U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

47-754 PDF 2009

THE ROLE OF FEDERAL 

LANDS IN COMBATING 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 

Serial No. 111-7 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

John Fleming, Louisiana 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Jason Chaffetz, Utah 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

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

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Doc Hastings, Washington, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

Statement of Members: 

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

California ....................................................................................................... 3 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 1 

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

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

Washington, Prepared statement of ............................................................ 3 

Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Wisconsin, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 5 

Shea-Porter, Hon. Carol, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Hampshire ........................................................................................ 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Armstrong, Thomas R., Senior Advisor for Global Change Programs, U.S. 

Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior .................................. 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Brunello, Anthony, Deputy Secretary for Climate Change and Energy, 

California Natural Resources Agency, Sacramento, California ................ 20 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22 

DellaSala, Dominick A., Ph.D., Chief Scientist, National Center for 

Conservation Science & Policy, and President Elect, Society for 

Conservation Biology, North America Section, Ashland, Oregon ............. 64 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 66 

Frank, Billy, Chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 

Olympia, Washington ................................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28 

Harmon, Mark E., Ph.D., Richardson Endowed Chair and Professor in 

Forest Science, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon 

State University, Corvallis, Oregon ............................................................ 55 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 57 

Jungwirth, Lynn, Executive Director, Watershed Research and Training 

Center, Hayfork, California .......................................................................... 89 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 90 

Kimbell, Abigail, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture ... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

McCarthy, Forrest, Public Lands Director, Winter Wildlands Alliance, 

Teton Village, Wyoming ............................................................................... 96 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 98 

Ridgeway, Rick, Director of Environmental Initiatives, Patagonia 

Company, on behalf of Freedom to Roam, Ventura, California ................ 83 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 85 

Spiering, Eugene D., Vice President for Exploration, Quaterra 

Corporation, Kanab, Utah ............................................................................ 53 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 54 

Williams, Jack E., Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Trout Unlimited, Medford, 

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 73 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 75 

Additional materials supplied: 

Sierra Pacific Industries, Redding, California, Press release submitted 

for the record ................................................................................................. 39 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘THE ROLE OF 

FEDERAL LANDS IN COMBATING CLIMATE 

CHANGE’’ 

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rau ́l M. Grijalva 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop, Hastings, Napolitano, Holt, 

Heinrich, Christensen, Kind, Capps, Inslee, Herseth Sandlin, 

Sarbanes, Shea-Porter, Tsongas, Coffman, and Lummis. 

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me call the Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands oversight hearing to 

order. The subject of this hearing is the role of Federal land in 

combating climate change, and today our Subcommittee will be 

conducting an oversight hearing to explore the role of Federal lands 

in combating climate change. 

This will be the first in a series of hearings our Subcommittee 

will conduct on climate change. Today’s hearing will focus primarily on the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

lands. We expect to schedule a future hearing on National Park 

Service lands and climate change. 

The impact of climate change on our Federal lands is staggering. 

Science shows that climate change will cause a spread of invasive 

species, threaten native species, endanger watersheds, cause habitat loss, and increase the intensity and length of the fire season on 

our public lands. 

Today, we will be hearing more on these impacts and suggested 

policy solutions by reputable scientists, such as Mark Harmon from 

Oregon State University. 

Climate change not only threatens the world-class resources of 

our public lands but also the millions of Americans who depend on 

and enjoy our Federal lands. 

Today, we will also be hearing from witnesses about the role of 

rural public lands communities in combating climate change. We 

2 

will receive the perspectives of Indian Country, the Human Power 

Recreation Community, and the hunter-angler community on this 

topic. 

There are two potential climate change solutions that I am particularly interested in exploring today. 

The first is climate change adaptation. Rick Ridgeway from Freedom To Roam will testify today about connecting habitat in order 

for wildlife to adapt to the impacts of climate change. 

The second solution we will explore is whether some of the key 

laws under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources 

adequately reflect the reality of climate change. These laws include 

the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA], as well as various 

organic acts for land management agencies. 

The State of California has moved far beyond the Federal government in this area by releasing a draft guidance for integrating 

climate change into the California Environmental Quality Act. 

Today, we will be hearing from Mr. Tony Brunello about California’s efforts, and perhaps this can provide good guidance on our 

Federal efforts. 

President Obama has made climate change a top issue on his 

agenda. Today, I am pleased that we are joined by representatives 

of the Obama Administration to hear what ongoing work and 

future plans are for combating climate change on our public lands. 

Climate change on Federal lands will be a key agenda item of 

our Subcommittee and this Congress. I feel strongly that while our 

public lands are threatened by climate change, they are also critical in finding solutions to combat climate change. As Congress 

goes about developing climate change legislation, I will work to ensure that there is a role for public lands. I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses today, and I will turn to the Ranking Member 

of the Full Committee, Mr. Hastings, for any comments that he 

may have. Sir? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Today our Subcommittee will be conducting an oversight hearing to explore the 

role of federal lands in combating climate change. This will be the first of a group 

of hearings our Subcommittee will conduct on climate change. Today’s hearing will 

focus primarily on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, 

and we expect to schedule a future hearing on National Park Service lands and climate change. 

The impacts of climate change on our federal lands are staggering. Science shows 

that climate change will cause a spread of invasive species, threaten native species, 

endanger watersheds, cause habitat loss, and increase the intensity and length of 

the fire season on our public lands. Today we will be hearing more about these impacts, and suggested policy solutions, by reputable scientists such as Mark Harmon 

from Oregon State University. 

Climate change not only threatens the world class resources of our federal lands, 

but also the millions of Americans who depend on and enjoy our federal lands. 

Today we will be hearing from witnesses about the role of rural public land communities in combating climate change; and we will receive the perspectives of Indian 

country, the human-powered recreation community, and the hunter-angler community on this topic. 

There are two potential climate change solutions that I am particularly interested 

in exploring today. The first is climate change adaptation. Rick Ridgeway from Freedom to Roam will testify today about connecting habitat in order for wildlife to 

adapt to the impacts of climate change. 

3 

A second solution we will explore is whether some of the key laws under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources adequately reflect the reality of climate change. These laws include the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, 

as well as the various organic acts for the land management agencies. The State 

of California has moved far beyond the federal government in this area by releasing 

draft guidance on integrating climate change into the California Environmental 

Quality Act. Today we will be hearing from Mr. Tony Brunello about California’s 

efforts, and perhaps this can provide good guidance for federal efforts. 

President Obama has made climate change a top issue on his agenda. Today I 

am pleased that we are joined by representatives of the Obama Administration to 

hear what their ongoing work and future plans are for combating climate change 

on our public lands. 

Climate change and federal lands will be a key agenda item for our Subcommittee 

this Congress. I feel strongly that while our public lands are threatened by climate 

change, they are also critical in finding solutions to combat climate change. As Congress goes about developing climate change legislation, I will work to ensure that 

there is a role for federal lands. 

I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today. I would now like to turn 

to Ranking Member Bishop for any opening statement he may have. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being 

here today. I have to say that I am pinch-hitting today. The Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop of Utah, has a conflict, and so I am sitting in for him. I will submit my statement 

for the record. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Washington 

Mr. Chairman, America has a vast expanse of public lands that are rich in resources. If we use these gifts wisely they can be a bountiful asset as we seek to overcome our current economic problems and increase our security through improved access to domestic supplies of energy, minerals, food, timber and other necessities. 

Public lands also will play a significant environmental role as we look for ways 

to build up our production and transmission of energy from non-polluting sources 

including solar, hydro, nuclear and wind energy. 

One thing is certain: we cannot meet any of our economic, environmental, lifestyle 

or national security objectives unless we make intelligent choices regarding the use 

of public land. 

There are two major issues I would like to see addressed at this hearing. 

First we need to know what new costs will be imposed on the American people 

by the whole range of restrictions, investments, taxes and cap and trade proposals 

being talked about to combat climate change. 

Second, before we act, we need to understand the magnitude of the effect alternative energy sources—particularly wind and solar—will have on public land. It has 

been estimated that tens of thousands of square miles would be have to be used 

to meet a fraction—even one fifth—of our power needs using wind power. Solar 

power raises similar questions. 

Perhaps it is time to apply the precautionary principle to some proposed green 

governmental actions such as subsidies, regulations, taxes and schemes that purport 

combat global warming. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me now turn to a Member of the Natural 

Resources Committee, Ms. Lois Capps, for any comments she might 

have. 

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

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just say thank you 

for holding this hearing. I believe this is a very important topic for 

us to be addressing, particularly under the umbrella or the rubric 

4 

of climate change. The role of public lands in combating and adapting to climate change is a very real challenge before us. 

I want to thank the witnesses who have traveled to be here with 

us today, and one is in the third panel, who is my constituent, or, 

at least, from Ventura County, which I represent, and that is Rick 

Ridgeway. I appreciate his being part of our panel today of witnesses. Rick is the Vice President of Environmental Programs at a 

very well-known company called Patagonia, which is headquartered 

in my congressional district and one of America’s leading green 

businesses. 

Patagonia helped found Freedom To Roam, a national campaign 

to create, restore, and protect wildlife corridors. I am proud of the 

continued expansion and success of Freedom To Roam, and I look 

forward to your presentation, Mr. Ridgeway. 

Mr. Chairman, climate change is a very real and present problem. Human activities have changed the climate of the earth, and 

I think today’s hearing is particularly important for the western 

states of the United States because many scientists are now saying 

that the American West will experience the effects of climate 

change sooner and more intensely than perhaps most other regions. 

My home State of California has a lot at stake when it comes to 

global warming. Our scarce snow and water right now is already 

being impacted. Crops, such as California wine grapes, are already 

on the brink, and the warming climate is contributing to longer, 

wildland fire seasons with more extreme events. We can all attest 

to that anecdotally, and there is scientific evidence now as well. 

We have a world-class tourist industry which has flourished because of our natural beauty, but the impact of climate change on 

winter snowfalls, agriculture, and our public lands poses a major 

threat to the economic vitality of my state. 

This hearing today is exceedingly important to help us learn 

what is known and not known about the impacts of global warming, and so I thank you for having this hearing. I look forward to 

the expertise of our witnesses, and I will yield back. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me now ask our colleague, Mr. 

Coffman, if he has any opening comments. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think I will pass until it is time 

for questions. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Heinrich, any comments? 

Mr. HEINRICH. Yes, Chairman. Thank you. You know, I come 

from the State of New Mexico and have a bit of a history in water 

management. I was chair of our water utility authority in the metropolitan Albuquerque area for some time, and one of the things 

that we have seen is a real change in how precipitation, and, particularly winter precipitation, is being impacted by climate change. 

Our functional water storage, much like in California in the Sierras, is high in the mountains. It is on Forest Service lands. We are 

seeing that snows not only run off much more quickly and much 

more intensely, but, oftentimes, sublimate directly to where it 

never makes it to the reservoirs in the first place. Many of these 

impacts have huge ramifications for not only our public lands but 

our entire population. 

So I think this is a timely issue. We have certainly seen changes 

in our fire regime throughout the Intermountain West, and, parVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\47754.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
5 

ticularly, in New Mexico, that are very concerning to people who 

live in the urban wildland interface, and being proactive with these 

issues, I think, is a credit to this Committee, and I am looking forward to hearing what our witnesses today have to say. I yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me ask Ms. Shea-Porter, do you 

have any opening comments? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROL SHEA-PORTER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

HAMPSHIRE 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am also 

grateful for this hearing because we have a beautiful White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire, and there was a hearing, 

about a year and a half ago, and they talked about some of the impact of the climate change, and we had people coming who had 

been trappers, who had been hunters, fishermen, and also people 

who depended on our cold season for snowmobiling and other economically viable activities—skiing, of course, is critical—and what 

they were all saying was they were seeing such changes. 

They were seeing ticks, for example, in January and February, 

which we never had. They were seeing birds that should not be in 

our area earlier or later. They were seeing changes in the leaves 

and many, many signs of changes. The people who produce maple 

syrup were talking about the impact on their business. 

So this is very critical, and it is a very timely issue, and I am 

grateful that we are having this hearing. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. Tsongas, any comments? 

Ms. TSONGAS. I do welcome your testimony. I have a daughter 

who was one of the many 12,000 young people who arrived yesterday in town, Power Shift, to address the issue of global warming 

and climate change. 

So this is very timely, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Kind? 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have a 

statement that I would like to submit for the record. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kind follows:] 

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

the State of Wisconsin 

I would like to start by thanking Chairman Grijalva for calling today’s hearing 

on this very important topic. As the evidence of climate change’s effect on wildlife 

and their habitats continues to mount, the need to plan adequately for these and 

future impacts grows more and more urgent. This committee began delving into the 

topic nearly two years ago with a hearing in the Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans 

Subcommittee and subsequent inclusion of funding for planning and adaptation on 

federal lands during the development of the Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007. Today’s hearing, I hope, will be another step forward in our understanding 

of the implications of climate change for public lands and the various purposes for 

which they were established, and our developing effective policies for addressing 

these challenges. 

Clearly, as I’m sure we will hear more about today, the challenges to our public 

lands will be difficult and varied. Federal land units, from the very small to the very 

large, are already susceptible to events influenced by climactic variability, which include drought, wild fires, impaired air quality, and severe storms. Climate change 

6 

may alter the frequency and severity of these kinds of events. Dealing with these 

changes will require additional financial resources, as well as the flexibility to adapt 

to changing conditions and evolving priorities. 

Many of our National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, National Forests, and Bureau of 

Land Management lands serve vital ecological roles as sanctuaries where plants and 

wildlife can thrive without the pressures of excessive human development and interference. This role will become even more important as climactic pressures build. 

Due to their strong ecological integrity relative to other areas, these lands stand the 

best chance of withstanding changing conditions, and wildlife will increasingly utilize them as homes or as migration corridors as they seek new habitat. 

The prospect of greater reliance on federal lands by wildlife raises the need for 

better management to protect wildlife and their habitat. Unfortunately, there currently is no statutory or regulatory requirement to manage and maintain wildlife 

populations during the planning process for the Forest Service or the BLM, which 

together oversee 457 million acres, or about 65 percent of our public lands. Given 

the increasing importance of these lands in the future, it is critical that we institute 

policies that put wildlife on solid footing in our multiple use federal lands. That is 

why last year I introduced America’s Wildlife Heritage Act. 

My bill would require the Forest Service and BLM to do their best to maintain 

viable, or self-sustaining populations of native and desirable non-native species on 

their lands. This would be implemented through the periodic management planning 

process and subsequent monitoring activities. Such planning and monitoring would 

revisit and improve upon former Forest Service rules and expand them to the BLM 

for the very first time. 

The Bush Administration’s decision to repeal the Forest Service rules while also 

pursuing a lopsided focus on resource extraction on public lands has been extremely 

damaging to wildlife. Most of the evidence for this, however, is anecdotal because 

the federal government does not require adequate monitoring of most wildlife species, so very little accurate data exists. What is clear is that wildlife management 

must not be subject to administrative fiat. The America’s Wildlife Heritage Act 

would provide the needed permanency in the form of a forward-looking law that incorporates the most up-to-date scientific principles and enough flexibility to make 

them workable. 

As this Congress moves toward a bold new effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our country, I hope this committee and the agencies under our jurisdiction 

will be equally bold in their efforts to mitigate and adapt to the changes these gases 

have caused and will continue to cause. We cannot look to the past and rely on the 

same tools we have used before; rather, we must look to new ideas to build on what 

we have learned. I would like to thank all of the witnesses for being here today and 

say that I look forward to hearing your ideas for how we can move in that direction. 

Mr. KIND. I also want to thank you for holding this very important and timely hearing. I think all of us have been looking forward to hearing testimony from some of the experts on the impact 

of climate change on our public lands and on wildlife, in particular. 

It is one of the reasons why, last year, I introduced America’s 

Wildlife Heritage Act. It would require, for the first time, because, 

right now, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement for the 

Forest Service or BLM to take in the impact of climate change on 

wildlife populations on our public lands. We are talking about 457 

million acres, close to 65 percent of the public lands with those two 

entities alone, and there is nothing in the planning process, either 

statutorily or regulatory, that would require them to measure that 

impact on wildlife and their habitat. 

So, hopefully, I will be able to work with this Committee as we 

move forward this year on that legislation and hear the testimony 

from our witnesses here today that can provide us further guidance 

on what practical steps we can take to deal with such a huge and 

growing issue. 

So thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing the 

testimony. 

7 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me thank my colleagues for their comments 

and turn to our first panel. I will begin with Chief Gail Kimbell, 

Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. Welcome again, and we 

look forward to your comments and testimony. Please. 

STATEMENT OF GAIL KIMBELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. KIMBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here 

today to discuss the very important role that national forests and 

national grasslands play in addressing climate change. 

I am accompanied today by Dr. David Cleaves, who is our acting 

deputy chief for Research and Development. 

I would ask that my full statement be read into the record—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Without objection. 

Ms. KIMBELL [continuing]. Thank you—and I will summarize my 

statement. 

We have before us significant challenges and opportunities in 

managing our nearly 200 million acres of national forests and 

grasslands in a changing climate. Decisions being made today by 

policymakers and resource managers have implications through 

this century and beyond. History will judge the leaders of our age, 

including my own leadership, as chief forester, by how well we respond to this challenge. 

Our national forests and grasslands provide a wide spectrum of 

ecosystem services that are so very important to our society. They 

include clean water, clean air, outdoor recreation, fish and wildlife 

habitat, and forest products. They also include natural resourcebased jobs, renewable energy, and carbon sequestration. 

However, observations show that climate change is currently impacting the nation’s forests and grassland ecosystems in significant 

ways and, likewise, their ability to provide those ecosystem services. 

The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands for 

present and future generations. Recognizing the changing context 

of our environment, we have developed a Strategic Framework for 

Responding to Climate Change. The Strategic Framework lays out 

seven key goals to help us set priorities and make informed decisions for sustaining forests and grasslands. I will focus on the first 

three of these goals: science, mitigation, and adaptation. 

The Forest Service has over 100 years of research and investigation that provide a firm, scientific foundation for our understanding 

of forests and grasslands and their management. Climate change 

has changed many assumptions. 

We have over 20 years of focused climate change research and 

over 30 years of air pollution effects research. Thirteen Forest 

Service scientists shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as part of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

The Forest Service and university and private sector research 

partners provide an evolving science and technology base for use in 

managing national forests and grasslands. We use that science in 

adaptation and mitigation to enhance the ability of the national 

forests to adapt to the stresses of climate change and to provide 

8 

clean water, clean air, and other ecosystem services. Some ecosystems adapt rapidly enough to maintain productivity in the face 

of climate change. However, climate change impacts other forest 

types more significantly and exceeds their capacity to adapt. 

Managers and policymakers need to be nimble to use new science 

to adapt to changing conditions. The scope of climate change and 

its impacts are not always easy to predict. Dealing with risks and 

uncertainties introduced by climate change is becoming a more 

prominent part of every district ranger’s and every forest supervisor’s decision process. 

In some cases, failing to take management action can result in 

allowing catastrophic disruption to an ecosystem and its ability to 

provide for the things we have come to expect from our public 

lands: clean water, clean air. 

Each year, the Forest Service treats millions of acres of national 

forests to make them more resistant and resilient in the face of intense wildfire activity, insect and disease, tropical storms, and 

flooding. This same work helps to make these same lands more resilient and capable of sequestering more carbon. 

The Forest Service is working to identify different ways to utilize 

wood fiber and small-diameter material. When woody materials are 

removed in forest-restoration projects or any of our projects, it not 

only reduces the risk of damage from wildfire and other disturbances; it provides a source of cellulose for bioenergy or for other 

wood products and decreases emissions from forest fires. This work 

provides jobs, green jobs, and can contribute to the long-term economic health of rural communities. 

Ultimately, the issue that might bring people to understanding 

the importance of the health of their national forest ecosystems is 

water. In the West, 60 percent of municipal water originates on national forests. It is critical that those forest soils, those forest 

stands, the hydrologic systems, be able to function in the way they 

were designed to deliver clean and abundant water to streams and 

rivers for later use by not only the plants and animals that depend 

on them along the way but the ever-growing human population. 

Water is already a scarce commodity in many places across the 

United States, and the health of our forests is a critical consideration of how to manage in an era of climate change. 

Our national forests play a vital role in helping our nation respond to the challenges of a changing climate. The Forest Service 

is working to improve the health and sustainability of the national 

forests, which, in turn, will help these ecosystems adapt to the effects of climate change and permit them to absorb great quantities 

of carbon from the atmosphere. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues with the 

Subcommittee. I will be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kimbell follows:] 

Statement of Abigail Kimbell, Chief, Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

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

today to discuss the important role national forests and grasslands play in addressing climate change. Healthy, resilient watersheds represent one of the best insurance policies we have in a changing climate. I will focus my remarks on the scienceVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47754.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
9 

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

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

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

Change Science Program (CCSP). Abstract. 2 Id., p. 118. 

based management approaches we are employing to enhance the capacity of our national forests and grasslands to adapt to the effects and mitigate the impacts of climate change. 

Forest Service Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change 

Our national forests and grasslands provide a wide spectrum of ecosystem services on which society relies, including clean water, scenic beauty, outdoor recreation, 

fish and wildlife habitat, natural resource-based jobs, forest products, renewable energy, and carbon sequestration. However, observations show that climate change is 

currently impacting the nation’s ecosystems and services in significant ways and 

those alterations are very likely to accelerate in the future, in some cases dramatically. 1

The Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity 

of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. To improve our ability to carry out our mission in a changing climate, the 

Forest Service developed a Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change. 

The Strategic Framework identified seven key goals to help us set priorities and 

make informed decisions for sustaining forest and grassland resources: 

Science—Advance our understanding of climate change. 

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

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

build-up of greenhouse gases. 

Policy—Integrate climate change considerations as appropriate into Forest Service policies, program guidance, and communications. 

Sustainable Operations—Reduce the environmental footprint of our operations 

and facilities. 

Education—Advance awareness and understanding. 

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

These interrelated goals can assist our thinking in how we accomplish our work 

on National Forest System lands in the face of changing environmental, social, and 

economic conditions. To achieve these goals, the Forest Service will work collaboratively with the public and a broad range of agencies and partners. We recognize 

these goals will not be realized immediately. However, we plan to make our goals 

a reality over time through the ongoing implementation of actions to address climate change. 

I highlight below our efforts on three Strategic Framework goals directly related 

to federal lands and climate change: Science, Adaptation, and Mitigation. 

Science 

Science that advances our understanding of the environmental, economic, and social implications of how climate change impacts forests and grasslands is essential 

for scientists, managers and policymakers. There is a wide range of existing science 

that needs to be translated into land management applications, tools and information. In addition, citizens knowledgeable about climate change and its impacts on 

ecosystems will be better prepared to participate in decisions and actions affecting 

their national forests and grasslands. 

Climate change presents significant challenges to sustainable management of National Forest System lands. Decisions being made today by policymakers and resource managers will have implications through the next century. Recent reports 

from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlight the impacts of climate change on forests 

and grasslands. These impacts include changes in precipitation and water availability, shifts in plant and animal distribution, and longer, warmer growing seasons. 

In 2008, the CCSP released a Synthesis and Assessment Report on the Effects of 

Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity. 2

The report found that: 

• Climate change has very likely increased the number and frequency of forest 

fires and insect outbreaks in the Interior West (Colorado and the Great Basin), 

the Southwest, and Alaska, and will continue to do so. 

10 

• Rising CO2 will very likely increase photosynthesis for forests, but this increase 

will likely only enhance wood production in young forests on fertile soils. • Nitrogen deposition and warmer temperatures have very likely increased forest 

growth where adequate water is available and will continue to do so in the near 

future. • The combined effects of rising temperatures and CO2, nitrogen deposition, 

ozone, and forest disturbance on soil processes and soil carbon storage remain 

unclear. • Projected increases in temperature and a lengthening of the growing season will 

likely extend forage production into late fall and early spring, thereby decreasing need for winter-season forage reserves. • Climate-change-induced shifts in plant species are already under way in rangelands. Establishment of perennial herbaceous species is reducing soil water 

availability early in the growing season. 

The Forest Service has a long history of researching and tracking many aspects 

of national forest and grassland ecosystems. We have over two decades of focused 

climate research, three decades of air pollution research, and experience in scientific 

assessments that provide a firm scientific foundation for addressing the challenges 

of managing these ecosystems relative to climate change. Over the years, nearly 125 

Forest Service scientists have published climate change research reports and peerreviewed publications. Thirteen Forest Service scientists were involved in the climate change work of the IPCC that shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, the Forest Service and its research partners in the university and private sectors have established a strong science base for informing management practices 

under a wide range of stressors and management objectives. This science base is 

being blended with newer findings to provide an evolving science and technology 

base for use in managing national forests and grasslands in a changing climate. 

The Forest Service recently completed the Global Change Research Strategy for 

2009-2019. The Strategy is aimed at providing science related to climate change for 

land managers, policymakers, scientists, and citizens. Our research will focus on adaptation, mitigation, decision support, and science delivery with support from research from other areas such as land use change, interactions between fire and fuels 

management, carbon cycles, ecosystem management, insects and disease, water, air, 

soils, wildlife, and social and economic sciences. 

The Forest Inventory and Analysis Program has tracked changes in the extent, 

health, and productivity of forests since the 1930s. In the early 1990s, additional 

forest health indicators were added to the program and this data can be used over 

the long term to detect changes in forests at regional and national levels. In addition, the nationwide network of federal experimental forests and ranges provides up 

to 100 years of data on climate, hydrology, soil productivity, and silvicultural treatments from selected locations representing all the major forest types in the United 

States. Further scientific support comes from partnerships with universities, federal 

and state agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the forest industry. 

The challenge is to translate this science into information, tools, and technologies 

that people can use. In addition, we have important science gaps that need to be 

addressed. Climate models lack the ability to provide projections at the detailed 

scale that is most useful to land managers and local and regional planners. We lack 

critical information to determine the stresses of a warming climate and carbon dioxide on plant growth. We need more science about the timing, scale, and location of 

climate change impacts. Our scientists are looking for better ways of forecasting 

how terrestrial ecosystems will change in response to a changing climate and how 

the changes will affect animals and plants that depend on these ecosystems. The 

Strategic Framework, the Research Strategy and the USDA science strategy recognize these gaps, and the Forest Service is working with USDA and other federal 

agencies and partners to address them. 

Adaptation 

The goal of climate change adaptation for forests and grasslands is to enhance 

their ability to adapt to the environmental stresses of climate change, which will 

help to ensure their ability to serve as fully functioning ecosystems that provide a 

broad range of ecosystem services. The ability to adjust to climate change is critical 

because of its expected effects. 

Even under the most optimistic carbon dioxide emission scenarios, important 

changes in sea level, regional and super-regional temperatures, and precipitation 

patterns will have profound effects. Management of water resources will become 

more challenging. Increased evidence of disturbances such as forest fires, insect outbreaks, severe storms, and drought will command public attention and place increasing demands on management resources. Ecosystems are likely to be pushed inVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47754.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
11 

3 Id., Abstract. 

4 Id., Abstract. 

5 Id. Executive Summary. 

creasingly into alternate states with possible breakdown of traditional species relationships, such as pollinator/plant and predator/prey interactions, adding additional 

stresses and potential for system failures. 3

Some forest systems may experience near-term productivity increases, but over 

the long term, many such systems are likely to experience overall decreases in productivity that could result in economic losses, diminished ecosystems services, and 

the need for new, and in many cases significant, changes to management regimes. 4

Managers and policymakers will need to be nimble in using new information to 

adapt to changing conditions because the scope of climate change and its impacts 

on ecosystems are difficult to predict. In addition, dealing with risks and uncertainties introduced or made worse by climate change will need to be a more prominent 

part of our management decision processes. In some cases, failing to take management actions will result in significant disruptions to ecosystems, so we must maintain as many options as possible now and in the future for handling unexpected 

events and conditions. 

The primary focus of climate change efforts on National Forest System lands is 

to facilitate the adaptation of ecosystems to the effects of these changes. Each year, 

we manage millions of acres of National Forest System land to make forests and 

grasslands more resistant to wildland fires, insects and diseases, and more resilient 

to major disturbances such as intense wildfires, tropical storms, and floods. For example, we conduct prescribed burning and thin dense stands to reduce competition, 

alter species composition, reduce fuels, and improve forest health. These same treatments help our national forests and the species that depend on them adapt to the 

stresses associated with climate change. 

Water is one of the most critical ecosystem services provided by forests and grasslands. Water quality, quantity, and the timing of water flow have important environmental, social, and economic consequences. Forests in the United States provide 

53% of the Nation’s drinking water to more than 180 million people, with 66 million 

relying directly on National Forest System lands as their water source. Plants, animals, natural and managed ecosystems, and human settlements are susceptible to 

variations in the storage, fluxes, and quality of water, all of which are sensitive to 

climate change. Precipitation, streamflow, and stream temperatures are increasing 

in most of the continental United States. The western United States is experiencing 

reduced snowpack and earlier peaks in spring runoff, and we are seeing increased 

drought severity and duration in the western and southwestern United States. 5

Clearly, we need effective approaches to address these changes, and we are developing a water strategy to address these issues. 

More extensive application of these efforts is vital for adaptation of national forests and grasslands, and will need to be part of future research, planning and management actions. To accelerate our learning and understanding, we are practicing 

science-based adaptive management, an approach that promotes learning through 

doing. This approach involves actively making decisions and monitoring results to 

improve our understanding about the complex systems we manage. 

Some management actions may need to be expanded, such as planting a more diverse species mix in reforestation efforts that may be better adapted to future climate projections. New management strategies may be useful, such as assisted migration of species and solutions to moderate extreme stream flows. Specific techniques need to be continually developed, tested and evaluated. Monitoring the effectiveness of our actions is a critically important component of this adaptive adjustment process. 

Mitigation 

Adaptation and mitigation activities are inherently interrelated. The goal of climate change mitigation for forests and grasslands is to reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases by removing carbon from the atmosphere while sustaining these ecosystems. To significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, the United States will 

need to implement a variety of mitigation strategies, including sequestering more 

carbon in forests, grasslands, wetlands, soils, and wood products, planting trees, implementing carbon capture and storage from point sources, and conserving energy 

through multiple options, including product substitution and use of alternative 

fuels. A wide variety of strategies can cumulatively contribute to a significant decrease in emissions. 

Net carbon uptake by terrestrial ecosystems in the United States, coupled with 

storage in wood products and landfills, currently offsets about 12 percent of United 

12 

6 US EPA. April 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006. 

USEPA #430-R-08-005 7 CCSP. May 2008. SAP 4.3. p. 78. 

States greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production. 6 Management of forests and grasslands to enhance terrestrial carbon storage, 

including planting trees and avoiding forest conversion, has considerable potential 

as an important component of the global capacity to mitigate effects of fossil fuel 

emissions. 

The long-term ability of forests to sequester carbon depends in part on their resilience. Mitigation is actually dependent on how successful we are in keeping forests 

well-adapted to the changing climate we are trying to remedy. The interplay between mitigation and adaptation can result in delicate balances and difficult tradeoffs in our decision-making. 

Active management may increase the resiliency of forests and arid lands to respond to climate change. Forest thinning can reduce fire intensity, increase drought 

tolerance and reduce susceptibility to insect attack. Grazing management and control of invasive species can promote vegetation cover, reduce fire risk, and reduce 

erosion. 7 These management practices, designed to restore ecosystem health, may 

in the near-term reduce total stored carbon below current levels. However, in the 

long-term the overall capacity of these ecosystems to sequester carbon can be enhanced. 

As one of the mitigation strategies, the Forest Service is looking at ways to use 

smaller diameter woody biomass from overcrowded forests. Biomass removal 

through forest restoration projects reduces the risk of damage from wildfires and 

other disturbances and provides a source of cellulose for bio-energy and wood products. The removed biomass also decreases the net effective emissions from disturbance events, offsets fossil fuel emissions, and increases long-term carbon storage. 

The Forest Service Bioenergy and Bio-based Products Strategic Direction was recently completed and is aimed at providing science to analyze and inform policy and 

develop a variety of tools useful for landowners and land managers. We are working 

to provide the science and technology to effectively utilize this type of biomass. 

The implementation of restoration activities and increases in renewable energy 

products and bio-fuels can provide jobs for economically depressed areas with high 

unemployment and contribute to the long-term economic stability of rural forest 

communities. Sustainable forest management can provide woody biomass materials 

that could be used in the future production of renewable energy which may reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

The 2007 Energy Act amended the Renewable Fuel Standards to increase annual 

amounts of transportation fuel required to be obtained from renewable fuels. The 

Clean Air Act defines renewable fuels as transportation fuel produced from renewable biomass. The 2007 Energy Act’s definition of renewable biomass excludes materials from federal lands except those obtained from the immediate vicinity of buildings and other areas regularly occupied by people, or public infrastructure, at risk 

of wildfire. We continue our analyses of these and other provisions of these laws, 

and are in the process of developing policy considerations to utilize woody biomass 

from federal lands through improvement in infrastructure to process woody biomass, 

better the economic utility of this biomass as a source of renewable energy, and enhance cost-effective forest restoration treatments that improve forest health and reduce risk of wildfire. 

Conclusion 

The changing climate is shifting precipitation patterns, vegetation and species distribution, and disturbance patterns, none of which respect administrative boundaries. We are taking science-based adaptive management approaches today to improve the health and sustainability of our national forests and grasslands, which in 

turn will help these ecosystems adapt to the effects of climate change and mitigate 

the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Private forests and rangelands also have 

a very significant role to play in combating climate change. We are working with 

partners to adapt our forest and rangeland management programs to anticipate the 

effects of climate change and mitigate the potential impacts across all ownerships. 

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

would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Chief. 

13 

Let me ask Mr. Thomas Armstrong, Senior Advisor for Global 

Change Program, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior. Sir, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS R. ARMSTRONG, SENIOR ADVISOR 

FOR GLOBAL CHANGE PROGRAM, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to participate on behalf of the Department of the Interior in today’s hearing on combating climate change and the role of Federal lands. 

My name is Tom Armstrong, and I am the Senior Advisor for 

Global Change Programs at the U.S. Geological Survey. I also represent the USGS and the Department of the Interior as a principal 

member of the U.S. Climate Change Science program. 

Perhaps no subject relevant to public resource managers is as 

complex and challenging as global climate change. DOI is focusing 

its resources on better understanding the impacts related to climate change and helping to identify potential adaptation strategies 

for managing our natural resources and vital ecosystems in the 

face of these changes. 

Let me give you some specific examples of climate-change-related 

impacts on DOI lands, waters, and other resources. 

The Bureau of Land Management is a steward of the national 

system of public lands: 258 million acres of surface lands and 700 

million acres of subsurface Federal mineral estate, encompassing 

climate-sensitive arctic tundra, coastal forests, and the vast mountain deserts, and rangelands of the American West. They provide 

water resources, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, forest 

products, livestock forage, and mineral and energy resources. 

The National Park Service units represent a wide range of ecosystems scattered across the Nation that present a tremendous opportunity to observe the effects of climate change on resource conditions that scientists and managers have documented over 

decades. 

Begun almost nine years ago, the National Park Service Natural 

Resource Challenge Initiative has funded parks across the Nation 

to conduct inventories and initiate climate-relevant, viable science 

monitoring of national resources under the NPS’s jurisdiction. This 

information has provided timely examples of the effects of climate 

change now visible in many of the nation’s national parks. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists working on the 

ground are observing changes in many of our natural systems as 

well. These changes are more acutely evident in arctic ecosystems, 

where observations include wetland drainage, earlier green-up of 

arctic vegetation, and changes in the hydrology of glacially fed 

streams. 

Increased arctic temperatures have also contributed to earlier 

onset of snowmelt and the lengthening of the melting season, resulting in decreased total ice cover at summer’s end. 

Climate change in the arctic will continue to affect the habitats 

of ice-dependent species, such as the polar bear and the walrus. 

Now, let me briefly discuss how we are focusing our resources to 

combat climate change and its impacts. 

14 

The USGS is collecting, monitoring, analyzing, and providing scientific information about natural resources conditions, issues, and 

problems for use by decisionmakers in the Department, at all levels 

of government, and by the general public. This information, coupled 

with its effective dissemination, is the key to combating the effects 

of climate change. 

To this end, the USGS has created a climate effects network, an 

early warning system on the effects of climate change, as well as 

the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center for understanding fish, wildlife, and related habitat response to changing 

climate. 

The efforts of USGS will result in new knowledge and tools to 

support land and resource managers, citizens, and other stakeholders in managing and making decisions that will be cost-effective, provide for more resilient ecosystems and watersheds, and, ultimately, safer communities. 

The Administration recognizes the important role science plays 

in understanding and addressing the impacts of climate change. 

The President’s 2010 budget blueprint includes more than $130 

million in additional funding for the Department to monitor, adaptively manage, and assess the impacts of climate change on the nation’s lands, fish, waters, and wildlife. While more details relating 

to the Department’s budget will become available as the planning 

process continues, this is an important endorsement of the need for 

scientific analyses to understand and address these changes. 

The Department of the Interior has a natural leadership role 

among Federal agencies addressing climate change on Federal 

lands and can bring all of its resource management, scientific, and 

information capabilities to bear in accomplishing this goal. 

All of the Department’s land-managing bureaus have taken actions to identify and address the impacts of climate change, but the 

complexity of the problem and the scope of the issues demonstrates 

that more work is, indeed, necessary. 

As Secretary Salazar assembles his team, the Department will 

work with its counterparts in this Administration to address the 

important issues. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present my testimony, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you and the 

other Members may have for me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Armstrong follows:] 

Statement of Dr. Thomas R. Armstrong, Senior Advisor for Global Change 

Programs, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior 

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

to participate on behalf of the Department of the Interior in today’s hearing on combating climate change and the role of Federal lands. My name is Thomas R. Armstrong, and I am the senior advisor for Global Change Programs at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). I also represent the USGS and the Department as a Principal 

member of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). 

The Department has a natural leadership role among Federal agencies addressing 

climate change on Federal lands and can bring all of its resource management expertise, capacity for alternative energy development, and scientific and information 

capabilities to bear in accomplishing that goal. As Secretary Salazar assembles his 

team, the Department will work with its counterparts in the Administration to address these important issues. 

