U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–200 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

CLIMATE CHANGE AND PUBLIC LANDS: 

EXAMINING IMPACTS AND CONSIDERING 

ADAPTATION OPPORTUNITIES 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, February 13, 2019 

Serial No. 116–5 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair 

DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

TJ Cox, CA 

Joe Neguse, CO 

Mike Levin, CA 

Debra A. Haaland, NM 

Jefferson Van Drew, NJ 

Joe Cunningham, SC 

Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, NY 

Diana DeGette, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Darren Soto, FL 

Ed Case, HI 

Steven Horsford, NV 

Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Kevin Hern, OK 

Russ Fulcher, ID 

David Watkins, Chief of Staff 

Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel 

Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director 

http://naturalresources.house.gov 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Chair 

DON YOUNG, AK, Ranking Republican Member 

Joe Neguse, CO 

Diana DeGette, CO 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Steven Horsford, NV 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Ed Case, HI 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Daniel Webster, FL 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Russ Fulcher, ID 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 
(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, February 13, 2019 .................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Dingell, Hon. Debbie, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan, prepared statement of ................................................................. 66 

Haaland, Hon. Debra A., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Mexico ............................................................................................... 1 

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

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska . 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Cole, Hans, Director of Environmental Campaigns and Advocacy, 

Patagonia, Inc., Ventura, California ........................................................... 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 34 

Gonzalez, Patrick, Associate Adjunct Professor, University of CaliforniaBerkeley, Berkeley, California ..................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Hansen, Lara J., Executive Director and Chief Scientist, EcoAdapt, 

Bainbridge Island, Washington ................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 26 

Oneil, Elaine, Oneil Forest Research and Management, Tenino, 

Washington .................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Harmon, Dr. Mark E., Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University, 

statement for the record ............................................................................... 67 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 73 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CLIMATE CHANGE 

AND PUBLIC LANDS: EXAMINING IMPACTS 

AND CONSIDERING ADAPTATION OPPORTUNITIES 

Wednesday, February 13, 2019 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 

room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Deb Haaland 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Haaland, Neguse, DeGette, Horsford, 

Huffman, Lowenthal, Case, Grijalva; Young, Westerman, Hice, 

Curtis, Fulcher, and Bishop. 

Ms. HAALAND. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, 

and Public Lands will now come to order. The Subcommittee is 

meeting today to hear testimony on the impacts of climate change 

on public lands, and to consider adaptation opportunities. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. 

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members’ opening statements be made part of the hearing record, if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBRA A. HAALAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Ms. HAALAND. Today is an exciting day. It will be the first of a 

new era for this Committee and for this Congress, an era of inclusion, where the diverse voices of the American people are clearly 

heard in these halls. We will uphold our public lands as a point of 

pride that all Americans can share and co-own. These special 

places will serve as refuge for our highest values, and as places of 

growth toward our Nation’s future. 

I want to start this hearing, the first of the 116th Congress for 

this Subcommittee, by thanking my fellow Members for joining me 

in this important work. I am grateful for the confidence you have 

expressed in selecting me to chair this Subcommittee. It is my sincere hope that we will find common ground on important issues, 

and I promise you that we will lead this Congress, the most diverse 

in history, toward bold policy solutions that benefit our Federal 

lands and our communities. 

We begin that leadership today as we confront the most pressing 

issue facing our Nation, which is climate change. We will hear testimony from leading scientists about the disproportionate impact 

climate change is already having on our public lands. 
2 

Our national parks are warming twice as fast as the rest of the 

country. Parks in the Southwest, my home, and the home of many 

of my fellow Members here on this dais, are experiencing unprecedented aridity. That means less water for ecosystems, which, in 

turn, means less water for our homes and our farmers, because we 

live in a deeply inter-connected world, where changes to one system 

impact all others. 

We rely on the natural world to provide us with many of the 

things we depend on each day, from clean water and clean air to 

flood control and coastal protection. At a time when these natural 

services are under threat from global climate change, Americans 

will require strong leadership to ensure that we are ready to adapt 

to these changes and to meet these challenges. 

Unfortunately, the Trump administration has failed to provide 

this leadership. They see fit to pursue energy dominance at all 

costs, to push an extractive and destructive agenda that has left 

our public lands responsible for nearly one-quarter of all CO2

emissions. At the same time, the Administration has suppressed 

science and prevented adaptation. They canceled executive orders 

outlining adaptation strategies on public lands, and even pulled 

back guidance on climate change and national security. They 

ignored the science of climate change, relying on outdated and inadequate mandates, and put Americans in harm’s way. 

If this Administration will not take the lead, this Committee will. 

Dr. Gonzalez will help us to understand the threat we face by explaining the impact climate change will have on our public lands. 

We will then hear from a top climate change adaptation scientist, 

Dr. Lara Hansen, because we can no longer afford to stand on the 

sidelines and do nothing. 

It is time for America to act on climate change, and our public 

lands are one of the best resources for us to do so. Public lands protect biodiversity and the ecosystems on which our daily lives depend. They provide space for the natural world to adapt to the new 

climate we have created. And they form the backbone of nearly a 

$1 trillion outdoor recreation economy that can help us create good, 

clean jobs. 

Climate change is an unprecedented challenge that will require 

big and bold solutions. Today, we take the first step toward meaningful action by hearing the risks we face, and by considering how 

we can prepare our communities, our country, and our public lands 

for the challenges climate change presents. 

Thank you all for joining me here today. I look forward to our 

leadership on these issues. 

Thank you again to the witnesses. I look forward to your 

testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Haaland follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBRA A. HAALAND, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS

Today is an exciting day. It will be the first of a new era for this Committee and 

for this Congress. An era of inclusion, where the diverse voices of the American 

people are clearly heard in these halls. We will hold up our public lands as a point 

of pride that all Americans share in and co-own. These special places will serve as 

refuge for our highest values and as places of growth toward our Nation’s future. 
3 

I want to start this hearing, the first of the 116th Congress for the Subcommittee 

on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, by thanking my fellow Members for 

joining me in this important work. I am grateful for the confidence you have expressed in selecting me to chair this Subcommittee. It is my sincere hope that we 

will find common ground on important issues, and I promise you that we will lead 

this Congress, the most diverse in history, toward bold policy solutions that benefit 

our Federal public lands and our communities. 

We begin that leadership today as we confront the most pressing issue facing our 

Nation—climate change. We will hear testimony from leading scientists about the 

disproportionate impact climate change is already having on our public lands. 

Our national parks are warming twice as fast as the rest of the country. Parks 

in the Southwest, my home, and the home of many of my fellow Members here on 

the dais, are experiencing unprecedented aridity. That means less water for our 

ecosystems—which in turn means less water for our homes and our farmers, because we live in a deeply interconnected world where changes to one system impact 

all others. 

We rely on the natural world to provide us with many of the things we depend 

on each day, from clean water and clean air to flood control and coastal protection. 

At a time when these natural services are under threat from global climate change, 

Americans will require strong leadership to ensure that we are ready to adapt to 

these changes and to meet these challenges. 

Unfortunately, the Trump administration has failed to provide this leadership. 

They see fit to pursue energy dominance at all costs; to push an extractive and 

destructive agenda that has left our public lands responsible for nearly one-quarter 

of all U.S. CO2 emissions. At the same time, the Administration has suppressed 

science and prevented adaptation. They canceled Executive Orders outlining adaptation strategies on public lands and even pulled back guidance on climate change and 

national security. They ignore the science of climate change, relying on outdated 

and inadequate mandates, and put Americans in harm’s way. 

If this Administration will not take the lead, this Committee will. Dr. Gonzalez 

will help us understand the threat we face by explaining the impact climate change 

will have on our public lands. We will then hear from a top climate change adaptation scientist, Dr. Lara Hansen, because we can no longer afford to stand on the 

sidelines and do nothing. 

It is time for America to act on climate change, and our public lands are one of 

the best resources for us to do so. Public lands protect biodiversity and the ecosystems on which our daily lives depend. They provide space for the natural world 

to adapt to the new climate we have created. And they form the backbone of a 

nearly trillion-dollar outdoor recreation economy that can help us create good, clean 

jobs. 

Climate change is an unprecedented challenge that will require big and bold solutions. Today, we take the first step toward meaningful action by hearing the risks 

we face and by considering how we can prepare our communities, our country, and 

our public lands for the challenges climate change presents. 

Thank you all for joining me here today. I look forward to our leadership on these 

issues. 

Thank you again to the witnesses. I look forward to your testimony. 

Ms. HAALAND. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Curtis, 

for his opening statement. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to sit in for 

our Ranking Member, Don Young. And on his behalf and all of our 

behalf, I would like to congratulate Representative Haaland on her 

election to the House of Representatives, and for being selected as 

the new Chair of the National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

Subcommittee. 

I will now read Mr. Young’s statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. CURTIS. I look forward to working with her and this 

Congress on the many important land issues facing our country. 
4 

Today, we meet to discuss the impacts of climate change on our 

Federal lands and to examine adaptation opportunities. It is certainly my hope that we will use this time to discuss innovative 

land management solutions that fall under this Subcommittee’s 

jurisdiction. 

All too often this issue has been used as a vehicle to push a radically progressive agenda that would prove to be devastating for 

American families, and would offer minimal, at best, climate results. Among the policy goals that have been expressed includes 

calls for complete elimination of air travel, cows, and nuclear 

energy. 

Fearmongering and unrealistic rhetoric should have no place in 

this debate. Instead, we should focus on pragmatic solutions that 

offer realistic environmental solutions. 

And on that note, I would like to turn the microphone over to 

Ranking Member Don Young to finish his statement. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Chair, I apologize. 

Ms. HAALAND. No need to apologize. 

Mr. YOUNG. I will say that those that live on the Hill have it 

made. Those that live 25 miles out, it is not good. I hate the traffic. 

Ms. HAALAND. We are happy to see you. 

Mr. YOUNG. I am here to—first, let me congratulate you for being 

Chairman, and I do apologize. This is a very important Committee. 

I would say, seriously, we ought to start thinking about reducing 

carbon emissions, but we also ought to be talking about how do we 

address that in some of the areas which we have been working on. 

I think we have to look at the forests, something I am very interested in, because we have the largest national forest in America in 

Alaska. And we have lost use of that: 16.8 million acres of the forest, only 4 percent has been managed for timber production. And 

consequently, we have very large forests that have dead trees. We 

have had that in other areas. 

I can tell you that, in Alaska, because we did not manage, did 

not harvest some trees—I am not saying all—we have lost two pulp 

mills, five large sawmills, and a lot of small mills. But we also lost 

6,000 good, high-paying, middle-class jobs. For what cause, I don’t 

know. They say, we have to protect it. But what we don’t manage, 

we lose the forest. This has happened in the Lower 48. People will 

talk to that, as we know. Tremendous forest fires. It is a loss. And 

it also contributes to the carbon, the gases in the air, and the particulate amount in the air. 

So, I suggest, respectfully, one of our jobs is to see whether we 

can manage better, instead of saying no, ask what we can do. 

Other countries have done beautifully. If you go to Sweden, they 

have managed their forests for centuries, and they produce a lot of 

timber and they employ a lot of people. And it looks like a brandnew forest. 

So, that is what we have to consider. And I do think this is a 

great hearing. We have good witnesses today. There are differences 

of opinion, but I just want us to adapt as part of this hearing, and 

I am happy with what we are proceeding here. I would submit the 

rest of my statement for the record and yield back the balance of 

my time. 
5 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS

I would first like to congratulate Representative Haaland on her election to the 

House of Representatives and for being selected as the new Chair of the National 

Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee. I look forward to working with her 

this Congress on many of the important land management issues facing our country. 

Today we meet to discuss the impacts of climate change on our Federal lands and 

to examine adaptation opportunities. It is certainly my hope that we use this time 

to discuss innovative land management solutions that fall under this 

Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

All too often, this issue has been used as a vehicle to push a radically progressive 

agenda that would prove to be devastating for American families and would offer 

minimal at best climate results. Among the ludicrous policy goals that have been 

expressed includes calls for the complete elimination of air travel, cows, and nuclear 

energy. 

Fearmongering and unrealistic rhetoric should have no place in this debate. 

Instead we should focus on pragmatic solutions that offer realistic environmental 

benefits. 

One area of policy actually under this Committee’s jurisdiction is forestry. It’s 

common knowledge that the poor health of our Nation’s forests is has reached crisis 

levels. 

If the Democrat Majority is truly serious about reducing vast amounts of Carbon 

Emissions into the atmosphere, they should be working more closely alongside 

Republicans in supporting common-sense forest management reforms which include 

the responsible cutting and replanting of trees, as well as grazing on public lands. 

Before our own eyes, we’ve seen the Nation’s once flourishing Federal forests 

transform into dead and burned out waste lands. 

The sorry state of our Federal forests has become a national disgrace and national 

emergency. While climate change has certainly exacerbated the challenges facing 

our Federal forests, there is much that we can be doing to help our forests adapt 

and become more resilient in a time of changing climate. 

With 16.8 million acres, the Tongass National Forest is the largest national forest 

in the United States. In the last 90 years, only 4 percent has been managed for 

timber production. To make matters worse, the Forest Service has been unwilling 

and unable to provide a reliable and sufficient supply of timber sales. 

In my home state of Alaska, over the past 35 years we have seen the closure of 

two pulp mills, five large saw mills, and countless small mills due to misguided 

forest policy. This has cost Alaskans over 5,000 good paying-family wage jobs. 

For decades we have failed to proactively manage our forests in order to reduce 

hazardous fuels buildup. As a result, the excessive fuel loads that have piled up are 

increasing the likelihood of explosive, unmanageable and costly megafires that 

wreak havoc on our rural communities and emit millions of metric tons of carbon 

dioxide into the air. 

We cannot continue to ignore the forest health crisis. The Federal Government’s 

current rate, treating a paltry 2 percent of the nearly 60 million acres identified as 

high risk to wildfire, is not acceptable. 

To solve our Nation’s forest health crisis, we must enact measures to increase the 

pace and scale of active management across our forestlands. 

The American people want our forests returned to health. They want the growing 

scourge of wildfire brought back under control. They want the destruction of mountain habitats by fire, disease and pestilence arrested and reversed. They want the 

prosperity of their forest communities restored. 

Our witness, Dr. Elaine Oneil, has spent her career specializing in forest health, 

climate change, and forest carbon accounting. Dr. Oneil’s written testimony offers 

reasonable solutions that would be beneficial for our forests, for our climate, and 

for the American people. 

I look forward to a robust discussion on the state of our Federal lands. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Curtis and Mr. Young. 

I would like to introduce our witnesses. Under our Committee 

Rules, oral statements are limited to 5 minutes, but your entire 

statement will appear in the hearing record. 
6 

The lights in front of you will turn yellow when there is 1 minute 

left, and then red when time has expired. After the witnesses have 

testified, Members will be given the opportunity to ask questions. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Patrick Gonzalez for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK GONZALEZ, ASSOCIATE ADJUNCT 

PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA–BERKELEY, 

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 

Dr. GONZALEZ. Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and members of 

the Committee, thank you for the invitation to speak on the science 

of human-caused climate change in the U.S. national parks. 

I am Patrick Gonzalez, a forest ecologist and associate adjunct 

professor at the University of California, Berkeley. I am also the 

principal climate change scientist of the U.S. National Park 

Service. But today I speak under my Berkeley affiliation, not for 

the Park Service. 

I have conducted and published field research on climate change 

for over 25 years. I have also served as a lead author on four reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 

science organization awarded a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace 

Prize. 

Wildfires burning in Yosemite National Park in California, 

glaciers melting in Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska: published 

scientific research has detected these changes and others in U.S. 

national parks, and attributed them to human-caused climate 

change. 

The human cause of climate change is an important scientific 

fact because it points us to the solutions to the problem. Measurements show that cars, power plants, deforestation, and other 

human sources have increased carbon dioxide to its highest levels 

in 800,000 years. This increase has intensified the greenhouse effect, and increased temperatures to their highest levels in over 800 

years. Human activities have caused 97 percent of historical 

heating. 

Colleagues and I published last year the first analysis of climate 

change trends across all 417 national parks. Our results revealed 

that climate change since 1895 has exposed the national parks to 

conditions hotter and dryer than the country, as a whole. Temperatures in the national parks increased at double the national rate. 

The temperature increase was 1 degree Celsius, or 2 degrees 

Fahrenheit per century. 

That might not sound like a lot, but 1 degree is the equivalent 

of pushing a mountain down 170 meters, or 550 feet—that is the 

height of the Washington Monument—from cooler areas at higher 

elevations to warmer areas below. 

Also, rain and snow decreased more in the national parks than 

in the country as a whole. Hotter and drier conditions occurred because many parks are located in the extreme environments: in the 

Arctic, in high mountains, and the arid Southwest. 

As a result, in Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska, climate 

change has melted 640 meters of ice from Muir Glacier. That’s 

2,100 feet more than the height of One World Trade Center. 

In Yosemite National Park and across the West, climate change 

has doubled wildfire, compared to the area of natural burning. 
7 

In Rocky Mountain National Park and across the West, climate 

change has doubled tree death, particularly from bark beetles. 

In Noatak National Preserve in Alaska, climate change has 

shifted forests northward onto formerly treeless tundra. 

Climate change has raised sea level halfway to your knee in 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Francisco, and all 

the way to your knee in New York City, not far from the Statue 

of Liberty. 

Climate change has killed coral reefs in Biscayne National Park, 

Florida. 

Continued climate change under the worst scenario could substantially heat the parks and the future up to 9 degrees Celsius or 

16 degrees Fahrenheit in Alaska. 

Our research shows that cutting carbon pollution could reduce 

projected heating in national parks by up to two-thirds. The lowered heating would lower future risks. 

The United States has demonstrated its ability to cut emissions. 

The United States cut emissions 8 percent from 2007 to 2015. The 

U.S. Climate Alliance of 19 states and 1 territory has cut its emissions 14 percent, on track to meet the Paris Agreement goals. We 

achieved this progress with energy conservation, energy efficiency, 

solar, public transit, and other sustainable actions. 

In conclusion, the U.S. national parks protect some of the most 

irreplaceable natural areas and cultural sites in the world. Cutting 

carbon pollution would reduce human-caused climate change and 

help save our national parks for future generations. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gonzalez follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK GONZALEZ, PH.D., UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 

BERKELEY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

From wildfires burning in Yosemite National Park, California, to glaciers melting 

in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, published scientific research has detected 

changes globally and in United States (U.S.) national parks and attributed them to 

human-caused climate change. These impacts are occurring because climate change 

since 1895 has exposed the national parks to twice the heating of the country as 

a whole and to more severe aridity. Without cuts to pollution from cars, power 

plants, deforestation, and other human sources, continued climate change could increase future temperatures up to six times faster than historical rates, threatening 

the unique landscapes, plants, and animals in parks. Adaptation of resource management could decrease some projected damage. Yet, cutting carbon pollution from 

human sources is the solution that targets the cause of climate change. Emissions 

reductions could lower projected heating in national parks by one-half to two-thirds. 

The lowered heating would reduce risks of severe wildfire, disappearances of plant 

and animal species, and other threats to our national parks. 

INTRODUCTION

Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and members of the Committee, thank you for 

the invitation to speak on the science of human-caused climate change in the U.S. 

national parks. I am Patrick Gonzalez, a forest ecologist and Associate Adjunct 

Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management. I am also the Principal Climate Change 

Scientist of the U.S. National Park Service, but today I am speaking under my 

Berkeley affiliation, not for the Park Service. I earned my Ph.D. at the University 

of California, Berkeley, and have conducted and published field research on climate 

change for 25 years. I have also served for over 8 years as the lead for climate 

change science in the U.S. National Park Service. I am a lead author on four reports 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the organization that 
8 

produces the authoritative scientific assessments of climate change, for which it was 

awarded a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. 

HUMAN CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

The human cause of climate change (1) is an important scientific fact because it 

points us to solutions to the problem. Atmospheric measurements show that carbon 

dioxide has increased to its highest level in 800,000 years (Figure 1) (2–5). Measurements show that the increased carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the 

atmosphere come from cars, power plants, deforestation, and other human sources 

(6). Chemical analyses show that the additional carbon dioxide bears the unique 

chemical signature of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and gas—not of natural emissions from 

volcanoes (7). Human sources now emit twice the amount of carbon dioxide that 

vegetation, soils, and the oceans can naturally absorb (6). This is the fundamental 

imbalance that causes climate change. 

The increase in carbon dioxide has intensified the greenhouse effect, the trapping 

of heat close to the surface of the Earth. Consequently, the world has heated to its 

highest temperature in 800 years (8). Measurements of the potential causal 

factors—human and natural—show that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 

from human activities caused 97 percent of historical heating (9). Solar cycles and 

other natural factors caused just the remaining 3 percent. Therefore, scientific 

evidence shows that human activities are causing climate change. 

Figure 1. Atmospheric carbon dioxide 800,000 years ago to 2018 AD. 

HISTORICAL IMPACTS IN U.S. NATIONAL PARKS

The magnitude of climate change across all the U.S. national parks was not 

known until recent research by colleagues and me. In 2018, we published the first 

spatial analyses of temperature and precipitation trends across all 417 U.S. national 

parks (10). Our analyses of historical data revealed that climate change has exposed 

the national parks to conditions hotter and drier than the country as a whole. This 

occurs because extensive parts of the parks are in extreme environments—the 

Arctic, high mountains, and the arid Southwest. 

Our findings show that temperatures in the national park area increased at a rate 

of 1°C (approximately 2°F.) per century from 1895 to 2010, double the national rate. 

At the same time, precipitation decreased across a greater fraction of the national 

park area (12 percent) than the country as a whole (3 percent). Out of all 417 

national parks, temperatures increased most in Denali National Preserve, Alaska 

(4.3°C [approximately 8°F.] per century) (Figure 2), and rainfall declined most in 

Honouliuli National Monument, Hawaii (85 percent decrease per century). 
9 

The implications of this increased heat and aridity in the national parks were not 

comprehensively known until recently. In 2017, I published the first comprehensive 

assessment of published research on climate change impacts and vulnerabilities in 

U.S. national parks (11). This section on historical impacts provides cases from that 

publication, only including research that has employed the research procedures of 

detection and attribution (1). 

Detection is the finding of statistically significant changes over time that are different than natural variation. Attribution is the analysis of different potential 

causes, natural and human, to determine their relative importance. In many 

national parks, it is easier to tell if human-caused climate change is the main cause 

of changes in the field because many parks have been protected from urbanization, 

timber harvesting, grazing, and other non-climate disturbances. 

Figure 2. Temperature change from 1895 to 2010 due to human-caused 

climate change. Map: Trend in annual temperature in degrees Celsius per 

century, with park boundaries in green. Graph: Statistically significant 

trend for the area of the 417 U.S. national parks. 

Historical impacts detected and attributed to human-caused climate change 

include: 

• Glaciers melting In Glacier Bay National Park (NP), Alaska, climate change 

melted 640 meters (2100 ft.) of ice (depth) from Muir Glacier from 1948 to 

2000 (Figure 3) (12,13). In Glacier NP, Montana, climate change melted 1.5 

km (1 mi.) of ice (length) from Agassiz Glacier from 1926 to 1979 (13,14). In 

the North Cascades NP complex, Washington, climate change melted four 

glaciers away completely from 1984 to 2004 (13,15). 
10 

Figure 3. Melting of Muir Glacier, Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska. 

Top: August 13, 1941 (photo by William O. Field, U.S. Geological Survey). 

Bottom: August 31, 2004 (photo by Bruce F. Molnia, U.S. Geological 

Survey). 

• Snowpack decline Across the western U.S., including North Cascades NP, 

Washington, and 10 other national parks, climate change has melted 

snowpack to its lowest level in eight centuries (16). 

• Wildfire increase Across the western U.S., including Yellowstone NP, 

Wyoming, and Yosemite NP, California, climate change doubled the area 

burned by wildfire from 1984 to 2015, compared to the area of natural burning (17). Wildfire is a natural part of many ecosystems but excessive wildfire 

can damage ecosystem integrity and hurt people. Across the western U.S., 

climate was the dominant factor controlling burning from 1916 to 2003, even 

during periods of active fire suppression (18). 

• Tree death Across the western U.S., including Kings Canyon NP, Lassen 

Volcanic NP, Sequoia NP, and Yosemite NP, California, Mount Rainier NP, 

Washington, and Rocky Mountain NP, Colorado, climate change doubled tree 

mortality from 1955 to 2007 (19), due to increased aridity (19,20), the most 

extensive bark beetle infestations in a century (19–22), and increased wildfire 

(20). 

• Vegetation shifts In Yosemite NP, California, climate change shifted subalpine forest upslope into subalpine meadows between 1880 and 2002 (23). In 

Noatak National Preserve, Alaska, climate change shifted boreal conifer forest 

northward onto formerly treeless tundra between 1800 and 1990 (24). Climate 

change, by shifting warmer conditions upslope and farther north, has shifted 

major vegetation types (biomes) at sites around the world (25). 
11 

• Wildlife shifts In Yosemite NP, California, field research showed that 

climate change shifted the ranges of the American pika, a small alpine mammal, and other species 500 meters upslope (approximately 1600 ft.) from 1920 

to 2006, when temperature increased 3°C (approximately 5°F) (26). Because 

the national park had protected the survey area, timber harvesting, grazing, 

and hunting were not major factors. 

Analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird Count data across the U.S., including 

sites in numerous national parks, found that climate change shifted the average winter range of 254 bird species northward 15 km (9 mi.) from 1975 to 

2004 (27). Because of this, the evening grosbeak disappeared from counts in 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Michigan, and Shenandoah NP, 

Virginia. 

• Sea level rise Climate change has raised sea level 22 cm (9 in.) since 1854 

at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco, California (28–30), 

42 cm (17 in.) since 1856 at New York City (29–31), not far from the Statue 

of Liberty National Monument, and 30 cm (12 in.) since 1924 at Washington, 

DC (29,30,32), not far from the Jefferson Memorial and the White House, 

which is a national park. 

• Coral bleaching Climate change bleached and killed up to 80 percent of 

coral reef area in 2005 at sites in Biscayne NP, Florida, and Buck Island Reef 

National Monument, Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological 

Preserve, Virgin Islands National Park, and Virgin Islands Coral Reef 

National Monument (33,34). That year, climate change had caused the hottest 

sea surface temperatures recorded in the Caribbean Sea since 1855. 

