to you with that. 

Senator RISCH. Where did this figure come from? Who came up 

with this? 

Mr. TIDWELL. You know, I don’t have the source in my testimony, 

but I can get that source to you. 

Senator RISCH. I assume it’s one you deem accurate, or you 

wouldn’t—— 
23 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator RISCH [continuing]. Quoting it. OK. 

This is a question for both of you. You know, when I took 

silviculture, years ago, we gave lipservice only to the carbon containment of forests. Now, we look at it differently today, obviously, 

because there’s obviously more benefit there than what was recognized years ago. But, the thing that strikes me is that a forest will 

sequester carbon for 100 years and then—over recent years in 

Idaho, we’ve had catastrophic fires, and they’re all released at one 

time. How does that work? What is the balance of that? Can you 

help enlighten me on that, this taking of it in and then releasing 

it all? Obviously, if a forest goes through a natural cycle without 

burning, it’ll tie the carbon up for some time. That is, it turns into 

soil and it—at least for quite a period of time, it’ll be held. But, 

if it burns, obviously letting it all out at once seems to me something that is substantially—that is very detrimental, and you question whether or not there’s really an offset there, as far as sequestering over a period of time and releasing it all at once. 

Have there been studies done on this or—help enlighten me on 

that. Tom, do you want to go first? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, Senator. You know, the carbon cycle is complex. You know, the things that you raised, the questions that you 

raised, are the things that we have to factor, you know, into our 

decisions. There’s no question about the amount of carbon that’s released with catastrophic wildfires. There’s been numerous studies 

on that to be able to, you know, measure that. 

You know, at the same time that—you know, trees store a lot of 

carbon, and generally, you know, larger trees, you know, store 

more carbon. They don’t—their sequestration rates drop, but the 

large trees—you know, generally, they store more carbon. 

So, it’s part of looking at the cycle, but then also looking at 

what’s sustainable. So, you know, our efforts are going to be focused on what we can do to, you know, increase the resiliency of 

our forest stands, and so that there is potentially less, you know, 

catastrophic fire, and, when we do have large fires, maybe able to 

reduce some of the intensity. We’ll be able to do that, you know, 

through thinning and also, you know, through prescribed fire at 

different times of the year, when we could have a less intense burn 

occur. 

But, a lot of this—our actions are going to be driven by just the 

need to sustain these forests, for all the benefits. Carbon is just one 

of those. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. 

Doctor. 

Ms. BATTEN. I think this is an excellent question. I think that 

one of the things we need to do is stop thinking about forests as 

a static system. Unfortunately, a lot of our forestry management in 

the past has led to this place of being where we are right now with 

being at risk for catastrophic wildfires in a way that, if we had allowed the natural cycle of some fire in some of these fire-generated 

systems, or fire—systems that are healthy when they have occasional fires go through them with much less intensity than these 

catastrophic wildfires—it’s not an either/or situation; it’s not as if 

you plant a forest or a forest naturally grows, and then there’s car-
24 

bon sequestered, and then it all goes away in a catastrophic wildfire. It doesn’t need to be that way. It can be managed, as I’m sure 

my colleague here is working to do, in the Forest—the Forest Service manage. If you manage these forests in a way that allows for 

some fire—controlled burns, et cetera—it doesn’t need to have this 

dramatic release of all the carbon, because, you’re right, that’s one 

of the main concerns with out-of-control wildfires. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden had to step 

out. I don’t know if you’d like to go into a series of questions 

and—— 

The CHAIRMAN. If you had questions, go ahead. 

Senator BARRASSO. We’ve completed the first round, and 

then—— 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Senator BARRASSO [continuing]. We were going to go into a second round after—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I apologize to the witnesses for not being here to 

hear their testimony, but I just wanted to be here for a little bit 

of the hearing, at least, to indicate my recognition about the seriousness of this issue. I know we’ve all seen it in our States out 

west, and I certainly have seen it in New Mexico. 

We recently put a bill in to facilitate the natural resource adaptation across the Federal land management agencies and States 

and tribes so that there would be better coordination and communication among the various land managers as to the policies that 

are being followed to deal with the problem. I think—I assume 

that’s been a subject of some of the discussion here. If it hasn’t 

been, I hope we can get more attention to that. 

I think that there’s a lot we need to know about the science, as 

well, about—in trying to adapt to the changes that we’re seeing. I 

think what I’ll do is just hold off, maybe ask a question or two of 

the next panel. 

Senator WYDEN [presiding]. All right. Apologies again. It’s almost 

like healthcare has sucked all the oxygen out of the room. 

Senator BARRASSO. Then there won’t be a fire. 

Senator WYDEN. Yes. Senator Barrasso reminds us, ‘‘Then there 

won’t be a fire.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator RISCH. Oh, there’s going to be fire, all right, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. This topic has never been for the fainthearted, 

there is no question about that. 

Let’s move to a couple of other areas, particularly biomass. Let 

me start with you, Dr. Batten. 

This is an area where, you know, we, in rural Oregon, have been 

very exasperated about Federal policy, because we just think that 

there are millions and millions of acres essentially untreated. We 

could get merchantable timber to the mills, opportunity to have a 

very promising source of green energy, and there’s great frustration 

about Federal policy. Of course, biomass has the potential to provide a low-carbon, you know, alternative to fossil fuels, and, as I 

say, a vehicle for treating millions and millions of acres of 
25 

forestland that need restoration and thinning. But, the fact is, you 

know, Federal law still puts up barriers to receiving full renewable 

fuels credit for biomass. In fact, there are a host of barriers with 

respect to using biomass on Federal lands. I’m very much committed to fixing this. I think, for purposes of starting, you know, 

questions here, what are your agencies doing now to further biomass development? 

Start with you, Dr. Batten. 

Ms. BATTEN. Secretary Salazar, as you know, is committed to a 

balanced energy strategy, and that includes looking into opportunities for biomass, whether it’s biomass cofiring or use of biomass for 

renewable fuel generation. I—we are, in our assessment of carbon 

fluxes and looking at how carbon is stored across the United 

States, and in public lands in particular, we’re looking at the carbon balance across the board and looking at both inputs and outputs, in terms of how we could be using biomass, moving forward. 

So, I would like to offer our assistance, as a department, both in 

terms of the science that we’re doing on the carbon cycle and in 

terms of best management practices that could lead to the sustainable harvest of biomass and its use for renewable energy purposes. 

Senator WYDEN. What would you cite today as the most significant thing the agency is going to promote biomass development? 

Ms. BATTEN. The—we are working on—in our service contracts, 

in enhancing the availability of biomass, where it’s ecologically appropriate. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

Mr. Tidwell, same question. Two questions to you. What’s your 

agency doing now to further biomass while we wait for some legislation to change the barriers? Tell me, if you would, what you consider the most significant action that the agency is taking to promote biomass development. 

Mr. TIDWELL. We have been promoting utilization of biomass as 

part of our restoration work. I like to look at it that, when we’re 

doing this restoration work, often there’s material that’s smaller 

than sawlog, it’s a lot of residual material that needs to be removed 

when we’re doing our restoration work. Currently we have the options, in a lot of places in the country, to, one, pay somebody to pile 

it and then burn it, or to find a way that it’s economically feasible 

for someone to haul it, you know, to a facility so they can make 

use of it. So, we’ve been encouraging that utilization in some places 

where, in the past, when we had more favorable markets, we would 

require the removal of that material instead of burning it. But, in 

the current markets, there’s less of an opportunity to, you know, 

be able to do that. 

So, we’ve been encouraging that. We also have been up utilizing 

our biomass grant program to help, you know, develop additional 

infrastructure. Often these have been relatively small facilities, but 

we’ve been very successful in schools and in a couple of small hospitals and other administrative facilities and that—you know, as 

the technology increases with these facilities, folks are seeing more 

and more use of that type of a facility to make use of that material. 

Your last question was—— 

Senator WYDEN. What do you consider the most significant action you’ve taken to date to promote biomass development? 
26 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, I would think with—working with our grants 

to develop additional infrastructure so that there’s use of this; also, 

the work that our forest products lab has been doing to, you know, 

help look into other—new technologies that make the use of this 

material more efficient. Those are probably the two things that I 

would say are probably the most significant right now. 

Senator WYDEN. I’ll hold the record open. Could the two of you 

get to us, say, within the next 2 weeks, a list—a specific list of 

what your two agencies are doing to promote biomass development? 

Ms. Batten, that acceptable? 

Ms. BATTEN. Absolutely. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Tidwell. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Ms. BATTEN. May I offer two more—— 

Senator WYDEN. Sure. 

Ms. BATTEN [continuing]. Bits of information that the BLM has 

been working on, and offer my colleagues from BLM for some additional detail, if you’re interested? 

BLM, in 2009, offered 100,000 tons of biomass for cogeneration. 

In 2010, plus under—using the ARRA funds, this will include over 

250,000 tons of biomass offered for these purposes. So, we will include those two projects in the list that we submit to you. 

Senator WYDEN. Good, thank you. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman 

Mr. Tidwell, thank you for being here and sharing your thoughts. 

I wanted to visit a little bit about—well, the President recently 

signed the executive order that all management will be undertaken 

with climate change in mind. I’m just curious if you could spend 

a little bit of time giving the committee a couple of examples of 

maybe some of the specific changes that your agency is going to be 

making to respond to that executive order. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you for the question. 

You know, I mentioned one, our strategic framework that we put 

out last year to help us set our priorities. I also will be sending out 

direction to our regions and research stations to have the regions 

and the stations work together to develop an action plan around 

that strategic framework, to actually lay out specific actions that 

those regions are going to be implementing, you know, through 

planning or through, you know, project design. You know, we have, 

you know, projects throughout the country in places where we are 

already addressing, you know, some of the changes. You know, one 

of them is there in the greater Yellowstone area. We’re very concerned about what’s happening to white bark pine, and the infestation of the pine beetles in that white bark pine is something that 

we haven’t had to deal with in the past. It—in the past, where the 

white bark pine is, it’s usually high enough and cold enough that 

we haven’t had to deal with that. So, we’re spending a—you know, 

some time to look into that and have our researchers to actually 

help us to develop some different options about how to—what 

should we do with that. You know, is there an opportunity to get 

in there and do some thinning, and should we do some additional 

planting? Or just what do we need to do? So, that’s one example. 
27 

Senator BARRASSO. Dr. Batten, along the same lines—it’s interesting, because you’re the science advisor to the Deputy Secretary, 

and, you know, my background in orthopedics, it’s always a matter 

of what’s sound science, what’s junk science. I know you have to 

face that, as well, as you’re dealing with the climate change. Along 

the lines of what Mr. Tidwell was talking about, you know, how to 

handle the situation with the trees and the forests. 

You know, all forest science that I’m aware of would recommend 

that the lodgepole pines should have been harvested over the last 

50 years to avoid some of the situations that we’re in now, that we 

are—that our forests are suffering. So, how do you—tell me a little 

bit about sound science, junk science, and how you make some decisions, because there have been some concerns from the Department, before you arrived, that—where perhaps it was junk science 

instead of sound science. 

Ms. BATTEN. As an ecologist—that’s my background—I stand, in 

my role at the Department of the Interior, to make sure that sound 

science is supporting policymaking at the Department. This follows 

both the Secretary—Secretary Salazar’s and President Obama’s 

commitment to science-based policymaking. A number of our bureaus conduct peer-reviewed, excellent science that is contributing 

to our policymaking all along. In fact, the new secretarial order 

that we discussed earlier is designed to ensure that the best available science is being translated into adaptive management strategies for our land and natural resource managers so that they can 

be responding and then monitoring the effect of their actions over 

time to truly adaptively manage. All of this grounded in sound 

science. 

Senator BARRASSO. So, if you look at forest science and lodgepole 

pines that we should have been harvesting over the last 50 years 

to avoid the current situation, so that would have required some 

significant timber harvesting, which Federal land management 

agencies have resisted over the last several decades. So, you know, 

given that science, but seeing no action from the Department of the 

Interior’s standpoint, you know, what do we advocate now? 

Ms. BATTEN. Science is an evolving field. As scientists, we learn 

more as we continue to explore how natural systems interrelate to 

one another in the field of ecology. What we do is, we use the best 

available information that we have at the time to make decisions. 

As we learn more about the vulnerability of single-stand forests 

and older forests and their susceptibility to infestation, wildfires, 

then we need to react as we learn more about that and incorporate 

that information into these management strategies. 

So, science is—again, it’s not a static field, it’s an evolving field, 

over time. We’re always learning more things. That’s what so exciting about science. That’s why it’s so important to incorporate this 

type of evolving knowledge, over time, into policymaking. 

Senator BARRASSO. So, what does the science tell you now to do 

with those forests? 

Ms. BATTEN. With those forests? As Mr. Tidwell is talking about 

earlier, we are in the midst of planning for the fire season upcoming, and we’re doing that in cooperation with the Forest Service 

and with USDA. We recognize the severe consequences that may 

arise as a result of the dry and dead timber that we are currently 
28 

having in our forests. So, again, it’s an evolving process. We’re 

looking at thinning, we’re looking at a number of different alternatives to address this issue. 

Senator BARRASSO. One final question, Mr. Chairman, if I could; 

it’s a yes-or-no answer. 

Can you assure me, based on what you earlier said about climate 

change as the driving force—can you assure me that no existing 

land management agreement for energy development, recreational 

use—talking about existing land management agreement—will be 

changed because of the Secretary’s climate-change order, which you 

say makes climate change the driving force in land management 

decisions? 

Ms. BATTEN. There is nothing in the secretarial order that discusses anything to do with altering any existing agreements or arrangements between the Department of the Interior and any of our 

partners as a result of the secretarial order. 

Senator BARRASSO. So, the answer is ‘‘yes,’’ there is nothing—— 

Ms. BATTEN. There is nothing—— 

Senator BARRASSO. You can assure me. 

Ms. BATTEN [continuing]. In that secretarial—— 

Senator BARRASSO. You can assure me. 

Ms. BATTEN [continuing]. Order that says anything about these 

existing agreements. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Bingaman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I did think of a question I wanted to ask Chief 

Tidwell. 

The Congress passed, and the President signed, the Landscape— 

the Forest Landscape Restoration Act earlier this year. How do you 

see that Act and that authority as relating to your planning to deal 

with this climate change problem? Is it providing tools to you that 

you didn’t otherwise have? Or how do you see that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, thank you for the question. Also, thank 

you for the work to get that legislation passed, because we do feel 

that it’ll be very beneficial. There’s a couple of key parts of it. 

One of them is the requirement for collaboration so that we bring 

people together and reach agreement about the kind of restoration 

that needs to occur, and also the size. 

One of our challenges is that—as I had mentioned earlier in my 

remarks, is that these issues, the change that we’re seeing, it’s 

across large landscapes and that we have to find ways so we can 

look at our restoration across larger landscapes. So, that legislation 

and that authority now will give us the opportunity to really look 

at much larger landscapes, bring people together, reach agreement 

on the level of restoration, the type of restoration that occurs. It’s 

been my experience that, when we take that task, we’re able to 

build that support, and we’re able to implement the projects. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator WYDEN. Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Briefly. Tom, I hadn’t heard that, about the pine 

beetles in the white bark pine. Is that only at the lower part of its 

range, or does it go all the way through? 
29 

Mr. TIDWELL. It’s—at least out there in Wyoming and Montana, 

really around the greater Yellowstone area is where we were seeing 

the effects. We were seeing it, you know, to the very top of the 

range. You know, that’s definitely unique for us. It’s one of the 

things we just haven’t had to really worry about in the past, about 

that level of infestation. We’re also seeing a very high level of mortality in the white bark pine. 

Senator RISCH. They’re a delicate species. 

Mr. TIDWELL. I’m not sure it had to evolve, you know, dealing 

with mountain pine beetle. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague. 

We’ve got a couple of things you’re going to make available to us 

for the record, particularly your contributions in biomass. We’re 

going to be talking about this subject often, because certainly the— 

the question of climate change, forestry, and biomass, this is right 

at the intersection of policy for this country that can help us create 

more good-paying jobs, green good-paying, you know, jobs, and help 

us to deal with this pressing question of climate change. We’re 

committed to getting this right. We’re going to be talking to both 

of your agencies often. 

Is there anything either of you would like to add before we excuse you? 

[No response.] 

Senator WYDEN. You’re not required to add. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Just, once again, I want to thank you, not only for 

taking the time for today’s hearing, but also your interest in this 

issue, and really appreciate that and appreciate your leadership. 

Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Dr. Batten 

Ms. BATTEN. I also want to thank you for this opportunity. It’s 

been a real pleasure talking about these very important issues with 

the subcommittee. 

I just wanted to also say that I really appreciate the links that 

you’re making between mitigation, taking greenhouse gases out of 

the atmosphere, adaptation, helping our natural systems adapt to 

the impacts of climate change, and job creation, all in one fell 

swoop. We can do all of this at once, and it really is key to the success of our new economy and moving forward and combating climate change. 

Senator WYDEN. For the part of the world that Senator Risch 

and I represent, I can tell you, citizens are counting on getting it 

done with that kind of focus. So, we’ll be working with you often. 

We’ll excuse you, at this time. 

Our next panel, Beverly Law, Ph.D., from Oregon State; Elaine 

Oneil, Ph.D., from the University of Washington; Chris Wood, with 

Trout Unlimited. If you all will come forward. 

Welcome, to all of you. We’re going to make your prepared statements a part of the record; if you could summarize your principal 

views, that would be good. 

Why don’t we begin with you, Dr. Law. 
30 

STATEMENT OF BEVERLY LAW, PROFESSOR, GLOBAL CHANGE 

FOREST SCIENCE, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, AND 

AMERIFLUX NETWORK SCIENCE CHAIR, CORVALLIS, OR 

Ms. LAW. OK. Chairman Wyden—— 

Senator WYDEN. From Oregon State. 

Ms. LAW. From Oregon State University, yes. 

Chairman Wyden and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for inviting me here today. I’ll focus my talk on forest carbon sequestration and adaption to climate. 

So, first some basics on what we consider to be carbon sequestration. Forests take up carbon dioxide by photosynthesis, and then 

carbon goes into soils in the vegetation, and both are considered 

carbon sequestration. But, carbon is also released from forests by 

natural processes, restoration and slow decomposition so that, on 

balance, a forest may be a source or a sink or neutral to the atmosphere, depending on climate, land-use change, and things like wildfire. 

So, when an old forest is harvested, much of the carbon that it 

contains is released back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, and 

it takes, on average, about 15 years for a forest to become a netzero emitter of carbon dioxide. So, I’m talking about the land base 

and how the land base acts. 

Now, in terms of carbon storage, in Oregon and California it 

takes about 180 years to over 600 years to attain the same biomass 

carbon that was on an old forest before it was cut, so it’s a long 

time to get to that level of carbon storage. 

Many of the mature and old forests are on Federal lands, and 

carbon stores are usually higher on public lands, primarily because 

of the younger forests on private lands. To manage Federal lands 

in the public interest of sequestration, we should strive to preserve 

the mature and old forests to avoid losses of carbon due to harvest. 

To avoid losses of carbon on public lands due to fire, fuel reductions 

may be necessary in dry regions, where an uncharacteristic amount 

of fuels have built up. In moist forests, however, like in the Northwest or the West, the Cascades, fires were historically infrequent, 

and they may be best used for the high sequestration capacity. 

Most of the live and deadwood is not consumed in wildfires, contrary to common belief, in high-severity fires. We’ve done measurements before and after fires to determine that. Most of the live and 

deadwood—I was going to say, fuel reduction can be effective in reducing fire severity, however it comes at the cost of reducing carbon sequestration. So, they’re tradeoffs. 

Balancing a demand for maximizing carbon storage with a desire 

to reduce fire severity will require treatments to be applied strategically rather than indiscriminately across landscapes. 

Now, the IPCC climate projection for North American shows increased precipitation at high latitudes, like up in Alaska, and a 

sharp decrease across the Southwest. Drought-affected areas will 

likely increase in extent. There’s also likely to be an increased risk 

of extinction if warming continues at the rate that it continuing. 

Changes in seed and in plants include rain shifts in latitude and 

elevation and threatened systems include those with barriers to migration, like mountaintops, simply going right off the top of the 

mountains. 
31 

To facilitate forest response to climate change, measures can be 

taken to conserve species and genetic diversity and ensure forest 

landscape connectivity for migration of plants and animals to a climate where they can survive and thrive. 

Federal lands are uniquely valuable for providing the 

connectivity and refugia, and they can work with neighbors to expand these areas. New policies are needed for Federal forests to 

focus on ecological function; conserving old forests and old trees, 

where they exist; and possibly even expand preserve areas. 

To inform policy decisions, ecosystem function should be assessed 

at long-term observationsites to quantify baseline conditions and 

track changes in response to climate. The Forest Inventory Program, FIA, could be modified to address carbon sequestration. The 

AmeriFlux Network has 30 sites on Federal lands, and they are— 

can be used to inform—to provide information on responses to both 

climate and disturbance; that’s what they’re designed to do. The 

two can provide programs—can be combined with a decision support system to produce assessments for policy decisions and strategic management actions. 

So, in summary, forests can play a limited yet important role in 

carbon sequestration for mitigating climate change. In evaluating 

carbon policies, it’s important to fully account for the carbon involved, including the carbon transport. To manage Federal lands in 

response to climate change for carbon sequestration and adaptation, we can increase or maintain carbon sequestration by replanting forests and avoiding forest carbon losses. We can facilitate response to climate change by sustaining genetic and species diversity through forest preservation and enhancing landscape 

connectivity for dispersal of plant and animal species. Then, Federal lands are uniquely valuable for sequestration and facilitating 

adaptation to climate. The overarching goal should be to sustain 

forest ecosystem function, and we need adaptive management. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Law follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEVERLY LAW, PROFESSOR, GLOBAL CHANGE FOREST

SCIENCE, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY AND AMERIFLUX NETWORK SCIENCE CHAIR, 

CORVALLIS, OR 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me today 

to discuss managing federal forests in response to climate change for natural resource adaptation and carbon sequestration. I am a Professor of Global Change Forest Science at Oregon State University, and Science Chair of the AmeriFlux network 

of observation sites that study the effects of climate and disturbance on ecosystems 

across the U.S. I am also a co-author of the U.S. Climate Change Research Program’s Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.2, which addressed the ‘‘North American 

Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle.’’ I will focus my remarks on current knowledge on forest carbon sequestration and adaptation. 

CARBON SEQUESTRATION

Forests take up carbon dioxide by photosynthesis and store it in biomass and 

soils, which are both forms of carbon sequestration. Some of the carbon rapidly returns to the atmosphere from respiration by live plants and soil microbes or more 

slowly through the decomposition of dead material. Fire and harvesting activities 

also result in carbon emissions to the atmosphere. On balance, forests may be a 

positive, negative, or neutral contributor of carbon to the atmosphere, depending on 

variation in climate, land use, wildfires, and harvest activities. 

When a mature forest is harvested, much of the carbon that it contains is released 

back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. The disturbance involved in harvesting 

a forest creates conditions that speed up decomposition; it takes, on average 15 
32 

years for a new forest to become a zero net emitter of carbon dioxide (Luyssaert et 

al. 2008). Harvesting wood increases carbon stores in wood products, but it also decreases live and dead stores in the forest. Thus, it is important to consider changes 

in all carbon stores (Law et al. 2004). 

Today, carbon is accumulating in U.S. forests, offsetting about 16% of the nation’s 

fossil fuel emissions (CCSP 2007). Without forests, atmospheric CO2 levels would be 

rising even faster. Over this century, net carbon uptake by terrestrial ecosystems 

at the global scale is likely to peak before mid-century and then weaken or even 

reverse, thus amplifying losses associated with predicted climate change (IPCC 

2007b). Part of the reason is increasing loss of soil carbon with increasing temperature and disturbances. Disturbances that release even a small percentage of the soil 

carbon content could have a large effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, particularly if 

the soils contain high concentrations of organic matter, like those in high latitude 

ecosystems (Schuur et al. 2009). 