My statement today largely focuses on the USGS’s role with regard to climate 

change research and science, focusing on climate impacts on our natural resources, 

15 

including water, land, and wildlife. In addition, Section 711of the Energy Independence and Security Act (P.L. 110-140), enacted into law in December 2007, authorized the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the USGS, to develop an assessment methodology and conduct a national assessment of geological 

storage capacity in collaboration with other relevant agencies. The USGS’s ability 

to collect, monitor, and analyze relevant data allows it to provide scientific information about natural resource conditions, issues, and problems to decision-makers in 

the Department, at all levels of government, and the general public. This information—baseline scientific information, trends detection, modeling and forecasting, together with the effective dissemination of information and decision support tools— 

is key to understanding and addressing climate change and its effects. 

The Administration has recognized the important role science plays in understanding and addressing the impacts of climate change. The President’s 2010 Budget Blueprint includes more than $130 million in additional funding for Interior, of 

which $40 million is shared with the States to monitor, adaptively manage, and assess the impacts of climate change on the Nation’s lands, fish and wildlife. While 

more details relating to the Department’s budget, and these particular activities, 

will become available as the planning process continues, this is an important endorsement of the need for scientific analyses to understand and address these 

changes. 

My statement also includes summary information on the impacts of changing climate as seen on the ground by the Department’s land managing bureaus and the 

Bureau of Reclamation, as well as a brief look at adaptation and mitigation issues 

facing the bureaus as they carry out their missions. I am also joined by representatives from the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who are here to answer any questions you might 

have with respect to their programs. 

Background 

Perhaps no subject relevant to public land managers is as complex and challenging as global climate change. The Department of the Interior manages one in 

every five acres of the U.S. land mass. The bureaus within it operate dams and irrigation facilities that provide water to farmers and manage leases from which onethird of the Nation’s domestic energy supplies are produced. Lands and waters 

under the Department’s management jurisdiction account for significant contributions to our alternative energy supply from sources such as biomass, geothermal, 

solar, and wind power. Our wildlife refuges and national parks provide important 

wildlife habitat and manage extensive areas of shoreline and important wetlands. 

In Alaska alone, where the most tangible effects of climate change are being seen 

in the United States, the Department manages tens of millions of acres of public 

land, parks, and refuges. 

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

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

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

the spread of pests and diseases, as well as a broad range of human activities. In 

order to effectively manage its lands and trust resources, the Department, working 

within the broader U.S. interagency climate change science framework, has a responsibility to further the scientific understanding of climate change processes and 

impacts. USGS scientists were contributing authors of the Climate Change Science 

Program’s Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4: Preliminary Review of Adaptation 

Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources, drawing on their expertise 

to identify adaptation strategies for National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. 

The USGS conducts scientific research to understand the likely consequences of climate change, especially by studying how climate has changed in the past and using 

this historical record to forecast responses to shifting climate conditions in the 

future; distinguishing between natural and human-influenced changes; and recognizing ecological and physical responses to changes in climate. These strengths 

allow USGS to play a critical role in conducting climate change science across the 

Nation’s terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal systems—within and beyond Federal 

lands—and in providing objective science to assist decision-makers. 

USGS Climate Change Science 

Using these integrated assets, the USGS is creating a Climate Effects Network, 

an early warning system on the effects of climate change. USGS is also developing 

a National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center for understanding fish and 

wildlife responses to changing climate and for testing and validating related adaptation decisions by land managers and other stakeholders. The efforts of USGS will 

16 

result in new knowledge and tools to support land and resource managers, citizens, 

and other stakeholders in making decisions that will be cost effective, provide more 

resilient ecosystems and watersheds, and safer communities. 

The USGS provides on-the-ground scientific information from its numerous observation and monitoring networks and research activities. These observations and related research efforts are important components for building climate models, especially those that deal with the impacts of climate change to terrestrial, freshwater, 

and marine ecosystems. The ability to provide ground-truthing across multiple scientific disciplines in a wide variety of spatial and temporal scales enables the USGS 

to play a key role within the climate science community as we, and others in the 

international community, strive to develop adaptation and mitigation measures. 

Regarding climate impacts on Federal lands, USGS findings and data provide critical information to decision-makers regarding many important climate-related 

issues, such as: • Proliferation of invasive species and impacts on biodiversity, habitat, and ecosystems. The USGS is conducting several major studies throughout the United 

States looking at the evolution of forest and rangeland communities as a response to warming climate and changes in precipitation. The U.S. Forest Service, several land resource bureaus of the Department, and numerous State resource agencies are important stakeholders. • Current and future trends of climate warming in the Arctic and resultant permafrost degradation and impacts on energy and transportation. The USGS is 

conducting several coordinated studies on the North Slope and Yukon Basin of 

Alaska. Emphasis is on permafrost and climate effects monitoring and related 

ecological and socio-economic changes. This work is a partnership with the U.S. 

Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the University of Alaska, Alaska State agencies, and various Native communities. • Coastal erosion in Alaska. A recent study, led by the USGS, finds that average 

annual erosion rates along part of the Beaufort Sea climbed from historical levels of about 20 feet per year between the mid-1950s and late-1970s, to 28 feet 

per year between the late-1970s and early 2000s, to a rate of 45 feet per year 

between 2002 and 2007. While the findings could represent a short-term episode, the study, published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters, 

could represent the future pattern of coastline erosion in the Arctic. • Consequences of abrupt changes in climate including sea-level rise and impacts 

to low-lying coastal communities. USGS projects include two Priority Ecosystem 

Studies in the Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades. The USGS is collaborating 

with many partners, including the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the land management bureaus within the Department. 

• Impacts of climate change on land use and landscape change. In partnership 

with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and NOAA, the USGS 

is involved in a variety of activities that are critical to understanding the impacts of climate change on public lands. These include monitoring of coastal 

zone topography and bathymetry; the production and distribution of national topography data; and improving our knowledge of topographic surface change 

through Landsat, and light-imaging detection and ranging (LIDAR) and radar 

imaging of the U.S. national land surface. 

• Future availability of water for people and ecosystems. Specific projects underway include hydroclimatology studies in the Pacific Northwest and arid Southwest to assess current and future changes in water availability for these regions, and to identify associated impacts on dam and reservoir management 

strategies. The Bureau of Reclamation and several State water agencies are 

principal stakeholders for this work. 

Scientific findings related to climate change must be effectively conveyed and delivered in a timely manner so that decision-makers are informed by the most relevant, up to date, objective information possible. Furthermore, scientists must provide this information with accurate estimates of uncertainty so that conclusions and 

recommendations drawn from scientific studies can be properly evaluated. The 

CCSP, of which both the USGS and the Department are members, is actively involved in developing a more effective decision support strategy for all interested 

stakeholders. 

Although science has come far in understanding the impacts of climate change on 

people and ecosystems, many significant challenges and unique opportunities to better understand the long-term climate future for our planet remain. These include: 

• Developing a holistic, earth-systems science approach to help communities and 

natural resource managers prepare for climate change impacts; 

17 

• Developing a better understanding of how the earth and its physical and biological processes interact, and with this understanding respond to climate 

change over the short-term and well into the future; • Forecasting climate-related impacts for physical and biological systems; • Forecasting precipitation changes as a consequence of changing climate; • Determining how global warming may alter the frequency, intensity, and paths 

of strong storms, including hurricanes, as well as their impacts on coastal communities and natural resources; and; • Understanding effects of climate change on entire ecosystems. 

Included below is a summary of the impacts of changing climate on our bureau 

assets and resources and a brief look at adaptation and mitigation issues that the 

bureaus are currently facing. As can be seen, all the Department’s land managing 

bureaus have taken some actions to identify and address the impacts of climate 

change, but the complexity of the problem and the scope of the issues to be addressed means more work is necessary. 

Bureau of Land Management 

The BLM is steward of the National System of Public Lands, 258 million acres 

of surface lands and 700 million acres of subsurface Federal mineral estate that are 

tremendously diverse. Encompassing Arctic tundra, coastal forests, and the vast 

mountains, deserts, and rangelands of the American West, they provide water resources, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, forest products, livestock forage, 

and mineral and energy resources. 

The effects of climate change may already be apparent on public lands managed 

by BLM. One example is the desertification of public lands as a result of an increase 

in the frequency and duration of drought, which has recently been linked to longterm changes in the climate system. This has been accompanied by reductions in 

surface flow and groundwater levels, and a reduction in water availability. Vegetation in some places has converted to more drought hardy species, accompanied by 

or resulting from the expansion of non-native and other undesirable species. In some 

instances, species numbers have been reduced and, in affected habitat, some species 

have been lost. The overall results of these changes are more fragile ecosystems, a 

greater susceptibility to the outbreak of attacks by parasites and disease, increased 

vulnerability to wildland fire and erosion, and an overall reduction in carrying capacity. In Alaska, increased melting and other loss of glacial masses is seen and permafrost melting is occurring, resulting in loss of soil stability and increased erosion. 

As a bureau, BLM is beginning to address climate change as a comprehensive factor in general management planning, and to identify the effects under cumulative 

impact analysis in environmental assessments. At this point, however, there is little 

guidance in dealing with this issue; as knowledge of climate change processes matures, the bureau’s ability to address it will evolve and almost certainly improve. 

The BLM is currently working on refinements to enhance integration of science, 

planning, and project implementation. The BLM is also working to increase its ability to monitor, assess, predict, and respond to landscape changes over time, and is 

also continuing and expanding science research partnerships with the USGS, Department of Energy, other agencies, and universities. 

The BLM is also implementing programs to address climate change on a broader 

scale. Maintaining and restoring healthy, resilient ecosystems is crucial to ameliorating and adapting to the effects of climate change. Much has been learned as this 

effort has evolved. Most importantly, the Bureau has recognized that landscapescale problems require landscape-scale responses. Effective management must apply 

science, integrate disciplines, involve partners, coordinate jurisdictions, and link 

local actions to regional management strategies and priorities. Examples include the 

Great Basin Restoration Initiative underway in Nevada, Oregon, and Idaho, and the 

Healthy Forests Initiative, which focuses on restoring forest ecosystems across public lands. 

The BLM is providing opportunities for increased production of renewable energy 

through permitting on public lands of wind, solar and geothermal generation 

projects—of which there is vast potential—and projects for use of woody biomass resulting from forest management. The BLM’s completed programmatic plans estimate that, by 2025, wind energy capacity on public lands could reasonably increase 

five-fold from current levels. The projected increase for geothermal energy is even 

greater. Fully 90 percent of the existing and future geothermal resources in the 

United States are on Federal lands, and geothermal energy capacity could reasonably increase 15-20-fold by 2025. Similarly, solar energy on public lands holds great 

potential, and BLM is currently completing a programmatic environmental impact 

statement to assess potential development scenarios for solar energy and to help facilitate the development of solar energy projects on the public lands. 

18 

The public lands may also have an important role in efforts to mitigate emissions 

through terrestrial and geologic carbon sequestration. The capability to capture and 

store carbon dioxide in geologic formations could have a significant role in mitigating carbon dioxide emissions, which are a key factor in climate change. Geologic 

carbon sequestration is also considered especially important because it could enable 

the more climate-friendly use of the Nation’s vast coal resources. However, the challenges of geologic carbon sequestration are complex and significant, and many technological, scientific, legal and logistical questions exist. The BLM is working in cooperation with the Department of Energy to assess the feasibility of geologic sequestration, and BLM is currently preparing recommendations regarding the potential 

administration of geological sequestration projects on public lands. 

Finally, BLM is implementing policies and practices that result in reduction of 

energy and other natural resources used by the bureau, as well as production of pollutants that exacerbate climate change effects. 

National Park Service 

National park units represent a wide range of ecosystems scattered across the nation that present a tremendous opportunity to observe the effects of climate change 

on resource conditions that scientists and managers have documented over decades. 

Begun almost nine years ago, the National Park Service Natural Resources Challenge Initiative has funded parks across the nation to conduct inventories and initiate vital signs monitoring of natural resources under the NPS’s jurisdiction. The 

combination of these sources of information, long-term legacy monitoring data, and 

new inventories has provided timely examples of the possible effects of climate 

change now visible in parks. 

Based on NPS and other collaborative research, climate change presents significant risks and challenges to national parks. Warming temperatures have caused accelerated melting of mountain glaciers, reduced snowpack, and changes in timing 

and amount of stream flow. As noted above, these impacts are particularly felt in 

Alaska, where melting sea ice threatens marine mammals as well as coastal communities, and thawing permafrost is contributing to the loss of buildings, roads, and 

facilities and disrupting the structural basis of large regions of interior Alaska. 

Shoreline vulnerability maps for parks, created by the USGS, predict that rising 

seas will erode beaches and coastlines and submerge wetlands and Native American 

cultural artifacts at coastal park units. Inundation of coastal estuaries, intertidal 

zones, and beaches will result in beach loss. Elevated water temperatures are causing coral bleaching and disease, and aggravating water quality problems that lead 

to harmful algal blooms. Estuaries, which are essentially fish nurseries that filter 

pollutants and protect the coast from storm surges, will be submerged faster than 

new sediment can build up. Valuable habitat for eelgrass beds, foraging waterbirds, 

shorebirds and nearshore fish will be lost. While some impacts are already measurable, the long-range effects of climate disruption on NPS natural and cultural resources, park infrastructure, and visitor experience are not currently known. 

Because climate change has been identified as one of highest priorities for the 

NPS, many actions and activities have been undertaken at parks and within regions. The NPS is now in the process of developing a strategic framework for action 

that will detail long and short-term actions in three major areas: mitigation, adaptation, and public communication. The NPS has hired a Climate Change Coordinator, 

created six ad-hoc working groups—Legal & Policy; Planning; Science; Resource 

Stewardship; Greenhouse Gas Emission & Sustainable Operations, and Communication—to explore key goals and strategic actions that need to be addressed at park, 

regional, and national levels; and has held a series of regional and interagency 

workshops to explore climate change impacts and coping strategies and to develop 

action plans. In conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, in 2003 the 

NPS initiated the Climate Friendly Parks Program to promote sustainable operations in parks and create action plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with 

almost 50 parks now participating. The NPS also created the Environmental Management Systems Programs with the goal of sustainable park operations and reduction of environmental impacts. Finally, NPS formed a service-wide Climate Change 

Response Steering Committee to foster communications, provide recommendations, 

and serve as an advisory body to NPS leadership; the Committee adopted the NPS 

Ocean Park Stewardship Action Plan in 2006 to guide actions to reduce ocean-related climate change impacts. 

Looking to the future, the NPS will seek opportunities to capitalize on, and expand, the potential that units of the national park system provide for understanding 

long-term effects of climate change, testing innovative measures for adapting to climate change, and informing the public about climate-change-caused effects on natVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47754.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
19 

ural and cultural resources and on the ability for visitors to experience enjoyable 

park visits. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Service is a field-based organization, and biologists working on-the-ground 

are observing changes in many of our natural systems. Like the other land managing bureaus, these changes are more acutely evident in Arctic ecosystems where, 

in addition to the previously mentioned changes, observations include wetland 

drainage earlier ‘‘green-up’’ of Arctic vegetation, and changes in the hydrology of 

glacially-fed streams. Increased Arctic temperatures have also contributed to the 

earlier onset of snow melt and the lengthening of the melting season, resulting in 

decreased total ice cover at summer’s end. Climate change in the Arctic will continue to affect the habitats of ice-dependent species such as polar bear and walrus. 

Like the polar regions, the Northwest and the Mountain-West have been experiencing reductions in annual snowpack, with USGS estimating that climate changes 

over the last 50 years in these areas have led to as much as a 17 percent decline 

in annual winter snowpack. The result has been a decreased recharge of ground 

water systems, increased stress to public water systems, changes in the timing of 

river ice-outs, and reduced river flows that affect temperature, depth, and other 

characteristics of spawning environments for fish such as Pacific salmon. Snowpack 

declines also have been accompanied by earlier annual peaks in river run-off, as 

documented in stream gage monitoring and analyses across the lower 48 States and 

throughout Alaska. As snow pack melts earlier throughout the western United 

States, reservoirs designed upon 20th century hydrology may not be able to adequately store the runoff. Predictions of less frequent, but more intense, summer 

storms may exacerbate storage and supply concerns. 

Land managers face the growing reality that these recent observations may not 

be part of annual or even decadal change in weather patterns, but are possibly 

linked to a long-term change in the climate system. If this is the case, the implications for wildlife and fisheries management are substantial and will require extensive changes in the design and placement of projects to store water, protect and restore habitats, and manage populations. 

Service biologists are also noting changes in abundance and distribution of species, including the expansion of pests and invasive species. Expansion of the mountain pine beetle into higher latitudes and elevations—areas once too cold to support 

it—is well correlated with observed temperature changes. This range expansion is 

increasingly impacting forest habitats, not just killing trees, but making these landscapes more susceptible to catastrophic wildfires and creating the potential to drive 

fundamental shifts in ecosystem function and structure. While some species will 

adapt successfully, some will not. Species most at risk are those that are unable to 

generalize or adapt. Long-distance migrants and birds with limited geographical 

ranges, for instance, may not be able to adjust to the changes caused by rising temperatures. Species at the end of geographical or elevational gradients will have difficulty adapting because they have nowhere to which they can migrate. Increased 

competition for habitat and the lack of suitable or available food in new locations 

would mean that a shift poleward may change the size of bird populations and composition of bird communities adapting to climate change. 

Other significant changes associated with increased warming include rising sea 

levels and water temperatures that pose threats to marine habitats, coastal wetlands, and estuaries which are part of more than 160 National Wildlife Refuges the 

Service manages along the nation’s coastline. Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, 

part of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Complex along the North Carolina coast, is losing ground annually to the Atlantic Ocean. The projected rise in sea 

level over the next 50 to 100 years will likely transform large expanses of marsh 

to open water, forest to marsh, and complicate habitat conservation for species such 

as the Federally endangered red wolf and many other species of birds and wildlife. 

While the primary factor causing incidents of harmful algal blooms in the Gulf 

of Mexico is nutrient runoff, increased ocean temperatures are also accelerating the 

intensity of these blooms, or ‘‘red tides.’’ These increased incidents can cause significant fish kills, contaminate shellfish and, when inhaled, can create severe respiratory irritation to human. Increased ocean temperatures also contribute to more 

frequent and more intense events of coral bleaching and disease which can stress 

and kill corals. With the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, our oceans are 

becoming more acidic. As oceans absorb more carbon dioxide, the availability of carbonate ions is reduced. Reef-building organisms and shellfish require an abundance 

of carbonate ions to build their skeletons and shells. 

The Service has established an impressive track record of adapting and mitigating 

strategies, including pioneering partnerships in habitat restoration and terrestrial 

20 

sequestration. The Service is also beginning to address the potential for significant 

sea level rise. A comprehensive modeling effort using what is called the Sea Level 

Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) has been undertaken to determine the potential 

effects of sea-level rise on coastal National Wildlife Refuges. The SLAMM model 

simulates the dominant processes involved in wetland conversions and shoreline 

modifications during long-term sea level rise. SLAMM results will be crucial elements in developing refuge and landscape-scale adaptation strategies and in revising refuge comprehensive conservation plans. 

The Service is working with other agencies, States, and partners to understand 

developments as quickly as possible and develop the capacity to respond to impacts 

on lands it manages and trust species under its jurisdiction. 

Bureau of Reclamation 

The Bureau of Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of water in the country, 

bringing water to more than 31 million people and providing one out of five Western 

farmers with irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland. Reclamation is also 

the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the western United States, 

with 58 powerplants annually providing more than 40 billion kilowatt hours— 

enough electricity to serve 6 million homes. 

There is extensive study and discussion within the scientific community about the 

potential impacts of a changing climate on western water resources. For example, 

in 2007, a report from the National Academies of Science on Colorado River Basin 

Water Management concluded that ‘‘higher temperatures will result in less upper 

basin precipitation falling as snow, increased evaporative losses, and will shift the 

timing of peak spring snowmelt to earlier in the year.’’ The need to increase the predictive capabilities of climate change models was discussed earlier in this statement. 

As those improvements occur, Reclamation will be looking to where and how to incorporate new climate change information. 

Fortunately, Reclamation possesses operational flexibility to respond to hydrologic 

change and fulfill its mission to deliver water and power in the West. Drought, 

flood, and wide climate variability are all common occurrences in the western 

United States. Given its mission, Reclamation must manage with this variability in 

mind. However, solutions and strategies for incorporating climate change science 

into water project operations is an emerging effort being undertaken by all western 

water management interests, not just Reclamation. Identifying the information 

needed will require coordinated participation from all the organizations that can 

provide expert climate and hydrologic sciences. 

Reclamation works with its many partners to better understand and incorporate 

climate information into western water resource management, including the USGS. 

The Reclamation Research and Development (R&D) Office is working with climate 

change experts in the USGS to help define the impact of changes in climate variability and climate change on western water resources. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, there is a growing consensus that changes in the natural and 

human systems related to the effects of climate change must be better understood, 

monitored and forecasted so that all of the Nation’s resources can be effectively 

managed and protected. The Department’s bureaus are in an important position, 

partnering with USGS, to evaluate and develop responsive strategies for the impacts that we are observing and cataloging on resources in the Arctic, water resources in the southwest, and on the abundance and distribution of wildlife. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf 

of the Department. I will be pleased to answer questions you and other Members 

of the Subcommittee might have. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Anthony Brunello, Deputy Secretary for Climate Change and 

Energy, California Natural Resources Agency. Mr. Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY BRUNELLO, DEPUTY SECRETARY 

FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY, CALIFORNIA NATURAL 

RESOURCES AGENCY, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BRUNELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members. My name is Anthony Brunello. I am the Deputy Secretary for 

21 

Climate Change and Energy at the California Natural Resources 

Agency. 

Federal lands account for approximately 43 percent of California’s total land ownership and are explicitly linked to our ambitious climate change and energy goals across the state. Of our 32 

million acres of forest land, the Federal government manages over 

13 million acres that emit and sequester vast amounts of greenhouse gases annually. 

National forests in California are estimated to be net carbon 

sinks throughout the entire year, making our forests a primary 

contributor to our national net sinks total. 

The BLM oversees vast landscapes in California, with enormous 

solar, wind, and geothermal energy potential, holding the key to 

powering millions of homes in the West with renewable energy. 

And the National Park Service manages habitat for many wildlife 

and aquatic species that could become extinct due to increasing 

temperatures, shifting precipitation, and rising sea levels. 

How the Federal government will require its agencies and 

projects to account for, mitigate, sequester, and monitor greenhouse 

gases and how to adapt to future climate impacts should be carefully weighed with their economic, environmental, health, and safety considerations while complementing existing state climate policy 

efforts. 

California has a detailed and aggressive portfolio of regulations 

and incentives to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, increase its resilience to anticipated climate impacts, and to promote 

the sustainable development and utilization of renewable energy 

resources that we hope will match Federal efforts. 

In my submitted testimony, there is much more information on 

our regulations that I discuss there. 

For the remainder of my time, I would like to highlight four opportunities for the Subcommittee to continue to provide climate 

and energy policy leadership on Federal lands, including, first, 

work to maintain and increase carbon stocks on public lands and, 

in particular, by reducing catastrophic wildfire. 

California’s forests are already under threat, as has already been 

mentioned, from development, wildfire, insects, pests, disease, and 

now climate change. Wildfires, in particular, are a major driver of 

forest carbon loss in California and for the nation. Over three million acres of Forest Service land in California suffered wildfire 

damage between 2000 and 2008, with over 300,000 acres completely deforested. 

Climate scientists are predicting that the situation will only 

worsen as temperatures rise. California has been working closely 

with the Forest Service, over the last three years and further, to 

improve our climate-related efforts, but these efforts have been 

marginally funded and need additional support. 

Support should be provided to help reforest areas devastated by 

wildfire, fund the expansion of the Forest Inventory Assessment, 

which is absolutely essential to understand and have better accounting for carbon on our national lands, and expand forest fuels 

treatment on public lands using sustainable harvesting practices in 

allowing woody biomass to be characterized as a renewable fuel. 

22 

This last point is sensitive between the Forest Service, industry, 

and the NGO community, but a solution is needed to reduce fire 

risks and to meet our national climate and energy goals. 

Second, consider state actions to assess greenhouse gases and environmental impact assessments, such as the California Environmental Quality Act, to inform similar efforts for the National Environmental Act. This includes basic ‘‘do’s,’’ such as counting of 

projects’ greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating for those emissions, to ‘‘do not’s,’’ such as taking away authority for lead agency 

discretion. 

The third point: Increase public lands’ resilience to future climate 

impacts, which has already been discussed today. In particular, 

states need better coordination amongst Federal agencies, and this 

is key: more and better policy-oriented research and more funding 

to implement these efforts. The cap-and-trade bill will not stop expected sea level rise, temperature rise, or reduce rainfall over the 

next century. Adapting to these impacts is a necessity. 

The climate-adaptation text of last year’s H.R. 6186 climate legislation introduced by Representative Markey is a good place to 

start. 

The fourth point: Ensure Federal land management agencies 

have the financing, policies, and authority to quickly and effectively 

process renewable energy applications in sustainable locations. 

This would include providing full support for recently created BLM 

renewable-energy coordination offices that will expedite the permitting of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal projects, along with 

needed electrical transmission facilities. 

More details of these measures can be found in my submitted 

testimony. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brunello follows:] 

Statement of Anthony Brunello, Deputy Secretary for Climate Change 

and Energy, California Natural Resources Agency 

Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee; thank you for the opportunity to appear today to offer testimony regarding the role of federal lands in combating climate change in California. My 

name is Anthony Brunello and I serve as the Deputy Secretary for Climate Change 

and Energy for the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 

Federal lands account for approximately 43% of California’s total land ownership 

and are explicitly linked to California’s ambitious climate change and energy goals. 

For example, of the 32 million acres of forestland in California, the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) manages over 13 million acres that emit and sequester vast 

amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) annually. Unlike most of the U.S., California 

forests are estimated to be net carbon sinks throughout the entire year. making 

California forestland a primary contributor to the large estimated net carbon sink 

of U.S. forests. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees vast landscapes with enormous solar, wind, and geothermal energy potential holding the key 

to powering millions of homes in California with renewable energy. And the U.S. 

National Park Service (NPS) manages habitat for many wildlife and aquatic species 

that could become extinct due to increasing temperatures, shifting precipitation and 

rising sea levels. 

How the federal government will require its agencies and projects to account for, 

mitigate, sequester, and monitor GHGs, and how to adapt to future climate impacts, 

should be carefully weighed with their economic, environmental, health and safety 

considerations, while complementing existing state climate policy state efforts. I 

hope my testimony provides insight into California’s climate policy context as the 

Subcommittee develops new climate policies for federal lands. 

23 

California Climate Policies Related to Public Lands 

California has a detailed and aggressive portfolio of regulations and incentives to 

reduce the state’s GHG emissions, increase its resilience to anticipated climate impacts, and to promote the sustainable development and utilization of renewable 

energy resources to meet state energy and climate goals. California’s central climate 

policy is the Global Warming Solutions Act (or Assembly Bill 32, AB32) signed by 

Governor Schwarzenegger in 2006 to reduce state GHG emissions by roughly 28% 

below 1990 levels by 2020, and by 80% by 2050. This is a mandatory economy-wide 

target providing broad authority to our state air regulating body, the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB), to use regulatory and market-based mechanisms, such as 

a cap and trade system to reach this target. 

In December of 2008 CARB adopted the AB32 work plan (referred to as ‘‘the 

Scoping Plan’’) to reduce an estimated 172 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent 

(MMTCO2E) by 2020, which includes measures related to public lands. Although 

AB32 is a state law, USFS and BLM were directly engaged with state efforts led 

by CNRA to meet forestry and renewable energy goals, in particular. For the forestry sector, the Scoping Plan sets a target for the entire state to sequester 5 tons 

or greater across all lands including federal lands. 

Senate Bill 97 (SB97) was passed by the California State Legislature in 2007 requiring the state to provide technical guidance within the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA) for how individual projects should assess GHG activities from 

their project activities. The guidelines will be complete by the end of 2009, but current plans require all projects to: provide an analysis of the potential effects of 

GHGs on the environment; provide a calculation of GHG emissions from direct and 

indirect sources; determine the significance of potential impacts assessed and supported by substantial evidence; avoid duplicative and costly analysis where it is possible to tier from state or regional efforts; adopt feasible mitigation where there are 

significant impacts; and allow Statements of Overriding Consideration. 

Regarding renewable energy, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order 

(EO) S-14-08 in November 2008 requiring California utilities to get 33 percent of 

their electricity load from renewable energy sources by 2020. This order sets a renewable portfolio standard that leads the nation. A key constraint in reaching this 

goal is efficiently permitting renewable projects on public lands. The EO requires 

state agencies to develop a new streamlined review and approval process for renewable energy sites and to cooperate, through an MOU with BLM and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), to create a streamlined process that will make it easier 

for wind, solar and geothermal sites to be built in California. 

Regarding climate impacts in California, Governor Schwarzenegger signed EO S13-08 also in November 2008 to enhance the state’s management of climate impacts 

from sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation and extreme 

weather events. The EO initiated California’s first statewide climate change adaptation strategy with multiple Agencies and Departments to be complete by June 2009, 

requested the National Academy of Sciences to assess sea level rise impacts specific 

to California, and ordered state agencies to plan for sea level rise in designated 

coastal and floodplain areas for new projects. Given the serious long-term threat of 

sea level rise and other climate impacts to California’s water supply and coastal resources, an adaptation plan is the first step in reducing assets at risk from climate 

change (largely from wildfire and flooding) that could significantly alter our state’s 

economy, population and natural resources. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

There are several opportunities for the Subcommittee to continue to provide climate and energy policy leadership for federal lands. California’s recommendations 

below are based on four general goals including: (1) maintain and increase carbon 

stocks on public lands (in particular in reducing catastrophic wildfire); (2) increase 

public land resilience to future climate impacts; (3) ensure federal land management 

agencies have the financing, policies, and authority to quickly and effectively process 

renewable energy applications in sustainable locations; (4) and consider state actions to assess GHGs in Environmental Impact Assessments, such as in the California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), inform similar efforts for the National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA). 

I. Maintain and increase carbon stocks on public lands 

California’s forests are under threat from development, wildfire, insects, pests, 

disease and climate change. Wildfire, in particular, is a major driver of forest carbon 

loss in California, and for the nation. Over 3 million acres of USFS land in California suffered wildfire damage between 2000 and 2008, with over 300 thousand 

24 

acres completely deforested. Climate scientists are predicting that the situation will 

only worsen as temperatures rise. 

California has been working closely with USFS Region 5 over the last 3 years to 

improve carbon accounting in state and federal forest lands, to develop joint forestry 

GHG emission reduction and forest adaptation projects and plans, and to develop 

markets for biomass residue from forest thinning (fuel hazard reduction and forest 

health) and timber harvesting. But, these efforts have been marginally funded and 

need additional support. We recommend the following specific activities to ensure 

we are increasing carbon stocks on public lands. 

1. Reforest areas that have been devastated by wildfire—As mentioned, over 

300,000 acres have been completely destroyed and deforested from fire over the 

last decade. Restoring and reforesting these lands could require over 30,000 

acres per year that could eventually sequester 2-5 tons per acre per year. For 

the 300,000 acres of planting there is a potential of sequestering 2-8 

MMTCO2E every year. Replanting has the additional benefit of reducing 

mudslides and promoting habitat restoration. 

2. Fund the refinement and expansion of the USFS Forest Inventory Assessment 

(FIA)—The FIA is essential in developing, tracking, and monitoring any national climate change policy efforts regarding land-use GHG emissions and sequestration. The refinement and expansion of plots in California are essential 

to demonstrating the contribution of forests to GHG reduction and to ensuring 

that California forests meet our state climate goals. FIA data will also, 

assumedly, be used to set state and national baselines for any carbon compliance effort including forests as a carbon offset. 

3. Expand forest fuels treatment on public lands using ‘‘sustainable harvesting’’ 

practices and utilize extracted woody biomass to supplant carbon-based fuels— 

A key ‘‘no regret’’ climate policy on federal lands is to support expanded fuels 

treatment that can reduce GHG emissions, reduce fire hazards, and improve 

public health. Current estimates indicate that less than 100,000 acres of USFS 

land are receiving fuels treatment annually, which could easily be doubled 

pending environmental review and, most importantly, funding under the 

Forest Land Use Management Plans. Estimates of biomass residue available 

through fuels treatment could be in the range of 500,000 to 1,300,000 tons that 

could be used for the production of liquid fuels, electricity, or thermal energy. 

4. Support research that tracks, monitors, and models GHG emissions from catastrophic wildfire, and research that shows project-level GHG benefits from fire 

mitigation and adaptation efforts. The USFS has a strong research program 

that already has accomplished a great deal of important research about the relationship between forests and climate change. Supporting research that provides a foundation for tracking catastrophic wildfire GHG emissions and actions to reduce these fires will help the policy discussions move from arguing 

the science, to actually supporting projects to reduce these risks. One key component will be to finish life cycle biomass utilization analysis (this has been 

started, but needs further support). Completion of this research with additional 

efforts, will better establish the relationship of the utilization of biomass from 

fuel hazard reduction treatments as a feed stock source for the production of 

bioenergy (liquid fuels, heat, and electricity). 

5. Work with states to define how biomass extracted from private and federal 

lands could qualify as a renewable fuel under national renewable energy programs—Currently, the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 excludes the use of 

biomass produced from federal lands. Due to the size of the federal ownership 

in California this excludes approximately half of the biomass that could be 

used to meet the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard for increasing the 

amount of renewable energy. Governor Schwarzenegger has stated that 20% of 

renewable energy goals and 20% of renewable fuels should be produced using 

biomass feed stocks. It will be extremely difficult for California to meet these 

objectives if federal law prohibits use of biomass from federal lands. We welcome the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee on this topic. 

II. Consider state actions to assess GHGs in Environmental Impact Assessments, 

such as in the California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to inform similar 

efforts for the National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA) 

In California, SB 97 (as summarized above) requires the state to develop guidelines for CEQA concerning GHGs that reinforce CEQA’s traditional framework for 

analysis. SB 97 is one piece of a larger state approach to regulate and control the 

destabilization of atmospheric conditions via analysis and mitigation such as AB 32. 

However, unlike the holistic and retroactive approach of statutes such as AB 32, SB 

97 only addresses project-specific impacts via the development and permitting procVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47754.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
25 

1Moser, Susanne C., Guido Franco, Sarah Pitiglio, Wendy Chou, and Dan Cayan (2008). The 

Future is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California, California Climate Change Center and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program, Sacramento, CA, report in review. 

esses throughout California, and only applies to projects falling within the discretion 

of ‘‘lead agencies’’. Further, CEQA, unlike other regulatory processes, only addresses 

specific impacts from projects through litigation. 

NEPA is the federal counterpart to CEQA, but is in no way governed or otherwise 

controlled by CEQA or its analytical approach. Like CEQA, when federal actors engage in activities that could impact the environment, they are required to analyze 

the potential impact of those activities. NEPA regulators may choose to look to the 

CEQA guidelines as an example of how to prepare for this analysis in NEPA documents. Since NEPA and CEQA environmental review are often done together, use 

of CEQA’s approach to GHGs could prevent inconsistent results analytically. Below 

are two specific recommendations including: 

1. As currently written, draft CEQA guidelines show a number of project recommendations that could be a helpful starting point for NEPA regulators— 

These Guidelines include: an analysis of the potential effects of GHGs on the 

environment; a calculation of GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; 

determination of the significance of potential impacts assessed and supported 

by substantial evidence; avoid duplicative and costly analysis where it is possible to tier from state or regional efforts; adopt feasible mitigation where there 

are significant impacts; and Statements of Overriding Consideration will be allowed. The amended Guidelines will not proscribe thresholds of significance, 

require a hierarchy or menu for mitigation, or mandate compliance with statewide plans for greenhouse gas mitigation. 

2. Consider use of general principles now being used under CEQA Guidelines: 

Æ Lead agencies will maintain traditional discretion to establish thresholds 

and adopt mitigation measures; 

Æ The GHG guidelines will not assume climate change is the impact, but rather allow lead agencies to develop science that fully describes potentially significant outcomes as a result of GHG emissions; 

Æ Focus on tiering from regional and statewide plans for the reduction of 

GHGs that will assist local lead agencies in efficiently engaging in their obligations; 

Æ Prevent conflation with other, related statutes; 

Æ Consider all interested stakeholder views are considered to ensure impartiality and fairness 

III. Reduce climate change risks to public lands in California 

California is already experiencing climate change impacts. For example, it is scientifically documented that sea levels have increased by 7 inches in San Francisco 

Bay over the last century, increasing coastal erosion and pressure on levees for California’s water supply in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The state has also seen 

increased average temperatures, more extreme hot days, fewer cold nights, a lengthening of the growing season, shifts in the water cycle with less winter precipitation 

falling as snow, and both snowmelt and rainwater running off sooner in the year. 1

The greatest link with federal lands, besides water, is the risk facing California forests and public lands as warmer and drier conditions lead to longer and more intense wildfires. In the next three decades the trend of these characteristically intense wildfires are projected to significantly increase. 

EO S-13-08 provides direction for California’s state agencies to develop multi-sector, multi-agency climate adaptation strategies by June 2009 based on climate 

change science funded by the California Energy Commission. Seven separate working groups were established (forestry, public health, infrastructure, oceans, agriculture, water, biodiversity and habitat) and have been coordinating adaptation 

strategies to reduce our risk to climate impacts. 

Early state implementation efforts have shown several key areas where federal 

lands and federal management agency assistance will be instrumental to reducing 

California’s climate risks. These include: 

1. Establish a federal climate policy adaptation team made up of all federal agencies to translate known science into actionable climate adaptation strategies— 

For climate adaptation strategies on public lands to be implemented, they will 

require policy changes that go beyond any single agency. A working policy 

team should coordinate and develop strategies based on collective science in cooperation with states. California’s existing climate adaptation coordinating 

26 

structure and policy guidance would and should fit directly with federal agency 

needs. 