FUTURE VULNERABILITIES

To quantify potential future changes in national parks, colleagues and I analyzed 

all available climate projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, as part of the first spatial analysis of climate trends across all 417 U.S. 

national parks (10). Our results indicate that continued carbon emissions under the 

worst scenario could increase temperatures in the 21st century six times faster than 

occurred in the 20th century. Temperatures in national parks could increase up to 

9°C (16°F.) by 2100, in the national parks of Alaska, and rainfall could decline by 

as much as 28 percent, in the national parks of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Aridity 

could also increase in Big Bend NP, Texas, Everglades NP, Florida, and other 

national parks at southern latitudes. 

Published research on U.S. national park resources indicates that continued 

climate change could damage many of the globally unique ecosystems and resources 

that the parks protect. These vulnerabilities include: 

• Loss of glaciers Climate change could cause, under the worst scenario, complete melting of glaciers from Glacier National Park, Montana, by the 2030s 

(35) and the disappearance of Sperry Glacier from Rocky Mountain NP by the 

2040s (36). 

• Wildfire increase The hotter temperatures of climate change could, under 

a high emissions scenario, increase wildfire frequencies in Yellowstone NP 

and Grand Teton NP, Wyoming, 300 percent to 1000 percent (37) and up to 

300 percent in Yosemite NP, California, by 2100 (38). 

• Tree death The more severe aridity of climate change could, under a high 

emissions scenario, reduce suitable habitat of the Joshua tree in the southwestern U.S. 90 percent by 2100, leading to extensive death of Joshua trees 

in Joshua Tree NP, California (39,40). The more severe aridity of climate 

change also increases the risk of higher mortality of foothills palo verde and 

ocotillo in Saguaro NP, Arizona (41), pin ̃ on pine in Bandelier National 

Monument, New Mexico (42), and coast redwoods, the tallest living things on 

Earth, in Muir Woods National Monument, California (43,44). Loss of snow 

under projected climate change increases the vulnerability of Alaska yellow 

cedar to increased mortality in Sitka National Historical Park, Alaska (45). 

Under projected climate change, 16 percent to 41 percent of total national 

park area is highly vulnerability to northward and upslope vegetation shifts 

(biome shifts) (25). 

• Loss of wildlife Climate change may shift habitats upslope to such an extent that the American pika, a small alpine mammal that lives at the highest 

elevations, could disappear from Lassen Volcanic NP, California (46). Climate 

change could also exacerbate cheatgrass invasions in Craters of the Moon 

National Monument and Preserve, Idaho, leading to substantial decline of the 
12 

sage grouse (47,48). Numerous national parks could lose local bird species and 

be colonized by new migrants (49). At Canaveral National Seashore, Florida, 

green turtles are vulnerable to increased mortality from flooding of nests by 

increases in storms (50). 

• Inundation from sea level rise Sea level rise due to climate change could 

inundate much of Everglades National Park, Florida (51), the center of 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, California (52,53), the National Mall 

and other national parks in Washington, DC (54), one-third of the area of 

Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland (55), and the Statue of 

Liberty National Monument, New York (56). 

• Ocean acidification Corals and other marine life in Dry Tortugas National 

Park, Florida (57), and Channel Islands NP and Cabrillo National Monument, 

California (58), are vulnerable to dissolving in acidified waters under 

continued climate change. 

ADAPTATION OF NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Adaptation to climate change is the adjustment of practices in a way that moderates future harm. One adaptation measure under implementation in a national 

park is the protection of refugia for the Joshua tree in Joshua Tree NP, California 

(40). Other adaptation measures under consideration for parks include conservation 

of refugia for mountain plants and animals (59,60), and conservation of cooler water 

refugia for fish (61). Prescribed burning is an adaptation measure that reduces 

future risks of catastrophic wildfire and tree death by removing an unnatural buildup of fuel and small trees where old policies suppressed natural wildfire (62,63). 

While adaptation measures are important to help maintain ecosystem integrity, 

they only treat symptoms of climate change, not the cause. 

CARBON SOLUTIONS

Published research by colleagues and me concludes that reducing the cause of 

climate change—carbon pollution from cars, power plants, deforestation, and other 

human sources—can save national parks from the most extreme heat in the future 

(10). Compared to the worst scenario, reduced carbon emissions would lower projected heating in national parks by one-half to two-thirds by 2100. 

The reduced heating could produce real benefits on the ground. While under the 

worst emissions scenario, 16 percent of plant and animal species globally could be 

at risk of extinction (64), the risk drops to 5 percent under the lowest emissions scenario of meeting the Paris Agreement goal (65). Similarly, global sea level could rise 

74 cm (29 in.) under the worst emissions scenario, but rise 44 m (17 in.) under the 

Paris Agreement goal (29). In Yosemite NP, California, climate change under the 

worst emissions scenario could triple burned area by 2100, but a low emissions 

scenario could keep wildfires near to their current level (38). 

A supplemental carbon solution is the conservation of forests, which naturally reduce climate change by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing 

it in leaves and wood. Coast redwood forest near Redwood NP, California, contains 

more carbon per area on the ground than any other forest in the world (66). The 

27 national parks in California together contain as much carbon as the annual emissions of 7.4 million Americans, or the combined population of the cities of Boston, 

Charlotte, Dallas, Kansas City, Los Angeles, and Miami (67). This is a substantial 

amount of carbon, but those millions of people can burn the equivalent of all the 

carbon in the coast redwoods and other vegetation in the national parks in 

California in just one year. Therefore, forest conservation is insufficient as a sole 

solution to climate change. This points to the need for reducing emissions from fossil 

fuel burning. 

Analyses by the IPCC recently confirmed that it is still possible to limit future 

heating to the Paris Agreement goal of a temperature increase less than 2°C 

(approximately 4°F) (68). The U.S. has already demonstrated its ability to cut emissions. From 2007 to 2015, the U.S. cut emissions 8 percent (69). From 2005 to 2016, 

the U.S. Climate Alliance of 19 states and one territory cut its emissions 14 percent, 

on track to meet the Paris Agreement goal (70). We have achieved this progress 

through energy conservation, improved efficiency, renewable energy, public transit, 

and other available practices. 

The U.S. national parks protect some of the most irreplaceable natural areas and 

cultural sites in the world. Cutting carbon pollution would reduce human-caused 

climate change and help save our national parks for future generations. 
13 

SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES

1. Bindoff, N.L. et al. 2013. Detection and attribution of climate change: From global 

to regional. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: 

The Physical Science Basis. [Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)] Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK. 

2. Petit, J.R. et al. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years 

from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429–436. 

3. Monnin, E. et al. 2004. Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in 

Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO2 in the Taylor 

Dome, Dome C, and DML ice cores. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 224: 45– 

54. 

4. Lu ̈thi, D. et al. 2008. High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 

650,000–800,000 years before present. Nature 453: 379–382. 

5. Bereiter, B. et al. 2015. Revision of the EPICA Dome C CO2 record from 800 to 

600 kyr before present. Geophysical Research Letters 42: 542–549. 

6. Ciais, P. et al. 2013. Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science 

Basis. [Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

7. Denman, K.L. et al. 2007. Couplings between changes in the climate system and 

biogeochemistry. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 

2007: The Physical Science Basis. [Solomon, S. et al. (eds.)] Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, UK. 

8. Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. 2013. Information from paleoclimate archives. In 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: The Physical 

Science Basis. [Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

UK. 

9. Myhre, G. et al. 2013. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science 

Basis. [Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

10. Gonzalez, P. et al. 2018. Disproportionate magnitude of climate change in 

United States national parks. Environmental Research Letters 13: 104001. 

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aade09. 

11. Gonzalez, P. 2017. Climate change trends, impacts, and vulnerabilities in US 

national parks. In Beissinger, S.R., D.D. Ackerly, H. Doremus, and G.E. Machlis 

(eds.) Science, Conservation, and National Parks. University of Chicago Press, 

Chicago, IL. 

12. Larsen, C.F. et al. 2007. Glacier changes in southeast Alaska and northwest 

British Columbia and contribution to sea level rise. Journal of Geophysical Research 

112: F01007. doi:10.1029/2006JF000586. 

13. Marzeion, B. et al. 2014. Attribution of global glacier mass loss to anthropogenic 

and natural causes. Science 345: 919–921. 

14. Pederson, G.T. et al. 2004. Decadal-scale climate drivers for glacial dynamics in 

Glacier National Park, Montana, USA. Geophysical Research Letters 31: L12203. 

doi:10.1029/2004GL019770. 

15. Pelto, M.S. 2006. The current disequilibrium of North Cascade glaciers. 

Hydrological Processes 20: 769–779. 

16. Pederson, G.T. et al. 2011. The unusual nature of recent snowpack declines in 

the North American Cordillera. Science 333: 332–335. 

17. Abatzoglou, J.T. and A.P. Williams. 2016. Impact of anthropogenic climate 

change on wildfire across western US forests. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the USA 113: 11,770–11,775. 

18. Littell, J.S. et al. Climate and wildfire area burned in western U.S. ecoprovinces, 

1916–2003. Ecological Applications 19: 1003–1021. 

19. van Mantgem, P.J. et al. 2009. Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in 

the western United States. Science 323: 521–524. 

20. Berner, L.T. et al. 2017. Tree mortality from fires, bark beetles, and timber 

harvest during a hot and dry decade in the western United States (2003–2012). 

Environmental Research Letters 12: 065005. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6f94. 
14 

21. Raffa, K.F. et al. 2008. Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to 

anthropogenic amplification: The dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. BioScience 58: 

501–517. 

22. Macfarlane, W.W., J.A. Logan, and W.R. Kern. 2013. An innovative aerial 

assessment of Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem mountain pine beetle-caused 

whitebark pine mortality. Ecological Applications 23: 421–437. 

23. Millar, C.I. et al. 2004. Response of subalpine conifers in the Sierra Nevada, 

California, U.S.A., to 20th-century warming and decadal climate variability. Arctic, 

Antarctic, and Alpine Research 36: 181–200. 

24. Suarez, F. et al. 1999. Expansion of forest stands into tundra in the Noatak 

National Preserve, northwest Alaska. Ecoscience 6: 465–470. 

25. Gonzalez, P. et al. 2010. Global patterns in the vulnerability of ecosystems to 

vegetation shifts due to climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19: 755– 

768. 

26. Moritz, C. et al. 2008. Impact of a century of climate change on small-mammal 

communities in Yosemite National Park, USA. Science 322: 261–264. 

27. La Sorte, F.A. and F.R. Thompson. 2007. Poleward shifts in winter ranges of 

North American birds. Ecology 88: 1803–1812. 

28. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2019. Relative sea level 

trend 9414290 San Francisco, California. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/ 

sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414290. 

29. Church, J.A. et al. 2013. Sea level change. In Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. [Stocker, T.F. 

et al. (eds.)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

30. Slangen, A.B.A. et al. 2016. Anthropogenic forcing dominates global mean sealevel rise since 1970. Nature Climate Change 6: 701–705. 

31. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2019. Relative sea level 

trend 8518750 The Battery, New York. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/ 

sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750. 

32. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2019. Relative sea level 

trend 8594900 Washington, District of Columbia. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/ 

sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8594900. 

33. Eakin, C.M. et al. 2010. Caribbean corals in crisis: Record thermal stress, 

bleaching, and mortality in 2005. PLoS ONE 5: e13969. doi:10.1371/ 

journal.pone.0013969. 

34. Cramer, W. et al. 2014. Detection and attribution of observed impacts. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, 

Adaptation, and Vulnerability. [Field, C.B. et al. (eds.)] Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK. 

35. Hall, M.H.P. and D.B. Fagre. 2003. Modeled climate-induced glacier change in 

Glacier National Park, 1850–2100. Bioscience 53: 131–140. 

36. Brown, J., J. Harper, and N. Humphrey. 2010. Cirque glacier sensitivity to 21st 

century warming: Sperry Glacier, Rocky Mountains, USA. Global and Planetary 

Change 74: 91–98. 

37. Westerling, A.L. et al. 2011. Continued warming could transform Greater 

Yellowstone fire regimes by mid-21st century. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the USA 108: 13165–13170. 

38. Westerling, A.L. et al. 2011a. Climate change and growth scenarios for 

California wildfire. Climatic Change 109: S445–463. 

39. Cole, K.L. et al. 2011. Past and ongoing shifts in Joshua tree distribution 

support future modeled range contraction. Ecological Applications 21: 137–149. 

40. Barrows, C.W. and M.L. Murphy-Mariscal. 2012. Modeling impacts of climate 

change on Joshua trees at their southern boundary: How scale impacts predictions. 

Biological Conservation 152: 29–36. 

41. Munson, S.M. et al. 2012. Forecasting climate change impacts to plant community composition in the Sonoran Desert region. Global Change Biology 18: 1083– 

1095. 
15 

42. Williams, A.P. et al. 2013. Temperature as a potent driver of regional forest 

drought stress and tree mortality. Nature Climate Change 3: 292–297. 

43. Johnstone, J.A. and T.E. Dawson. 2010. Climatic context and ecological implications of summer fog decline in the coast redwood region. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the USA 107: 4533–4538. 

44. Ferna ́ndez, M., H.H. Hamilton, and L.M. Kueppers. 2015. Back to the future: 

Using historical climate variation to project near-term shifts in habitat suitable for 

coast redwood. Global Change Biology 21: 4141–4152. 

45. Buma, B. et al. 2017. Emerging climate-driven disturbance processes: 

Widespread mortality associated with snow-to-rain transitions across 10° of latitude 

and half the range of a climate-threatened conifer. Global Change Biology 23: 2903– 

2914. 

46. Stewart, J.A.E. et al. 2015. Revisiting the past to foretell the future: Summer 

temperature and habitat area predict pika extirpations in California. Journal of 

Biogeography 42: 880–890. 

47. Coates, P.S. et al. 2016. Wildfire, climate, and invasive grass interactions negatively impact an indicator species by reshaping sagebrush ecosystems. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 113: 12,745–12,750. 

48. Boyte, S.P., B.K. Wylie, and D.J. Major. 2016. Cheatgrass percent cover change: 

Comparing recent estimates to climate change-driven predictions in the northern 

Great Basin. Rangeland Ecology and Management 69: 265–279. 

49. Wu, J.X. et al. 2018. Projected avifaunal responses to climate change across the 

U.S. National Park System. PLoS ONE 13 e0190557 doi:10.1371/ 

journal.pone.0190557. 

50. Pike, D.A. and J.C. Stiner. 2007. Sea turtle species vary in their susceptibility 

to tropical cyclones. Oecologia 153: 471–478. 

51. Flower, H., M. Rains, and C. Fitz. 2017. Visioning the future: Scenarios modeling of the Florida coastal Everglades. Environmental Management 60: 989–1009. 

52. Griggs, G. et al. 2017. Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise 

Science. California Ocean Science Trust, Oakland, CA. 

53. CMG Landscape Architecture. 2016. Crissy Field + Sea Level Rise-Up. CMG, 

San Francisco, CA. 

54. Ayyub, B.M., H.G. Braileanu, and N. Qureshi. 2012. Prediction and impact of 

sea level rise on properties and infrastructure of Washington, DC. Risk Analysis 32: 

1901–1918. 

55. Murdukhayeva, A. et al. 2013. Assessment of inundation risk from sea level rise 

and storm surge in northeastern coastal national parks. Journal of Coastal Research 

29: 1–16. 

56. Marzeion, B. and A. Levermann. 2014. Loss of cultural world heritage and currently inhabited places to sea-level rise. Environmental Research Letters 9: 034001. 

doi:10.1088/1748–9326/9/3/034001. 

57. Kuffner, I.B., T.D. Hickey, and J.M. Morrison. 2013. Calcification rates of the 

massive coral Siderastrea siderea and crustose coralline algae along the Florida 

Keys (USA) outer-reef tract. Coral Reefs 32: 987–997. 

58. Marshall, K.N. et al. 2017. Risks of ocean acidification in the California Current 

food web and fisheries: ecosystem model projections. Global Change Biology 23: 

1525–1539. 

59. Johnston, K.M., K.A. Freund, and O.J. Schmitz. 2012. Projected range shifting 

by montane mammals under climate change: implications for Cascadia’s National 

Parks. Ecosphere 3(11): 97. doi:10.1890/ES12-00077.1. 

60. Morelli, T.L. et al. 2016. Managing climate change refugia for climate 

adaptation. PLoS One 11: e0159909. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159909. 

61. Briggs, M.A. et al. 2018. Shallow bedrock limits groundwater seepage-based 

headwater climate refugia. Limnologica 68: 142–156. 

62. van Mantgem, P.J. et al. 2016. Does prescribed fire promote resistance to 

drought in low elevation forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA? Fire Ecology 

12: 13–25. 
16 

63. Boisrame ́, G. et al. 2017. Managed wildfire effects on forest resilience and water 

in the Sierra Nevada. Ecosystems 20: 717–732. 

64. Urban, M.C. 2015. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348: 

571–573. 

65. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2015. 

Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Document FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add1, Decision 1/ 

CP21. UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany. 

66. Van Pelt, R. et al. 2016. Emergent crowns and light-use complementarity lead 

to global maximum biomass and leaf area in Sequoia sempervirens forests. Forest 

Ecology and Management 375: 279–308. 

67. Gonzalez, P. et al. 2015. Aboveground live carbon stock changes of California 

wildland ecosystems, 2001–2010. Forest Ecology and Management 348: 68–77. 

68. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2018. Global warming of 1.5°C. 

[Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, 

Switzerland. 

69. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2018. Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2016. US EPA, Washington, DC. 

70. U.S. Climate Alliance. 2018. Annual Report. U.S. Climate Alliance, Washington, 

DC. 

Publications and information by Patrick Gonzalez at http://www.patrickgonzalez.net, 

https://ourenvironment.berkeley.edu/people/patrick-gonzalez, and https://twitter.com/ 

pgonzaleztweet. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Dr. Gonzalez. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Lara Hansen. 

STATEMENT OF LARA HANSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND 

CHIEF SCIENTIST, ECOADAPT, BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, 

WASHINGTON 

Dr. HANSEN. Good morning, and thank you, Ms. Chairwoman, 

Ranking Member, and the Committee, for inviting me to speak 

about climate change and our public lands. I have had the honor 

to visit the Hill twice before to talk about climate change, first in 

2004, when I was pregnant with my son. And I talked about the 

hopeful work I was conducting around the world to improve ecosystem management in the face of climate change: a discipline 

called adaptation. I urged the Senate to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions and keep climate change to less than 2 degrees Celsius. 

In 2007, I was invited back to testify on the effects of climate 

change on marine ecosystems. My son was now three. I applauded 

Congress for the existence of several bills to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. I repeated the need to keep climate change to less than 

2 degrees Celsius, and I added a request for the creation of a 

national adaptation policy with an extension agency to provide 

technical support. 

The following year, two colleagues and I co-founded EcoAdapt, in 

order to bring the skills we were supporting internationally to the 

United States, so our own country could become more durable to 

the insults of climate change. 

A decade later EcoAdapt is now a team of 12 supporting the innovation of adaptation approaches across the United States. We see 

a growing number of people incorporating the realities of climate 

change into their work, but not nearly to the extent necessary. 
17 

We host the biennial National Adaptation Forum, and in 2017 

we had over 1,000 attendees. We are a country of 325 million. 

Certainly, we need more than 1,000 people doing this work. Our 

country is utterly unprepared for the scale of this challenge. 

In every one of your districts, there are decisions being made 

every day, not only on public lands, but also on private lands and 

in our communities that are vulnerable to climate change. Not considering the implications of climate change will result in investments in infrastructure, management, and protection that will not 

garner the anticipated outcomes. Instead, we will end up spending 

additional funds to rebuild, risking community members’ lives and 

livelihoods, and doing damage to our environment. Explicit consideration of climate change and our actions today is vital for our lives 

tomorrow. 

As lawmakers, you have the power to do something. For my 20 

years of professional experience in the field of adaptation, I 

recommend the following. 

One, create a national adaptation policy that requires the consideration of the impacts from and to climate change, and evaluation 

of funding and permitting for land use activities and, quite frankly, 

everything else. 

Two, create a national climate change adaptation and mitigation 

extension agency. This would provide technical support to public 

and private land managers and everyone else at the Federal, state, 

and local level. 

Three, require the protection and management of our public 

lands with an awareness that the climate is changing. This means 

the agencies entrusted to protect our public lands must evaluate 

the climate change vulnerability of ecosystems and the actions proposed on these lands such that they can act to reduce that risk. 

This needs to be part of how we do business. 

We must ensure that we are protecting adequate and appropriate 

space for ecosystems to function under changing conditions, including protecting refugia, connectivity, functionality, and employing 

forward restoration. 

We must support our land stewards with the staff and funding 

to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of management, and give 

them the ability to make management decisions that prepare us for 

future conditions. 

We must manage lands for the long term, to maximize our rate 

of return, which will be realized as access to clean air, clean and 

plentiful water, flood control, wildlife habitat, improved mental 

health, spiritual opportunities, recreational enjoyment, and longterm jobs. Our public lands must not be managed for quarterly 

profit margins. 

Four, re-evaluate acceptable levels of non-climate stressors on 

our public lands. From roads or invasive species, to over-harvest or 

eutrophication, to industrial chemicals from gas extraction and 

mining, or chemical fire suppressants, the impact of these stressors 

can be compounded by the manifestations of climate change. 

And, of course, since that child I spoke about at the beginning 

of my testimony is now a teenager, I know that I often have to repeat myself to get action, such as emptying the dish rack. So, here 

it goes. 
18 

1http://ecoadapt.org/. 

2https://www.cakex.org/. 

3https://www.nationaladaptationforum.org/. 

Number 5, keep global climate change to well below 2 degrees 

Celsius. Actually, we now know that 1.5 degrees Celsius is the 

more prudent target. We need to reduce our national consumption 

and production of fossil fuels to stop making the problem worse. 

The cost of inaction is unaffordable for us and our children. 

I am delighted that Congress and this Committee are again taking up the issue of climate change. This time let’s do something to 

increase the likelihood of good outcomes. Let’s act now. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hansen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. LARA J. HANSEN, CHIEF SCIENTIST AND EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, ECOADAPT

Protecting our public lands is a critical part of an adaptation strategy that not 

only safeguards these areas and the ecosystems that inhabit them, but also the ecosystem services upon which our citizens rely. Investment in the protection of public 

lands may be our best path to enduring access to clean air, clean and plentiful 

water, flood control, wildlife habitat, improved mental health, spiritual heritage, and 

recreational enjoyment. In my testimony I will introduce you to the ways by which 

we can increase the resilience of our public lands in the face of climate change and 

what we need to make this happen. 

I would like to begin by providing some context. I am the head of a non-profit 

organization that is filling a very large gap—creating a climate-savvy society by innovating, facilitating and training practitioners in adaptation solutions. EcoAdapt’s 1

sole focus is to ‘‘meet the challenges of climate change.’’ That means helping everyone from foresters and marine protected area managers to city planners and public 

health officials apply a climate lens through which to evaluate their work and develop solutions that will allow them to succeed in meeting their mandate even as 

the world is changing around them. We do this through four programs. Our State 

of Adaptation program takes a research approach to assessing what activities people 

are undertaking, what is working and what is preventing success. Our Climate 

Adaptation Knowledge Exchange is the largest adaptation resource database. It is 

available via an online, open access portal (CAKEx.org) 2 that is accessed by thousands of people from around the world each month. Awareness to Action is our 

workshop methodology that has provided hands-on training in climate change adaptation to over 6,000 individuals representing hundreds of organizations and agencies 

across the country (and a few around the world). Finally, our National Adaptation 

Forum 3 is a biennial convening of adaptation professionals that affords the opportunity for the exchange of ideas and the innovation of the next generation of climate 

solutions. 

In the past 10 years, my team at EcoAdapt has learned a lot about good adaptation practice—on the ground and through government support. I’d like to share 

some of that with you today. My hope is that you will see the importance of supporting this type of work in your own Districts and through the Federal mechanisms 

that can help to make all of our lands and communities climate savvy. Because the 

effects of climate change that are being felt today will continue and intensify for 

centuries or millennia to come, every day we are afforded the opportunity to make 

management and planning decisions that either help us prepare for these changes 

or leave us more and more vulnerable. Let’s take the path that leads to a better 

future. A path on which we take both mitigation (reducing the greenhouse gases 

that cause climate change) and adaptation (preparing for and responding to the 

climate change impacts that are unavoidable due to past emissions) seriously. These 

are not choices to be played against each other—both are necessary responses to 

climate change. Doing one without the other will lead us to a false sense of failure. 

Ignoring climate change in the management of National Parks, forests and other 

public lands is not an option. It was not an option the first time I testified before 

a congressional committee (Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation) in March 2004, almost exactly 15 years ago, when atmospheric CO2 was 378 

ppm and global temperature had increased 0.6 degrees Celsius. Yet we did not take 

action. It was not an option when I testified in 2007 to the Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, 
19 

4 Hutto, S. 2016. Climate-Smart Adaptation for the North-central California Coast and Ocean. 

Ed. Rachel M. Gregg [Case study on a project of the Greater Farallones National Marine 

Sanctuary]. Retrieved from CAKE: https://www.cakex.org/case-studies/climate-smart-adaptationnorth-central-california-coast-and-ocean. 5Kershner, J.M., L.E. Hilberg, and W.A. Reynier. 2017. The Ojai Community Defense Zone 

Project: A Southern California Climate Change Adaptation Case Study. Retrieved from CAKE: 

https://www.cakex.org/case-studies/ojai-community-defense-zone-project-southern-californiaclimate-change-adaptation-case-study. 

Fisheries, and Coast Guard, when atmospheric CO2 was 386 ppm. And still we did 

not change our trajectory. Today atmospheric CO2 has reached 410 ppm and global 

temperature has risen 1 degree Celsius. I am back today hoping that we are ready 

to fully address this massive problem with the level of action it requires. The best 

place to start is somewhere, so let’s start by taking action on our public lands. 

HOW CAN WE INCREASE THE RESILIENCE OF PUBLIC LANDS IN THE FACE OF

CLIMATE CHANGE?

Public lands are the places where plants and animals thrive, where they have the 

space to move and grow. They are vital for providing intact ecosystems and 

connectivity, supporting high biodiversity and healthy species. Public lands also provide critical ecosystem services upon which neighboring and non-neighboring communities, non-local visitors, and others have come to rely. In particular, public lands 

provide abundant fresh water for human and environmental uses; building materials and other wood products; forage for livestock; clean air; water filtration and 

maintenance of water quality; protection from wildfire, floods, and erosion; carbon 

sequestration; recreational opportunities; aesthetic values from scenery; spiritual 

and religious values; and cultural heritage. 