To manage federal lands in the public interest of carbon sequestration, we should 

strive to preserve mature and old forests to avoid losses of carbon associated with 

harvest. Many of the mature and old forests are on public lands, so they are uniquely positioned to act as carbon reserves. For example, in the Pacific Northwest, biomass carbon is usually higher on public lands, primarily because of the younger forests on private lands (Hudiburg et al. 2009). Activities that can contribute to increasing carbon sequestration include: planting forests in areas previously harvested 

(reforestation), and on lands suitable for growing forests (afforestation). Such forests 

can be expected to accumulate carbon for many decades. 

CARBON SEQUESTRATION VS THINNING TO REDUCE FIRE POTENTIAL

Variation in climate, and surface fuel supply and continuity are factors that contribute to increased fire potential. Recent studies (Campbell et al. 2007&2009, 

Hudiburg et al. 2009, Donato et al. 2009, Mitchell et al. 2009) suggest that efforts 

to reduce fuels in many types of forests will be counterproductive to sequestering 

carbon to help offset climate change. Fuel reductions may be necessary in dry regions where uncharacteristic amounts of fuel have accumulated. In moist forests, 

however, fires were historically infrequent. Findings: 

• Most of the forest biomass (live and dead wood) is not consumed by wildfires, 

even in high severity fires 

• Some fuel reduction techniques, especially those that remove half or more of the 

larger trees, could lead to an increase in fire severity because of additions of 

logging debris 

• Fuel reduction can be effective in reducing fire severity, however, fuel reduction 

results in decreased long-term carbon storage 

Balancing a public interest in maximizing landscape carbon storage with a desire 

to reduce wildfire severity will likely require thinning treatments to be applied strategically rather than indiscriminately treating all forest stands across the landscape. 

One suggested method of compensating for losses in carbon storage due to 

thinning to reduce fire hazard is to use carbon harvested in fuel reduction treatments as biofuels. Timing is an important factor to consider, for example, how long 

it took to grow the trees, how quickly the biomass will be used, and how long it 

will take to replace the removed carbon. Other considerations are fuel efficiency and 

carbon cost of removal, so there needs to be full carbon accounting. A recent study 

indicated that using the thinned trees for biofuels will not be an effective strategy 

over the next 100 years (Mitchell et al. 2009), and 50-100 years is probably the relevant timeframe of forest carbon policy. The analysis on forests with high biomass 

production and storage capacity showed it would take ∼170 years for biomass production to offset carbon emitted from fossil fuels, and over 300 years for ethanol production. This assumed all of the possible energy in these fuels would be utilized, 

which isn’t likely to be the case. 

CLIMATE CHANGE PROJECTIONS AND ADAPTATION

The IPCC (Field et al. 2007) climate projection for North America is characterized 

by a variety of different patterns of precipitation, with increasing precipitation at 

high latitudes and a sharp decrease in precipitation across the Southwest. Droughtaffected areas will likely increase in extent. Warming in western mountains of the 

U.S. is projected to cause decreased snowpack, more winter flooding and reduced 

summer flows. 

The IPCC (2007b) also states that (1) about 20-30% of known plant and animal 

species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average 
33 

temperature exceed 1.5-2.5°C; (2) types of changes seen in plants include range 

shifts (latitude, elevation) and changes in growing season length, and threatened 

systems include those with physical barriers to migration (e.g. montane ecosystems); 

(3) non-climate stresses can increase vulnerability to climate change by reducing resilience and adaptive capacity; and (4) unmitigated climate change would, in the 

long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural and managed systems to adapt 

(IPCC 2007c). 

To facilitate forest response to climate change, measures can be taken to conserve 

plant and animal species and genetic diversity, and ensure forest landscape 

connectivity for migration of species to climate in which they can survive and thrive 

(e.g. corridors, roadless areas). Genetic diversity allows selection for traits that may 

be more suited to a new climate. There will be winners and losers in a new climate, 

and species diversity improves the odds of formation of sustainable ecosystems. Federal lands have many of the mature and old forests that can serve as sources of 

genetic and species diversity needed for dispersal. 

In semi-arid to arid regions like the Southwest U.S., prolonged drought pushes 

species to the limits of survival, and this is often followed by mortality from insects 

and diseases. If climate becomes more severe in these regions, the idea of sustaining 

a particular plant association in a particular location could be futile because a tipping point may be reached where climate is outside the historical range for survival 

of some species within a forest type. If prolonged drought impacts dry forests, 

thinning may be effective to alleviate drought stress in the remaining trees, but if 

there is no water available within the rooting depth, mortality will occur even if the 

forests are thinned (independent of density). Thinning could be counterproductive to 

adaptation goals if removed trees or seedlings damaged from harvest activities are 

those best suited to survive and thrive in a new climate. 

NEW POLICIES

New policies are needed for federal forests to focus on sustaining ecological function. Policies should accommodate the variation that exists in forest ecosystems in 

terms of their diversity and disturbance histories. For example, in the Pacific Northwest, there are distinct differences between moist forests and dry forests that require different policies and adaptation approaches (Johnson & Franklin 2009). The 

moist forests have evolved with very infrequent high severity disturbance regimes 

(e.g. wind, fire) where mosaics of stand replacement have occurred. Old-growth 

moist forests have had little human impact and management treatments are generally not needed to maintain them in the foreseeable future. Younger forests that 

exist in this moist region could be manipulated to increase ecological diversity. The 

dry forests have evolved with more frequent low and mixed severity wildfire as the 

primary disturbance regime, and the structure and function of old forests has been 

altered by ingrowth of less drought-and fire tolerant species. 

Historically, these forests had relatively low densities and with scattered older 

trees of highly drought-and fire-resistant species. In dry forests, focus should be on 

sustaining the old trees, modifying fuel loads, and reducing trees that crowd the 

older trees and make them susceptible to mortality from fire, insects and disease. 

Such careful applications are needed to maintain ecological function of forests. 

Long-term observation networks and a decision support framework will be required to assess the vulnerability of forests to climate change, and to refine management of forests for carbon sequestration. Critical elements of decision support for 

regional to local actions include integrated long-term observations, an accessible 

data and information system populated in a timely manner, forest process studies 

to improve regional prediction, and regional climate modeling appropriate for societal decisions. This would allow management for goals of carbon sequestration and 

ensuring species and genetic diversity for a future climate. The existing Forest Service Forest Inventory & Analysis program (FIA) has observation sites where measurements could be modified for producing carbon budgets of soil and vegetation and 

for detecting shifts in productivity and species. The AmeriFlux network that examines responses to climate and disturbance has ∼30 sites on federal lands and can 

be used to detect vulnerabilities and improve model predictions of forest response. 

For example, over 10-15 years, sites in the network have seen increases in growing 

season length and the effects on the carbon balance of the ecosystems. The two observation systems can be combined with a decision support system that is needed 

to produce assessments for aiding policy and management decisions. 

CONCERNS ABOUT CARBON POLICY

It is important for carbon credits to prove a concept called additionality, whereby 

additional carbon is stored due to new actions, going beyond business-as-usual. The 
34 

concept of ‘additionality’ addresses the question of whether the project would have 

happened anyway, even in the absence of revenue from carbon credits. In the case 

of federal lands, it seems it would be difficult to be considered for additionality because they are mandated to be managed for the public interest of carbon sequestration (the project would have happened anyway). Federal lands should be managed 

for the public interest of carbon sequestration, not revenue from carbon credits. If 

federal lands are managed for revenue from carbon credits, it will likely impact ecosystem functioning and other ecosystem services. 

A potential unintended consequence of carbon policy would be a reduction in carbon sequestration prior to implementation of the policy so that revenue could be obtained for new actions to increase carbon storage. 

If credit is given for choosing not to cut existing forests, monitoring and audits 

of carbon sequestration will be necessary to determine status of carbon uptake, insurance will be necessary to protect past carbon sequestration from destruction by 

fire or windstorms, and penalty payments will be necessary if the forest is eventually cut. Such efforts will be costly to administer, diminishing the value of the rather modest carbon credits expected from forestry (Schlesinger 2006). 

The IPCC (2007) suggests net carbon uptake by the land is going to decrease in 

the future. The risk with ecosystem impacts and feedbacks to climate is that once 

climate reaches a certain point, the problem will become more difficult to address 

because of less capacity of forests to store carbon. Forests have an important but 

limited potential to offset climate change. The critical issue is that we need to slow 

GHG emissions growth rapidly to quickly enter into a period of decreased emissions. 

SUMMARY

As climate change accelerates, the capacity of forests to store carbon will decline, 

and unmitigated climate change could exceed the capacity of natural and managed 

systems to adapt. Forests can play an important but limited role in carbon sequestration for mitigating climate change. In evaluating carbon sequestration policy and 

management options, it is important to fully account for the carbon involved. To 

manage federal forests in response to climate change for carbon sequestration and 

adaptation, we can (1) increase or maintain carbon sequestration by avoiding forest 

removal, replanting forests, and restoring ecosystem function; and (2) facilitate response to climate change by sustaining genetic and species diversity through forest 

preservation (e.g. for seed sources), enhancing landscape connectivity for migration/ 

dispersal of plant and animal species, and by aiding dispersal to favorable climates. 

To avoid carbon losses due to drought or fire, it may be necessary to thin some dry 

forests that have accumulated uncharacteristic amounts of fuels. Thinning could be 

counterproductive to adaptation goals if removed trees are those best suited to survive and thrive in a new climate. Federal lands have an important role to play in 

both carbon sequestration and ecosystem adaptation to climate change. The overarching goal should be to sustain forest ecosystem function. 

To inform policy decisions, ecosystem function should be assessed at long-term observation sites to quantify baseline conditions in ecosystem function and carbon sequestration, and to track changes in response to climate. The existing FIA and 

AmeriFlux observation sites on federal lands could serve this need. Critical elements of decision support for regional to local actions include integrated long-term 

observations, an accessible data and information system, process studies to improve 

regional prediction, regional climate modeling, and integration of research to 

produce assessments for aiding policy and management decisions. 

Senator WYDEN. Dr. Law, thank you. Oregon State is renowned 

for its forestry school, and you have accounted well for them today. 

I knew it was—there was a reason why we campaigned to have you 

make the long trek back. I was especially glad that you also 

brought into your comments the focus on the older forests, because 

that’s an important part of this debate, and we’re going to make 

sure that’s not going to get short shrift, either. So, thank you very 

much for a very good presentation. 

Dr. Oneil, also from the Pacific Northwest, we thank you for 

making the trip, as well. Welcome, and please proceed with your 

remarks. 
35 

STATEMENT OF ELAINE ONEIL, PH.D., M.S., BSF, RPF, RESEARCH SCIENTIST, SCHOOL OF FORESTRY, COLLEGE OF 

FOREST RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CORRIM (CONSORTIUM FOR RESEARCH ON RENEWABLE INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS), SEATTLE, WA 

Ms. ONEIL. Thank you, Senator Wyden. Thank you for inviting 

me to provide my testimony. 

Let’s start by looking at some climate change impacts that are 

now occurring on our national forests. They’ve all been discussed 

here today. 

I provided some corroborating documents, and in them are 11 

pictures in this folder that highlight two specific impacts on national forests that I want to talk about. We’re talking about areas 

in the Intermountain region from eastern Washington to the Black 

Hills, from the Canadian border to New Mexico. 

Across the land—the West, what we’re seeing is landscapes with 

almost complete tree mortality, whether from mountain pine beetle 

or from stand-replacing fires. That means fires where old trees— 

or mostly all trees are killed. 

Now, under climate change scenarios, these impacts are expected 

to only get worse; in some cases, a doubling of the area burn per 

year, and in some regions the loss of the entire mature pine forest. 

So, what does this means in terms of climate change adaptation 

and carbon storage? Obviously when trees are dead, they’re no 

longer sequestering carbon. They’re releasing it; some slowly, 

through decay, or rapidly, through wildfire. 

Under normal circumstances, the forest would regenerate, the 

carbon would be taken up again, and the carbon neutrality of the 

forest would be assured. Currently, we’re seeing something quite 

different in western forests. In the Fremont-Winema in Oregon, 

there’s a 300,000–acre dead zone that used to have lodgepole pine 

on it, and which is now slowly releasing carbon. What’s happening 

in that forest is that, even though lodgepole typically regenerates 

after there’s some sort of a disturbance, they’re not getting the regeneration there, usually because they’re having—they have difficulty regenerating in that forest anyhow, because of the extreme 

climatic conditions. Similarly, in some areas of Washington State, 

we’re expected to lose one or two pine species, with no equivalent 

species to take their place, because of ongoing changes to summer 

drought. 

Once these forests die and dry out, they become especially good 

candidates for uncontrollable fire and its attendant greenhouse gas 

emissions. On page 6 of the document, it shows that a NOAA satellite image of the 2006 tripod complex fire on the OkanoganWenatchee National Forest in Washington. That forest used to contain 100 permanent sample plots within the fire perimeter. In the 

years prior to that—I had done some analysis—60 out of 100 of 

those plots had severe mountain pine beetle infestations in the 

prior 4 years. That exacerbated the ability to control the fire, and 

it also led to some of the more damaging impacts in that particular 

region. 

You know, definitely because we had that big fire, we managed 

to control—or, slow down the bark beetle epidemic; we knocked out 
36 

a lot of the bugs. But, the carbon emissions profile from that one 

fire was estimated to be equivalent to a million sport utility vehicles running on Washington’s roads for a single year. 

Senator WYDEN. What? Say that again? One million sport utility 

vehicles? 

Ms. ONEIL. Running on Washington’s roads for a year. That one 

fire. That’s the estimate. Now, that doesn’t say that every single 

tree was completed toasted. 

Senator WYDEN. Right. 

Ms. ONEIL. That’s just looking at about 15 percent of the aboveground biomass being lost. It did not account for any losses in soil 

carbon. 

So, we can have—in situations like this, where you have a pretty 

severe wildfire, you can have difficulty—the same difficulty with 

regeneration that they’re seeing on their Fremont-Winema. Work 

done in California has found that upward of 85 percent of the area 

does not regenerate after these catastrophic wildfires. As the pictures show for the—Arizona’s Rodeo-Chediski, in areas of complete 

mortality the soil was essentially cooked, and there’s no seed 

source left. So, the question that we have to look at is—we once 

had forest there; we don’t have them now—Will they be able to regenerate? Will we have this carbon-neutral situation, where we 

have extreme wildfire? 

So, those are the impacts. What can we do about it? Building resilience into these forests by thinning them to some—down to some 

level where the trees can look after themselves is important. We 

need to get realistic about increasing forest resilience through targeted treatments that are driven by underlying ecological carrying 

capacity, not by a premandated, negotiated definition of tree size 

or density or spacing. The top-down will not work in a situation 

where we have this much complexity across our landscape. 

If we thin, we can reduce fire impacts. If you look at slides 11 

and 12, you’ll see the contrast between the fire impacts from the 

Rodeo-Chediski on national forests versus adjacent tribal lands. 

That will increase tree vigor, it’ll improve forest health. You’re still 

going to maintain some carbon storage on these remaining trees, 

and maintaining a seed source, as well. 

We can’t just thin the forests and leave the material there; we 

have to find a way to remove it, because if you just cut it and leave 

it, you’re not actually reducing fire risk, you’re increasing it. You, 

in some instances, can make insect outbreaks worse. In order to remove it, we need to make it financially viable to address these biomass removals. 

Now, policies to address carbon storage would ideally include 

some local collaborative efforts, decisionmaking, and augmenting it 

by applying the kinds of research that we’ve done and that have 

been done in multiple ecosystems on climate change, on carbon 

storage, and on best options for biomass recovery and uses, and 

using lifecycle inventories to actually measure real inputs and outputs from the system that are based on known uses, processes, and 

recovery potentials. What that means is that you have to tie the 

kinds of removal and the kind of biomass use to the available feedstock, and that’s something that we’re looking at now in some of 

our research. 
37 

I think anything less than this is going to result in—more in ongoing massive carbon debt. In these particular forests, as they die, 

they decay, they burn, and release carbon at a rate that probably 

exceeds current uptake in these lands, if it has not already done 

so. 

Each forest has a unique carrying capacity. With 50 years of fire 

suppression, coupled with hotter and drier summers, warmer winters, the hallmarks, really, of predicted future change—I think 

we’re already seeing it—we are at a threshold where carrying capacity is exceeded, the results of these massive bark beetle outbreaks and the attendant fire. We really already have the tools. We 

don’t have to invent additional tools to—for biomass removal, considering that current harvest removal is also—or biomass—and we 

have plenty of rules to address those removals. 

We seem to be caught up with arguing about definitions of biomass and old growth, while the old forests around us are killed, 

while these forests around us are killed by bark beetles, and then 

they burn, adding additional carbon to our atmosphere. 

I’ll just give you a few numbers here, in the time remaining. In 

2007, there was 6.8 million acres of mortality in the entire U.S. 

Sixty-one percent of that was from mountain pine beetle, so that’s 

4.1 million acres. Those are Federal statistics from the U.S. Forest 

Service. They also say that there’s a total of 22 million acres at risk 

to bark beetle mortality, but in a single year, we lost 20 percent 

of it. That’s a lot of carbon sequestration potential loss. That’s a lot 

of potential carbon emissions. 

In addition, there are about 28 million acres that could use some 

help in reducing fire risk. Those—there may be some overlap between the 22 and the 28 million; those were two different studies. 

So, you see that, in effect, what we have here is a situation where 

we’re at a tipping point, and we can address the situation through 

some fairly aggressive management that looks at site-specific outcomes, or we can address it—we can address it at some—with some 

dedicated resources to look at these problems in a site-specific way, 

or we can continue to do research on how we could look at storage 

in a different way. 

I talked way faster than I thought I would, so I could ad lib here 

or I could open it up for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Oneil follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELAINE ONEIL PH.D., M.S., BSF, RPF, RESEARCH SCIENTIST, SCHOOL OF FORESTRY, COLLEGE OF FOREST RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF

WASHINGTON AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CORRIM (CONSORTIUM FOR RESEARCH

ON RENEWABLE INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS), SEATTLE, WA 

I am a research scientist at the University of Washington with a specialization 

in forest health and climate change. I am also the Executive Director of CORRIM, 

the Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials. CORRIM is a consortium that was created in 1996 between fifteen universities to conduct research 

on the environmental performance of every stage of forest products manufacture 

from cradle (planting the tree seed) to grave (landfill of solid wood products at the 

end of their first use). The research conducted by CORRIM uses life cycle inventory 

(LCI) and life cycle analysis (LCA) techniques which take into consideration the energy balance and carbon emissions inherent in the growth, procurement, manufacture, and eventual use of wood products. 

Effective policy for integrating forest ecology, climate, forest management options, 

and the potential use of products derived from management must account for interactions both inside and outside the forest boundaries. My goal is to provide you with 
38 

an understanding of how these interactions can be used to develop optimal strategies for natural resource adaptation and carbon sequestration on national forest 

lands in the face of climate change. My particular emphasis will be on the forests 

of the western USA. 

The factors central to determining optimal carbon management under climate 

change are: 

1. Each forest site has a carrying capacity which dictates the maximum 

amount of fiber, wood, or carbon that can be stored in that forest. Carrying capacity is determined by site quality, climate, and to a lesser degree the current 

species mix. 

2. Once forests reach their site’s carrying capacity there is enormous stress 

on the living trees which manifests itself in insect outbreaks and disease, culminating in the death of some or all of the trees on site. The mountain pine beetle 

(MPB) epidemic in western North America epitomizes how existing stressors 

(forests at or above site carrying capacity) interact with subtle shifts in climate 

to create unprecedented mortality on our National Forest Lands. The spruce 

bark beetle epidemic in Alaska is another example of the same impact in a different ecosystem. Climate change is impacting our western forests now. It is not 

a future possibility or probability. 

3. Wildfire ignition is random, but the consequences of wildfires are driven 

by climate, and prevailing weather and forest conditions. Forests that have 

reached maximum carrying capacity, and which contain large amounts of dead 

trees, produce conditions for wildfires that are uncontrollable, with devastating 

consequences to the forest, the adjacent communities, and the budgets of land 

management agencies. 

4. Wildfires generate enormous releases of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. From 2002-2006 wildfires across the entire US, including Alaska, 

released the equivalent of 4-6% of the US anthropogenic emissions for that 

same period. The average yearly emissions from the California wildfires alone 

were equivalent to the emissions of 7 million cars/year for each year from 2001- 

2007. Extreme fire conditions can render sites infertile or incapable of regenerating future forests, which effectively leads to deforestation. 

5. If we apply the precautionary principle, the most risk adverse option we 

have at the present time is to thin forests that are at risk to reduce wildfire 

impacts, reduce insect mortality, and build health and resilience against extreme climate conditions that these forests are expected to face in the near future. The cut material can be used as biofuel feedstocks to support energy independence goals and meet renewable fuel and electricity standards. Even greater 

carbon benefits are possible if the cut wood is used in green building construction. Using life cycle analysis we can identify optimal carbon sequestration and 

storage options that include forests as part of the broader matrix of national 

carbon accounts; failure to account for the carbon interactions beyond the forest 

can lead to counterproductive policies. 

6. Grassroots initiatives aimed at addressing forest health, wildfires, insect 

outbreaks, and sustainability on federal lands have begun. The goals of removing excess fuels and dead trees for use in bioenergy projects, while generating 

economically viable and sustainable jobs in rural communities and maintaining 

sustainable ecosystems are laudable. Policies are needed that integrate the 

knowledge and trust built by local initiatives, support national renewable energy goals, and recognize the inherent ecological carrying capacity of the land 

and how it might alter under changing climatic conditions. 

Each forest site has a carrying capacity which dictates the maximum amount of 

fiber, wood, or carbon that can be stored in the forest. Carrying capacity is determined by site quality, climate, and to a lesser degree the current species mix. 

Tree growth, competition, and death are governed by known ‘‘laws’’ that have 

withstood the rigors of scientific investigation for the past 66 years. For example, 

we have the -3/2 power law (Reineke 1933) which identifies how trees compete, 

when competition will begin, and when mortality will occur as trees grow, age, and 

fill the site. Using that law we can characterize each forest site’s carrying capacity, 

or maximum site occupancy, which is largely a function of soil quality and climate 

in addition to some interaction with species physiology. Once forests mature, without major disturbances like wind, fire, or insect outbreaks, they fully occupy the site 

and competition between trees begins. As the forest gets older, eventually growth 

and mortality reach equilibrium as the trees respond to the resource limits inherent 

in their site. In effect when a forest stand is mature, it occupies the site at or near 

maximum carrying capacity. Carrying capacity has historically been measured in 

tree volume which can easily be converted to biomass and to carbon equivalents. 
39 

Thus we can estimate the carbon carrying capacity of any forest by understanding 

the limits of any particular regions soils and climate. 

Once forests reach their site’s carrying capacity there is enormous stress on the 

living trees which manifests itself in insect outbreaks and disease, culminating in 

the death of some or all of the trees on site. The mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic in western North America epitomizes how existing stressors (forests at or 

above site carrying capacity) interact with subtle shifts in climate to create unprecedented mortality on our National Forest Lands. The spruce bark beetle epidemic in 

Alaska is another example of the same impact in a different ecosystem. Climate 

change is impacting our western forests now. It is not a future possibility or probability. 