2. Support the National Oceanic Administrative Agency’s (NOAA) concept to develop a National Climate Service to coordinate climate research, and provide 

support to states to develop climate vulnerability studies—Climate change 

science and adaptive responses to climate change are being developed in every 

other state separately at all levels of tribal, public, and private sector organizations. Most of this work should be coordinated within one central federal entity. These diverse decision-makers require better access to relevant and usable 

scientific information, and assistance in how to use it appropriately and effectively. Thus, it is not enough to just do more research; what is required is improved linkage and collaboration between the sciences and the decision-makers 

who can use scientific findings. The proposed NCS by NOAA could and should 

be this vehicle, but a final NCS should be developed in partnership with the 

states and provide support to their state climate adaptation strategy efforts. 

3. Fund more climate change research, especially related to economic impacts, to 

improve regional and state-level information on climate change and resulting 

impacts, and toward assessing climate mitigation and adaptation project effectiveness—One of the most critical challenges that agencies and stakeholders 

face in managing climate change risks is the lack of scientific understanding. 

In some instances, it is a matter of gathering and making available the data 

and information that have already been collected. In other instances, it is a 

lack of continuous data that would be needed to detect change and determine 

environmental trends and causes. Identifying the costs and benefits of implementing specific adaptation strategies as well as of more general, over-arching 

strategies, such as a research program dedicated to adaptation, is a common 

need across sectors. 

4. Establish a system of Sustainable Habitat Reserves across federal lands in 

partnership with state and local partners—To protect fish and wildlife across 

California from increasing threats to their habitat, the federal government 

should work toward establishing a set of habitat reserves for vulnerable species. 

IV. Ensure BLM and USFS have the financing, policies, and authority to quickly 

and effectively process renewable energy applications. 

EO S-14-08 advances California’s renewable energy goal of serving 33% of our demand by renewable energy resources. In particular, the EO directs state agencies 

to create comprehensive plans to prioritize regional renewable projects across all 

California lands based on an area’s renewable resource potential and the level of 

protection for plant and animal habitat. 

To implement and track the progress of the EO, the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) signed a Memorandum 

of Understanding formalizing a Renewable Energy Action Team (REAT). The REAT 

has started the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in the Mojave and Colorado Desert regions and identify other preferred areas that will benefit from a 

streamlined permitting and environmental review process. This will dramatically reduce the time and uncertainty normally associated with building new renewable 

projects. 

1. Support the California REAT process to ensure BLM and FWS are able to support state and federal renewable energy goals 

2. Ensure full support for recently created BLM Renewable Energy Coordination 

offices that will expedite the permitting of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal projects, along with needed electrical transmission facilities. The action was taken to achieve the Congressional goal in Section 211 of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005, which calls for the development of 10,000 megawatts of nonhydropower renewable energy projects on public lands by 2015. 

3. Ensure the USFS finalizes its renewable energy policy assessment in the near 

future and work with California to update individual forest plans to incorporate these policies when complete. The Forest Service owns and manages 

nearly one-quarter of all the land in California. However, unlike the BLM, 

USFS does not have a consistent, statewide policy with regards to the development of renewable energy. Currently, individual National Forests typically determine the treatment of renewable energy on Forest Service lands inconsistently. As one might imagine, this leads to inconsistencies between Forests, 

even within the same Region. 

27 

CONCLUSION 

Thank you Chairman Grijalva and members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear today to offer testimony about how the nation can combat climate 

change on public lands. California is pleased to serve as a resource to the Subcommittee for future planning efforts. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Billy Frank, Chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF BILLY FRANK, CHAIRMAN, NORTHWEST 

INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks 

for gathering everybody here today to listen to some of our maybe 

bad news and, hopefully, good news. 

Climate change; we have to adapt to it, we, all of us, not just the 

Indian tribes throughout our country, and we have adapted to so 

many things and changes that happened throughout our thousands 

of years here. 

My name is Billy Frank. I am the Chairman of the Northwest 

Indian Fisheries Commission, and I have been coming back and 

forth here for the last 30 years testifying in front of the U.S. Congress, and I am happy to be back here again. I have about 50 more 

years to go, Mr. Chairman, so hang with me. 

You know, if there is any legislation to be legislated into law, we 

want the tribal governments to be a part of that. We, on the Pacific 

Coast, where I live, in the State of Washington, and represent 24 

tribes along the Pacific Coast and up and down the Columbia River 

and the Snake River. We sit on the U.S.-Canada International 

Treaty. We have our science team, our infrastructure together. We 

manage the Pacific salmon from Alaska clear down to Mexico and 

the State of California and throughout the United States here, and 

we are natural resources managers. 

When we are talking about natural resources, we are talking 

about warming of the water that is affecting our fish runs. We see 

our forests gone. We see nothing holding the water back anymore. 

The forests have been cut down, clearcut, and old-growth timber 

gone, very important to the natural resources, the food chain of our 

life, the cycle of life. 

As I travel throughout all of our land along the Pacific Coast and 

throughout the Southwest here, I have witnessed things that are 

happening, such as the Barrow, up with the Eskimo villages up 

there falling into the sea, into the Arctic Ocean, the Bering Sea. 

I have witnessed these things, and it is not good to witness these 

things, and where are these people going to go? 

I just came from Hawaii on a two-day meeting, and the people 

are preparing, in the Pacific Rim, to start moving people from these 

islands. Where are they going to move them to? 

These are real things that are happening in our world, in our little world, around us. We have to start addressing these things, the 

U.S. Government and our leadership throughout our country, and, 

hopefully, we have a new day coming right now that we can organize and start addressing some of these things. 

28 

How climate change is affecting the tribes, and what we can do 

about it; we can do a lot of things. We have a lot of technology 

right now. We have streams that are warming up, you know, from 

what I just indicated about the habitat. We have to think about 

how we can cool those streams down so when the salmon come 

home, and our life comes home, back to Puget Sound and along the 

Pacific Coast, that we can start making the water temperature 

maybe cooler instead of hotter. 

You know, these things are very important to life that exists out 

there, and the food chain is in serious condition in the Pacific 

Ocean. We have dead zones along Florence, Oregon, clear up into 

Kalaloch Beach in the State of Washington. We have these all documented by the University of Oregon and the University of Washington and California. Everything that is dying is coming to shore. 

We have pictures of this. This is serious. 

Now, I do not know whether anybody in this room knows about 

these things, but we know what is going on. We are there. We are 

managers along the Pacific Ocean, our tribes. Within Puget Sound, 

we have dead zones in Hood Canal. We have dead zones in South 

Puget Sound, where I live, you know, 50 miles south of Seattle. We 

have dead zones up into the Georgia Straits into Canada. All of 

these things are not good things to hear. 

Now, what can we do about it? 

We can uphold the Interior and Commerce Departments’ commitments to abide by the terms of Secretarial Order 3206; what we negotiated with the Secretary, and it took us three years to do that, 

the Indian tribes. 

Implement salmon recovery plans and other natural resource restoration plans while supporting and harmonizing the exercise the 

tribal rights, the 1855 treaties. 

Develop and coordinate with tribes on national energy policies to 

address climate change that is compatible with treaty rights and 

fish habitat [e.g., reduce peak demands through conservation and 

offset climate change pressure on salmon]. 

Involve tribes in climate change solutions in Indian Country, including carbon offsets, habitat protection, and energy conservation. 

Reach out to the tribes as governmental partners to address climate change. 

We are collaborators. We collaborate with the State of California, 

the State of Alaska, and the States of Washington, Oregon, and 

Idaho. Throughout all of the nation, we are collaborators. We try 

to keep the wheels on the wagon in managing our natural resources, and we all have to do that together. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frank follows:] 

Statement of Billy Frank, Jr., Chairman, 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

Chairman Grijalva and honorable members of the Subcommittee, I am Billy 

Frank, Jr., Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. It has been 

my pleasure to testify in front of the committees of the United States Congress for 

more than thirty years on behalf of the twenty Treaty Indian Tribes in Western 

Washington. Today I will share my thoughts with you pertaining to tribes and climate change—the impacts we are witnessing and the things we tribes propose be 

done about it. 

I have been fortunate to be able to travel extensively across this continent and 

spend time with my Indian brothers and sisters of many tribes. I can personally atVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47754.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
29 

test to the fact that the impacts of climate change are, in fact, hurting both people 

and resources in the continent’s interior and from coast to coast. When Hurricane 

Katrina ripped through the south in 2005, much attention was devoted to the unfortunate victims in New Orleans. But no one heard of the Chalmette Tribe that was 

completely washed away. Everything they had was destroyed, after having lived 

near what is now New Orleans for thousands of years. In Alaska, more than 125 

Alaskan Native organizations have signed a resolution urging stronger action from 

Congress, as they rightfully blame climate change for endangering their lives and 

culture as even the mighty polar bear finds it harder and harder to survive, and 

peoples’ houses fall into the sea, giving way to melting ice. On the East Coast, 

storms rage more severe due in some measure to dynamic changes in the Gulf 

Stream, and our own Pacific Ocean temperatures and de-oxygenated currents have 

resulted in killer storms and massive fish kills. All of these impacts, and much 

more, are brought about or enhanced by climate change, and as you know the vast 

majority of scientists today attest to the fact that man’s pollution and exploitation 

are the primary cause of this phenomenon. As an indigenous person, whose parents 

told him the stories and taught him the things their parents taught them, I bring 

to you today the memories of a thousand generations, accumulated from this continent. As such I can tell you that there has been climate change before. But there 

has never been climate change like we are seeing today, and certainly not the kind 

of impact brought on so widely through the infestation of man. 

As a representative of tribal leaders, I speak to you today on behalf of our people 

and our culture. I also speak to you on behalf of our jurisdiction. Let there be no 

mistake. This is a jurisdiction-related issue. Tribes are sovereign governments, and 

have been for a long, long time. They provide services to their citizens and watch 

out for their interests, as best they can, a task made much more difficult by the 

broken promises of our federal trustee. Tribes are also sovereign nations, and in 

that capacity, many of them signed treaties with the United States as they were 

asked to relinquish millions of acres of land for settlement. Treaties are, by definition, contracts between sovereign nations. They are also, as defined in the United 

States Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. When our leaders of seven generations ago signed treaties with officials of your government, they reserved certain 

rights and resources, on and off reservation, which have nonetheless been consistently trampled upon—a fact made all the more unbearable by the blind eye that 

past federal officials have turned to our plight. 

The fact is that the tribes are typically hit first and hardest by the impacts of 

climate change. One of the primary reasons this is true is that our cultural resources, our foods, our water, our medicines—everything that makes us who we 

are—is hit first and hardest. We live on the oceans and on the rivers. We work hard 

to protect our people and our resources, but we still too often find ourselves ignored 

by our trustee, and we find that the states and counties allow people to move in 

on our lands overharvest our cultural resources—from berries to mushrooms—that 

make us who we are, even as the waters warm and the forests turn brown from 

intensifying heat and resulting insect infestations and rot. We see lights from 

houses built high on our hillsides now, and fear the impacts of the poisons that fill 

our rivers and seas. 

Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial 

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. 

This line of thinking fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so 

in the future—to a degree that we, nor our ancestors, have ever experienced before—largely due to man’s impact. 

Our traditional knowledge and science demonstrates that Earth’s climate can 

shift gears faster than anyone ever thought possible, establishing new and different 

patterns that can persist for decades and even centuries. Strange as it may seem, 

even as the Earth continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience disruptive shift into colder climates. Our ancestral memory, is backed by archaeological 

science. It fools some people to see more snow in some areas, but the fact is that 

this trend may well continue, and even bring us closer to another ice age. There 

are those who still foolishly say it is arrogant for man to think his activities can 

impact the weather. Yet, I say the real fool is one who thinks he can predict, with 

full accuracy, what will occur when mankind messes—as he already has—with 

Mother Nature. 

Sadly, we have passed the tipping point with climate change. Thousands of scientists here in the United States and all over the world agree this is true. The 

United States has been shamefully slow to respond to this massive problem, and 

30 

has, in fact, continued to be the world’s greatest consumer and polluter—choosing 

for years to pretend the problem doesn’t exist, and in some cases even denying it. 

There will be many changes due to man’s transgressions and disrespect for Mother 

Earth. There will be sea level rise and there will be some species we cannot save. 

There will be changes in our forests and there have already been many changes in 

our waters. The fact is that we must take firm action now, and listen no longer to 

those who would deny, very foolishly, that climate change, does not exist. It does, 

and we are in it. 

Anticipated Impacts on The Northwest 

Global warming modeling published by the University of Washington’s Climate 

Impacts Group in two reports commissioned by King County and the Puget Sound 

Action Team found that the Pacific Northwest warmed up faster (2.3 degrees) than 

elsewhere on the planet (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) during the 20th century. 

By 2050, average annual temperatures for the Pacific Northwest could be up to 

5 degrees higher than they were during the last 30 years of the 20th century. What 

will this likely mean to us in the Northwest? 

1. Wetter winters with more intense rainfall. Drier summers. Earlier spring 

snowmelt. More frequent and more intense storms. 

2. Significant retraction of the snowline in our mountains due to warmer winters—reducing our water ‘‘warehouse.’’ 

3. Rise in sea level by as much as 3.3 feet in the South Sound and 1 foot at 

Neah Bay by 2100 

4. Increased acidification of ocean water will slow or impair growth of shellfish 

and other species, and some species may not survive. 

5. Earlier onset of spring (already 2 weeks early in parts of the Puget Sound 

region). 

6. Inundation and shift of habitat types in existing salt marshes, mud flats, and 

beaches. 

7. Change in salinity, stratification, nutrient cycling and ocean productivity affecting the Puget Sound food web and expanding the existing dead zones. 

8. Lack of summer creek/river flows to maintain salmon runs in some watersheds, severe reductions in others. 

9. Disruption to species when spring conditions trigger earlier hatching and migration or warm winter temperatures cease to trigger hibernation. 

10. Increases in pests and diseases that affect crops, shellfish and forests 

throughout the region. 

11. Intensified storm water problems: far more massive and regular flooding, erosion, and combined sewer overflows. 

12. Favorable conditions for even more invasive species. 

13. Negative economic effects on fisheries, hunting and gathering as well as agriculture, forestry, tourism, and even hydropower. 

Our new President speaks very affirmatively, as do Members of Congress, about 

the fact that climate change is a reality. The fact that your members have brought 

‘‘non-believers’’ in climate change before you to effectively and courageously accuse 

them of lying for profit speaks for itself. We applaud that, and we plead with you 

to take strong and collaborative action now. There is no time to waste. We are now 

in a position of adapting to pending change and trying to minimize effects. These 

are efforts that the Federal and Tribal, as well as State governments must work 

on together—cooperatively—at every opportunity. 

Intertwined with climate change and every bit as severe is ocean acidification. 

Our oceans are poisoned. Man has put too many poisons into the air for far too long, 

creating challenges with acid rain which we have known about and done little 

about, for decades. The problem is not just atmospheric; it has reached into both 

surface waters and ground waters and the pollutant-problems have multiplied many 

times over. We have come to realize that no place on Earth is safe from this challenge. Even Alpine Lakes—places as high as one could possibly hike—are as polluted as every other part of the Earth. The same carbon dioxide that is creating the 

warming effect in our atmosphere is dissolving in our oceans, creating a dangerous 

increase in the PH of our oceans. Together, we must work to remedy this situation. 

There is nowhere else to go! 

So, What Can We Do Together? 

First, I want to re-emphasize that tribes have not been sitting on their hands. Our 

scientists and other workers are actively working, stretching every possible dollar, 

in watersheds throughout our region, to restore habitat, from stream banks to wetlands, and we work hard to convince our state and local governments that it makes 

no sense to keep on with business as usual, placing natural resource management 

31 

on the back burner. Even in tough financial times, if we do that, what makes sense 

to place on the front burner? Education? What sense does it make for us to educate 

our children in the classroom if we simultaneously trash the planet that sustains 

them? Jobs? There ARE no jobs without natural resources and the environment. 

Natural resource management must be placed on the front burner where it belongs. 

Period. 

In the Northwest, there are important instances in which this has led to highly 

positive results, ranging from the U.S.-Canada Salmon Treaty to the Timber-FishWildlife/Forests and Fish program. But, frankly, because we live in a ‘‘growth’’ region, much of the urban sprawl has continued and it has been a huge challenge to 

catch up with the impacts of growing exploitation and development. Part of the lesson man must learn from history is that it is suicidal to overpopulate, over-develop 

and over-exploit. The impacts of all environmental problems are inter-related, and 

sustainability is key to all environmental challenges, including climate change. 

We have participated, government-to-government, with such processes as the 

Puget Sound Initiative, and more to the point with climate change, the Governor’s 

Climate Change Initiative. This initiative, launched by Governor Gregoire in 2007, 

convened a task force and a number of subcommittees. Two related legislative bills, 

and climate change-related bills currently being considered by the State Legislature, 

are just starting points. Along with other participants, we realize that a resilient 

system would be more able to handle change. We must create robust habitat areas, 

such as wide stream riparian zones and multilayered intertidal shoreline and upland areas. For example, if increasing water temperatures or a drop in water volume will stress a stream, a thick canopy of tree cover can help minimize the impact. 

We also know it is important to make hard decisions that are fair but effective. 

We recognize the need to focus resources in areas that will give longer-term benefits. For example, modeling shows that rainfall-dependent (i.e., lower lying) watersheds will be less affected by global warming than snow-fed watersheds. Such conditions should be considered as we plan for restoration and protection work. The need 

for water reclamation is very apparent. Reclaimed water is water that has already 

been used for one purpose, has been treated and can be reused for certain types of 

use (irrigation, for example). Due to state mismanagement, our rivers are over-allocated, and we must build the infrastructure now for distribution of reclaimed 

water—it isn’t cheap. We will not be able to afford to use potable water for nonpotable needs in the future. It is critically important to leave water in creeks and 

rivers to support fish wildlife. It is a treaty-protected right. 

We have a major problem with storm water in the Northwest. We need to reduce 

the need for storm water combined systems by separating sanitary waste from 

storm water. New capitol improvements must consider the effects of long term climate change to ensure that salmon and other natural resources critical to tribes will 

have enough water. Toxic chemicals and nutrients in urban runoff must be curbed. 

Standards must be adopted to greatly reduce impervious surfaces and infiltrate all 

storm water on-site, rather than conveying it to streams. 

Septic systems have got to be cleaned up or replaced with clean and efficient 

sewer systems. It is urgent that we eliminate septic system problems because their 

contributions to dead zones, such as those in Hood Canal, will be amplified by climate change. 

It is important to support the efforts of tribes with forest lands to consider setting 

Cap and Trade programs, which can be effective tools for reducing pollution and 

protecting human health and the environment. These systems provide efficient incentives for early pollution reduction and innovations in control technologies and 

work well inter-governmentally, providing multiple benefits, including greenhouse 

gas emission control. 

Today, most regulatory actions taken by local, state and federal agencies—those 

which ARE enforced—are taken without consideration of potential climate change 

impacts. For example, new coastal structures should be designed for a higher sea 

level or buildings must be set back so that structural controls are not needed at all. 

We must be vigilant that regulations and ordinances are completely thought out. 

Wherever possible, the choice must be made to keep open spaces rather than build, 

to go with permeable rather than impermeable surfaces, and to end forestland conversion. Society needs to go on a Low-Carbon Diet. From driving vehicles fewer 

miles and carpooling/using mass transit to planting more trees and weatherizing 

houses and apartments, every citizen can and must be educated to help reduce the 

output of greenhouse gases. 

People have got to be made more aware of Environmental Justice. The most needy 

in our society may be forced to pay more of their budgets for basic needs such as 

drinking water, energy and food because of climate change. Also, as has been pointed out, tribes live close to the water. It’s our culture, and we depend very directly 

32 

on the fish and wildlife that depend on a healthy ecosystem. We stand to lose the 

most from the impacts of climate change. 

For many people, the issue of climate change feels like a distant idea, not an imminent threat. They’re wrong, and they need to know it. We must all understand 

that action is needed—now. Education is, of course, one of the great things we can 

do—together. Tribes have too often been a voice in the wilderness on natural resource issues. We have warned, almost always without being heard, that Mother 

Earth must be respected, that she is fragile and delicate—that we must never take 

more than we need as humans, and always use all that we take. We have warned, 

for a very long time, that we must always think of the needs of our descendants 

to come—for seven generations and more, and be aware that every action we take 

today affects those descendants in either a good or a bad way. These principles, 

known by many today as sustainability, are as valuable as they ever have been. Had 

they been heeded when we began to warn non-tribal people about them, we would 

not have the climate change challenges we face today. These lessons, which have 

been passed to us by our ancestors, must become part of all of our legacies. As I 

have pointed out, we know we have passed the tipping point with climate change. 

There are motions in action upon our Mother Earth which we cannot stop. But we 

can adapt, and we can do things to minimize their impact. The lessons of our ancestors are lessons of respect, human dignity and brotherhood. They are lessons of 

hope. 

The State of Washington passed legislation three years ago, HB 1495, as well as 

subsequent legislation, which made it easier for tribes and Indian teachers to convey 

these lessons of Traditional Knowledge, from our culture of stewardship to our languages, in classrooms across the state. Although many more of our people now complete high school and achieve higher education degrees than before, we ask you to 

consider increasing your commitment to Indian education. We ask you to consider 

legislation that would achieve similar tasks as HB 1495 on a national scale. We also 

ask that Congress take a stand to, once and for all, acknowledge that tribes, and 

the stewardship ethic we hold dear, has much to offer all citizens across this great 

nation, particularly in this time of dire environmental challenge. Let it be a message 

of truth—that in building this nation, much has been taken from the tribes unfairly, 

and that the human rights of the Indian people, including their treaty-protected 

rights, have never been understood or enforced—and that the time has come for the 

Native People of this land to receive their due acknowledgement, rights and respect. 

Let this statement from Congress also be one to educate your citizens about the 

great value of considering our long held values as values that have much to teach 

citizens from all walks of life who now call themselves Americans. 

Change and/or enforce the Rule of Law. In some cases, you will need to develop 

new laws. In some cases, you will need to enforce existing laws. But you must work 

with us to identify those things that are harmful to our people and our culture— 

and to stop/control them. As it is, and as it has been from the beginning of our contact with one another, your people are harming these precious things. It is a direct 

violation of our treaties and of your trust responsibility to us. When it comes to climate change, it must begin with an assessment. Our scientists work in our watersheds and on our marine waters day in and day out, year in and year out. This assessment must be done in collaboration with us. It is a little known fact that the 

Tulalip Tribes have achieved the first ever full-river climate change assessment— 

anywhere. In a nutshell, it was found that the removal of the forest canopy and wetlands had weakened the abilities of the system to withstand floods and other impacts that will be greatly increased by the sea level rise and increased storms resulting from climate change. Effective actions obviously begin with knowledge, and 

that tribe is working to remedy that situation with new ideas as well as traditional 

ones—and, like other tribes facing similar problems, will continue to need your help 

to do so. 

There is need for a comprehensive collaborative natural resources/environmental 

management plan—not just in our Pacific Northwest, but nationwide—that incorporates tribes across the country and the Federal as well as other governments. 

There is need for legislation calling for such a plan, and for adequate funding to 

back it up, and there is need for such a plan NOW. We wish to work with you to 

develop this legislation, as decision-makers. 

We have a new Administration and I think there is no surprise in the fact that 

this is something our Indian Nations have prayed for and are thankful for. Our 

budgets have been cut back, and we have been virtually ignored for far too long. 

But there is new hope on the horizon. The President’s selection of Carol Browner, 

former Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, as his Climate Change Director, certainly helps substantiate that hope. When she was EPA Director, she selected one of our tribal leaders from the Pacific Northwest, Terry Williams from the 

33 

Tulalip Tribes, to head her new Office of Indian Affairs. It was the first time in the 

history of the United States that such an office had been formed by the EPA, and 

Terry did a splendid job. We look forward to more of the same. 

I must be honest. We are still waiting to see some desperately needed financial 

support for natural resource management requests. Those must be honored because 

they are needs that directly affect our treaty-protected rights and they are most assuredly inter-related with resources impacted by climate change. We will be watching that closely, of course. 

But today I will simply remind you that we face a huge challenge with climate 

change, and that it is a challenge we must all face—together. 

Realizing this, the tribes served by the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

and those served by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission conducted 

high level meetings and strategy sessions leading up to the inauguration of President Obama, and, together, published a booklet that we make available to you 

today. ‘‘Treaty Tribal Natural Resources Management in the Pacific Northwest includes the specific requests being made, collectively, by the 24 treaty fishing tribes 

of the Pacific Northwest. These requests focus on the needs of salmon and other natural resources, and on the Federal trust responsibilities to the tribes. We ask you 

to note that among these priority needs and requests is the following statement on 

climate change: 

‘‘Climate change is real and its effects are already being felt in the rivers and 

streams of the Pacific Northwest. Tribes are leaders in the region in restoring riparian habitat, which is a key measure to address climate change effects. Natural resource management, climate change and energy independence are closely linked as 

the Northwest endeavors to safeguard salmon and other species.’’ 

We ask you to further note that we made five priority requests of the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress to fulfill its trust responsibilities as they relate 

to climate change. We ask you to support these priority requests: 

1. Uphold the Interior and Commerce Departments’ commitments to abide by the 

terms of Secretarial Order 3206: American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act. 

2. Implement salmon recovery plans and other natural resource restoration plans 

while supporting and harmonizing the exercise of tribal treaty rights. 

3. Develop and coordinate with tribes on a national energy policy to address climate change that is compatible with treaty rights and fish habitat (e.g., reduce 

peak demands through conservation and offset climate change pressures on 

salmon). 

4. Involve tribes in climate change solutions in Indian Country, including carbon 

offsets, habitat protection, and energy conservation. 

5. Reach out to tribes as governmental partners to address climate change. 

I thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I ask that you continue to consider tribal input on climate change as well as all natural resource and environmental issues on an ongoing basis, on a government-to-government basis. 

Our strength in facing the many challenges that exist today will be greater with 

greater understanding of treaty-protected rights, the Federal Trust responsibility to 

the tribes and the responsibilities we all share to the generations to come. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Before we begin with questions or comments from my colleagues, 

let me indicate that I anticipate that we will be called to a 3:30 

vote, somewhere around that time, so we will recess and return 

after those votes are done. 

Let me ask Chief Kimbell a couple of questions. We are going to 

hear from witnesses later about the importance of old-growth forests in combating climate change, based on the amount of carbon 

stored in mature, old forests. Has the Forest Service conducted any 

studies on this particular subject, this matter? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Yes. The Forest Service has conducted studies on 

the amount of carbon sequestered in different kinds of forests and 

the rate of carbon sequestration. So much depends on the health 

and vigor of those forest stands, where those forests are located, 

and their risk or susceptibility to catastrophic wildfire. 

34 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Under current law, the National 

Forest Management Act and NEPA, are those sufficient to deal 

with the impacts, the mitigation, and the adaptation that might be 

required by agencies, such as the Forest Service, in the future? I 

guess the question is, do we need updates on those laws to deal 

with this? 

Ms. KIMBELL. When NEPA was passed in 1969 and the National 

Forest Management Act in 1976, I do not think anybody could have 

foreseen the kinds of change and the rate of change that we are 

going through right now, and, no, the language that is in those two 

acts does not begin to address the rates of change that we see in 

the ecosystems that we work in. 

In January, the Forest Service issued direction to all of our field 

units to incorporate discussion of climate change in all of our environmental analyses and in the national forest planning process. 

Along with that, we have a group of scientists working together, 

not just Forest Service scientists but working with others, and 

looking at the global information available on climate change and 

working to try and scale that down to different scales so that it can 

be, at least, referred to in an environmental analysis. 

It is so very hard to predict what might happen in one single location, given the kind of global information that we have right now 

that has been through a peer-review process and science. 

So we do have a team of people that is working together to try 

and help us scale down that information to make it more usable 

at the local level, and we hope to have something very soon. But 

we did issue direction in January, and we think we can work within the regulatory framework to continue updating that information. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. But there needs to be, at some point, a revision 

update of the particular laws that I referenced. 

Ms. KIMBELL. It could be in statute, but it might very well be in 

the regulation. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Armstrong, in the last administration, adequate protection of 

our natural and cultural resources was on the back burner as we 

moved forward on expedited energy permitting. Moving forward 

now, how will you see adequately protecting the integrity of natural and cultural resources on these public lands in reference to 

the whole discussion we are having today about climate change and 

the need to protect and conserve those areas? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I think that everybody at DOI 

would agree with your statement that we need to take a balanced 

approach when we look at climate change and its impacts, the relationship to energy resources and natural and cultural resources as 

well. 

At the Department of the Interior, including USGS, who I work 

for, the science wing of the Department of the Interior, we are constantly striving to better understand that balance and to achieve 

that balance, and I know that that issue is of paramount importance to Secretary Salazar. But early in the start of his tenure, I 

am sure he will be giving great thought to that and bringing his 

forming team together to address that issue more effectively. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. You are very kind. 

35 

One other point: Presently, Mr. Armstrong, does the Bureau of 

Land Management currently have the capacity to monitor the impacts of climate change on the vast resources that they are responsible for managing? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I think that the Bureau, from my personal experience as the scientist in charge of the U.S. Geological Survey 

and my interactions with scientists and managers at the Bureau of 

Land Management, they do a very good job, a very effective job, of 

managing their natural resources through monitoring programs. 

But I will say this, that the Department of the Interior, across 

all of the career employees I have ever talked to, we realize that 

no single bureau can do it alone. It takes not just the entire Department working in unison to coordinate and communicate its 

vast fleet of monitoring assets, but we need to work with other 

Federal agencies, such as NASA, NOAA, the U.S. Forest Service, 

which we work very closely with, to provide additional information 

on monitoring on and off the Bureau of Land Management’s jurisdiction. 

In order to really understand climate change, we need to get beyond just the immediate jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service 

and look at the system in totality, and, in order to do that, we all 

need to be working together with state and local agencies, with 

tribal organizations, with academia. It really is that large of a 

problem. We all need to be working together. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. That leads me to the question for Mr. Brunello. 

In your testimony, you recommend the formation of a Federal Climate Change Adaptation Team. We just heard Mr. Armstrong 

speak somewhat to that. How important is that coordinated Federal effort, over different boundaries of our land management agencies, to deal with this subject area? 

Mr. Brunello. I am glad you asked that one. It is dear to my 

heart. 

I think, right now, in California, as an example, we are developing our statewide adaptation strategy. What is helpful for all of 

us, as you move ahead in any new effort, is you stay in your stovepipe, and so here, in the natural resources agency, we have energy, 

water, Fish and Game, and other committees that are in our jurisdiction, many areas that will have environmental impacts. 

What we have learned is we cannot really develop thoughtful, 

thorough adaptation strategies unless we communicate with our 

public health officials, for example, or our air regulators, or our 

Department of Transportation. It does not work. 

So what really needs to happen is to step even outside of the 

land management agencies. For example, the transportation issues 

you will discuss in this coming year; that is huge. That area, for 

us in California, is what guides a lot of our habitat restoration 

efforts. 

So what we are trying to accomplish is challenging. It is not 

easy, by any means, but what has to happen is to have the Federal 

entities have some type of framework that are the policy people 

having discussions that are using information that is fed up to 

them on adaptation measures so they can talk and discuss and 

36 

work things out. It is not going to work if it is just the science, and 

that is what we are learning. 

To do an adaptation strategy requires three things. First, you 

need good science, so you need to support the science; but, second, 

you need to have strategies that actually allow you to adapt to 

future climate impacts; and then the third part, which we have all 

missed the boat, is actually to act, and we want to get beyond research and to actually fund action. 

I know that is tough in all of our budget climates, specifically, 

in California, but, really, you have to move to actually fund things. 

That does not mean all new resources. It may mean just including 

things in new roads or in development of new properties along the 

coast that are going to experience sea level rise. 

So I think having it outside of just the land management agencies is fundamental in where you move forward. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Last question: Chairman Frank, what would be the immediate 

steps that the Federal government could take to improve the involvement of tribes, Indian Country, in the climate change adaptation efforts, policy efforts? 

Mr. FRANK. One of the things I see is that we are not included 

a lot of times within the state and then a lot of times within the 

Federal government. It seems to me, like, when the states and the 

Federal government include the tribes, they have success, but 

when they do not include the tribes, they do not have success. 

I see too many people micromanaging our resource, micromanaging it from the outside, and they are old, retired people that are 

going around, and they want to make money now; they are consultants, you know. We have to stop. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Like some Members of Congress. 

Mr. FRANK. Yes. I mean, it has got to stop. We have to start 

managing. We cannot be walking around, saying, ‘‘Hey, we are 

going to study this one more time.’’ We are studying it. 

This is real. This climate change is real, and it is upon us, and 

the temperatures are warming up, the floods are coming, and the 

storms are here, and we have to adapt to that, but we have to put 

it together. We have to manage together. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hastings? 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief Kimbell, in your 

written testimony, you made reference to managing forests and, 

specifically, thinning forests. You did not say that orally. If you did, 

I apologize; I did not hear it. Would you elaborate briefly on that? 

Ms. KIMBELL. I would be happy to. Thank you. 

The reference to thinning forests; I think we have some fabulous 

examples just from the last several fire seasons. One I will point 

to, since there are so many folks here who are familiar with California, is the Angora fire near South Lake Tahoe, where, through 

extended public involvement and work in a collaborative process, 

there was a whole series of hazardous-fuel-reduction projects identified, including thinning. 

When the Angora fire was started by a campfire, it burned very 

quickly through a whole drainage and burned quite a number of 

homes. The fire behavior was monitored in both the areas that had 

been thinned and the areas that had not been thinned. The fire 

37 

mortality was measured in the areas that had been thinned and in 

the areas that had not been thinned, and there were significant differences in the intensity of the fire, the fire behavior, and the mortality of the remaining trees in those areas. 

I think that that is just one example. We have many others 

around the West, and we have quite a few in the East now. We 

have a fabulous example in Florida, where the fire that was burning in the Okefenokee Swamp two years ago, when it came out into 

the Florida forest lands, the way it burned through areas that had 

not been treated was very, very different from the areas that had 

been thinned, and where the areas had been thinned, actually, firefighters were able to suppress that fire. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, I want to congratulate you. I have always 

felt that that is an integral part of managing our forest lands. 

Today, we got a news release from Sierra Pacific Industries, in 

Redding, California, saying that they are closing one-half of their 

two-mill complex, and it is the small log complex. The significance, 

I think, of Sierra Pacific is because this is part of the Quincy Library Group negotiations that everybody up and down the West 

Coast, and probably nationwide, was aware of because it was a 

very difficult agreement that was put together. But everybody felt 

that it was going to work, and, as a result of that, Sierra Pacific 

built this small log facility. 

They are now closing it because, as they say, in their news release, there is not a sufficient amount of small logs coming off national forest lands to keep this mill going. In fact, they cite that 

the target of the Quincy Library Group was whatever it was, but 

they have only been able to log about 20 percent of the target because of litigation. Do you have a comment on that? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Well, I would add to litigation the incidence of 

wildfire. 

I visited on some of those forests last summer after the great, big 

fire siege that started in late June, with all of the lightning that 

hit across Northern California, and there were a number of those 

projects that the Quincy Library Group had worked so hard on for 

so long that had come through the appeals process and litigation, 

and those projects were ready to be implemented when the fires 

burned through those projects and changed the condition rather 

dramatically. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I mean, it begs the larger question, it seems to 

me, if we are going to look at climate change and how to somewhat 

mitigate what would happen with natural forces, like forest fires, 

for example, and I heard that the forest fire in Australia put in the 

air more than double what Australia civilization puts in the air in 

one year, that national forest. But it disturbs me to see that a mill 

is closing down because they cannot get small logs. Small logs are 

essentially what you thin, and they can only get 20 percent of the 

target. 

So that leads, I guess, to a larger question that I would like to 

ask all of you. If litigation is somewhat of a problem that affects 

climate change, is there a place for looking at the regulations that 

guide us on this that should be looked at and perhaps changed? 

I would ask this of Interior and BLM, specifically, because you 

have more open lands where, presumably, alternative energy 

38 

sources, like wind and solar, would be in place. Would you be in 

favor of reducing some of the regulatory measures so you would not 

have the litigation to cite these potential projects? 

Ms. KIMBELL. I think Mr. Brunello answered this question in his 

oral comments, to some extent, the need for adaptive management. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, I know my time has run out here, but go 

ahead and respond, and I will make a statement, and maybe you 

can respond to that one. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. The fundamental thing in California, which we 

are continually addressing, is the fires are not going to stop, and 

that is a fundamental issue, in our mind, is that we see the fires 

getting worse, they are year-round, and they are going to continue 

to happen. 

So as you discuss about how can you feasibly and economically 

use the dead and dying wood there, we can keep wrestling about 

the science and keep wrestling with options, which I think we have 

to do, but we keep seeing the fires. So we are looking for all different—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, maybe a short response to that is to use 

that biomass in some way to create electricity. It seems to me to 

be an obvious thing to look at. If you are going to have these fires 

all of the time, and it is predictable where it is, why do you not 

go in and thin it and use that biomass? That might be one thing 

you ought to look at. 

I have to say this because, last week—California is supposedly 

the forerunner of alternative energy sources, and I found out, for 

goodness sakes, that they are going to buy wind energy from my 

district—apparently, Con Edison, or whoever it is down there in 

Southern California could not build enough wind energy to satisfy 

your constitutional needs, or, at least, statutory needs, of so much 

alternative wind, so now you are going to buy it from my state. 

I find that just absolutely incredible. I guess we do not mind the 

business, but, for goodness sakes, if you are going to have all of 

these regulations, then why do you not become sufficient? 

The wind always blows on the ocean. It seems to me that that 

would be a pretty good place to put wind farms. Has that ever been 

talked about? 

Mrs. CAPPS. It sure has. 

Mr. HASTINGS. It has? 

Mrs. CAPPS. Oh, yes. 

Mr. HASTINGS. And what has been the response? 