Climate change presents a significant threat to our public lands and the services 

that they provide. Resilient public lands enable species and ecosystems and the 

services they provide to rebound in the face of rapid environmental change. We can 

increase the resilience of public lands by implementing a number of well-understood 

practices, including incorporating climate change impacts and adaptation into all 

planning efforts, improving regional coordination, assessing the effectiveness of adaptation actions and implementing those that represent the ‘‘best bets’’ under 

changing climate conditions, protecting adequate and appropriate space, reducing 

local and regional climate change and non-climate stressors, and reducing the rate 

and extent of climate change. By implementing these practices, we are safeguarding the species, ecosystems, and services that we not only hold dear 

but are essential to our way of life. 

Incorporate climate change impacts and adaptation into all planning 

efforts. Incorporating climate change into planning efforts can take the form of discrete ‘‘climate action or adaptation plans’’ or the direct integration of climate change 

into existing planning processes. For example, through our vulnerability assessment 

and adaptation planning methodologies, EcoAdapt helps natural resource managers 

from state and Federal agencies evaluate how the species and habitats they manage 

are vulnerable to climate change, reassess and revise their current actions and 

projects to address vulnerabilities, and identify new actions to integrate into future 

projects. Some examples include work in California and the Hawaiian Islands. 

EcoAdapt, in collaboration with numerous other partners, worked with the 

Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (located along the north-central California coast and ocean) to evaluate vulnerability of their species, habitats, and ecosystem services to climate change and create a Climate Adaptation Plan.4 The region’s natural resources and the services they provide are vulnerable to increasing 

ocean temperatures, sea level rise, and extreme weather events (winds, waves, 

storms). The plan integrates climate adaptation into existing management frameworks and recommends over 75 adaptation strategies for regional management 

agencies to take to enhance coastal resilience, including implementing living shorelines, protecting and restoring habitat, limiting human disturbance, addressing 

invasive species, promoting education, and investing in science needs. 

In Southern California, EcoAdapt worked with natural resource managers to reexamine the Ojai Community Defense Zone Project, which planned to restore and 

expand fuel-breaks in chaparral habitats adjacent to multiple human communities.5

Chaparral habitats, as well as adjacent communities, are vulnerable to increased 

wildfire severity and increased extreme precipitation events projected under climate 

change. Increasing human populations may exacerbate these impacts, as fire ignitions in the region are primarily human-caused. While a number of existing management actions help to alleviate climate impacts, resource managers identified new 
20 

6Gregg, R.M., editor. 2018. Hawaiian Islands Climate Vulnerability and Adaptation 

Synthesis. EcoAdapt, Bainbridge Island, WA. http://bit.ly/HawaiiClimate. 7Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project: http://flagstaffwatershedprotection.org. 

8 Northern California Climate Adaptation Project: http://ecoadapt.org/programs/adaptationconsultations/norcal. 

actions to integrate into future projects. For example, planting native perennial 

grasses within fuel-breaks to reduce invasive grass establishment (invasive grasses 

contribute to more severe wildfires) and establishing trigger points for recreation 

closures and restrictions (helps reduce the number of human-caused ignitions). 

In Hawaii, after going through a vulnerability assessment-adaptation planning 

process 6 with EcoAdapt, managers from the Plant Extinction Prevention Program 

decided to shift the amount of seeds they plant vs. store in response to projected 

climate threats such as increased drought risk and altered precipitation amount and 

timing. 

Improve regional coordination. Improving coordination helps increase the resilience of public lands and associated ecosystem services by providing opportunities 

to leverage resources (e.g., funding, data, people time), building buy-in and support 

for plans and on-the-ground projects, improving communication about planned and 

ongoing activities, and providing a shared understanding of threats, solutions, and 

priorities. For example, the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project is a partnership 

effort between the state of Arizona, city of Flagstaff, and Coconino National Forest 

to help reduce the risk of devastating wildfire and post-fire flooding in neighboring 

watersheds.7 In 2010, the Schultz Fire in Coconino National Forest severely burned 

thousands of acres of steep terrain; over 20 major flash flooding events occurred 

after the fire, destroying community drinking water and costing over $130 million 

in damages. Increased fire severity and extreme precipitation events are projected 

to continue with climate change, requiring targeted forest restoration work and collaboration to reduce the risk of fire and flooding and subsequent impacts on the 

community. This project is one of only a handful of examples where restoration work 

on a national forest is being funded primarily by a municipality. 

The Northern California Climate Adaptation Project is a multi-stakeholder, 

collaborative effort to assess the impacts of climate change on and co-develop adaptation strategies and actions for habitats and species of northwestern California.8

The USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management manage over 6 million 

acres of public lands in the region, and plan to use findings from this project to inform revisions of their land management plans. Many tribes occur within or around 

these public lands and are affected by management decisions made by these two entities. Tribal input and participation have been critically important in this project, 

helping to identify potential conflicts with adaptation options. For example, increasing the use of prescribed burning reduces the likelihood of high-severity wildfires 

(a current and future threat to the region) however, increased burning in the spring 

has the potential to conflict with cultural values and site use during the season. Explicitly incorporating tribal considerations into adaptation planning can help build 

buy-in for management actions on public lands and enhance the resilience of neighboring tribal communities. 

Assess adaptation effectiveness. The importance of making informed decisions 

to alleviate the environmental, financial, and emotional costs of climate change cannot be overstated. Climate change presents a variety of impacts to which managers 

and planners must respond, ranging from habitat restoration and designation of 

protected areas to increased public education and outreach and broad policy 

changes. Several adaptation case studies and guidebooks have been released in recent years with recommendations of suitable adaptation actions to address different 

climate impact concerns. However, determining when, where and how a particular 

action may be best implemented is more difficult to discern. Synthesizing what has 

worked and what has not worked, as well as why, can help identify potential modifications to current management practices and facilitate understanding of the consequences of decisions. Further, science- and evidence-based decision making supports better management outcomes, while reducing costs and lowering the risk of 

implementing policies that may be based on well-intentioned but insufficient research. In addition to improving overall practice, a better understanding of which 

actions can be most effectively applied in different settings helps managers identify 

and leverage funding opportunities and create new or enhance existing partnerships 

to advance climate adaptation. Evaluating the science behind management approaches of the past to determine their usefulness under changing climate conditions is an evolving area of research by EcoAdapt. We have embarked on an effort 

to evaluate the body of scientific knowledge supporting specific climate adaptation 
21 

9 Hansen, L.J. and J.R. Hoffman. 2011. Climate Savvy: Adapting Conservation and Resource 

Management to a Changing World. Island Press, Washington, DC. 10 Hansen, L.J., et al. 2010. Adapting conservation to climate change. Conservation Biology. 

24:63–68. 11 Hansen, L.J. and J.R. Hoffman. 2011. Climate Savvy: Adapting Conservation and Resource 

Management to a Changing World. Island Press, Washington, DC. 12Westerling, A., et al. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire 

activity. Science (313)5789: 940–943. DOI: 10.1126/science.1128834. 13Gregg, R.M., et al. 2016. Available Science Assessment Project: Prescribed Fire and Climate 

Change in Northwest National Forests. Report to the Department of the Interior’s Northwest 

Climate Science Center. 14Scott, G., et al. 2013. Reforestation-Revegetation Climate Change Primer: Incorporating 

Climate Change Impacts into Reforestation and Revegetation Prescriptions. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. 15Spies, T.A., et al. 2010. Climate change adaptation strategies for federal forests of the 

Pacific Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, and socio-economic perspectives. Landscape Ecology 

25(8): 1185–1199. 

actions to determine the conditions under which particular actions may be most 

effective for achieving management goals. Since 2014, we have assessed wildfire, sea 

level rise, and ecological drought adaptation options. 

Protect open space. Protecting adequate and appropriate space, including identifying and protecting areas of climate refugia (places with more stable climatic conditions, current and/or future), connectivity and corridors, and/or the geophysical 

setting continues to be a critical strategy for increasing the resilience of public 

lands.9,10 Protecting habitats and areas of refugia provide a safe haven that species 

can retreat to and/or persist in under climate change, and ensures that important 

ecosystem services continue to be available. For example, protecting habitats such 

as headwater streams or groundwater sources may be critical for maintaining water 

supply that human communities depend on. Similarly, protecting geophysical settings may help maintain regional biodiversity with climate change. 

Reduce local and regional climate change, as well as non-climate 

stressors. Reducing local and regional climate change and minimizing non-climate 

stressors are key to increasing the resilience of public lands.11 In some cases, it may 

be possible to reduce local or regional climate changes. For example, replanting riparian vegetation along streams can limit water temperature increases and help 

keep water in the system. Non-climate stressors have the potential to exacerbate (or 

be exacerbated by) climate impacts. For example, invasive grasses alter the availability and continuity of fire fuels, contributing to more severe wildfires. 

Restoration of habitat structure, function, and processes continues to be one of the 

best ways to address both climate and non-climate stressors. However, it is not 

enough to engage in restoration activities as we have done in the past and, in fact, 

‘‘restoring’’ ecosystems to some former state will likely make them ill-equipped to 

deal with the challenges of climate change. Instead, restoration activities now need 

to be designed with climate impacts integrated from the start. For example, 

planting drought-tolerant native species in areas projected to get drier rather than 

planting the species that have historically been there under wetter conditions, or 

implementing a landscape-scale approach that combines thinning, prescribed burning, and managed wildfire to reduce tree densities and understory vegetation in an 

area projected to see more high-severity fires, rather than relying only on forest 

thinning. 

Wildfires, particularly in the West, are increasing in frequency and severity. With 

increasing air temperatures and decreasing summer soil moisture levels, the probability of widespread, catastrophic wildfires continues to rise, threatening habitats, 

species, and public health and safety.12,13 Several approaches are used to manage 

wildfire risk, including prescribed fire, thinning, mechanical fuel treatments, and 

wildfire managed for multiple objectives. For example, prescribed fire has been used 

for decades to reduce fuel loads, promote more open and diverse forest structure, 

maintain or increase biodiversity, and preserve defensible space around infrastructure and human communities.14 As a climate adaptation action, prescribed fire reduces the risk of catastrophic or stand-replacing fire by targeting and reducing surface and ladder fuels, allows for the re-introduction of natural fire regimes, and prepares the landscape for the re-establishment of fire-tolerant native species that may 

be better adapted to shifting fire regimes.13,15 Managers are already modifying their 

use of prescribed fire in responses to changing conditions, such as earlier spring 

burn windows, although institutional and sociopolitical constraints, such as a lack 

of funding and trained staff, liability issues, and public acceptance of smoke, limit 

its application across the landscape.13
22 

16Gregg R.M., et al. 2018. Available Science Assessment Process (ASAP): Sea Level Rise in 

the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. Report to the Northwest Climate Adaptation 

Science Center. EcoAdapt (Bainbridge Island, WA) and the Institute for Natural Resources 

(Corvallis, OR). 17 Erickson, P., and M. Lazarus. 2018. Would constraining US fossil fuel production affect 

global CO2 emissions? A case study of US leasing policy. Climatic Change 150: 29–42. 18Thorne K, et al. 2018. U.S. Pacific coastal wetland resilience and vulnerability to sea-level 

rise. Science Advances 4:eaao3270. 19Dickson, B.G., M. McClure, and C.M. Albano. 2017. A landscape-level assessment of 

conservation values and potential threats in the Bears Ears National Monument. A report to 

The Center for American Progress. http://www.csp-inc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CSPBENM_Landscape_Assessment_032717.pdf. 20 Bears Ears Coalition. 2016. Bears Ears: A Native perspective on America’s most significant 

unprotected cultural landscape. http://www.bearsearscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ 

Bears-Ears-bro.sm_.pdf. 

In coastal systems, sea level rise is causing saltwater intrusion into freshwater 

ecosystems and aquifers, habitat conversion, infrastructure loss, and in some cases, 

forced relocation of coastal communities, such as in Alaska (e.g., Native Alaska 

Villages of Kivalina and Newtok) and Washington State (e.g., Hoh Tribe). The primary adaptation approaches employed to address sea level rise, flooding, and erosion issues include: engineered structures (rip rap, bulkheads, tide gates), natural 

and nature-based approaches (natural habitats such as wetlands or engineered natural features such as living shorelines), and policy and regulatory techniques (tools 

that either prevent infrastructure in at-risk areas, such as conservation easements, 

managed retreat; or modify how activities are implemented to reduce risk such as 

rolling easements, minimum development buffers, real estate disclosures).16 Natural 

and nature-based approaches are being increasingly used throughout the United 

States, especially in lieu of structural approaches that are experiencing limited and 

declining use, largely due to their cost, lifetime, and the potential for negative ecological consequences.16 New and novel approaches, including prioritizing, protecting 

and restoring coastal wetlands with room to migrate inland as sea levels rise, as 

well as purchasing inland/upland land to create new opportunities for coastal habitat migration, are also important.16

Reduce the rate and extent of climate change. Decreasing greenhouse gas 

emissions, planting trees, restoring vegetative cover, and preserving open space can 

help to reduce climate change. If we are looking for solutions to climate change, ending fossil fuel extraction from public lands is a fine place to start. For every barrel 

of oil not extracted from U.S. public lands, it has been estimated that global demand 

decreases by half a barrel, leading to a reduction in U.S. emissions of 280 million 

tons annually by 2030.17 This is the essential climate change mitigation role for our 

public lands. Fossil fuels left in the ground will not be entering our atmosphere as 

greenhouse gases, however the carbon storage potential of biological carbon is not 

so certain. For example, the carbon storage of coastal wetlands decreases significantly as sea levels rise, drown existing wetlands, and release carbon back into the 

atmosphere.18

HOW ARE ADAPTATION EFFORTS ON PUBLIC LANDS THREATENED?

Despite the urgent need for climate-informed action, the science and practice of 

adaptation in the United States is at risk from recent intentional and systematic 

disruptive actions. Public lands are threatened by energy development interests, 

and Federal climate programs and regulations are being defunded and dismantled. 

Energy development and mining interests—oil, gas, coal, uranium, vanadium, 

cobalt—have driven the reduction of boundaries of Bears Ears and Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monuments by 85 percent and 45 percent, respectively. Bears 

Ears in particular is rich with cultural significance for Native Americans, featuring 

over 100,000 well-preserved cultural and archaeological sites. It is an area that is 

more than tracts of land—it is a profoundly sacred place of spirituality and subsistence. Bears Ears is also home to forests, grasslands, and headwaters, and 18 species 

listed under the Endangered Species Act, including the California condor and greenback cutthroat trout.19 A recent study found that this area provides unrivaled ecological connectivity, which is essential for species resilience as well as biodiversity 

and ecological function preservation in a changing climate.19 The Navajo people describe such intact landscapes as Nahodishgish or ‘‘places to be left alone.’’ 20

In 2009, President Obama enacted Executive Order 13514, which mandated the 

evaluation and assessment of vulnerabilities that climate change may pose to 

Federal agency operations and missions, as well as the creation and implementation 

of agency-specific climate adaptation plans. During that administration’s tenure, 
23 

21 Executive Order 13834 Regarding Efficient Federal Operations: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

Presidential-actions/executive-order-regarding-efficient-Federal-operations/. 22 Eilperin, J. and D. Cameron. 2017. ‘‘How Trump is rolling back Obama’s legacy.’’ The 

Washington Post, 24 March 2017. 23 Eilperin, J. 2017. ‘‘The Trump administration just disbanded a federal advisory committee 

on climate change. The Washington Post, 20 August 2017. 24Doyle, M. and B. Patterson. 2017. ‘‘Climate advisory group died quietly.’’ Climatewire, 17 

August 2017. 25Kahn, B. 2017. ‘‘The EPA has started to remove Obama-era information.’’ Climate Central, 

2 February 2017. 26Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Silencing Science Tracker: http:// 

columbiaclimatelaw.com/resources/silencing-science-tracker. 27 Varinsky, D. ‘‘Scientists are banding together to fight a looming threat from the Trump 

administration.’’ Business Insider, 19 January 2017. 

many Federal agencies and departments developed individual plans and policies, 

and collaborated through interagency working groups to facilitate funding of climate 

science and adaptation projects, resources, and tools to support on-the-ground action 

by other governmental and non-governmental entities. Over the last 2 years, there 

has been a notable shift in the support for Federal action on climate change, largely 

due to a growing politicization of science by elected and appointed officials. Federal 

regulations have been dismantled, climate programs defunded, and critical climate 

resources and tools removed, altered, or obfuscated, all of which directly impacts the 

country’s ability to prepare for, respond to and recover from the effects of climate 

change. In addition to the threatened withdrawal of the United States from the 

Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change, numerous Executive Orders have been enacted to roll back climate policies 

(e.g., reversal of the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, requiring Federal 

agencies to account for sea level rise in building infrastructure; Executive Order 

13693 on Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade was revoked in 

May 2018 21). In 2017 alone, the current administration undertook 60 actions aimed 

at removing or altering environmental regulations, laws, policies and protections.22

Funding has also been stripped from most climate-related Federal programs, 

which limits not only our Federal partners’ capacity to support or implement climate 

action, but that of by those tribal, state, and local governments and nongovernmental entities that depend on resources and services produced at the Federal level. For example, the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), housed 

within the Department of the Interior, were established to provide capacity and 

technical expertise to 22 regional networks of Federal, tribal, state, and local governments, NGOs, universities, and private organizations. Today, most LCCs are in 

limbo without dedicated funding and some have been redesigned and renamed (i.e., 

Landscape Conservation Partnerships) in instances where there were non-Federal 

partners that could provide interim support. In addition, Federal advisory panels 

have been dismantled or simply not continued, including those for the National Climate Assessment, Interagency Land Management Adaptation Group, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Board of Scientific Counselors, and the Department of 

the Interior’s Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource 

Science.23,24 Finally, resources developed by Federal agencies and their partners are 

now vulnerable or have been altered or removed.25,26 While action is being taken 

by many non-governmental groups to protect climate data, there is less attention 

being paid to protecting the tools, reports, and metadata that are the resources relied on by civil society.27 And even where it has been ‘‘rescued’’ it become harder 

for users to find when it is no longer on a Federal website. 

WHAT IS NEEDED TO ENSURE WE OPTIMIZE ADAPTATION?

When access to sound science and case studies, technical experts and peer networks, and funding streams is restricted, decision makers are severely limited in 

their ability to adequately engage in climate adaptation. Organizations such as 

EcoAdapt and our partners are working every day to prevent this stagnation. 

Crucial to advancing adaptation and the climate-informed management of public 

lands are: 

1. Access to sound science and technical experts 

2. Clear climate-informed mandates, laws, and policies 

3. Accessible and sustained finance streams for adaptation initiatives 

4. Increased capacity, coordination, and collaboration 
24 

28 Bayliss, H.R., et al. 2012. Does research information meet the needs of stakeholders? 

Exploring evidence selection in the global management of invasive species. Evidence and Policy 

8(1): 37–56. 29 Cook, C.N., M. Hockings, and R.W. Carter. 2009. Conservation in the dark? The information 

used to support management decisions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8(4): 181– 

18. 30 Eriksen, S., et al. 2011. When not every response to climate change is a good one: 

Identifying principles for sustainable adaptation. Climate and Development 3(1). 31Sutherland, W.J., et al. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology 

& Evolution 19(6):305–308. 32Sullivan, P.J., et al. Defining and Implementing Best Available Science for Fisheries and 

Environmental Science, Policy, and Management. Marine Sciences Faculty Scholarship. Paper 

30. 33 Climate Resilience Toolkit: https://toolkit.climate.gov/. 34 Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange: http://www.CAKEx.org. 35 Archie, K.M., et al. 2012. Climate change and western public lands: a survey of U.S. federal 

land managers on the status of adaptation efforts. Ecology and Society 17(4). 

Access to sound science and technical experts. Natural and cultural resource 

managers are faced with various challenges on how to avoid, minimize and/or 

recover from the effects of climate change. Decision making can be complicated by 

uncertainty in the rate and extent of climate change impacts over time, as well as 

knowledge gaps in terms of which adaptation actions are best suited for different 

conditions, most effective in reducing climate change impacts, and supported by 

scientific evidence.28-31 Numerous Federal statutes call for using the ‘‘best available 

science’’ to inform natural resource management (e.g., Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, U.S. Endangered Species Act), and scientists 

and decision makers consistently agree that the best available science improves the 

quality of management decisions.32

Making climate-informed decisions requires the integration of science, including 

evidence of effectiveness. The presence of and access to high-quality research, including data collection, analysis, and synthesis, supports optimal decision-making 

conditions for managers and planners, particularly in light of climate change. 

Identifying what approaches are being implemented and to what degree of success 

expands the list of options for managers seeking to address climate change impacts. 

Part of this critical need for research is understanding and learning from past and 

ongoing efforts. Since 2009, EcoAdapt has engaged in a sustained research initiative—the State of Adaptation Program—to identify, evaluate, and assess climate adaptation activities in planning and underway. These projects have included identification and synthesis of best available science on historic, observed, and projected 

future climatic changes and impacts, extensive reviews of Federal, tribal, state, and 

local climate change planning documents, over 4,000 interviews with practitioners 

in order to identify trends and barriers to climate adaptation action, and over 400 

case studies. 

Knowledge transfer and sharing of lessons learned among managers is fundamental to ensuring effective, successful adaptation outcomes. Federal (Climate 

Resilience Toolkit 33) and non-governmental (EcoAdapt, Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange 34) knowledge brokers play central roles in gathering, synthesizing, 

and contextualizing science into digestible and actionable information sources. Action must be taken to preserve what credible Federal resources are still available 

and support non-Federal adaptation science providers and brokers. Over the past 

2 years, as Federal websites were stripped of mentions of climate change and access 

to adaptation guidance and examples were moved, key boundary organizations 

stepped up to fill these gaps. To protect access to sound science, EcoAdapt implemented a multi-phased plan to ensure the public could continue to rely on Federal 

resources through the CAKE database. While other groups focused on basic climate 

data rescue, we prioritized adaptation resources including reports, guidance, tools, 

and records of projects and case studies. 

Clear climate-informed mandates, laws, and policies. Through the State of 

Adaptation Program interviews, we have found that one of the leading motivations 

of adaptation action on public lands is clear agency mandates, laws and policies. To 

move agencies and departments beyond planning into needed implementation 

projects on public lands, bringing back agency mandates to intentionally address 

and incorporate climate change in all their management decisions is critical. These 

mandates and policies should require agencies to work across jurisdictions to 

increase the likelihood of success. 

Accessible and sustained finance streams for adaptation initiatives. One 

of the biggest barriers to adaptation action is a lack of funding,35 inability to apply 

funding to adaptation efforts, or a lack of access to sustained funding. Adaptation 
25 

is a multi-phased process that includes scientific assessments, planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. Funding directed to just one of these phases 

will not deliver the results needed to comprehensively address climate change. 

Therefore, it is imperative that the Federal Government increase its capacity to provide sustained funding to all stages of the adaptation process, particularly to implementation where upfront costs tend to be higher. Emphasis must also focus on 

increasing the capacity of boundary organizations, such as non-governmental partners, to execute climate adaptation work. These organizations are sources of highly 

specialized and locally relevant expertise, and execute on-the-ground work from 

technical decision support to facilitating community discourse through workshops. 

Additional funding sources include foundations and local and state governments. 

However, many of these initiatives have resulted in piecemeal, fragmented, and disparate approaches, as well as a lack of movement beyond assessment and planning 

into implementation and evaluation. Federal finance plays a key role in funding all 

phases of the climate adaptation process. In fact Federal funding that is used to 

support projects that are not inherently taking climate change into account is likely 

to be money misspent—unable to create the benefits it was intended to achieve 

when the effects of climate change erode the target efforts. 

Increased capacity, coordination, and collaboration. One the greatest resources we have to address climate change is the collective capacity of scientists and 

managers in our Federal, tribal, and state agencies and non-governmental institutions. The knowledge, experience, and ingenuity brought by our Federal partners 

cannot be undervalued as a key part of the solution to climate change. To capitalize 

on this asset, we need increased capacity, coordination, and collaboration among and 

between Federal agencies and their non-Federal partners, including tribal nations, 

non-profits, small businesses, frontline communities, and academic institutions. 

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The problems presented by climate change are vast and the solutions are innumerable and already overdue. With a challenge as urgent and pervasive as climate 

change, any delay in action is harmful. We have been underachieving for decades. 

Further prevention of progress will result in backsliding with irreversible and in 

some cases deadly consequences. What we need is someone to step forward. As a 

co-equal branch of government, this Congress has the ability to right the ship and 

advance climate action like never before—at a rate appropriate for the scale and 

speed of this problem. Key items for prioritization include: 

• Continued protection and restoration of existing public lands and, where 

possible, expansion of these areas to maintain ecological functions, ecosystem 

services, and overall resilience. These efforts should include prioritizing areas 

that may serve as refugia—places that are likely to maintain more stable conditions over time—for plant, fish, and wildlife species, and eliminating energy 

development. 

• Increased investments in science- and evidence-based approaches to climate 

adaptation while allowing for flexibility to identify, develop, and test promising, novel approaches. This includes not just funding for modeling and data 

collection, but also increased funding for implementation of activities with requirements for the evaluation of effectiveness, and capturing and sharing 

lessons learned. 

• Increased coordination and collaboration between Federal entities and nonFederal partners (including international partners) to advance climate adaptation objectives. For example, the majority of Federal dollars goes toward fire 

suppression rather than prevention activities. Getting fire back onto the landscape (both natural and prescribed burns) to support ecological functions is 

critical, especially as a means to reduce wildfire risk. This includes 

supporting tribal cultural burning practices across the landscape. 

• Discontinue (and certainly do not expand) the extraction of fossil fuels from 

Federal lands for use in energy generation. Not only does the practice of fuel 

extraction cause environmental degradation that reduces resilience, but the 

burning of those fuels literally adds insult to injury causing the changes that 

require even greater resilience. Simply put, we need to stop increasing the 

rate and extent of climate change in order to protect our public lands and the 

services they provide to us. 