So what happens when forests are old, the site is fully occupied—at or near carrying capacity—and the climate changes? When we get less precipitation, the soils 

dry out sooner. These dry soils combined with the hotter and drier summers we 

have experienced for most of the past nine years in the Inland West have effectively 

reduced carrying capacity. This generates enormous stress on the trees and you get 

a pulse of mortality. The mortality agent that is causing the greatest impact is the 

mountain pine beetle (MPB)—a native insect that kills all pine species found in the 

western US. The MPB prefers to attack old and stressed trees, and our National 

Forests are full of old trees. When summers are sufficiently hot and dry enough for 

these old trees to become stressed, it is a precursor to a population build-up of MPB 

which eventually manifests as an epidemic outbreak. Since 2000, we have experienced a massive West-wide epidemic that has affected a large percentage of the native pines in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New 

Mexico, Arizona, and California and as far east as South Dakota. A relative of the 

mountain pine beetle, the spruce beetle, has wrought similar impacts on spruce forests in Alaska. There are pictures in your packet that show the extent of mortality 

from MPB epidemics across several states where the dead and dying trees are releasing rather than sequestering carbon. Recent research has identified the tipping 

point that lead to these mountain pine beetle and spruce beetle outbreaks as a shift 

in climate (Carroll et al 2003, Oneil 2006, Berg et al 2006) but that shift in climate 

acts in concert with current stand conditions to create the outbreaks that are devastating our forests at the present time. In short, climate change impacts in our 

western forests are a very serious current reality not a future probability. 

In the mid-1990’s I was a field forester dealing with MPB and spruce bark beetle 

(SBB) outbreaks on a regular basis. We did not know it was a climate impact until 

much later when research scientists, including myself, began to analyze the data 

and realize that the predictors for these huge mortality events were not necessarily 

found in the beetle/tree dynamics as had been studied for the prior 30 years, but 

in the climate. Only in hindsight were we able to see how subtle shifts in average 

temperature and precipitation masked critical thresholds in winter temperatures in 

northern latitudes, and extreme summer moisture deficits in more southerly latitudes that tipped the balance in favor of the insect over the trees that were its host. 

Crossing those threshold values for temperature has led to massive MPB outbreaks 

in the Inland West at a scale unprecedented in our experience. 

Wildfire ignition is random, but the consequences of wildfires are driven by climate, and prevailing weather and forest conditions. Forests that have reached maximum carrying capacity, and which contain large amounts of dead trees, produce 

conditions for wildfires that are uncontrollable, with devastating consequences to 

the forest, the adjacent communities, and the budgets of land management agencies. 

One consequence of large mortality events associated with MPB outbreaks are 

devastating and unnatural wildfires that are next to impossible to control. While 

lightening ignites wildfires more or less randomly, the likelihood of those ignitions 

producing large uncontrollable fires that kill most or all trees in their path is highly 

correlated with the underlying forest condition. High levels of prior mortality from 

MPB were found to increase the likelihood of stand replacing fires during the 1988 

Yellowstone wildfire event (Lynch et al. 2006); a result that is also supported by anecdotal evidence from the 2006 Tripod Complex fire that burned over 350,000 acres 

of National Forests in Washington State’s East Cascades within a fire perimeter of 

approximately 400,000 acres. The fire perimeter for the Tripod Complex had approximately 100 forest inventory and analysis (FIA) plots that comprise the national 

forest census of which 70% had substantial MPB impact in the prior 5 years (Oneil 

unpublished data). This fire was estimated to emit 2.1 million tons of carbon dioxide 

into the atmosphere or the equivalent to the emissions of 1 million Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV’s) for 1 year (Mason 2006). 

High levels of insect attack are not the only precursor to the largely uncontrollable wildfire events of recent years. Dense forests with multi-layered canopies, 

large amounts of dead wood, and thick understory vegetation make fire control dif-
40 

ficult or impossible under all but the most benign weather conditions. The federal 

forests of the Inland West are dominated by forests with extensive mortality from 

MPB and SBB and/or have these dense forest canopies as a result of 50 years of 

fire suppression making them highly susceptible to uncontrollable wildfires. 

Wildfires generate enormous releases of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 

gases. From 2002-2006 wildfires across the entire US, including Alaska, released 

the equivalent of 4-6% of the US anthropogenic emissions for that same period. The 

average yearly emissions from the California wildfires alone were equivalent to the 

emissions of 7 million cars/year for each year from 2001-2007. Extreme fire conditions can render sites infertile or incapable of regenerating future forests, which effectively leads to deforestation. 

The carbon released to the atmosphere from increasingly large, uncontrollable 

wildfire events exceeds our efforts to mitigate emissions. Widenmeyer and Neff 

(2007) found that the average CO2 emissions from wildfire from 2002-2006 were 213 

Tg/yr for the lower 48 states with an additional 80 Tg CO2/yr emitted from Alaska’s 

wildfires which is the equivalent to 4-6% of anthropogenic emissions for those years. 

In Alaska there are double the CO2 emissions from wildfires than there are from 

human fossil fuel emissions; in Idaho the CO2 emissions from wildfires are 93% of 

those from fossil fuels; and in Montana wildfire emissions are 43% of the emissions 

from human fossil fuel use based on 2002-2006 fire occurrence. 

Analysis of California wildfires from 2001-2007 calculates that 277 million tons 

of CO2 were released by fires and the ultimate decay of the dead trees (Bonnicksen 

2009). This is equivalent to the emissions from 7 million cars each year over those 

7 years or about half of the registered cars in the state. The figures highlight how 

the cost of wildfires are much more than just the direct cost of fighting fires, the 

impacts on communities, human health, and loss of infrastructure. There is an immediate CO2 emissions cost to wildfire with subsequent CO2 emissions from decay 

that are larger than the fire emissions. Of the 882,759 acres of land where all trees 

were killed during the California wildfires, an estimate of 86% of the land affected 

(762,000 acres) will not be reforested with any substantial tree cover within the next 

century because of regeneration failures (Bonnicksen 2009). This means that the 

CO2 emissions from fires are compounded by the loss of CO2 sequestration capacity 

from regenerating forests. The burnt forests are not being replanted and there is 

little chance for re-establishment of sufficient future forests to offset these emissions 

without substantial investment in replanting, stand tending, and management. In 

short, wildfire in these harsh dry environments is creating deforestation just when 

we most need that tree growth to offset carbon emissions from other sources. As 

with the MPB climate thresholds that have only been identified within the past decade, there may well be a threshold value that we have not identified yet wherein 

large areas of current forest become shrub land with much diminished capacity for 

carbon sequestration because of regeneration difficulties. 

As a consequence of successful fire prevention for the 50 years prior to 2000, national census data (FIA) indicate that at present we are storing about double the 

carbon per acre on federal lands than on actively managed private forests in the 

Inland West (Oneil et al in review). But we are also burning more acres of federal 

land than non-federal land. For example 89% of the acres burned in Washington 

State since 1995 have been on federal lands which make up 53% of total forested 

acreage. These comparisons are for eastern Washington where over 90% of our 

wildfires occur. 

We know that growing trees is the best carbon mitigation tool we have to transfer 

atmospheric carbon into sequestered carbon that reduces greenhouse gas concentrations. Trees are the most efficient plants for carbon capture with low demand for 

water and nutrients relative to the carbon uptake they perform. They also actively 

sequester enormous amounts of carbon relative to other kinds of crops because of 

the large amount of above ground biomass. Pacala et al. (2001) estimated that 20- 

40% of all terrestrial carbon sequestration in the United States occurred in western 

forests. Because of the significant role of trees in forest carbon sequestration, broad 

scale tree mortality can turn the forest from a net carbon sink to a net carbon 

source. Increases in wildfire frequency and intensity that release stored forest carbon could result in western forests becoming a source of carbon rather than a sink 

(Westerling et al. 2006). In British Columbia, Canada, which is experiencing perhaps the largest mortality event from MPB in all of western North America, the forests are now net carbon sources because of the level of mortality (Kurz et al. 2008). 

While we think the western US forests are still acting as net carbon sinks, the cumulative impacts of MPB outbreaks and wildfires on the carbon budget are substantial and growing every single year. 

If we apply the precautionary principle, the most risk adverse option we have at 

the present time is to thin at risk forests to reduce wildfire impacts, reduce insect 
41 

mortality, and build health and resilience against extreme climate conditions that 

these forests are expected to face in the near future. The cut material can be used 

as biofuel feedstocks to support energy independence goals and meet renewable fuel 

and electricity standards. Even greater carbon benefits are possible if the cut wood 

is used in green building construction. Using life cycle analysis we can identify optimal carbon sequestration and storage options that include forests as part of the 

broader matrix of national carbon accounts; failure to account for the carbon interactions beyond the forest can lead to counterproductive policies. 

Fire impacts can be substantially reduced by thinning treatments that restore 

densities more like those observed before fire suppression was introduced. Multiple 

studies have shown that thinning reduces fire severity, sufficient for firefighters to 

gain control and maintain forest structure, tree seed source, and other values (e.g. 

Agee and Skinner 2005, Moghaddas 2006, Skinner et al. 2004). After the 2002 fire 

year, which in hindsight was relatively mild, Dr. Jerry Franklin (ecologist) and Dr. 

Jim Agee (fire scientist) from the University of Washington offered their perspective 

on the need for a rationale national forest policy that incorporated ecology, fire 

science, known benefits of treatment and social benefits. Their perspective is that 

‘‘Letting nature take its course in the current landscape is certain to result in losses 

of native biodiversity and ecosystem functions and other social benefits. . .’’ (Franklin and Agee 2003). 

Coupled with the impacts of current wildfire extent and severity is the very real 

risk of dramatically increased wildfire extent in the near future as a result of further summer warming and drought. Climate impact studies across the west have 

identified that future climate will likely double wildfire extent in most areas 

(McKenzie et al 2004, Littell et al 2009) with some areas experiencing a tripling of 

the current acres burned which will interact with current forest conditions to increase CO2 emissions from wildfire in the near future. The projected climate impacts, including hotter drier summers, earlier snowmelt with subsequent reduced 

summer moisture (Westerling et al. 2006), and increasing summer moisture deficits 

which portend substantial changes in regeneration success at the current forest 

margins (Littell et al 2009). 

Managing federal forests to address the need for increased carbon sequestration 

and storage, reduced carbon emissions, and adaptation requires an integrated approach that considers the inherent carrying capacity of the land, the fire regime for 

a specific region and forest type, and societal benefits at local, regional, and national 

scales. Reducing forest carbon inventories to bring them in line with new estimates 

of carrying capacity is necessary to increase resilience in the surviving trees, and 

reduce risks of further mortality from the MPB and other insects. If designed with 

multiple goals in mind, thinning treatments can also provide better options for wildfire control, restore forest structure, maintain critical habitat, and adjust for the 

overstocking that has occurred because of 50 years of fire suppression. Optimal 

thinning strategies will vary by region, forest type, and fire and insect risk. In ecology, one size does not fit all: the kinds of treatments needed in the dry interior west 

to address climate change and carbon storage are quite different than what is needed at high elevations or in coastal forests. Using local expertise coupled with grass 

roots input from concerned citizens can ensure that the activities are sustainable 

over the long term. The result can be at least a triple win scenario with improved 

habitat, reduced carbon emissions and avoided future wildfire fighting costs. 

Paying for these management interventions to reduce fire severity and risk, and 

to reduce forest densities so as to reduce stress on remaining trees, is a challenge 

during our current budgetary crisis. There is a huge opportunity to use the material 

that must be removed from Inland West federal forests to allow them to adapt to 

climate change. That excess material is a carbon dense renewable feedstock that can 

be used for meeting energy independence goals under EISA (2007), the renewable 

fuels standard (RFS) and/or the renewable electricity standard (RES). 

Thinning forests can offset carbon emissions from fossil sources if used for energy 

production either by producing liquid transportation fuels or electricity generation. 

Based on life cycle analysis conducted to ISO 14044 standards, CORRIM has found 

that an even better choice from a carbon perspective is to produce products that 

store carbon and substitute for fossil energy intensive products made of steel or concrete (Perez-Garcia 2005, Milota et al 2005). For example, a ton of wood in engineered wood floor joists displaces 7 tonnes of CO2 emissions when substituted for 

a steel floor joist. This is approximately 7 times more beneficial from a carbon accounting perspective than burning the wood for energy. CORRIM is currently conducting additional life cycle analysis of woody biomass for an array of bio-fuels, 

processing technologies, and material inputs to determine the optimal uses of these 

renewable fuel feedstocks from a carbon perspective. 
42 

As climate change and carbon sequestration are global issues, accounting for only 

the carbon interactions in the forest without consideration for the wildfire impacts, 

the ultimate use of potential forest products that can be removed to reduce fire and 

insect impacts, and current and future societal needs for energy and building products is like a bank measuring only debits without consideration for credits. Losing 

the carbon that trees sequester to insect epidemics and wildfire under the guise of 

naturalness or the precautionary principle, not only emits carbon, particulates, and 

other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, it is a lost opportunity to store that forest carbon in buildings where the risks of wildfires are largely absent. It is also occurring at a time and on a scale where the increasing rate of CO2 emissions portends a threshold, or tipping point, that may exacerbate current disturbance trends 

and subsequent opportunities for management, sequestration, and fire control. In 

essence, forest thinning operations that reduce fire severity and risk are the most 

risk adverse option we have at our disposal at this time. 

Grassroots initiatives aimed at addressing forest health, wildfire, insect outbreaks, and sustainability on federal lands have begun. The goals of removing excess fuels and dead trees for use in bioenergy projects while generating economically 

viable and sustainable jobs in rural communities and maintaining sustainable ecosystems are laudable. Policies are needed that integrate the knowledge and trust 

built by local initiatives, support national renewable energy goals, and recognize the 

inherent ecological carrying capacity of the land and how it might alter under 

changing climatic conditions. 

As a forester, there is nothing worse than losing your stands to insect attack or 

fire and in the process losing all the values cherished by your local rural community. If the nearby federal forests, under the guise of naturalness, are not managed, 

except to suppress fires when they threaten structures, private and other public 

landowners have no control in preventing the insect invasions and wildfires that 

start on federal lands but then spread to nearby private and state lands with equally costly and devastating impacts. The degree of interest in the topic of federal land 

management to reduce these impacts and risks along with the potential to provide 

resources for bioenergy initiatives is substantial. Recently a large constituency spent 

three days discussing the issues around biomass utilization in their communities 

and their region at the Plum Creek Conference on Forests and Energy at the University of Montana. As a speaker at that conference I was thrilled to see the level 

of interest, integrity, care, and sincere appreciation for the complexity of the task 

ahead. No one wants to see another ‘timber war’ or extractive industry with little 

thought to long term sustainability of the federal lands in their region. But neither 

do they want to see their backyard go up in flames as the forests around them succumb to MPB and then burn as they were during the conference in September. This 

fire was particularly notable as it burned vigorously despite record breaking rainfall 

during the prior month. 

Many members of the audience at that conference were already working diligently 

with local USFS managers to devise plans that would produce not only sustainable 

forests, but sustainable livelihoods for local people. In the process they are building 

trust, crafting community, and with the appropriate top down policies that recognize 

the need to manage these forests and make a living, they will also be able to provide 

renewable energy that will help to meet the energy needs and greenhouse gas reduction goals outlined in federal policy. 

SUMMARY

We have experienced a decade of unprecedented mortality in our western forests, 

and much of that mortality is concentrated on federal lands. Broad scale mortality 

means that forests are emitting carbon rather than sequestering it, thus exacerbating our current greenhouse gas emissions profile. The current rate of mortality 

is unsustainable and may well lead to a tipping point wherein additional uncontrolled damage can be expected. It is doubtful that any one scientist or group of scientists has any idea where that tipping point is and what reaching it might cause. 

With policies and management approaches that pull us back from that brink by reducing risk and building resilience we can ensure that these forests remain a part 

of our heritage and serve a vital role as carbon sinks into the future. 

Senator WYDEN. We will have some questions—— 

Senator RISCH. Mr. Chairman, I have to go to an Ethics Committee meeting—— 

Senator WYDEN. Would you like—— 
43 

Senator RISCH [continuing]. Because we have a vote at 4 o’clock. 

I have a question for Dr. Law and Dr. Oneil. I’m going to state it, 

but they can answer it after Mr. Wood’s testimony, and I’ll get it 

from the record. 

But, they both touched on the question of the balance of uptake 

versus production of carbon, and I was wondering if they agreed 

with Chief Tidwell’s assessment, or his statement, of the fact that 

the lands were—we were in a 12-percent-positive situation, as far 

as taking up carbon that is produced. I’d like your comments on 

that, or any other statistical information you can give me in that 

regard. 

Senator WYDEN. Why don’t we—if Mr. Wood doesn’t have any objection, why don’t—Senator, I think it’s a very important question. 

Dr. Law, Dr. Oneil, what—if you could, can you give a response to 

the Senate now, and perhaps furnish anything extra in writing? 

Dr. Law. 

Senator RISCH. Mr. Chairman, I really apologize, but I’ve got 

to—— 

Senator WYDEN. Oh. 

Senator RISCH [continuing]. Vote right at 4 o’clock. 

Senator WYDEN. Oh, I see. 

Senator RISCH. So, I’m going to have to run. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. We’ll get it in writing. 

Senator RISCH. I apologize for that, and I’ll pick up Mr. Wood’s 

statement out of the record. I would just note, for the record, that 

Mr. Wood is here, purporting to be a conservationist, but I know 

for a fact that he’s been attempting to make the elk extinct in my 

State, one animal at a time, for a number of years. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator RISCH. So, in any event, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

I will pick this up out of the record. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank—— 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. I apologize, Chris; I’ve got to run. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Wood. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER A. WOOD, CHIEF OPERATING 

OFFICER, TROUT UNLIMITED, ARLINGTON, VA 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Chairman Wyden. Good to see you, Senator Risch. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide Trout Unlimited’s views 

on managing public forests in response to climate change. 

Public lands are crucial sources of drinking water for more than 

60 million Americans. They provide vital habitat for fish and wildlife, and a host of other social and economic benefits. These lands 

can play a key role in preparing natural resources and human communities for the impacts of climate change. 

Others here today, and my written testimony, cover how climate 

change is likely to impact our national forests, with an emphasis 

on coldwater fisheries, which is our bias at Trout Unlimited. I’d 

like to spend my time describing a policy framework within which 

these problems can be solved if we act quickly. 
44 

A healthy watershed performs three basic functions. It catches, 

stores, and releases water over time. Healthy watersheds are better 

equipped to withstand the predicted effects of climate change—the 

more intense fires, the prolonged drought, the more intense floods 

that we’re anticipating. The problem is that many of our lands and 

waters are already under stress. Climate change adaptation may 

be most simply defined as repairing the damage and helping the 

land to recover its natural resiliency. 

Former Forest Service employee Alda Leopold once described the 

oldest challenge in human history as to live on a piece of land without spoiling it. Leopold’s challenge became a motivation for the wilderness movement and a host of other environmental activity over 

the past 25 years. The effects of climate change challenge traditional methods of land protection, as fires, floods, and droughts 

won’t stop at wilderness borders. 

The Forest Service and the BLM should develop integrated landscape-level strategies to protect, reconnect, and restore resilient 

watersheds for the benefit of human communities and natural resources. 

First, we must protect the highest quality lands and waters. In 

a warming climate, national forests, particularly roadless areas, 

are thermal refuges. Protecting these lands protects fish and wildlife, maintains groundwater recharge, and reduces the costs of filtering and treating water for communities downstream. 

Second, we must reconnect landscapes. Because it is not enough 

to manage protected lands as museum pieces, we must reconnect 

them, both upstream and downstream. Protecting instream flows in 

important wildlife corridors and allowing rivers to access their 

flood plains will recharge aquifers, minimize the potential for 

downstream flooding, and improve soil productivity for farmers and 

ranchers. 

Third, we must engage communities in restoration. Restoring the 

ability of watersheds to withstand the effects of climate change is 

essential. Thinning bug-killed forests near communities, for example, has been mentioned, can generate biomass and protect communities from fire, while also securing high-paying family wage jobs. 

This model of protecting, reconnecting, and restoring landscape 

and watershed health should be used to guide development of the 

Forest Service’s proposed planning rules. It should provide the rationale for protection of roadless areas. It should drive the thoughtful siting of transmission lines for renewable energy, and reform of 

outdated oil and gas regulations. It should influence implementation of farm-bill conservation programs on privately owned forests. 

I’d like to close with an example of how this approach can work. 

In 2009, thanks to your leadership, Mr. Chairman, 15,000 acres of 

the headwaters of the Elk River in southwestern Oregon, with 

some of the finest salmon and steelhead runs in the Lower 48, was 

designated as wilderness. However, more than a mile of outstanding habitat in Blackberry Creek, a tributary to the Elk, is 

blocked by an impassable culvert. Inadequate funding has prevented the Forest Service from replacing that culvert. Plugged culverts are a ticking timebomb across the national forest system 

right now. They must be repaired. 
45 

Funding this type of work is vital. Dedicating 5 percent of the 

total allowance values of revenues under climate change legislation 

to the type of natural resource adaptation work I just described is 

essential. The actions described above are not inexpensive, but they 

also create jobs and have a very high likelihood of success. The 

time to act is now. Public forests are national treasures that are 

irreplaceable in our lifetime. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER A. WOOD, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, 

TROUT UNLIMITED, ARLINGTON, VA 

Chairman Wyden and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity 

to appear before you today to provide my views as Chief Operating Officer for Trout 

Unlimited (TU) on managing public lands in response to climate change. Prior to 

working for TU, I served as the senior policy and communications advisor to the 

Chief of the US Forest Service, and on the fish and wildlife and ecosystem management staffs for the Bureau of Land Management. 

Public lands are crucial sources of drinking water for well more than 60 million 

Americans. They provide habitat for fish and wildlife species of substantial economic, ecological, and spiritual value. Public lands also provide wood fiber, energy 

resources, and other commodities that help to fuel our nation. These lands can also 

play a key role in preparing natural resources and human communities for the impacts of climate change. I appreciate your concern in addressing this issue in a timely manner. 

Trout Unlimited is dedicated to the protection and restoration of our nation’s 

trout and salmon resources and the watersheds that sustain them. TU has more 

than 140,000 members in 400 chapters across the United States. Our members generally are trout and salmon anglers who give back to the waters they love by contributing substantial amounts of their personal time and resources to fisheries habitat protection and restoration. The average TU chapter, for example, donates 1,300 

hours of volunteer time on an annual basis. 

In my testimony today, I would like to focus on three major points. 

First, I will briefly describe how climate change is likely to impact our National 

Forests and public lands. These impacts already are being felt across the country 

and will become more pronounced and severe in coming years. 

Second, I will describe how these impacts are likely to affect natural resources 

and the people and nearby communities that use these resources. It is important 

to recognize that a broad spectrum of user groups will be impacted and that the 

risks are not just restricted to fish, wildlife, rivers, and forests. 

Third, I will describe a policy framework within which these problems can be 

solved—if we act quickly, and in concert. I will provide specific examples of what 

needs to be done and how to do it. If we fail to act, costs will be considerable and 

our National Forests and other public lands will be irreparably harmed. 

IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON NATIONAL FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS

The effects of a changing climate are already being felt on public lands in the 

form of intense wildfires, drought, proliferation of invasive species, and earlier 

spring runoff. As climate change continues, it is likely to alter weather patterns and 

storm events across the United States dramatically with significant negative consequences for National Forests and other public lands. A general warming pattern 

will result in increased evaporation rates and drying of forest and grassland vegetation. These effects will increase wildfire intensity and frequency, especially at midelevations. In turn, as we are now seeing throughout the Rocky Mountain West, 

these changes will spark surges in forest pest species and invasive weeds, triggering 

a cascade of further alterations in natural ecosystems. 

River flows and hydrologic regimes also will be altered, with consequences not 

only to fisheries but also to water supplies in general. More winter precipitation will 

fall in the form of rain than snow, especially at lower and mid-elevations. This will 

reduce snowpack and increase the probability of rain-on-snow events, likely resulting in increased winter flooding. With more rain during winter and reduced 

snowpack, peak stream flows will occur earlier in the spring and low or base flows 

during summer and autumn will be reduced. Stream flows will be less consistent 

from year to year. 
46 

* Graphic has been retained in subcommittee files. 

Overall, storm intensities will be greater. Floods, drought, and wildfires are all 

likely to increase. The increased variability and longer duration of wet cycles and 

dry cycles will cause considerable additional stress to natural ecosystems. 