Mr. BRUNELLO. In my testimony as well, one of the things that 

we are pushing right now is to try and have our utilities, and all 

utilities across the state, have 33 percent of their electricity drawn 

from renewables. So we are doing a number of efforts, and the 

state Governor, Schwarzenegger, just announced that they did a 

complete reorganization of all of our energy agencies so we can 

align our transmission-corridor-permitting authority. 

We are also looking at, with BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, how 

we can improve our land-permitting system so that we can have 

large, consolidated—we call them ‘‘NCCPs’’—Natural Community 

Conservation Plans so that you are not having different little 

blotches all over the state for wind or solar or geothermal but try 

and consolidate in areas that have a low impact. 

39 

So we are focusing very much with our Federal partners. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, so far, you have focused them in central 

Washington. I guess I should be thankful for that. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. I ask unanimous 

consent that the press release from Sierra Pacific be part of the 

record. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Without objection, sir. 

[The Sierra Pacific press release submitted for the record 

follows:] 

Sierra Pacific Industries 

P.O. Box 496028 

Redding, CA 96049-6028 

(530) 3788000 

For Immediate Release 

March 2, 2009 

Contact: Mark Pawlicki 

530-378-8000 

Sierra Pacific Industries Announces Mill Closure at Quincy, California— 

Blames Environmental Litigation and Market Conditions 

Anderson, CA—Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) today announced it will close its 

small-log sawmill located in Quincy, California on May 4, 2009. According to SPI, 

the challenging lumber market combined with litigation over timber harvests on 

nearby national forest lands were the primary drivers behind the decision to close 

the plant. 

‘‘We are deeply saddened over this announcement, as many hard-working, dedicated employees who have been with the company for a long time will be unemployed,’’ said area manager Matt Taborski. ‘‘The reduced availability of national 

forest timber resulting from litigation forced SPI to transport logs over long distances at greater cost to keep the mill running,’’ he added. ‘‘Today’s lumber prices 

are not sufficient to cover these increased costs. To make things worse, environmental litigation has not only reduced the mill’s raw material supply, but also increased the risk of wildfires in the area,’’ he continued. 

This mill is part of a two-mill complex—one cutting small diameter logs and the 

other cutting large diameter logs into lumber for domestic consumption. About 150 

employees will be affected by this closure. Approximately 160 will remain employed 

at the large-log facility and biomass electric generation plant. 

The Quincy mills rely in large part on the sale of national forest timber for their 

raw material. Sierra Pacific constructed the small-log mill when it appeared the 

Berger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (QLG) would pass in 

Congress. That law approved in 1998, promoted tree thinning on national forest 

timberlands to reduce the threat of wildfires while providing raw material for local 

manufacturing. It was anticipated that the QLG Act would result in the harvest of 

enough small diameter trees to run the mill. 

Unfortunately, environmental activists have brought a series of appeals and lawsuits against these projects, drastically reducing the amount of timber available for 

harvest. Overall, the Forest Service has been able to achieve less than 20% of its 

QLG sawlog sales target due to appeals and litigation. Nearly two-thirds of the current year’s timber sale program is enjoined or withheld from sale pending the outcome of litigation. 

Workers at the Quincy mills are represented by the Carpenter’s Industrial Council. Employees and union representatives were informed of the mill closure during 

meetings today. Sierra Pacific spokesman Mark Pawlicki stated, ‘‘SPI will consider 

affected employees for other potential opportunities within the company for those 

who are interested in relocating or transferring.’’ 

Sierra Pacific Industries is a third-generation family-owned forest products company based in Anderson, California. The firm owns and manages nearly 1.9 million 

acres of timberland in California and Washington, and is the second largest lumber 

producer in the U.S. Sierra Pacific is committed to managing its lands in a responsible and sustainable manner to protect the environment while providing quality 

wood products for consumers. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mrs. Capps, any questions, comments? 

40 

Mrs. CAPPS. Please, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, to Mr. Frank, my constituents of the Chumash Nation will 

be very pleased, Chairman Frank, to know of the wisdom that you 

have shared with us, wisdom that comes from the ages, and you 

spoke on their behalf as well, so I thank you for that. 

I also want to thank all of the witnesses for your excellent testimony and to remind you, Chief Gail Kimbell, that we met, I believe, in Santa Barbara, when you were honored by the Forest 

Service Foundation a few years ago, and it is a pleasure to have 

you be here today. 

I have a question for you, and I also cannot skip by my Californian, Mr. Brunello, for a question as well in this short time. 

Of course, the warming climate is contributing to longer wildland 

fire seasons with more extreme events, greatly increasing the risk 

to human lives and buildings, particularly within the wildlandurban interface. I do not have to remind you of three major incidents in Los Padres National Forest, which are close to homes in 

my district, in the last year and a half, most recently, the Tea Fire 

last fall, just a few months ago, in which over 230 homes and part 

of a liberal arts college were burned to the ground; the Gap Fire, 

earlier that summer; and also, significantly, the Zaca Fire in the 

summer and fall of 2007, one of the largest fires in the history of 

California. Over 200,000 acres burned over a three-month period of 

time. We still have the ash in our neighborhoods from that particular fire. 

Wildland fires are likely to become increasingly difficult to manage unless we can figure out fire-dependent ecosystems in the near 

future and also do some really serious, long-range planning, which 

you have touched upon, and I thank you for that. 

As you described the way the Forest Service is collaborating 

among fire and climate scientists, maybe you could be specific. I am 

thinking particularly of the homeowners in Santa Barbara who 

want to rebuild those homes, and I have heard of—I will set this 

out for you—some adaptive-management strategies. 

I heard of one called ‘‘Firewise,’’ and maybe you would describe 

it for us because it is going to make a tremendous difference. As 

Tony said, we are going to continue to have fires. What we have 

to learn to do is be smart in adapting to them. 

Ms. KIMBELL. And thank you for that. ‘‘Firewise’’ is a wonderful 

program that we implement across the country, but it helps communities be able to help private landowners design their homes, 

design their facilities, and design their landscaping with fire in 

mind. So it provides information about different kinds of building 

materials, different kinds of landscaping, and spacing. 

We share responsibility for this program with the state foresters, 

and we deliver it. California certainly has a very active Firewise 

program, as does Nevada, as do most of the states that have heavy 

fire programs. 

There is fabulous information available there, and I encourage 

not only the forestry community to be interested in it but certainly 

communities who are setting standards and guidelines for the construction of homes, whether they are being reconstructed or brandnew construction, for the construction of homes and businesses in 

fire-prone areas. 

41 

Mrs. CAPPS. And, Mr. Chairman, if I could request that Chief 

Kimbell maybe submit a document to that for the record of this testimony, I would appreciate that. 

Ms. KIMBELL. We would be happy to. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. Mr. Brunello, you spoke already about 

projections to programs and plans enhancing our ability to manage 

our public lands using the science that is available, and you really 

touched us when you said, We have to act. We cannot just study 

this any longer; we have to act. 

Specifically, what lessons can be learned and applied at the Federal level from California’s efforts to integrate climate change into 

CEQA, into the California design? 

Mr. BRUNELLO. That is probably for a whole hearing. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I know it is. I am so sorry, but I want to get it out, 

at least, to start. 

Mr. BRUNELLO. Exactly. We had a bill called S.B. 97 that was 

passed two years ago that was to provide guidance for all projects 

on how to account for greenhouse gas emissions. So it was probably 

hastily completed, many would say, and what we are learning is 

that there is a very narrow focus, looking specifically at projects 

and, more, in particular, projects that are litigated. But what we 

have found, particularly in the testimony, it hits on start with the 

basics, account for greenhouse gas emissions on projects. 

There is debate about what thresholds do you use for greenhouse 

gases. Should it be zero? Should there be some formula? 

We are finding it very difficult, but we know that people, at 

least, have to track their emissions and to mitigate for those emissions, so that is a primary thing you should walk away with. 

How you deal with climate impacts is exceptionally challenging— 

that is something that I know was mentioned by the Chairman— 

and, in particular, what we are finding in our science is that you 

really need to ask three questions, and I think, on some areas, we 

are just not there yet. We are trying to push as much as we can, 

but what impacts happen where, when? 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes. 

Mr. BRUNELLO. Three very basic questions, but if you are looking 

at specific projects, with NEPA, in particular, it is very difficult to 

answer those questions. 

The final big question is cumulative impacts, and I would leave 

it with what is even more important, is that there is comprehensive 

climate legislation that is passed and that specific projects, as you 

are doing a CEQA or a NEPA analysis, and they will go together, 

link with that broader structure because if NEPA is done on its 

own without the bigger context, it creates a number of difficulties. 

Mrs. CAPPS. That is a very good summary, for starters. Thank 

you very much. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Bishop? No? Excuse me. Mr. Coffman? 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Bishop, for holding this hearing today. Our public lands are a valuable resource. They provide many opportunities for outdoor recreation and hold vast energy deposits. 

Trees also act as carbon repositories. As they grow, they absorb 

carbon. When trees die, they cease to absorb carbon and begin 

42 

slowly releasing it back into the atmosphere. This carbon can also 

be released rapidly during forest fires. 

In Colorado and across the nation, we have vast swaths of standing dead trees waiting to erupt in flames. This will threaten lives 

and property. It will also release tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Each year, millions of tons of carbon are released into the 

atmosphere by carbon. According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, during Colorado’s 2002 fire season, just as much 

carbon was released into the atmosphere from forest fires as was 

released from the entire state’s transportation emissions. 

Now, we have a choice. We can push policies that will prevent 

catastrophic fires, or we can go with the status quo and allow hazardous fuels to continue choking our forests. I, for one, hope we will 

pursue proactive policies of active forest management. 

Chief Kimbell, thank you for your time today. A 2007 report by 

the University of Colorado and the National Center for Atmospheric Research estimated that fires release about 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year. It seems to me that reducing 

forest fires would reduce carbon emissions. What are the main obstacles in the way of doing fuel treatments in our forests and getting ahead of these fires before they start? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. Since the start of the National Fire Plan, together with Department of the Interior agencies, 

we have treated over 30 million acres of public lands for hazardous 

fuels. About 19 million of that has been on national forests and 

grasslands. 

The Colorado situation is something we have spent considerable 

time talking about. We focused resources there, last year and this 

year, to work together with the State of Colorado to treat lands. We 

are working with Denver Water. We are working with a whole host 

of interests in that front range country and what some people like 

to call the ‘‘back range.’’ 

Challenges to being able to conduct those treatments are partly 

around just the social license to be able to conduct those treatments. There are many people who really do not want activities on 

their public lands and are very vocal about that, very active in 

that, and these are public lands. We manage them for the public. 

We do it in a collaborative process. We encourage public involvement, to a great extent, in everything we do. Part of it is social license and the ability, then, to be able to move projects forward in 

a timely way. 

The Forest Service has a research project—it is actually in California—the Alder Springs project, where we are working hard on 

managing, analyzing, and measuring a whole carbon budget 

around the issue that you raised with the amount of carbon being 

produced in a fire versus the carbon that might be removed and 

put to another product while another healthy, green stand is allowed to get started and to start sequestering carbon rather than 

emitting carbon. But the Alder Springs project has a lot of great 

potential to be able to teach us a lot, and there are some similar 

projects around the country. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Would any other panel members like to comment 

on that? 

[No response.] 

43 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Heinrich, any questions? 

Mr. HEINRICH. I do. Chief Kimbell, it is great to have you here 

today. Are you familiar with the Gila National Forest in New Mexico? 

Ms. KIMBELL. I have read a lot about the Gila, never spent a lot 

of time on the Gila. 

Mr. HEINRICH. I would encourage you to spend time there. It is 

an incredible place. 

My background, for a number of years, I worked as a guide outfitter, taking kids into the back country, and managed a 540-acre 

forest property that had been cut around the turn of the century 

back in probably the 1910’s. That property had incredible proliferation of small-diameter trees because of the combination of fire-suppression and previous management activities. 

You know, I am somebody who has literally cut down tens of 

thousands of trees, and I do not apologize for that fact because we 

were trying to restore a forest condition, but I think this broadbrush approach that says that the only way to reduce, you know, 

the potential for catastrophic wildfire is sometimes simplistic. 

The example I would give is that the healthiest forest I have ever 

seen is in the middle of the Gila wilderness, and the reason why 

it is so healthy is because it has never been fire suppressed. The 

Ponderosa pines are three-to-four-feet thick. There is very little underbrush to create ladder fuels to the surface. 

So, I guess, one of my questions revolves around the fact that if 

we are going to do these treatments that put us back on the track 

within ecosystems that are fire-adapted, and anytime you are dealing with Ponderosa pine, you are dealing with a fire-adapted ecosystem, is it feasible, even, to do those treatments, other than concentrating them around the urban-wildland interface, but in the 

broader areas, where we want to restore a more natural condition, 

a condition that is better fire-adapted? If not, do we need to then 

rely on the judicious use of prescribed fire to create that natural 

condition? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Well, you are absolutely right. There is no one answer. There is no cookie-cutter approach to dealing with the health 

of forest land. Some of our employees like to talk about how forests 

are really the lungs of the earth, and a healthy forest is taking in 

a lot of carbon and putting out a lot of oxygen. 

Part of what we have learned in our climate change research is 

that there are very different things going on in different places in 

the country, and we cannot assume that what is going on in New 

Mexico is the same thing that is going on in Florida. That is the 

important part of stepping down some of this global science that we 

have and being able to step it down to a more local area so that 

we can look at the opportunities in different places to be able to 

improve that forest’s ability to be able to sequester carbon and provide all of the services that we look to have off of those National 

Forest System lands. 

With that, in many of our Forest Service regions, we have taken 

a regional approach to look at the priorities for treating lands to 

44 

prevent those catastrophic wildfires and the effects of those catastrophic wildfires. 

So there are many places that are prioritizing treatments that 

may be far outside the wildland-urban interface, but some other 

areas that might need some address to be able to perhaps prevent 

that fire, when it does get started, from roaring into Big Sur or 

wherever else, into Evergreen, Colorado, and to be able to improve 

the health so that that forest is able to handle precipitation, so it 

is able to sequester carbon, so it is able to provide the recreation 

resources that we count on from our public lands. 

So, yes, we are looking at the whole spectrum of lands and not 

just in the wildland-urban interface. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Just a quick followup. Do you have a sense for the 

relative cost? What does it cost these days to go in, and I know it 

varies widely by forest type, but when you have to manually thin 

an acre of forest, what does that generally cost the public? 

Ms. KIMBELL. There is no single number I can quote you. A key 

component is in what might be available in the local community to 

be able to use that woody biomass that might be cut, that might 

be removed, where there is an outlet for that that makes it much 

more economical to be able to treat those acres. 

There is a symbiosis here where being able to treat those acres 

can also be very, very good for a community, and those things need 

to be considered as a whole and not in separate parts. 

You mentioned prescribed burning before. Prescribed burning in 

Mississippi is much cheaper than prescribed burning around Lake 

Tahoe. There are just different costs. There are different factors of 

doing business in a wildland-urban interface on steep hills with 

continued drought and other issues versus doing it in a recurring 

area that might be a gentler terrain, and many other factors. 

So it is really, really hard to give you a number for what it might 

cost for thinning because it really varies, depending on what the 

rest of the industry’s infrastructure might look like, or what the 

economic opportunities are around that project. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Chief Kimbell, if I could just ask one quick question. 

So you are recommending that we burn Mississippi. Is that what 

you are saying? 

Ms. KIMBELL. No, absolutely not, but I do recommend that we 

keep underburning to be able to do the kind of work we are doing 

on restoring long-leaf pine. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me ask you about one area that is slightly different from that because we will have other testimony coming in 

later. To try and put some parameters around the magnitude of the 

effect of the alternative energy sources, particularly wind and 

solar, and how that will have on public lands, some people have estimated that tens of thousands of square miles will be needed to 

meet even a fraction of our power needs, if we are using wind 

power; the same kind of concept with solar power. 

Can you put into some kind of perspective the spacing needs that 

would be needed for wind or solar as it supplants traditional forms 

of power? 

I can see, by your face, you want to give me that in written form. 

45 

Ms. KIMBELL. I would love to give you that in written form, Mr. 

Bishop, if that would be all right with you. 

Mr. BISHOP. That is fair game. Thank you. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. For a price. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Ms. Shea-Porter? 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I referenced New 

Hampshire in the beginning of my remarks, and we have certainly 

had a terrible time. I do not think there are too many people in 

New Hampshire who do not believe we are experiencing climate 

change. 

Our little state had a tornado that impacted 55 miles last summer. That came after several floods, and then, in December, we 

were visited by an ice storm, the likes of which we have not seen, 

that put power out for about 450,000 people. It was really very, 

very damaging. 

In looking at all of this, and knowing that we have 16 miles of 

ocean—do not laugh, California—they are beautiful—and we have 

some stunning mountains, but what is your plan now for New 

Hampshire and for the Northeast? We have a variety of environmental problems, and we have people working on it. The University of New Hampshire certainly is in the forefront for this. 

What is your plan? Who are you working with right now, and 

what is going to be the change in your agency in the way that you 

actually implement management for our mountains? 

Ms. KIMBELL. I have family in New Hampshire and Vermont, 

and they have not complained about the snow this year. They have 

just loved the snow, but they were very unhappy about the power 

outages. They are all skiers. 

The work we are doing in the White Mountain National Forest 

and in the Green Mountain National Forest is very important. We 

have been working together with not only those universities—the 

University of Vermont, my alma mater, and the University of New 

Hampshire—but also with landowners in Maine, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. 

We have a research station, we have people actually physically 

located in New Hampshire and Vermont who are working together 

with all of those different entities, looking to incorporate the climate change science into our on-the-ground management so that 

Dr. Cleaves’ staff is working with the staffs on the national forests 

to do a technology transfer, but also working with the state foresters to ensure that technology transfer. 

We just recently published a paper where we noted the migration 

of a number of hardwood species that, with monitoring, we have 

been able to demonstrate that there are 30, I think, hardwood species that are actually moving in their range. They are moving 

northward. It has been the subject of anecdotal kinds of conversation for many, many years, but now we actually have the science 

to show that. 

That is the kind of information we want our on-the-ground managers to have, whether they are working on national forests or any 

forest land, to be able to assess what species are going to fare well 

on different sites and what species might be able to provide the 

46 

most to us, in terms of sequestering carbon and providing clean 

water and clean air. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. So do I have one more minute? 

So do you anticipate any changes? There is a lot of debate about 

land use up in that area, recreation versus economic impact there. 

Do you have any changes planned, or are we going to see pretty 

much the same policy of management that we have had over the 

past years? 

Ms. KIMBELL. The White Mountain National Forest recently completed its land management plan. The piece that needs to be continually addressed is the adaptive management piece, which I 

think is a very good tie to what we have been talking about in this 

hearing, with adaptive management related to climate change. The 

science needs to continually influence the implementation of that 

forest management plan. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mrs. Lummis, any questions? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chief Kimbell, welcome. It is nice to see you. I am from Wyoming. 

Ms. KIMBELL. The great State of Wyoming. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. The Great State of Wyoming, and I want to follow 

up on something that my neighbor to the south, Colorado, was 

touching on earlier. 

The beetle kill in Colorado and Wyoming is absolutely devastating. In fact, your own Forest Service predicts that, by 2012, 

beetles will have killed nearly all of the mature, lodgepole trees in 

Northern Colorado and Southern Wyoming. 

I believe that my neighbor, Mr. Coffman, and I could agree to 

that assessment. It is a frightening prospect. 

So my question for you is, what types of adaptive-management 

tools would allow you to better manage this devastating problem? 

And, furthermore, when you were speaking earlier, you mentioned 

treatments for hazardous fuels, and I am just curious as to what 

that means in lay language. 

Ms. KIMBELL. That is an excellent question because we have gotten wrapped around the axle just a couple of times talking about 

hazardous fuels: What are ‘‘hazardous fuels’’? Hazardous fuels are 

fuels that may contribute to irregular or dangerous fire behavior so 

that they might be ladder fuels, as was discussed earlier. They 

might be so many tons per acre of a certain moisture content. It 

really varies from site to site. 

Lodgepole pine is an interesting species, in that we know, from 

the fires in 1910, the forests that came back after the 1910 fires 

and the lodgepole pine type came back almost 30,000 stems to the 

acre. I worked on a forest in the Great State of Washington where 

we had 30,000 stems to the acre, pretty significant. 

Lodgepole pine is a species that is susceptible to insect and disease, particularly when it reaches some stress level when it is 

about 100 years’ old. I think we are seeing that not only in Colorado and Wyoming; we are seeing it in Idaho and Montana, and, 

certainly, British Columbia and Alberta have been through some 

pretty exciting times with Banff, Jasper, and the mountain pine 

beetle epidemic there. 

47 

So when I talk about adaptive management relative to lodgepole 

pine, there are things we can do to address the density of forest 

stands. Certainly, the density contributes to the physical stress 

that they experience during periods of drought. 

I also had some discussion with a silviculturist in Vail, who was 

talking about the appropriateness of planting different species perhaps at different elevations to be able to have some confidence that 

it would be a long-lived species and to be able to provide all of the 

benefits that we look for from trees. 

So adaptive management may take a number of different roles. 

We are trying to address the issue in Wyoming with our Economic 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, and we hope to be able to 

get on that one right away. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you very much, and I hope to follow up with 

you specifically on that point because we are terribly concerned, so 

thank you very much for addressing that. 

I am wondering, as a followup, whether there is a way to turn 

lemons into lemonade here, in that because of the massive pine 

beetle kills in areas, is it possible to address the biofuels issue with 

pine beetle-killed trees; in other words, to harvest the dead trees 

to create biofuels that would help expand our energy portfolio in 

this country and diversify it so we are turning these dead trees 

that are potential fire hazards and potential carbon emitters, in the 

event of a conflagration, into biofuel, which then actually becomes 

a diversifier to our energy portfolio? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Absolutely, and we do have a part of our science 

program that is focused on looking at the opportunity to create liquid fuel and wood products from cellulose. The Forest Service is not 

working on that alone. Certainly, the Department of Energy has interest in that, and we have been working internationally with Sweden, Finland, looking at the potential for converting cellulose into 

some kind of liquid fuel, and there is tremendous potential right 

there in Colorado and Wyoming. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Well, I am very pleased to hear that. 

Mr. Chairman, just one comment. Mr. Bishop mentioned earlier 

about the footprint of wind-energy turbines. One of the reasons for 

the spacing requirements is because of the wake effect. When the 

wind turbines turn, they create a wake that affects those wind turbines behind them and behind them, so spacing becomes a big 

issue. 

So when you are doing a massive wind-energy project, which is 

really required in order to justify putting the transmission lines 

into it, it takes up enormous acres. So I do think we have to look 

at some other alternatives, like offshore, and improve the technology so that is possible; otherwise, we are taking what is a very 

small footprint, with this new directional drilling of oil and gas, 

where you can drill 55 wells on one wellpad and recover oil from 

an octopus-like structure underground, and, instead, replacing it 

with something that really covers thousands, tens of thousands, of 

acres of surface and destroys the viewshed. So thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very glad to 

see our California representative here, who has been very active 

48 

with the Bay-Delta on analyzing the sea level rise. It is quite important in my Subcommittee on Water and Power, and power being 

the energy. 

Ms. Lummis, you brought up a great point because I toured the 

Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) last year. I took a 

helicopter tour to check out the forests because the energy grid 

goes right through the forest, which is a great issue in my Subcommittee. And I found out that they are trying to expand their 

right-of-way so that they can be able to service the lines, and they 

are not able to because of different things that happened between 

the agencies. And I would hope that they begin to talk to each 

other and be able to allow this to happen without having a whole 

gamut of policy decision because this is beneficial not only for a 

firebreak but also to be able to allow servicing the grid energy. 

Yes, the pine beetle and the stress that is caused by the lack of 

water, supposedly—this is the briefing we were given when we 

were there—and the fact that there are, I would say, millions of 

trees—from my look at it, I could almost see some areas that were 

totally brown—that somehow we would be able to utilize it, but I 

am afraid, if you are going to use them for wood product, unless 

you treat that wood product, that you are going to have some kind 

of a contamination somewhere along the line. 

So, effectively, maybe biofuel would be something that would be 

a new energy producer for the area that would create new jobs and 

green technology because there are ways of being able to scrub the 

smoke coming out. It is happening in California. 

Essentially, I am concerned that maybe the agency is not necessarily collaborating. Is it because of funding? Is it because of lack 

of personnel? These decisions are not made to be able to allow 

these expansions to help service the grids and effectively expand 

the break, should there be a forest fire. 

Ms. KIMBELL. As I understand it, there is an environmental analysis going on over many parts of California and other places looking at exactly this question. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am talking about Colorado. I am talking all 

the way down to Wyoming because we flew all the way through. 

Ms. KIMBELL. The discussion I was involved in, most recently, 

had to do with California, but, certainly, I know that there are applications in to be able to widen those rights-of-way along different 

transmission lines, especially through heavily forested areas with 

tall trees. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Correct. 

Ms. KIMBELL. That environmental analysis is ongoing. 

The regional forester in the Rocky Mountain Region is here in 

town this week, but he was actually discussing this just last week. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is there better coordination between the agencies that would allow for faster, say, working on the studies? 

Ms. KIMBELL. I will absolutely check on it. I am not aware that 

there is an issue between agencies, but I will check on that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you inform the Subcommittee, please? 

Ms. KIMBELL. You bet. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It is essential since we are looking at the 

same issues that would hamper California, as well as other states. 

49 

I looked at some of the information I was given, and it goes to 

the effects of climate change in the West, past outbreaks. I can also 

attest to the quagga mussels and the zebra mussels. Aside from the 

pine beetle, looking at those, what are the agencies, in collaboration, doing to research and come up with a way of being able to 

quell these outbreaks? 

Climate change is not going to change from what we are seeing, 

so we can expect more. What are we doing to be able to address 

these issues? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Well, the mussels one is very, very interesting. I 

know that the Forest Service is working with a number of different 

partners addressing the transfer of different invasive species from 

one water body to another, and I think Mr. Armstrong probably 

has something to offer to that discussion. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Quagga and zebra, both. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Right. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Absolutely. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in combination with the U.S. Geological Survey, the Great Lakes Coalition on 

Certain Invasive Mussels in the Great Lakes, but in also marine 

waters, is looking at the issue of invasives and their impact related 

to climate change. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But how long are they going to look at it? You 

are doing already some studies. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. A lot of work is already going on at the state 

level to develop adaptation strategies, going back to—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. Well, it is not just adaptation; I believe 

you found some kind of bacteria. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. There are mitigation strategies, too, with 

daughterless technologies and other scientific methods, to prevent 

the spread and to actually eradicate the invasives. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. Well, we were in the research and development center also, where we talked to some of the people who 

are doing the research. The problem is, how long is it going to 

take? Can we help expedite? Do you need additional funding? What 

do you need to be able, because it is costing some of the entities 

millions, if not billions, of dollars, to address the quagga mussels 

because they are clogging the pipes, and, I am sure, when you do 

one, you should be able to do others. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I do not want to give you a figure offhand, just 

off the top of my head. What I would like to do is get that information for you from our folks at the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

GS and get it on the written record and get that statement to you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, this is the forest disruption resulting 

from warming and increased pest outbreaks. That would include 

the pine beetle and any other invasive species that we might want 

to do. 

You might also want to look at—there is some cane in the 

resacas in Brownsville that are also affecting the ability of water 

to be able to be utilized properly. I mean, I can go on, Mr. Chair. 

There are so many things that I would love to be able to work 

in tandem with your Subcommittee because these are issues that 

just overlap, and unless we know what you are doing, we are not 

50 

able to be able to ask for funding or assistance or be able to help 

you address these things. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. As I said, we will get back to you with a comprehensive assessment of what we are doing and what we need to 

do in order to deal with the problems of the invasive species and 

climate change. 

This gets back to what Chief Kimbell was talking about before. 

There is a symbiosis here of wildland fire and forest fire, as well, 

with the spread of secondary pests and invasives, as well, not just 

the pine bark beetle but invasive plants and other animals, as well, 

and we are working, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service 

and other agencies, to try to develop plans to deal with these effects. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And that leads to biofuel that you were talking about being able to utilize that as a way of being able to take 

those dead trees and be able to utilize their wood, if you would. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Right. I would like to point out, on that issue, 

going back to what Chief Kimbell talked about, Secretary Salazar 

is developing a DOI Renewable Energy Task Force which will deal 

with issues like the transmission lines that you mentioned before, 

but also biofuel issues and other renewable energy sources. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I do not 

have anything to yield back, but I certainly look forward to working with you on this issue. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you so much. Mr. Inslee? 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. It is good to see my good friend, Billy 

Frank, here, and I think it is a timely hearing. I met, this morning, 

with Henry Cagey of the Lummi Tribe, who was telling me about 

this disaster with the loss of the runs, the Fraser River salmon 

runs, that has been declared a disaster by the Secretary of Commerce. It may be associated with climate change with the different 

circulation patterns of water temperature that cause those runs to 

take a different route from the Fraser River. 

Then, this morning, I met with Vaughan Sharp of the Quinault 

Tribe, who is fed in the Quinault River by the Anderson Glacier. 

We actually have a picture here showing how the Anderson Glacier 

has shrunk to almost insignificance in the last 30 years. 

We have changes, you know, in our neck of the woods that are 

affecting the tribes, and my take on this is that, no matter what 

we do from a land use policy, no matter what we do from even a 

tribal policy, unless we get a handle on carbon dioxide emissions, 

we are all in this soup together. And the people who care about 

pine beetle kills need to help us develop a cap-and-trade system 

and a renewable electrical scanner system so we can stop putting 

so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; otherwise, we are all 

in this soup together. 

That is just kind of a general question. I just wonder if you have 

any comments in that regard. 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. You know, the Fraser River 

is a giant river in the Great Northwest, and the climate change has 

been part of the problem, the beetles have been another part of 

them, the siltation of the floods. 

The Fraser River is not like the Nisqually River, where I live. 

The Nisqually River is 90 miles long, and it comes out of a mounVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\47754.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
51 

tain. The Fraser River depends upon the snowfall and the melt and 

the temperature of that great river. There is a lot of difference 

right there. 

So you have the temperature cooling and the temperature warming, and, you know, it is devastating to the sockeye salmon. The 

sockeye salmon go up into the lakes and spawn up in that beautiful 

country up there in British Columbia, and, you know, it goes back 

to, we are beyond the turning point of global warming right now, 

and something has got to be done. 

This is a real thing that is happening out there, and we are all 

talking about it, but the status quo has got to change. The status 

quo of us, the government, the states. The State of Washington 

alone puts in less than 2 percent of their budget on natural resource. What does that tell you? Less than 2 percent on natural resource. I do not know what the Federal government does on their 

budget on natural resource. That tells you nobody cares about natural resource, and if nobody cares about natural resource, there is 

not going to be education, there is not going to be no economy, and 

there is not going to be cutting any trees down. Mills will be closing, and they are closing right now. 

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, some people do care about it. We just invested $70 billion in the stimulus package to try to develop a 

clean energy economy so that these problems will not happen. 

If I can ask Ms. Kimbell, if a person here in Congress really 

cared about the death of these trees, and I certainly do—I was in 

the Sawtooth a couple of weeks ago seeing the devastation there 

and the pine beetle—would you recommend that we find a way to 

reduce CO2 emissions so that we can stop climate change so we can 

stop the predation going on in the forests? Is that the most important thing we could do to prevent this loss? 

President Obama has called for a cap-and-trade system and a renewable electrical standard and a variety of methods to reduce 

CO2. What would you say about that? 

Ms. KIMBELL. I do not think we have time to do one without the 

other. I think we need to be thinking about forest health while we 

are addressing CO2 emissions. Forests currently sequester 10 percent of the carbon that we produce in the United States, and if we 

can help forests sequester even more than the 10 percent they currently sequester, we will all be better off. Forests are the lungs of 

the earth. There is a lot of work we can do with forests to help 

them be better lungs for us while we are also addressing the total 

carbon emissions. 

Mr. INSLEE. But would you agree, we can spend the entire Federal budget on forest health, but if CO2 levels get to 900 parts per 

million in the atmosphere, with the enormous climate change that 

would be associated with that, we are not going to save these forests. 

Ms. KIMBELL. I think we have a lot of opportunity to save these 

forests while we are also working on the President’s proposed cap 

and trade. 

Mr. INSLEE. I think I hear a ‘‘yes’’ in there somewhere, that you 

think we have to do a cap-and-trade system if we are going to save 

these forests, or something to stop the CO2 rise. 

Ms. KIMBELL. While we are also addressing forest health. 

52 

Mr. INSLEE. Right. Thank you. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Question? 

Mr. COFFMAN. May I ask? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Sure. 

Mr. COFFMAN. The ability of the forests to sequester carbon; you 

know, when we look around the globe, there has been so much deforestation, there has been such horrible land-management practices, looking at Brazil and what they have done. 

I mean, the fact is, could we not offset a great deal of our carbon 

emissions by promoting not just healthy forests but a reforestation, 

not just in the United States but globally, through our foreign policy, and would that not make a significant difference when we talk 

about issues like global warming? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Certainly, afforestation and reforestation are important parts of any address to forestry as a part of our address 

to climate change. Both here in the United States and internationally, the Forest Service is involved in almost every continent, working with different nations, working with different natural resource 

management issues, and the health of forests is really critical 

amongst them. 

We do work in Brazil, where we have actually worked with people on low-impact logging. We have looked at the different kinds 

of gases emitted by different kinds of forests in Brazil. I would not 

trade places with some of the issues that they have in Brazil right 

now in trying to address that whole social issue, all of the social 

questions, around how to manage the Amazon. They have some 

real tough issues that they are up against. 

But the Forest Service is working with a number of other nations 

in looking at forests, forest health, afforestation, as well as reforestation, and we need to be working on that right here at home as 

well. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Coffman. 

We are going to recess. We have a vote that is going on. Let me 

thank the panelists, and also, you know, the issue of wildfire came 

up over and over today from the Members. 

I and Chairman Rahall will be reintroducing the Flame Act one 

more time. I would suggest to my colleagues to look at the piece 

of legislation so that we do, on the issue of fire suppression, create 

a different funding stream so that much of the money that is now 

being used by the Forest Service can be used for reforestation, better stewardship, et cetera, et cetera. 

So thank you very much, and we should be back within 35 to 40 

minutes. Thank you. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Thank you, Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., a short recess was taken.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. We will reconvene the oversight hearing today. 

We just finished those votes. Those are the last votes for the day. 

Some of my colleagues might or might not return, but all of the 

comments that you have, and any responses to any questions I may 

have or Mr. Bishop may have, will all be part of the record, and 

if there are additional questions, colleagues will submit them to us, 

and we will forward them to you for a response. So I appreciate 

your indulgence, and I am looking forward to your comments. 

53 

Let me begin with Mr. Eugene Spiering, Vice President for Exploration, Quaterra Corporation. Sir, your comments. 

STATEMENT OF EUGENE SPIERING, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

EXPLORATION, QUATERRA CORPORATION, KANAB, UTAH 

Mr. SPIERING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Eugene 

Spiering. I am the Vice President of exploration with QuaterraAlaska. 

What I would like to say is that the Federal lands could have a 

dramatic role in combating climate change while decreasing our nation’s dependency on foreign energy supplies if, and only if, these 

lands are managed to encourage and promote uranium mining and 

the production of nuclear energy. 

Although wind and solar energy may represent important components of an equation toward the mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions, the large-scale application of these techniques will result in 

a massive degradation of Federal lands and leave a lasting legacy 

of a failed government program that will embarrass its supporters 

and infuriate future generations. 

Twenty percent of this nation’s electrical energy is generated by 

103 reactors producing 100,000 megawatts of electricity. Palo 

Verde, a single generating station located 45 miles west of Phoenix, 

produces 3,800 megawatts of clean, nonpolluting electrical energy, 

or approximately 3.8 percent of this nation’s consumption. This 

power station uses only wastewater from the City of Phoenix for 

cooling, stores all high-level, radioactive waste on site, and, with all 

attendant facilities, disturbs a total surface area of 4.5 square 

miles. 

To produce an equivalent amount of energy by wind generators 

would require a disturbance of 760 square miles, and solar panels 

would require 190 square miles. The amount of land disturbed by 

solar- and wind-generating systems is enormous when you compare 

it to nuclear powerplants. Wind generators have an average operating capacity of 25 percent compared to 97 percent by nuclear 

plants. 

When considered with land-disturbance caused by thousands of 

miles of powerlines and hydroelectric storage facilities for this 

intermittent power, the total disturbance of wind power is approximately 160 times the total disturbance of nuclear energy for a similar generating capacity. 

Solar energy disturbs over 40 times the surface area of nuclear 

power and costs over five times more per kilowatt hour. 

If 20 percent of the electrical power used by the U.S. was produced by wind energy, the facilities would cover a surface area of 

20,000 square miles, an area slightly less than the entire State of 

West Virginia. Because the efficient use of wind generators requires a location along hilltops and ridgelines, more than 80,000 

miles of horizons in the U.S. would be bristling with windmills and 

powerlines, a sight that many would not like to experience. 

As the wind generators reach the end of their estimated 25-year 

life, maintenance may no longer be feasible or possible due to 

changing economic or political environments, and thousands of 

miles of rusting junk will remain as a monument to yet another 

failed energy policy. 

54 

The U.S. will remain dependent on foreign energy during the 

waning phases of the world’s oil production. The Executive Secretary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, set up 

by the United Nations, stated, at Bali, that ‘‘I have never seen a 

credible scenario for reducing emissions that did not include nuclear energy.’’ 

A recent British white paper on nuclear power concluded that 

‘‘nuclear power is the most cost-effective, low-carbon-generation 

technology available.’’ 

There are now 196 nuclear powerplants with a net capacity of 

170,000 megawatts in operation in Europe. There are 14 new units 

under construction, and moratoriums against building new reactors 

and mandatory phaseouts of existing nuclear-generating facilities 

are being lifted in Switzerland, Sweden, Italy, England, as well as 

several Eastern European countries. 