Congress’ power to appropriate funds can be wielded as one of the most effective 

tools to ensure the protection of public lands and the prioritization of climate adaptation overall. Appropriations should be viewed through a climate lens to ensure 
26 

1Morelli TL, et al. 2017. Climate change refugia and habitat connectivity promote species 

persistence. Climate Change Responses 4(8). 2Lawler JJ, et al. 2015. The theory behind, and the challenges of, conserving nature’s stage 

in a time of rapid change. Conservation Biology 29(3): 618–629. 

that the agencies, departments, and research programs most qualified and poised 

to meet the climate challenge are adequately funded, and that any investments of 

tax payer dollars are not mis-spent on efforts that are likely to be undermined by 

the effects of climate change. We need simultaneous action at the scale required to 

solve the problem on climate change mitigation and adaptation. Approaches like the 

Green New Deal present the types of opportunities we need to seize to take action 

on mitigation, while working to integrate investments in climate adaptation across 

all agencies to address the effects of climate change we are and will experience due 

to the past emissions we did not curb. 

I invite the current Congress to have the fortitude your predecessors have lacked. 

The time to take meaningful action on climate change to protect not only our public 

lands but our citizens and our neighbors around the globe is upon us. It is your job 

as elected officials to recognize the scope of this crisis and make the changes that 

are needed. Be brave. Be bold. Take action today for a better tomorrow. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. HAALAND TO DR. LARA HANSEN, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF SCIENTIST, ECOADAPT

Question 1. Both your and Dr. Gonzalez’s work and testimony suggests the need 

to protect more places from the dangers of climate change. 

1a. As policy makers, are there any places that we should prioritize for protection? 

Answer. Climate change is already affecting natural and cultural resources and 

the human communities that depend on them, and is projected to continue for centuries to come. Impacts include loss of habitats and connectivity, shifts in animal 

and plant species distribution and abundance, alteration of natural communities, 

and significant changes in water availability and supply. Places to prioritize for protection in terrestrial systems include areas of climate refugia, wildlife corridors, 

enduring features, and headwater and groundwater sources. In particular, it is essential that we implement a portfolio of prioritization approaches to better cope with 

climate-related uncertainty. Protecting these places will help maintain habitat and 

species diversity, as well as the services they provide to people, over the long term. 

Climate refugia, or areas relatively buffered from contemporary climate change 

over time, provide locations that species can retreat to, persist in, and potentially 

expand from under changing climate conditions.1 Protecting areas of climate refugia 

can include identifying places that have remained relatively stable from historic to 

current conditions or places that are projected to remain stable with future climate 

change. For example, identifying places that have effectively maintained soil moisture levels over the last 100 years, even in the face of episodic droughts, or identifying places that are likely to continue to maintain adequate soil moisture levels 

even under hot and dry future climate conditions. Protecting wildlife corridors (both 

current and potential future routes) as well as habitat linkage areas (i.e. those 

places that connect intact or core habitats to one another) allows species to move 

across the landscape in response to changing conditions, helping to facilitate gene 

flow and decrease extinction risk. This could also include planning along latitudinal 

and elevational gradients. Enduring geophysical features (e.g., topography, soils, 

geology) seem to be the factors that help create species diversity in the first place.2

Protecting areas with a diversity of geophysical features provides species and communities with the space to move and reorganize in response to climate change. Last, 

given the inherent uncertainty associated with precipitation projections (amount, 

timing, type), it is critical to prioritize the protection of our headwater and groundwater sources as it will help minimize the impacts of other non-climate stressors. 

Because the locations of many groundwater sources are currently unknown, an important first step will be providing the resources necessary to find and map these 

locations. It is also important to protect the area around these sites such that they 

are buffered and connected to the greater landscape. 

1b. How might we work with the Federal land management agencies to identify 

and prioritize the protection of these places? 

Answer. It is important to note that effective natural resources management includes a balance between ‘‘hands off’’ preservation of some natural areas and the 
27 

3 Justus Nordgren, S. and L.J.Hansen. 2018. Climate Change Adaptation Certification. 

EcoAdapt. https://www.cakex.org/adaptation-certification. 4 National Park Service. 2018. Monuments List. National Park Service Archaeology Program, 

https://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/antiquities/MonumentsList.htm. 5Gregg RM, et al. 2016. Available Science Assessment Project: Prescribed Fire and Climate 

Change in Northwest National Forests. Report to the Department of the Interior’s Northwest 

Climate Science Center. 6Gregg RM, et al. 2011. The State of Marine and Coastal Adaptation in North America: A 

Synthesis of Emerging Ideas. EcoAdapt, Bainbridge Island, WA. 

conservation of natural areas for continued and sustainable use. While preservation 

efforts may be appropriate in protecting specific sites to eliminate all human activity, the vast majority of conservation efforts require some active management of 

natural lands to ensure the continued availability and use of ecosystem services, 

such as food, timber, water supply, and cultural heritage. This is particularly true 

for climate adaptation practices wherein reducing vulnerability to both climate and 

non-climate stresses (e.g., pollution, water and oil withdrawals) is key. Congress has 

several tools at its disposal to support natural resources management in a changing 

climate—legislation, appropriations, oversight, and public hearings. 

Legislation. Congress can support climate-informed action by passing climate 

change legislation, creating amendments to existing legislation, integrating climate 

change into National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, and designating 

public lands that support climate change mitigation and adaptation goals. For 

example, Congress could create an amendment to the Coastal Zone Management 

Act, calling for the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program to not only 

protect coastal areas with ‘‘significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, 

or aesthetic values’’ (16 U.S.C. § 1456–1), but also to explicitly protect areas of 

climate adaptation significance (e.g., refugia, corridors). Congress should encourage 

all NEPA-related environmental analyses to consider both the effects of climate 

change on projects and the effects of projects on climate change (e.g., how a proposed project may exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions). A tool like the Climate 

Change Adaptation Certification 3 could be employed. In addition, Congress may 

designate public lands and review designations made by Executive Order to ensure 

that public lands maintain ecological functions and services in a changing climate. 

For example, Congress can create national monuments on public lands (e.g., Tule 

Springs Fossil Beds in Nevada) or review and reverse national monument decisions 

(e.g., Mount Olympus National Monument was re-designated as Olympic National 

Park in 1938 4). Congress can establish other public lands—national parks, national 

conservation areas, wilderness areas—to support climate mitigation and adaptation 

efforts. These decisions may be made in consultation with Federal land management 

agencies to ensure protection of sites that include climate refugia, wildlife corridors, 

enduring features, and headwater and groundwater sources. 

Appropriations. Congressional appropriations should be viewed through a 

climate lens to ensure that the agencies, departments, and research programs most 

qualified and poised to meet the challenges of climate change are adequately funded. Sufficient budgets and staffing of Federal agencies are needed to facilitate institutional capacity for climate action. Adequate funds also need to be available to 

support on-the-ground climate action by other governmental and non-governmental 

entities. Congress can also eliminate riders that are contrary to climate mitigation 

and adaptation and conservation goals (e.g., blocking consideration of the economic 

costs of carbon pollution, repealing clean water rules). Congressional appropriations 

can be used to fund the scientific research, data collection, mapping, modeling, and 

staff time necessary to identify climate refugia, wildlife corridors and linkage areas, 

enduring features, and headwater and groundwater sources. Appropriations also 

allow Federal land managers to manage the best they can; for example, while the 

majority of Federal dollars goes toward fire suppression rather than prevention activities, most land managers recommend getting fire back onto the landscape 

through both natural and prescribed burns to better support ecological functions 

and reduce wildfire risk.5

Oversight. Congress can use its oversight powers to review, monitor, and otherwise supervise Federal agencies, programs, and activities to ensure that climate 

change mitigation and adaptation are adequately integrated. For example, Congress 

can hold polluters accountable for carbon emissions and other sources of pollution. 

Reducing these non-climate stresses, many of which can exacerbate the effects of 

climate change (e.g., temperature affects the toxicity of various chemicals 6), 

increases overall resilience. 
28 

7https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/20/the-trumpadministration-just-disbanded-a-federal-advisory-committee-on-climate-change/?utm_term=.5d89 

df6ed69d. 8https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-rolling-back-obama-rules/?utm_term 

=.0aec397d6676. 

Public Hearings. Congress can give a voice to the land managers and everyday 

Americans experiencing climate change on the ground. In addition to inviting scientists to present their findings, we would encourage you to amplify the voices of 

the managers of these public lands who are making the everyday decisions in light 

of climate change as well as the administrative restrictions they are under. Part of 

EcoAdapt’s role as climate adaptation facilitators is to identify the ways in which 

managers can make modifications to current practices and co-produce (with the relevant stakeholder communities) new, innovative strategies to address the climate 

challenge. No one is more passionate about protecting public lands than the people 

who work on them every day. Giving them the space to share their challenges, 

needs, and successes will be critical to informing Federal action. 

Question 2. Dr. Hansen, when you say ‘‘protecting adequate and appropriate space 

for ecosystems to function under changing conditions,’’ what kind of actions would 

that include? 

Answer. 

• This means protecting ample space for ecosystem services such as 

hydrological function under changing precipitation patterns. For example, 

what are the new requirements the recharge of groundwater or flow of 

surface water. 

• This means protecting locations that appear to be climate refugia, meaning 

those locations that are changing less quickly and may afford natural systems 

the ability to respond on their own. 

• This means supporting connectivity across landscapes so species (animal 

and plant) can move in response to changing climatic conditions. This 

includes thinking about latitudinal and elevational gradients. 

• This means keeping systems as intact as possible so natural diversity can 

allow for the greatest number of potential response avenues. 

• This means designing restoration efforts for not only current and future conditions, not reach for a past that cannot exist again given the elevated levels 

of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. 

Question 3. Dr. Hansen, in your testimony you mentioned that we need to provide 

our agencies with clear, informed mandates to begin preparing for climate change. 

3a. Has this Administration provided these? 

Answer. In short, no. The Administration has intentionally and systematically 

worked to eliminate or repeal climate-informed mandates, policies, and regulations. 

Furthermore, Federal climate programs have been defunded or dismantled, and 

scientific advisory groups dedicated to advising the Federal Government on best 

approaches to prepare for and respond to climate change have been disbanded.7

This Administration has taken more than 70 actions aimed at removing or altering environmental and climate mandates, regulations, and policies.8 From international actions, such as announcing the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, 

to revoking an Obama-era Executive Order setting Federal Flood Risk Management 

Standards, climate mandates put in place by previous administrations are under attack. Under the explanation of streamlining the approval process for building infrastructure, the current administration signed an Executive Order eliminating 

Obama-era planning step to make roads, bridges and buildings more resilient to 

climate and flood dangers. The current administration has also dissolved the 

Federal advisory panel for the National Climate Assessment, a group that helps policy makers and private-sector officials incorporate the government’s climate analysis 

into long-term planning. In addition, the EPA and Department of the Interior have 

followed suit, with the EPA dismissing dozens of scientists from their Board of 

Scientific Counselors and Interior is not renewing the charters of numerous 

scientific advisory panels. Beyond these actions, the agencies are failing to enforce 

existing regulations and limiting enforcement mechanisms by others. 

The loss of adaptation resources (and government services in general) is further 

exacerbated by recent changes in funding streams through changing tax law. 

Reduced Federal tax revenue will result in further cuts to Federal programs, and 

changes in state tax deductions will likely erode local tax revenue streams. With 
29 

state and local programs being touted as the backstop to lost Federal action this 

may undermine that potential. Should charitable contribution tax deductions be 

changed that would also undermine NGO adaptation activities, leaving American 

society with little access to information or support as it faces the perils of climate 

change. 

3b. What type of mandates might we give to help the Government begin to address 

the impacts of climate change? 

Answer. Through EcoAdapt’s State of Adaptation Program, we have found that 

the leading motivations for adaptation action on public lands is clear agency 

mandates, laws, and policies. 

We recommend mandates focus on: 

1. Changing goal of public land management from short-term, multi-use industry 

concerns to a focus on the maintenance of the long-term health of our public 

lands for ecosystem services (which themselves have strong fiscal value) and 

public health. This shift in focus will enable agencies to embrace and 

prioritize planning for long-term uses including insurance against the effects 

of climate change, over short-term uses that often exacerbate climate change. 

We should definitely ensure that our public lands are not being used to make 

climate change worse by increase greenhouse gas emissions either through 

fossil fuel extraction or unmitigated use. 

2. Focus on science, research, and technical experts 

• Prioritization of science and research is crucial because most agencies 

current mandates direct them to use the best available science. This science 

needs to reflect current and up to date understanding of current and future 

climate conditions and the implications of those conditions. 

• Technical experts are crucial to moving beyond research and planning into 

implementation. Without specific and clear direction from technical experts, 

Federal mandates will not translate into effective on-the-ground actions. 

3. Require agencies to capture, share, and translate climate adaptation 

knowledge 

• Capture and Share: Most crucial to on-the-ground adaptation success are 

lessons learned from practitioners around the field. Given the scope of the 

lands managed by Federal agencies, these managers play a key role in 

building and advancing the field of adaptation. 

• Translation and synthesis: Managers often cite relevance, scale, and context 

as a barrier to the usability of climate science. Translation, or knowledge 

brokers, of climate science and adaptation research such as the Climate 

Adaptation Knowledge Exchange (CAKE), are vital to ensure on the ground 

managers have access to digestable and actionable information. 

4. Require all phases of the adaptation process (assessment, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation) as well as thorough reporting on 

progress (including successes, failures, and modified approaches or lessons 

learned). 

• Include thorough reporting/oversight processes on progress including 

successes and failures, and modified approaches. 

• Reported progress should be tied to previous planning phase (e.g. planning 

should be tied to reducing vulnerability identified in assessment phase). 

• Mandate needs to identify accountability for progress, as well as highlight 

champions and leadership. 

Finally, mandates need to be coupled with climate adaptation capacity at the 

agency and external partner level, appropriations and funding, and accountability 

and oversight. This means that Federal staff need appropriate training in climate 

change adaptation, which is often required through professional continuing education opportunities as much of the Federal work force has no formal training in 

this area of science and management practice. This should be supported through the 

National Conservation Training Center, Sea Grant, a national adaptation extension 

service, and other venues such as the National Adaptation Forum. Congress must 

ensure that there is sufficient funding to not only support training of Federal staff, 

but the funding for sufficient staff and the inclusion of funds to design, implement, 

monitor and share adaptation actions. 
30 

9 Justus Nordgren, S. and L.J. Hansen. 2018. Climate Change Adaptation Certification. 

EcoAdapt. Bainbridge Island, WA. www.CAKEx.org/Adaptation-Certification. 

Question 4. Dr. Hansen, you suggest in your testimony that Federal funding for 

projects that don’t account for climate change is often money misspent. 

4a. Can you please elaborate on this claim? 

Answer. When climate change is not recognized, and a project (or policy) is design 

or implemented without explicitly considering the implications of climate change, 

the project (or policy) is vulnerable to the effects of climate change. When those 

vulnerabilities become realities the climate uninformed project (or policy) will no 

longer be effective. It will then need to be repaired, replaced, removed or repeated 

elsewhere. This means that the initial projected or policy was taxpayer dollars not 

delivering the outcome they paid for. 

Additionally, citizens, businesses, communities and ecosystems may incur harm 

from the project (or policy) that did not deliver on its intended and advertised 

outcome. 

There are at least two major categories in by which this can happen. 

1. Funds (or Federal employee effort) are expended in a manner that assumes 

conditions today are the same as they were in the past and will not change 

in the future. As a result, the work will not garner the desired effects given 

the reality that climate change will mean that today is different from yesterday and tomorrow will be different than today. For example, consider a 

coastal infrastructure investment such as a road, an estuary restoration 

project, or a coastal sewage treatment plant that are designed without taking 

sea level rise projections (relevant to the project lifetime) into account. You 

could also consider building standards or land use management in increasingly fire prone regions that does not take into account the increasing risk 

therefore putting new structures, communities and associated ecosystems at 

risk. You could also consider changing frequencies of flood events, wherein 

older flood projection maps continue to be used to make land use decisions 

or allow for the use of FEMA funds to rebuild in harm’s way—again putting 

people, property, business and government function at risk. 

Uninformed decisions such as all of these (and many more) may result in 

either the need to spend additional funds to redesign the project when the 

vulnerability becomes an ‘‘event’’ that renders the project ineffective. For 

example, the restoration project fails because the site is inundated or the 

species used for the project has moved out of the region as temperatures 

change. Similarly, if a road is inundated it may require a sea wall, drains or 

pumps; or it may require that the road is moved to an entirely new location. 

In all cases there is an additional expenditure of funds to provide the same 

service as the initial outlay before the lifetime of the project should have 

ended. 

2. Funds are not spent to address the challenges of climate change leaving 

existing efforts vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Often there are 

existing investments or resources that need new actions to protect them. This 

can include creating living shorelines to protected coastal infrastructure, 

funding the application of prescribed fire to protect our forestlands, upgrading 

culverts and bridges to avoid flood and erosion damage, funding enforcement 

to protect natural habitats and species from illegal poaching and destruction. 

4b. How do we best ensure we’re getting a fair return on taxpayer funded infrastructure projects? 

Answer. First of all, it is not just infrastructure projects that may be vulnerable 

to these issues. The simplest path to this is to both build the capacity of Federal 

agency staff and Congress about climate science and adaptation, and to create explicit review mechanisms that require evaluation of the implications of climate 

change on any Federal expenditure, project or other action. Using a tool such as the 

Climate Change Adaptation Certification,9 provides a structure for how to do this, 

along with direction to readily available climate science to use in the evaluation, 

and a structure around how to make decisions based on what this analysis indicates. This is very similar to how current analyses are done to the financial or 

environmental impact of a project (or policy). 
31 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Dr. Hansen. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hans Cole. 

STATEMENT OF HANS COLE, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CAMPAIGNS AND ADVOCACY, PATAGONIA, INC., VENTURA, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. COLE. Chairman Haaland, Ranking Member Young, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Hans Cole, 

and I am the Director of Campaigns and Advocacy for Patagonia. 

At Patagonia, we are in business to save the home planet. On behalf of our 3,000 employees and their families and communities 

across America and around the world, I commend the Committee 

for tackling this issue, and I strongly urge you to take bold action 

to address our planet’s climate crisis before it is too late. 

The science reflects what we are seeing with our own eyes, and 

the voices of the American people and responsible businesses on 

the topic are clear. If we fail to change course, global temperatures 

will continue to rise and environmental emergencies, wildfires, 

deadly heat waves, hurricanes, flooding, and growing food shortages will grow worse. 

At Patagonia, we believe that clean, renewable energy, regenerative organic farming, and public land and water protection should 

play critical roles in addressing the climate crisis. My testimony 

today will focus on our public lands. 

America’s public lands are one of our greatest collective assets, 

but they are also the source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions. Almost a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions in the 

United States come from fossil fuels extracted from public lands or 

offshore waters. This will get much worse, as the Trump administration continues its assault on land and water protections, despite 

outcries from outdoor enthusiasts and companies of all political 

stripes who, together, represent a nearly $900 billion industry. 

We oppose the Administration’s proposed offshore leasing and 

drilling. It would make more than 90 percent of U.S. waters available to oil and gas companies. 

We oppose an attack on Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

that would open one of our planet’s truly wild places for drilling. 

And we oppose the slashing size of Utah’s Bears Ears and Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, and any reduction in 

size of other monuments, as well. 

The Administration’s actions not only rob native people and all 

Americans of their natural and cultural heritage, threaten communities that depend on the outdoor economy, poison our water and 

air, and damage vulnerable species, they also make the climate 

crisis worse. 

Opening up public lands to more extraction will increase emissions and destroy ecosystems that help mitigate climate change by 

storing carbon. Instead, Congress should impose a moratorium on 

oil and gas drilling in Federal waters, and bar drilling in Alaska’s 

remaining wild places. 

We urge you to restore Bears Ears and Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monuments, and support measures like 

Representative Haaland, yours, and Senator Udall’s bill to make it 
32 

clear that no president has the authority to undermine the 

protection of America’s national monuments. 

Congress should also permanently re-authorize and fully fund 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has used a small 

percentage of revenues from existing offshore drilling leases to protect 5 million acres of public parks, wildlife habitats, and recreation 

areas. 

Instead of further slicing up our landscapes and waterways, we 

should build wildlife overpasses and underpasses, invest in communities eager to remove unsafe and damaging dams, and strengthen 

large-scale wildlife corridors for migratory species. These are all bipartisan solutions that address climate issues and appeal to 

outdoor enthusiasts and businesses in every single state. 

Patagonia supports proposals to transition to 100 percent clean, 

renewable energy by 2050. We need to focus on the cleanest available technology, including wind, solar, and geothermal, and not 

rely on the false promise of outdated technologies like hydroelectric dams and nuclear power that have catastrophic consequences for our public lands and waters by producing toxic waste 

and driving species to extinction. 

If Congress takes bold action to address this crisis, it will challenge the private sector to step up, as well, and Patagonia will continue to do our part. We are reinvesting $10 million from the 2017 

irresponsible corporate tax cuts to groups working to solve the 

causes of the climate crisis. And Patagonia is committed to becoming carbon neutral across our entire business, including across our 

supply chain, by 2025. 

Please make 2019 the year that the United States finally takes 

decisive action to fight the climate crisis. Please reclaim our public 

lands and waters from the polluters and give them back to the 

people. 

Thank you, and I look forward to any questions you may have 

for me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cole follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HANS COLE, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGNS & 

ADVOCACY, PATAGONIA, INC

Chairman Haaland, Ranking Member Young. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. My name is Hans Cole, and I am director of Campaigns and Advocacy 

for Patagonia. At Patagonia, we are in business to save our home planet. On behalf 

of our 3,000 employees, and their families and communities across America and 

around the world, I commend the Committee for tackling this issue, and I strongly 

urge you to take bold action to address our planet’s climate crisis head-on before 

it is too late. 

The science reflects what we see with our own eyes, and the voices of the 

American people and responsible businesses on the topic are clear. If we fail to 

change course, global temperatures will continue to rise and environmental emergencies—massive wildfires, deadly heat waves, disastrous hurricanes, major 

flooding, growing food shortages—will grow worse. 

The U.S. Government’s 2018 National Climate Assessment noted that ecological 

catastrophe will lead to an economic catastrophe, wiping out up to 10 percent of the 

American economy by 2100. That is not good for business, but it’s even worse for 

our employees, our customers and your constituents who could see wages drop and 

unemployment rise. 

We believe that clean renewable energy, regenerative organic farming, and purposeful public lands protection should play critical roles in addressing the climate 

crisis. Consistent with this Committee’s interest in public lands, my testimony today 
33 

will focus on purposeful protection of these important places and the need to 

transition to a more sustainable future. 

America’s public lands are one of our greatest collective assets but they are also 

the source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions. According to the U.S. Geological 

Survey, almost a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States come 

from fossil fuels extracted from public lands or offshore waters. Oil, gas, and mining 

corporations are damaging our public lands and waters and worsening the climate 

crisis. This will get much worse as the Trump administration continues an assault 

on land and water protections, despite outcries from outdoor enthusiasts and companies of all political stripes who together represent a nearly $900 billion industry. 

We oppose: 

• The Administration’s proposed offshore leasing and drilling that would make 

more than 90 percent of U.S. waters available to oil and gas companies, 

including the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the entire Gulf of Mexico, and 

most of Alaska’s available coastal waters. 

• An attack on Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that would open one 

of our planet’s last truly wild places to drilling and accelerate the destruction 

of the Western Arctic. 

• Slashing the size of Utah’s Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monuments, in violation of the Antiquities Act. 

The Administration’s actions not only rob Native people and all Americans of 

their natural and cultural heritage, threaten communities that depend on the outdoor industry for economic survival, poison our water and air, and wreak untold 

damage on vulnerable species—they also exacerbate the climate crisis. Opening up 

public lands to more extraction will increase emissions and destroy ecosystems that 

help mitigate climate change by storing carbon. 

Instead, Congress should impose a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in Federal 

waters and bar drilling in Alaska’s remaining wild places. We urge you to restore 

Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, and support measures like Senator Udall and Representative Haaland’s bill to make it clear that the 

President has no authority to undermine the protection of America’s National 

Monuments. 

Congress should also permanently reauthorize and fully fund the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, which has used a small percentage of revenues from existing 

offshore drilling leases to protect 5 million acres of public parks, wildlife habitats, 

and recreation areas across the country. Instead of further slicing up our important 

landscapes and waterways, we should build wildlife overpasses and underpasses, invest in communities eager to remove unsafe and damaging dams and diversions, 

and strengthen large-scale wildlife corridors for migratory species. These are all bipartisan solutions that address climate issues and appeal to the outdoor enthusiasts 

in every single state, as well as the small and big businesses that rely on tourism 

and protected natural resources for their livelihood. 

Along with protecting our public lands as one of our greatest resources to combat 

climate change, we must also transition our economy to rely on clean, renewable 

energy. Congress should stop spending taxpayer dollars subsidizing large oil and gas 

companies and approving destructive projects like the Keystone XL and Dakota 

Access pipelines, and reverse the drive to loosen restrictions on coal-fired power 

plants, inefficient cars and trucks, and polluters of all kinds. 

Patagonia supports proposals to transition to 100 percent clean, renewable energy 

by 2050. We need to invest in transformative research and green infrastructure like 

a smart electric grid. Congress should provide incentives to encourage American 

consumers and businesses to install solar panels, build wind turbines, buy electric 

vehicles, and retrofit buildings to make them more energy efficient. 

The traditional ‘‘all-of-the-above’’ approach has unfortunately relied on the false 

promise of outdated technologies like nuclear plants and hydroelectric dams that 

have catastrophic consequences for our environment by producing toxic waste and 

driving species to extinction. The only viable path for the planet’s survival is to embrace wind, solar, geothermal, and other truly clean and renewable sources of 

energy. 

This transition toward a less-polluting economy must account for how American’s 

food is grown and distributed. Agriculture is a significant part of the American economy, contributing billions to GDP, and is also a source of substantial greenhouse 

gas emissions, emitting about 650 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent annually. 

But how we grow our food also holds great promise in combatting climate change. 

At Patagonia we have helped develop a new standard—the Regenerative Organic 

Certification—that builds on current organic practices to improve soil health. 
34 

Regenerative organic farming has the potential to remove carbon from the atmosphere, storing it in the soil. Studies indicate that if we moved from current industrial farming to regenerative organic practices we could sequester enough carbon to 

slow, if not completely halt, the growing amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. And 

experts agree we could feed our growing population using regenerative organic 

farming. 

If Congress takes bold action in all these areas—protecting public lands and 

waters and promoting a change to clean, renewable energy along with encouraging 

regenerative organic agriculture—it will challenge the private sector to step up as 

well. Patagonia will continue to do our part. 