In all cases, impacts of climate change on federal lands must be viewed within 

the existing management context and conditions of natural systems. Watersheds, riparian systems, and streams that are in better condition will be more resistant to 

disturbance and more likely to rebound quickly. On the other hand, habitats that 

are degraded and fragmented will be less able to adapt to climate change risks. 

NATURAL RESOURCES, USER GROUPS, AND COMMUNITIES WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY

IMPACTED

Trout Unlimited and our members are especially concerned about the impacts of 

climate change on coldwater fishes and the habitats that support them. We also are 

concerned about impacts to the recreational pursuits, such as fishing, hunting, 

camping, and nature watching, for which our public lands are well known. However, 

we also realize that the impacts from climate change will be felt far more broadly. 

The affects of climate change on federal lands is likely to negatively impact many 

natural resources, user groups, and communities, creating problems for: 

• Drinking water supplies—both quantity and quality 

• Fisheries 

• Wildlife 

• Overall biological diversity 

• Outdoor recreational opportunities 

• Livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource extraction 

• Agriculture 

• The safety and economic well-being of nearby communities 

In short, a very broad range of species, people, and communities will be under 

increasing risk unless we take immediate proactive management actions to prepare. 

The costs of failing to adequately plan and prepare will be high, and will be measured in substantial economic costs to fight large wildfires, deal with multi-year 

droughts, and repair damage from broad scale floods, and possibly in increased injury and loss of life. 

While it is critically important that we reduce carbon emissions in order to stave 

off the worst future affects of climate change, we must also realize that climate-driven disturbances will be felt on our national forests and public lands for decades to 

come. It equally is important to realize that we can moderate the impacts of these 

changes and reduce stress on our natural resources and adjacent human communities. 

RESPONDING TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Federal climate change legislation that takes five percent of the total allowance 

value from a cap and trade program and dedicates it for climate change adaptation 

work is vital. 

It is, however, well within the existing mandates of agencies such as the Forest 

Service and the BLM to develop climate change adaptation strategies to protect, reconnect, and restore resilient landscapes for the benefit of human communities and 

natural resources. The statutory authority to protect watersheds, flows, and water 

resources is well spelled out in the Organic Act of 1897, the Multiple Use Sustained 

Yield Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, and other federal land statutes. In fact, one could argue that not making the recovery of healthier, more productive, and more resilient landscapes a central focus of federal land management would place federal agencies in violation of 

their organic or governing federal statutes. 

Federal land management agencies should not wait for the passage of climate 

change legislation to implement strategies to recover the resilience of lands and 

waters. Here’s what the Forest Service, and other federal land managers, can do to 

lead on climate change adaptation (see graphic below).* 

First, protect the highest quality lands and waters. In a warming climate, national forests, and particularly roadless areas, are thermal refuges. Protecting these 

lands protects fish and wildlife, maintains groundwater recharge, removes carbon 

dioxide from our atmosphere, and also reduces the costs of filtering and treating 

water for downstream communities. Private ranch-lands also harbor important big 

game habitats, many of which are threatened by development. The departments of 
47 

Agriculture and Interior should work with landowners and provide incentives to 

those who help conserve highvalue lands. 

Second, reconnect landscapes. If fish and wildlife habitats are fragmented, the 

species they support they won’t survive floods, fire and drought predicted to increase 

with climate change. Identifying and protecting important wildlife corridors on public lands and allowing rivers to access floodplains are not only good for fish and 

wildlife; it’s good for human communities. A healthy landscape will recharge and replenish underground aquifers that supply municipal drinking water, minimize the 

potential for downstream flooding, filter pollutants and improve soil productivity for 

farmers and ranchers. 

Third, engage communities in restoration. Recovering the ability of our lands to 

withstand the effects of climate change is essential. Reconnecting people, children 

and communities to the landscapes that provide their food, energy resources, and 

recreation opportunities is important to our nation’s well being. Restoration activities such as tree planting, trail maintenance, and river clean-ups improve ecological 

resiliency and bind us to the lands and waters that sustain us. 

This model of protecting, reconnecting, and restoring landscape health should be 

applied through the Forest Service’s proposed new planning rules. They should, for 

example, 1) protect the highest quality habitats and highest quality sources of 

water; 2) ensure that land management activities do not impede wildlife migration 

corridors, degrade streamside areas, and disrupt natural processes; and 3) emphasize the restoration of degraded landscapes where restoration activities will yield 

the highest return. 

Protecting, reconnecting, and restoring landscapes describe the biological imperative of climate change adaptation. The social imperative is to sustain these efforts 

over time. The greatest threat to National Forests and other public lands may lie 

in public ignorance of their extraordinary values and a generation of children more 

connected to video games and computers than they are to the lands and waters that 

sustain them. Investing in youth education and getting kids out of doors is vital to 

building tomorrow’s constituency for conservation. 

Watersheds that are in better condition are more able to withstand disturbances, 

or if disturbed, are more resilient to damage from the disturbances. Areas that may 

be especially important to protect include roadless areas, and other unroaded lands, 

habitat currently acting as native population strongholds, and areas of watersheds 

that produce high quality supplies of cold water. 

The economic benefits to our communities of a Forest Service and other federal 

agency agenda that stresses climate change adaptation cannot be overstated. Benefits include high-wage jobs in rural areas that most need them. Reducing hazardous 

fuels within our forests will also reduce the cost of fire fighting and make communities safer. Cut trees and brush also could be utilized as biomass, offsetting demand for oil and gas. 

Coordination is important. The White House should issue guidance to provide the 

federal agencies with a policy framework that defines how protecting, reconnecting, 

and restoring landscapes will be coordinated with state and federal agencies and interested private partners. Such an integrated and landscape scale approach to conservation will ensure that fish and wildlife resources and human communities can 

cope with a changing climate. Connecting public land efforts with associated private 

lands will also be essential. For example, incentives should be given to private landowners participating in Farm Bill conservation programs with projects that protect, 

reconnect, or restore watershed health and function. 

Below are specific areas that the Forest Service and other federal agencies should 

emphasize in managing for healthier, more resilient lands and waters. 

Water resources and water quantity.—To help protect water supplies and 

maintain stream flows, the Forest Service and BLM should emphasize the restoration of high elevation wet meadows, wetlands, riparian areas, and 

floodplains. These habitats act as natural hydrologic sponges that slow water 

discharge and recharge groundwater aquifers, which in turn increases dry-season stream flows. The proper function of these habitats will be increasingly important as snowpacks diminish. 

Water quality.—To protect water quality, agencies should designate adequately sized streamside—riparian—buffer zones and adopt management standards that emphasize aquatic system protection. These riparian zones should be 

large enough not only to provide shade to streams, but also to buffer from 

upslope erosion and allow fallen trees to enter the stream channel providing the 

complex stream habitat critical to aquatic species. As stated earlier, protecting 

water quality in headwater streams such as roadless areas serves to diminish 

downstream drinking water filtration and treatment costs. Agencies also should 
48 

protect landslide prone areas. Inadequate protection of these areas will increase 

siltation and erosion, which will degrade stream systems, water supplies, and 

fisheries. 

Flooding.—To help guard against flood damage, agencies should reconnect 

rivers to their floodplains. That is, rivers should not be confined into narrow 

channels but rather allowed access to broader floodplains. We also should seek 

to restore floodplains and streamside vegetation. These measures transfer flood 

energies into well-vegetated floodplain zones while dissipating flows and protecting soils from erosion. In addition, federal agencies should improve culverts 

and other stream/road crossings, and decommission poorly maintained or poorly 

designed roads. Inadequately sized or designed culverts and poorly maintained 

road/stream crossings act like time bombs that will plug up then blow out during intense storms causing massive landslides and debris flows. Severe flooding 

has substantial consequences not only to fisheries and wildlife, but also to 

downstream communities and recreation opportunities. 

Invasive species.—Weedy and invasive species are more likely to flourish in 

degraded habitats and to be favored during highly fluctuating environmental 

conditions. Some invasive species will spread more quickly during warming 

trends and will cause greater harm and be more expensive to control if left untreated. To better manage invasive species, we should become more aggressive 

in programs to detect new species invasions and in programs to control established exotic species—both terrestrial invasive weeds and aquatic non-native 

species. 

Biodiversity.—To prevent the loss of plant and animal diversity, lands and 

waters should be managed to provide adequate habitat to support native species. Agencies should manage to protect genetic diversity, including weak stocks 

and peripheral populations. High levels of genetic, life history, and ecological diversity will be necessary for species to adapt to rapid environmental change. 

Wildfire.—Wildfires are increasing in western forests because of reduced 

snowpack and earlier vegetative drying during summer. To deal with more frequent and intense wildfires, agencies should selectively thin forests, primarily 

in wildland-urban interface zones and plantations. To prepare aquatic systems, 

we also should improve road networks and stream crossings, restore up-and 

downstream connectivity, and recover degraded riparian areas. Finally, we 

should adopt strong post-fire logging standards that protect soils and stream 

systems while providing for adequate recruitment of large wood to streams. 

These actions will result in less wildfire damage and decreased erosion and 

stream sedimentation. Riparian habitats, old growth and mature forests, and 

unroaded areas should be protected as well because these are the most fire resistant habitats. 

The Elk River watershed along the Oregon coast offers an example of how protection of intact habitat and reconnection of migration routes can help improve the resiliency of a watershed in the face of climate change. In 2009, thanks to your leadership, Mr. Chairman, the 15,000 acre Copper-Salmon area in the Elk River headwaters was designated as wilderness. This will help maintain water quality and intact spawning habitat for one of the healthiest salmon, trout and steelhead rivers 

in the lower 48. 

Intact headwaters help moderate streamflow, maintain water quality, and keep 

water temperatures cool, which is particularly important to coldwater species such 

as trout and salmon. Downstream of the Copper-Salmon area, trout and salmon access to Elk River tributaries is limited by impassible culverts. One such culvert is 

on Blackberry Creek. It restricts access to more than a mile of upstream spawning 

and rearing habitat for steelhead and Chinook and coho salmon. Furthermore, the 

headwaters of Blackberry Creek, like most streams, are cooler in the summer than 

the downstream reaches. The ability of trout and salmon to access these cooler upstream waters can be of critical importance during the summer. To date, the Forest 

Service has not been able to replace the Blackberry Creek culvert due to inadequate 

funding. Similar barriers to fish passage exist across the National Forest system 

and must be addressed in order to improve the resilience of coldwater fish populations in the face of climate change. 

Implementing the actions needed to enable fish, wildlife and human communities 

to adapt to changes in climate will require a substantial and reliable stream of funding. Dedicating a portion of allowance revenue under climate change legislation to 

natural resources adaptation can provide funding for the type of work described 

above. It is our hope that five percent of the total allowance value will be dedicated 

to natural resources adaptation through climate legislation. Furthermore, funding 
49 

must be dedicated and not subject to annual appropriations in order to enable longterm planning. Both S. 1733 and S. 1933 include dedicated funding. 

CONCLUSION

The actions described herein have a considerable price, but they also have broad 

benefits not only to maintaining biological diversity, but to sustaining the ecological 

services critical to meeting the needs of recreationists, ranchers, and other user 

groups, and to ensuring the well-being of nearby communities. The actions described 

are very low risk steps that have a very high likelihood of substantial benefit to 

multiple parties. Many create jobs as well. 

In the end it is important that we ask ourselves: What is the cost of inaction? 

What will it cost to repair damage to our National Forests and public lands? What 

will it cost in private property loss and public safety? It is less costly and more beneficial to address these concerns in the near-term than it would be to wait until increased climate change driven disasters befall our lands and nearby communities. 

The time to act is now. Our National Forests, National Grasslands, and BLM public 

lands are national treasures that are irreplaceable in our lifetimes. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Wood. That was very helpful. 

All 3 of you gave excellent testimony. 

Let me start with the topic of thinning. The committee has had 

a lot of hearings on the role of thinning for fuels reduction and ecological restoration, so we have talked at considerable length about 

where and when thinning makes sense from the standpoint of reducing wildfire, dealing with ecosystem protection. But, I think it 

would be helpful to get on the record what you think about 

thinning as it relates to carbon sequestration. This is an area that 

we haven’t spent a lot of time on. Why don’t we just kind of go 

down the row, ask each one of you when you think thinning makes 

sense, from a carbon sequestration standpoint, and also, as part of 

the question, your idea of how big a role carbon sequestration can 

play as part of the solution. 

Begin with you, Dr. Law. 

Ms. LAW. OK. Thinning—the fuels that carry fire are the fuels 

that are—there’s the continuity in the amount on the ground and 

it’s the fuel ladders that get the fires up into the crowns. So, it has 

to be strategic within an area. Dry areas are more prone to wildfire. They were, historically burned infrequently—well, frequently, 

maybe every 12 to 20 or 30 years, and they had less fuel buildup. 

When you’re talking about carbon sequestration, it’s—that kind 

of removal, if you don’t know really know where the fires might 

occur, you’re going to be removing more wood than will actually 

burn, because you’re trying to guess where that’s going to occur. 

So, you’re definitely removing wood. If it goes up to merchantable 

wood, that’s definitely reducing carbon sequestration. 

So, it would be—when I talked about being strategic, it behooves 

us to be very strategic on knowing what areas are going to go up 

in smoke. 

Again, the—what burns is primarily the small materials. We’ve 

found, on several fires that we’ve worked on, less than 1 to 5 percent of the bold mass is actually burned, is charred, and that char 

is long-term carbon sequestration. 

Senator WYDEN. How big a role? How big a role can carbon sequestration, in your view, play as part of a solution to the climate 

change challenge? 

Ms. LAW. I think it’s one of the many tools out there that makes 

sense to use. We’re talking about, in the short term, while we 

change to different energy sources and carbon—less carbon-based 
50 

energy. So, while we have carbon sequestration in the places that 

are doing a good job of storing carbon, it makes sense to keep that 

up. 

This is, again, a short-term bridge until we get things in place 

to change our fossil fuel emissions, the amount of carbon that’s 

going into the atmosphere. 

The number that was asked about earlier—the U.S. CarbonCycle Science Program wrote a report on the state of the carbon 

cycle for North America, and I was a coauthor on that report. Our 

estimates were around 16 percent for the total land-based sink as 

being about 16 percent of the equivalent of fossil fuel emissions for 

the country. 

Senator WYDEN. You were one of the authors, so you stand beside that, 16—— 

Ms. LAW. That’s the best we can do right now. 

Senator WYDEN. That’s a significant role. 

Ms. LAW. Yes. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

Dr. Oneil, same question. What do you think about when you believe thinning will make sense, from a carbon sequestration standpoint, and your, kind of, ballpark estimate of how big a role carbon 

sequestration can play in climate change solutions. 

Ms. ONEIL. My perception of this is a little bit more expansive 

that Dr. Law’s, in that I think, on these dry forests, we should— 

we could actually be expanding our thinning between four to five 

times what we’re currently doing on national forests. 

I recently worked on a project for one of my—one of the organizations I work for, Coram, and we looked at the Inland West—portions of the Inland West, where we still had active harvesting operations going on, and we had active mills going on in that region. 

So, we looked at how much the current harvest—of the current 

harvest came from public lands and how much came from private 

lands under a base case. Then, we also looked at how much could 

potentially come off of national forestlands if we thinned the forests 

that were considered—historically, would have considered low-and 

moderate-severity fire regime. That just means the forests that 

would have typically burned every 10 to 15 years, or perhaps 

burned in a mosaic in a—maybe, a 30-year—over every 30 years. 

So, these are the forests that are currently at the highest risk of 

being burned in some kind of a wildfire. So, we looked at that and 

said, on these forests, given the amount of area and the current 

amount of volume, based on FIA data—so, national census data— 

we could increase the removals from four to five times what we’re 

currently doing now. 

Now, those estimates were based on essentially thinning from 

below to a target density, which was—which is currently accepted 

in most national forest plans. So, that’s a fairly substantial increase in the amount of volume we could be—that could be removed. 

Then, when we think about carbon sequestration potential and 

carbon storage potential, you have to look at your landscape, in 

terms of, Where is your high risk for storage? I mean, all forests 

will sequester the forests in the west side. Wet forests, they sequester a lot more than the dry forests. They also can store it a lot 
51 

longer, because they don’t have to deal with these kinds of disturbance events. 

So, in terms of broadening the perspective or—broadening the 

boundary conditions, as it were, our work suggests that if you remove these products and turn them into long-lived wood products, 

augmenting the manufacturing emissions with carbon-neutral 

biofuel, you can actually do almost as good or better than if you 

leave that stuff in the forest, where it has a high risk of burning. 

Senator WYDEN. All right. Anything else, in terms of the potential ballpark question, that we ought to know? 

Ms. ONEIL. The potential ball—I don’t have a number, as Dr. 

Law did, but one of the things that—one of the numbers that is 

tossed around is that we have 20 billion board feet of growth in the 

national forests, and about 8 billion board feet of mortality, and 2 

billion board feet of removals in a particular year. So, that means 

that, on average, if we’re—if our growth is twice—or, basically half 

of it is lost to mortality and removals, that would suggest that it 

looks like a carbon—it’s still a carbon sink, we’re still doing a good 

job there. But, those numbers, if you look at specific regions—like, 

we looked at Washington State—eastern Washington—as part of a 

2007 timber supply analysis, and the FIA numbers there said that, 

well, half of the material in national forestlands—half of the 

growth was offset by mortality in other regions. That was before 

we had these big mountain pine beetle outbreaks starting, in 2000, 

where between 2000 and 2004 we lost 9 million trees just on national forestlands. 

So, the question there, in my mind, is a little bit fuzzier as to 

whether or not we’re still being a carbon source or a carbon sink 

in that particular region. But, that’s specific to that region. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

Mr. Wood, let’s hear your thoughts on carbon sequestration, from 

the—excuse me—thinning, from the standpoint of carbon sequestration, and then your estimates, in terms of the ballpark. 

Mr. WOOD. I’m afraid I’m a little bit outgunned, in terms of the 

estimates for the ballpark, so I probably won’t—— 

Senator WYDEN. All right. 

Mr. WOOD [continuing]. Won’t go there, with your leave. 

I think, as Tom Tidwell—as Chief Tidwell was suggesting, it’s 

difficult to segregate out what the—approaches that the Forest 

Service might employ, climate change mitigation strategies, and 

climate change adaptation strategies, because they can have complementary benefits. You might thin directly adjacent to a community, specifically to protect that community, which has an adaptation benefit, but you can then utilize the biomass, as you were suggesting, sir, and offset your oil and gas demand, which would have 

a mitigation benefit. 

I will say, though, that, as a matter of priority, the strong emphasis for thinning likely should be around human communities, 

what people sometimes refer to as the wildland/urban interface, because our first priority has to keep people—has to be to keep people 

safe. 

As a general statement, I clearly think, and Trout Unlimited 

supports, the thinning of overdense, overgrown stands that have 
52 

missed fire-return intervals, where thinning can be used to help recover forest vigor. 

Two other points that are far less technical than my colleagues, 

here, referred to. I think, one, it’s a question of funding, the Forest 

Service having the necessary resources to do the kind of thinning 

they need to do. 

Then, second—and this is perhaps a softer, more of a social 

science issue—and I wanted to commend Senator Risch, when he 

was here earlier—getting people to the table, a diversity of interests to the table to talk about appropriate kinds of thinning, recognizing that everyone wants forests to remain healthy, makes a big 

difference in the completion of successful projects. Senator Risch 

was intimately involved in the development of the Idaho roadless 

rule, which I think was heavily influenced by a diversity of interests that was brought together by the previous administration that 

helped guide and inform that rule. I think that—there’s probably 

some lessons there for the Forest Service, in terms of if they’re 

going to take a more expansive approach to thinning. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

Let’s go to the question of offsets, beginning with you, Dr. Law. 

What’s your assessment about including Federal lands in a capand-trade offsets program? What are some of the policy questions 

that have to be looked at? 

Ms. LAW. I suppose that—I mean, it’s up to you what you decide 

to do on this, but there—I guess the only concern I might have is 

if there is so much emphasis on revenue that it takes us away from 

the ultimate goal of sustaining ecosystem function. So, I think 

that’s my main concern about that idea. 

I think the idea of additionalities was based on, Would you do 

things—are you doing things differently than you had been before, 

on business as usual? If the Federal lands are to be managed in 

the public interest of carbon sequestration, and that’s saying we 

are managing for the way we would have managed—in other 

words, we might not qualify for additionality. That would need to 

be sorted out, too. 

Senator WYDEN. What would be some examples? Because this 

question of an additional contribution—I’ve always try to explain 

it in English, and every time I’ve used the word ‘‘additionality,’’ everybody just kind of falls asleep, because I’m trying to get a sense 

of what is really going—what would be some examples, in your 

view, of an additional contribution that would warrant it? 

Ms. LAW. I suppose it would be those who have managed lands 

before very actively—say, having a harvest cycle of 40, 50 years for 

a forest that could live to 600 years, and they’ve been doing that 

for a long time, and then they change their practices to allow carbon to accumulate there. That’s a form of additionality. 

Senator WYDEN. That’s too logical for government. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. But, I mean, that’s what we’re going to be looking for, and I’m sure that’s going to be the test, so I’m going to 

want to have some further discussions with you on it. 

Same point, Dr. Oneil, the question of including Federal lands in 

cap-and-trade offset program. What are some of the policy issues 

for this committee and the Senate? 
53 

Ms. ONEIL. I think if we’re looking at baselands additionality, we 

also have to think about permanence and leakage. Right now national forests, at least the—for the areas that I’ve looked at—are 

carrying a lot of volume and, therefore, a lot of carbon. They look 

really good, in terms of their baseline. So, how do you improve on 

that while you’re facing these catastrophic fires and these mountain pine beetle epidemics would suggest that your baseline is 

going to be higher than you might actually be able to accomplish 

in—when you’re addressing permanence. 

So, that is—that’s going to be a difficult thing to work around, 

in terms of a cap-and-trade. But, I think, in the broader context, 

Should we treat national forestlands differently than we do other 

lands, in terms of accounting for the carbon benefit that can accrue 

for them?—I think we should treat them similarly. Obviously, with 

different—you’re going to have to apply different kinds of standards, but you’re still going to have to meet your baseline, your— 

define your baseline. Do you define your baseline net of all the expected mortality? Do you define your baseline as what’s currently 

occurring, and then, if you increase your treatments to reduce fire 

risk, is that counted as a—additional to the baseline, or is it counted as a reduction from the baseline? 

So, it’s very complicated when you’re looking at these Inland 

West forests. I’ll have to think about it a little bit more, in terms 

of what else I could offer there. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

Mr. Wood. 

Mr. WOOD. I would only offer that the overriding objective, the 

goal, has to be to restore healthy, diverse, and more resilient forests. If you can manage carbon as a byproduct of achieving that ultimate goal, I think, as the Forest Service testimony suggested, 

that’s a good and logical thing. I think we should be, given the 

enormous backlog, due to bugkill, due to fires, due to hurricanes 

and other natural disasters, that we have on replanting on the national forest system, you know, we should be open to good, creative 

ideas for incentivizing that work. I think the way the National Forest Foundation, which had a little—I think it was a pilot program, 

started in 2007—handled this question of additionality, which, honestly, was not a term I had heard of until the other day—was that, 

they defined that as work that wouldn’t otherwise be done by appropriated dollars. 

Senator WYDEN. Said. If I wasn’t having to chase healthcare and 

a couple of other crises this afternoon, I would ask, particularly 

you, Dr. Oneil and Dr. Law, about full carbon accounting, because 

I know you both have written on this. We’ll save that for the next 

time. 

I will give you all the last word. Anything you’d like to add, Dr. 

Law, Dr. Oneil, Mr. Wood? 

Ms. LAW. I can’t think of anything. 

Senator WYDEN. Very good. 