Approximately 80 percent of France’s electric energy is now generated by nuclear power. Thirty-three reactors are currently under 

construction globally, and 94 are estimated to either be on order or 

in the advanced planning stage. There are proposals for an additional 222 reactors. 

This is the way the world is responding to the climate change 

and energy. If the U.S. truly wants to use public lands to fight 

global warming without the disturbance of enormous land areas 

and thousands of miles of scenic vistas, the only effective and costefficient manner is to encourage and promote uranium mining and 

the production of nuclear energy on Federal lands. 

This is truly an issue that transcends politics. Nuclear energy is 

critical to the economy and future well-being of our nation. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spiering follows:] 

Statement of Eugene D. Spiering, Vice President of Exploration, 

Quaterra Alaska Inc. 

Federal Lands could have a dramatic role in combating climate change while decreasing our nation’s dependency on foreign energy supplies if and only if these 

lands are managed to encourage and promote uranium mining and the production 

of nuclear energy. Although wind and solar energy may represent important components of an equation toward the mitigation carbon dioxide emissions, the large scale 

application of these techniques will result in a massive degradation of Federal lands 

and leave a lasting legacy of a failed government program that will embarrass its 

supporters and infuriate future generations. 

Twenty percent of this nation’s electrical energy is generated by 103 reactors producing 100,000 megawatts of electricity. Palo Verde, a single generating station located 45 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona produces 3800 megawatts of clean, non polluting electricity or approximately 3.8 percent of our nation’s consumption. The Palo 

Verde power station uses only waste water from the city of Phoenix for cooling, 

stores all high level radioactive waste on site, and with all attendant facilities disturbs a total surface area of 4.5 square miles. To produce an equivalent amount of 

energy by wind generators would require a disturbance of 760 square miles and 

solar panels would require 190 square miles. 

The amount of land disturbed by solar and wind generating systems is enormous 

when compared to nuclear power plants. Wind generators have an average operating capacity of 25% compared to 97% by nuclear plants. When considered with 

land disturbance caused by thousands of miles of power lines and hydroelectric storage facilities for the intermittent power, the total disturbance of wind power is approximately 160 times the total disturbance of nuclear energy for a similar generating capacity. Solar energy disturbs over 40 times the surface area of nuclear 

power and costs over 5 times more per kilowatt hour. 

If 20% of the electrical power used by the U.S. was produced by wind energy, the 

facilities would cover a surface area of 20,000 square miles; an area slightly less 

55 

than the entire state of West Virginia. Because efficient use of the wind generators 

requires a location along hill tops and ridge lines, more than 80,000 miles of horizons in the U.S. would be bristling with wind mills and power lines; a sight that 

many would not like to experience. As the wind generators reach the end of their 

estimated 25 year life, maintenance may no longer be feasible or possible due to 

changing economic or political environments and thousands of miles of rusting junk 

will remain as a monument to yet another failed energy policy. The U.S. will remain 

dependent on foreign energy during the waning phase of the world’s oil production. 

The Executive Secretary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (set 

up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Program) stated at Bali that: ‘‘I have never seen a credible scenario for 

reducing emissions that did not include nuclear energy.’’ 

A recent British White Paper on nuclear power concluded that nuclear power is 

the most cost effective low-carbon generation technology available. Volatility in oil 

prices and the clash between Russia and Ukraine over gas pipelines has made nuclear power—with virtually zero carbon dioxide emissions—a more attractive option 

for Europe. There are now 196 nuclear power plant units with an net capacity of 

170,000 MW in operation in Europe and 14 new units with under construction in 

five countries. Moratoriums against building new reactors and mandatory phase 

outs of existing nuclear generating facilities are being lifted in Switzerland, Sweden, 

Italy, and England as well as several eastern European countries. Approximately 

80% of France’s electrical energy is now generated by nuclear power. According to 

BHP Billiton, 33 reactors are currently under construction globally, another 94 are 

estimated to be either on order or in the advanced planning stage while there are 

proposals for a further 222 generators. 

There are those that want to stop uranium mining in the U.S. and fear the use 

of nuclear power. This is understandable considering the amount of misinformation 

cited in newspapers and editorials by a few activists. Why should we trust this industry? Perhaps we should try to inform ourselves on how the rest of the world is 

dealing with these issues and learn why so many of the world’s scientists are encouraging the use of nuclear energy. Gwyneth Craven in a recently published book 

titled Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy, published by Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House, Inc., 2007, provides a well-researched 

and readable examination of nuclear energy from mining and energy production to 

the final storage of waste. 

If the U.S. wants to use public lands to fight global warming without the disturbance of enormous land areas and thousands of miles of scenic vistas, the only effective and cost efficient manner is to encourage and promote uranium mining and the 

production of nuclear energy on Federal lands. This is truly an issue that ‘‘transcends politics’’. Nuclear energy is critical to the economy and future well being of 

our nation. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your comments. 

Dr. Mark Harmon, Richardson Chair and Professor in Forest 

Science, Oregon State University, welcome, and I look forward to 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MARK E. HARMON, Ph.D., RICHARDSON CHAIR 

AND PROFESSOR IN FOREST SCIENCE, OREGON STATE 

UNIVERSITY, CORVALLIS, OREGON 

Mr. HARMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee 

Members, for inviting me to testify. My name is Mark Harmon. I 

am a professor at Oregon State University. I am here to represent 

myself. 

I have studied the problem of carbon in forests for almost three 

decades, published numerous articles, conducted lots of studies, 

and taught courses on the subject. I am here to provide information 

and insights. 

U.S. forests currently offset about 10 percent of the nation’s 

greenhouse gas emissions. They could be managed to offset more— 

perhaps that amount could be doubled so we could gain another 10 

percent—but it would be part of a bridging strategy. 

56 

So forests cannot solve the entire problem, and they can only 

help for a limited time, say, about 50 to 100 years, but this is still 

a significant contribution to the issues we face. 

There are many misconceptions about carbon in forests. Many 

proposals are based on these misconceptions, and they are going to 

prove counterproductive. 

There is a tendency to only look at the inputs to the forest system or the outputs, depending on what people are trying to sell. I 

think this is really misleading. As scientists, we have to look at 

what is coming in and what is going out simultaneously. 

A good analogy for carbon in a forest is like a leaky bucket. A 

leaky bucket can store carbon, but you have to have carbon coming 

in, and the amount that stays in depends on the number and size 

of the leaks. So if we want more carbon in that carbon bucket, we 

have to put more in at a higher rate, or we have to do something 

to alter the nature of those leaks. 

How do we decide what to do? There are a lot of proposals out 

there. Well, this is sort of like buying a house, but instead of checking for dry rot, we need to check for a few other things. 

For example, are all of the carbon stores being counted? There 

is a tendency to leave out key pools in the analysis. 

Has a starting point been specified? How do we know where we 

are going on any journey if we do not know our starting point, and 

we do not know how far or what direction? 

How long will it be until the project pays off? Forests are slow 

systems. They have time lags. Many of the projects that are proposed will pay off perhaps in centuries, and we really need a 

quicker solution. 

Are the practices truly renewable? Forests are potentially a renewable resource, but it depends on how they are managed. 

What other processes will occur when we take an action? For 

every action, there is an opposite reaction, so how will that affect 

what happens? 

Finally, how does this policy work over a large area and over a 

long time period? We have to evaluate projects in that way. 

Now, there are a number of actions that will work, and there are 

some that will not work. Stopping or slowing deforestation will 

definitely work. Afforestation—that is, adding forests to areas that 

once had forests and now do not; that definitely works. 

Lengthening the interval between disturbance to harvest actually 

increases the amount of carbon stored in a forest. Likewise, taking 

less each harvest or each disturbance leads to more stores. This is 

like plugging the holes in the leaky bucket. 

A couple of things that simply do not work: Converting oldgrowth forests to younger plantations simply does not store more 

carbon. You are taking a system with high carbon stores, converting it one-to-one with lower. There is no way you go from here 

to there without losing carbon. It is that simple. 

Now, I have a number of concerns. One is carbon is not the only 

reason we are managing forests. We clearly need a balance. We 

heard about treatments for fire fuels and reducing those. Studies 

are showing that that actually does not save much carbon. It actually emits more carbon, treatments do, than the fires do themselves. 

57 

However, we need to protect people’s homes. We have to have defensible zones. We need to restore some ecosystems back to their 

original structure. Those are very good reasons to be harvesting 

and doing treatments, but, from the carbon perspective, they are 

not. 

We need a thoughtful, transparent, accounting system that does 

not have unintended consequences, and some schemes do have 

these consequences. We need a reliable monitoring system that can 

be verified independently. 

And, finally, one last comment is that continued climate change 

really endangers forests serving as places to store carbon. If we 

wait too long, we are actually going to have forests become part of 

the problem and part of the solution, and that is one of my greatest 

concerns that I have. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harmon follows:] 

Statement of Mark E. Harmon, PhD, Richardson Endowed Chair and 

Professor in Forest Science, Department of Forest Ecosystems and 

Society, Oregon State University 

Introduction 

I am here to represent myself and offer my expertise to the subcommittee. I am 

a professional scientist, having worked in the area of forest carbon for nearly three 

decades. During that time I have conducted numerous studies on many aspects of 

this problem, have published extensively, and provided instruction to numerous students, forest managers, and the general public. 

Recently there has been an increasing interest in using forests as a way to remove 

carbon from the atmosphere and store it over the long-term as part of a greenhouse 

gas mitigation strategy. U.S. forests currently remove an equivalent of 12% of this 

nation’s carbon dioxide emissions; there is excellent potential to increase and maintain this carbon ‘‘offset’’ as part of a bridging strategy. The following testimony reviews, in terms as simple as possible, how the forest system stores carbon, the 

issues that need to be addressed when assessing any proposed action, and some 

common misconceptions that need to be avoided. I conclude by reviewing and assessing some of the more common proposals as well as my general concerns about the 

forest system as a place to store carbon. 

My key points: 1) Forests are leaky carbon buckets, 2) Forests can play an important, but limited roles in sequestering carbon, 3) All carbon pools need to be examined when thinking through the merits of carbon policy, 4) To increase the sequestration of forest carbon, we need to either increase carbon inputs, decrease carbon 

outputs, or put forest carbon somewhere else, 5) Forests are best seen as a bridging 

strategy in carbon mitigation, 6) Seemingly ‘‘good’’ forest carbon ideas when examined at the stand level at a point in time dissipate when looked at the forest level 

over time, and 7) With accelerating climate change, forests may shift from being 

part of the carbon solution to being part of the carbon problem. 

The Basic System: Forests as Leaky Carbon Buckets 

Carbon is stored in multiple ways in the forest system: in the forest itself and 

the carbon harvested from the forest. Living plants store carbon above- and belowground. The longer lived the plants or their parts, the more that they store. This 

is why forests contain more live carbon than grasslands: their parts have longer 

lives. When plants or their parts die they start to decompose, but some carbon can 

be stored as dead biomass. The slower the decomposition rate, the more that will 

be stored. This is why dead wood in a forest can be an important carbon store. Decomposition of dead plants eventually leads to the formation of soil carbon, which 

due to its relatively slow decomposition rate can accumulate to high levels. So despite a low live carbon store, grassland can store a great deal of carbon in the soil 

because it produces many dead roots that end up as soil. Harvest of wood and bark 

can also store carbon, but as with other parts of the forest system, it is subject to 

carbon losses, specifically during manufacturing, use, and disposal. In the case of 

biomass energy, the harvested carbon is theoretically stored as unused fossil fuel 

carbon. Given the longevity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the fact that 

58 

this fossil fuel carbon may be eventually burned, ‘‘carbon’’ biomass energy must 

delay the use of fossil fuels for many decades to be an effective storage mechanism. 

Photosynthesis, respiration, and combustion are the major processes that control 

how much carbon enters and leaves the forest system. These processes interact to 

control the carbon store of forest systems. Forests are biological systems and as such 

are ‘‘leaky’’ with regards to carbon. That is. there is one way in which carbon comes 

in (photosynthesis) but many ways it goes out (respiration of plants, decomposers, 

and consumers, combustion, leaching, and erosion). A key concept to understand is 

that leaky systems can store carbon, but the amount they store is related to the 

amount that is coming in versus the proportion that is leaking out. By analogy a 

bucket with leaks can store water, but to do so it needs a constant input of water. 

However, the larger the leaks the less water that is stored regardless of the amount 

of flow into the bucket. The same can be said of a bank account; one can spend 

money and still accumulate wealth as long as money is put into the account. Returning to the forest system, photosynthesis is constantly causing carbon to flow 

into the bucket or account. Increasing the input of carbon by increasing the rate of 

photosynthesis will increase the average forest carbon store. Decreasing the respiration rate of plants or decomposers or the losses from combustion will also increase 

the average forest carbon store. However, regardless of cause these net increases 

will eventually slow and then cease as the forest system comes to a new balance. 

Disturbance, be it natural or human-induced, influences the balance of carbon 

several ways. Some disturbances, such as fire, directly release carbon to the atmosphere. All disturbances convert living plant biomass into dead biomass, subjecting 

the forest system to additional respiration losses (essentially more leaks). Disturbance temporarily reduces photosynthesis; which means that the average carbon 

input to the system is decreased by disturbances because it takes some time to restore the photosynthetic capacity of forests. The effect of disturbance depends on the 

frequency and the severity (i.e., amount of carbon removed) of the disturbance. The 

more frequent disturbances appear in forest systems, the more that is removed, and 

hence less carbon is stored on average. Decreasing the interval between disturbances effectively increases the number of leaks in the bucket. The same effect is 

true for disturbance severity; the more severe the disturbance is in directly removing carbon, the less stored on average. Increasing disturbance severity effectively increases the size of the leaks in the bucket. 

The Effects of Natural Disturbances versus Harvest 

Whether trees killed by fire or windstorm are salvaged makes relatively 

little difference in carbon storage. Whenever there is a natural disturbance it 

is often suggested that harvesting dead trees will release less carbon than letting 

them decompose naturally. This is based on the assumption that natural processes 

will rapidly release carbon and timber harvesting will not. This assumption is not 

supported by the likely rates of carbon release from these two processes. Setting 

aside the fact that harvest and transport of wood currently requires carbon-based 

energy, there is an inevitable release of carbon during the manufacturing and use 

of forest products. Depending upon the type of wood product produced, the amount 

of carbon released during manufacturing is equal to 25-50% of the harvested 

amount. In many cases harvested forests are burned for site preparation, a process 

that removes approximately 5-10% of the forest’s carbon. Combined with manufacturing losses, this means that timber harvest reduces total forest carbon stores by 

10-25%. When products are in use, their life-span has a wide range from less than 

several decades to centuries. This yields a rate of loss of between 1 and 10% per 

year. While surprising, these values are not that different for natural disturbances. 

Consider the amount of loss during a fire, the natural disturbance that removes the 

most carbon. A common assumption is that much of the wood burns in a fire, although if that were true there would be no debates about salvaging wood. Analysis 

after fire indicate that, while small material can be totally consumed, it is rare that 

harvest sized wood is consumed. Losses from roots and the soil are minimal. Taking 

all the carbon stores of a forest into consideration, the range of carbon losses from 

fire consumption is probably between 5 and 15%, generally lower than range for 

timber harvest and products manufacturing. After the fire, the newly killed trees 

decompose. For the US, the range of wood decomposition rates for the size of material harvested is between 1 and 10% per year. That is very similar to that of forest 

products! Although all these numbers are approximate, they do indicate that salvaging fire-killed trees is not substantially better for carbon storage than simply allowing the trees to decompose, and in certain situations might be considerably less 

effective in storing carbon. 

59 

Things to Consider: Framing the Analysis of Carbon and Forests 

There are a number of general things that should be examined whenever an action regarding carbon and forests is considered. Unfortunately this has not always 

been the case. 

1. All the relevant carbon stores need to be examined. Many projects are 

considered from the point of view of just live carbon. This may be quite natural to 

do as we have the most data and understanding of live trees. However, it must be 

realized that other important carbon stores in forests do not behave the same as 

live trees. Dead trees, for example, often reach their highest store after disturbance, 

whereas live trees reach their lowest store at that point. By only considering live 

plants it is highly likely that the rate of forest carbon uptake is overestimated, in 

some cases by substantial amounts. A related issue is that the changes in all the 

carbon pools need to be considered for a total accounting. For example, harvesting 

wood does increase stores in the wood products pool, but it also decreases stores in 

the live and dead wood pool in the forest. 

2. The starting conditions are key and yet are often ignored. The starting 

and end points need to be specified. Often a proposed action gives the end point, 

but not the starting point. This would be similar to describing a trip by only giving 

the destination. One will have no idea of the direction or the distance to be traveled. 

For example, if one is planning on establishing a short-rotation forest plantation on 

agricultural land, then more carbon will be stored. Establishing the same type of 

plantation by converting an old-growth forest will result in a net loss of carbon to 

the atmosphere. 

3. Our actions to increase carbon stores can take decades to have a positive effect. Not every action in forests leads to an ‘‘instantaneous’’ response. It 

takes time to implement policy actions because the area involved is quite large. This 

means that the effect of any proposed policy needs to consider the long-term: many 

decades to centuries. Once treated forests take many years to adjust to any action 

that is imposed. For example, it takes years to decades for a planted forest to establish full photosynthetic capacity. It also takes years to decades for the dead material 

created by a disturbance caused by nature or humans to decompose away. This 

means that temporal lags can be expected in any projected gains. Thus, it may be 

eventually possible to gain carbon by converting an older forest to a younger biomass energy plantation, but it may take many decades or even centuries for this 

to occur. This is time we do not have. 

4. Forests are potentially renewable, but this is not a fixed property of 

forests. It is generally assumed that forest related carbon in the form of wood and 

biofuels are renewable. There is logic to this in that trees can be harvested and can 

regrow. Resources that can regrow are potentially renewable, but a resource is not 

renewable automatically because it is grows or is a tree. To determine if a resource 

is renewable we need to compare the regeneration and removal rate. We also need 

to understand that removal of trees can and does affect carbon pools other than 

trees and these can decline when trees are harvested. Given we are considering the 

entire forest carbon system, this mean that harvesting a renewable resource such 

as trees leads to an non-renewable loss elsewhere in the carbon system. 

5. Forests are systems that have feedbacks which can strongly influence 

carbon effects of actions. For example, increasing the growth rate of trees can 

lead to higher carbon stores in forests, but a larger live tree store also means that 

more plant material will die during the course of forest growth or harvest. More 

dead plant material means more losses via decomposition or combustion if there is 

a fire or harvest. This means that the gains from increases in forest growth 

feedbacks to result in decreased net carbon increases in time. As another example, 

it has been stated that forest fire frequency and severity will increase in the future. 

That may be the case, but it also should be noted that it is generally difficult to 

increase the severity and frequency of fires for any length of time, in part because 

more frequent fires eventually lower the fuel level, and fuel level is related to fire 

severity. 

6. Estimating carbon effects of policies need to look at whole forests over 

time, not single stands at a point in time. The way a forest system behaves depends on how large an area that is considered and how long a time period it is considered. Perhaps no other issue, termed scale by ecologists, has lead to so much confusion and frankly wrong-headed notions in terms of forest carbon management. It 

is perfectly true that young forests of a certain age do remove more carbon in a 

course of a year than an older forest. This would be useful information if forests 

never changed their ages. The high rate of uptake of some young forest occurs because even younger forests have lost carbon. Since one cannot have a young forest 

without have an even younger forest, comparing the just one year in the life’s forest 

is completely misleading. Recall that when forests are disturbed by nature or huVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47754.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
60 

mans the forest initially loses carbon. Over a long time period forests gain carbon 

and eventually lose some of it when disturbed again. If the average carbon stores 

of a young forest is compared to that of an older forest, then one finds that the older 

forest stores a good deal more carbon. Therefore one is unlikely to gain carbon from 

the forest site if one converts from an older to a younger forest system. When one 

considers a small plot of land, the carbon balance seems to moving from losing to 

gaining to losing carbon over time. However, when one considers many plots of land 

that are going through these cycles at different times, then one sees a relatively 

steady store of carbon. This is analogous to a bank in which one person puts in 

funds and another removes them. As long as there is not a run on the bank, the 

amount of funds is relatively constant (at least that is the hope). This is quite relevant in terms of carbon policy, because small land owners will see boom and bust 

cycles in their carbon stores and this may make buying their carbon credits very 

unappealing. If many small land owners aggregate their carbon projects, then it is 

possible for the buyer to see a steady store or supply of carbon. 

Using Forests to Sequester Carbon from the Atmosphere: increase carbon 

inputs, decease carbon outputs, or put forest carbon somewhere else 

US forests are currently removing carbon from the atmosphere and are likely to 

remain doing this for some time, perhaps decades. Eventually, as in all leaky systems, the rate of carbon removal is likely to slow and eventually cease. At this point 

the forest will be in rough balance with the amount coming in about equal to the 

amount going out. This ‘‘saturation’’ behavior is one reason forests are considered 

a bridging strategy and not a lasting solution to the problem of reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

To continue and enhance the removal of carbon by forests, it will be necessary 

to take direct actions. Put simply, to remove more carbon from the atmosphere with 

forests it will be necessary to increase the average amount of carbon that forests 

store or increase the efficiency or manufacture of wood products and the length of 

their storage in use. As stated above, the average carbon store as well as the carbon 

balance of any forest is controlled by the amount input via photosynthesis versus 

the amount lost via respiration (e.g., plants and other organisms such as 

decomposers) and the amount lost via combustion. Both the average carbon store 

and the carbon balance vary over time, in part, because the factors controlling photosynthesis, respiration, and combustion vary over time. Therefore it is useful to distinguish between short-term and relatively minor variations in forest carbon caused 

by yearly variations in climate versus those caused by changes in policy or longterm changes in climate. It is the latter two that will change the balance and store 

of carbon in the long-term. 

Before presenting the range of possible management options it is worth reminding 

ourselves that carbon is not the only reason we manage forests. Forests provide humans clean water, habitat for many animals, plants, and other organisms, harvested 

goods of all sorts, recreation, and many intangible benefits. Not all these objectives 

will be compatible with maximizing carbon stores in forests. Moreover, there are 

certain management actions such as thinning certain forest types (e.g., Ponderosa 

pine) that may be necessary to maintain these forests despite the fact that carbon 

stores will be decreased. We cannot be so single minded about carbon that we create 

a host of other problems. 

There are many proposed steps and multiple viable strategies and that can be 

taken with regard to increasing forest carbon. Admittedly this can be confusing for 

those looking for a ‘‘one-size fits all’’ approach. On the other hand it does offer flexibility that will allow one to tailor approaches with specific situations on the ground. 

Essentially one can increase carbon stores of by increasing the input to the 

forest, decreasing the output from the forest, putting the carbon from the 

forest somewhere else, or some combination of these. The following reviews 

specific approaches that have been proposed recently: 

1. Slowing that rate of deforestation (i.e., the permanent removal of forests) will definitely slow the release of carbon to the atmosphere. Depending 

upon the period examined, deforestation is estimated to have added 20-30% of the 

increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution. While deforestation for agricultural purposes is generally low in the US, considerable forest land is being converted to housing and industrial use, which can 

have the same effect as deforestation, particularly if clearing is extensive. 

2. Planting new forests is generally a good practice to increase carbon 

stores, particularly on lands that once held forest many years ago. Much of 

our nation’s current forest-related carbon removal from the atmosphere is associated 

with the reestablishment of forests in the eastern U.S. after agricultural abandonment. The best opportunities are on marginal agricultural lands as the impact on 

61 

food production is reduced. Planting forests on degraded agricultural land can increase the store of carbon both above- and belowground (i.e., soils). Forests can also 

be reestablished on lands with low stocking of trees after regeneration failures. 

Planting trees on what have been traditionally grassland systems can lead to reductions in soil carbon stores, in part because trees do not produce as many dead roots 

as grasses. Care needs to be taken in assuring that these losses belowground do not 

exceed those gained aboveground. 

3. Biomass energy has the potential to offset fossil fuel use and hence reduce carbon release to the atmosphere under certain conditions. However, 

there are several factors that must be considered before this potential is realized. 

Biomass energy is not necessarily renewable; it is only renewable when the resource 

is allowed to fully regenerate. Forests, by their very long-term nature, take years 

to regenerate their biomass and one cannot assume that all forest practices lead to 

a renewable resource. When using biomass energy, it must be borne in mind that 

one is substituting energy and not carbon. Because biomass contains less energy per 

unit carbon than fossil fuels, some fossil fuels are required to produce the same 

amount of energy, and so removal of one unit of carbon from the forest results in 

less than one unit of fossil carbon from being unused or stored. It therefore may 

take several cycles for carbon benefits to accumulate to the point that they offset 

losses in the forest. This is why the carbon benefits of biomass energy can be delayed if natural forests storing a more carbon are converted to plantations that store 

less carbon. This suggests that if biomass energy is to be part of a forest strategy, 

it is best employed with afforestation efforts or in forests that are already young. 

Although it is usually assumed that fossil fuel use is decreased when biomass 

energy is used, this is not necessarily true. Given the lifespan of carbon in the atmosphere, the delay in fossil fuel use has to be substantial to be effective. Simply 

delaying the use a few years does little to reduce the rate of overall carbon emissions. The argument that the increase in fossil fuel related carbon would have been 

worse without biomass fuels would have merit if the issue was to just slow the increase in these releases. However, the issue that confronts us is how to decrease 

the current release rate of fossil fuel carbon. 

4. Converting older forests to younger forests rarely stores more carbon. 

Such action increases the leakiness of the forest bucket (recall major losses discussed above in site preparation, manufacturing losses, and the increased frequency 

of disturbance). An exception is when a frequent natural disturbance is replaced by 

a less frequent harvest (which by the way rarely happens). Another is when an inherently very slowly growing natural forest is replaced by a much faster growing 

plantation. That too is fairly rare. Two of the best ways to store more carbon in forests is to extend the interval between harvests or take less per harvest. Basically 

both actions make the forest bucket less leaky. Depending on the length of the rotation or the amount of harvest, one can either enhance or reduce the store in forest 

products. While longer rotations can lower the average amount that is harvested, 

the material that is harvested tends to be more suitable for long-term use and hence 

may store more as wood products. 

5. It is possible to increase forest system carbon stores by increasing the 

growth rate of trees. Depending on the forest, this can be achieved by using superior genetic stock, planting faster growing species, fertilization, irrigation, or speeding the rate of tree regeneration. In most cases the increases in tree growth do not 

offset the losses from converting older natural forests, and in all cases it may take 

several harvest intervals before gains are fully realized in wood products stores. 

Usually the goal of increasing the growth rate of trees is to shorten the interval between harvests. If this practice is followed, then the gains of carbon in the forest 

itself will be minimal. On the other hand it may result in increased wood products 

stores, but that depends on the types of products produced. It should also be noted 

that thinning of forests does not increase the rate carbon is added to forests. It does 

allow the remaining trees to grow faster and become larger faster, but one must remember that it does this for fewer trees. The claim that thinning increases forest 

production is really based on the amount harvested, not the amount of carbon entering the forest: these are two completely different things. 

6. Reducing fuels in forests have few benefits from a carbon storage 

standpoint. Recently it has been proposed that reducing fuels in forests would reduce fire severity to the point that more carbon would be stored in forests than allowing them to burn untreated. This practice can have benefits for ecosystem restoration in some forest types (for example, Ponderosa pine), but there appear to be 

few benefits from a carbon storage perspective. There are many reasons for this result. First, to reduce fuels one needs to reduce carbon stores, so there would have 

to be major changes in fire severity and size to offset these losses. Second, the difference in the effects of severity on carbon stores is less dramatic than generally 

62 

imagined. As indicated above, a very light fire might results in forest losses on the 

order of 5% of total carbon in a forest, whereas for an extremely severe fire these 

losses might be on the order of 15%. Third, one cannot anticipate where fires will 

occur, so a large proportion of the forest area needs to be treated. In contrast, a 

small proportion of the forest area may burn in the next few decades, which results 

in more losses from the treatment than the fires (bear in mind the total effect depends on both the area involved and the average loss per area). The most likely case 

where removal of fuels will result in a long-term carbon benefit would be if, without 

fuel treatment, the fire severity increases to the point that tree regeneration is 

greatly delayed. However, this regeneration delay has to be substantial to have 

much of an effect. 

7. Forest products do store carbon; whether they actually increase the 

forest system carbon stores is a more complicated issue. Given that the basic 

material of forest products, wood, is approximately 50% carbon, harvesting wood 

and placing it into forest products can definitely store carbon. However, this gain 

is at the expense of storing carbon in the forest, and it is completely possible there 

will be no net gain in the total forest system carbon stores. Harvest of wood removes 

carbon from the forest which means the parts of the forest that depended on that 

carbon will decrease in stores. Manufacturing of wood into products results in a loss 

of carbon as does the use and disposal of wood products. Overall, the effect of harvesting carbon is to make the overall forest system leakier. If wood products are to 

be used to store carbon, then the efficiency of converting wood into long-lived products needs to be increased, and the life-span of these products needs to be lengthened considerably (see above). There have been proposals to harvest wood from forests and store it in a location where it cannot decompose by burial on land or sinking it into oceans or lakes. I suppose this would be the ‘‘ultimate’’ wood product in 

terms of carbon storage. Assuring that there is no decomposition may prove challenging: wood is decomposed quite quickly in oceans, for example, organisms such 

as shipworms readily eat wood as any naval historian can attest. Wood is not the 

most concentrated form of carbon and the sheer volume to be stored would likely 

dwarf those of current landfills and interfere with other land-uses. Also it may not 

prove particularly popular. Finally, the harvest of wood causes other parts of the 

forest to temporally lose carbon which would introduce time lags into the gains offered by this scheme. 

8. Substitution of wood for more energy intensive materials has the potential to decrease fossil fuel carbon releases, but how much of this potential will be realized is difficult to quantify. It has been proposed that substitution of wood for more energy intensive materials will reduce the rate that fossil 

fuel carbon is released into the atmosphere. While wood is generally less energy intensive than many alternative materials, the difference between materials has been 

decreasing and not all the energy for these is supplied via fossil fuels. Currently, 

steel and concrete utilize three times the energy of wood. However, most buildings 

are mixtures of wood and other materials, so the energy savings of a building primarily constructed of wood is 30% relative to those primarily made of other materials. As noted above, harvest results in the release of carbon from the forest and 

while not fossil fuel-related, these losses need to be deducted from any gains. Many 

homes and small commercial building already utilize wood to a high degree. It is 

therefore not clear how large the substitution effect can become in the US. Finally, 

although it has been stated by some that the substitution related carbon offset 

never decreases and accrues each harvest. However, there are reasons to suspect 

this claim. This would only be true if wooden buildings lasted forever or the supply 

of buildings increased without limit. It is far more likely that buildings will have 

a finite life-span and need to be replaced, which also means wooden buildings cannot increase without limits. Since that is true, then in time harvests are maintaining the store in buildings and there is no net gain in this form of carbon offset. So 

depending on how much carbon is actually offset, this might be part of a bridging 

strategy. 

Concerns 

Despite the reality that U.S. forests are currently removing carbon from the atmosphere and the great potential for forests to play a role in offsetting greenhouse 

gas emissions, I do have several concerns. 

Liquidation of forest carbon stores can be the potential unintended consequence of carbon policy. To have forest play a greater role than they do currently, we will have to do something different than business as usual. We must assure that additional carbon is stored due to new actions, a concept usually called 

‘‘additionality.’’ Despite the need for this concept, it must be acknowledged that it 

means those with practices that have lead to the lowest carbon stores have the most 

63 

to benefit from changing their practices. The role of those that have already changed 

practices or have always managed in a manner to keep carbon stores high has to 

be recognized and encouraged. Little will be gained if the only way to have carbon 

store increases counted is to first lower carbon stores. Given the time lags inherent 

in the forest system, this will be totally counterproductive. 

Making sure carbon stores are real: the need for a national accounting, 

verification, and monitoring system. We must make sure that any gains in 

forest carbon stores are real, which means they will have to be monitored and 

verified. This needs to be done at two levels. The first would be at the level of specific projects. The second would be at a national level, which would involve more 

than simply adding up all the projects, in part because there will be many forest 

areas without carbon projects that need to be considered in the national balance 

sheet. The often stated claim that methods do not exist to monitor changes in forest 

carbon is completely puzzling given that scientists developed these methods decades 

ago. There are many existing methods and systems that can be modified to achieve 

the goal of monitoring and verification. They could be substantially improved with 

further investments, but are sufficient to start the process now. National guidelines 

or protocols, similar to those developed by California, would greatly aid in assuring 

monitoring and verification is trustworthy. At least at the project level, where the 

goal is to support a carbon credits market, these protocols can be flexible as long 

as there are discounts or deductions for uncertainty about how much additional carbon is being stored. That way the project managers can decide the tradeoff between 

the gain in carbon by lowering uncertainty versus the cost of a more expensive and 

comprehensive measurement program. It should also be noted that these estimates 

of carbon gains need to be conservative, because failing to count storage will do far 

less environmental harm than over-counting. Another possible role for the government would be to support detailed studies of proposed projects to fully understand 

the carbon impacts of the most commonly proposed projects. While there is a great 

deal of scientific research in this realm, it has not generally been of an applied a 

nature. It is unlikely that all forest projects will be able to afford detailed measurements of all the carbon pools and processes. These studies would allow others to 

more fully anticipate the likely carbon gains and costs of proposed projects and in 

fact streamline the verification process because certain practices would have been 

proven to work under certain conditions. Finally, it is important that a system be 

established to rank the quality of the carbon as opposed to the quantity of carbon. 

This might be similar to that used for rating bonds; however, as we have all just 

learned to work this system needs to be independent of those buying and selling 

carbon credits. 

Despite the potential for forests to contribute to the challenge of reducing our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, I do believe that the forest system’s limits have to 

be fully recognized. Even if we could double the current rate that forest’s are removing atmospheric carbon, it would amount to approximately 20% of the current fossil 

fuel release of carbon dioxide. This is quite important, especially since it can be 

achieved with largely with today’s technology. But clearly forests cannot be used to 

solve the entire problem. 

My greatest concern: with continued warming forests can shift from 

being part of the carbon solution to being part of the carbon problem. Forests cannot continue to accumulate carbon forever, so it can be part of a bridging 

strategy, but we need to use the time it buys us wisely. This brings me to my greatest concern which involves the role forests will play if the climate continues to warm 

as projected under a business as usual scenario. If we do not act soon to reduce the 

rate the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are released, we may create a 

climate that will make forests start a net release carbon to the atmosphere. This 

could come about in several ways, but many of the effects are likely to be caused 

indirectly by increased drying of forests. This will mean that wildfires become more 

extensive and more severe, that insect outbreaks become more extensive and more 

severe, and that even trees in so-called ‘‘undisturbed’’ forests start to die at faster 

rates. If this starts to happen then the leaks from the forest carbon system will increase and eventually less will be stored. Not all the carbon will be released all at 

once as is often implied, it will happen gradually, but if forests reach this point then 

they will start to contribute to the problem we are trying to solve. Further, it may 

also become part of a vicious cycle in which more tree die which releases more carbon which warms the climate even more which causes more drying, which causes 

more trees to die, etc. Forests are not the only part of the natural world that may 

act in this manner; thawing currently frozen soils in the north could cause yet another vicious carbon release cycle to begin. To assure that this does not happen we 

need to act on a number of fronts and to decrease carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere as fast as we possibly can. 

64 

Summary 

Forests are currently storing considerable carbon in the U.S. and are currently 

offsetting approximately 10% of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions. Forest systems can be managed in a wide range of manners to sustain and perhaps even increase their ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Some of the actions 

being proposed will definitely not store more carbon in forests, but there are many 

that will. To assure that forest projects in fact remove atmospheric carbon, it is essential that the actions conform to rigorous scientific principles, that increases of 

stores be monitored and verified. Forest systems can be a good share of the nation’s 

solution to decreasing the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but 

they cannot be used alone. It is highly likely that unless other steps are taken that 

the positive role that forest could play will become diminished and even switch to 

a negative one. We must also make sure that actions taken to increase the role of 

forest as carbon stores does not create other problems in terms of what we expect 

forests to do for us. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Dr. Dominick DellaSala, Chief Scientist and Executive Director of Programs, National Center for 

Conservation Science and Policy. Welcome, and your testimony, 

please. 

STATEMENT OF DOMINICK A. DELLASALA, Ph.D., CHIEF 

SCIENTIST AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS, 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND 

POLICY, ASHLAND, OREGON 

Mr. DELLASALA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Dominick DellaSala, and I am the chief 

scientist for the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy in Ashland, Oregon, and I am also the incoming President of 

the Society for Conservation Biology, North American Section. SCB 

has a global membership of over 11,000 scientists and resource 

managers, two-thirds of whom reside in the United States. 

Throughout my testimony, I emphasize that the longer we delay 

action on climate change, and the more we release dangerous 

greenhouse gases, or GHGs, into the atmosphere, the worse the situation will become for Americans and the rest of the world. 

The rapid climate change we are experiencing is the result of 

three factors: one, human-caused releases of several gases that contribute to the warming of the earth; two, the loss and degradation 

of forests and pollution-related changes to the oceans; and, three, 

changes in ice, precipitation, water temperature, wind, and currents caused by climate change that themselves speed up the climate change process, which is called ‘‘feedback loops.’’ 

Major shifts in these changes can be tipping points that cause 

chain reactions in global weather patterns and other climate 

change events. So, as a safety net for humanity, some of our most 

able scientists have called for a target of the equivalent of 350 

parts per million of GHGs in the atmosphere as a midterm safe 

limit. We are at, currently, 387 parts per million of CO2 and climbing at a rate of two parts per million per year. 

The further away from the 350-parts-per-million limit we get, the 

more likely it is that climate change will trigger truly catastrophic 

events. 

Depending on how you measure them, Federal public lands cover 

about 30 percent of our nation’s land base. They are strongholds for 

essential and irreplaceable benefits, such as biodiversity, clean 

65 

water, flood control, and carbon sequestration. These benefits are 

severely threatened by climate change and certain management activities, but these lands also hold part of the climate change solution as well. 

Now, I would like to emphasize three main points from my testimony, which also includes 14 closing recommendations and three 

supporting documents. 