We are re-investing $10 million we received from the 2017 irresponsible corporate 

tax cuts by donating to groups that are fighting to protect our air, land, and water 

to save our planet. Patagonia is committed to becoming carbon neutral across our 

entire business—including across our supply chain—by 2025. That means we will 

reduce, capture or otherwise mitigate all of the carbon emissions we create, including the emissions from the factories that make our textiles and finished clothing. 

We will use only renewable or recycled materials in our products, and by 2020 we 

will use only renewable electricity in our stores and offices. We are similarly piloting 

products made and built compliant with the new Regenerative Organic Certification 

to show the world that products can be built using these practices. 

Patagonia will continue to encourage our community and customers to participate 

in the democratic process. As long as polluters wield power, Patagonia will speak 

out and fight back. We will proudly and transparently support candidates and 

causes we believe in. 

Please make 2019 the year that the United States finally takes decisive action 

to fight the climate crisis. Please reclaim our public lands and water from the 

polluters and give them back to the people. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. I look forward to any 

questions you may have for me. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. HAALAND TO HANS COLE, 

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGNS AND ADVOCACY, PATAGONIA, INC. 

Question 1. Mr. Cole, some conservatives, especially those from the West, often cast 

our public lands as a burden. They claim that public lands hurt economies and ruin 

development potential. Do you at Patagonia think that public lands harm 

communities? 

Answer. At Patagonia, we do not think of public lands as a burden, and in fact 

just the opposite: as a business that relies on protected public lands for our very 

existence, we know that public lands, particularly protected public lands, contribute 

immensely to the health and economic vitality of local communities. Looking first 

at the data, Headwaters Economics, an independent, non-partisan research firm, 

has shown that from the early 1970s to the early 2010s, ‘‘. . . rural counties in the 

West with more federal lands or protected federal lands [perform] better on average 

than their peers with less federal lands.’’ This was shown to be true for four key 

economic measures: population, employment, personal income, and to a smaller extent, per capita income growth. Public lands also bring value across numerous different areas: from the ecosystem services of clean water and air (for example, 

National Forests provide as much as 33 percent of our water in the West), to the 

more community-based values of healthy opportunities for kids and families, to the 

recreation sector and economy that Patagonia is a part of. This sector, which brings 

economic opportunity for many ‘‘gateway’’ communities that sit at the doorstep of 

our public lands, now provides $887 billion in annual consumer spending and 7.6 

million jobs (as compared with about 180,000 jobs from oil and gas extraction). 

National parks, national wildlife refuges, national monuments and other public 

lands and waters account for $45 billion in economic output and about 396,000 jobs 

nationwide—many of which are in communities with close proximity to public lands. 

It’s equally clear when you ask the public: a clear majority of people from across 

the political spectrum love our protected public lands and recognize the importance 

of the outdoor economy they support. For example, in the 2019 Colorado College 

‘‘Conservation in the West’’ poll, results indicate that ‘‘. . . there is almost no partisan distinction in perceptions of outdoor recreation’s importance to the economic 

future of the West.’’ Whether it was Republicans, Independents or Democrats responding, over 85 percent indicated that outdoor recreation is important to their 

state’s economic future. 
35 

Finally, coming out of the hearing on February 13, it’s critical to note that our 

public lands are an important and often overlooked component of community-level 

efforts to address climate change. Protected public lands (where forests, wetlands, 

grasslands and other ecosystems are intact) have increased carbon storage capacity 

that will be needed to reduce greenhouse gases in the long term, and in the short 

term, provide the ecosystem services and resilience that communities will require 

as precipitation patterns and temperatures change, and as we face increasing fires, 

floods and other challenges. Intact and protected public lands provide a refuge for 

biodiversity and connectivity for migrating species that will need to move and adapt 

in response to a changing climate. And, with care given to smart and ecologically 

sensitive citing, we can even consider renewable energy development opportunities 

on our public lands. In summary, protected public lands are one of our greatest 

assets in the fight to protect our communities and ecosystems in the face of climate 

change. 

Question 2. Mr. Cole, this Administration has prioritized extraction on our public 

lands over other uses, exposing us to the dangers of climate change and to the local 

impacts associated with methane leakage and groundwater depletion and contamination. This prioritization includes the alteration of our national monuments, 

seemingly for the benefit of fossil fuel interests. 

2a. Why is it important that we protect our public lands from unbridled extraction 

and depletion? 

2b. What benefits do national monuments provide that supersede the benefits of 

short-term and short-sighted extraction? 

Answer. Public lands provide a diverse array of values to local communities, and 

they are critical to maintaining a life-sustaining climate and biosphere on a macro 

level. However, when we prioritize using these lands for resource extraction— 

particularly without any sense of balance or attention to sensitive ecosystems—we 

quickly lose access to many of the values that protected public lands offer. 

Unbridled resource extraction creates serious and long-lasting impacts (for example: 

pollution, disturbance, aesthetic impacts, barriers such as dams and fences, and 

carbon emissions), that permanently damage natural ecosystems, threaten biodiversity, exacerbate climate change, and exclude, often permanently, other more sustainable activities. While sometimes touted as part of a ‘‘multi-use’’ agenda on our 

public lands, the truth is that unwise resource extraction can turn our public lands 

into a single-use landscape, one where corporate interests are favored over those of 

citizens who rely on the place to support a more diverse, sustainable economy, or 

to recreate and spend time with family and community. Intensive resource extraction can also damage cultural resources and uses of the land important to native 

communities, who in many cases live closest to these landscapes and have a connection with them that stretches back hundreds, even thousands of years. 

By contrast, National Monument designation can prevent unwise resource 

extraction on sensitive landscapes that hold incredible natural and cultural value. 

Whether we’re talking about the sensitive cultural and ecological landscape of Bears 

Ears, the forests of Katahdin Woods and Waters, or the still largely unknown 

depths of the Northeast Canyon and Seamounts—National Monument status can 

quickly and effectively provide significant immediate protection, allowing for more 

thoughtful management planning to take place and giving Congress the time and 

opportunity to consider greater protection down the road if needed. It should be no 

surprise that almost half of our treasured National Parks started as National 

Monuments, including many of our most popular parks: Teton, Grand Canyon, 

Acadia, Zion, Olympic, and Arches. National Monument management plans offer an 

opportunity for diverse stakeholders to come to the table together, to discuss and 

plan for truly sustainable use of the landscape—allowing sensitive areas to have a 

rest, while simultaneously enabling a greater swath of the public to access, enjoy, 

and gain benefit from the area. The beauty of thoughtful management is that longstanding uses of the landscape can be grandfathered in where appropriate—for 

example, ranching, hunting, firewood gathering, and similar activities. Thus, a 

National Monument, while off limits to corporate oil and gas development, is not 

an exclusive model at all, but instead can host a variety of activities and groups 

of people, many of whom have had life-long and multi-generational connection to the 

place. Finally, in terms of long-term impact vs. short-term gain, there is no more 

convincing argument than the fact that National Monument protection can keep 

more fossil fuels in the ground, preventing further impact to our climate. 
36 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Mr. Cole. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Elaine Oneil. 

STATEMENT OF ELAINE ONEIL, ONEIL FOREST RESEARCH 

AND MANAGEMENT, TENINO, WASHINGTON 

Dr. ONEIL. Thank you, Chairman Haaland and Committee 

members. I am Dr. Elaine Oneil, a forest scientist and management consultant specializing in forest health, climate change, and 

forest carbon accounting. 

Today, I will be providing comments on research I conducted at 

the University of Washington that examined the impacts of climate 

change on forest carbon in the 11 western states. That is contiguous states; we didn’t look at Alaska. These results speak to the 

heart of the question before you today: What climate impacts are 

occurring on our public lands, and what adaptation opportunities 

exist? 

I am going to place that research into context using examples 

from Washington State, my home state. 

First, some easy math. Trees take up carbon dioxide out of the 

atmosphere and use it to make wood, roots, needles, leaves, and 

branches, ending up at about 50 percent carbon by dry weight. 

Superficial analysis suggests that the more trees we have, the more 

carbon dioxide they can suck out of the atmosphere. 

That is only true if you ignore biological principles that dictate 

forest growth and death related to site carrying capacity. And in 

our western forest landscapes—and we have a lot of Members here 

representing them, and it is also where most of our public lands 

are located—that is only true if we ignore fire, which would be a 

mistake. 

What we are seeing in the western United States is an epidemic 

of insects and disease and wildfires brought on, in large part, by 

what one of your Federal scientists calls an ‘‘epidemic of too many 

trees.’’ He talked about that epidemic of too many trees at a recent 

TEDx talk called ‘‘The Era of Mega-Fires,’’ and I have to say we 

are in an era of megafires. 

When we first began the analysis of climate impacts on forest 

carbon in these 11 western states we used both historical fire rates 

for the region, and fire rates that were predicted to occur by 2050. 

A look at the wildfire statistics since 2000 is sobering. We have 

doubled the average acres burned since 2000, with 10 of the worst 

fire years on record occurring since that time, and that doesn’t 

even count last year. The statistics aren’t in on that date. 

That means that the climate science published as late as 2004 

was wildly optimistic. We are seeing future expected fire rates 30 

years earlier than anticipated. 

So, what do we do about these climate impacts? It is a bit 

counter-intuitive, but we cut more trees. This wildly unpopular 

idea has been the recommendation of fire scientists who have studied the fire ecology of these systems for decades. This is not new 

information. It is completely in line with our fire and carbon analysis that examined nine management alternatives across 25,000 

forest inventory plots in the West. In other words, we didn’t cherrypick the data; we looked at every plot and said what would happen 

here. 
37 

In most cases, managing forests creates a more favorable forest 

outcome than letting nature take its course. Like any other 

potential natural disaster, whether driven by climate change or 

not, wildfire mitigation demands a response. 

[Slide.] 

Dr. ONEIL. Forest inventory data already show that two-thirds of 

the Federal forest growth is lost to wildfire, insects, and disease, 

as shown on this chart on the wall. In some states, mortality already exceeds growth, meaning the forests are now carbon sources 

and not sinks. In other words, they are emitting more than they 

are absorbing. 

So, while forests do store carbon, when they are left without care 

the results are usually not what we want. Clearly, letting nature 

take its course did not provide much carbon benefit, especially 

since the climate impacts we are seeing are real, current, and often 

devastating. 

We know how to mitigate these climate impacts at both the 

stand and landscape level. It starts with greatly reducing the number of trees, keeping fire-resistant species, and interrupting fuel 

ladders so the fires don’t spread as easily. Across the West, this 

treatment has been proven to keep forests alive when wildfires hit, 

and they will hit. That is inevitable. It is part of the fire ecology 

of the system. They can be easily replicated across the landscape 

using a systematic approach that considers adjacent landowners in 

order to create a patchwork of defensible space that is actually 

more akin to what our natural forests looked like than they do 

now. 

Coordination across landowners is required, so is infrastructure 

that can handle the harvested material. Even with the best of 

intentions, we will not be successful unless efforts are made to ensure milling infrastructure remains viable. Shared stewardship approaches like we have in Washington State, including the Good 

Neighbor Authority and local forests collaboratives, should continue 

to be supported and encouraged as a fundamental mechanism to 

move forward with keeping our public lands and adjacent 

forestlands healthy, fire resilient, and green. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Oneil follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ELAINE ONEIL, ONEIL FOREST RESEARCH AND

MANAGEMENT

I am Dr. Elaine Oneil, a forest scientist and management consultant specializing 

in forest health, climate change, and forest carbon accounting. My comments are 

focused on research I conducted while at the University of Washington that examined the impacts of climate change on forest carbon in the 11 western states. Key 

results from that research, combined with data on wildfire impacts, forest management, and regional forest health strategies will be used to provide context for the 

comments. 

Commentary can be categorized into four main themes: 

1. Forests are suffering from too many trees for the site and extant climate 

conditions. Overstocking creates conditions that kill trees. That mortality 

combined with wildfire has changed the calculus for defining the optimal 

strategies for climate mitigation and adaptation in forests. 

2. Management provides for improved firefighting capability and improved forest 

carbon outcomes in nearly every forest type across the 11 western states. 

3. Wildfire ignition is random, but the consequences of wildfires are driven by 

forest cover conditions, climate, and prevailing weather patterns. Forests that 
38 

have too many trees, and which contain large amounts of dead trees, produce 

conditions for wildfires that are uncontrollable, with devastating consequences to the forest, the adjacent landowners and communities, and the 

budgets of land management agencies. 

4. Like any other potential natural disaster, wildfire mitigation demands a 

response. Letting nature take its course is not supported by the science of 

forest carbon dynamics. 

FOREST CARBON PRIMER

Trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using photosynthesis to produce 

wood, roots, needles, leaves, and branches. Carbon is also released via respiration, 

either directly from the plant, or indirectly via decomposition or combustion pathways. Growth, and therefore carbon accumulation in forests is constrained by limiting factors that range from climatic parameters driving growing season, moisture 

and temperature conditions, to nutrient availability, competition, and species 

growth habit and longevity. There is some variability in carbon content between tree 

components and species but on average trees are about 50 percent carbon by dry 

weight. This has led some to suggest that leaving forests to grow without management or interruption would be a sound climate solution. That is only true if you 

ignore biological principles that dictate forest growth and death, including site carrying capacity. And in our western forest landscapes where most of our public lands 

are located, that is only true if you ignore fire. 

1. Forests are suffering from having too many trees for the site and extant 

climate conditions. Overstocking creates conditions that kill trees. That 

mortality combined with wildfire has changed the calculus for defining the 

optimal strategies for climate mitigation and adaptation in forests. 

What we are seeing in the western United States is an epidemic—of insects and 

disease and wildfires—brought on in large part by An Epidemic of Too Many Trees. 

That epidemic is summarized in a TED talk called the Era of Megafires and is 

described it in much greater detail in a hour long multimedia presentation that is 

available here. Wildfire data from the National Interagency Fire Center supports 

the idea that we are in an Era of Megafires. Their wildfire statistics show that the 

average acres burned since 2000 has doubled relative to the prior four decades, with 

10 of the worst fire years on record occurring since 2000 (excluding 2018 data which 

is not available yet). 

Every 10 years a U.S. forest inventory report (Resource Planning Assessment or 

RPA) is published that summarizes growth, harvest, and mortality by region, forest 

landowner, and forest type. Data are collected over a 10-year period, so the final 

numbers are more representative of an average for the 10-year period than a summary of the endpoint. These data show a fourfold increase in mortality on National 

Forests in the 40-year period from 1976–2016. Of total forest growth on National 

Forests about two-thirds is lost to wildfires, insects and disease (Figure 1). Wildfire 

is not the only mortality agent that is on the rise on Federal lands. Insects and 

diseases are prevalent and their threat is growing (Littell et al. 2010). 

Figure 1. Growth, Mortality, and Harvest on National Forest Timberlands 1952–2016. Data provided 

by Oswalt et al. 2018. 
39 

The current rate of mortality is unsustainable. This 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. 

2. Management provides for improved firefighting capability and improved 

forest carbon outcomes in nearly every forest type across the 11 western 

states. 

Fire scientists who have studied the fire ecology of these systems for decades have 

long advocated for management action to mitigate fire risk and bring the forest condition into alignment with the fire ecology of the west (Agee and Skinner 2005, 

Skinner et al. 2004). 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). General principles of fire management based on long-term research have 

been integrated into tools that can assess the impacts of fire and management for 

any combination of site, stand and climate conditions. These tools were used to 

model nine different forest management treatments on over 25,000 forest inventory 

plots in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Results show that in most cases, managing forests created a more favorable forest carbon outcome (Figure 2b) than letting nature take its course (Figure 2a). 

Figure 2a. Unmanaged forest with 100% mortality from wildfire. 

Figure 2b. Managed forest with jackpot burns to reduce fuel loads. 

Even better carbon outcomes are possible if harvested material is large enough 

to be used for solid wood products as the wood also stores carbon during its use 

phase (Oneil and Lippke 2010). 

Research identifies how to mitigate climate impacts at both the stand and landscape level. In dry forests it starts with greatly reducing the number of trees, keeping fire resistant species, and interrupting fuel ladders so that fires don’t spread as 

easily (Moghaddas 2006). Across the West, this treatment method has been proven 

to keep forests alive when wildfires hit. It can be easily replicated across the landscape using a systematic approach that considers adjacent landowners, in order to 

create a patchwork of defensible space that is more akin to historical natural conditions on our forests. 

Under future climate conditions which predict longer, drier, hotter, summers 

(Littell et al. 2010, McKenzie et al. 2004) we can expect regeneration failure in 

burned forests, which will push these forests toward being a net carbon source. 

Mitigation measures include thinning the forests to prevent the loss of all trees and 

to reduce the fire impacts on soils somewhat so that successful regeneration is more 

likely. By thinning we also are building resilience into the existing trees, and ideally 

choosing the specimens and species that we think can survive and perpetuate on 

these landscapes. 

3. Wildfire ignition is random, but the consequences of wildfires are driven 

by forest cover conditions, climate, and prevailing weather patterns. 

Forests that have too many trees, and which contain large amounts of dead 

trees, produce conditions for wildfires that are uncontrollable, with 
40 

devastating consequences to the forest, the adjacent landowners (Figure 3) 

and communities, and the budgets of land management agencies. 

Coordination across landowners is required. So is infrastructure that can handle 

the harvested material. Shared stewardship approaches like we have in Washington 

State, including use of the Good Neighbor Authority and local Forest Collaboratives, 

should continue to be supported and encouraged as a fundamental mechanism to 

move forward with keeping our public lands, and adjacent forest lands, healthy, fire 

resilient, and green. 

Figure 3. Wildfire impacts on adjacent state and private forest land from ignition on public 

forestland. 

4. Like any other potential natural disaster, wildfire mitigation demands a 

response. Letting nature take its course is not supported by the science of 

forest carbon dynamics. 

Jerry Franklin (ecologist) and Jim Agee (fire scientist) from the University of 

Washington offer their perspective on the need for a rationale national forest policy 

that incorporates 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). 

Other social benefits include smoke free summers. Emissions from wildfires are 

not inconsequential. In addition to the large amounts of carbon dioxide released, 

there are also releases of methane, nitrous oxides, and volatile organic carbons 

which are all potent greenhouse gases that have a greater atmospheric impact than 

the release of carbon dioxide alone (Wiedinmyer and Neff 2007). The net result is 

that emissions from wildfires can produce higher carbon dioxide equivalent values 

than the total equivalent carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) content of the biomass 

that is consumed (data analysis of factors in Wiedinmyer et al. 2006). This means 

that a 20 percent reduction in forest carbon stocks from wildfire generates more 

than a 20 percent increase in CO2e in the atmosphere. 

SUMMARY

We have experienced two decades of unprecedented mortality in our western 

forests, and much of that mortality is concentrated on Federal lands. In some states, 

mortality on public forests has reached a point where they are now emitting carbon 

rather than sequestering it thus exacerbating our current greenhouse gas emissions 

profile. Forest health treatments that reduce tree density, create canopy discontinuities, and open patches will become both the climate mitigation and adaptation 

strategy on these forests. They will also more closely replicate historical forest conditions. Letting forests die and burn in anticipation that the past will replicate itself 

in a future with large uncertainties around climate conditions is a high-risk 

approach. 

REFERENCES

Agee, J.K. and C.N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction 

treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 211(1–2): 83–96. 

Franklin, Jerry F. and James K. Agee. 2003. Forging a science-based national forest 

fire policy. Issues in Science and Technology 20(1): 59–66. 
41 

Littell, Jeremy S., et al. 2010. Forest ecosystems, disturbance, and climatic change 

in Washington State, USA. Climatic Change 102(1–2): 129–158. 

McKenzie, D., et al. 2004. ‘‘Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation.’’ 

Conservation Biology 18(4): 890–902. 

Moghaddas, J.J. 2006. A fuel treatment reduces potential fire severity and increases 

suppression efficiency in a Sierran mixed conifer forest. In: Andrews, P. L. and B. 

W. Butler (comps). Fuels Management—How to Measure Success, Proceedings 

RMRS-P-41, Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 441–449. 

Oneil, Elaine E. and Bruce R. Lippke. 2010. Integrating products, emission offsets 

and wildfire into carbon assessments of Inland Northwest forest. Wood and Fiber 

Science 42(Special Issue): 144–164. 

Skinner, C.N., et al. 2004. Effects of prescribed fire and thinning on wildfire 

severity: the Cone Fire, Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest, Proceedings 25th 

Vegetation Management Conference, Redding, California. 12 pp. 

Wiedinmyer, C. and J.C. Neff. 2007. Estimates of CO2 from fires in the United 

States: implications for carbon management. Carbon Balance and Management 

2(10): doi:10.1186/1750-0680-2-10. 

Wiedinmyer, C., et al. (2006). ‘‘Estimating emissions from fires in North America 

for air quality modeling.’’ Atmospheric Environment 40(19): 3419–3432. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you very much, Dr. Oneil. Thank you for 

the valuable testimony that you have given this morning. 

The Chair will now recognize Members for questions. Under 

Committee Rule 3(d), each Member will be recognized for 5 

minutes. And I would like to recognize myself first for 5 minutes. 

My question to each of you—and if you could just each answer 

this one after the other, that would be great—thank you all again 

for being here and for your testimony. 

As I mentioned in my statement, I am excited for this 

Subcommittee to take the lead on these issues. To fill that role, we 

need to recognize that now is the time to act on climate change. 

We can’t wait any longer. While some response efforts may be 

beyond this Committee’s purview, the impacts of climate change affect the resources, lands, and communities we are here to protect. 

So, it is our responsibility to consider all options. 

My first question for each of you is, can we prevent the worst 

impacts of climate change by land management strategies alone? 

Dr. GONZALEZ. Land management strategies and adaptation are 

important for improving ecosystem integrity. But our research 

shows that, compared to the worst emission scenario, cutting 

carbon pollution could reduce projected heating in the national 

parks by up to two-thirds. And clearly, that attacks the cause of 

climate change. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you. Dr. Hansen? 

Dr. HANSEN. I agree that one of the most important things we 

can do is adjust our land use. And in reality, almost everything in 

the United States is affected by land use. Our transportation habits 

are affected by land use. Our energy consumption habits, both 

transportation and our homes, are affected by land use. However, 

at the end of the day, the core component that we have to take care 

of is addressing the root cause of climate change. We need to stop 

emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels. 
42 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you. 

Mr. COLE. I would say, from our perspective, we need to use all 

the techniques at our disposal. Land management is certainly one 

of them. We need to look at the types of land management. 

Protected public lands can help us make space for renewable 

energy and reduce our emphasis on fossil fuel extraction across the 

country, which can provide a massive impact on the amount of 

carbon in the atmosphere. 

But we also need to think about other ways of addressing the 

climate crisis, including regenerative organic agriculture and looking at our entire energy mix across the board. Thank you. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you. 

Dr. ONEIL. I think that land management alone cannot address 

or prevent the worst impacts. But if you look at the way within the 

wheelhouse of forests and forest management, part of the way we 

look at that and we think about it is if you are able to maintain 

that sort of average forest carbon in your landscape, and then use 

those products to substitute for other products that have a higher 

greenhouse gas footprint, like steel and concrete, then you do have 

an opportunity to have an additive effect, based on how you use 

any kind of material that would be removed if you were removing 

those trees. 

There are some complicated processes in there, but there is a 

possibility to actually leverage land management and land use activities where they are allowed—obviously, not in parks, but where 

they are allowed—to achieve additional benefits in terms of greenhouse gas mitigation. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Dr. Oneil. I am glad we largely agree 

on that point. 

Now, Dr. Hansen, can you please explain why adaptation, particularly on public lands, can help us fight the impacts of climate 

change? 

Dr. HANSEN. I would be happy to. Adaptation offers you the opportunity to try to maintain the function of whatever it is you are 

trying to do. In this case, it is the function of public lands, which 

are vitally important to all of our lives, whether we live in a city 

or we live in more rural parts of the country. 

Adaptation allows us to reflect directly on what are the implications that we anticipate happening from climate change, and how 

do we change management to respond to that. That will affect our 

ability to access water, for example. 

In the Sierra Nevada of California, the way that those forests are 

managed provides water for most of the largest places in the state. 

Water is, obviously, a big issue there. But if we continue to manage 

the water resource and the forest resource, as we always have, ignoring the facts that precipitation patterns are changing, ignoring 

the fact that human use rates are changing because of increasing 

temperatures, we will not have the rate of return that we expect 

on those resources. And public lands are probably one of the best 

insurance investments we have in maintaining all those ecosystem 

services for our country. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Dr. Hansen. And now the Chair 

recognizes Ranking Member Young for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 
43 

Mr. Cole, Patagonia, what do they sell? 

Mr. COLE. We are an outdoor clothing and gear company. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. And where are most of those products made? 

Mr. COLE. We have a supply chain that is global in nature. We 

manufacture—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Where are they mostly made? 

Mr. COLE. Across about 20 different countries, from the United 

States to China and—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Most of them are made in China. I happened to go 

to your store. And the ironic part about it is most of your products 

are a result of fossil fuels. They are made by fossil fuels, the material is fossil fuels. They are made in China. The biggest polluter 

we have is China. And I often think it is hypocrisy to talk about 

we cannot use fossil fuels when the product they sell and advocate 

against is made by fossil fuels—in China, not with American labor. 

I just wanted to bring that up. 

Dr. Oneil, some environmental activists argue that fuel loads or 

too many trees are not a problem. However, in your testimony you 

argue the epidemic of insects and disease in our western forests 

have been brought down in a large measure by an epidemic of too 

many trees. How does that work, too many trees? 

Dr. ONEIL. The work that myself and other scientists in that 

space—as opposed to activists, we work as scientists. We look at 

the numbers, and we look at the data. 

If you are wanting to mitigate fire impacts, you have to think 

about it within the framework of how does fire actually work, and 

it is real simple. It is what is called a fire triangle. You have fuels, 

oxygen, and heat. The only thing we can affect in the fire triangle 

is the fuels. The more fuel you have, and the drier it is—which that 

will be exacerbated with warmer weather, drier weather, longer 

seasons—the more fuel you have, the more chance that when you 

get that lightning strike, when you get that ignition source, that 

you are going to end up with a catastrophic event. 

Fire ecologists have been talking about this for 40 years, that 

this is a problem. And it is continuing to be a problem. And now 

we are seeing that it is a problem. 