Ms. ONEIL. On this topic of full carbon accounting, what we have 

found is that when you start to account for the forest and the ability to maintain the productivity of the forest through time, whether 

or not you’re harvesting it, you’re—basically, your resource is your 

soil. You want to maintain your soil productivity. You can remove 
54 

the crop and grow another one, and you’re still continuing to sequester carbon at a relatively high rate. You’re not storing it there, 

you’re—in this case, you’re using the forest as a carbon pump, and, 

instead, you’re taking your products and you’re storing it as solid 

wood products, like you see in this room. You’re using the biomass—the pieces of the log that are not used for solid wood products, you’re using as biomass to offset fossil fuels. There is the opportunity to remove some of the material—not all the material, but 

some of the material that is currently left behind because it doesn’t 

have a market—to supplement or to try to reach some of our goals, 

in order to renewable fuels and renewable energy. 

What you find, if you consider those benefits in addition to comparisons between using wood as a building product, as opposed to 

some other fossil-intensive material, that you can actually have a 

substantial carbon benefit, above and beyond the forest, by using 

it as a carbon pump, as opposed to a carbon storage unit. 

Now, that’s an opportunity—the Inland West forests—we could 

take advantage of in the inland west forests, because they are at 

such high risk when you have very large amounts of wood left in 

the woods. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Wood, you’re not compelled to say anything, 

but you’re welcome to have the last word. 

Mr. WOOD. All I’ll say is, thank you, Senator, for holding this 

hearing. It’s particularly important to TU and its members, as research has demonstrated or indicated that up to 40 percent of 

salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest could be lost by 2050 

due to climate change. 

I also want to take a moment just to thank you for your leadership on the—and your staff’s leadership—for the—for passing that 

copper salmon wilderness bill. 

Senator WYDEN. Thanks, to all three of you. We’re going to be 

calling on you often. 

With that, the subcommittee’s adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(55) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF KIT BATTEN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. My understanding is that both the Forest Service and Department of 

the Interior have explored marketing tree-planting projects to generate funds from 

private sources based on the trees’ ability to sequester carbon. Do you have any regulations or formal policies on those projects or on participating in existing carbon 

markets in general? If so, please cite them. 

Answer. There has been discussion within the Department of the Interior about 

the ability of our land managing bureaus to sequester carbon on the lands managed 

under their jurisdiction. However, much of the discussion has taken place within the 

context of existing authorities. For example, National Park Service laws and policies 

require NPS to maintain naturally functioning ecosystems, which often provide a 

range of services, including but not limited to biological carbon sequestration. The 

Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has for the past 12 years 

been building a program of carbon sequestration projects funded through partnerships with energy companies, land trusts, and conservation organizations, to bolster 

the bureau’s conservation goals. 

Question 2. Across the country, there are countless examples of fish and wildlife 

adaptation projects that have benefitted both the ecosystem and the surrounding 

community. For example, when headwaters are protected, drinking water filtration 

costs are reduced and rivers get reconnected to floodplains. Do you prioritize adaptation projects based on the ecosystem services they render or have the potential to 

render? 

Answer. Among the Department’s land managing bureaus, prioritization of adaptation projects is carried out based on the specific authorities that the bureaus operate under. Ecosystem services are one of many determinants of habitat conservation, restoration, and/or adaptation priorities. Likewise, adaptation, restoration, and 

conservation projects provide both direct and indirect benefits for a multitude of ecosystem services, including, but not limited to: fish and wildlife habitat, clean water, 

pollinator services, biodiversity, biological carbon sequestration, recreation, and 

many more. 

For example, the FWS undertakes specific adaptation actions through a variety 

of programs, including land acquisition through the National Wildlife Refuge System, habitat restoration through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and 

stream restoration through the National Fish Passage Program. Within each of 

these programs, conservations actions are prioritized based on the significance of 

their contribution to the conservation of target species or habitats, cost-effectiveness, and other considerations that are outlined in program guidance documents 

and strategic plans, which can include important ecosystem services including, but 

not necessarily limited to, the provision of fish and wildlife habitat and/or biodiversity. Habitat conservation priorities are increasingly being developed in a landscape 

context, through application of our Strategic Habitat Conservation framework. 

The Bureau of Land Management has a long history of prioritizing projects that 

improve land health and ecosystem resilience and contribute to achieving multiple 

beneficial ecosystem objectives across all land ownerships. In addition, BLM has initiated a process for conducting eco-regional assessments to identify and develop adaptation projects and strategies. Finally, NPS policies guide the determination of 

what sorts of resource intervention actions are undertaken in parks and most adaptation projects to date have been for ecosystem restoration. 
56 

RESPONSES OF KIT BATTEN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. Your testimony mentioned that USGS expects to complete the methodology for conducting the carbon sequestration assessments required by the 2007 

Energy Bill next year. Can you clarify whether both the geologic sequestration 

methodology under section 711 and the ecosystem methodology under section 712 

are expected to be completed next year? When do you expect the assessments themselves to be completed under both sections? 

Answer. The process of developing a methodology for a national assessment of biologic carbon dioxide sequestration resources was begun in FY 2009 and should be 

completed in 2010. The methodology to assess geologic resources for geological carbon dioxide sequestration was completed in March 2009 and the U.S. Geological 

Survey is planning to carry out the assessment during this fiscal year (2010). 

Question 2. Managing forests for adaptation and carbon sequestration can be complimentary—for example, through forests ecosystem restoration projects. But, in 

other cases, managing to maximize sequestration may be counterproductive from an 

adaptation standpoint, and vice versa. Can you explain what your current policies 

are for addressing the latter situation—where managing to maximize adaptation 

and sequestration are competing goals? 

Answer. In those instances where this tension exists—competition between managing to maximize for adaptation or sequestration activities—it is important to note 

that the Department and its bureaus must carry out those mission-related functions 

that are required by statute. For example, the National Park Service is required to 

manage our national parks to prevent impairment of park resources and values. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to manage our national wildlife refuges 

to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System, the purposes for which the individual 

refuges were established, and for any wildlife dependent recreational uses that are 

compatible with that mission and those purposes. 

RESPONSE OF KIT BATTEN TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. In early 2001, it was reported that several Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Forest Service employees planted the hair of a Lynx from a game park on 

scratch posts in Washington State that were designed to check for the presence of 

Lynx in the area. As a result both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior 

were forced to develop a code of professional ethics for their employees. Was this 

the type of sound science that the Secretary is suggesting be used? 

Answer. Secretary Salazar has made clear his expectation that science-based decision-making will to be conducted with scientific integrity, in an atmosphere of openness and under the highest ethical standards, and without political interference. 

Science should be used as a tool for crafting smart natural resources policies, and 

tampering with science will not be tolerated. 

RESPONSES OF KIT BATTEN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. Dr. Batten, at the hearing, I raised my concerns about Secretarial 

Order 3289, which injects climate change into Department of the Interior decisionmaking. In response, you highlighted Secretary Salazar’s responsibilities for land 

and resources management, and stated that ‘‘as a result, all of those land management decisions, resource management decisions, we need to considering climate 

change as the driving force in making decisions as how best to protect those resources and those lands for our communities.’’ How can the Secretary of Interior 

make climate change the driving force in land management decisions above all others through a Secretarial Order, without any Congressional approval or authorization? 

Answer. The Department and its bureaus must carry out those mission-related 

functions that are required by statute, and such required statutory obligations cannot be waived by Secretarial Order. To the contrary, Secretarial Order 3289 establishes, working within the context of existing bureau and Departmental authority, 

a framework through which Interior bureaus will coordinate climate change science 

and resource management strategies. Section 6 of the Order specifically notes that 

the document does not alter or effect any existing duty or authority of individual 

bureaus. Given the unprecedented scope of climate change impacts, Secretary Salazar believes it is simply good management for scientists, land managers, and policy 

makers at all levels of government to work together with landowners to understand 

climate change impacts and develop landscape-level strategies for responding to 

those impacts. 

Question 2. Dr. Batten, I asked if Secretarial Order 3289 would affect existing 

land management agreements. You stated ‘‘there is nothing in the Secretarial Order 
57 

that discusses anything to do with altering existing agreements or arrangements between the Department of Interior and any of our partners as a result of this Secretarial Order.’’ When I asked you again, can you assure me no existing land management agreement will be changed because of the Secretarial climate change order, 

you stated ‘‘there is nothing in this Secretarial Order that addresses any existing 

agreements.’’ Would the Secretarial Order affect the renewal of any permit for any 

existing land management agreement or activity on public lands? Would the Secretarial Order lead to the changing of any existing land management agreement or 

activity through the updating of resource management plans? What current authorized public land management activities, whether energy extraction or recreational 

use, would be impacted by rules or policies promulgated as a result of Secretarial 

Order 3289? 

Answer. As noted in the response to the previous question, Secretarial Order 3289 

establishes within the context of existing bureau and Departmental authority a 

framework through which Interior bureaus will coordinate climate change science 

and resource management strategies. As I noted at the hearing, the Secretarial 

Order does not address any existing agreements. While the Order lists several general examples of actions that the impacts of changing climate could require, it is 

premature at this point to speculate results at the very specific level of detail addressed in this question. 

Question 3. Dr. Batten, you are aware that I am concerned about Secretarial 

Order 3289, as well as Secretary Salazar’s October 30th response to our letter. In 

that reply Secretary Salazar indicated that DOI only wanted to ensure that all bureaus and agencies have access to sound science and are in a position to respond 

to climate changes in a coordinated way. Given the history of some decisions that 

relied on questionable science, could you help me better understand who’s sound 

science the Secretary wants to rely upon? 

Answer. Secretary Salazar has made clear his expectation that science-based decision-making will to be conducted with scientific integrity, in an atmosphere of openness and under the highest ethical standards, and without political interference. 

Science should be used as a tool for crafting smart natural resources policies, and 

tampering with science will not be tolerated. 

Question 4. Over the last decade the National Park Service has worked to close 

an oyster farm at Point Reyes National Seashore. Superintendent Don Neubacher 

and one of his scientists were accused of relying on science that was unrelated to 

Point Reyes when justifying the closure of the Drake’s Bay facility. In fact, both the 

National Academy of Science and your own department Office of Inspector General 

reported on this. Was that the type of sound science that the Secretary is suggesting 

be used? 

Answer. As noted in response to the previous question, Secretary Salazar has 

made clear his expectation that science-based decision-making will be conducted 

with scientific integrity, in an atmosphere of openness and under the highest ethical 

standards, and without political interference. 

Question 5. In early 2001, it was reported that several Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Forest Service employees planted the hair of a Lynx from a game park on 

scratch posts in Washington State that were designed to check for the presence of 

Lynx in the area. As a result both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior 

were forced to develop a code of professional ethics for their employees. Was this 

the type of sound science that the Secretary is suggesting be used? 

Answer. As noted in response to the previous question, Secretary Salazar has 

made clear his expectation that science-based decision-making will to be conducted 

with scientific integrity, in an atmosphere of openness and under the highest ethical 

standards, and without political interference. 

Question 6. I see from your title that you are the Science Advisor to the Deputy 

Secretary. Can you help me better understand what criteria the Department will 

use to assess just what sound science is on climate change vs. what is junk science? 

Answer. President Obama addressed this issue in his March 2009 memorandum 

on scientific integrity, which states that ‘‘[w]hen scientific or technological information is considered in policy decisions, the information should be subject to well-established scientific processes, including peer review where appropriate, and each 

agency should appropriately and accurately reflect that information in complying 

with and applying relevant statutory standards. . . .’’ Secretary Salazar has stated 

that decisions in the Department will be based on sound science and the public interest. 

Question 7. As you well know we currently have hundreds of thousands of forested 

acres that have been killed by the Mountain Bark Beetle in Colorado, Wyoming, and 

Montana. I suspect you also know part of the reason is that the age class distribution of our Lodgepole Pine stands is completely out of whack. All forest science that 
58 

I am aware of would recommend that the Lodgepole Pine should have been harvested over the last 50 years to have avoided the situation we now are suffering. 

But that would have required heavy timber harvesting which the federal land management agencies have resisted. Given that science and seeing the result of no action, does the Department of the Interior now advocate for more clear-cutting of the 

Lodgepole Pine that has not yet been killed by the insects? 

Answer. Current science recognizes that a combination of warmer winters over 

the past decade, drought stress, and a loss of demographic diversity at the landscape scale have created conditions that are ideal for a proliferation of bark beetles. 

As the Department has noted in the past, no effective treatment for suppression of 

large-scale pine beetle outbreaks currently exists, and the Department’s two largest 

land managing bureaus in the west are approaching this problem in a variety of 

ways based upon their missions, policies, laws, and the management mandates 

under which they operate. Selective removal of trees is being carried out in our national parks in order to protect visitor safety, dependent wildlife, and habitat. However, because commercial timber sales are not authorized on park service lands 

much of the beetle-killed trees will remain standing and, in accordance with the Organic Act and National Park Service Management Policies, natural recovery of these 

areas will be allowed. 

The Bureau of Land Management has management jurisdiction over approximately 800,000 acres of lodgepole pine and has approached this epidemic by treating, in fiscal year 2009, 9,500 acres to mitigate impacts of the mountain pine beetle 

outbreak. The treatments are focused on protecting high-value areas, such as 

around communities and in and near established recreation sites, through placement of pheromone traps to prevent tree mortality, and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire events by reducing fuels through salvage of dead and dying trees. 

RESPONSE OF ELAINE ONEIL TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. If I understood your testimony, you both agree that a ‘‘full-carbon accounting’’ should be employed when considering the effects of forest management on 

carbon. But I have the sense that just about everybody has a different view of what 

exactly that means in practice. Is my sense on this accurate and, if so, where does 

that leave this Committee in crafting Federal forest management policy? To give one 

example, I wonder if the amount of credit to give wood products for carbon sequestration is widely accepted and how that would be quantified? Do you have any suggestions for how to standardize full-carbon accounting? 

Answer. There should not be a significant difference in opinion on what is meant 

by full carbon accounting but there will be differences on what the implications are 

to policy. 

Life Cycle Analysis has been accepted for some time as the best way to characterize full accounting which in this case requires tracking the carbon in the forest, 

into product uses (if any), and including how the uses may displace other uses such 

as the use of wood materials to displace steel and concrete or the use of biofuel to 

displace other fuels. It also includes issues of changes in land use. International 

Standards (ISO 14040 etc) have been designed specifically to provide a protocol for 

acceptable use of life cycle inventory and assessment methods (LCI/LCA). 

Most of what might be considered different views are actually deviations and 

failed transparency in meeting the standards. But the standards do leave some 

room for variation while still requiring full disclosure. The EISA 2007 passed by 

Congress requires Life Cycle Analysis of synthetic fuels to compare the emissions 

of products like corn ethanol to common fossil fuels. This LCA requirement exposes 

the minimal carbon benefit that comes from corn-ethanol compared to sugarcaneethanol or other sources and will help place the use of biofuels in a full carbon accounting perspective. You can expect that the carbon benefits for cellulosic ethanol 

to be much better as research is underway. This LCA requirement was not extended 

to the emissions from construction materials, which have a substantially larger leverage for reducing carbon emissions than using wood as a biofuel. Certified green 

buildings could easily be producing more emissions than non-certified buildings 

since there is no science based protocol for rating them. 

The science basis for wood’s impact on emissions has been studied for 15 years 

by a consortium of 15 research institutions, The Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM) and there is peer reviewed life cycle inventory 

data available on all the main structural and non-structural wood products (lumber, 

plywood, OSB, glulams, LVL, particleboard, MDF, trusses). Oregon State University 

provided much of the oversight for the development of these product LCIs and University of Idaho and the University of Washington were directly involved in har-
59 

vesting and forest management impacts. CORRIM is currently working on LCIs for 

biofuel collection and processing which will be available soon. Comparable data for 

steel, concrete and other materials have also been collected such that all the inputs 

and emission outputs for all commonly used primary products are now available in 

the DOE NREL managed US LCI database for primary products. 

However differences of opinion can easily arise when applying this information to 

policy. For example the tax credit for ethanol essentially results in the processor 

being able to steal the feedstock from other processors to make ethanol even though 

the other alternative will likely be reducing carbon emissions more effectively. This 

is a counter-productive policy result. The USDA Biomass Crop Assistance Program 

(BCAP) makes sawdust and other materials that are used to make particleboard 

and MDF eligible for fuel subsidies, which will redirect the feedstock away from its 

highest and best use thereby increasing carbon emissions by requiring other substitute products. If the subsidy only supported using currently unused feedstock the 

impact might be positive, but if so why not use it for its best use, which may or 

may not be fuel? There are many such counterproductive policies exposed by Life 

Cycle Analysis. The example you use on how much credit to give wood products cannot be answered and is probably the wrong question. The carbon mitigation objective is to drive out the use of high carbon emitting products and processes, which 

can be done directly by a tax on fossil emissions. That way the incentive is highest 

for those uses of wood that drive out the most fossil emissions. Using wood as a 

fuel will get the smallest incentive compared to other uses of wood like wood I-Joists 

which displace 9 times as much carbon as burning the wood for fuel. The market 

could determine the best efficiency by passing on the cost of carbon emissions. 

Neither cap and trade, which involves millions of different products that cannot 

be treated separately, or incentives, which can’t be properly designed for multiple 

uses, will be as effective as a carbon tax on emission that can easily be designed 

for income neutrality. Many proposed policies appear to be counterproductive but it 

is easier to find the flaws than to design a system to avoid them all. Perhaps the 

worst forest carbon policy is carbon exchanges that pay tree farmers to not harvest 

and save the wood in the forest as this assures the substitution of other materials, 

which produce higher emissions than any savings in forest carbon. 

There is a wealth of additional information on full carbon accounting at the 

CORRIM website, www.corrim.org. 

RESPONSES OF ELAINE ONEIL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. Ms. Oneil, in your testimony you said: ‘‘No one wants to see another 

‘timber war’ or extractive industry with little thought to long term sustainability of 

the federal lands in their region.’’ 

If you look at the clear cuts that occurred over the last 50 years and compare that 

to the amount of dead trees in the Medicine Bow and Big Horn National Forests 

that are the result of the Mountain Pine Beetles, The old clear cuts remain green 

and I have to ask myself if harvesting was really that bad. 

I know that it seems to be politically incorrect for anyone in academia to admit 

that management of our federal forests has been a good idea. However, what has 

brought more damage to our forests over the last two decades in your mind—timber 

harvesting or the fires and insect epidemics we are currently suffering? 

Answer. It appears that a few clarifying statements about ‘timber wars’ are in 

order. In the statement you quoted from my testimony, I am specifically referring 

to the discussions we had at the Plum Creek Conference on Forests and Energy in 

Missoula Montana in September 2009. At that conference participants were discussing the opportunities to create their own economic stimulus by biomass removal 

to reduce fire risks and address the mountain pine beetle epidemic. These were people working at the grassroots level that were sufficiently savvy to want it all: living 

wage jobs in the location they called home, but also a vibrant, healthy forest ecosystem to live near and recreate in. The fact that they live surrounded by National 

Forests that are dying and burning because they can’t be cut is seen as a travesty 

but so is the idea that we could swing all the way in the opposite direction to wholesale biomass utilization without regard for other values on the forests. These concerns highlight how sustainability and management really have to be approached 

in the context of scale which is what dominated the discussions at the forum on biomass utilization. While there is a sense of urgency to get going on biomass removal 

operations before the forests all die and burn around them, there is a need to evaluate and determine not only how much can we take, but also how much should we 

leave. The core theme is the idea that the pendulum had swung from all out exploitation to essentially complete protection and that in this new opportunity for biomass to energy we needed to find a middle ground. 
60 

* CORRIM Fact Sheet has been retained in subcommittee files. 

So what is more damaging: timber harvest or insects and disease infestations? It 

depends on two things—the scale of the disturbance and the effort made to ensure 

long term sustainability of forest attributes that are hard to replace if lost. If we 

can harvest in a way that leaves behind some big logs, snags, and trees as legacies 

in the regenerating stand, and most importantly soil conditions conducive to tree regeneration, then harvest is preferable to losing most of the soil horizon in a wildfire. 

While wildfires produce a lot of big logs and snags as legacies, but they also release 

tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and we have very little control over their eventual outcome. If maintaining forests as carbon sinks as 

well as for other values such as clean water, wildlife habitat and scenery is important then using harvesting offers much more control over the process of regeneration and renewal than we can ever expect from uncontrolled wildfire and insect infestations. 

Question 2. Is forestry carbon neutral? In other words, how does sustainable harvest compare to some hot, destructive wildfires we’ve seen recently? 

Answer. Forestry is better than carbon neutral. The Consortium for Research on 

Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM) has conducted life cycle inventory (LCI) 

and life cycle analysis (LCA) across 4 US timber supply regions and BC Canada 

which links what is happening in the forest through the milling process, to the use 

of the product and its eventual end of life. Results from CORRIM research show 

that harvesting wood for long term wood products generates a carbon benefit to the 

atmosphere that is better than if the forest is just left to grow, even if we assume 

the forest doesn’t burn or die from insect infestations. In effect, using the forest as 

a carbon pump rather than a carbon storage site generates the maximum carbon 

storage gain. As part of the record I have submitted a 4 page factsheet* that summarizes 13 years worth of LCI work on this subject of whether forestry is carbon 

neutral. 

These carbon neutral results are predicated on management that protects the resource and the resource is the soil. We cannot expect to see any kind of sustainability when the soils are losing over 1⁄2their carbon and a large percentage of their 

nitrogen as well during a hot wildfire. The sites are compromised as the pictures 

I showed you demonstrate and it may take centuries for them to return to their 

former carbon storage potential. In other cases it may take very little time for forest 

regeneration and soil carbon storage to return to pre-fire levels if there is limited 

impact on the soils. For example, after the Biscuit fire in Oregon, researchers found 

that 23 metric tons of carbon/hectare (62.5 US tons/acre) were lost from the soil 

which is almost double the estimate of carbon loss for the above ground vegetation 

of the 1 million SUV example I provided in the testimony. That means that the carbon emissions from that single wildfire with the million SUV impact may have been 

equivalent to the impact of 3 million SUV’s driven over a 1 year period when we 

take into account the losses from below ground as well. That is a substantial impact 

on our forest recovery potential, on air quality and atmospheric carbon dioxide, and 

on our ability to meet future greenhouse gas targets. 

Question 3. Will climate change affect National Forests differently in different regions of the country and if so, how should we structure policy to deal with those 

differences? 

Answer. Climate change will definitely impact different regions of the country differently, and even different areas within a given region differently. For example in 

Washington State we looked at climate impacts for the forest sector as part of the 

Washington State Climate Impacts Assessment. Early on we decided to focus on 

eastern Washington as that is where all the action is in terms of climate impacts. 

While climate impacts may occur in coastal regions, they aren’t something we can 

model at this time; the corollary is that it is difficult to recommend any mitigation 

actions for those regions either. The opposite case is true in the Inland West (Intermountain, Front Range, Southwest and eastern Washington) where climate impacts 

abound including increased wildfire activity, the 22 million acre mountain pine beetle outbreak across the west, and forest dieback from drought in the Southwest. We 

are anticipating the loss of 1 or more species at the lower forest margins in Washington State and when you realize that there are often only 1 or 2 species present, 

that is the same as saying we expect a forest dieback there also. 

My experience as a field forester is that prescriptive policies that dictate how 

many trees to leave, how big a harvest unit should be, whether a clearcut is permissible or not, and what age, size, or species can be cut or must be left behind simply 

do not work. Policies that lead to these kinds of requirements or specifications in 

lower level plans are equally likely to fail. Here is an example to illustrate this 

point. Each site is different so the result of implementing the same prescription on 
61 

two sites that are separated by less than a mile can be quite different and neither 

may meet the objective set out in the prescription. Say we have a forest with mostly 

pine that is susceptible to mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Research from the 1970’s 

conducted in the Black Hills of South Dakota suggests that to increase stand vigor 

so that the trees are more likely to be able to resist attack we need to lower the 

stocking to less than 150 square feet of basal area per acre. Overlay on this scenario 

a requirement to maintain the largest 50 trees in the stand that needs to be thinned 

to meet this requirement. Only if the 50 largest trees in the stand have an average 

diameter less than 24 inches per tree and they are well distributed across the acre 

can have meet both criteria; if the stand has all those trees clustered in once corner 

of the acre we may be able to meet both policy criteria but would not reduce the 

competitive stress on the trees to improve their ability to resist insect attack. In addition we relying on results taken from a single study in one region and applying 

them to the entirety of the west where different climates, climate impacts, and site 

productivities may dictate lower stocking levels (or permit higher ones) in order to 

achieve the reduced mountain pine beetle impact. 