First, the Nation needs a comprehensive, national goal with early 

and aggressive measures to reduce GHGs and particulate emissions to reach a 350-parts-per-million equivalent target. 

There are two measures that Congress can require Federal agencies to contribute to that goal. 

First, this Committee should direct the Secretaries of Interior 

and Agriculture to report back on what authorities they already 

have under existing laws to reduce net GHGs and how they initially plan to use them. 

Second, Congress and/or the Administration should convene a 

committee of scientists to determine how best to retrofit existing 

regulations and statutes to address cumulative causes and impacts 

of climate change arising from GHGs and land use. 

As an example, Congress can direct Federal agencies to measure 

the likely impact of GHGs from actions on public lands and compare alternatives as they comply with NEPA. Alternatives can be 

selected to optimize carbon sequestration and/or reduce emissions. 

This is especially important in evaluating cumulative effects from 

energy resources, livestock raising, and logging on public lands in 

a climate change context. 

Second, the primary goal of public lands should be the protection 

of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and optimization of carbon storage. Federal agencies should be guided by the same consistent mission in this regard and provide the core for a network of public and 

private lands managed for ecosystem services. 

To illustrate how far away from this vision we are, if you look 

at the recent decision by the Bush Administration to rescind the 

NFMA wildlife viability regulations and the fact that BLM does not 

even have a requirement to protect viable populations of wildlife— 

also, in my region, in Western Oregon, the BLM Western Oregon 

Plan Revisions, or so-called ‘‘WOPR,’’ would increase old-growth 

logging by 400 percent, releasing the CO2 equivalent of driving one 

million cars for 132 years while further stressing our ecosystems. 

Now, to help public lands adapt to, and mitigate against, climate 

change, Congress should direct the agencies to retain existing 

stores of carbon in mature and old forests as the nation’s carbon 

trust; reduce existing ecosystem stresses from land management, 

and maintain viable populations. 

My third, and final, point is that Congress should set more conservative limits on both BLM and Forest Service energy development. The BLM recently has indicated it will allow additional oil 

and gas development across vast areas on top of extensive areas already leased. Congress should call for a full accounting of emissions and ecosystem degradation of already developed leases to better understand and mitigate these impacts. 

Now, in light of the likely impacts of additional drilling, let us 

not make matters worse. Congress should, therefore, impose a morVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\47754.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
66 

atorium on further lease development and require revocation of any 

leases that are incompatible with climate and biological security. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, as you and the Subcommittee contemplate legislation for public lands to adapt and mitigate to climate change, we urge that public lands be managed for their irreplaceable contribution to biodiversity and ecosystem services by developing a national, comprehensive plan to bring down and keep 

GHG emissions at safe levels; reduce our dependency on fossil 

fuels, while developing renewable energy sources, and ensure the 

continuation of a biologically diverse and robust system of national 

forests and BLM lands. Thank you, and I look forward to questions 

later. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DellaSala follows:] 

Statement of Dominick A. DellaSala, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, National Center 

for Conservation Science & Policy, and President Elect, Society for 

Conservation Biology, North America Section 

Chairman Grijalva and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Dominick 

DellaSala. I am the Chief Scientist at the National Center for Conservation Science 

& Policy in Ashland, Oregon (www.nccsp.org) and President Elect of the Society for 

Conservation Biology (SCB, www.conbio.org), North America Section. SCB has a 

global membership of over 11,000 scientists and resource managers; two-thirds of 

whom reside in the U.S. 

Work by SCB scientists and my organization clearly demonstrate that the accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the global atmosphere creates and exacerbates risks to biological diversity and ecosystem services (Conservation Biology 2008, Exhibit A). This dangerous interference with the Earth’s climatic 

system imposes unmitigated and unacceptable costs on present and future generations. Thus, Congress and the Obama Administration should give this issue top priority not only for the environment but with regard to its implications for national 

and economic security (Pumphery 2008), human health, and quality-of-life. 

Federal lands are key to mitigating climate change effects as well as providing 

the nation with irreplaceable biological diversity, clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and other economic values. Federal lands often contain large blocks 

of intact and functional ecosystems with viable fish and wildlife populations most 

capable of adapting to rapid climate change in the coming decades. Therefore, in an 

era of increasing climate disruptions, federal lands are our best hope for conserving 

the ecosystem services upon which society depends. Managing for the restoration 

and conservation of those ecological systems must become the clear and primary 

goal of federal agencies. To ensure this goal is met, both the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must have the same mission so there is continuity 

of management across all 457 million acres of publicly owned lands. 

In my testimony, I offer four main points and fourteen closing recommendations 

on what Congress and the Obama Administration can do to combat climate change 

on federal lands. While the focus of today’s hearing is on federal lands, federal lands 

should not be used as an offset for unsustainable practices on nonfederal lands. We 

also need to take steps to reduce the impacts that activities on nonfederal lands 

have on ecosystems and greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions. 

MAIN POINTS 

(1) The nation needs a goal with early and aggressive efforts to reduce GHG and 

related particulate emissions to reach an atmospheric concentration of 350 parts per 

million (ppm) CO2 equivalent target and a national implementation plan that addresses all major sources of such emissions by requiring contributions from every 

federal agency. 

(2) Congress should provide clear direction to the Forest Service and the BLM to 

adopt new approaches that optimize carbon capture and storage and minimize GHG 

emissions from land management activities, including energy extraction, on public 

lands. 

(3) Federal agencies should adapt natural resource management to the changes 

brought on by climate change by adopting a 3-Rs approach—Reduce existing 

stressors to ecosystems and increase Resilience and Resistance of species and ecosystems to climate change. 

67 

(4) Federal agencies need clear direction to prioritize the preservation and restoration of ecological integrity of public lands so that these lands will continue to provide Americans with biological diversity and other sustainable ecosystem services 

such as abundant clean water, carbon sequestration and storage, air filtration, flood 

control, and recreation. 

Each of these main points implies fundamental shifts in how the agencies are currently doing business. If we do not take these steps, the forests, rivers, and coastal 

zones we Americans cherish will experience unprecedented losses of biological diversity, ecosystem services and productivity, and recreational values. 

I. The nation needs a goal with early and aggressive efforts to reduce GHG 

and related particulate emissions to reach an atmospheric concentration 

of 350 (ppm) CO2 equivalent target and a national implementation plan that addresses all major sources of such emissions by requiring contributions from every 

federal agency. 

Just months after the release of the IPCC report of 2007, this Committee heard 

from Tony Westerling that climate change appeared to be making western fires 

more severe than most had expected (Westerling et al. 2006). Geophysicists, climatologists, and other experts, including NASA’s James Hansen and others (Hansen 

et al. 2008) announced findings that the pace of climate change and its impacts had 

accelerated faster than projected by the IPCC, recommending C02 levels in the atmosphere be reduced from the current 387 to 350 ppm through reduced GHG and 

soot emissions, reforestation, and agricultural reforms. To reiterate, ‘‘if the present 

offshoot of this target is not brief, there is the possibility of irreversible catastrophic 

effects’’ (Hansen et al. 2008). 

Without a national goal for reducing GHG emissions and an accompanying implementation plan, our nation will find it most difficult to successfully address the 

threat of climate change. It is not sufficient to simply urge or require federal agencies to act. We must give them a clear direction for action—a goal, a process, target, 

and a plan. A national implementation plan would provide benchmarks against 

which land use plans and federal actions can be evaluated in addition to those in 

existing law. For example, drilling to extract natural gas increases GHG emissions 

but may produce lower emissions compared to other energy sources if it is part of 

a comprehensive national plan that selects alternatives with low emissions (Exhibit 

B) or combinations of demand and supply measures that result in the lowest practicable emissions and least ecologically disruptive impacts. In the absence of such 

a plan, it is more difficult to fully evaluate GHG emissions of federal actions and 

to require appropriate choices. Thus, Congress should redirect the Forest Service 

and the BLM to adopt and then coordinate and implement a comprehensive plan 

along with the traditional implementation planning already part of all federal actions and land-use planning. 

We need a national strategy for federal lands that is science-driven, adaptive in 

its approach, and comprehensive in jointly addressing mitigation (i.e., reducing 

GHG emissions and increasing sequestration) and preparation (i.e., reducing the 

vulnerability of people and ecosystems to the impacts of climate change) alongside 

ecosystem services and biodiversity goals. As a first step, this Committee could request that the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture report back on what authorities they already have under existing laws and regulations to respond to climate 

change and how they plan to use them. In most cases, agencies do not need new 

authorities to take action. However, they may need congressional oversight to ensure they explicitly consider the extent to which their actions drive climate change 

and the consequences of climate change for the cost and efficacy of their plans and 

projects. This is a matter of good governance and fulfilling existing mandates and 

authorities that set performance goals for agencies, including but not limited to the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Water Act, Endangered Species 

Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and Clean Air Act. Agencies must ensure that their plans and programs will be successful under currently 

foreseeable climatic conditions (i.e., conditions that are more likely to be fundamentally different from the last century). 

Further, to examine the efficacy of current regulations and laws, Congress should 

convene a Committee of Scientists to build on prior efforts used to examine promulgating regulations on national forests (COS 1999). A science committee should be 

tasked with determining how best to comply with existing regulations and statutes 

such as NEPA, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the FLPMA in 

the context of cumulative impacts from climate change and land use. 

68 

II. Congress should provide clear direction to the Forest Service and the 

BLM to adopt new approaches that optimize carbon capture and 

storage and minimize GHG emissions from land management activities, 

including energy extraction, on public lands. 

The current concentration and rate of increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere exceed those of the last 420,000 years (IPCC 2007). This along with emissions of several other powerful GHGs has resulted in a global average temperature 

increase of 0.7δ C (1.3δ F) over the last century. During the past several decades, 

we have recorded increases not only in temperature but in the number and magnitude of extreme storms, floods, and regional droughts (IPCC 2007). Such effects 

already are being felt throughout the nation (e.g., Exhibit A), yet they are expected 

to quickly become more severe in the coming decades depending on ongoing GHG 

emissions and land-use practices. What we do next in response to this pending crisis 

will determine whether climate change impacts are merely severe or truly catastrophic. 

In particular, forests both are affected by climate change and can be an integral 

part of the solution. Very simply, forests absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and store 

the carbon from it in cellulose (wood) and soil. In this process, they convert CO2 into 

oxygen that makes life possible. When forests are logged, they release the majority 

of this stored carbon, which then contributes to the greenhouse effect. 

Our nation’s forests absorb the equivalent of about 10% of our carbon emissions 

from fossil fuels (Smith and Heath 2007, Depro 2007). Many studies have shown 

that old-growth forests accumulate carbon for centuries and that these forests are 

not neutral holders of carbon but continue to sequester large amounts of it even as 

they age from 300 to 800 years (Luyssaert et al. 2008). Studies also have shown 

that when old trees are cut down and replaced by younger ones there is a net reduction in carbon stores (Law et al. 2004, Depro et al. 2007). Much of this stored carbon 

is released to the atmosphere through loss of carbon in soils, decomposition and 

burning of slash left on site by loggers, and shipping and processing of wood products (Harmon et al. 1990, 2001). The relatively short shelf life of most wood products exacerbates these losses. The losses are neither trivial nor compensated by fast 

growing, young trees; it could take hundreds of years until the new forests store as 

much carbon as did the original old forest (Harmon 2001). Losses of stored carbon 

are particularly severe on industrial forest lands where timber harvest rotations are 

much shorter (40-100 years) than it takes for carbon stored in the original old forest 

to be replenished (Harmon 2001, Luyssaert et al. 2008). 

One analysis found that a hypothetical ‘‘no timber harvest’’ scenario on public 

lands would result in an annual increase of 17-29 million metric tonnes (MMTC) 

of carbon captured or sequestered per year between 2010 and 2050—as much as a 

43% increase over current sequestration levels on public lands (Depro et al. 2007). 

In contrast, moving to a more intense harvesting policy (similar to those of the 

1980s) would result in annual carbon releases per year of 27-35 MMTC between 

2010 and 2050 that otherwise would have been sequestered by no harvest (Depro 

et al. 2007). These losses would represent a substantial decline (50-80%) in anticipated carbon sequestration associated with existing timber harvest policies. 

In Oregon, coastal old-growth forests store more carbon per acre than any other 

forest on Earth (Smithwick et al. 2002) and they are rich in unique fish and wildlife 

species. However, the BLM has finalized plans to increase logging of old forests in 

western Oregon (Western Oregon Plan Revisions, WOPR) by more than 400% in the 

coming decade, largely through clearcutting. According to BLM’s own analysis, in 

comparison to letting these old forests grow, logging would release approximately 

180 million tons of carbon that is currently stored in these forests. This is equivalent to driving 1 million cars for a period of 132 years. The WOPR, in particular, 

is tantamount to liquidating one of our nation’s most significant carbon stores while 

putting the viability of several endangered species at risk and compromising ecosystem services like clean water and air. New statutory direction is needed for BLM 

to optimize carbon storage and fish and wildlife habitat. 

In general, changing forestry and other land management practices on federal 

land represents one of the most powerful, and, quite frankly, least costly tools that 

the nation has in fighting climate change. Increasing carbon storage on and decreasing GHG emissions from federal lands is feasible across extensive areas and can be 

effectively implemented. To combat climate change on public lands, a fundamental 

shift from current forestry practices is needed that: (1) retains existing stores of carbon in mature and old forests as ‘‘carbon banks’’ and (2) allows or helps plantations 

and other intensively managed public forests optimize carbon stores by regrowing 

to older conditions (Harmon 2001). The Committee also should direct federal agency 

divisions that influence state, private, and international forestry and agriculture to 

69 

present cooperative and incentive-based plans to address climate change as federal 

lands should not be used as an offset for unsustainable practices elsewhere. 

III. Federal agencies should adapt natural resource management to the 

changes brought on by climate change by adopting a 3-Rs approach— 

Reduce existing stressors to ecosystems and increase Resilience and 

Resistance of species and ecosystems to climate change. 

Reducing ecosystem stressors is the single most important change in management 

direction to prepare forest ecosystems for the unavoidable impacts of climate change 

(SCB 2008). Forests, grasslands, watersheds and other ecosystems are under increased pressure from all the needs and demands we place on them. When ecosystems are stressed, they are less capable of adapting. Stressors of ecosystems include fragmentation by roads and logging, spread of non-native invasive species by 

management activities (e.g., roads and livestock grazing facilitate expansion of certain weeds), unusually severe fires, high water loss (through evapotranspiration) 

from overstocked stands (Moore et al. 2004) and water loss from stream diversions, 

and fossil fuel development. Domestic livestock and its associated commodity distribution chain contribute about 18% of GHG emissions (largely methane) globally 

(FAO 2006) and 8% nationally (EPA 2008). Notably, methane traps 20 times more 

heat than CO2 (EPA 2008). A particularly effective way to reduce livestock grazing 

contributions to increased GHGs as well as minimize detrimental effects on biological diversity and watershed function is to provide for the voluntary retirement of 

federal grazing permits. An example of this is proposed in legislation before the 

House pertaining to the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument and establishment of 

the Owyhee Wilderness (S.22). 

In contrast to degraded lands, roadless areas, mature and old-growth forests, native prairie, and protected riparian areas, have many built-in mechanisms to allow 

them to withstand (Resistance) and rebound from (Resilience) natural disturbances. 

Such areas also will be more likely to resist or be resilient to climate change (Paine 

et al. 1998). Congress could do two things to guide agencies in this regard: (1) direct 

federal agencies to protect roadless areas and watersheds with low road densities; 

and (2) provide direction on restoration projects aimed at building resistance and 

resilience through decommissioning of failing roads, thinning of young trees in previously managed and overstocked forests, and restoring stream morphology and 

function in watersheds heavily degraded by logging, livestock grazing, and other 

land uses. 

I would like to flag two issues: (1) the importance of roadless areas in climate 

change preparation, and (2) the limitations and benefits of thinning. Numerous 

studies demonstrate the importance of roadless areas to biological diversity 

(Strittholt and DellaSala 2001), drinking water (USFS 2000), and rural economies 

(USFS 2000). Roadless areas will become increasingly vital particularly in dry regions that depend on montane snow pack and as a connected landscape best capable 

of enabling fish and wildlife to migrate as the climate shifts. 

As to thinning, millions of acres of old forests in the Pacific Northwest have been 

replaced with plantations that provide poor quality wildlife habitat (west of the Cascade Range, USGS 2002) or are now fire hazards (dry provinces, Odion et al. 2004). 

Treating these dense monocultures through variable-density thinning (with stops 

and gaps in thinning of trees to create structural diversity) is likely to help facilitate 

onset of older forest characteristics (USGS 2002), particularly if there is no net increase in the density of roads and soil damage is minimized. Thinning of small trees 

may reduce drought stress and fuel loads in dry forests (Brown et al. 2004), and 

lower fire risks where the number or severity of fires is expected to increase due 

to climate change (Westerling et al. 2006). However, there are tradeoffs. Fuel reduction methods typically release stored carbon from decomposition of slash left on site, 

burning of slash piles, transport and processing of biomass, and short shelf life of 

most wood products (Harmon 2001). The carbon released typically exceeds that of 

even the most severe fires as fires are relatively localized events compared to the 

extensive thinning efforts required to influence fire hazard. Thus, more carbon is 

removed by landscape-scale thinning than released by fires (Mitchell et al. in press). 

Also, most of the carbon in a burned forests remains on site, is stored for long periods as charcoal deposits, and only slowly decomposes over decades. 

That is not to say we should not thin forests as part of restoration planning, but 

that we should not expect thinning to increase forest carbon stores. Interest of federal agencies in thinning forests is increasing, but thinning of forests should target 

areas where it is most needed (e.g., wildland-urban interface and overly dense young 

stands), while reducing ecosystem stressors by protecting large trees, soils, and riparian areas and by restoring stream hydrology that has been altered by high road 

densities. Agencies should use the best science in determining where to apply 

70 

thinning to any given location such that this action does not undermine either climate security or ecosystem health and that its application will comply with applicable laws. 

IV. Federal agencies need clear direction to prioritize the preservation and 

restoration of ecological integrity of public lands so that these lands 

will continue to provide Americans with biological diversity and other 

sustainable ecosystem services such as abundant clean water, carbon 

sequestration and storage, air filtration, flood control, and recreation. 

We are grateful for Chairman Grijalva’s leadership in protecting large blocks of 

intact BLM lands through the National Landscape Conservation System. Intact ecosystems provide myriad ecosystem services, including flood control, water storage, 

carbon sequestration, and nutrient cycling (http://www.millenniumassessment.org/ 

en/synthesis.aspx). The more ecosystems are stressed by climate change and land 

management activities, the more these services will be compromised. In Oregon, my 

organization together with the University of Oregon Climate Leadership Initiative 

is in the process of completing pilot projects in four river basins—Klamath, Rogue, 

Umatilla, and Upper Willamette (Exhibit A). In each of these basins, we are applying climate change models (IPCC 2007) and cutting edge, vegetation-climate projection models developed by the USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station MAPPS 

Team. Our approach may serve as a model for federal lands planning. The results 

of these studies indicate that striking changes to forests and rivers could occur in 

less than three decades. Anticipated changes include drought stress, snowpack declines of 90-95% (by 2100), greater rain-on-snow events leading to spring flooding, 

rapid snow melt leading to earlier onset of summertime low stream flows and warmer water, and shifts in the vegetation composition. An increase in the amount of 

vegetation consumed by wildfire also is probable. Such changes also could trigger 

the demise of threatened cold-water fish populations causing a cascade of negative 

ecosystem effects. 

National Forests and BLM lands, in general, play an integral role in maintaining 

ecosystem services whether in Oregon or throughout the nation. In particular, federal agencies have numerous regulations and laws that govern the use of ecosystem 

services, most notably multiple use and sustained yield principles. However, in practice ecosystem services are often pitted against one another (e.g., water and carbon 

storage vs. timber production). For instance, intact watersheds, mature and oldgrowth forests, and roadless areas act as biological reservoirs, gradually storing 

water and slowly releasing it over dry summer months (Moore et al. 2004). High 

levels of logging and road building in a watershed can lead to rapid runoff, diminished hydrological functions, and losses of water storage capacity that will only exacerbate water shortages particularly in regions dependent on snow pack. As 

snowpack is expected to decline markedly in the coming decades (Mote et al. 2005), 

protecting and restoring intact areas should be a priority of federal land use planning as such lands are critical to mitigating water losses and maintaining the full 

range of ecosystem services. 

Landscape connectivity is another critical issue that must be actively addressed 

to help fish and wildlife adapt to the many effects of climate change. The Forest 

Service and BLM need direction to undertake an aggressive program of road decommissioning to reduce the number of roads that have a high likelihood of failure, especially given anticipated increases in the number and magnitude of storms. Not 

only will failed roads pose a risk to human safety and reduce the quantity and quality of water, but taxpayers will pay far more to repair damages than to prevent 

damages. We urge the agencies to spend at least 60% of new stimulus funds on road 

decommissioning. 

Failure to take action on climate change can have significant economic impacts 

(see Exhibit A). For instance, according to recent economic studies conducted in 

western states, if GHG emissions are not reduced, states like Oregon will face some 

$3.3 billion in annual costs in the coming decades due to climate change impacts 

(http://uonews.uoregon.edu/files/pmr/uploads/OR-Fnl—Rpt.pdf). This loss represents 

an individual cost of about 4 percent of annual household income by 2020. Total annual costs would more than triple by 2080 if insufficient action is taken to reduce 

emissions. Researchers projected an increase in the number and severity of seasonal 

droughts and floods, higher air-conditioning costs to cope with higher temperatures, 

higher incidence of climate-associated health problems and deaths, and more 

wildfires. Similar losses are anticipated for New Mexico (http://uonews.uoregon.edu/ 

files/pmr/uploads/NM-Fnl—Rpt.pdf) and Washington (http://uonews.uoregon.edu/ 

files/pmr/uploads/WA-Fnl—Rpt.pdf). Federal lands can help mitigate these losses if 

these lands are managed with sequestration, biodiversity, and ecosystem services 

(especially water) as a priority. 

71 

CLOSING RECOMMENDATIONS 

Climate change represents the most serious threat to our natural resources and 

is a growing threat to the nation’s security and economy. To implement the four 

main actions, I have provided fourteen supporting recommendations that should be 

considered in new legislation or administrative policies (as amended from SCB 

2008): 

GHG Emissions On Federal Lands: 

(1) Require full assessment, disclosure, and mitigation of the contributions of federal actions to the drivers of climate change (GHG emissions) and full consideration 

of how climate change will impact the cost and efficacy of planned management actions—this should be required of all federal actions and should include comprehensive cost-benefit and GHG emission analyses of developing domestic energy sources 

on public lands so that the impacts of additional emissions are fully mitigated in 

NEPA. As an example, Congress can direct federal agencies to treat CO2 and methane as a metric in NEPA. 

(2) Provide clear guidance to BLM and Forest Service on fossil fuel leasing, including a moratorium on new leases pending full mitigation of GHG emissions and watershed impacts—leases for oil and gas development, in particular on BLM lands, 

have been handed out in record numbers in the last few years with little concern 

for environmental or atmospheric impacts (Exhibit C). Even though oil and gas development on federal lands has been rampant, most of these leases have not yet 

been developed. Their future development will hamper any attempts to meet the 

350 ppm safety net, in addition to decreasing the resilience of fish and wildlife populations and ecosystem services to climate change. Once new oil and gas wells and 

their associated pads and roads are developed, their emissions and habitat impacts 

will continue for decades to centuries. As the agency is indicating it will allow additional oil and gas leasing across large areas (http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/ 

medialib/blm/nm/programs/0/oglsalelnoticesland/2008.Par.48580.File.dat/ 

April162008lSaleNotice.pdf), on top of the extensive areas already leased, a full accounting of emissions and ecosystem degradation from already developed leases will 

allow agencies to implement mitigation and sequestration strategies. For undeveloped leases, Congress should require revocation of leases as developing these leases 

would increase GHG emissions. 

(3) The Forest Service should be given control to subsurface mineral development 

on the national forest system—the Forest Service has yet to develop land-use plans 

for dealing with subsurface mining. While there is growing interest in developing 

domestic energy sources, the more we depend on fossil fuels, the more we will exceed the recommended 350 ppm safety net and create even greater risks to the nation. Federal agencies should shift production increasingly toward renewable energy 

sources. Areas already developed and degraded for oil and gas could make ideal 

sites for solar, wind, or other renewable energy projects. 

(4) Require agencies to analyze both costs and benefits, including GHG emissions, 

of all types of energy, biofuels, agriculture and forestry—guidance is needed for agencies to assess a full range of alternatives before approving any federal action that 

would lead to a net increase in GHG emissions and that all net increases in GHG 

emissions should be offset elsewhere by increases in sequestration. 

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: 

(5) Prioritize preservation and restoration of biological diversity and other ecosystem services—on federal lands, priority ecosystem services largely include capture 

and storage of carbon, clean water, flood and drought abatement, biodiversity, and 

nutrient cycling. High priority actions include protecting roadless areas and undeveloped watersheds and reducing existing stressors by restoring degraded lands. 

(6) Require that agencies conduct assessments of ecosystem services and biodiversity potential of all ecosystems in the context of climate change—this is essential in 

order to manage ecosystems for resistance and resilience to climate change. 

(7) Require the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to develop a connected system of lands and waters as a climate change refuge—this system should be managed 

primarily for conservation of biological diversity, ecosystem services, and carbon sequestration while allowing for dispersal of native species. Protected areas are essential for maintaining viable fish and wildlife populations and high levels of genetic 

and species diversity, which would then be available to recolonize areas degraded 

by poor management or climate change. Roadless areas, riparian areas, old forests, 

and intact ecosystems are keys to this system. 

(8) Institute a regulatory requirement to conduct analyses of landscape connectivity 

when large-scale energy developments, particularly placement of energy corridors, are 

72 

proposed for public lands—this is needed to minimize fragmentation of fish and 

wildlife habitat. 

Existing Laws and Regulations: 

(9) Congress should work with the Obama Administration to override the Bush Administration’s 2008 regulations regarding NFMA and reinstate the 1982 regulations 

pursuant to further review by a Committee of Scientists appointed by Congress or the 

Administration—the regulations should be rendered compliant with climate change 

response, fish and wildlife viability, and findings of previous science committees 

(COS 1999). 

(10) Revaluate and amend BLM’s sustained yield and the Forest Service’s multiple 

use mandates to be consistent with preserving biological diversity and ecosystem services in response to climate change—land-use planning should explicitly be designed 

to achieve management goals under plausible future conditions with a clear objective of reducing existing stressors. 

(11) Require federal agencies to modify all land-use plans to be compliant with 

NEPA and other environmental statutes in the context of climate change—this includes assessing cumulative effects of land-use practices (existing stressors) and climate change within the context of both mitigation and preparation. 

Adaptive Management, Dedicated Funding, and Multi-jurisdictional 

Coordination: 

(12) As part of adaptive management, apply climate change and land-use models 

to address potential impacts of climate change and existing stressors—this includes 

modeling effects on vegetation, hydrology, snow pack, fish and wildlife, fire, and 

forest productivity with a temporal extent of decades to a century (e.g., Exhibit A). 

(13) Direct federal agencies to cooperate and coordinate federal management plans 

across jurisdictions and provide incentives for technology transfer and climate preparation and sequestration on nonfederal lands—significant outreach to private landowners, including timber companies and ranchers, will be needed to implement the 

3-R’s strategy and the 350 ppm GHG target across broader planning scales. 

(14) Provide dedicated funding to develop and implement climate change strategies 

on federal lands—this includes increasing the number of scientists on the staff of 

agencies and supporting a National Science Center for Wildlife Adaptation (e.g., one 

such funding system was proposed in the previous Congress in S.2191, ‘‘America’s 

Climate Security Act’’). 

Congressman Grijalva as you and the Subcommittee contemplate legislation for 

public lands, we urge that public lands be managed for their irreplaceable contribution to biodiversity and ecosystem services by developing a national comprehensive 

plan to bring down and keep GHG emissions at safe levels, reduce our dependency 

on fossil fuels while developing renewable energy sources, and ensure the continuation of a biologically diverse and robust system of public lands. Thank you Mr. 

Chairman. That concludes my testimony. 

Literature Cited 

Brown, R.T., J.K. Agee, and J.F. Franklin. 2004. Forest restoration and fire: principles in the context of place. Conservation Biology 18:903-912. 

Committee of Scientists (COS). 1999. Sustaining the people’s lands: recommendations for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands into the next century. USDA Washington, D.C. http://www.fs.fed.us/news/newslarchived/science/ 

cosfrnt.pdf. 

Conservation Biology. 2008. Special Section: a synthesis of climate-change effects on 

aquatic invasive species. Conservation Biology 22:518-623. 

Depro, B., B.C. Murray, R.J. Alig, and A. Shanks. 2007. Public land, timber harvest, 

and climate mitigation: quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands. Forest Ecol. and Management 255:1122-1134. 

Environmental Protection Action (EPA). 2008. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas 

emissions 1990-2006. 

FAO, 2006. Livestock’s long shadow. Environmental issues and options. FAO of the 

United Nations. Rome, 2006. (http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/ 

a0701e00.htm). 

Grant, G. 2007. Running dry: where will the west get its water? USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Science Findings Issue 97 October 2007. 

Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, V. Masson-Delmotte, et al., 2008. 

Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim? Published initially in a 

web-based format by email to Hansen’s list serve. March 31, 2008. 

Harmon, M.E., W.K. Ferrell, and J.F. Franklin. 1990. Effects on carbon storage of 

conversion of old-growth forests to young forests. Science 247:699-702. 

73 

Harmon, M.E. 2001. Carbon sequestration in forests: addressing the scale question. 

J. of Forestry 99:24-29. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007 

Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, 

Switzerland. 

Law, B.E., Turner, D., et al 2004. Disturbance and climate effects on carbon stocks 

and fluxes across Western Oregon USA. Global Change Biology 10:1429-1444. 

Luyssaert, S., E. Detlef Schulz, A. Borner, A. Kohl, D. Hessenmoller, B.E. Law, et 

al. 2008. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455:213-215. 

Mitchell, S., M.E. Harmon, and B. O’Connell. Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. In 

press. Ecological Applications. 

Moore, G.W., B.J. Bond, J.A. Jones, N. Phillips, and F.C. Meinzer. 2004. Structural 

and compositional controls in 40- and 450-year-old riparian forests in western 

Oregon, USA. Tree Physiology 24:481-491. 

Mote, P.W., A. F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. American Meteorological Society Jan. 

2005:39-49. 

Odion, D.C., J.R. Strittholt, H. Jiang, E. Frost, D.A. DellaSala, and M. Moritz. 2004. 

Fire severity patterns and forest management in the Klamath National Forest, 

northwest California, USA. Conservation Biology 18:927-936. 

Paine, R.T., M.J. Tegner, and E.A. Johnson. 1998. Compounded perturbations yield 

ecological surprises. Ecosystems 1:535-545. 

Pumphrey, C. 2008. Global climate change: national security implications. http:// 

www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/ 

Smith, J.E., and L.S. Heath. 2007. Land use, land-use change, and forestry. In Inventor of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2005. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Smithwick, E.A.H., M.E. Harmon, and J.B. Domingo. 2002. Changing temporal 

patterns of forest carbon stores and net ecosystem carbon balance: the stand to 

landscape transformation. Landscape Ecology 22:77-94. 

Strittholt, J.R., and D.A. DellaSala. 2001. Importance of roadless areas in biodiversity conservation in forested ecosystems: a case study—Klamath-Siskiyou 

ecoregion, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 15:1742-1754. 

Society for Conservation Biology (SCB). 2008. Recommendations for actions by the 

Obama Administration and the Congress to advance the scientific foundation 

for conservation of biological diversity. http://www.conservationbiology.org 

USFS. 2000. Roadless Area Conservation: Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Washington, D.C. 

USGS. 2002. Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon. Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0006. 

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

earlier spring increase Western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940- 

943. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me now ask Dr. Jack Williams, 

Senior Scientist, Trout Unlimited. Sir? 

STATEMENT OF JACK WILLIAMS, Ph.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST, 

TROUT UNLIMITED, MEDFORD, OREGON 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Jack Williams, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to provide my views, as senior 

scientist for Trout Unlimited, on the role of Federal lands in combating climate change. 

I have held research and management positions in both the BLM 

and Forest Service, so this issue is very close to my heart. 

Trout Unlimited, as you may know, is the nation’s largest, coldwater fisheries conservation group dedicated to the protection and 

restoration of trout and salmon and their watersheds. 

In my testimony today, I would like to focus on three main areas: 

first, a brief description of how climate change is likely to impact 

74 

national forests and public lands and how these impacts are already being felt; second, I would like to describe the resources, both 

natural resources and people in nearby communities that are being 

affected by climate changes; and, third, briefly describe how the 

problems can be solved; that is, if we act now and utilize the best 

available science. 

If we fail to act, the costs can be considerable, and our national 

forests and public lands may be irreparably harmed. 

I think most of you are familiar with the likely impacts of climate change on national forests and public lands. The impacts will 

be severe and include things like a general warming trend, increased evaporation, drying of forests and grasslands, increased 

wildfire intensity and frequency, reduced snowpack, more winter 

precipitation falling as rain rather than snow, earlier peak flows in 

rivers, less consistent streamflows, more pronounced storm events, 

including winter flooding, and more prolonged drought. 

Already, from a fisheries perspective, we see a lot of these 

changes, in terms of changes to stream hydrographs, earlier 

streamflows, and even earlier emergence of aquatic insects and 

changing fish migrations. 

What resources and user groups are going to be impacted? Well, 

a whole broad spectrum, not just fisheries and wildlife and overall 

biodiversity, but outdoor recreation opportunities; drinking water 

supplies, both quantity and quality; livestock raising; timber harvest; other resource extraction; and, indeed, the safety and economic well-being of nearby communities. 

It is important to realize that we cannot prevent these climatedriven disturbances to our national forests and public lands, but it 

is equally important to realize that we can moderate the impacts 

of these changes and reduce the stress to our natural resources and 

adjacent human communities. 

Let me focus, for just a minute, on three specific problems that 

our public lands will face and what we can do about them. 

The first is water resources and water quantity. Well, basically, 

to help protect water supplies and maintain streamflows, we need 

to essentially do the following things. We need to protect the highelevation, wet meadows, the wetlands, the riparian areas, and the 

riverine floodplains. 

Why? Because these are the areas that are sort of the natural 

sponges in our watersheds that slow the water and release it into 

the groundwater, so they are also our groundwater recharge zones, 

which are critical, from a water supply standpoint. So the proper 

function condition of those habitats will be increasingly important 

as snowpack diminishes. 

Water quality. To protect water quality, we need adequately 

sized streamside riparian zones and adopt management standards 

that emphasize aquatic system protection. These stream zones 

should be large enough to provide shade to streams but also buffer 

upslope erosion and management. 

In terms of increasing floods, we need to help guard against flood 

damage by reconnecting rivers to floodplains, again, focusing on 

those riparian and floodplain areas because those are the areas 

where floodwaters can move into, dissipate their energy, and also, 

again, recharge those groundwater systems. 

75 

In general, the agency should strive to improve the overall health 

of the land, seeking to restore conditions that allow the land to 

help withstand and recover from anticipated climate-change-drive 

disturbances. 

How can we deal with the uncertainty of climate change? A solid 

monitoring and adaptive management program will be vital. 

Our ability to adapt is limited by two things: first, our ability to 

detect change; and, second, our capacity to understand its consequences. The Forest Service and BLM monitoring programs are 

not adequate for these tasks. To address that shortcoming, the Federal government needs a new science initiative, among USGS, the 

Forest Service, other Federal agencies, academic institutions, and 

others, to help design a program to really help interpret the results 

of an integrated monitoring program across multiple jurisdictions. 

So, in conclusion, I would say that the actions described in my 

testimony have a considerable price, but they also have broad benefits, not only to maintaining biological diversity but to sustaining 

the ecological services critical to meeting the needs of 

recreationists, ranchers, other user groups, and ensure the wellbeing of nearby communities. 

In the end, we must ask ourselves, what is the cost of inaction? 

What will it cost to repair damage to our national forests and public lands? 

I would argue that it is less costly and more beneficial to address 

these concerns in the near term than to wait until increased climate-driven disasters befall our lands. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:] 

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

Chairman Grijalva and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to provide my views as Senior Scientist for Trout 

Unlimited on ‘‘The Role of Federal Lands in Combating Climate Change.’’ Federal 

lands provide habitat for fish and wildlife species that are of substantial economic, 

ecological, and spiritual value, and these lands can play a key role in preparing for 

the impacts of climate change. I appreciate your concern in addressing this issue 

in a timely manner. 

Trout Unlimited (TU) is the nation’s largest coldwater fisheries conservation 

group dedicated to the protection and restoration of our nation’s trout and salmon 

resources and the watersheds that sustain them. TU has more than 150,000 members in 400 chapters across the United States. Our members generally are trout and 

salmon anglers who give back to the waters they love by contributing substantial 

amounts of their personal time and resources to fisheries habitat protection and restoration. The average TU chapter donates 1,000 hours of volunteer time on an annual basis. 

My name is Jack Williams and I serve as Senior Scientist for Trout Unlimited. 

Prior to working for TU, I was privileged to serve in a number of research and management positions in the federal government, including Endangered Species Specialist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fisheries Program Manager 

for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Science Advisor to the Director of the 

BLM, Deputy Forest Supervisor on the Boise National Forest, and Forest Supervisor 

on the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. I also have served as a Professor 

at Southern Oregon University and retain the title of Adjunct Professor at that institution. 

In my testimony today, I would like to focus on three major points. 

First, I will briefly describe how climate change is likely to impact our National 

Forests and public lands. These impacts already are being felt across the country 

and will become more pronounced and severe in coming years. 

Second, I will describe how these impacts are likely to affect natural resources 

and the people and nearby communities that use these resources. It is important 

76 

to recognize that a broad spectrum of user groups will be impacted and that the 

risks are not just restricted to fish, wildlife, rivers, and forests. 