Mr. YOUNG. You bring up a very valid point. For those members 

on the Committee from California, when I was 5 years old we were 

pasturing sheep in Paradise. My father and I had 5,000 ewes. And 

we didn’t have any fires of any consequence because there was no 

over-burden, no volatility that was left on the ground. 

And what I see now, when there is a fire, there is so much heat 

that it destroys the tree and actually destroys a lot of the ground, 

which probably would add later on with more trash timber than 

real timber. And I just—I watch that fire. 

By the way, how many acres did you burn? Anybody know? 

Anybody ever put a pencil to it? 

[No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. I want to get the science, how much pollution was 

put in the air by that fire. A lot. 

I think if they had managed it to begin with, you wouldn’t have 

that fire. There is the big argument. Are we going to let the trees 

still be natural, or are we going to manage the timber? We have 

to manage the timber. But you even mention cutting the tree and, 
44 

‘‘Oh, we can’t do that,’’ including those people who sell goods made 

in China. You can’t do it. 

But in reality, if we don’t do it, we will never address this issue. 

That is called adapting. That is all I ask, is think about adapt. Just 

don’t automatically say no. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Mr. Young. The Chair now recognizes 

Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to you and to the 

members of this Committee, thank you very much for the hearing. 

I want to associate myself with some of your comments at the 

outset, Madam Chair, and that was climate change isn’t just in our 

jurisdiction. I think it falls under the shared responsibility for all 

Members, all decision makers. And I think this Subcommittee and 

the Committee as a whole plays a big role, a very expansive role, 

in addressing climate change. And within that jurisdiction, a very 

large nexus to be able to address those issues. So, I appreciate you 

mentioning that, because I think it is important to keep that in 

mind. 

Dr. Hansen, let me ask you, both your and Dr. Gonzalez’s work 

suggest that we need to protect more places from the dangers of 

climate change. An example that you could respond to, Dr. Hansen, 

is the Sky Islands along the southern border region in Arizona as 

a place for further protection. Can you speak about that, specifically, in terms of those Sky Islands being potential adaptation tools 

on the issue of climate change? 

Dr. HANSEN. One of the effects of climate change that was 

alluded to in testimony today is about the movement of ecosystems 

and species in response to climate change. In order for that movement to happen, there has to be a place for that to happen. 

The Sky Islands Region offers a unique suite of opportunity because, not only does it involve space that moves up in latitude to 

some degree, but it also creates elevational refugia, places that stay 

a little bit cooler, perhaps, as the overall landscape is changing, 

and places for things to move. 

Thinking about how we use the space we have to allow natural 

systems to respond to the extent they can by themselves in conditions like that is a vital component of adaptation. We do not have 

the money to hand-manage all of the systems. We do not have the 

ability to move species manually. We need to come up with how do 

we create an intact landscape across which things can move on 

their own. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Cole, based partly on Dr. Hansen’s response and the testimony today, we talk about these efforts at adaptation. The Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, of which your organization and your 

business have been large supporters of, what role do you believe 

that plays in the discussion? 

Mr. COLE. I think the Land and Water Conservation Fund is one 

of our most important conservation measures in the United States. 

It has impacts in every single state, almost every single county 

across the country. And it takes a small amount of money from revenues from offshore drilling and leasing, and puts that into conservation. And I think that, whether you are living in a community 
45 

that has city parks, or whether you are living in a community that 

is close to wilderness area, you could be helped by the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund. 

And with climate change, we need more of those protected spaces 

to allow for resilience, to allow for protection of biodiversity, to 

allow for carbon storage, all those things. The Land and Water 

Conservation Fund can contribute to all those benefits in the face 

of climate change. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And last, Dr. Hansen, you served on the Advisory 

Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resources Science 

under the previous administration. Let’s take a snapshot of where 

we are right now, in the last 2 years, under this Administration. 

Dr. HANSEN. Unfortunately, that committee no longer exists. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Any action on the findings? 

Dr. HANSEN. No. In fact, most of the suggestions that were made 

by that committee, the structures that were part of that set of 

ideas, that set of principles no longer exists, or are quite vestigial 

with no funding. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. If you could respond, there was a beginning effort 

of utilizing public lands as an adaptation vehicle going forward. 

And that has stopped, as well. The issue now becomes, are we contributing to the overall negative effect of climate change as public 

lands, or retreating from any commitment to adaptation. Are we 

part of the problem now, as opposed to being part of the solution? 

Dr. HANSEN. Yes. I mean, unfortunately, the dominant contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere from public lands is our 

use of them for the extraction of fossil fuels. And increasing that 

increases the problem not only for all of us, but for public lands 

themselves. We need to be stopping climate change to save our 

public lands, not using our public lands to stop climate change, as 

a friend of mine would be paraphrased to say. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. The Chair now 

recognizes Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the 

witnesses for being here today. I have read all of your testimonies 

last night, plus listened to your testimonies today. 

Dr. Gonzalez, I would like to commend you on the written testimony and the research behind the data that you presented. And 

Dr. Oneil, as well, I appreciate you bringing to the forefront things 

that need to be talked about, as far as the benefits of healthy 

forests to helping our environment. 

Dr. Gonzalez, part of your testimony, you said prescribed burning 

is an adaptation measure that reduces future risk of catastrophic 

wildfire and tree death by removing an unnatural buildup of fuel 

and small trees, where old policies suppressed natural wildfire. I 

agree with that. 

Can you elaborate on that a little bit more about carrying capacity of land and how many trees per acre? Is it just small trees, or 

are there places where larger trees need to be removed and then 

do the controlled burning? 

Dr. GONZALEZ. Well, the published scientific research shows that 

two major factors have caused the catastrophic wildfires that we 
46 

are seeing. It is the old policies that have led to this unnatural 

accumulation of small trees and, of course, woody debris. And then 

human-caused climate change has ignited that and doubled the 

wildfire since 1984. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. All right, I agree—— 

Dr. GONZALEZ. It is mainly the small trees and the coarse, woody 

debris. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Right. And I agree the suppression tactics over 

the decades have increased fire potential. 

Dr. Oneil, would you like to talk about the carrying capacity, 

stems per acre, or biomass per acre, and how that contributes to 

more fires? 

Dr. ONEIL. Thank you. What we are dealing with in the western 

United States in particular, we have done some research looking at 

carrying capacity under these various alternative scenarios of a 

warmer and drier region. 

In 2010, we published this over-arching document that looked at 

this carrying capacity issue, and realized that, going forward, we 

might end up losing two, three, or more species in particular areas 

because of increasing aridity. 

What that really means is that there isn’t enough water there to 

sustain forests. As most people who live in the West know, you 

have forests in places where you have a little bit more moisture, 

and as soon as you leave those places and go into more arid 

regions, it turns into grassland. So, we are seeing that—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I am going to have to move on, but I appreciate 

you highlighting that part about the water. And I know there were 

questions about the role of land management and the role of adaptation management, which gets into water and how important our 

healthy forests are for providing good water. 

But there is one thing that I think is confusing out there, and 

that is how managed forests helped to sequester more carbon over 

the long run. I have a slide I would like to put up. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. WESTERMAN. It is very hard to see, especially at that scale. 

But basically, the top chart shows an unmanaged forest over 160 

years. The bottom chart shows a managed forest. And those curved 

lines are the amount of carbon stored over that time frame. That 

is a logarithmic scale, so that is actually 10 times more carbon on 

the bottom than on the top. 

And when you use these wood products, you are storing the wood 

in buildings. If you look at not managing the forest, the top chart, 

and the one in the middle is where you do harvest every 70 years, 

the one on the top does store more carbon. But the one on the 

bottom, because you are storing the carbon in buildings—plus, the 

amount of energy that it takes to produce wood versus other 

building materials, which that was alluded to. 

And if you will, put the next slide up there. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. WESTERMAN. This is another very-hard-to-see chart. But the 

black line there in the middle, the large black line, that is the 

amount of cement—on the first column—that China used in 2017. 

The very top one is how much the United States used. 
47 

So, China used 2.4 billion tons of cement in 2017. That is three 

times more than the United States used in the previous 10 years 

combined. And then we look at using wood in a building as—it 

takes 1.9 times more energy, more fossil fuels to produce concrete 

than it does to produce wood. So, you get this huge cumulative 

effect, globally, when you substitute wood for other materials. 

I wish we had more time to talk about this. I am out. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Mr. Westerman. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. DeGette. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and congratulations on your new position. I want to congratulate the Chair 

on having her very first hearing as a hearing on climate change, 

which is so important for our public lands and for our country. 

I also sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and we had 

a hearing last week on climate change. I asked the panel a question that I am going to also ask this panel here today, vis-a`-vis 

public lands. And it will require only a yes or no answer, so we will 

start with you, Dr. Gonzalez. 

And the question is, is climate change real, largely due to human 

activity, a source of profound risk to the health, safety, and welfare 

of our country, including to our public lands, and something we 

urgently need to address? Yes or no? 

Dr. GONZALEZ. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Dr. Hansen? 

Dr. HANSEN. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Cole? 

Mr. COLE. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Dr. Oneil? 

Dr. ONEIL. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much. And as I said last week in 

Energy and Commerce, the very fact that we have a bipartisan 

panel here who all agree with the basic foundation of what we need 

to address is actually a big step forward for Congress. And it gives 

me great hope that we can work in a bipartisan way on really addressing these issues. 

As a westerner, I see the impacts on our public lands for myself. 

And I just have a few follow-up questions. 

Dr. Gonzalez, you testified that temperatures have increased in 

national parks more than other places. Could you briefly tell us 

why that is? 

Dr. GONZALEZ. National parks are located in our most extreme 

environments: in the Arctic, in high elevation mountains, and in 

the arid Southwest. And those are the areas that climate change 

is exposing more. And that is where we have placed—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. They are the most vulnerable areas. Would that 

be—— 

Dr. GONZALEZ. Yes, they are the most exposed. And America’s 

most special places, the national parks, happen to be located in 

those extreme environments. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Dr. Oneil, I wanted to talk with you about some 

issues, because I think we agree on a lot, which is when you would 

have a forest, normally that would help offset carbon emissions. 

But as you accurately point out in your testimony, when you have 
48 

massive forest fires, that increases carbon emissions. Would that be 

a fair assessment of your testimony? 

Dr. ONEIL. That is a fair assessment. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. 

Dr. ONEIL. The difficulty is that the global carbon budgets don’t 

actually count emissions from public lands as something that is 

human caused, so they get excluded. 

Ms. DEGETTE. We should probably fix that. 

But one of the things that you testified about is the increased 

vulnerability of our forests from issues of aridity and also things 

like insects, which we have seen in Colorado and throughout the 

rest of the Rocky Mountain West very dramatically the last few 

years. 

Scientists say that the reason why we have had the devastating 

pine beetle kill, for example, in our western forests is in large part 

because of climate change, because it doesn’t get cold enough in the 

winters any more to kill the insects. Would you agree with that 

statement about pine beetles? 

Dr. ONEIL. No. 

Ms. DEGETTE. You don’t? 

Dr. ONEIL. No, because that is the focus of my Ph.D. And, in fact, 

in Colorado and the southern states, it is not colder winters, it is 

hotter summers that is causing—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. But in any event, the hotter summers are due to 

climate impacts, correct? 

Dr. ONEIL. When you see these changes—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. You know what? I only have a minute left. Can 

you answer that yes or no? 

Dr. ONEIL. There is that pattern that is in that system—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. So, I will say if we address the climate 

issues as Dr. Hansen was talking about, if we can keep climate 

change down below 2 degrees, that will help with the initial causes 

of the devastating forest fires that we have, as well as other issues. 

And that is what I think we need to look at. 

And one last thing I will say. I was just telling Congressman 

Huffman forest management is really important in a lot of these 

areas. And to my view, one of the reasons why we have had such 

devastating fires is previous forest management plans where we 

didn’t let naturally occurring fires burn. But now we have millions 

of acres in the West, millions of acres of public lands. The idea that 

we would harvest wood from these areas in order to have better 

forest management is just simply not tenable. We have to work on 

a lot of other issues, and we have to be practicable. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Ms. DeGette. The Chair now 

recognizes Mr. Hice. 

Dr. HICE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Today, we are engaging in—from my count, at least—this 

Committee’s fifth hearing on anthropogenic climate change and the 

horrible consequences that will occur unless, of course—and this is 

my concern—unless we take action which includes massively 

expanding government, ultimately destroying federalism, and 

restricting individual liberties. 
49 

And I go back and look at the first five hearings of the 115th 

Congress that this Committee had, and it included modernizing 

water and power infrastructure, improving infrastructure for tribal 

and insular communities, examining management of marine 

sanctuaries, improving infrastructure for National Park Service 

and Forest Service, and how best to use our natural raw materials 

for national security. 

But today, again, if my count is correct, we have the fifth hearing—this time in the National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

Subcommittee, in what amounts to me as a publicity stage for the 

Green New Deal, which is championed by many of my colleagues 

across the aisle. And this resolution—which, of course, was named, 

at least recalls the name from FDR’s New Deal, which, arguably, 

intended to put Americans back to work—this resolution does just 

the opposite. 

In fact, one really has to wonder, in looking at the details of this, 

whether or not there will actually be new regulations that would 

be created regarding the manner in which we breathe because of 

the carbon dioxide that we ourselves produce. 

This deal calls for a massive mobilization of resources, resources 

that could be more appropriately used to pay down $11.6 billion in 

Park Service maintenance backlog, which, of course, Chairman 

Grijalva and Republican Leader Bishop in a bipartisan manner put 

forth last Congress in the Restore Our Parks Act. 

And I can’t recall the number of times that I have heard from 

my colleagues across the aisle talking and complaining about how 

offshore oil rigs so far off they can’t even be seen, and yet they ruin 

our environment. But this Democratic plan would now call for hundreds of thousands of square miles of wind turbines and solar 

panels. More precisely, a 2015 study by Stanford engineers noted 

that to meet the Nation’s power needs entirely with clean energy 

would require almost 500,000 on- and off-shore wind turbines and 

over 75 million solar panels, and would cost roughly $7 trillion. 

All of this new infrastructure would somehow, amazingly, not 

run into any problems with the Endangered Species Act or Clean 

Waters Act, and environmental impact studies would apparently 

just sail right through the approval process, although in this 

Committee we have had countless witnesses testify that oftentimes 

we are looking at a 7- to 10-year average of getting some of these 

permits. 

This is potentially, I would say, the Green New Deal’s only winning strategy, which I would assume supporters on the other side 

would aggressively help to overhaul, some of the ridiculous burdensome hoops that must be jumped through. And I would certainly 

welcome that conversation. 

But overall, I am extremely disappointed with the direction of 

this Committee and the Subcommittees in these first few weeks of 

business. It seems to have taken the very important issue we have 

of managing the American people’s natural resources and disguise 

the Committee as one focused on climate alarmism. 

No doubt clean air, clean water, and healthy environment are 

important issues, one that I certainly want to help pass on to my 

children and my grandchildren. But so is the business of managing 

our Federal lands and parks, and making sure that we are focused 
50 

on the issues like the national parks’ maintenance backlog and a 

host of other issues. This is an immediate concern to the function 

of these parks, so that they continue to be enjoyed. 

My hope is that in the near future we will come back to this 

Committee’s agenda to match more closely the mission and our 

jurisdiction, and that we would get away from these continued 

rainbow and unicorn promises of the fairyland Green New Deal. 

With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you so much, Mr. Hice. The Chair now 

recognizes Mr. Neguse. 

Mr. NEGUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. And also, congratulations to you on your election. And I appreciate the opportunity to 

participate in this hearing, and the fact that this first hearing of 

the Subcommittee is on such an important issue, and as existential 

an issue as climate change. 

I would just say, with respect to my colleague on the other side 

of the aisle, I respectfully disagree in the framing of this hearing 

as a publicity stage or publicity stunt, something to that effect. I 

think this hearing is an opportunity for members of this Committee 

to hear from some world-renowned experts and scientists in their 

respective fields, both witnesses from the Majority and the 

Minority. And I have appreciated, actually, the give and take and 

some of the thoughtful questions with respect to forest management, and so forth. 

So, I think that this could hardly be described as a publicity 

stage, that this is, in fact, an important Subcommittee hearing on 

the defining issue of our time, which is the planetary crisis that we 

find ourselves in. 

Dr. Hansen, I found your testimony very compelling with respect 

to your comment to testifying in 2004. As I mentioned at the last 

Full Committee meeting, my wife and I are new parents. I have a 

6-month-old. Or she is 5 months, 2 weeks old, Natalie, our daughter. And I think a lot about the work that we do here in the context 

of the world that she will inherit. 

When some of the most catastrophic consequences of climate 

change are set to occur at the IPCC report and, of course, we have 

several members of the IPCC here with us today, my daughter will 

be 12 years old, 13 years old. So, it really brings into clarity just 

how important the work is that this Committee is undertaking. I 

appreciate the Chairwoman holding the hearing, and the Members 

participating, and, of course, the witnesses, for joining us today. 

I want to ask a question of Dr. Gonzalez. And you referenced 

Rocky Mountain National Park. I happen to represent the great 

state of Colorado, Northern Colorado, Boulder, Fort Collins, and 

Rocky Mountain National Park. I have spent my life as a child and 

a young adult and, of course, now, as a father, going to the park 

and enjoying the park as so many countless Americans do. You 

talked a lot about the consequences, just in terms of how our 

national parks are faring as a result of climate change, including 

Rocky Mountain National Park. I guess I am wondering if you can 

put a finer point on what we are to expect in the coming years if 

we don’t take decisive action. 

I agree with Dr. Hansen, that inaction is just simply not an option, but I am curious if you could provide sort of some additional 
51 

details about just how dire the consequences will be for our 

national parks. 

Dr. GONZALEZ. Yes. Rocky Mountain actually has experienced, 

historically, some of the more severe impacts of climate change: the 

increased wildfire; the bark beetle kill, which, across the western 

United States has been the most severe in 125 years; and the reduction of snow cover. If we don’t reduce carbon emissions from 

human activities, wildfire could substantially increase—published 

research estimates in Yellowstone an increase of 300 to 1,000 

percent. And with the increased aridity and the increase in bark 

beetles, more massive tree death, tree mortality across the western 

United States. 

In addition, the wildlife right now in Yosemite National Park, 

historically, wildlife have been shifting up-slope, following the cooler temperatures. That shifting might go off the top of mountains. 

And in Lassen Volcanic National Park, the American pika, small 

mammal, might completely lose its habitat and locally disappear. 

Mr. NEGUSE. Thank you, Dr. Gonzalez. My next question is for 

Mr. Cole. 

I want to thank you for your testimony, and certainly for your 

leadership. I want to give you an opportunity to respond, to the extent that you would like to, to the Ranking Member of this 

Subcommittee’s comments with respect to your company and manufacturing and so forth. My understanding is Patagonia was a 

founding member of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, and does 

quite a bit in that regard. So, I just want to make sure you have 

an opportunity to respond to the extent you would like to. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you. I appreciate that. In regards to our company’s activities and our approach to this problem, we have a goal 

of being carbon neutral by 2025. This is in alignment with 40 years 

of our work around sustainability, as you note. And we are working 

hard across our entire supply chain to make that happen. 

We do make products around the world, in about 20 different 

countries. We also are proud to make products in the United 

States, and we support about 1,500 to 2,000 jobs in the United 

States, depending on the season. We are proud of those employees 

and that contribution to our economy here. 

We are also a part of an $887 billion industry, the outdoor recreation economy, that is present in the United States and supports 

about 7.6 million U.S. jobs, direct jobs, that derive directly from the 

protection of our public lands and from having a climate that supports the kind of lifestyle and economy that we are used to. 

So, I would say, internationally, that having a global supply 

chain is an advantage for us, in understanding this global problem. 

And we are working with our suppliers in China, frankly, and 

other places around the world to also address these key issues. 

Climate is not just a problem for our country, but it is a global 

problem, as well. Thank you. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Mr. Cole. 

Thank you, Mr. Neguse. 

Mr. NEGUSE. Thank you, I yield back. 

Ms. HAALAND. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Curtis. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I, with my colleagues, would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity 
52 

to talk about this important topic. If any of you have been to Utah, 

you will understand why I believe Utahans have it in their DNA 

to be good stewards of this earth. It comes quite naturally. 

As a Boy Scout, I was taught to leave my campground cleaner 

than I found it. And I actually believe that both Republicans and 

Democrats believe that to be true. I regret the stereotypes that are 

often formed around this issue. Somehow all Republicans hate the 

environment and all Democrats are alarmist. And I don’t believe either of those stereotypes are true. I hope we can find common 

ground as we talk. 

You have heard from a lot of my colleagues today how important 

the forests are. I would like to add to that. Clean air and natural 

disaster resiliency, I think it is a mistake not to be talking about 

resiliency to these natural disasters. 

There has been, interestingly, something that, in my opinion, has 

been totally missed in our dialogue today, and is almost always 

missed in this dialogue in Washington, DC, and that is the impact 

of local and state governments and elected officials. I believe, personally, having been a former mayor, that if you want to reduce it 

by 2 degrees, mayors know how to solve this. And I think it is a 

mistake when we feel like there is somehow one magic fix at the 

Federal level that we can mandate in a one-size-fits-all to solve this 

problem. 

And I want to give you a quick example. In Utah, in Salt Lake 

City in Utah County, we have a unique problem, that we are surrounded by mountains on all sides. And particularly in the winter 

months, we get what is called an inversion, where a high-pressure 

system comes in and traps there in those valleys. And, therefore, 

if you ask Utahans what the largest environmental crisis is, they 

will say clean air. And they will say it about 15 times a year. 

Otherwise, we enjoy beautiful mountain, clean air. 

In response to this, our governor, in his last State of the Union 

just several weeks ago, increased the money in his budget not 2 

times, not 3 times, but 117 times for clean air, introducing initiatives with transit. And we have a big issue with wood-burning 

stoves, and that was a big part of it, electrical vehicles charging 

stations, things like that were part of his plan. 

I mentioned that I was mayor before I came here, and our city 

recognized the need to take responsibility, and we produced something called the Provo Clean Air Toolkit. The name of the city is 

Provo. I would also invite all of you to Provo. And I would hope 

that you would all search on the Internet for the Provo Clean Air 

Toolkit. In it, I think you will see a masterful plan for cities about 

what individuals can do, what municipal government can do, what 

colleges can do, what businesses can do to improve air quality. 

We also introduced transit. We worked on walking and biking. 

As the mayor, I committed to ride my bike to work 100 times in 

a given year to try to inspire my residents to do the same. 

We introduced renewables, we are a municipal power city. We 

were 70 percent coal when I took over. We introduced renewables 

and gave our residents a chance to buy as much as 100 percent of 

their energy from renewables. 

And one fun thing that we did is, we also recognized no matter 

what we did as a government, unless the hearts and minds of our 
53 

residents were in tune with this need, that we could accomplish 

nothing. So, we came up with what we called the Provo Clean Air 

Challenge pledge, and we had several points that we challenged 

our residents to do. We asked them to carpool as much as possible. 

We have a unique situation in Utah, where you can find a church 

house on almost every corner. And most of us live within walking 

distance of that church. Embarrassingly, the Curtis family sometimes will take three cars to that church three or four blocks away. 

And we are not the only ones, so challenging my residents to carpool when it was appropriate. 

Park and ride, instead of going into a drive-up restaurant was 

on the list, not letting your vehicle idle for more than 30 seconds, 

and ride or bike or carpool and use public transit wherever 

possible. 

So, today I invite all of my colleagues to take this challenge. And 

I have for you a pin that we wear on our lapel in Provo, if any of 

you feel so inclined to take that personal responsibility. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. The very first one I have given 

out in Washington, DC. 

But before my time expires, I would just like to really emphasize 

how important it is that, first of all, as a Member of Congress, we 

personally are doing what we can do before we ask other people to 

do it. Are we changing our light bulbs? Are we not using plastic 

bags, and all of those things? 

And the second thing is to remember the power of local government in solving this problem, and make sure that we are empowering them and not ignoring them. 

Thank you very much. I yield my time. Thank you. 

Ms. HAALAND. Yes, thank you, Mr. Curtis. I walk to work every 

day. Just letting you know that. And I haven’t used a plastic disposable water bottle since I have been here on Capitol Hill. So, 

thank you so much. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Case. 

Mr. CASE. Thank you, Chair. 

Dr. Oneil and Dr. Gonzalez, I have two questions, one for each 

of you, both sides of the same coin. I will give them to you both 

up front. 

Dr. Oneil, I will start with kind of a very abbreviated story from 

my own home state of Hawaii, where the indigenous peoples of 

Hawaii, the native Hawaiians, lived for generations and generations in isolation, no contact, a very ecologically and environmentally balanced and sustainable society. 

And then what happened was the first western ships brought 

with them rats, and the rats wreaked havoc on the local wildlife, 

and also on human beings. Therefore, we imported the mongoose 

from India to take care of the rats. Well, the mongoose started killing off the foul population, and they went from hero to enemy. So, 

we brought in something else to take care of the mongoose, et 

cetera, et cetera. You can see that sometimes the best intentions 

of humans are not as good as what nature wrote to start with. 

And I say that by way of asking you this question. When I hear 

your testimony, what I hear you saying is that, hey, we have a 

climate change problem, we have incredible risk to our public 

lands, to include our forests. And, obviously, that is creating a 
54 

number of problems, whether it be wildfires or whether it be the 

lack of a natural solution to climate change and CO2 emissions. 

But the way to do that is to harvest the forest. And I just pause 

on that when I think about it, from a science perspective, because 

you are asking me to really say that my solution to the problem 

I had in Hawaii was to introduce another human solution, when 

the problem was the rat coming in to start with. The problem was 

climate change to start with. 

So, I just ask you to comment on—are you saying that the out, 

in terms of the impact of climate change on our public lands, is to 

enhance harvesting, or is there a human solution? I am just having—I am not a scientist, I am not a climate scientist, but I am 

a skeptic of that position. As opposed to just going back to a more 

natural cycle. 

I am sorry. And, Dr. Gonzalez, the flip side is, is there a way to 

manage our forests that helps climate change? 

Dr. ONEIL. I think that the challenge is do nothing or log it to 

the beach. And that is not actually an alternative that you would 

look at, in terms of the national forests, which is where I have done 

a lot of this analysis and work. Those are areas that are available, 

they are considered timberlands. And there are a lot of different alternatives of the way that you would treat those forests to get to 

a condition that was more fire resilient. 