Just as important is the fact that there just aren’t the physical or financial resources, or personnel, to tackle a problem of this magnitude by measuring every tree 

to ensure it is young enough or small enough to be removed. Rather than a prescriptive policy, we need a results based policy that highlights what we want to see as 

an outcome, not how to get there. The outcomes should be grounded in ecology and 

forest science so the basis of the policy should be ecology and forest science. The 

policy should direct land managers to evaluate the carrying capacity of their land 

base, whether trees, shrubs, soil, or animals, and assess how it might change with 

climate change. Using those predictions they should develop plans that describe how 

they plan to accomplish the result of creating (or maintaining) a forest ecosystem 

that has the necessary attributes to be resilient in the face of an uncertain climate 

future specific to their particular land base. That plan should be specific, but not 

prescriptive. The policy should direct land managers to describe contingency plans 

should particular aspects of the plan fail to meet its goals and objectives, and safeguards to minimize failures. While the plans should be open to public scrutiny and 

input, once they are approved, the mechanics of operations should no longer be open 

for discussion. We can expect to fail at least some of the time since we are dealing 

with many unknowns with climate change and land management, so if we want to 

accomplish something on the ground, it will be critical to provide a culture of support for managers and operational personnel that are willing to try new things to 

ensure the resilience of their forests. 

Question 4. With all the money we are spending on fighting fires and all the news 

about mountain pine beetle are our national forests a carbon sink or a caron source 

at the present time? 

Answer. The latest available Forest Service reports indicate that there is 20 billion board feet (BBF) of growth, 8 BBF mortality and 2 BBF of harvest on National 

Forests across all regions. These numbers suggest that nationally the forest is still 

a carbon sink, not a source. The questions to ask are whether this latest estimate 

incorporates current mortality events or not and whether substantial growth in one 

region is subsidizing substantial mortality in another. For example the most current 

complete dataset available when we started the Washington State timber supply 

analysis that was finished in 2007 was from prior to 2000. Using that data we calculated that mortality in eastern Washington National Forests was 49% of gross 

growth (so if applied nationally that would be 9.8 BBF of mortality instead of 8 

BBF) but that did not include the massive spike in mountain pine beetle (MPB) 

mortality culminating in 9 million trees killed across 770,000 acres by 2004 as well 

as the wildfires in 2006 that affected over 400,000 acres of National Forest land. 

Since 1995 we have lost almost a million acres of National Forest land in Washington State to wildfire. If we continue at this rate it is equivalent to losing 1.7% 

of the forest area/year to wildfire. Other states will show greater or lesser impacts 

than this example, but the impacts are growing during each wildfire season. To 

highlight this growth rate consider this example. A recent study that looked at the 

relationship between wildfire extent and climate (Littell et al 2009b) found that for 

a region including Idaho, Montana, and eastern Washington we had experienced a 

fire rate of approximately 24% during the 20th century (meaning 24% of the National Forest lands would have experienced a wildfire during a 100 year period) or 

approximately 132,000 acres per year. National Interagency Fire Control (NIFC) 

statistics from 2002-2009 for this same area show almost 1 million acres/year of National Forest affected by wildfire which is equivalent to a 7.5x increase from the 

20th century average. Add to these fire impacts, the mountain pine beetle outbreaks 

in all western states that literally dwarf the impact discussed for eastern Washington. In these regions with massive MPB outbreaks and extremely large wildfires, 
62 

I would suspect that since 2000 these National Forests are carbon sources, not 

sinks; however, to my knowledge no one has done the math on this question because 

the data in their entirety aren’t available yet to do so. 

Question 5. You state that ‘‘we should strive to prreserve mature and old growth 

forests to avoid losses of carbon associated with harvest’’. Mature forests are managed for a variety of reasons and objectives, including preventing catastrophic wildfire and improving habitat for T&E species. Doesn’t stating that we should strive 

to preserve mature forests to avoid losses of carbon associated with harvest ignore 

the carbon sequestration that could be lost through other means, such as catastrophic wildfire, insects and disease, etc.? 

Answer. Any loss of carbon associated with harvest can be more than offset with 

carbon storage in products and by using residual material not suited for products 

to replace fossil fuel use as an energy source. The Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM) has conducted life cycle inventory (LCI) 

and life cycle analysis (LCA) across 4 US timber supply regions and BC Canada 

which links what is happening in the forest through the milling process, to the use 

of the product and its eventual end of life. Results from CORRIM research show 

that harvesting wood for long term wood products generates a carbon benefit to the 

atmosphere that is better than if the forest is just left to grow, even if we assume 

the forest doesn’t burn or die from insect infestations. In effect, using the forest as 

a carbon pump rather than a carbon storage site generates the maximum carbon 

storage gain. 

Question 6. You state that most forest biomass is not consumed by fire, but isn’t 

the larger issue whether there will be a loss of forest cover, loss of sequestration 

(because trees are dead unless the site is replanted), rehabilitation costs and watershed and stream problems? Should we consider all of these and other factors when 

managing forests or should we just look at carbon sequestration? Should we also 

consider the short versus long term impact of management? 

Answer. Placing carbon sequestration potential into the context of disturbance 

rate is critical in maximizing carbon storage and offsets in both the near and long 

term. In areas with frequent fires, high fire risk, or on sites with high fuel loadings 

that are likely to burn under an altered fire regime brought on by climate change, 

harvesting can reduce the risk of leaving biomass in the forest with the co-benefit 

of using the harvested biomass to offset some other fossil fuel use that would have 

produced source emissions that still impact the atmosphere. 

If the choice is to opt for maintaining the forests as carbon storage units, according to analysis by Weidinmyer et al (2006) for Inland Northwest forests we can calculate that about 30% of the tree biomass and about 90% of the shrubbery and duff 

layers (duff = decaying vegetation on top of the soil) are consumed during the actual 

fires. That which is not consumed by fire immediately begins to decay so emissions 

are either rapid during the fire or slow after the fire. Recent research on soil carbon 

suggests that there is always some component of the charred wood that remains for 

100’s if not 1000’s of years but it is a small fraction compared to the total biomass 

on site prior to the fire. So fires do generate substantial greenhouse gas emissions 

at the outset and continue to do so as the vegetation continues to decay. As long 

as there is minimal soil damage and a seed source for regeneration the emissions 

can be offset in a relatively short period of time with new growth in both the shrub 

and canopy layers. The problem arises when the fire impacts on soil are severe, 

when there is no seed source, or where there is some other condition such as 

invasive weeds that prevent tree regeneration as is the case for a large portion of 

the Federal lands in California according to the latest fire analysis by Bonnicksen 

(2009). These factors should be taken into consideration when evaluating options for 

managing forests for carbon sequestration. 

Question 7. You state that‘‘ fuel reduction techniques, especially those that remove 

half or more of the larger trees, could lead to increases in fire severity because of 

additional logging debris.’’ Science shows that leaving the larger trees is best from 

a fire/fuel perspective and most fuels reduction work is needed on federal and public 

lands. What fuels reduction techniques recommend removing half or more of the 

larger trees?—this statement seems to be inconsistent with federal land management efforts to reduce hazardous fuels. Further, most hazardous fuels projects also 

include a prescribed fire component to reduce fire risk. Is your statement consistent 

with most hazardous fuels reduction projects? 

Answer. Hazardous fuels reduction projects that remove over half the large trees 

are possible if the site was severely overstocked and/or if the largest diameter trees 

on site were not well suited to meet restoration goals. For example, some sites that 

were historically ponderosa pine forests may now have an overstory of white fir or 

grand fir that is fire intolerant. These overstory trees are sometimes the largest 

ones in the forest but they will not survive the re-introduction of fire and are often 
63 

experiencing substantial stress as the sites are too dry for optimal growth. In these 

cases, harvest could include removal of these large diameter specimens for processing along with concomitant fuels management of the residual material using either burning, grinding, or removal as a biomass feedstock. If logging debris is managed as part of the fuels reduction project, the risk of increasing fire severity is 

minimized or eliminated altogether. 

Question 8. You also state that ‘‘fuel reduction can be effective to reduce fire severity but it results in decreased long-term carbon storage’’. If thinning helps prevent tree losses (and carbon) to bark beetles and fire, which will help the carbonsequestration potential for the long term, should we not thin because of the shortterm carbon loss? 

Answer. If we only measure carbon stored on the forest without considering the 

carbon storage in wood products and carbon offsets by using wood to replace fossil 

fuel energy sources, there are probably some instances where this scenario of decreased long term storage might be true. For example in old growth PNW coastal 

forests with very long fire return intervals (over 250 years) it has been shown that 

fire risk reduction treatments that take only understory vegetation decrease long 

term carbon storage because the baseline of fire risk is so minimal and the product 

pools do not include solid wood products and their carbon offset values (Mitchell et 

al 2009). However examination of the full suite of stands from fire prone forests of 

the Inland Northwest shows that thinning these forests to reduce fire risks is both 

appropriate and it will not result in the loss of long term carbon storage (Oneil and 

Lippke, publish date 2010). If anything we need to be more aggressive in reducing 

forest stocking below carrying capacity when conducting forest thinnings. If we do 

so, the remaining trees will be able to regain vigor and resilience quickly, and then 

respond by growing up to that land carrying capacity which will sequester more carbon per tree while reducing the mortality risk. 

Question 9. Should we manage forests with an ecosystem focus, to meet a multitude of objectives, including carbon sequestration, but by not maximizing one at 

the expense of another? 

Answer. Given the multiple mandates that National Forests are expected to fill 

it only makes sense to manage them with an ecosystem focus that is designed to 

meet as many objectives simultaneously as possible while keeping in mind the constraints of the land base. It is important to recognize that while we can have it all, 

we can’t have it all at the same place and at the same time and perhaps not at 

all on any given acre or forest. For example we can’t have maximum forest stocking 

and low fire risk unless we are in areas that are too cold or wet to burn during 

fire season. The idea that we can force a particular outcome such as old forest habitat in a landscape with frequent stand altering (or now stand replacing) fires using 

aggressive wildfire suppression tactics has been demonstrated as an unworkable 

and expensive solution in recent years. Returning to an ecosystem focus would suggest that we do not insist on maintaining any particular forest condition where the 

incremental costs of keeping it as it is in the face of ecological processes escalate 

each and every year with concomitant diminishing returns. 

Question 10. You mention that federal lands should be managed for the public interest of carbon sequestration and that ‘if federal lands are managed for revenue 

from carbon credits, it will likely impact ecosystem functioning and other ecosystem 

services’—how? Are there any published papers on this topic? 

Answer. Carbon credits are a double edged sword that should be approached very 

carefully, if at all. Credits in their current form rely on the concepts of baselines, 

additionality, permanence, and leakage. Currently they do not consider what happens to the products that leave the forest at harvest and they do not consider how 

those products might be better used to maximize the carbon benefit to the atmosphere. Perhaps the greatest difficulty with carbon credits is when they form part 

of a carbon exchange that pays the forest owner to not harvest and save the wood 

in the forest. This approach raises the demand of wood relative to supply, raises 

wood product price, and promotes the substitution of other materials for wood products which produce higher emissions than any savings in forest carbon. And if there 

isn’t material substitution the demand for wood products that could have been met 

by that forest is met from some other wood producing region which means that the 

atmosphere experiences the perceived carbon consequences of harvesting anyway. In 

this case the landowner loses twice—first because they have limited their management options for a perceived benefit that doesn’t actually provide a benefit to the 

atmosphere, and second because the incremental gain in carbon storage from a mature forest is small and therefore unless huge tracts are involved and the credit 

value is high, the costs of maintaining the forest in the face of disturbance may well 

outweigh the carbon credit value. A more viable approach to carbon mitigation objective that would promote the use of carbon efficient products and processes would 
64 

be to directly tax fossil fuel emissions. That way the incentive is highest for those 

uses of wood that drive out the most fossil emissions. 

Difficulties in establishing baselines in the face of climate change, identifying how 

additionality and permanence would incorporate the huge uncertainties surrounding 

wildfire and insect outbreaks, and accounting for leakage from the system suggest 

that while carbon credit systems might be a way to obtain payment for ecosystem 

services, they need a lot of improvements before they can be implemented in a way 

that doesn’t create perverse incentives. 

Question 11. Currently, Germany exports 20% of its wood to the United States. 

Does it make sense to import wood products from other nations or would it be preferable to produce wood products sustainably in the United States? Considering the 

light carbon footprint of wood as compared to other non-renewable building materials and the abundance of heavily stocked (stocked beyond carrying capacity) federal and public lands in the west, should we sustainably harvest wood from public 

lands? 

Answer. We could sustainably harvest wood from public lands, but a bigger question is how to do so within the current framework. Our analysis of Inland Northwest 

Forests, including Idaho, Montana and Eastern Washington state suggests that 

even if we only treated the forests with low and mixed severity fire regime and the 

dead and dying lodgepole forests, we would have to harvest 4 times more acres that 

we currently harvest in Eastern Washington and 5 times more than we currently 

harvest in Idaho and Montana (Oneil and Lippke, publish date 2010). Even increasing the harvest rate to this level would just treat the at risk forests on National 

Forest lands by remove only those trees less than 12 inches in diameter. In many 

cases these trees are too small to make into wood products used as building materials. This particular approach would reduce fire risk, but to implement such a 

strategy without economic return from marketable products would be economically 

prohibitive. In order to address the wood import issue it would be necessary to remove some larger diameter trees that can be processed into long-lived products 

which would have the co-benefit of subsidizing the removal of more non-merchantable material. Addressing wood imports and fire risk reduction requires re-thinking 

of our current focus of only taking young or small diameter material. Technologies 

are available to produce smaller dimension building products from smaller diameter 

wood (4-12 inches), but those technologies require substantial private investment 

that is only likely with a guaranteed wood supply. In many regions of the interior 

west we are losing mills, not gaining them because there is no guaranteed wood 

supply and the wood supply from federal lands is not considered as a viable guaranteed source. This suggests that it would be necessary to provide long term supply 

agreements to support the development of small diameter milling infrastructure. 

This option would serve a dual purpose of producing more wood products and removing the material that is currently placing these forests at high risk of loss to 

wildfire and insect and disease outbreaks. 

Question 12. Is biomass harvest sustainable and renewable? What kinds of rules 

would we have to invoke to make it sustainable and/or renewable? 

Answer. The same rules that apply to current harvesting could also apply to biomass-to-energy harvesting as in essence we are doing the same thing: entering a 

forest stand to remove some products while leaving others intact. It is important 

to realize the economics of biomass production can have an impact on the production 

of other wood products. As long as the price renewable fuel producers are willing 

to pay for biomass feedstocks is less than the market price for other wood products 

there is no competition between the sectors and in fact the wood harvesting can help 

offset some costs of the biomass feedstock acquisition. If the cost of bioenergy feedstock increases beyond the price for say wood chips for making pulp and paper then 

there is a direct competition which bids feedstocks away from a sector that is more 

efficient at turning wood into carbon offsets. At that point biomass harvest for energy becomes a counterproductive activity from a carbon emissions standpoint. 

This suggests that biomass harvest is sustainable and renewable with certain caveats. First, we need to be intelligent about connecting feedstock availability to the 

scale of facility. If a facility requires 600,000 BDT/year (BDT = bone dry tons) and 

the forests within 50 miles can only provide 300,000 BDT without compromising existing manufacturing operations and ecological function, then we need the rethink 

the scale of the facility or the kind of facility to integrate the ecological and energy 

needs. The travel distance (i.e. 50 miles) is critical because economic viability is contingent on obtaining a feedstock at a reasonable price and haul distance is the most 

critical factor in feedstock price for most studies that have been done on this topic. 

Probably more critical is the need to offer long term supply agreements if we expect 

to attract sufficient private investment for implementing biomass production from 

woody residues. In the west this is particularly critical because in many instances 
65 

any logical processing location has to include a substantial percentage of federal 

lands within the 50 mile radius in order to obtain sufficient feedstock supply for economically viable operations. There has been a tremendous amount of research on 

this question of sustainable biomass harvesting. A thorough synthesis of this research has recently been conducted by University of Washington researchers (Mason 

et al 2009). It is available at http://www.ruraltech.org/pubs/reports/2009/ 

woodltolenergy/index.asp 

RESPONSE OF CHRISTOPHER A. WOOD TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. Mr. Wood, you highlight the Elk River watershed along the Oregon 

coast as an example of how the protection of intact habitat and reconnection of migration routes can help improve the resiliency of a watershed. Do you believe the 

Federal agencies are prepared to do the scale and level of protection across the 

country that you discuss in this example? If not, what more is needed? Do you see 

opportunities for public/private partnership and/or coordination with states? 

Answer. In the Elk River watershed, a culvert on Blackberry Creek (an Elk River 

tributary) impedes fish passage. The Forest Service identified the need to replace 

the culvert and completed the Environmental Assessment years ago, yet has been 

unable to do so because of inadequate funding. Such examples abound across the 

nation’s forests and grasslands. Climate change legislation such as S. 1733 and S. 

1933, which would provide revenue from the carbon market to fund natural resources adaptation, and could enable federal agencies to complete adaptation 

projects at the scale and level needed to safeguard fish and wildlife. Furthermore, 

these climate change bills call for the development of adaptation strategies that can 

help prioritize actions and focus state and federal agencies and private partners on 

high priority projects in a coordinated fashion. Trout Unlimited has long worked 

with state and federal agencies and private partners such as timber companies to 

replace culverts and improve fish passage, from New Hampshire to the coast of California. We believe that partnerships to capitalize on the strengths and resources of 

public and private entities will be essential to completing adaptation projects on the 

scale necessary to enable fish and wildlife to cope with changes in climate. 

RESPONSES OF CHRISTOPHER A. WOOD TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

(AND SENATOR BARRASSO) 

Question 1. Your suggestions generally fall into the categories of protecting or rehabilitating terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on public lands from the impacts of 

climate change. I am interested in exploring ideas about how the management of 

public lands can be used to reduce greenhouse gasses and abate climate change. 

Should public lands have a role in the growth of wind and solar power? If so, how 

should this be done, and how should any public land impacts be mitigated? 

Answer. Trout Unlimited supports the responsible development of energy resources on public lands. In order to ensure that development is done right, we must 

learn from our experiences in developing traditional energy resources on public 

lands. Mistakes in the management of traditional energy development, such as the 

extensive use of categorical exclusions, failure to adhere to protective stipulations, 

and inadequate monitoring and mitigation to name a few, should not be repeated 

in developing renewable energy. 

Among the policy changes needed to ensure that fish and wildlife are not unduly 

harmed by renewable energy development are changing renewable energy permitting from a system of special use permits and rights-of-way to a leasing program. 

This would enable the generation of a revenue stream that could be used for fish 

and wildlife habitat mitigation and enhancement, monitoring, and restoration. In 

addition, the agencies should delineate important migration routes, streamside corridors, and other areas where development should and should not occur, and where 

transmission should be sited. 

The useful life of a solar or wind facility is likely to be much more than 30 years. 

With this in mind, renewable energy lessees and operators should be required to 

complete interim reclamation. We also believe that no onsite mitigation alone will 

be adequate to sustain the ecological function of public lands on which many renewable energy facilities are located. Unlike oil, gas, and coal, the wind and sun are 

renewable sources of energy which will not be exhausted. The landscapes impacted 

by renewable energy facilities will not be restored to their current condition for the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, the only way to mitigate the impact of these facilities 

is to require the restoration or acquisition and preservation of comparable ecological 

resources elsewhere along with on-site actions to minimize the severity of impacts 

to natural resources. 
66 

It is vital that state and federal agencies have the resources necessary to properly 

manage energy development. Thousands of miles of transmission lines may be needed to move renewable energy to market. Funding must be made available to avoid 

fish and wildlife damage and for mitigation and restoration. 

The federal government should collect royalties for renewable energy development 

and establish a Renewables Mitigation Fund. The fund could include federal and 

state accounts to support mitigation, monitoring, inventory, and management associated with conserving fish, wildlife, and water resources affected by renewable energy development; help local communities to mitigate the effects of renewable energy development; and enable non-profit entities to mitigate and restore areas affected by renewable energy development. 

Question 2. What role should public lands play in the creation of carbon credits 

and in the functioning of carbon markets? 

Question 3. Could carbon credits generated by planting to reduce the reforestation 

backlog on public lands be used to insure private carbon credits generated by planting trees on private lands? 

Question 4. Could the insurance premium (which allows the private credits to be 

sold at full value) be used to help reduce the public land reforestation backlog? 

Answer. The challenge in allowing public lands to play a role in the carbon markets is one of additionality. That is, how can you credit sequestration that is already 

occurring? Similarly, care should be given so that public land sequestration activities should occur in the context of managing for healthy, diverse, and productive 

landscapes so as to be consistent with the agency’s underlying legal mandates. 

Using carbon credits generated by planting to reduce the reforestation backlog on 

public lands as a hedge or to insure private carbon credits generated by planting 

trees on private lands is an idea that Congress, industry, the agency, and conservationists should carefully explore. We should be open to trying a diversity of approaches and ideas in managing for healthy, diverse, and productive forest landscapes. 

Question 5. In your testimony you indicate that fiber from fuels reduction on public lands should be used to generate biomass. Does this mean that you would oppose 

any definition of biomass that would exclude all fiber from public lands? 

Answer. Fiber from fuels reduction on public lands should be used to generate biomass where it is generated in an ecologically sustainable fashion. We must avoid 

creating incentives to generate biomass from federal forests in ways that may be 

ecologically unsound. With that in mind, the proper definition of biomass will be influenced by the context in which it is placed. 

Mr. Wood in your testimony you mention protecting the Copper-Salmon area in 

wilderness. In 2002, the Biscuit fire raged in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness for over two 

months burning almost every acre in that wilderness along with another 350,000 

plus other acres. I believe that occurred during your time at the Forest Service. 

Efforts to fight that fire were hampered by a lack of access and initial indecision 

on whether or not to fight the fire, since it was close to the Wilderness. 

Question 6. In hindsight, did the Wilderness designation help maintain and improve the conditions of those watersheds when the Biscuit fire ravaged them? 

Answer. The 500,000 acre Biscuit Fire burned at varying intensities. The Forest 

Service estimated that 63 percent burned at low or very low intensity; 23 percent 

at moderate intensity; and 14 percent at high intensity. Although nearly all of the 

Kalmiopsis Wilderness was within the Biscuit Fire Boundary, much of the wilderness itself actually did not burn, and much of what did burn burned at low intensity. As a result, the impacts to watersheds within the wilderness were varied. The 

areas that did burn at higher intensities were mostly very minor long-term impacts 

because of the good condition of the watershed. Other impacts occurred later as a 

result of salvage logging. 

The remoteness of the area, including wilderness designation, influenced the early 

decision by the Forest Service not to suppress the fire, but the major rationale not 

to attack the fire immediately stemmed from the large number of other high priority 

fires burning across the West at the time. In its early stages, the fires that were 

to combine to form the Biscuit fire simply were very low priority compared to other 

big fires that were immediately threatening communities in other parts of Oregon 

and elsewhere in the West. 

Question 7. When fire or insects and disease kill most of the trees in a National 

Forest have we improved the headwaters of the streams that flow from those lands? 