Third, I will describe how these problems can be solved—if we act now and utilize 

the best available science. I will provide specific examples of what needs to be done 

and how to do it. If we fail to act, costs will be considerable and our National Forests and public lands will be irreparably harmed. 

At the end of this document, I will provide a short annotated list of recent science 

articles in support of my testimony. 

Impacts of Climate Change on National Forests and Public Lands 

Climate change is likely to alter weather patterns and storm events across the 

United States dramatically with significant negative consequences for National Forests and public lands. A general warming pattern will result in increased evaporation rates and drying of forest and grassland vegetation. These effects will increase wildfire intensity and frequency, especially at mid-elevations. In turn, these 

changes will spark surges in forest pest species and invasive weeds, triggering a 

cascade of further alterations in natural ecosystems. 

River flows and hydrologic regimes also will be altered, with consequences not 

only to fisheries but also to water supplies in general. More winter precipitation will 

fall in the form of rain than snow, especially at lower and mid-elevations. This will 

reduce snowpack and increase the probability of rain-on-snow events, likely resulting in increased winter flooding. With more rain during winter and reduced 

snowpack, peak stream flows will occur earlier in the spring and low or base flows 

during summer and autumn will be reduced. Stream flows will be less consistent 

from year to year. 

Overall, storm intensities will be greater. Floods, drought, and wildfires are all 

likely to increase. The increased variability and longer duration of wet cycles and 

dry cycles will cause considerable additional stress to natural ecosystems. 

In all cases, impacts of climate change on federal lands must be viewed within 

the existing management context and conditions of natural systems. Watersheds, riparian systems, and streams that are in better condition will be more resistant to 

disturbance and more likely to rebound quickly. On the other hand, habitats that 

are degraded and fragmented will less able to adapt to climate change risks. The 

effects of rapid climate change will be compounded with, and magnify, existing 

stressors. In poor-condition lands without adequate protective vegetation along 

streams, floods will be more severe with greater erosion and floodplain damage. If 

wetlands are drained or filled and watercourses are channelized, floodplains that 

normally slow water flow and soak up winter precipitation to help recharge groundwater aquifers, instead will speed stream discharge, encourage summer drying, and 

deepen droughts. 

Natural Resources, User Groups, and Communities will be Substantially 

Impacted 

Trout Unlimited and our members are especially concerned about the impacts of 

climate change on coldwater fishes and the habitats that support them. We also are 

concerned about impacts to the recreational pursuits, such as fishing, hunting, 

camping, and nature watching, for which National Forests and public lands are well 

known. However, we also realize that the impacts from climate change will be felt 

far more broadly. 

The effects of climate change on federal lands is likely to negatively impact many 

natural resources, user groups, and communities, creating problems for: 

• Drinking water supplies—both quantity and quality 

• Fisheries 

• Wildlife 

• Overall biological diversity 

• Outdoor recreational opportunities 

• Livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource extraction 

• The safety and economic well-being of nearby communities 

In short, a very broad range of species, people, and communities will be under 

increasing risk unless we take immediate proactive management actions to prepare. 

The costs of failing to adequately plan and prepare will be high, and will be measured in substantial economic costs to fight large wildfires, deal with multi-year 

droughts, and repair damage from broadscale floods, and possibly in increased injury and loss of life. 

It is important to realize that we cannot prevent these climate-driven disturbances to our national forests and public lands. Emissions already concentrated in 

the atmosphere will produce significant changes in the global climate now and 

throughout the next century, and ongoing emissions are likely to increase the severVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47754.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
77 

ity of change we must endure. Recently the head of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change indicated that there is little time for mitigation efforts aimed 

at reducing greenhouse gas emissions; the Earth has about six more years at current rates of carbon-dioxide pollution before it is locked into a future of severe global 

warming. We know that change already is happening, and that we will be subjected 

to climate change driven risks. But it equally is important to realize that we can 

moderate the impacts of these changes and reduce stress on our natural resources 

and adjacent human communities. 

Specific Threats and Appropriate Responses 

In this section of my testimony, I identify specific resources on National Forests, 

National Grasslands, and public lands that will be threatened by climate change 

and provide scientifically sound and proven strategies for resource protection. 

Water resources and water quantity. To help protect water supplies and maintain 

stream flows, the Forest Service and BLM should restore high elevation wet meadows, wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains. These habitats act as natural hydrologic sponges that slow water discharge and recharge groundwater aquifers, which 

in turn increases late-season stream flows. The proper function condition of these 

habitats will be increasingly important as snowpacks diminish. 

Water quality. To protect water quality, agencies should designate adequately 

sized streamside—riparian—zones and adopt management standards that emphasize aquatic system protection. These riparian zones should be large enough not only 

to provide shade to streams, but also to buffer from upslope erosion and poor management activities. Agencies also should protect landslide prone areas. Inadequate 

protection of these areas will increase siltation and erosion, which will degrade 

stream systems, water supplies, and fisheries. 

Increasing floods. To help guard against flood damage, agencies should reconnect 

rivers to their floodplains. That is, rivers should not be confined into narrow channels but rather allowed access to broader floodplains. We also should seek to restore 

floodplains and streamside vegetation. These measures transfer flood energies into 

well-vegetated floodplain zones while dissipating flows and protecting soils from erosion. In addition federal agencies should improve culverts and other stream/road 

crossings, and decommission poorly maintained or poorly designed roads. Inadequately sized or designed culverts and poorly maintained road/stream crossings act 

like time ‘bombs that will plug up then blow out during intense storms causing massive landslides and debris flows. Severe flooding has substantial consequences not 

only to fisheries and wildlife, but also to downstream communities and recreational 

facilities. 

Example of a re-engineered stream crossing consisting of an oversize bottomless culvert. This structure provides for free movement of stream substrates and aquatic 

species while also providing adequate flood capacity and roadway safety. 


47754.001.eps
78 

Invasive species. Weedy and invasive species are more likely to flourish in degraded habitats and to be favored during highly fluctuating environmental conditions. Some invasive species will spread more quickly during warming trends and 

will cause greater harm and be more expensive to control if left untreated. To better 

manage invasive species, we should become more aggressive in programs to detect 

new species invasions and in programs to control established exotic species—both 

terrestrial invasive weeds and aquatic non-native species. 

Biodiversity loss. To deal with potential loss of plant and animal diversity, lands 

and waters should be managed to provide adequate habitat to support viable populations of native species. Agencies should manage to protect genetic diversity, including weak stocks and peripheral populations. High levels of genetic, life history, 

and ecological diversity will be necessary for species to adapt to rapid environmental 

change. 

Increasing wildfire. Wildfires are increasing in western forests because of reduced 

snowpack and earlier vegetative drying during summer. To deal with more frequent 

and intense wildfires, agencies should selectively thin forests, primarily in wildlandurban interface zones and plantations. To prepare aquatic systems, we also should 

improve road networks and stream crossings, restore up- and downstream 

connectivity, and recover degraded riparian areas. Finally, we should adopt strong 

post-fire logging standards that protect soils and stream systems while providing for 

adequate recruitment of large wood to streams. These actions will result in less 

wildfire damage and decreased erosion and stream sedimentation. Riparian habitats, old growth and mature forests, and unroaded areas should be protected as well 

because these are the most fire resistant habitats. 

Health of the land. In general, agencies should strive to improve the overall 

health of the land, seeking to restore conditions that allow the land to help us withstand and recover from anticipated climate change driven disturbances. This can 

best be done by protecting the best remaining habitats, reconnecting stream and riparian systems, and restoring degraded areas (see graphic). Watersheds that are in 

better condition are more able to withstand disturbances, or if disturbed, are more 

resilient to damage from the disturbances. Areas that may be especially important 

to protect include roadless areas, unroaded lands, habitat currently acting as native 

population strongholds, and areas of watersheds that produce high quality supplies 

of cold water. It is important to reconnect stream systems by removing barriers to 

fish movements. These barriers may include small dams whose water diversion 

service can be replaced by pumps or other means, inadequate or poorly-designed 

road culverts that create conditions that fish cannot navigate, or dewatered stream 

segments created by direct water diversion or by land management practices that 

cause the stream to go subsurface (e.g., overgrazing). Overall, it is important to reduce existing stressors, such as dense road networks or too intense or inappropriately timed livestock use. These existing stressors are within our ability to influence, whereas the added stress of climate change is beyond our ability to eliminate 

from the next 50 to 100 years, no matter how successful global mitigation efforts 

prove to be. 

How might this be implemented? For the past four years, BLM, TU, National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation and other partners have been reconnecting and restoring 

habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout in the Maggie Creek drainage in northern Nevada. Reconnection work consisted of replacing three major culverts that blocked 

fish passage and removing one irrigation structure that also blocked fish movement. 

Livestock grazing was improved by exclusion fencing along sensitive riparian areas. 

Restoration efforts focused on 1,982 acres of riparian habitat, which included replanting native species and irrigation improvements. In all, 82 stream miles of 

Maggie Creek and its tributaries were reconnected and restored. Total cost was approximately $600,000 during this four year period. These efforts not only benefited 

the threatened trout but also improved conditions for livestock use and provided increased flood capacity for the road system. 

79 

This approach to improving overall land health via watershed management can be 

summarized by the model of Protect-Reconnect-Restore-Sustain. Healthier lands are 

more resistant to climate change impacts and more resilient when disturbed by 

floods, drought, and wildfire. 

Dealing with the Uncertainty of Climate Change 

Monitoring and adaptive management will be important. Although many ramifications of climate change are relatively well understood, researchers uncover new surprises almost daily regarding the pace and intensity of change. There is substantial 

uncertainty and rapid environmental change ahead. National Forest and public land 

managers need to be better prepared to identify and track these changes and better 

equipped to understand their consequences. 

Our ability to adapt is limited by two things: our ability to detect change and our 

capacity to understand its consequences. Forest Service and BLM monitoring programs are not adequate for these tasks. To address this shortcoming, the federal 

government needs a new science initiative among USGS-Biological Resources Division, Forest Service Research, and academic and non-profit organizational scientists 

to help federal land managers design and interpret the results of an integrated monitoring program across multiple jurisdictions. 

Conclusion 

The necessary actions described herein have a considerable price, but they also 

have broad benefits not only to maintaining biological diversity, but to sustaining 

the ecological services critical to meeting the needs of recreationists, ranchers, and 

other user groups, and to ensuring the well-being of nearby communities. The actions I have described are very low risk steps that have a very high likelihood of 

substantial benefit to multiple parties. Many actions create jobs as well. 

National Forests and public lands provide substantial ecological services that include clean water, clean air, and buffering from drastic flood and drought. Without 

adequate effort to sustain these critical ecosystem services, private property owners, 

local governments and the human communities they make up will be excessively 

burdened. 

In the end it is important that we ask ourselves: What is the cost of inaction? 

What will it cost to repair damage to our National Forests and public lands? What 

will it cost in private property loss and public safety? I would argue that it is less 

costly and more beneficial to address these concerns in the near-term than it would 

be to wait until increased climate change driven disasters befall our lands and nearby communities. The time to act is now. Our National Forests, National Grasslands, 

and BLM public lands are national treasures that are irreplaceable in our lifetimes. 


47754.002.eps
80 

Reference List 

Battin, J., M.M. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, and 

H. Imakl. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(16):6720-6725. {describes how habitat restoration can mitigate impacts of climate change for Pacific Northwest salmon} 

Barnett, T., R. Malone, W. Pennell, D. Stammer, B. Semtner, and W. Washington. 

2004. The effects of climate change on water resources in the West: introduction 

and overview. Climatic Change 62:1-11. 

Clark, M.E., A. Rose, D.A. Levine, and W.W. Hargrove. 2001. Predicting climate 

change effects on Appalachian trout: combining GIS and individual-based modeling. Ecological Applications 11:161-178. 

Flebbe, P.A., L.D. Roghair, and J.L. Bruggnik. 2006. Spatial modeling to project 

southern Appalachian trout distribution in a warmer climate. Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society 135:1371-1382. {wild trout populations in eastern forests are likely to suffer large-scale reductions as a result of climate 

change} 

Harper, M.P., and B.L. Peckarsky. 2006. Emergence cues of a mayfly in a high-altitude stream ecosystem: potential response to climate change. Ecological Applications 16:612-621. {documents earlier aquatic insect emergence from Rocky 

Mountain streams as a result of less snowpack and earlier stream runoff} 

Heller, N.E., and E.S. Zavaleta. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 

142:14-32. {reviews science literature on adaptation for climate change} 

Hilborn, R., T.P. Quinn, D.E. Schindler, and D.E. Rogers. 2003. Biocomplexity and 

fisheries sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

100:6564-6568. {describes how remaining high diversity among sockeye stocks 

in Alaska maintains fisheries despite environmental change} 

Poff, N.L., M.M. Brinson, and J.W. Day, Jr. 2002. Aquatic ecosystems and global 

climate change: potential impacts on inland freshwater and coastal wetland ecosystems in the United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Arlington, 

VA. 

Rahel, F.J., C.J. Keleher, and J.L. Anderson. 1996. Potential habitat loss and population fragmentation for cold water fish in the North Platte River drainage of 

the Rocky Mountains: response to climate warming. Limnological Oceanography 

41:1116-1123. {describes how existing habitat fragmentation contributes to population vulnerability during climate change} 

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

earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940- 

943. {describes how climate change is increasing wildfire activity in Rocky 

Mountains} 

Williams, J.E., A.L. Haak, H.M. Neville, and W.T. Colyer. 2009. Potential consequences of climate change to persistence of cutthroat trout populations. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:in press. 

Williams, J.E., A.L. Haak, N.G. Gillespie, H.M. Neville, and W.T. Colyer. 2007. 

Healing troubled waters: preparing trout and salmon habitat for a changing climate. Trout Unlimited, Arlington, VA. {proven restoration tips and tactics; pdf 

available online at www.tu.org under Science banner} 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Spiering had to leave early for a commitment. I think the 

hearing went longer than the time he had. I will be forwarding 

some questions to him. I think he made a comment about nuclear 

power, i.e., through uranium mining, as a nonpolluting activity. 

So my question is going to be about MOAB and the 16 million 

tons of waste that is yet to be dealt with; the 500 abandoned mines 

on Navajo Country that EPA now is doing in tiers to see which is 

the priority they are going to begin the cleanup and closure of 

those abandoned mines; and the orphaned mine near the Grand 

Canyon that continues to be a problem and polluted the watershed 

there. 

Those are a consequence of direct uranium mining, and I understand that nuclear power is not an absolute yes-or-no proposition 

81 

that we are dealing with, but there are consequences, and we are 

going to forward the questions to him about those consequences. 

In addition, is there any public land, i.e., the Grand Canyon, in 

which uranium mining should not be allowed? I think that is an 

appropriate question to ask as well. 

Dr. Harmon, You raised some serious concerns about the drying 

of the forests and the subsequent increase in wildlife frequency and 

intensity. Could you give us your prediction on what we will face 

in the upcoming fire seasons due to climate change and how landmanagement agencies can better be prepared to deal with that 

reality? 

Mr. HARMON. Well, fire is really a hard thing to predict, Mr. 

Chairman, but it is likely, if the current trends continue, that, yes, 

we will have warmer, longer growing seasons—that is good for tree 

growth, in part. But, in the West, where we have, in the summer, 

a shortage of water, that may also mean a longer period of dry 

fuels, and so there could be larger fires. They may or may not be 

more severe because only in some ecosystems are fuel levels really 

higher than we might expect naturally. 

It is hard to say what to do because it is starting to create a 

problem that is very, very expensive to try to solve. I think we have 

to concentrate our efforts on protecting housing and things where 

people could lose economic value and their lives. That would be one 

place. 

Where we can restore a natural fire regime, we should try to do 

it because it is just cheaper. That can conflict with the first priority 

of protecting people, but there are areas where this could go on. 

One of the things is people have the sense that there is a tremendous loss of carbon in a fire, and, as my written testimony 

shows, the range is about 5 percent of what is in an ecosystem to 

about 15 percent. It is not huge. The trees do not really burn up. 

If they burned up, people would not be fighting about timber 

salvage. 

So one thing is people do not like the fires; they are very emotional about them. They are very dangerous, but they are not nearly as bad for the carbon cycle as often is portrayed. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Dr. DellaSala, you mentioned that 

global warming is already affecting species and natural resources 

across the country. 

Let me ask you, relative to the public lands, you talk about 

changing the mission of the Forest Service and BLM. Do you think 

we need to change the Organic Act or the Multiple Use Sustained 

Yield Act? Can we accomplish some of this within the regulatory 

framework, or is that a statutory issue as well? 

Mr. DELLASALA. Well, thank you for that question, and, as I have 

indicated in my testimony, there are a number of ways that this 

Subcommittee could address this. 

One is that you could ask the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture whether or not they have the existing structures to respond 

to climate change and some of the challenges that we are now 

seeing. 

Two is that you could request that a committee of scientists be 

convened that would take a look at the whole regulatory package 

within the context of climate change and cumulative impacts. 

82 

So those are two immediate things. There are other measures, 

too, that I would recommend, such as working with the Obama Administration to restore the National Forest Management Act viability clause for maintaining viable populations on Federal lands and 

working with Representative Kind to make sure that a similar 

measure is introduced for BLM lands which are not managing their 

wildlife for viable populations. 

So there are number of different ways to look at it, but I think 

the challenge here is that a lot of those statutes were put together 

in the early part, or the midpart, of the last century, and, quite 

frankly, they were not up to the task of what we are seeing now, 

in the 21st century, with the increased stress loads that we have 

put on these ecosystems, in addition to the climate change impacts. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Williams, as we focus on the adaptation of our public lands 

to a changing climate, in your testimony, you talk about that 

healthier systems are more resilient to the change. What actions 

could land managers be focusing on today to restore and rehabilitate wetlands and watersheds? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I think you always try to do as many things 

with the one stroke as you can. 

If we know we are going to have a lot of fires on the landscape, 

one of the systems that we need to work on are our road systems. 

The national forests and BLM public lands have huge road networks, and many of these roads are essentially in a maintenance 

backlog. 

From a fire standpoint and an aquatic systems standpoint, the 

culverts are undersized, the roads are poorly managed, and we 

need to upgrade those systems, especially in areas that are likely 

to fail as a result of fire and then subsequent erosion. 

So the road network greatly influences the hydrologic, the stream 

network. The culverts and the road crossings are critical areas because these can build up with sediment and debris and kind of 

blow out. 

So, on the one hand, the road network is a critical element to 

focus on. 

The other part of that is really the meadow riparian habitats 

along streams and along meadows that are, again, these kind of 

natural sponge areas that both soak up the energy and soak up the 

water and then recharge the aquifers during rain. With reduced 

snowpack, more winter precipitation falling as rain rather than 

snow, the health and condition of those lands are going to be absolutely critical to maintain base streamflows. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me thank you. Your full written testimony is 

part of the record, and if colleagues, as I had mentioned earlier, 

have questions, they will submit them, and we will forward them 

to you for your responses in writing. Thank you very much, and 

thank you for the time. 

Let me invite the next panel, please. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Let me ask our colleague, 

Mr. Holt, for the introduction of one of our panelists. 

83 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for an important 

hearing that you have been undertaking today, and I thank you for 

inviting the next distinguished and very capable witnesses. 

I would like to introduce to you, and to the Committee, Mr. Rick 

Ridgeway. He is a legend among climbers, a leading climber and 

adventurer: the first American to reach the summit of K-2; a participant in the first western mountaineering expedition to Butaan; 

a person who scaled the first big wall climb in Antarctica. So he 

has a number of climbing pelts on the wall and has, really, a wellearned reputation among explorers. 

Mr. Ridgeway is also a documentary film maker and a photographer and a writer, and, in his free time, Rick Ridgeway is the 

Vice President of environmental programs and communications at 

Patagonia. He develops, implements, and promotes the second, two, 

of the company’s three-part mission statement: to make the best 

product, cause no unnecessary harm, and to use business to inspire 

and implement solutions to the environmental crisis. 

Mr. Ridgeway, I believe, your experiences give you a unique view 

of our environment—sometimes from above, sometimes from beside, sometimes from right in it—and a view of the need to preserve it. 

So we welcome you today, and, Mr. Chairman, I, again, thank 

you for setting up this hearing. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Let us begin with Mr. Ridgeway, 

Freedom To Roam. Your testimony, sir. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF RICK RIDGEWAY, FREEDOM TO ROAM, 

VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. RIDGEWAY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. 

Holt, for the introduction, and, also for the record, the earlier introduction that Representative Capps so graciously gave to me and to 

our initiative, Freedom To Roam, which, while it was initiated at 

our company, Patagonia, is now its own independent organization, 

and I would suggest to the group that we are not what you might 

expect. 

We are the only organization I know of that brings together 

groups from the Department of Defense and the Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies, business leaders from Wal-Mart and Microsoft, energy providers from BP-America, hunting and angling 

groups, including the National Wildlife Federation; the Theodore 

Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; conservationists from the Defenders of Wildlife; and scientists from the Wildlife Conservation 

Society. 

We know that the planet is warming. We have read the IPCC 

prediction that if nothing is done to adapt to changes that are now 

recognized as inevitable, we could lose 40 to 70 percent of the species on our planet, and a change, on that scale, is uncharted territory, and no one, including our best scientists, fully understands 

the consequences that loss would have on our own species, but 

those scientists do know that to adapt to these inevitable changes, 

most of the wildlife in our United States needs the ability to move. 

It needs the freedom to roam around in habitats, many of which 

are on public lands. But if habitats become fragmented by development or shifted by climate change, then many will not survive. 

84 

But there is solution, and it is based on best science, and it is 

this idea of connecting landscapes to give animals the freedom to 

roam, but, also, I want to stress, to give people the freedom to hunt 

and fish and to hike and to camp and to ranch and even to do business in ways compatible with wildlife. 

Now, before we look into how we propose to achieve that, let us 

take a pause to look at where this idea of wildlife corridors came 

from. 

It was established when Tom Lovejoy, an acclaimed biologist 

here in Washington, began long-term study in the Amazon. 

Mr. LOVEJOY. [On video.] In the late 1970’s my Brazilian colleagues and I—a grand experiment in landscape ecology, and we 

persuaded those who were clearing the forests to do it in a way 

that gave us a series of forest fragments of different sizes, and that 

enabled us, ultimately, to demonstrate how big a national park 

should be. 

That is a big number—in the Amazon, it is about 1,000 square 

kilometers—so the question that also arises is, what do you do if 

you do not have such a size? Well, then the answer is pretty obvious, actually. You connect the fragment to other fragments to larger forests. You create, in a sense, wildlife corridors so animal species can move around. 

Mr. RIDGEWAY. To illustrate the importance of connectivity and 

corridors as an adaptation strategy for climate change, I want to 

show you the story of the lynx. Now, the present-day range of the 

lynx looks like this, but what might happen as the planet warms? 

Well, scientists, using the most advanced tools currently available, predict that the habitat of the lynx is going to shift here by 

2060, and it is going to go here by 2100. Now, you can see that 

these marooned habitats are likely too small to sustain lynx populations. So what do you do? Well, you connect the fragments with 

wildlife corridors. 

But it is not only predators, like the lynx, that need the freedom 

to roam, but it is migrating songbirds, counted by the millions by 

birdwatchers; it is game birds and waterfowl, valued by millions of 

sportsmen; it is big-game species that all of us celebrate. 

Now, take the pronghorn antelope. This is the fastest big-game 

animal on the continent. It can run 60 miles an hour, and, every 

fall, one group of pronghorn leave the Teton National Park and migrate south 170 miles to their wintering grounds, where now, instead of sagebrush, they encounter hundreds of recently installed 

gas wells. But there are solutions, from new technology that, as we 

have heard earlier, allows gas wells to be clustered, 25 and more, 

on a single pad, and this gives the pronghorn more room to roam. 

Well, it is not just gas wells, however, but pronghorn also have 

to crawl under fences, and, again, there is a solution in fences that 

are designed with a minimum clearance and a bottom wire with no 

barbs that allow the pronghorn to freely crawl under the fences. 

So these are solutions, and solutions is what our coalition, Freedom To Roam, is about. With a steering team that includes corporations, some of them Fortune 50 companies; that includes conservation organizations known for their broad-based inclusion; and 

government organizations representing every state’s role in providing solutions to protecting wildlife. 

85 

But what are those solutions, and what is the roadmap to protection? Well, we think and propose that it has five steps: first, to define corridors, to develop a legal definition for ‘‘corridors’’; and, two, 

to use that legal definition to identify critical corridors across the 

United States; third, to give designations to corridors that qualify, 

beginning with the public lands; and, four, to work with private 

landowners to come up with tools and incentives to live and ranch 

in ways compatible with wild animals; and, five, to allocate funds 

to support science, to support projects, such as road crossings and 

wildlife fencing, to support private landowners. 

We know this will require the cooperation of private citizens, of 

businesses, conservation groups, and, of course, governments, but 

we also believe we can do this because we are all sensing this new 

climate, this climate of cooperation that is driven by climate 

change, that we are all in this together, that we all live on the 

same planet, and, together, we can preserve the health of our home 

for ourselves and for our children and for the wildlife that is part 

of our American identity. 

So, Chairman, thank you so much, and Members, for the invitation here to share with you this vision that Freedom To Roam has. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ridgeway follows:] 

Statement of Rick Ridgeway, Director of Environmental Initiatives, 

Patagonia Company, for Freedom to Roam, ‘‘A Coalition to Conserve 

Wildlife Corridors’’ 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Rick Ridgeway, Director of Environmental Initiatives for Patagonia Company. Patagonia and a group of business and 

conservation partners have recently formed Freedom to Roam. This is a new model 

for landscape protection: a collaborative effort among businesses and conservation 

organizations to bring ecological connectivity to the forefront of public attention 

through sound science and effective policies. Freedom to Roam’s continental vision 

encompasses the United States and Canada while facilitating local solutions to landscape connectivity. 

We’re the only organization I know of that brings together groups such as the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, business leaders from Wal-Mart and Microsoft, energy providers such as BP America and Southern California Edison, hunting 

and angling groups including the National Wildlife Federation and the Theodore 

Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, conservationists from the Association of Fish & 

Wildlife Agencies, Defenders of Wildlife, and Yellowstone to Yukon, and scientists 

from the Wildlife Conservation Society. We also are working with the Western Governors’ Association and the Department of Defense. Together this effort is galvanizing policies, practices and on-the-ground efforts designed to ensure that landscapes across the continent maintain their ecological integrity. 

I am appreciative of the work of Committee Chairman Rahall and Subcommittee 

Chairman Grijalva and the members of this Subcommittee on your efforts to develop 

tangible solutions in the face of a changing climate; in particular, for seeking to define the role of federal lands to lessen the impacts of climate change through sound 

stewardship. I am pleased that the Committee and Subcommittee members and 

their staff are showing such a willingness to devote their time to address this critical issue. It indicates to me that you, too, feel that our public lands heritage is at 

a crucial crossroads. 

The Challenge Ahead 

There is no doubt that the planet is warming. The International Panel on Climate 

Change predicts that we could lose as many as 40-70 percent of the species on 

Earth if nothing is done to address the impacts of climate change. No one, including 

our best scientists fully understands the entire gamut of consequences this biological 

loss could have on us. But scientists agree that the ability to migrate across the 

landscape in response to this phenomenon will be key to the survival of many North 

American species in the coming decades. The public lands will play a critical role 

in allowing this migration to take place. In fact, if habitat is fragmented by development and then altered by climate change, many of our native species won’t survive. 

86 

Thus many in the scientific community agree that the most effective option we have 

to address climate change adaptation for biodiversity is via corridors and 

connectivity. (see Heller, N. and E. S. Zavaleta, 2008, Biodiversity management in 

the face of climate change: a synthesis of 20 years of recommendations, Biological 

Conservation). 

Convergence of Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Connectivity as a Policy 

Strategy 

In the past year, a steady stream of new policy documents have been developed 

by working groups, task forces, committees and other groups of knowledgeable specialists to assist decision makers in identifying the importance of protecting ecological connectivity. As a result, new policies for corridor protection will be central to 

adaptive management strategies that seek to address the impact of climate change 

on wildlife. In the past six months, three new policy reports were prepared and circulated by a) the 19 western states via the Western Governors’ Association, b) the 

U.S. Forest Service, and c) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All three reports incorporated corridors in developing strategies to address climate change. 

The first political acknowledgement and support of corridor conservation occurred 

in the West, where the 19 states are made up of a patchwork of federal, tribal, state 

and local governments as well as private lands. These are the members of the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) who unanimously passed a Wildlife Corridors Initiative. In the Initiative’s call to action the governors acknowledged ‘‘[w]estern ecosystems do more than sustain wildlife. Crucial habitats and corridors provide ecosystem services that range from enhancing water quality to creating recreational opportunities to ensuring the pollination of our crops. To a great degree, the viability 

of wildlife is an indicator of the functionality of ecosystems—and so contributes to 

the sustainability of our communities, our economies, and our general well-being.’’ 

(see ‘‘WGA Wildlife Corridors Initiative Report’’ 2008 Western Governors’ Association, Denver, CO) 

The U.S. Forest Service is beginning to develop a response to climate change. In 

its recently completed framework on this topic, the agency spelled out several actions it can take to facilitate adaptation. This includes a category of anticipatory actions ‘‘intended to prevent serious disruptions due to changing climate.’’ The report 

suggests such potential actions as ‘‘...genetic conservation of species, assisted migration of species to suitable habitat, development of wildlife corridors to facilitate 

migration...’’ (see ‘‘Forest Service Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate 

Change,’’ Version 1.0, October 2008, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC) 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently completed its first draft of 

a strategic plan to address climate change. Although the strategy is currently only 

available for internal review and labeled ‘‘internal discussion draft’’ and has not 

been commented upon by external entities, it too promotes habitat connectivity to 

address habitat fragmentation and climate change. One of the goals in the plan is 

to ‘‘deliver landscape conservation that supports climate change adaptations by fish, 

wildlife and plant populations.’’ One of the objectives for this goal is for the USFWS 

to work with partners to identify and conserve landscape-level corridors to help 

build connectivity within and between landscapes. This indicates that habitat 

connectivity at two different spatial scales is considered a key consideration for allowing plants and animals to move and adjust to changing environmental conditions. (see ‘‘Rising to the Urgent Challenges of a Changing Climate, Strategic Plan 

for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change in the 21st Century [Internal Discussion Draft].’’ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, December 12, 2008, Washington, 

DC) 

At this time, there is an emerging consensus by the scientific community, federal 

agencies, many of the states, and leading national conservation organizations that 

it will be necessary to identify and protect wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity 

so that wildlife will be able to adapt to a warming world. Therefore, any future federal legislative efforts to address climate change will be greatly enhanced by assuring connectivity conservation. 

Federal Legislative Action 

The federal government plays an important role in leading the nation’s efforts to 

identify and protect ecological connectivity as a climate change adaptation strategy. 

I believe that the federal government’s land and water management agencies need 

to have the appropriate authority, direction, and funding to ensure habitat 

connectivity is conserved across all affected landscapes and water bodies. In addition, the federal government must work with many partners to further this goal 

across all jurisdictions, including state and local governments, tribes and Native 

Americans, as well as private land owners. 

87 

As I mentioned, the supporters of Freedom to Roam have just begun to review 

and collect information on policies and practices to implement this vision. The following concepts are some of the suggested methods to achieve the overall goal of 

improving connectivity opportunities. 

As this Subcommittee and other congressional committees develop climate change 

legislation, it would be extremely helpful to consider the following actions be incorporated as a means of identifying and protecting wildlife corridors and habitat 

connectivity as an adaptive management strategy. 

Create a new federal lands designation: wildlife corridor 

Perhaps the boldest, most visionary piece of legislation would create a series of 

linked ecological networks around the country that would provide for the migration 

and dispersal of wildlife and other native species. Such a system would allow for 

a level of landscape connectivity that assures that animals and plants could adjust 

to shifts in habitat caused by human activity, natural environmental cycles, and 

global climate change. Weaving a web of habitats across the nation will secure the 

long-term survival and vibrancy of America’s cherished natural heritage for present 

and future generations. 

In order to ensure that wildlife and other biota can migrate and disperse safely 

across landscapes for their continued health and vigor, a system of connecting habitats could be congressionally designated as ‘‘national wildlife corridors.’’ We envision 

these as part of a National Wildlife Corridor Conservation System. 

National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness areas 

are national systems developed to serve an important purpose to conserve our nation’s natural heritage. Today, given the challenges of addressing climate change, 

our generation has an opportunity to develop an equally important national system 

that allows species to move and adapt. These ‘‘national wildlife corridors’’ could be 

administered in such a manner as to leave them unimpaired to sustain flows of 

wildlife and plants between different areas of a landscape or region, over time, as 

well as for the use and enjoyment of the American people. 

Include wildlife connectivity in federal land management planning 

Climate change legislation must promote the identification and protection of 

connectivity or migration habitat via federal land and water management agency 

planning. Currently, I am aware of two examples of the identification and protection 

of a wildlife migration corridor via federal management plans. 

The Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming, on the southern end of the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, has completed the first administrative designation 

of a wildlife corridor in the nation on Forest Service lands. This unprecedented action was sought to maintain secure habitat for the annual migration of a special 

herd of pronghorn that moves an estimated 45 miles across national forest lands, 

comprising approximately 29,400 acres, in its semi-annual 150-mile-long trip between their winter range in Upper Green River Basin near Pinedale, Wyoming, and 

their summer range in Grand Teton National Park. This is one of the longest remaining land-based wildlife migrations in North America, and it is the longest in 

the lower 48 United States. Archeological evidence suggests that this wildlife pathway has been used for over 6,000 years. 

To protect this migration, the Bridger-Teton amended its Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) by identifying the wildlife corridor on a map and 

developing a management standard to ensure that no new projects or activities impede the migration corridor, known as the Path of the Pronghorn. Such an administrative designation formalized in the Forest Plan can be replicated on national forests across the country. 

Part of the Path of the Pronghorn also falls on Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) lands in Wyoming. In the recent revision of its Resource Management Plan, 

the Pinedale District in Wyoming protected a portion of the pronghorn migration on 

their lands by approving the designation of the Trappers Point as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) whose management goal is to preserve the viability of the big game migration. In future BLM planning efforts, ACEC designations to protect wildlife connectivity can be utilized as a means to maintain 

connectivity. 

The Forest Service, BLM and all other federal land and water management agencies should be provided direction and funding in climate change legislation to identify and protect key connectivity habitat via their planning processes. 

Provide wildlife connectivity across federal lands highways 

The Office of Federal Lands Highways ‘‘provides program stewardship and transportation engineering services for planning, design, construction, and rehabilitation 

of the highways and bridges that provide access to and through federally owned 

88 

lands.’’ Currently, maintaining habitat connectivity across surface transportation infrastructure has not been mandated in any past or current transportation legislation. To ensure busy roads running through federal lands provide safe passage of 

wildlife across transportation barriers in areas important for connectivity, legislation should direct the federal land agencies to assure that there are retrofits for current infrastructure and incorporate wildlife needs into future development plans for 

their federal highways. This means terrestrial and aquatic movement patterns must 

be considered in relation to the location, design, construction and operation of infrastructure projects. 

Support state wildlife corridor initiatives 

The Western Governors’ Association (WGA) Wildlife Corridors Initiative is a 

prime example of states taking the lead in developing new policies to protect wildlife 

corridors in the face of a changing climate. The WGA states as well as all others 

will need support, cooperation and coordination from the federal government as they 

embark on efforts to address habitat connectivity and crucial habitats. One recommendation from the Initiative’s climate change recommendations pertinent to my 

testimony today is: 

‘‘Western Governors should consider supporting establishment of new revenue 

streams to support wildlife adaptation to climate change in any relevant climate 

change legislation, such as carbon cap and trade or carbon tax legislation that may 

be enacted by the U.S. Congress.’’ 

Federal climate change legislation should make every effort to work with the 

states, as the primary authorities responsible for the management of wildlife, to 

support their efforts to identify and protect wildlife corridors. State efforts to develop new plans to assist fish and wildlife adaption to climate change, and to ensure 

that state wildlife action plans address this challenge, deserve greater federal encouragement and financial support. 

Work with Native Americans and tribes 

Federally-recognized Indian tribes have jurisdiction over a reservation land base 

of more than 52 million acres in the lower 48 states while Alaskan Native lands 

comprise another 45 million acres. In addition tribes control natural resources outside of reservations due to federal court decisions and voluntary cooperative agreements, which allow co-management status between tribes and states on more than 

38 million acres. Climate change legislation that seeks to employ the conservation 

of wildlife corridors as an adaptive management strategy must work with Native 

American tribes to identify and protect wildlife connectivity on lands and in waters 

under their management authority. Congress should also explore ways to provide 

Native American tribes with technical and financial resources necessary to develop 

and implement plans to facilitate the survival of species throughout lands that the 

tribes directly control or affect. 

Support private land conservation 

Often private lands are a critical component of many corridors and therefore are 

crucial to maintain habitat connectivity. One such opportunity for legislation would 

be to develop incentives within the Land and Water Conservation Fund to target 

the conservation of corridors and connectivity on private lands. Another would be 

for climate change legislation to create incentives and financial support to encourage 

willing land owners to manage their properties so they are wildlife friendly and 

allow for the unencumbered passage of species through their property in key areas. 

It may also be appropriate for Congress to consider making permanent existing tax 

incentives that encourage land conservation and habitat protection. 

Provide new streams of federal funding 

Given the immense challenges to protect wildlife in the face of climate change 

throughout the nation, the federal government must lend a financial hand to allow 

federal agencies, states, tribes and private land owners to implement protections on 

behalf of habitat connectivity and wildlife corridors. It would be appropriate to consider devoting significant revenues generated by any future climate change legislation to this purpose. In this regard, I applaud the U.S. House of Representatives 

for your recent passage of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations bill which will fund 

a National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center and directs the Secretary 

of the Interior to coordinate with other agencies in developing a national strategy 

to assist the survival of wildlife and ecosystems in the face of global warming. This 

legislation provides an excellent beginning to develop new solutions for federal land 

and water management and creates momentum for future endeavors on behalf of 

wildlife. 