Like the example that you just explained—I was just in Hawaii 

at Christmas, so I got the story of the errors of the mongoose 

way—but the idea that if we just leave it to nature everything 

would be wonderful would suggest that we haven’t spent 40 or 50 

years doing fire suppression and, therefore, that historic fire return 

interval would be such that we would get back to a natural condition. And because we are so far out of synch, that is not actually 

possible. 

Mr. CASE. So, are you saying that we are out of synch because 

of human-caused management, and we have to get back into synch 

by human ways, as opposed to—— 

Dr. ONEIL. It is a combination of all of those things. It is a combination of the management decisions that were made in the last 

100 years, including stopping all fires by 10 a.m. 

Mr. CASE. OK. 

Dr. ONEIL. And the recognition of that probably—like I said, for 

the past 30 or 40 years, fire ecologists are saying we are going to 

have a problem, we are going to have a problem. And now we have 

a problem. 

Mr. CASE. OK, I get it. I appreciate your answer. That was an 

honest answer. 

Dr. Gonzalez, what do you think? Can we handle climate change 

in some forest management way to include continued harvesting? 

What does that do? 

Dr. GONZALEZ. Well, published scientific research by my colleagues at the University of California-Berkeley in Yosemite 

National Park and elsewhere shows that prescribed burning and 

the use of wildland fire can effectively restore ecosystem function 

to our forests, and that it reduces risks of high-severity fire in the 

future, improves their resilience to drought, and improves soil 

moisture. 
55 

Also, fire is more efficient, cost effective, and environmentally 

sound than timber harvesting or thinning. 

I would underline also that prescribed burning also results in 

long-term accumulation of carbon, which naturally reduces climate 

change. And the way it does that is you remove the small trees and 

the large trees get larger. And over the long term, the research 

shows that the large trees will store more carbon than you release 

in the short-term burn. 

Mr. CASE. OK, I am out of time. 

So, you are saying, just briefly, yes, there are appropriate forest 

management techniques that actually help climate change? 

Dr. GONZALEZ. Yes, prescribed burn and wildland fire. 

Mr. CASE. OK, thank you. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Mr. Case. The Chair recognizes Mr. 

Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Dr. Oneil, I appreciate you not speaking in glittering generalities. But I have 1 minute to ask this question and have it 

answered. 

Traditionally, forests are thought of as carbon sinks to suck up 

carbon. Instead, they are now emitting it. Are there, in your opinion, some creative ways of forest resiliency that we could use for 

these extreme events that we have had? Forty-one seconds, go for 

it. 

Dr. ONEIL. There are a number of examples that are occurring 

here. There is an example in Arizona, where they are looking at 

forest restoration. They removed the trees, they have to find a market for them. Unfortunately, there are no markets to be found. 

And part of their requirement is actually to do the fire risk reduction and get rid of all the biomass before they can move on to 

the next area. And I think this is important. When you harvest, 

you also have to treat those residues, usually through some kind 

of a fire effort. 

Now, the challenge is—— 

Mr. BISHOP. I am sorry. Let me go on with this. So, you are talking about there are practices, but they also have to have some 

private-sector economy to make them functional at the same time? 

Dr. ONEIL. Absolutely. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Mr. Cole, I appreciate the fact that you are 

here when none of your company actually was going to attend last 

year. So, thank you for accepting a Democrat invitation. I think it 

clearly illustrates how crony capitalism is working very well in the 

last administration, and may do it again in the future. 

I have been reading in Matthew about how Christ and John 

talked about the hypocrites, except the word ‘‘hypocrite’’ comes 

from a Greek word, which actually is better translated as a play 

actor. There are roles people are playing. And I think we have roles 

that people are playing here. 

Now, the slur against Patagonia is, is Patagonia made in China? 

Because that is what all the labels say. I want everyone to know 

that is not true. I cleaned out my closet and found a vest that was 

purchased from Patagonia, so I looked at the label. And it was not 

made in China, it was made in Sri Lanka. 
56 

So, the $900 billion industry you are talking about—which is a 

slight exaggeration—is basically there to improve the bottom line, 

not necessarily improve the planet. 

So, for example, the stuff that is made in China by your company, your company clearly put out the statement that, ‘‘We made 

the choice not to disengage with countries on the basis of their 

policies.’’ I wish you would do that in the United States, as well. 

But amongst those policies which the company now wishes to ignore is the internment, re-education of over a million Uighur Muslims; routine jailing of environmental activists and civil rights campaigners; destroying over 3,000 acres of coral reefs in the South 

China Sea with ports and military facilities; subsidizing long-range 

commercial fishing fleets that threaten the viability of fishing 

around the world; providing $36 billion in financing to developing 

countries for the construction of over 102 gigawatts of coal-fired 

power plants. 

In addition, just the Patagonia businesses in China, 65 percent 

of all those businesses are run on coal. If you had actually done 

your work in America, the average in the United States is only 37 

percent, which would be a lot nicer. 

Now, in addition to that, the testimony you have given here has 

a whole bunch of false narratives in there. If I read the paragraph 

you said simply about Bears Ears and Grand Staircase, but specifically Bears Ears, ‘‘The Administration’s actions not only robbed 

Native Americans,’’ which is false, ‘‘and all Americans of their 

natural and cultural heritage,’’ false, ‘‘threatened communities that 

depend on outdoor industries for economic survival,’’ false, ‘‘poison 

our air and water,’’ false, ‘‘wreaked untold damage on vulnerable 

species,’’ false, ‘‘exacerbate climate change,’’ false, ‘‘and open up 

public lands to more extraction.’’ 

Mr. Curtis, if I can yield to you for a second, you had a bill to 

actually legalize the Bears Ears situation and create it the proper 

way. Did you open up extraction in the area that was no longer 

part of the Bears Ears Monument that was done, unfortunately, by 

President Obama in Hawaii? 

Mr. CURTIS. I regret that, because of the anger in that area, 

nobody realized that my bill did more to protect the land than 

President Obama’s designation. There was a mineral withdrawal 

throughout the entire area that President Obama had designated. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Well, get this in 40 seconds, 50 seconds 

or less: Did you ban extraction? 

Mr. CURTIS. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Why? 

Mr. CURTIS. It is the right thing to do. 

Mr. BISHOP. And was there any potential of extraction in that 

entire area? 

Mr. CURTIS. No. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, that is why we were able to do it. Actually, the 

association Patagonia leads was organized to avoid paying taxes so 

that you can get the taxpayer to fund all these programs to exist 

with your bottom line. 

I am pleased that on the tax break that you got, you got $10 

million and you decided to put that into politics. Had you done that 

into something actually enhancing the backlog problem we have in 
57 

maintenance, that could have been real, and that could have been 

something specific, and that could have been happily there. 

Madam Chairman, I have 15 seconds. I want to congratulate you. 

You are the only member on your side that has not gone over the 

5-minute limit. In fact, so far, everyone totals 2 minutes and 44 

seconds. We should get another speaker on our side, just to do that. 

But I appreciate the fact there is a 5-minute limit. I am quitting. 

Ms. HAALAND. You are amazing. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Bishop. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Horsford. 

Mr. BISHOP. For 5 minutes. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Madam Chair. And it gives me great 

honor to say that, and I am very pleased to be on this Committee. 

Not to belabor the comments that were just made, I would like 

to divert back to the interest from my home state of Nevada, which 

depends heavily on public lands, and has a long-standing partnership with government agencies, that we work to both manage and 

protect the public lands in partnership together. 

In fact, my district, Nevada’s 4th Congressional District, is home 

to Great Basin National Park, Death Valley National Park, Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area, as well as Gold Butte, Basin and 

Range, and Tule Springs National Monument, something that I am 

proud to have worked with Ranking Member Bishop in prior 

congressional sessions. 

Nevada’s 4th Congressional District is also home to three 

national forests, which span more than 3.5 million acres. In total, 

Nevada has more than 59 million acres of public lands. Eighty-six 

percent of our state is made up of public land managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. 

Forest Service, and other Federal agencies. 

Nevada’s public lands provide unparalleled outdoor recreational 

opportunities for the people of Nevada and the visitors to our state. 

In 2017 alone, the National Park Service accommodated more than 

6 million visits to Nevada’s parks. And in 2017, visitors to land 

managed by the National Park Service spent more than $250 

million supporting 3,281 jobs. 

Sadly, due to the impacts of climate change, Nevada’s public 

lands face an ever-increasing list of threats. In recent years, rising 

temperatures have allowed the bark beetle to multiply faster, putting more forest area at risk of infestation. Now, the bark beetle 

may not sound too threatening to some. But as it continues to infest our forest, it will substantially increase the forest fires and 

threaten the health of Nevada’s national forests. 

Climate change continues to contribute to longer wildfire seasons 

in Nevada. And we have also seen a decline in our water rates at 

the Lake Mead National Recreational Area. 

All the impacts of climate change increase in scope and severity. 

Managers of public lands will continue to face increased challenges. 

Dr. Gonzalez, your research spoke to the disproportional impacts 

of climate change on national parks in the Southwest. And I would 

like to ask, if you could, if we allow climate change to continue 

unabated, what will this mean for districts like mine? 

Dr. GONZALEZ. Already in Lake Mead National Recreation Area, 

in your district, climate change has combined with increased water 
58 

withdrawals from cities and agriculture to lower the level of the 

lake to its lowest level since it was filled in the 1930s. That is in 

part due to a drought in the southwestern United States that published research has shown has been caused by human-caused 

climate change since 2000, and is ongoing. 

Continued climate change could continue to reduce water flow in 

the Colorado River, which threatens the level of the lake, which not 

only provides for the ecosystems in the area, but sustains the 

people of southern Nevada. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you. And Mr. Cole, can you explain how 

the threats outlined by Mr. Gonzalez might impact outdoor recreation on our public lands? 

Mr. COLE. Absolutely. And first off, Nevada is a very important 

state for us. We will have upwards of 1,000 employees as of the end 

of this year. 

Mr. HORSFORD. We appreciate your contribution to our state and 

the creation of those jobs. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, and thanks for your leadership. And those 

employees—for a business, we need to attract employees like that 

to our locations, to places like our distribution center in Reno, 

Nevada. And we can’t do that without an attractive state to bring 

them into. And part of the attraction, as you have just noted, about 

Nevada are its public lands. It has incredible places for people to 

come and recreate, spend time outdoors. 

It is an attractive thing for a business like ours. I think that is 

the case for businesses across the spectrum in outdoor recreation, 

whether it is small mom-and-pop businesses on a local level that 

rely on protected places for their business and to bring people in, 

or large ones like ours. It was a huge economic impact, for sure. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Mr. Cole. 

Thank you, Mr. Horsford. The Chair recognizes Mr. Fulcher. 

Mr. FULCHER. Thank you, Madam Chairman and panel, thank 

you for being here. I have a question for Dr. Oneil, but I need to 

set the stage for that because I think, from what I am hearing, the 

situation in our state of Idaho is different than what I am hearing 

from my colleagues. 

But in our state, approximately two-thirds of our land is Federal 

land, so we are really tenants there, instead of landlords in that 

sense. And the problem is that our landlord is about $22 trillion 

in debt, and they don’t have the ability to manage what is theirs, 

so they don’t. 

So, in a given year, we will burn up—just in the forest areas— 

about a half-a-million acres, if you want to average it out over 

time. And that has kind of turned into a worse-of-all-worlds 

scenario, because the wildlife gets decimated in that circumstance, 

tons of carbon emissions get kicked up into the air. We will collectively, state and Federal, spend six-digit millions in trying to suppress it. But when it is not managed at all, there is this fuel load 

that builds up so much that a lightning strike, boom, hits it and 

then it is decimated for our wildlife, our sportsmen, our timber 

industry, all of that. 

So, what is left of our timber industry, what is left of our sportsmen, our recreationalists, and our farmers, our ranchers, they 

would just like to engage in some fashion to try to put some 
59 

wisdom—and that is all, just that, just wisdom—into how that land 

is managed, the land that is within our state borders. 

From your perspective and your homework, what are the biggest 

obstacles and some of the things we might be able to do, just simply to take the stakeholders who live there, who want to take care 

of it, to have a little bit more say in how that is done? 

Dr. ONEIL. In Washington State, we have adopted an all-lands, 

all-hands approach, where you systematically—looking at these 

very high-risk areas, including state, private, and Federal land, 

and tribal lands, and looking at how it is that we could create these 

large areas that have some resilience in them. That is sort of a 

shared stewardship model. They work very closely with the U.S. 

Forest Service to try to accomplish that kind of effort. 

But it wouldn’t happen without on-the-ground forest 

collaboratives. In Washington State, we have a large number of 

forest collaboratives that very much speak to that local input and 

local outcomes. I would suggest that is a model that is usable in 

almost every area. They use it in Arizona, they use it in 

Washington State, where they are actually looking at ways that the 

local people can get their needs addressed well. 

And also public-private relationships because, obviously, the 

Forest Service or any other public agency is not in the business of 

marketing any kind of material that they remove. And you do need 

markets to be able to sustain this stuff. We have had stewardship 

contracts for years, and the difficulty is being able to actually market the material and, therefore, nobody bids on it, or they don’t bid 

enough to do the work to actually create this really significant 

change. 

So, it is a systemic challenge, especially if you lose your 

infrastructure. 

Mr. FULCHER. Thank you, Dr. Oneil. 

And Madam Chair, just a closing statement. And I really do appreciate the perspective of the panelists. And I would just invite 

you, if you really believe that fires in their natural state and just 

leaving things alone is the best thing to do for the environment, 

then I would just encourage you during fire season, when we are 

pumping tons of carbon into the air and spending hundreds of millions to try to suppress it, I would encourage you just to come visit. 

We live there. It is our home. And we just want to take care of it. 

Thank you. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. The Chair now 

recognizes Mr. Lowenthal. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Madam Chair and the witnesses for 

being here. I have sat here through this, listening to this, and I 

really think it reflects the fact that—later on we are going to be 

voting about a package to keep the government open or not. And 

we may have some issues later on around the President thinking 

about a national emergency. What we are talking about here is the 

national emergency that the Nation confronts, and the planet confronts. So, I am really glad to be part of this hearing and listen to 

it. 

Yesterday, we held hearings in the Natural Resources Committee 

on the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, and again, as 

witnesses have pointed out, 25 percent of our Nation’s energy 
60 

sources—oil, gas, coal, and then also renewables—come from 

Federal lands. That is all the offshore, all the onshore that are 

under the control of the Federal Government, about 25 percent. So, 

I think that is a great discussion. 

And we have heard from some of the witnesses. I am going to 

ask all the witnesses to really answer three questions. 

Should we now be placing a moratorium on issuing any new permits or any new leases for onshore and offshore oil, gas, and coal? 

Should we be? 

Should we also look at, on existing extraction, to place a fee or 

a tax on fossil fuel extraction to fund some of the impacts of 

climate change? Should those that are contributing now, should we 

be looking at that? 

And if we are going to fund some of the impacts, what would you 

set up as our priorities from some kind of fee on oil extraction, or 

carbon fee, but from Federal lands? How would you spend, as your 

highest priority, in terms of some of the impacts? 

I am going to go right across, start with Dr. Gonzalez. First question, should we place a moratorium on all now new development 

on Federal lands? 

Dr. GONZALEZ. The scientific research clearly shows that we need 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. And moving 

to renewable, solar, wind, and energy conservation, and energy efficiency is the way to do that. 

Many policy mechanisms to do that, and the one that you have 

identified is one of them, it is not in my particular area of expertise 

to judge that moratorium, but anything that moves us away from 

fossil fuels is good. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. OK, Dr. Hansen. Should we be placing a 

moratorium on all new development, permits, leases? 

Dr. HANSEN. If our bottom-line goal is to stop making this problem worse, I would say that would be a prudent course of action, 

especially when the injury from the action affects the very place 

from which that energy is being extracted. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. Cole? 

Mr. COLE. Yes, we have already been pretty public in stating 

that, for offshore drilling, we believe very firmly the moratorium 

should be in place. And similarly, for onshore, I think it is a 

prudent action to proceed that way. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. And Dr. Oneil? 

Dr. ONEIL. Offshore oil and gas is outside of my realm of 

expertise, as a scientist. I am going to decline that one. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. OK. On existing oil extraction, which is approximately 25 percent of the Nation’s oil, gas, and coal, should we be 

having some kind of fee or extraction to really begin to pay for 

some of the both short-term and long-term impacts? 

And if it is so, what other kinds of impacts, whether environmental, whether it is economic development, transitions, labor, disruptions, if we begin to do this, how should we begin to use some 

of the resources? 

And anybody can jump in. Because we are going to have to 

prioritize. 
61 

First of all, should we be—is there a cost to carbon extraction? 

And should they be part of the solution by helping to fund impacts? 

Dr. GONZALEZ. Again, clearly, the research shows that the real 

cost of fossil fuels, the social cost of carbon, has not been reflected 

in the price, the environmental impacts and the social costs. So, 

any policy that can integrate that real social cost of carbon into 

fossil fuel use would be a good advance. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Anybody else? I think I am running out of time. 

Dr. HANSEN. I would just like to quickly say that solving the 

problem of climate change is addressing the need for fiscal prudence. The cost of the impacts of climate change is already upon 

us. We have already talked about a lot of the effects that have been 

seen in everybody’s home states. 

What that will mean if it continues unchecked for our economy 

is catastrophic. Coming up with ways that we create market incentives to move us away from that and toward the economy of the 

future, I think, is vital. I am not an economist, so I don’t know 

what the best mechanisms are, but we certainly do need to account 

for those costs. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. HUFFMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. The Chair 

now recognizes the acting Chair. And I allowed a little extra time 

there, unlike Ranking Member Bishop, who did a great job bringing his comments in precisely within the time limit. 

However, I think he may have exceeded the limit of reasonable 

credibility with some of that anger and sanctimony directed at 

Patagonia. It seems that all of this anger and passion about doing 

business with China and other countries for clothing is reserved for 

companies that want to protect public lands and national monuments, and do something about climate change and be good 

corporate citizens. 

I wish we had more even-handed sanctimony that applied to the 

Trump family. After all, these are the biggest hypocrites of all. 

They attend their MAGA rallies, they whip people into a nationalist fervor, railing against doing business and trade with China, 

and then they turn around and do exactly that. So, I hope we cannot only honor time limits, but also honor even-handedness in our 

sanctimony, as we go forward. 

I was pleased by the other side’s calling a witness to this hearing—the first time, I believe, in any of our Natural Resource 

Subcommittee hearings—Dr. Oneil, who firmly reflects the mainstream of the global scientific community in acknowledging climate 

change. I am getting a little whiplash, because we have heard previous witnesses that tell us no big deal, nothing to see here. 

But Dr. Oneil, I found your testimony refreshing and welcome. 

The only piece that I wanted to push back on a little is the notion 

that we might be able to log ourselves out of this problem, or log 

ourselves even to fire resilience. I represent a lot of forestland and 

a lot of public land that has much in common with some of my 

Republican colleagues. And I am glad you clarified a little bit that 

you are not talking about logging all the way to the beach, so I appreciate that comment very much that you made. 
62 

But I think it is important to acknowledge—because I live this 

reality, too—that the 2017 North Bay Fires and last year’s 

Mendocino Complex Fire, which devastated parts of my district, 

burned primarily in chaparral. These were not large-standing merchantable trees. Sixty percent of wildfires occur on chaparral and 

grasslands, so they are not going to be stopped by logging, they are 

not going to be stopped even by many conventional fuels reduction 

projects. And these fires also are exceptional because of weather 

events: high winds, dry ground, all of these factors, not simply this 

simplistic notion that we don’t cut enough trees. 

That is why many of us want to prioritize mitigation projects in 

and around at-risk communities, ensuring that those communities 

have the resources and guidance that they need to establish firesafe neighborhoods. That is smart fire resiliency. 

But you might be surprised, Dr. Oneil. I think if you and I sat 

in a room, we would agree on a lot of things where we can do more 

cutting of trees and more harvesting. And we can do it thoughtfully, with shaded fuel breaks. We can do thinning of some of these 

second and third-growth plantation stands that are extreme risks 

for catastrophic fires. 

So, I don’t want to suggest that we are totally on opposite pages, 

or that the choice is to discontinue all harvesting and just open the 

doors to unlimited harvesting with impunity. I think there is a lot 

of common ground that we can work on together. 

Now, Dr. Gonzalez, we have heard at length about logging to reduce fuel loads, and I want to ask you. Does the best available 

science suggest that commercial logging in this fashion is a silver 

bullet to reduce fire risk? 

Dr. GONZALEZ. Published scientific research shows the opposite. 

It is that pre-emptively using fire management, prescribed burning, 

and wildland fire is the way to restore ecosystem integrity to our 

forests, and to reduce high-severity fire in the future. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. OK. Mr. Cole, I know Patagonia is based in 

Ventura, close to where the devastating Thomas Fire burned hundreds of thousands of acres around Ventura. Was this the fire in 

an unthinned tree stand? 

Mr. COLE. No, those fires which did impact us heavily—we had 

over half of our employees evacuated at given times over the past 

couple of years—that was in exactly the kind of habitat you described, which is chaparral. It is coastal scrub. 

A policy to log more would not have helped that area at all. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. OK. Moving to a different subject, we have talked 

a lot about our public lands being a great asset for this country, 

and a contributor to emissions. But they can also be part of the solution through carbon sequestration, soil health, and other factors. 

Can you speak very briefly about regenerative agriculture, and 

healthy soils on our public lands, as a strategy to reduce emissions? 

Mr. COLE. Yes, this is another sort of pillar of our policy and approach around addressing the climate crisis, is regenerative organic 

agriculture. The concept is one that goes back, literally, thousands 

of years. It is a sort of low-till, no-till crop rotation orientation to 

agriculture that has huge benefits in storing carbon in the soil. And 

we know that simply cutting back on fossil fuels and shifting to 

renewables is not enough. We have to store carbon. 
63 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you—— 

Mr. COLE. So, this is a great approach—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I apologize that I don’t have more time, because 

we deserve to have a longer conversation about that subject, but 

we are out of time. 

Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I think we have reached the end. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Yes, OK, I thought we were doing a second 

round. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Are we going to do a second round? Oh, the Chair 

is here. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. We still have time on the clock. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I am happy to—let me leave that tough decision 

to the Chair, though. 

Ms. HAALAND [presiding]. Thank you so much. I wanted to go 

until noon. We have 10 minutes. So, we have time for two more 

questions, one on your side and one on ours. How is that? If you 

would like to go over your time, I am more than happy to accommodate you. Thank you. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. We are burning them now. 

Ms. HAALAND. Exactly. Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you 

doing a second round. I think southerners should be given more 

minutes. I think we are being discriminated against because of our 

slow cadence in speaking, but we will try to get more questions in 

this time. 

I would like to make a bit of a clarification. I think we have to 

distinguish between public lands and Federal lands. We have the 

national parks and we have the Forest Service, which I think are 

two land bases that should be managed differently. 

Dr. Gonzalez, I know you talked about Yellowstone. I got to 

spend some time in Yellowstone. I never realized before going out 

there just how much of a lodgepole pine cohort is in Yellowstone, 

which we know has about a 100-year life expectancy, until you get 

a stand-replacing fire. I think the one in the 1980s took out about 

half of Yellowstone. It is going to burn. I don’t think we need to 

manage on Yellowstone, we can let nature manage Yellowstone. 

That is what has been going on there. And there are other places 

on our national parks where I have never promoted doing intensive 

management on those parks. There could be stuff in the wildlandurban interface. 

But the Forest Service is a different story. And I would like to 

just go back briefly to my previous testimony, where I had the 

chart up that showed that active management plus using wood 

materials, overall, is a bigger carbon synch, better for the environment than just a hands-off approach to management. And I want 

to ask the scientist this. 

Dr. Gonzalez, do you agree with that assessment, that management plus using wood materials is better than non-management? 

Dr. GONZALEZ. Prescribed burning, again, has been shown to increase carbon storage in forests more than mechanical thinning. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Dr.—— 
64 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Could I ask if Mr. Westerman would yield just for 

a clarification of his question? And I will give you all of my time, 

as far as—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I will yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I am just wondering if you are asking categorically, across the board. Because sometimes we talk as if all forests 

and all fires are the same, and they are just—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. No, I am not talking across the board. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. OK. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. But in areas where we can actively manage, 

where we produce wood products, we build wood buildings, build 

furniture, the research shows that that, overall, is better for the 

environment than no management at all. And I am just asking if 

you agree with that research, or do you disagree with it. 

Dr. GONZALEZ. Storage and harvested wood products can, yes, increase carbon storage. But the point I was making was the difference between prescribed burning, proactive fire management, 

versus logging and thinning. And it is the proactive fire management that has been shown—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I need to move on. Dr. Hansen? 

Dr. HANSEN. My area of expertise is not forest dynamics. 

However, what I do know is that if, in fact, you want to have forest 

products in order to be harvested, we need to start managing our 

forest systems for future conditions. Otherwise, we will end up 

with not—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Agreed, that the adaptive management—— 

Dr. HANSEN. We need to undertake adaptation principles, yes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And Dr. Oneil? 

Dr. ONEIL. I have worked extensively in this area. In fact, some 

of the published research quantifies those differences in just leaving the forests alone or managing it for wood products to both store 

the carbon in the wood and offset the use of other materials like 

steel and concrete. So, yes, I do agree with that. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. OK. And Madam Chair, I would like to submit 

for the record the charts that I have put up that were so hard to 

read. They did come from this graduate-level textbook called Global 

Resources and the Environment, by Chad Oliver, who is a professor 

at Yale University. I would like to submit those for the record, that 

show that managing forests and using wood products are better for 

the environment. 

Ms. HAALAND. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Oneil, you also supplied this chart that shows forests on the 

Federal lands have a higher mortality rate than a growth rate, 

which is very concerning. 

Contrary to that, in my state of Arkansas we produce 16 million 

more tons of wood per year every year. And with your data of 50 

percent of that is carbon, we are actually synching 8 million more 

tons of carbon per year in the state of Arkansas. The state of 

Georgia, it is 91⁄2 million tons of carbon more per year that is going 

into synch. 

Should states like Arkansas, who have a healthy forest, be 

rewarded for that, versus states who have—or the Federal Govern-
65 

ment, that have forests that have higher mortality and are emitting more carbon, storing less carbon? Should they be punished? 

Dr. ONEIL. I am not into the punishment and reward thing here. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Well, maybe that wasn’t the right word. Should 

there be more incentives for states like Arkansas, that are sequestering more carbon? 