Answer. No. Impacts such as fire, insects and disease are expected to intensify 

as the climate changes. In order to enable trout and salmon to cope with changes 

in climate, we must protect, reconnect and restore habitat. This comprehensive approach helps ensure that there are intact habitats to serve as strongholds for fish 
67 

and enough connectivity that fish can move about a watershed to escape localized 

impacts or recolonize impacted habitat after a catastrophic event. 

Question 8. Understanding your strong desire to improve the watersheds and the 

streams as well as fishing in the forest, why is it acceptable to stand by and refuse 

to mechanically thin these forests when the potential for wildfire carries such risk 

to these lands and waters? 

Answer. ‘‘Standing by’’ is not acceptable. Neither should we approach these problems with a willy-nilly, drop the blades and let the chain-saws rip approach. 

Thinning overly dense forest stands in order to reintroduce fire and rebalance fire 

return intervals is logical, and sorely needed across many national forests. The first 

priority for such treatments should be where forests and human communities intersect. 

You also pushed for protecting roadless areas. 

Question 9. When a roadless area burns and the A and B horizons of the soil are 

destroyed is that better or worse than building roads into an area so the fire fighters can access the area when fires start? 

Answer. Native trout and salmon across the West, and the ecosystems of which 

they are part, have evolved with fire. Trout and salmon thrived for thousands of 

years in these natural ecosystems without the intervening hand of man. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that roadless areas comprise a disproportionately 

high percentage of native trout habitat. On many western landscapes, native trout 

have been eliminated from most roaded areas and persist only in roadless headwater areas. These lands harbor sensitive native species precisely because they are 

free of roads and the attendant impacts such as habitat degredation and non-native 

species introduction. The protection of roadless areas is an important component in 

a comprehensive approach to conserving trout and salmon. 

Question 10. After an area burns and then the area is hit by a rain storm that 

washes thousands of cubic yards of soil and rock into the streams is that better or 

worse for the streams and fish than those plugged culverts that you discussed at 

the hearing? 

Answer. Events such as those described in the question above underscore the importance of restoring fish passage at blocked culverts. By restoring connectivity, we 

enable fish to move when faced with such habitat impairments. Watersheds with 

adequate habitat connectivity are more resilient to the effects of fire and flood. 

RESPONSE OF BEVERLY LAW TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. If I understood your testimony, you both agree that a ‘‘full carbon accounting’’ should be employed when considering the effects of forest management on 

carbon. But I have the sense that just about everybody has a different view of what 

exactly that means in practice. Is my sense on this accurate and, if so, where does 

that leave this Committee in crafting Federal forest management policy? To give one 

example, I wonder if the amount of credit to give wood products for C sequestration 

is widely accepted and how that would be quantified? Do you have any suggestions 

for how to standardize full carbon accounting? 

Answer. I am involved in methods development and providing recommendations 

for improving national and international estimates of forest carbon sources and 

sinks (NRC committee report on Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions for a Climate 

Treaty (in review), Group on Earth Observations (GEO) Carbon Report, Law et al. 

2008 Terrestrial Carbon Observations: Protocols for Vegetation Sampling and Data 

Submission). Forest carbon accounting includes the land-based net of carbon uptake 

by photosynthesis and losses from respiration by plants and microbes, and decomposition. This portion of the budget is best measured by the eddy covariance method 

(an atmospheric measurement representing an area of <1 square kilometer), but it 

is attempted partially through summing up inventory data on changes in carbon 

stocks in soil and in live and dead biomass above and belowground between two 

measurement periods (e.g. 5 years, which needs to be reduced to annual; Law et al. 

2008). Other carbon losses must be accounted for, including that from land use 

(thinning, complete harvest) and emissions from fire. When a forest is thinned, more 

debris is typically added to the surface (decomposition ensues) or an underburn 

treatment is applied and most of the small dead material on the surface is emitted 

to the atmosphere (pulse emission loss). When a forest is harvested, about 25-50% 

of the harvested amount of carbon is released to the atmosphere during the manufacturing process (the value within this range depends on the type of wood product). 

Long-lived harvested wood products are a potential CO2 sink, although the average 

lifetime of wood products is relatively short (20 years) and the UNFCCC accounting 

rules for them have not yet been agreed upon. In addition, there are carbon costs 
68 

of burning fossil fuel to harvest material, transport it to mills and in manufacturing. 

This must be included in evaluating the merits of biofuels harvesting (Jaeger et al. 

2009. Biofuels in Oregon from an Economic and Policy Perspective). In addition, 

there is a time factor—it takes about 20-50 years to grow the wood that is harvested 

for biofuels, and it may take only a few years for that carbon to be released to the 

atmosphere. So, the net of both biological processes on site, and transport and manufacturing carbon costs should be included in the analysis. Again, these accounting 

methods are being recommended internationally (see citations). 

International assessments should include reporting of emissions and sinks should 

include all lands, not just managed lands, which would allow credit for maintaining 

carbon in mature and old forests (NRC 2009). 

RESPONSE OF BEVERLY LAW TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. Dr. Oneil’s testimony discussesd the C emissions produced by 

wildfires, specifically articles published by Mason (2006), Wiedinmyer & Neff (2007), 

and Bonnicksen (2009). It is my understanding that you have studied and published 

on this issue. 

Can you briefly discuss the best available science on carbon emissions produced 

by wildfires? 

Answer. The best available science on carbon emissions from wildfires is field observations of changes in live and dead pools, surface litter and soil after wildfires 

of different severities (low to high). We conducted such a study and quantified combustion of the pools in the different severities. These data are desperately needed 

for the calibration of remote sensing data and models that are used to produce estimates for landscapes, states, regions, the U.S., and globally. Unfortunately, our data 

were not published or used by the references cited by Dr Oneil. Those references 

have large uncertainties associated with them, and I had contacted one of the authors to let them know their estimates were large overestimates. Our emissions estimates from measurements before and after fire showed that emissions from litter 

and duff ranged from 70-100% depending on fire severity (the high value is for high 

severity), whereas Wiedeinmyer & Neff (2007) used values of 80-90% over N America. Our emissions estimates for tree stems were <1% to 3% for stems less than 

7.6cm in diameter (∼3 inches), depending on fire severity. Our measured values are 

somewhat lower than those used by modelers. Wiedinmyer & Neff (2007) used 30% 

for tree stems (compared to our measured 3% for high severity fire) when modelling 

high severity combustion across N America (Campbell et al. 2007). If we applied 

those percentages to one of the fires on which we made these measurements, it 

would lead to a large overestimation of pyrogenic emissions, in part because a significant portion of the biomass in large trees experience very little wood combustion. 

On the Biscuit Fire, we found that 57% of the total pyrogenic emissions were from 

the litter layer plus duff and mineral soils. The next largest source was dead wood 

(19% of total emissions). For Oregon, our estimate of fire emissions based on our 

observations were used to calibrate a carbon cycle model and we used Landsat remote sensing date that identified fire area and severity annually over the state. Our 

estimate of wildfire emissions averaged 1.07 Tg carbon per year over 10 years, 

which averaged 7% of the equivalent of Oregon’s fossil fuel emissions. 

We are currently working on an analysis and publication that provides new estimates of fire emissions and the effects of fire on the North American carbon budget. 

This is a synthesis activity that is part of the North American Carbon Program, and 

it will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal and likely will be included in the 

next State of the Carbon cycle report. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. What is the Forest Service doing to promote biomass utilization? 

Answer. Our Nation’s forests are a sustainable, strategic asset in achieving and 

enhancing U.S. energy security, economic opportunity, environmental quality, and 

global competitiveness. A sustainable renewable bioenergy and biobased products 

sector is a growing source of jobs in the U.S. economy that contributes to energy 

security and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Biomass has the potential to supply an increasing proportion of U.S. liquid transportation fuels, chemicals, and substitutes for fossil fuel-intensive products. 

One of the greatest challenges facing forest landowners and managers in the 

United States is restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the health and productivity 

of forest systems. Restoring forests to increase resiliency and reduce the risk of loss 

from fire, insect or disease, often entails the use of thinning and prescribe fire which 

involves the removal of large quantities of small-diameter and low-quality wood that 
69 

currently has little or no commercial value. This woody biomass is a potential feedstock for bioenergy and biobased products. 

The Forest Service has developed a strategy to promote woody biomass utilization. 

The strategy was developed in 2006 and 2007 with national effort to look at how 

to utilize woody biomass at all levels of the agency. We gathered employees from 

all levels of the agency to ensure this was a grass roots effort to provide a realistic 

strategy on the key components field units needed: 

• This strategy is focused on: 

—Ensuring a reliable and sustainable biomass supply; 

—Helping develop new and expanded markets for bioenergy and biobased products; and 

—Providing the science and technology for: sustainable and economical forest 

biomass management and production systems, competitive biofuels and 

biopower conversion technologies and high-value bioproducts, and information 

and tools for decision-making and policy analysis. 

• Forest Service accomplishments in wood-based bioenergy and biobased products 

include: 

—A Woody Biomass Utilization grants program targeted toward small businesses to help build capacity for biomass utilization in support of fuel reduction and restoration. Since its inception in 2005, the program has provided 

over $26.3 million (110 grants) towards projects ranging from biomass boilers 

for schools and prisons, to helping businesses acquire equipment that improves processing efficiencies. These grants have been awarded to small businesses, non-profits, tribes and local state agencies to improve forest health, 

while creating jobs, green energy and healthy communities. 

—A system of Coordinated Resource Offering Protocol (CROP) studies, including 

10 sites across the US, which makes biomass supply information available to 

potential investors. (http://forestsandrangelands.com) 

—A multi-partner consortium (Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials) conducting life cycle analysis of wood products and forest biomass-based fuel products (http://www.corrim.org/). 

—Proposed innovation platform for multi-feedstock bioenergy pilot plant to investigate biorefinery concept at the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL). This 

facility would be the central source for the building’s heating and electrical 

system along with producing a liquied bio-fuel as a byproduct. Excess power 

produced by the facility could be sold back to the community’s power grid. 

This is currently in the planning stages. 

—Cooperation with DOE on BioMax, a small scale combined heat and power 

system for supplying heat and electricity from wood for localized applications 

and sole source supply in remote areas. 

—Report: Increasing Feedstock Production for Biofuels: Economic Drivers, Environmental Implications, and the Role of Research, an economic assessment 

encompassing feedstock production from agriculture and forestry sources. 

(http://www.usbiomassboard.gov/pdfs/ 

8lIncreasinglBiofuelslFeedstocklProduction.pdf). 

—Report: Economics of Biomass Feedstocks in the US: Review of the Literature. 

(http://www.usbiomassboard.gov/pdfs/7lFeedstockslLiteraturelReview.pdf) 

—Fuel Reduction Cost Simulator, a tool that simulates the cost of forest operations that are undertaken to reduce fuel loads by cutting and removing trees 

for solid wood products or chips (http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/data/frcs/ 

frcslhome.htm) 

—Life cycle analysis of woody biomass to energy systems as part of a wildfire 

and climate mitigation strategy (‘‘Biomass to Energy: Forest management for 

wildfire reduction, energy production and other benefits,’’ http:// 

www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-080/CEC-500-2009- 

080.PDF) 

• Examples of turning biomass into energy include: 

—Fuels for Schools (Montana, Vermont, Pennsylvania) 

—Use of wood fuel at power generating plants of 10 MW to >50 MW capacity 

(California, New Hampshire, Vermont, Michigan, South Carolina) 

—Historical and continuing use of surplus wood, bark, and black liquor for heat 

and electricity at primary wood manufacturing plants (Nationwide) 
70 

• MOU between ARS and FS R&D to cooperate on research and development that 

focuses on synergistic applied research, development, and deployment of forest 

and agricultural biomass-to-bioenergy technologies. 

• Biofacilities Initiative: An interagency working partnership between DOI, DOE, 

and FS to complete feasibility studies on 113 potential sites on Federal, State 

and Tribal facilities. The Biomass technology included in the potential sites 

range from thermal applications, combined heat and power to large scale power 

projects. Each site analysis will include a resource assessment, market evaluation, environmental planning steps required, technology evaluation, and financing options. This project is scheduled for completed by October, 2010. 

Question 2. My understanding is that both the Forest Service and Department of 

the Interior have explored marketing tree-planting projects to generate funds from 

private sources based on the trees’ ability to sequester carbon. Do you have any regulations or formal policies on those projects or on participating in existing carbon 

markets in general? If so, please cite them. 

Answer. We currently do not have regulations or formal policies specific to participation in carbon markets for tree-planting carbon sequestration projects. In May of 

2008 the Chief of the Forest Service sent a letter to the regional foresters stating 

that at this time, the Forest Service is not engaging in partnerships that involve 

the selling and trading of carbon credits in the market. The letter also discusses the 

Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the National Forest 

Foundation to work together to develop demonstration projects that quantify biological carbon sequestration through targeted reforestation projects. Donations to the 

NFF’s Carbon Capital Fund are used to replant areas on National Forests that have 

been so severely altered by wildfire that these formerly forested areas will be difficult to regenerate naturally. These reforestation demonstration projects are projected over the next decades to sequester a measurable and verifiable amount of carbon beyond what would occur without the planting. Donors may voluntarily report 

the expected carbon uptake and storage associated with the specific reforestation 

project. 

Question 3. Across the country, there are countless examples of fish and wildlife 

adaptation projects that have benefited both the ecosystem and the surrounding 

community. For example, when headwaters are protected, drinking water filtration 

costs are reduced and rivers get reconnected to floodplains. Do you prioritize adaptation projects based on the ecosystem services they render or have the potential to 

render? 

Answer. The Forest Service has a long history of implementing watershed and 

ecosystem restoration projects. Adaptation projects are prioritized through a variety 

of modeling and valuations. They generally consider the ecosystem services/ecological values in a given area, the existing condition of those resources, the scale of 

threats to them, and the technical, legal, political, social, and institutional opportunities and limitations for addressing those threats. We are currently assessing 

methods to prioritize watershed restoration in a more consistent way across the Nation. This Watershed Condition Framework Assessment has been tested and reviewed. Each Forest will complete these assessments this fiscal year. Region Five 

(California and Pacific Islands) is currently developing an ecosystem services framework that will inform program design, national forest plan revisions and cooperative 

forestry activities. 

Question 4. America’s forests, farms and ranches provide a significant supply of 

drinking water for our country. I understand that protecting water resources is a 

top priority for the Forest Service, especially in light of climate change and the need 

to manage natural resources so that they can withstand the ongoing and expected 

impacts. Given the already existing stresses on our water resources, how do you 

plan to prioritize the protection of clean sources of water on National Forest lands 

in the face of climate change? 

Answer. Climate change and its effects on water are expected to intensify freshwater scarcity. The Forest Service developed is a Watershed Condition Assessment. 

This identifies vulnerable watersheds at risk from hydrologic changes due primarily 

to climate change and will provide a method of prioritization for restoration. 

In addition, we have a variety of prioritization models for our watershed restoration program and we have efforts underway to do that in a more consistent manner 

across the country. Some administrative units have begun efforts to evaluate their 

existing strategies to incorporate metrics for climate change risk. For example, the 

Pacific Northwest (PNW) Region is working with scientists at PNW Station and 

University of Washington to conduct a regional-scale vulnerability assessment for 

water and aquatic resources. Other vulnerability assessments have been initiated on 

the Shasta Trinity, Ouachita, White River, and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. 
71 

1Gucinski, H., M.H. Brookes, M.J. Furniss and R.R. Ziemer. 2001. Forest Roads: A synthesis 

of scientific information. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 120 p. 2 Rhee, J., W. Chung, J.A. Efta, W.J. Elliot and R.B. Foltz. Under Review. Assessing the Impacts of Future Climate Changes on Forest Road Erosion using the Water Erosion Prediction 

Project (WEPP) Model: Case Studies in Lake Tahoe, NV and Mica Creek, ID. Pullman, WA: 

Washington State University. 3 Elliot, W. J. and L. M. Tysdal: 1999. Understanding and reducing erosion from insloping 

roads. Journal of Forestry. 97(8): 30-34. 4Gucinski, H., M.H. Brookes, M.J. Furniss and R.R. Ziemer. 2001. Forest Roads: A synthesis 

of scientific information. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 120 p. 5Foltz, R.B., K.A. Yanosek, and T.M. Brown. 2008. Sediment concnetration and turbidity 

changes during culvert removals. Jour. of Environmental Mgt 87:329-340. 

Our more recent Land Management Plans include ecosystem restoration as a key 

outcome. As we continue to implement those plans we will make strides toward ecosystem health and resiliency that will be more adaptable to changing climate. The 

National Forest Management Act requires the Forest Service to revise its management plans for each national forest on a regular basis, using the Planning Rule as 

a consistent guide. We are currently working on a new Planning Rule that will 

allow National Forest and Grasslands to produce updated Plans that address today’s 

demands and conditions, as well as anticipate future conditions due to climate and 

other changes. Ecosystem services will play an important role in helping the national forests to set priorities, strengthen their stewardship relationships with adjacent communities and ensure the sustainable provision of environmental benefits. 

The Forest Legacy Program, in State and Private Forestry, uses conservation 

easements to prevent the development of high value forests that are critical for watershed and wildlife habitat protection and is a prime tool for climate change adaptation through connectivity of protected lands for species movement across the landscape. Tracts of land are selected based on a State Assessment of Need that evaluates important ecosystem services and critical habitats. Since 1991, Forest Legacy 

has protected almost 1.6 million acres in 46 states and territories. 

Question 5. In a Forest Service Environmental Analysis from 2001, the agency 

stated that it could potentially decommission as many as 120,000 to 186,000 miles 

of unneeded roads and unauthorized routes. Has the Forest Service ever studied 

how much carbon could potentially be sequestered if these unneeded roads and unauthorized routes were re-vegetated? 

Answer. This issue has not been studied. 

Question 6. Congress has appropriated $90 million in FY 2010 for the Forest Service Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program. Can the road decommissioning 

and storm-proofing work accomplished under this program help to ameliorate flooding and other impacts of climate change on national forest watersheds and on downstream communities? 

Answer. The Legacy Roads and Trails Program is playing an essential role in 

achieving the Secretary’s vision of managing our forests to protect and restore the 

Nation’s water resources and make them more resilient to climate change. This program is funding many critical activities, including road decommissioning, 

stormproofing, relocation, critical maintenance, and restoration of fish passage at 

road-stream crossings. Strategic and large-scale implementation of these activities 

can, over time, provide numerous benefits. 

Perhaps the greatest benefits of road restoration will result from reducing the 

consequences of floods, fire, and other disturbances likely to be exacerbated by climate change.1 2 For example, relocating roads away from floodplains and improving 

road drainage systems can reduce damage to infrastructure.3 Road treatments can 

also reduce storm-driven delivery of fine sediment to streams, which can lower 

treatment costs and improve the reliability of some water supplies. Road restoration 

can also improve the health and resiliency of aquatic habitats, which are already 

stressed and will be adversely impacted by climate change.4 5 For example, reconnecting aquatic habitats at road-stream crossings and reducing existing sediment 

and temperature impacts, are perhaps among the most important things we can do 

to protect our fisheries in light of climate change. 

RESPONSE OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. Managing forests for adaptation and carbon sequestration can be complimentary-for example, through forest ecosystem restoration projects. But, in other 

cases, managing to maximize sequestration may be counterproductive from an adaptation standpoint, and vice versa. 
72 

6Fettig, Christopher J.; Klepzig, Kier D.; Billings, Ronald F.; Munson, A. Steven; Nebeker, 

T. Evan; Negron, Jose F.; Nowak, John T. 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management 

practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 238: 24-53. 7 Johnson, Morris C.; Peterson, David L.; Raymond, Crystal L. 2007. Guide to fuel treatments 

in dry forests of the Western United States: assessing forest structure and fire hazard. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-686. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 322 p. 8Graham, Russell T.; McCaffrey, Sarah; Jain, Theresa B. 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

43 p. 9 Birdsey, R. A.; Jenkins, J. C.; Johnston, M.; Huber-Sannwald, E.; Amiro, B.; de Jong, B.; 

Etchevers Barra, J. D.; French, Na.; Garcia-Oliva, F.; Harmon, M.; Heath, L. S.; Jaramillo, V. 

J.; Johnsen, K.t; Law, B. E.; Marin-Spiotta, E.; Masera, O.; Neilson, R.; Pan, Y.; Pregitzer, K. 

S. 2007. North American forests. In: King, A.W.; Dilling, L.; Zimmerman, G.P.; Fairman, D.M.; 

Houghton, R.A.; Marland, G.; Rose, A.Z.; Wilbanks, T.J., eds. The First State of the Carbon 

Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global 

Carbon Cycle. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC: 117-126, 173-176. 10 CCSP. May 2008. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 (SAP 4.3): The Effects of Climate 

Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United 

States, P. Backlund, A. Janetos, and D. Schimel, lead authors. A report by the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program (CCSP). Executive Summary. 

Can you explain what your current policies are for addressing the latter situationwhere managing to maximize adaptation and sequestration are competing goals? 

Answer. Carbon management is a complex issue and the amount of carbon stored 

on a given site is only part of the picture. A ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach cannot be 

successful in this increasingly complex and dynamic management environment. Instead, our strategy for the National Forest System focuses on sustaining ecosystem 

processes and functions, which are the foundation of ecosystems. This involves restoring and maintaining the resilience and adaptive capacity of terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems. Thinning overly dense stands and reintroducing controlled use 

of fires are examples of tools to restore ecosystem processes and functions.678 This 

strategy requires actively managing resources and infrastructure so that stressors, 

threats, and vulnerabilities are reduced or eliminated. Examples of stressors and 

vulnerabilities include non-native invasive species, lack of disturbance or management causing overly dense forests, and undersized road culverts and bridges too 

small to handle increasing storm flows caused by winter precipitation falling as rain 

rather than snow. 

RESPONSES OF TOM TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. Chief Tidwell, welcome to our Committee and congratulations on 

being selected to serve as the Chief of the Forest Service. We welcome you and 

thank you for your service. 

Do you agree that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will 

likely increase plant growth, provided the soil and water conditions are right? 

Answer. Some studies suggest that rising CO2 increases net primary productivity 

by 12-23% over all species studied, but it is uncertain whether this is a lasting effect9. Studies also suggest that rising CO2 will very likely increase photosynthesis 

for forests, but this increase will likely only enhance wood production in young forests on fertile soils.10 The response of forest ecosystems to elevated CO2 is complex 

with variation across systems, and it is an active area of research. 

Question 2. Do you agree that for some shorter lived species like Lodgepole Pine 

and Aspen that there needs to be some management to avoid catastrophic collapse 

of those species in some areas? 

Answer. In some specific cases, active vegetation management programs are important not only for species such as lodgepole pine and aspen, but for a vast array 

other species found in forest ecosystems on the national forests. We need to manage 

these stands to aid in adaptation. We have had extensive research and practical application of knowledge regarding this type of active management. However, even as 

we apply what we know, we still encounter areas of uncertainty and will continue 

our efforts to address ecosystem complexities. Below is a summary of our knowledge 

regarding management in lodgepole and aspen forests: 

LODGEPOLE PINE RESEARCH

Forest Service Research and Development on has been putting research emphasis 

on developing and evaluating ecosystem-based treatments for sustaining produc-
73 

tivity and biodiversity of lodgepole pine forests and watersheds since 1961. The research topics covered are: 

1. Evaluate and quantify the ecological and biological effects of alternative silvicultural treatments and prescribed fire in lodgepole pine forests by creating 

reserve stand structures that emulate those created by natural disturbances. 

2. Evaluate damage to reserve trees relative to alternative stand densities 

and structures and examine regeneration and understory vegetation changes associated with alternative silvicultural treatments. 

3. Develop linkages between vegetation management activities and hydrologic 

responses at the sub-watershed level. 

4. Manage and integrate the knowledge gained from the variety of studies to 

improve ecosystem-based management in lodgepole pine forests. 

5. Develop demonstration sites for education of the general public, students, 

professional, and researchers. 