Dr. ONEIL. I think the incentive is to promote and support a 

sector, for a sector that will encourage that investment in growing 

forests and using them for harvested wood products, and then 

using those harvested wood products, as many of them as possible 

and long-lived products. 

Certainly in the Southeast we have a really vibrant forest industry. And actually, that same report that looked at the national 

forests and the level of mortality also speaks to the fact that in the 

southeast United States there are more acres under management, 

and they are harvesting more than they ever have, but yet they are 

carrying more than they ever had because there is investment, because there is a market. And that market promotes the reinvestment in forestry. 

We also see that in the Pacific Northwest in the coastal areas, 

where you have a lot of private forestland, and the investment supports the idea of continued forest management. 

When we lose that market, we lose the investment potential, we 

lose the potential to use those lands to sequester carbon and then 

produce wood products. It is a different calculus. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Dr. Oneil. 

Thank you, Mr. Westerman. And I would like to make note that 

we did yield to your southern cadence, so thank you for bringing 

that up. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Chair, would you please deduct Mr. 

Westerman’s extra time from mine? And I will yield back. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you. I will ask the last question of this 

hearing, and my question goes to Dr. Hansen. The first is a yesno question, the second one I will ask you to expand on the answer. 

In your testimony, you mentioned that we need to provide our 

agencies with clear, informed mandates to begin preparing for 

climate change. In your opinion, has this Administration provided 

these? 

Dr. HANSEN. No. 

Ms. HAALAND. And what should we be requiring our agencies to 

do? 

Dr. HANSEN. It should be a required part of how they do business. And I am going to preface this by saying this isn’t just 

because of environmental interests. This should also be an interest 

by every taxpayer in this country. 

We should not be allowing decisions to be made that are not 

going to be effective for what we want our government to be doing 

for us, because they will be undermined by the effects of climate 

change. So, the need would be for all decisions made, all actions 

taken by Federal agencies to be evaluated for their vulnerability to 

climate change, and designed to maximize the reduction of that 

risk so that we can deliver on the promises that we are making to 
66 

the American people, to future generations, and to the environment 

that we are stewards of. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you very much, Dr. Hansen. And that 

concludes our hearing on this climate change and public lands. 

I want to thank you all again for being here today, and for helping us start this important conversation. It is imperative that we 

hear the best science, and that we understand the impacts so that 

we can begin to act on climate change. 

Unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle have chosen to 

focus on land use scenarios and outdated rhetoric, but these claims 

will not slow us down. 

To our witnesses, your insights and policy recommendations have 

been helpful, and will help us craft bold and impactful legislation 

around climate change adaptation. Let us not forget how momentous it is that we are once again hosting these important conversations in the halls of Congress. 

And this is the end of the hearing. 

That is right. The members of the Committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond 

to these in writing. 

Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must 

submit witness questions within 3 business days following the 

hearing, and the hearing record will be held open for 10 business 

days for these responses. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the Committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Thank you, Chairman Haaland and Ranking Member Young, for convening this 

hearing to discuss the threat of climate change and the unique challenges it poses 

to our Nation’s public lands. 

Public lands are key to the economic and ecological health of Michigan. As they 

comprise almost 10 percent of Michigan’s total land area, these areas drive tens of 

millions of dollars in tourism and support thousands of jobs. 

From the iconic Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore to Isle Royale National 

Park, these areas are fundamental to Michigan’s identity and the state’s outdoor 

recreation economy. 

Given the integral role that public lands play in Michigan, I am highly concerned 

about the effects of climate change that these areas face. We know that public lands 

will face disproportionate impacts as a result of climate change. 

Over the last century, the mean annual temperature experienced across the 

United States’ national park system increased at double the rate of the United 

States as a whole. 

As a result of reduced winter ice and snow cover caused by climate change, the 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore will face accelerated loss from increased 

erosion. Additionally, other national parks both in Michigan and across the United 

States face potentially existential risks. 

The need for action is clear—we must work to address climate change without 

delay by taking strong and decisive action at the Federal level. 

Protections for public lands are critical for not only mitigating the impact of 

climate change on sensitive ecosystems, but also, properly managed, can serve as 

a climate adaption solution. 

Unfortunately, the Trump administration has elected to ignore the numerous 

economic, public health, and ecological benefits that public land preservation 
67 

provides. Instead, they have prioritized oil drilling, mining and resource extraction 

at all costs. 

The Administration’s actions include rescinding Department of the Interior 

guidance to prepare for the impacts of climate change on public lands, as well as 

unprecedented actions to put public lands in private hands. 

These actions are highly misguided. Instead, we should be renewing our 

commitment to preserving America’s public lands for future generations. 

It is my hope that today’s witnesses will provide context on the importance of 

public land protections in addressing climate change, and the key role that they will 

play as we examine solutions to this pressing issue. 

DR. MARK E. HARMON, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD CONCERNING COMMITTEE HEARING DATED

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND PUBLIC LANDS: EXAMINING IMPACTS

AND CONSIDERING ADAPTATION OPPORTUNITIES

My name is Dr. Mark E. Harmon and I am currently a professor emeritus at 

Oregon State University. I wish to offer the Subcommittee my personal comments 

and opinions on the issue you are considering. These are based on my 33 years of 

professional experience examining these and related issues. Over my career I have 

received a large number of grants (78 in total), published numerous peer-reviewed 

journal articles (over 140), been an author of three major reviews (one cited over 

3,900 times), reviewed about 175 research proposals for agencies such as NASA, 

NSF, and USDA, served as a referee on many scientific manuscripts (over 450 for 

a total of 100 different journals), taught several graduate level courses on the topic 

of forest ecosystems and forest carbon dynamics and well as made dozens of 

scientific and outreach presentations on these topics, and served as a scientific expert to Oregon’s and Federal agencies including the US EPA (biogenic carbon). To 

give more details I am providing my abbreviated curriculum vitae, but I believe 

most scientists in this field would consider me a leading expert particularly in the 

field of forest carbon. 

I have a general concern about both the written and transcribed testimony from 

Dr. Oneil (the Minority witness) that I have recently read regarding the examination of climate change impacts on public lands and adaptation opportunities. To sum 

up the basic logic that appears to have been presented: (1) a warming climate coupled with increased tree density has lead increased disturbance caused by fire, insects, and disease in forests; (2) therefore more trees must be harvested to reduce 

tree density; (3) these management actions will reduce the amount of disturbance; 

and (4) will result in greater stores of carbon thus reducing one of the key drivers 

of climate change, atmospheric carbon dioxide. I find this analysis to be overly simplified, lacking context, and incomplete as it leaves out many key concepts that need 

to be part of any practical and credible solution. In the following sections I 

elaborate. 

SELECTING A MANAGEMENT SOLUTION

The choice presented in the testimony seemed to have been that one can either 

let nature take its course or institute management involving deliberate campaign 

of widespread tree harvesting. I believe that is a false choice that does not reflect 

the diversity of forest management objectives present in the United States, nor does 

it reflect the range of forest conditions and responses; nor does it reflect the practical and economic limitations that will undoubtedly shape management choices. 

One can envision a wide diversity of potentially effective management options that 

go far beyond what was offered: 

In some remote wilderness/park/reserve areas the best choice might be to 

allow nature take its course given lack of access, expense, and management 

objectives (which might include allowing nature to dominate); 

In other such areas it might make sense to reintroduce disturbances such 

as fires to achieve objectives; 

In yet other areas it might make sense to suppress fires aggressively under 

certain weather conditions, but not others; 

In the interfaces between forests and human communities it might make 

sense to not only reduce tree density, but to remove trees altogether. 
68 

This not an exhaustive list, but the point is that the management solution must 

match the specific management objectives, have a strong chance of achieving the objectives, and be realistic regarding economic and logistical limitations. Using forest 

harvest such as thinning in all situations would mean roads would have to be built 

into parks and wilderness areas often at extreme financial and environmental cost, 

but it would also mean that areas where complete tree removal is needed, such as 

for fire breaks and defensible spaces, would not be managed appropriately either. 

In plain terms we need to match specific solutions to specific conditions, not find 

a general problem to impose the single solution that we desire to implement. 

In deciding which management actions to take, the primary objective of management for a particular forest needs to be recognized. Despite studying forest carbon 

for decades, I do not believe that carbon sequestration is the primary reason why 

most forests are managed today. While certainly important, carbon is a secondary 

objective/concern that should be managed to maximize stores (in the forest, in products, and substitutions) within the constraints of the primary management objective. One of my concerns with the testimony I read is that it seems to suggest that 

management actions will be taken to increase carbon stores and that other benefits 

such as economic, housing, energy benefits will follow. I would encourage everyone 

to stop dropping ‘‘the carbon bomb’’ to convince others of the validity of their desired 

management objective. There is a wide range of valid forest management objectives 

that have little to do with carbon. A more productive pathway would involve accepting the wide range of forest management objectives that exist and within those 

consider how carbon can be managed effectively. 

MORTALITY CONSIDERED

Increased mortality beyond the historic range of this process is a concern, and I 

have no doubt some aspects of these changes need to be managed and mitigated 

through adaptation. However, it is overly simplistic and counterproductive to imply 

that mortality is always undesirable or that it automatically degrades forest ecosystem function. Mortality has always occurred in forests and that is why there are 

numerous species of animals, plants, and fungi that have evolved to take advantage 

of dead trees. Moreover, mortality is how forests thin themselves and coupled with 

decomposition is how forests recycle the nutrients they need to grow. Preventing 

mortality in forests or removing dead trees, as in the very intensive management 

best seen in 1980s northern Europe, has reduced the abundance of many species by 

removing their habitat and limiting the structural development/diversification of 

forests. That is why current forest management in many parts of northern Europe 

is trying to restore dead tree habitat. It should be noted that mortality does not 

equate with the loss of carbon or any other general function of forest ecosystems. 

The concept that carbon is completely lost or habitat is completely lost because of 

mortality is mistaken at best. When trees die in a forest from natural causes, a substantial part of the carbon remains (even in the case of severe fires more than 90 

percent remains) and this carbon is gradually lost through the process of decomposition (which takes decades to centuries). While live tree habitat is lost during 

mortality, dead tree habitat is gained. What occurs in mortality is that the form of 

carbon and type of habitat changes. The only known process to immediately remove 

live and/or dead tree carbon and habitat at a large scale from a forest is timber harvest. We know this because trees, at least the aboveground part, are deliberately 

removed from the forest in a harvest! 

Mortality is a natural process and ranges from the death of scattered individual 

trees to small patches of trees all the way up to major episodes covering broad 

areas. These forms of mortality have occurred in forests as long as forests have existed. None of these scales is more natural than another and over a broad area 

about as many trees die as scattered individuals as in major episodes. In and of 

itself these forms of mortality are not cause for concern. What is a concern is the 

degree that these forms of mortality change forests in ways that prevent specific 

management objectives from being achieved. This means that we cannot assume 

that the level of mortality tolerated in an intensively managed forest (very little) 

is the same as expected in a wilderness area where the creation of open habitats 

might be an important management objective (a great deal). 

If maintaining forests is the management objective, then widespread mortality 

coupled with low tree regeneration success is the key concern, not mortality on its 

own. Mortality need not lead to a permanent loss of desired forest conditions, especially when a disturbed forest retains and regenerates the elements needed to restore these conditions. In many cases, disturbance-related mortality is a temporary 

reorganizer of forests and there are natural processes that allow forests to ‘‘recover’’ 

the conditions that are desired. The recovery process can begin quickly (years) or 
69 

1 Unfortunately the data used in this figure is not publicly available as far as I could determine and a full citation was not provided limiting my ability to find it. I have no doubt that 

the data presented are relatively accurate, however, without knowing the starting volume it is 

difficult to precisely estimate the degree volume has increased in a relative sense. The data presented suggest that cubic volume has increased by 212,150 million cubic feet over the 1952– 

2016 period. However, we know that cubic volume was not zero in 1952. Based on the likely 

fraction of live tree volume dying in 1952–1976, something in the range of 0.3–0.6 percent per 

year, it is likely the volume in 1952 was in the range of 250,000 cubic feet. If provided the 1952 

volume from this dataset I could easily make a more precise estimate of the relative increase 

in live tree volume between 1952 and 2016. 

slowly (decades), but one must bear in mind that the perceived speed of successful 

recovery is strongly influenced by management objectives: 5 years may be too long 

for tree regeneration in a short rotation production forest, but 50 years or more may 

be appropriate in a remote wilderness. If management actions such as seeding and 

planting are needed to speed forest regeneration, then these actions need to be targeted to specific locations and situations as they may be neither needed (moist soils) 

nor effective (persistently very dry soils) in all locations. Moreover, if regeneration 

is assisted, the approach should be to introduce a wide range of genetic stock and 

species to cover the possible spectrum of future conditions. This acknowledges our 

uncertainty in predicting future conditions and increases changes of success because 

it allows natural processes to find the most successful ‘‘players’’ in the future forest. 

To understand how to solve a problem one must understand what the problem 

is. Much was made in the testimony of the observation that mortality has increased 

fourfold in National Forest timberlands over the 1976–2016 period. While the data 

support this observation, it is misleading if taken at face value. The implication is 

that if mortality has increased fourfold, it must be solely due to increases in disturbance. This is misleading because, as noted above, about half of all tree mortality 

occurs at the individual level (which is not generally considered a disturbance), but 

also because mortality as it was expressed (that is a volume dying per year) depends 

on two items: (1) the proportion dying each year and (2) the volume of trees that 

can potentially die. Mortality can increase if either term increases. As Figure 1 in 

Dr. Oneil’s written statement makes clear, net growth (the amount forest live 

volume/biomass/carbon increases) has been positive throughout the 1952–2016 

period. This means, despite the occurrence of mortality, that live tree volume has 

increased over this time period. Based on the values presented in Dr. Oneil’s testimony I estimate that tree volume may have roughly doubled over this period.1 Thus, 

one would expect half of the fourfold mortality increase evoking concern to have 

been caused simply by the fact that today’s forest has substantially more volume 

than earlier forests. By analogy if one plans to buy a house at 4 percent annual 

mortgage interest then do not be surprised if the $100,000 house has one-half the 

interest payment of the $200,000 house. This not to say that there has not been an 

increase in the proportion of tree volume dying. Using the mortality rate reported 

by Dr. Oneil, it does appear that the proportion of tree volume dying has increased 

by about a factor of two between 1972 and 2016 with much of this increase occurring in the past two decades. However, in addition to knowing what level of reduction is required one must also understand the specific mechanisms behind the 

changes: one has to ask why the proportion of tree volume dying has increased. The 

suggestion in the testimony seems to be that it is related to fire and bark beetles; 

while I suspect this is partially true and there is evidence to support this hypothesis, there are other substantial sources of tree mortality that have increased over 

this period such as those related to wind and invasive species that are not related 

to either tree density or drought. Therefore, it is hard to envision how forest 

thinning, the proposed solution to reducing fires, disease, and insect attacks, would 

decrease the impact of wind disturbance, or that related to invasive insects such as 

the woolly adelgids attacking eastern hemlocks and Fraser fir or the emerald ash 

borer attacking green ash much less diseases such as sudden oak death. In fact, in 

some cases thinning might exacerbate these forms of mortality. 

While an increase in the proportion of trees dying each year is of concern, the idea 

that the proportion of gross growth (NPP) allocated to mortality is indicative of a 

problem is misguided. Specifically, concern was expressed that two-thirds of gross 

growth (equivalent to net primary production or NPP) is currently being ‘‘lost’’ to 

mortality. The suggestion is that this ‘‘large’’ proportion is unnatural, but that ignores the fact that, absent harvests (which are after all forms of human induced 

mortality), forests allocate gross growth (NPP) into either net growth or mortality 

and this allocation changes as forests age. In young forests the majority of gross 

growth is allocated toward net growth (leading to a rapid increase in volume) and 

in older forests an increasing share of gross growth (up to 100 percent) is allocated 

toward mortality. This change is why forest volume does not increase forever and 
70 

2 A mistake that I might add which has been repeated to the degree that an alternative to 

top down control management approaches has recently been developed. 

tends to saturate as forests age. This is a fundamental relationship found in all 

forests, documented in the forestry literature for more than a century, and is observed even those in management systems in which harvest mortality replaces 

natural mortality as a source of live tree removal. In fact when a sustainable harvest system is implemented, the expectation is that harvest and mortality comprise 

100 percent of gross growth, hence the volume over a large area remains constant. 

As a specific example of how the allocation of mortality changes as forest age, we 

can examine the case when tree maximum life span is about 500 years. For this 

kind of forest, mortality would comprise 63 percent of the gross growth of an evenaged stand at about 100 years. In a stand that is 200 years of age one would anticipate that mortality would comprise 85 percent of gross growth and for a stand of 

300 years age mortality would comprise 95 percent. Returning to the National Forest timberlands data we find that between 1952 and 2019 all forms of mortality 

(harvest included) have increased as a share of gross growth from 53 to 69 percent. 

But much of this is related to the fact that these forests have become older, a fact 

consistent with the observed twofold increase in volume over this period. The only 

alternative explanation for increased live mass is that National Forest timberland 

acreages have increased twofold, whereas we know these acreages have remained 

relatively constant. 

WHERE AND WHEN IS HIGH TREE DENSITY A PROBLEM?

The idea that high tree density (that is number of stems) is the primary cause 

of recent unnatural mortality levels is overly simplistic. This is because it ignores 

the natural variation in space and time that one expects of tree density. In closed 

forest ecosystems, tree density is highest once forest stands have regenerated. As 

trees grow and start to compete for resources, mortality is expected to increase. 

Harvest thinning in these forests is a way to mimic and control this expected 

natural mortality process. 

While some forests have higher tree density because of management actions such 

as fire suppression, others have climates and reproductive strategies that lead to 

high tree density. Those most influenced by fire suppression in the West include 

ponderosa pine and mixed conifer types where tree density has greatly increased 

over the period of fire suppression. One could argue that harvest thinning in these 

types would be appropriate. However, in many other forest types tree density is 

naturally high and is unlikely the direct cause of recent widespread mortality. A 

prime example would be the recent massive beetle-kill in lodgepole pine forests. The 

cause of these outbreaks was not high tree density. Tree densities in these types 

are naturally very high because of this species’ reproductive strategy and tree densities in these forests have not noticeably increased substantially due to fire suppression. Rather, warmer conditions allowed bark beetle populations to increase and 

coupled with a long-term drought widespread mortality occurred. Ironically, the 

lodgepole pine stands least susceptible to beetle-kill were those with small diameter 

and high tree density, the conditions where drought conditions should have had the 

highest impact due to high levels of competition. The ecology of these species tells 

us why: this beetle species cannot reproduce when bark falls below a certain thickness and adult beetles will not attack trees if the beetles cannot reproduce within 

them, regardless of the tree’s drought stress. It is therefore important to apply basic 

ecological knowledge in developing an effective solution and not impose a one-sizefits-all solution unrelated to addressing actual mechanisms. 

EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS WITH A RESPONSIVE SYSTEM

While it tempting to assume that once a management treatment is imposed from 

‘‘above’’ that the problem is solved, this is a mistake when applied to forests.2 This 

is because forests do not stay the way one leaves them, and they often respond in 

ways that counter treatment objectives. Perhaps the best example of this is fire suppression and its effects on fuels: suppressing fires initially leads to a decrease in 

fire impacts, but as fuels increase (because of the lack of fire) the impacts (at least 

in some forests) eventually increase. A similar response behavior is quite possible 

for the management actions being proposed. Specifically, reducing tree density or 

carbon in the form of fuel is a temporary solution because, unless the underlying 

controls are changed, forests will respond to these actions by increasing tree density 

and carbon. Hence, the solution will have to be repeated frequently raising longterm logistical, environmental, and economic concerns. This repeated treatment also 

leads to permanent carbon debts: if high fuel/carbon level is the cause of undesired 
71 

levels of disturbance, then to solve the problem one must reduce fuel/carbon permanently, hence a carbon permanent debt develops. I should add that the argument 

that carbon debts cannot occur in forests because forests are renewable resources 

is completely erroneous: if high fuel/carbon is causing a problem then why would 

be want this high level to renew? 

Even if the goal of reducing tree density is permanently achieved, forests may 

react in ways that counter the expected goal. Suppose the goal is to greatly reduce 

the occurrence of crown fires; then tree density would have to be greatly reduced 

because average tree distance has to be increased beyond that needed to spread 

these types of fires. This degree of opening in turn would allow smaller forms of 

vegetation (fine fuels associated with fire spread) to greatly increase and these openings would also greatly increase the rate of fuel drying. So while crown fires might 

be reduced, fires would continue to be widespread and challenge control efforts. In 

other words, one would replace one problem with a slightly different one. 

To avoid these problems, one cannot think of forests as static systems that do 

what they are ‘‘told.’’ Instead forests are adaptive, responsive systems than need to 

be persistently ‘‘persuaded’’ to move in the directions consistent with our management objectives. 

THE FATE OF HARVESTED TREES

In the testimony harvest removal is viewed as not only solving the problem, but 

having major benefits in terms of goods and economic gain as well as major carbon 

benefits that would exceed carbon losses incurred in the forest. The carbon benefits 

would come in two forms: (1) carbon stores related to forest products and (2) substitutions that would reduce the use of fossil carbon. While there is an element of 

truth to these statements, they are misleading if accepted at face value. 

Let us consider the statement that harvested carbon is stored in products. A more 

accurate statement would be that some harvested carbon is stored in products for 

some time. Although these sound similar, they are profoundly different in their effects. Specifically, when carbon is removed from forests through harvest, not all of 

the carbon ends up as solid products. If the harvested carbon is used for lumber/ 

plywood/OSB production then somewhere between 30–40 percent is lost to the 

atmosphere in the manufacturing process. If the harvested carbon is used to make 

paper, then the amount lost to the atmosphere is around 50 percent and if used as 

fuel then it is 100 percent. Contrast these amounts to the range of live carbon lost 

to the atmosphere during natural disturbances: somewhere between zero and 10 

percent. Moreover, consider the fact that wood products have varying life spans in 

use and after they are disposed, that these time frames can be quite short, and are 

roughly comparable to those found for wood decomposing naturally. While is it often 

assumed that the carbon related to mortality is lost to the atmosphere, that process 

can take 3 to 50 decades to complete. Taken together, the initial losses in manufacture and the losses in use and disposal means that removing carbon by harvest have 

roughly the same carbon storages effects as leaving the wood in the forest to decompose. Granted harvesting produces items that humans can use and generates 

wealth, but that should not be conflated with carbon effects. 

Perhaps the biggest misconception is that using harvested wood will lead to large 

amounts of fossil carbon not being used through the process of substitution. While 

this is theoretically possible, there are several considerations that must be acknowledged to determine the degree this actually will happen. For example, in the case 

of product substitution (that is substituting wood for concrete and steel in construction), the preferences for materials has to be considered. In North America wood is 

the preferred material for residential homes, with about a 95 percent preference for 

wood. That would mean that one could try to replace the 5 percent of buildings not 

utilizing wood and gain a substitution benefit, but it is not possible to substitute 

wood for wood and gain a substitution benefit for the other 95 percent. The situation 

for taller buildings would differ as concrete and steel are currently preferred, but 

this raises a different problem: to build taller buildings using wood one need to engineer laminated materials, a process that involves more energy. It is highly unlikely 

that concrete and steel manufacturers will increase their fossil carbon use to keep 

the product-related displacement factor the same. Hence, it is possible that amount 

of fossil carbon displaced by wood use could decrease substantially in the case of 

taller buildings. Finally, for both substitutions related to products and energy one 

must recognize that the fossil carbon not used by the building sector today will likely be used by other sectors in the future. Consider the estimates of the times that 

fossil fuel carbon is likely to be depleted: 50–250 years depending on the form of 

fossil carbon. Unless this substitution-related carbon is protected by some actual 

mechanism, the assumption that unused fossil carbon today will never be used in 
72 

3The case of bark beetles illustrates this point. When bark beetle populations are low, many 

of these species attack recently killed trees, but not living ones. When bark beetle populations 

are high many species attack weakened living trees, and when very high they attack even vigorously growing trees. This behavior is related to the ability to mass attack trees which is in turn 

a function of the beetles’ population size. 

the future is completely naı ̈ve. Taken together it is highly likely that actual substitution benefits will be far lower than most expect and, in some cases, will not fully 

counter carbon losses related to forest harvest. 

A STRATEGY THAT ACKNOWLEDGES ODDS OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE

As described in the testimony, the suggested management treatments appear to 

assure complete success. Conversely, the path of allowing nature to take its course 

appears to assure complete failure. That may be, but this view seems overly deterministic given the system we are actually dealing with: critical conditions such as 

drought and temperature that vary greatly from place to place, season to season and 

year to year; different historical pathways creating varying forest structures that 

react to climate and other stressors in different ways; and species that not only have 

different characteristics, but that do not interact in consistent ways.3 In other 

words, the system we have to deal with is not deterministic, it is highly stochastic 

(seemingly random). Like it or not, we are forced to play games of chance in our 

management. 

There are several ways to increase the odds of success when playing games of 

chance including: (1) know the rules and the possibilities, (2) understand the odds 

regarding outcomes, (3) use a range of strategies, (4) recognize that while there is 

a chance of winning, there is also a chance of losing, and (5) decide where and when 

it is best to not play at all. This general strategy is applied to everything from poker 

to investments to medicine. I am not sure why we would not apply it to climate 

change adaptation. 

SUMMARY

I believe that it is a mistake to apply a single solution (such as more tree harvest) 

to a problem with the complexity of forest adaptation to climate change. A more appropriate and productive approach would be the development of a broad strategy 

that considers the likelihood of climate change-related phenomena modifying forests 

in ways that do not meet the very wide range of management objectives related to 

forests. To work, this strategy would have to be applied a local level given the wide 

variation at multiple scales from landscapes to regions to the Nation in terms of 

management objectives as well as the conditions present in forests. Moreover, it 

would have to assess the range of negative responses possible, their magnitude, and 

likelihood so that efforts can be prioritized. Management solutions would have to 

be tied to the actual mechanisms causing the undesired changes and the possible 

negative side effects (environmental, economic, ecosystem) and potential countervailing processes would have to be considered to evaluate the chances of success 

once the solution is implemented. Finally, given the inherently stochastic nature of 

this problem it would make sense to use a diversity of approaches (even at the local 

scale) until more information can be gathered as to the most effective and efficient 

solutions. 
73 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman 

—Two graphs from Global Resources and the Environment, 

published by Cambridge University Press. 

Æ