6. Test and verify hydrologic and vegetation models and evaluate harvest 

costs and product recovery values associated with alternative silvicultural prescriptions and harvest systems. 

7. Contribute to the scientific knowledge through publication of results in appropriate outlets. 

8. Integrate knowledge gained from these studies into ecosystem management 

guidelines that enhance the function and sustainability of lodgepole pine forests 

in the Northern Rockies through a variety of technology transfer products. 

ASPEN RESEARCH

The development of aspen forests is closely linked to fire or disturbance. After a 

stand-replacing disturbance by fire, the root systems of aspen usually survive and 

send up new stems to regenerate the forest. One of the restoration strategies forest 

researchers and managers have pursued is modifying the fire cycles, such as determining the frequency of fire required to sustain aspen in areas where fire has been 

suppressed in the past. 

Aside from regeneration following fire events, aspen stands sometimes regenerate 

following a massive die-off of mature trees. But in some cases the root system is 

completely dead, which results in a complete die-off of the aspen stands, a phenomenon called Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD) that is currently pronounced in western Colorado, southern Utah, and southwest Wyoming. Researchers are looking at 

the impact that insects and diseases have on regeneration associated with SAD as 

well as the effect of drought. Researchers and managers are focused on finding ways 

to restore aspen throughout the West. 

Question 3. The President recently signed an executive order that all management 

will be undertaken with climate change in mind. Can you give me a couple of examples of the specific changes your agency will make to respond to that Executive 

Order? 

Answer. President Obama recently issued Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance. This executive order focuses on improving energy efficiency, water use, waste streams and related environmental footprint parameters associated with federal buildings, motor vehicle fleets 

and federal contractors/ permit holders. Section nine of the executive order also requires agencies that manage federal lands to ‘‘consider and account for sequestration and emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from Federal land management 

practices.’’ The executive order tasks the Department of Energy with recommending 

the reporting and accounting procedures under Section Nine. The Forest Service is 

currently working with the Department of Energy and other land management 

agencies on implementing the executive order. 

Question 4. In January Chief Gail Kimbell released direction on how to deal with 

climate change in forest planning and project NEPA documentation development. 

Within that direction I found a table that says: 

Forest stands are at stand densities and of species composition such that 

they wille resilient under a variety of potential future climates. Lower densities are moreikely to survive future drought stress, fire, and insect and disease problems.he following residual stand densities should be used for 

thinning stands ofifferent forest types and seral stages. These residual densities are based onossible annual precipitation reductions of 10-20 percent 

and possible increasesn evapotranspiration during peak periods of 5-10 percent. 
74 

Residual Density Ranges (TPA) by Forest Type and Seral Stage 

Forest Type Young Stage Mid-Stage Old Stage 

Ponderosa Pine 100-200 70-90 30-50 

Douglas-fir 150-250 100-125 50-80 

Lodgepole Pine 200-300 60-150 20-60 

I want to focus on the two predominant species in my State, Ponderosa Pine and 

Lodgepole Pine. 

Understanding that the guidelines reflect a desired future condition, of having 20 

to 60 old Lodgepole Pines per acre can you give me a ballpark figure of how many 

Lodgepole Pines there currently are per acre on the Routt and Medicine Bow National Forests? 

Answer. This hypothetical table was included in the document for illustrative purposes only to assist planners in visualizing how this information could be presented 

in plan revisions. To actually construct this table for use in forest planning would 

require data collection and careful analysis to ascertain appropriate levels of residual stand density for a given species under specified conditions. The number of live 

lodgepole pine per acre presently found on the two forests varies from zero to in excess of one thousand trees per acre depending on location and stand age. 

Question 5. Can you tell me how much mature timber would have to be removed, 

if those trees were still alive to meet that guideline? 

Question 6. Can you tell me if the projected funding for FY 2010 in the Region 

Two timber program will allow your Regional Forester to meet that goal and if so 

on how many acres of treatments have you tasked him with? 

Question 7. How about Nationally? How much funding would you need to reduce 

stand stocking to the levels called for in the January direction? 

a) And, How much combined timber, vegetation management and hazardous 

fuels funding do you have in FY 2010 to implement these guidelines? 

b) Can you provide us with a table that displays the approximate number of 

acres in the National Forests that do not meet these guidelines and how much 

funding it will take to bring those acres into compliance with the guidelines? 

Question 8. Could you provide me the same information (in Wyoming) for all species listed in the table and respond to each of the questions I asked on Lodgepole 

Pine? 

Question 9. Could you provide me the same information for all National Forests 

(collectively)? 

Answer. Question 5 through 9 all reference implementation of the example data 

intended for illustration only. The residual stand densities shown in the example 

table were not intended to be used as guidelines and doing so would lead to erroneous information and conclusions. 

Question 10. In your testimony you expressed the need to undertake all landownership restoration. Given the conditions on the federal land and the apparent 

difficulty the agency is having even putting out fires on the federal land, can you 

explain why you would think most rational private land owners would be willing 

to listen to the Forest Service or the federal government about how to best manage 

their forest lands? 

Answer. The Forest Service respects the diverse range of objectives and values for 

which private forest lands are managed. Threats to those objectives and loss of values from wildfires, insect and disease epidemics, invasive species, and climate 

change are being experienced by all landowners. 

To make measurable and effective progress in addressing the vulnerability of forests and water resources to these threats, Secretary Vilsack’s ‘‘all-lands’’ approach 

to restoration requires the involvement and support of many partners, including 

States, tribes, and willing private forest land owners. Examples of this approach already in place are the many Community Wildfire Protection Plans collaboratively 

developed and implemented across all ownerships throughout the country. 

The Forest Service leadership is developing a response to implement Secretary 

Vilsack’s all-lands approach to restoring priority landscapes. The Forest Service’s 

State and Private Forestry and Research and Development programs have been providing valuable support to private landowners since the 1920s. Both programs offer 

to landowners the best available science and technology in silviculture, forest pest 

management, fire and fuels management, wood technology and marketing, and 

other key information and support services, including funding of land management 

activities through the States. 
75 

Many of the issues related to wildland restoration, like climate change, are not 

bounded by who owns the land. We engage our partners to address common conservation goals. There are numerous ongoing efforts at both national and local levels: 

• The Congress has provided the Forest Service with many tools, like the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, that will help us work more effectively across boundaries to achieve 

common objectives. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill) 

also provides programs like the Forest Stewardship Program which helps private landowners achieve their objectives to sustain the health of private forested lands. 

• Through our State and Private Forestry programs, and new authorities provided in the Farm Bill we are currently working with state partners to assess 

the condition and health of forest lands. These assessments will help the Forest 

Service and our partners identify landscapes that have priority restoration and 

conservation needs. These State Forest Resource Assessment and Strategies 

will be completed and submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture by June, 2010 

We also engage in active partnerships to offer technical and financial assistance 

to rural forest landowners and private conservation groups, and to communities 

concerned about forests and open space in urban areas. 

• The Forest Service is developing a strategic framework to guide the integration 

of climate change into the programs, policies, processes, and partnerships of the 

agency. I have asked our field leadership to apply this guidance in development 

of broad level, integrated landscape conservation strategies that focus on water 

and water-related services in light of climate change. Concurrently, we will 

work with state and local partners to assure that our approach is effective in 

achieving partner objectives on landscapes that cross multiple ownerships. 

The cross-boundary coalitions that we build through these efforts will help us restore our wildlands in ways that achieve national broad-scale restoration objectives. 

(77) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

STATEMENT OF H. STERLING BURNETT, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW, NATIONAL CENTER

FOR POLICY ANALYSIS

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso, and other members of the subcommittee thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today. I represent 

the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization dedicated to developing and promoting private alternatives 

to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength 

of a competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. 

Global warming is a reality. But whether it is a serious problem—and whether 

emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases from human fossil 

fuel use are the principal cause—are uncertain. The current debate over the U. S. 

response to climate change centers around greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies, which are likely to impose substantially higher costs to society than global 

warming might. 

The question remains; what should be done about the threat of global warming? 

Unfortunately, many proposals—including mandatory limits on CO2 emissions— 

would be much more costly to society than the danger it seeks to avert. Fortunately, 

there are policies that could be adopted that are desirable in their own right and 

are commendable, even if there were no threat of global warming. I outlined several 

of these policies in a report called 10 Cool Global Warming Policies that was published by the NCPA this past June. These policies would reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions, increase energy efficiency, reduce harms associated with global warming 

or increase the world’s capabilities to deal with climate-change-associated problems. 

One of these policies is an alternative forest management strategy that, among 

other things, can reduce wildfires and increase forest health. 

Forests are carbon sinks: As trees grow they remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in their trunks, limbs and roots. In addition, forest soils, 

made up of dead organic matter built up over time, store a large amount of carbon. 

The canopy provided by densely packed tropical and temperate forests slow the 

decay of fallen leaves and other organic matter, slowing the release of carbon and 

facilitating its incorporation into the soil. 

A 40-year study of African, Asian and South American tropical forests found that 

each year tropical forests absorb as much as 18 percent of all the CO2 emitted by 

burning fossil fuels. Temperate forests in the United States also absorb and store 

carbon. In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that forests 

sequestered 10.6 percent of the CO2 released by the combustion of fossil fuels, with 

urban trees absorbing another 1.5 percent. Other research indicates that U.S. forests may sequester as much as 40 percent of U.S. human greenhouse gas emissions. 

FOREST FIRES ARE A GROWING CLIMATE CONCERN

Unfortunately, poor forest management in the United States and other countries 

contributes to wildfires, which directly add carbon to the atmosphere and reduce the 

amount of CO2 absorbed by forests. For instance: 

• Wildfires in the United States release about 290 million metric tons of CO2 into 

the atmosphere every year—equaling as much as 6 percent of the nation’s annual emissions from burning fossil fuels. 

• Pine beetle infestations have killed so many trees in Western Canada that they 

have contributed to a rise in large wildfires, turning Canadian forests from a 

net carbon sink that absorbs 55 million tons of CO2 per year into a net emitter 

of up to 245 million tons annually. 

• The Australian government calculated that wildfires in 2003 released more 

than 190 million tons of CO2; accounting for one-third of the country’s total 
78 

emissions, and it found that fires in 2006 and 2007 released an additional 360 

million tons of CO2. 

• In terms of total CO2 emissions, Indonesia is the third-largest emitter worldwide due largely to its annual wildfires—which emit nearly five times as much 

as its energy, agriculture and waste sectors combined. 

HOW GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP CONTRIBUTES TO FOREST FIRES

Large-scale forest fires are primarily the result of poor management of publicly 

owned forests. Federal mismanagement of U.S. forests has increased the number, 

size and cost of wildfires over the past decade. Historically, the national forests have 

been logged to provide lumber for commercial activities, to prevent wildfires and to 

promote forest recreation, species protection and land management. In recent decades, political pressure and lawsuits from environmental lobbyists prevented or delayed both commercial and salvage logging, turning much of our national forests 

into tinderboxes. 

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Changing the management structure of national forests could enhance the quality 

and value of these lands. 

Privatizing the forests 

The private sector currently preserves, protects and promotes many historically 

important properties and manages the majority of the country’s forests and rangelands in ways that promote environmental quality and benefit the owners and the 

public. The United States can safely and perhaps profitably sell some of the hundreds of millions of acres of national forests for market value, giving the owners of 

adjacent properties priority for ownership. 

Possible buyers include forest product companies, sportsmen’s clubs and environmental groups. While these lands will no longer be public forests, many and perhaps 

most will be managed sustainably, in ways that protect their natural character and 

enhance their environmental and economic value because of the incentives of private ownership. Private companies do not have the general treasury to bail out 

money-losing operations and therefore seek to maintain the value of their lands. 

Furthermore, privatizing public lands would increase the tax base in rural areas 

and reduce the strain on the federal budget. 

Public versus Private Management 

Private property owners have flexibility in managing their lands, whereas federal 

forest management is too often hampered by rigidity. For instance, when a wildfire 

struck near Storrie, Calif., in August 2000, more than 55,000 acres burned, mostly 

in the Plumas National Forest (28,000 acres) and Lassen National Forest (27,000 

acres). About 3,200 acres of private forestland managed by W.M. Beaty and Associates also burned. However, the Forest Service and Beaty’s responses couldn’t have 

been more different. By 2001, Beaty foresters had: 

• Reduced the chance of a future catastrophic wildfire by removing smaller dead 

trees and woody material—generating enough clean biomass to fuel 3,600 

homes for a year. 

• Harvested larger dead trees suitable for lumber processing—amounting to 64.5 

million board feet, enough to build 4,300 homes. 

• Spent millions of dollars to reforest the burned land, planting nearly one million 

seedlings of seven different tree species. 

By contrast: 

• The Forest Service removed dead trees and other fuels from only 1,206 acres 

and replanted 230 acres in the Lassen National Forest. 

• In the Plumas National Forest, the Forest Service was prevented from removing 

dead trees and reforested only 181 acres. 

Private forest owners are not hindered by bureaucratic federal rules requiring 

multiple studies, public hearings, comment periods and court challenges. Thus, they 

are better able to prevent infestations and respond quickly to disease outbreaks. 

Promptly removing dead and dying timber can prevent infestations from spreading 

to other areas and prevent potentially catastrophic fires. Private companies keep the 

number of trees per acre at an optimal level. This reduces fire hazards and lets sunlight reach the forest floor, which helps re-growth and biodiversity. 
79 

Alternatives to Outright Privatization 

For political reasons, it may be impossible to sell certain national forests, but 

there are various mechanisms or institutional arrangements that would confer 

many of the benefits of ownership without removing land entirely from public control. 

For instance, following a suggestion by economists Richard Stroup and John 

Baden, Congress could establish Wilderness Endowment Boards to own and manage 

national forests lands. These government-chartered, nonprofit entities, whose board 

members would be approved by Congress, would have a narrowly defined fiduciary 

duty to protect and enhance the natural values of the land under their charge. Activities such as oil and gas production, commercial hunting and other resource production could enhance forests without hurting the environment; such is the case 

with properties managed by the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy. 

Each individual board would decide how to balance use, recreational access and 

strict ‘‘off-limits’’ preservation, bound only by their understanding of what is necessary to preserve and enhance the land while generating the revenues necessary 

to manage it. 

Reintroducing Competition 

Public lands retained by the federal government could still receive some of the environmental benefits of private ownership if federal, state and local governments 

competed for control of these lands within the public system. For example, teams 

of experts from federal and state agencies, environmental organizations and the timber industry in Montana and Minnesota compared the environmental effects of state 

and federal forest management practices. They all concluded that state foresters 

better protected watersheds and waterways from the impacts of logging and other 

activities: 

• In Minnesota, 90 percent of county lands had the highest compliance rate with 

‘‘best management practices’’ for protecting water quality; federal forests had a 

slightly lower compliance rate at 87 percent. • In Montana, 99 percent of the watersheds in state forests were protected from 

all impacts from logging, compared to 92 percent in federal forests. 

Congress could allow any state or county that demonstrates superior economic 

and environmental performance to take over the management of the national forests 

within their state or area. Congress could give fixed but declining block grants during a transition period to the forestry agencies that apply and allow them to retain 

any revenues generated. The program should be allowed to run for several years so 

state and county foresters could counteract the effects of federal mismanagement. 

At the end of the trial, states and counties that have improved a forest’s economic 

and environmental performance could be granted the forests outright and federal 

payments ended. If forests have not improved, they could be returned to federal control and new management experiments implemented. This program would provide 

Forest Service managers with an incentive to improve performance or risk losing 

control over the lands. 

WHY IS THIS A NO-REGRETS POLICY?

Any of the management regimes suggested above should decrease the size, intensity and frequency of wildfires, meaning less CO2 will be pumped into the atmosphere each year and more carbon stored. Also, where there are currently more dead 

or dying trees or in burnt-over areas, trees will be replanted at a more rapid rate, 

increasing the carbon uptake of the nation’s forests. 

When pest infestations and fires do occur, the incentives for the new ‘‘owners’’ will 

be to help the forest recover as soon as possible in order to help wildlife recover, 

reduce soil erosion and stream destruction, restart natural ecological cycle and/ or 

make a profit. 

Lastly, what about international forests? Despite the various legal systems and 

property rights regimes around the world, all forests should benefit from a no-regrets solution suggested in the paper mentioned previously: the widespread adoption 

of agricultural biotechnological innovations. Scientists are genetically engineering 

trees that grow faster and can store carbon at a higher rate than existing varieties. 

Such trees can be planted in forests where commercial timber producers are operating and in tropical forests previously lost to slash-and-burn agriculture. In addition, the adoption of new biotech crops that increase yields, improve nutrition and/ 

or reduce the need for such inputs as fertilizers should also reduce stress on tropical 

forests by reducing the need of farmers to move from one forest plot to the next to 

maintain annual production. 
80 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MOULTON, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Thank you Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Barrasso for this opportunity 

to address our concerns regarding the use of offsets on public lands. The Wilderness 

Society shares your concern for maintaining the health of our public lands in the 

face of global warming. America’s public lands—some 635 million acres of land and 

150,000 square miles of protected waters—are a legacy we hold in trust for generations to come. Global warming poses an unprecedented threat to the nation’s iconic 

landscapes—our national parks, forests, wilderness areas, desert lands managed by 

the Bureau of Land Management, and wildlife refuges. At the same time, our country’s parks and other public lands offer one of our best hopes for sustaining the 

plants, animals, birds, clean water and air, and recreational opportunities that are 

important to our heritage. They store carbon and provide large core protected areas 

that will be essential in adapting to a changing climate. These lands also provide 

critical services for our communities, including filtering the air we breathe and the 

water we drink, and play important roles in our nation’s economy. Protecting these 

natural places is more important now than ever. 

You have asked about the advisability of authorizing private carbon offset projects 

on land owned by the American public. 

The Wilderness Society is not opposed to offsets in principle. Private offsets markets, if well-designed and well-regulated, could become a powerful tool for steering 

resources into land protection. However, we believe that extending this powerful tool 

into the arena of federal land management raises numerous unexamined issues that 

need to be thoroughly vetted and understood before moving aggressively in such a 

direction. 

We are aware of the limited offset experiments that have already been undertaken by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. It is important to 

understand that this experience has been gained in the unregulated voluntary carbon market. Much of what has enabled those projects to go forward would not be 

allowed in a regulated carbon market because it would not meet standards of 

additionality, permanence or measurement rigor that will be needed to keep offsets 

from undermining emissions targets. 

At the same time, these early experiments have demonstrated the willingness of 

private parties to supplement public appropriations in return for the right to carbon 

credits hosted on public lands. It is apparent that if offsets on public lands are allowed, they could become major sources of new revenue for resource-starved public 

agencies. It is also apparent that they could entangle public land managers and 

agencies in potential liability associated with enforcement intended to maintain the 

integrity of a regulated carbon offsets market. 

Here is a list of the issues that we believe your subcommittee would benefit from 

examining in detail: 

1. Effect on the cap on emissions.—Offsets on public lands expand the availability of offsets generally. Offsets are seen as an economically efficient method 

of accomplishing what otherwise might be a direct reduction in emissions. But 

their viability in a mandatory cap-and-trade regime remains to be demonstrated. We believe that the Subcommittee should seek an analysis from EPA 

regarding the pros and cons of expanding the offsets playing field in this unprecedented way to assure itself that it is not undermining the emissions caps. 

2. Effect on private land protection.—Offsets undertaken on public lands 

could become a substitute for offsets on private lands, especially if having a 

public agency on one side of the deal is seen as providing an imprimatur in the 

marketplace. This raises the prospect of reducing the incentive to protect vulnerable private parcels. Adjacent private land might have been saved from conversion by a carbon offset project, but now is not. 

3. Effect on the private carbon offsets market.—Flooding the market with offsets on public lands could impact the price of offsets generally, leading to less 

private land protection overall. 

4. Lack of additionality.—Our public lands are already managed under laws 

that require that their health be maintained. Thus it seems difficult to meet the 

requirement of a regulated offsets market that the carbon sequestered through 

reforestation of certain acres, for example, would not have occurred anyway 

under prudent public land management. Indeed, to the extent that the project 

occurs on land already prioritized by land managers for reforestation, it would 

seem that many offset projects would be sited where the next dollar of appropriations would have been spent anyway. This lack of additionality has not 

seemed to matter in the voluntary market, but it will matter a great deal in 

the mandatory market. 
81 

5. Lack of permanence.—Most of the contracts undertaken in the voluntary 

market to date by the Fish and Wildlife Service have involved durations of 50 

years or less. In the mandatory market, this is insufficient to achieve the level 

of ‘‘permanence’’ that justifies allowing a polluter to buy an offset. 

6. Impact on appropriations.—The perceived increase in resources available 

for reforestation or wetlands restoration from these contracts could become illusory if the appropriations committees simply reduce public appropriations by 

the amount attributable to this new private source. The financial benefit to the 

agency would be wiped out. 

7. Impact on Management Flexibility.—Forest Service Chief Tidwell has 

stressed in his testimony the inadvisability of managing a public forest only for 

carbon. Instead, carbon storage should be the natural byproduct of managing 

for the longterm health of the forest. Offsets contracts with private parties run 

directly counter to this prudent approach. Climate change implies the need to 

change management techniques over time. Offset contracts lock in the preservation of a carbon sequestration in a particular place as part of a mandatory compliance regime. The potential for these two tensions to become irreconcilable 

over time seems obvious. As your public witness, Dr. Beverly Law, has stated 

‘‘Federal lands should be managed for the public interest of carbon sequestration, not revenue from carbon credits.’’ 

8. Legal concerns.—Various solicitors’ offices have issued varied legal interpretations regarding proposals to have the managers of our public lands bind 

themselves to a contract with a private sequestration project developer in the 

voluntary carbon market. In any event, these opinions will have to be rewritten 

once the compliance market begins because the compliance market will create 

liability, enforcement and management issues not present in the voluntary market. 

9. Use of offsets contract revenues.—Should revenues flowing from efforts to 

mitigate climate change emissions be spent only on mitigating climate change 

emissions? The agencies have huge climate adaptation needs which would be directly related to the purposes of climate legislation. On the other hand, diverting the money to non-climate related activities within the relevant agency, such 

as regular operations and maintenance, or outside the agency itself, would potentially undermine the climate purposes of the revenues. 

For all these reasons, The Wilderness Society believes that it would be preferable 

to provide direct funding for carbon sequestration activities on the public lands 

through non-offset mechanisms. The pending climate bills include a Natural Resources Adaptation title which would supplement agency budgets to accomplish adaptation purposes, much of which will have major sequestration benefits even if not 

undertaken solely for that purpose. In addition, Senator Stabenow has proposed a 

Carbon Conservation Program outside of the offsets market that could provide resources to public land managers to protect sequestration value without becoming entangled in long-term contracts with individual private carbon projects. As Dr. Beverly Law has testified ‘‘To manage federal lands in the public interest of carbon sequestration, we should strive to preserve mature and old forests to avoid losses of 

carbon associated with harvest. Many of the mature and old forests are on public 

lands, so they are uniquely positioned to act as carbon reserves.’’ Non-offsets funding from the climate bill could and should be used to support this type of carbon 

storage on public lands. 

Finally, let me suggest that one model for taking advantage of the offsets market 

that could be viewed as a middle ground was developed by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and The Conservation Fund for the Theodore Roosevelt NWR in Mississippi. 

Agricultural land was reforested adjacent to the refuge according to native species 

specifications provided by the FWS. The carbon credits were sold into the voluntary 

market. The proceeds were used to facilitate not just the project itself, but also the 

conveyance of title to the USFWS after the restoration work is complete. Note that 

the offsets were done on private land, not public. The carbon encumbrance was ultimately conveyed with the land, so many of the concerns expressed above would still 

apply, but the critical new element of this model is that the taxpayer received an 

expansion of protected acreage. In contrast, most of the other experiments with offsets on public lands have involved no such addition to the amount of acreage protected from conversion. 
82 

Thank you for this opportunity to place this information in the record of your 

hearing. 

Æ