89 

Conclusion 

Climate change will challenge our ability to maintain our nation’s rich natural 

heritage. However, most agree that identifying and protecting wildlife corridors and 

connectivity habitat is a key adaptive management strategy worth pursuing. Freedom to Roam appreciates being part of the growing effort of local, state and national 

conservation organizations, and state and federal agencies, who are working to ensure the long-term survival of America’s fish and wildlife. On behalf of Freedom to 

Roam, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and look forward to working with 

the Subcommittee as it develops legislation to fully achieve the protection of our nation’s wildlife. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

Next, let me ask Ms. Lynn Jungwirth, Executive Director, Watershed Research and Training Center. Welcome. I look forward to 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF LYNN JUNGWIRTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WATERSHED RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTER, HAYFORK, 

CALIFORNIA 

Ms. JUNGWIRTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very happy to 

be here. I work with the forestry community folks around the West, 

and we have been working on forest restoration on public lands for 

many years. 

I am here today to talk a little bit about Federal lands’ role in 

combating climate change and try to respond to your challenge, at 

the opening, to talk about adaptation, mitigation, and key laws. 

So I have my written testimony, but I am just going to try to respond to what you ask. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Ms. JUNGWIRTH. So, adaptation; what are we doing to try to 

adapt to this climate change? 

I live in the Trinity Forest. It is a frequent fire forest. We are 

seeing rapid change. We are converting to brush fields on the 

southern slopes because once the forest burns, it cannot seem to regenerate itself naturally. 

So what are we trying to do? We are trying to put in a series 

of strategic fuel breaks that would keep the fires contained so that 

they never gain that speed and that intensity they get as they get 

larger. 

We are trying to work on the riparian areas because the riparian 

areas are the areas that are moist enough to slow down a slowmoving fire and to help you protect that. 

We are trying to put fire buffers around the spotted owl habitat 

that we are supposed to be protecting, and the coho habitat in 

those forests where you have very steep mountains. When the fire 

denudes the land, the ground, the erosion that happens in the key 

coho habitat is pretty horrific, and it does not just happen for one 

year; it goes on and on for years. 

So we are working very hard on forest restoration to try to deal 

with and to help the forest stay resilient in the face of climate 

change. 

In terms of climate mitigation, the greenhouse gas mitigation, 

the forest fire that was in California last year; the air quality board 

did a little study for us, and they figure 84 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. So that is 12 million vehicle years. 

90 

So when they put carbon trading in to try to help cap-and-trade 

carbon emissions, GOD is going to be having to come up with billions of dollars every year. California wants to get to a level of 427 

million tons, 84 million tons in one year of wildfire. How, in the 

world, can you affect the manmade carbon and overcome that 20 

percent? 

So we have to mitigate it, and we have to slow down the carbon 

from those fires. When we do that, our people are putting those 

into wood pellets, and they are making electricity with it. 

There is a little guy up in Siskiyou County who has a nursery. 

He made some wood pellets to burn for his nursery heat. It gives 

him CO2-saturated air for his nursery. He has got better plants. He 

took those pellets, used pyrolysis, made some diesel. It is generating electricity. He is generating electricity on a scale that you can 

move through the local wires. A two-megawatt plant, two 

megawatts of power, you can move through the local wires. You do 

not need huge, new transmission lines. 

So these are the people who are on the ground, who are trying 

to be a world-class workforce to try to restore, maintain, and protect the public lands. 

So that is kind of where we are with adaptation and mitigation. 

In terms of the key laws, we firmly believe that the Organic Act, 

that NEPA, that the Multiple Use Act are so out of date as to be 

the impediment. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jungwirth follows:] 

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

Executive Director, Watershed Center, Hayfork, California 

I’d like to thank the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony at this 

important hearing. My name is Lynn Jungwirth and I am the Executive Director 

of the Watershed Center, a small community forest organization in the town of 

Hayfork, which lies in the middle of the Trinity National Forest in California. Since 

1993, my organization has worked at the nexus of healthy forests and healthy communities. I’m privileged to work with the ‘‘Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition’’, 

a group of over 40 organizations working in local community forestry activities in 

the west. My organization is also a member of the Nature Conservancy’s ‘‘Fire 

Learning Network’’ designed to help restore fire adapted ecosystems and create fire 

adapted communities. My testimony will include both my experiences working in 

the Trinity Forest and lessons from the broader experiences of my colleagues who 

work in Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico and Colorado. We have 

worked diligently over the past 15 years to promote the hard work of restoration 

and stewardship of national forest lands by doing the even harder work of multistake holder collaboration and partnership with the federal agencies. 

First, I’d like to thank you for taking leadership in acknowledging and examining 

the natural resource aspects of climate change. Your federal land communities have 

been proactive partners in figuring out how to protect the conservation gains of the 

past 30 years in the face of climate uncertainty. Rural communities and landscapes 

need your attention in preparing for the impacts of climate change. And yet, they 

can also play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Through this 

testimony, I attempt to offer lessons from rural landscapes and communities regarding the role of national forests in combating climate change. 

Climate change discussions in the U.S. have been framed by the approaches and 

agreements that came out of international negotiations of the United Nation’s 

Framework Convention on Climate Change. These approaches have been dominated 

by an urban, industrial perspective that focuses on transportation, electricity generation, and large-scale manufacturing as the major sources of anthropogenic (mancaused) greenhouse gases and seeks to reduce emissions from those sources as the 

pivotal strategies for combating climate change. The rural, natural systems perspective is somewhat different, perhaps because rural communities and landscapes are 

experiencing the ecological stresses of climate change, including insect pandemics, 

intense wildfires, degraded fisheries, invasive species, and ecosystem conversion at 

91 

an observable rate. We don’t actually need the scientists to measure the change in 

climate; we are living it. We see the changes on the landscapes, the issues for forest 

management and policy, and we are helping develop responses and solutions. However, the way we see the issues and the solutions don’t neatly fit the urban-industrial intellectual construct or the existing policy mechanisms or carbon markets. 

Urban citizens, of course, are experiencing the effects of climate change in their 

communities—through increased temperatures, urban heat islands, air conditioning 

bills, and air pollution—as well as through increased stresses on their urban forests, 

primarily insects and disease. Urban communities, however, will also experience the 

effects of climate change on rural landscapes through reduction of water quality and 

quantity, the growing taxpayers’ burden of billion dollar fire suppression costs, and 

the social costs of poverty in public land communities. Urban citizens will soon experience the effects of climate change policy or regulation in higher costs for energy 

and incentives for energy efficiencies. 

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto 

Protocol did not address forests for various reasons, such as the difficulty of measuring carbon flux in dynamic natural systems, the long-term benefits of forest systems (relative to immediate benefits of industrial technology change), and the political controversy over whether forests should be included in carbon offset markets. 

Only afforestation and reforestation were accepted in the initial Kyoto protocol, 

while a later negotiation following Kyoto accepted forest management improvements 

and most recently, avoided deforestation. 

Progress on forests is being made through the protocol discussions at the international level, as well as in various regional and state protocol, such as those under 

the Chicago Climate Exchange and the California Climate Action Registry. But the 

progress is slow and the protocols are having difficulty addressing integrated forest 

activities, such as thinning forests to reduce wildfire risk and using the small-diameter woody by-products for community-scale bio-energy to offset fossil fuels. Nor 

do the protocols know how to effectively deal with the environmental and social ‘‘cobenefits’’ of forest activities. While these co-benefits should be seen as providing additional value to society, beyond the direct carbon benefits, they are difficult to 

measure. 

Due to the limited experience with carbon markets and accounting, we are only 

beginning to learn how to do the hard work of ‘‘full life-cycle accounting.’’ This lifecycle accounting is essential for the carbon markets to function well and critical to 

helping illustrate that the supply chains of many urban products come from rural 

economies and rural soil, forests and grasslands. 

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

There are five strategies outlined in the McKinsey and Co. 2007 report ‘‘Reducing 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?’’ They are listed with 

their abatement potential: 

1. Increasing energy efficiencies in building and appliances—710 to 870 megatons 

2. Increasing fuel efficiency in vehicles and reducing carbon intensity of transportation fuels—340 to 660 megatons 

3. Pursuing various options across energy intensive portions of the industrial sector—620-770 megatons 

4. Expanding and enhancing carbon sinks—440 to 590 megatons 

5. Reducing the carbon intensity of electric power production—800 to 1570 megatons 

We can expand and enhance carbon sinks through stewardship activities on public 

land. In fact, the McKinsey report offers active management of our private 

forestlands as the least cost alternative available to the United States. Healthy, resilient forests sequester carbon. In the Trinities, we started 12 years ago, thinning 

overstocked stands both for hazardous fuels reduction and to improve the quality 

of the spotted owl habitat. Subsequent measurement has show increased growth 

rates in the remaining trees. The carbon sink is increasing. What is not so obvious 

is that forest restoration can also provide biofuels for transportation, reduce carbon 

intensive energy use in the industrial sector through combined head and power biomass plants, and reduce the carbon intensity of electrical power by co-firing coal 

plants with wood pellets and using woody biomass for electrical generation (a common strategy in the European Union). Four of the five strategies in the McKinsey 

and Co. report can be addressed through forest stewardship activities. 

Climate Change and Wildfire: Social, economic and environment issues 

There is no discussion in the McKinsey and Co. report on the GHG emissions 

from wildfire. However, some studies suggest wildfire and forest burning account for 

about 30% of global GHG emissions. Here in the United States, we average about 

92 

100,000 wildfire starts a year. About 50% of those are from human activity, about 

50% from lightning. The precise quantification of GHG emissions from wildfire is 

still in debate. The California North Coast Air Quality Management District used 

Air Resources Board methodology to estimate the GHG emissions from two fire 

events in Trinity County—the 2002 Megram Fire (100,000 acres) and the 2008 Trinity Fire Complexes (200,000 acres). The estimates were 1.5 million vehicle year 

equivalents for the Megram Fire and 2 million vehicle years for the 2008 Trinity 

Fire. Vehicle years provides an urban frame for GHG emissions. For rural communities, however, the frame is weeks of smoke so thick you can’t see across the street, 

increased chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in our elders, salmon 

streams full of sediment, rivers and ponds filled with debris, the decline of our tourism/recreation industry, the loss of our precious timber resources, and, this year, the 

death of 11 firefighters. These are not the fires of our childhood when low intensity 

fires would ‘‘skunk around’’ in the undergrowth, herded by local ranchers and the 

Forest Service. Those fires were fires of renewal. Today’s fires are those of ecological, social and economic destruction. 

The Trinity Forest 

The Trinity Forest is in the Northwest Forest Plan for the Recovery of the Spotted 

Owl. The primary driver of management activities in the Trinity Forest is preserving biodiversity, especially those species associated with old growth forests. The 

Spotted Owl plan led to a dramatic reduction in logging and the subsequent destruction of our economy (today the unemployment rate in Hayfork is 21.3%). At that 

time,(the early 1990s) the theory was that a forest protected from logging and a 

landscape of reserves and corridors would protect the species. Today, Jerry Franklin 

and Norm Thompson, the architects of that plan, encourage management in these 

vulnerable dry forests to reduce fire intensity and protect old growth forests. Their 

subsequent studies have shown increasing die-off in old growth stands due to 

changed hydrology. In 15 short years, climate change has dramatically changed 

strategies for endangered species recovery and old growth protection. 

The forest restoration activities done today in the Trinity Forest are often called 

hazardous fuels reduction, but are actually much more sophisticated than a simple 

fuels prescription. Care is taken to enhance wildlife habitat, protect fire resistant 

trees, and minimize soil compaction and disturbance. Experience (and science) has 

taught us that the initial thinning must be followed by a prescribed fire and the 

area must be maintained by periodic burnings overtime. While these thinning and 

burning activities themselves produce some CO2 equivalents, recent studies indicate 

that such pre-treatments can reduce the CO2 equivalent emissions of intensive wildfire by up to 70% in some stands. 

There is still much debate among the scientific community as to the carbon abatement values of such forest management (because of the carbon released during the 

thinning and prescribed burn and the uncertainty about whether treated areas will 

actually experience wildfire within a number of years). However, there is little debate (and significant evidence) that such treatments reduce the intensity and often 

stop, wildfires. 

There is, likewise, debate regarding the removal of fire-killed vegetation after one 

of these fire events. The concern is that such ‘‘logging’’ negatively impacts the soil 

carbon and soil productivity. The people of Trinity County have now experienced 

‘‘re-burns’’ in areas where fire-killed trees were not removed after the 1987 and 2000 

fires. When stands of fire-killed trees dry for 8-20 years and then burn again, the 

fire is intense and resistant to control. The soil volatilizes along with the trees. 

There is no question that nearly 90% percent of the tree carbon and most of the 

soil carbon is released in this second burn. Ecosystem conversion often follows. The 

forest moves back to meadows, then brush fields and then, burning again, remain 

in brush. In the words of Tom Jimmerson, an experienced forest ecologist who lived 

and worked in the Trinity Mountains and Coast Ranges of California for years, after 

studying a re-burn in the Siskiyou Mountains, ‘‘We just blasted this area back to 

the stone age.’’ Some have said it would take significant investment in rehabilitating these sites, once they have been converted, if we want to reforest them. 

A few cases studies were examined in a 2007 report for the California Energy 

Commission. In ‘‘Biomass to Energy: Forest management for wildfire reduction, 

energy production, and other benefits’’ the authors (Ganz, et al) modeled thinning, 

transporting, and converting biomass into electrical power in the Sierras and compared those models to the ‘‘no-treatment’’ models. Their findings show clear life cycle 

climate change benefits, including a 65 percent net reduction in greenhouse gas 

emissions. They also show a 22 percent reduction in the number of acres burned 

by wildfire and a dramatic drop in fire severity, showing a $246 million savings in 

wildfire damage and $13 million in fire suppression costs. They predict that even 

93 

greater reductions could be anticipated by strategically locating thinning projects in 

areas of high hazard. They also showed that about $1.58 billion in power revenues, 

assuming an 8.3 cent kilowatt hour with a negligible amount of fossil fuel consumed 

in the harvest and production of that power. 

This study points to the cross sectoral benefits of federal forest restoration: Jobs, 

renewable energy, reduced fire suppression costs, reduced resource damage and protection of wildlife habitat and carbon sinks. It helps us begin to put a frame of ‘‘ecosystem services’’ around federal land management. I believe it is this larger frame 

(which will include climate change mitigation) that should and will be the driver 

for federal land management for the foreseeable future. 

Carbon Markets 

For the purpose of carbon markets, there is great uncertainty regarding forests 

in general and their ‘‘quantify-ability’’ regarding carbon. The scientific community 

is careful to bracket their numbers regarding forest ecosystem carbon above and 

below ground with the caveat ‘‘within the limits of current measurements’’. Likewise, estimates of fire CO2 emissions are hampered by our lack of knowledge about 

carbon deposition, rates of atmospheric vs. soil incorporation of dead wood carbon, 

‘‘real’’ soil loss, among other more esoteric topics. Undoubtedly, numerous conventions for forest carbon and forest carbon emissions from wildfire will abound over 

the next few years as better minds than mine tease out these important details. The 

CCAR in California is taking the lead on this and their work is enlightened and 

inspiring. 

In most cap-and-trade approaches, forests do not fall under the cap, but they are 

still very important as ‘‘sinks’’ that sequester and store carbon and as ‘‘sources’’ that 

emit carbon (through wildfires, conversion, certain management actions, and mortality). Forest projects that sequester and store carbon or reduce emissions have 

been considered as carbon offset projects, but appropriate protocol for forest-sector 

offsets have been difficult to agree upon, partially because of the technical difficulty 

in applying ‘‘industrial’’ protocol to natural or biological systems and partially because of disagreement among policy interests. However, protocol such as the CCAR 

are moving forward through transparent, multi-stakeholder, working group processes. Currently, forest project options are limited to reforestation, conservation 

management, and avoided conversion, but the working group is trying to develop 

accounting approaches for appropriately quantifying carbon in harvested wood products. 

One of the major protocol challenges is trying to account for the emissions benefits 

of integrated, cross-sectoral projects, such as forest restoration projects that enhance 

forest health, reduce wildfire risk and emissions, and provide woody fuels for bioenergy that offsets fossil fuels. (Interestingly, the CCAR has been able to agree to 

Urban Forest Protocol, but only allow the carbon directly sequestered in trees to be 

counted, not the avoided emissions associated with the well-documented energy conservation benefits achieved through shading homes and buildings.) 

In addition, beyond carbon offset markets, attention is needed to develop forest 

management strategies that will: 1) help forests and communities adapt to the unavoidable effects of climate change; (We need to do vulnerability assessments at appropriate scales and help communities and agencies understand the management 

steps we need to take to keep our forests as forests.) and 2) help develop carbon 

mitigation strategies that public and private landowners can take to manage their 

forests in ways that will increase sequestration and storage or reduce emissions— 

even though they may not meet the same protocol being developed by the offsets 

markets. 

Federal policy frameworks (e.g., cap-and-trade) that promote the establishment 

and trading of carbon credits through markets can help support rural communities. 

Such frameworks can stimulate entrepreneurial activity and encourage investment 

in forest-sector projects that provide credible and verifiable carbon benefits, while 

also enhancing ecosystem services and providing economic development opportunities for rural communities. It is critical, however, for these policy frameworks to: 

1. encourage broad and diverse participation in forest-sector offset projects, 

2. ensure that project scale enhances environmental and community economic 

gains, 

3. maintain the sustainability of natural resources for future generations, and 

4. benefit local communities. 

The Cost (and benefits) of Carbon 

We believe a cap-and-trade system and markets for carbon trading are coming. 

Our vision is a system of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) of which carbon 

is but one service. We know that water—another major ecosystem service—is on the 

94 

horizon as a policy issue with potentially huge market values and policy implications. We are also exploring information on ‘‘rights-based conservation.’’ However, 

those systems are in their infancy and the imperative of climate change effects on 

our forests are now. So today the great question is the source of the money to pay 

for federal forest restoration. The by-products of forest restoration and hazardous 

fuels treatments have little market value to date, largely due to uncertainty of supply. 

Carbon offset markets: 

Voluntary markets for carbon offsets, such as the CCAR, will provide additional 

revenue opportunities to private landowners, as these markets evolve and begin to 

function effectively. (Market function has a learning curve, as has been learned 

largely because of the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Private 

landowners will look for innovative ways to participate in these carbon markets, 

particularly as market credibility grows and as protocol for broad and clear participation is improved. 

The RVCC also encourages the participation of public lands in carbon offset markets, so we are pleased to see the recent revision (December 2008) of the CCAR 

Forest Protocol to allow this. It must be clear, however, that public lands also need 

additional funding, beyond carbon offsets, for climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies, as discussed below. 

Beyond Offset Markets 

For the past ten years, the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition has brought 

to congress two fairly detailed discussions: 1) a line-item by line-item analysis of an 

integrated forest restoration budget, and 2) a proposal for performance measures 

and accountability that would lead to integrated forest restoration implementation. 

Moving from appropriated dollars to payment for ecosystem services will take time, 

but help to foster an investment in services that will contribute to resilient communities and landscapes, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Traditional appropriations: 

The annual appropriations for the federal land management agencies should continue to support the missions and programs of the agencies, while focusing on how 

to integrate climate change and other ecosystem services issues and developments 

into these programs. This is a strategic set of issues for the agencies and policymakers. One day, perhaps, we will see a line item dedicated to integrated restoration with clear direction for its use. 

Values/Revenues from Emission Allowances: 

Policymakers should also include a portion of the revenues generated through the 

allocation or auction of emission allowances under a cap-and-trade system to the forestry programs noted in the RVCC priorities. Forests and natural landscapes represent an important part of our national carbon emissions flux, and they do not fit 

easily into the urban-industrial framework for carbon offset markets under cap-andtrade. They need additional sources of funding to address the threats of climate 

change, to capture the mitigation opportunities, and to recognize the essential cobenefits provided by forest-sector projects. 

Forest Restoration and Rural Green Jobs 

For the past 15 years, my organization and others like it have operated federal 

forest restoration and hazardous fuels programs. The job creation potential of federal land stewardship and restoration is tremendous. The proper investment of 

those dollars can create a world class, highly skilled, knowledge based workforce. 

Management for ecosystem services is knowledge intensive and requires a workforce 

committed to place. 

Those jobs and skills include: 

• Ecosystem surveys and data collection; 

• data analysis; 

• GIS analysis tools; 

• collaborative facilitation; 

• road stabilization; 

• road removal; 

• in-stream habitat improvement; 

• wildlife habitat improvement; 

• riparian protection structures; 

• boundary line surveys; 

• forest thinning; 

• prescribed burning; and 

95 

• effectiveness monitoring. 

This highly skilled ‘‘restoration’’ workforce can also be cross-trained for fire fighting, increasing the number of locally available, skilled workers for initial attack in 

fire emergencies. The restoration workforce will be able to put fuels treatments on 

the landscape to pre-prepare for fire suppression activities and thereby reduce the 

costs of fire suppression. They will also help in determining the proper use of fire 

during the year, and help implement those decisions. 

Restoring the federal forests of the west, in order to protect and enhance carbon 

sinks and to make the forest more resilient in the face of climate change has other 

benefits to rural economies as well. The by-products of forest management (brush, 

smaller trees, etc.) can provide fuel to replace fossil fuels. But, scale is the issue. 

A network of small, community-scaled combined heat and energy plants will not require huge investments in transmission lines (up to 3MW of power can be transmitted over local lines). Such facilities also allow a community to diversify its economy, adding dry-kilns, green-houses and other heat users. 

Likewise, as more local renewable power becomes available and as forested landscapes remains green and healthy, other green economy sectors may more eagerly 

locate in rural America. They will not relocate so easily to a landscape that looks 

like an ashtray. But, public policy must deliberately limit the scale and the ownership of these facilities. We have seen devastation in local communities from wood 

energy plants. In the North Eastern United States, for example, large wood pellet 

facilities replaced aging pulp mills. Not only did these 300,000 ton facilities monopolize the market for local wood, but the pellets were shipped to Europe for co-firing 

in coal plants. The locals were left with no ownership of the business, less diversity 

in their economic system, less fire wood for their own heating, and they were not 

allowed to purchase pellets from the facility. Similar plants are being built in the 

South West and in my home state of California. 

After a forest burns in a stand replacing fire, the adjacent community loses many 

economic options. When the 1987 fires burned 67,000 acres in the Trinity Forest we 

recomputed the ‘‘allowable sale quantity’’. It dropped from roughly 160 mmbf to 

roughly 40 mmbf. There are few stewardship opportunities in a fire-killed forest, 

aside from the erosion control efforts immediately after the fire. If the forest is federal, the fire-killed fuels are currently not removed, new trees are not planted, and 

the land is left to recover without the hand of man. So the community is left with 

no forest to manage and no forest products for decades. It is in our best interest, 

for many reasons, to help the forest accommodate fire, and not succumb to it. 

Our rural federal lands communities are among the most vulnerable to climate 

change impacts. Not only is our landscape changing before our eyes, but when the 

markets kick in, we will disproportionately feel the weight of higher energy markets 

because our options will be more limited. Higher gas and diesel prices cannot push 

us to mass transit where no such systems exist. When higher electrical costs encourage increasing the energy efficiency of our homes, tax credits will only incentivize 

those who pay significant taxes. We are asking for a better solution for rural America. Help us be energy independent. Help us turn our forest thinnings into biofuels, 

heat and electricity. Help our contractors and workers access the work in the woods 

that improves the carbon sink and protects our forests from fire, insects, and disease. Help us create a network of community scale production facilities for wood pellets and wood energy. 

Beyond the Trinity Forest 

Community groups throughout the west have been working against the odds to 

restore America’s forests. We helped forge the agreements that led to the National 

Fire Plan. That agreement included five strategies: Fire Suppression, Forest Restoration (pre-fire and post fire), Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Community Assistance, 

and Accountability. 

This integrated approach, which honors all the ecosystem services of the forest, 

including the service fire can provide, must be the basis of national climate policy 

as well. It speaks to the larger issue of maintaining our truly ‘‘green’’ infrastructure. 

Through our work with endless local collaborative groups we have learned that the 

social process is the key to creating good solutions and meaningful agreement regarding forest restoration. 

The role of federal lands in combating climate change can be a national policy decision. How to achieve that, while maintaining habitat and economies, must be figured out and agreed to at the ground level. Top down will not work in this instance. 

National policy addressing climate change, currently being developed in Congress 

will have dramatic effects on rural communities and landscapes. Specific components of national climate change policy, such as how resources are prioritized, credit 

allocation or distribution, offset eligibility, or the opportunity to participate in 

96 

emerging markets will affect rural communities and landscapes. Therefore, rural 

communities should have a role in the collaborative development of those policies. 

Because of the current uneven playing field between urban/industrial perspectives 

and rural/natural systems perspectives, there are a few principles we’d like you to 

consider: 

1. Federal and state governments should foster the development and dissemination of reliable climate change information and tools to help build public understanding of the issues. Governments should especially help rural communities 

develop climate change assessments, strategies, plans, and monitoring 

schemes. We need to learn together and change together. 

2. Federal and state climate change policies must ensure that low-income and 

other vulnerable populations receive assistance with climate change impacts. 

Needs of the rural poor may be significantly different that those of urban lowincome areas. 

3. Federal and state strategies for public and private forest land management 

should integrate climate change considerations within collaborative, landscapescale restoration efforts. 

4. Markets for forest carbon-offsets and ecosystem services should encourage 

broad and diverse participation, provide access and opportunity for rural communities, and clearly address issues related to project scale, sustainability, and 

benefits to local communities. 

5. Federal and state climate change policies should provide technical and financial assistance to rural communities for capacity building and workforce training to implement both adaptation and mitigation strategies. 

Ending Statement 

So why should the federal government play a role in helping to address these 

challenges? And how should you proceed? The lands surrounding these communities 

are in dire need of integrated management, and there is an opportunity right now, 

though the investment of economic stimulus dollars, the development of new legislation around fire suppression and climate change, and the significant investment in 

renewable energy in the United States to think critically and act deliberately in ensuring that actions on federal land are playing a role in climate change adaptation 

and mitigation. 

Climate change and the physical risks of climate change has led us to reconsider 

all of our federal forest management decisions and strategies on the Trinity Forest. 

The Trinity Forest is a nice little forest. It is over a million and a half acres in the 

Klamath Knot, one of the most biologically diverse areas on the planet. Please don’t 

manage it for carbon. Manage it to be resilient. Manage it to prepare for the impacts 

of climate change. Manage it to be here for another 400 years. If you do, the carbon 

sink will come. The GHG emissions from wildfire will drop. The biofuels can be developed. The renewable energy will be developed and sustained. The owl and the 

coho will have a chance at survival. And so will we. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

Our last panelist, Mr. Forrest McCarthy, Public Lands Director, 

Winter Wildlands Alliance. Welcome, and I look forward to your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF FORREST McCARTHY, PUBLIC LANDS 

DIRECTOR, WINTER WILDLANDS ALLIANCE, TETON 

VILLAGE, WYOMING 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. I am Forrest McCarthy. I live in Jackson Hole in 

the Great State of Wyoming, and I am the Public Lands Director 

of Winter Wildlands Alliance, and I have been an Alpine Mountain 

and backcountry ski guide for almost 20 years. 

During my travels, I have become the first person to set foot on 

B-15, the largest iceberg ever recorded, near the Ross Ice Shelf in 

Antarctica. As a physical geographer, I studied how rapidly warming temperatures are transforming land cover in arctic Alaska. 

Today, I am testifying on behalf of the Outdoor Alliance, a coalition of six national, member-based organizations that represent the 

97 

interests of millions of Americans who climb, hike, paddle, mountain bike, backcountry ski, and snowshoe in our nation’s public 

lands, waters, and snowscapes. 

Not unlike indicator species, human-powered, outdoor pursuits 

can be seen as ‘‘indicator activities’’ because we are some of the 

first people to experience the impacts of climate change on our public lands. 

A personal loss for me is the legendary Black Ice Couloir on the 

northwest face of the Grand Teton. Today, due to warming temperatures, all of that ice is now gone, and future generations of 

mountaineers will never have the opportunity to ascend one of the 

most renowned alpine climbs in North America. 

Our community’s self-interest in combating climate change is 

couple with the insight on how Federal lands can help us meet this 

challenge, and we are honored to share those with you today. 

First, Federal lands must facilitate ecosystem adaptation that 

protects flora and fauna but also takes into account the human aspects of the landscape. Adaptation policy should include preserving 

and protecting large tracts of open space, much of it on Federal 

land. Our system of national trails, and the critical open space 

through which they run, from the Appalachian Trail to the Pacific 

Crest Trails, is a model of how this can be achieved. 

Taking care of our ecosystems must take precedence over how we 

enjoy and profit from them, but there is an argument for conceptualizing adaptation goals and policies a little more broadly. Because the ecosystems mean something to people, our adaptation 

policy should take into account how climate change will impact 

Federal lands as these lands relate to sustainable human uses, including the associated impacts to the outdoor recreation economy. 

Second, Federal lands must simultaneously be protected as carbon sinks and thoughtfully developed for renewable energy. Federal lands contain millions of acres of forests and grasslands, so 

they not only store carbon but also remove it from the atmosphere. 

Federal lands can thus be used to combat climate change by maximizing the amount of forest and grassland. 

We support a portfolio approach to land designation that includes 

wilderness areas, national scenic areas, national recreation areas, 

and, especially, open-space designations in close proximity to population centers. 

To adequately reduce carbon emissions, alternative energy 

sources and technologies must be developed and pursued on Federal land. While the outdoor community welcomes the development 

of clean, renewable energy, we insist that this path is pursued in 

a balanced manner that takes into account other aspects and values of Federal land. 

An example of this balance is the Federal Power Act’s equal-consideration clause. When rivers are developed for hydropower, the 

equal-consideration clause ensures that the needs of fish and wildlife are addressed, recreational opportunities of the river are provided, and local communities’ needs are considered. 

The role for Federal land is thus to aggressively combat the increase in atmospheric carbon but not at the expense of other inherent values of the land. 

98 

Third, healthy Federal land is our common ground and can unify 

all Americans for the present and future challenges associated with 

combating climate change. 

Stabilizing our climate will require change and sacrifice, but 

there must be some social rewards woven into the plan to assure 

that the public is vested in the effort over the long term. 

Healthy public lands provide a tangible benefit for our sacrifices 

and commitment to protecting our climate. Our public lands provide the opportunity for Americans to stay connected to the natural 

world, and, through this connection, we will have the commitment 

and collective endurance to achieve this goal of stabilizing our climate. 

In conclusion, we believe that facilitating ecosystem adaptation, 

protecting carbon sinks while supporting careful, renewable energy 

development, and motivating long-term public support for these 

challenges through enhanced Federal lands can be pursued in a 

manner where they can co-exist and complement each other. 

When climbing North America’s highest mountain, Mount 

McKinley, climbers make momentous sacrifices. The climb is expensive, grueling, and dangerous, yet, every year, over a thousand 

aspiring summiteers embrace the challenge, yet, every year, fear, 

tempered with planning and commitment, the suffering, with the 

splendor of the view from the top of North America, like climbing 

Mount McKinley, the road to a stable climate will be challenging 

and committing. There is a great deal of fear from inaction, but we 

have a great deal to gain by being thoughtful, decisive, and doing 

this right. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCarthy follows:] 

Statement of Forrest McCarthy, Outdoor Alliance 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am Forrest McCarthy. I live in Jackson Hole, Wyoming and I am the Public 

Lands Director of Winter Wildlands Alliance. I also serve on the Teton County Planning Commission, and have been an alpine mountain and backcountry ski guide for 

almost twenty years. As a mountain guide, I have had the privilege to spend a great 

deal of time in places like Antarctica, South America, Alaska and my home state 

of Wyoming. 

During my travels I became the first person to set foot on B-15, the largest iceberg ever recorded, near the Ross Shelf in Antarctica. My time in the Polar Regions 

later inspired me to earn a master’s degree in physical geography from the University of Wyoming, where I studied how rapidly warming temperatures transform arctic Alaskan land cover. By replicating historic photographs I documented not only 

the recession of glaciers, but also the thawing of permafrost and advancement of 

shrubs, tundra, and tree cover. 

Today, I am testifying on behalf of the Outdoor Alliance, a coalition of six national, member-based organizations devoted to conservation and stewardship of our 

nation’s public lands and waters through responsible human-powered outdoor recreation. Outdoor Alliance includes: Access Fund, American Canoe Association, American Hiking Society American Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling Association, and Winter Wildlands Alliance and represents the interests of the millions 

Americans who hike, paddle, climb, backpack, mountain bike, backcountry ski and 

snowshoe on our nation’s public lands, waters and snowscapes. 

Not unlike indicator species, human-powered outdoor pursuits can be seen as ‘‘indicator activities’’ with respect to climate change because we are some of the first 

people to experience the impacts of climate change on our public lands. Declining 

snowpack shortens ski and snowshoe seasons, makes alpine climbing more dangerous and can eliminate ice climbing altogether. Less snowpack also means less 

water in our creeks, rivers and lakes for paddling. Higher temperatures and proVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47754.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
99 

longed droughts create severe imbalances in forest, alpine, desert, and river ecosystems that stress native species and degrade the quality of the outdoor recreation. 

One of the results of this imbalance, increased wildfire activity, directly impacts 

pursuits such as rock climbing, hiking and mountain biking and our collective ability to enjoy public lands. 

A personal loss for me is the legendary, Black Ice Couloir, a challenging ice climb 

high on the northwest face of the Grand Teton. Today, due to warming temperatures, all the ice is gone and future generations of mountaineers will never have 

the opportunity to attempt one of the most renowned alpine climbs in North 

America. 

The outdoor community’s interest in climate protection is axiomatic—the places 

where we conduct our outdoor pursuits and that support the $730 billion annual 

outdoor recreation economy are imperiled by a warming climate. Our self interest 

in combating climate change, however, is coupled with some distinct insight as to 

how our federal lands can help us meet this challenge, and we are honored to be 

able to share these insights with you today. 

As of late, it seems that the primary role of federal lands in combating climate 

change is to passively provide evidence of not only the existence of climate change, 

but also the rapidity with which it is taking place. We envision a more proactive, 

three-part role for federal lands in combating climate change. 

I. Federal Lands Must Facilitate an Ecosystem Adaptation Policy That Protects Flora And Fauna, but Also Takes into Account the Human Aspects 

of Federal Lands 

In prior Congresses, both chambers generated thoughtful legislative approaches to 

climate protection. Wisely, some of these approaches directed towards ecosystem 

protection some of the revenues from market-based efforts to cap and reduce carbon. 

As we understand it, adaptation is the portfolio of efforts to counteract the effects 

of a warming climate on ecosystems and the flora and fauna therein. 

Federal lands are where much ecosystem adaptation activity will take place, and 

federal land management agencies will likely play a material role in designing and 

implementing adaptation policy. Adaptation policy should include preserving large 

tracts of open space through a pragmatic approach ranging from protective federal 

designation to voluntary conservation easements. Adaptation must also include 

physical structures and land management techniques to facilitate migration and 

land use planning that puts a premium on contiguous open space. Our system of 

national trails and the critical open space through which they run, from the Appalachian Trail to the Continental Divide and the Pacific Crest Trails, may very well 

assist in this objective. 

A universal aspect of human-powered outdoor pursuits is that they take place outdoors in a context that includes not only the topography and gradient of a given 

place, but the flora and fauna as well. The ecosystem is not merely the setting for 

our pursuits; it is the very substrate. Taking care of the ecosystem must take precedence over how we enjoy and profit from it. We say this without qualification given 

the longstanding conservation and stewardship ethic in the outdoor community. 

This said, we also think there is an argument for conceptualizing adaptation goals 

and policies a little more broadly. 

Long before people recognized the idea of an ecosystem, individual parts were 

honored through everything from creation myths and totem poles to the landscapes 

of the Hudson River School artists and our government’s foresight in creating a National Park System almost 100 years ago. In addition to being the home to plants 

and animals, ecosystems and landscapes mean something to people, particularly to 

Americans. We suggest that as adaptation policy is developed and implemented, 

some consideration is given to how climate change will impact federal lands, waters 

and snowscapes as they relate to sustainable human uses. Consideration should include not only human-powered recreation uses, but also the associated economic impacts to the outdoor recreation economy and other traditional uses such as hunting, 

fishing and wildlife enjoyment. 

This concept was explored last Congress in the Leiberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, S. 3036, where a provision specifically directed the Secretaries of 

the Interior and Agriculture to take into account ‘‘the potential to provide enhanced 

access to land and waters for fishing, hunting, and other public recreational uses’’ 

when making spending decisions for adaptation purposes. S. 3036, 110th Cong. 

§ 4702(c)(4) (2008). We encourage both chambers to further explore this concept as 

it develops climate protection legislation in this Congress. 

100 

II. Federal Lands Must Simultaneously Be Protected As Carbon Sinks And 

Thoughtfully Developed For Renewable Energy 

Federal Lands as Carbon Sinks 

Our federal lands contain millions of acres of forests and grasslands. As trees, 

plants and other organic material not only store carbon, but remove it from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, we think that another critical role federal lands 

can play in combating climate change is maximizing, to the extent practicable, the 

amount of forest land, both old growth and reforested areas. 

Protecting and enhancing forest carbon sinks can be pursued in a number of 

ways, but primarily through land designations and strategic acquisitions that protect existing forests and reduce development sprawl. We support a portfolio approach to land designation that includes wilderness areas, national scenic areas, national recreational areas, and especially open space designations in close proximity 

to population centers. These goals need not wait for climate protection legislation, 

but could be achieved, in part, by permanently protecting inventoried roadless areas 

in the Forest System, passing the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2008, 

and reauthorizing the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act before it expires 

in 2010. 

In addition to the protective designations and strategic acquisitions of federal land 

itself, there may be a role for federal land management agencies to facilitate or encourage the protection of state and private forestland for its carbon sink attributes. 

Thoughtful Renewable Energy Development 

Despite the great assistance forested federal lands provide in climate change mitigation from their natural function, such mitigation will not offset man-made carbon 

emissions enough to protect the climate. To adequately reduce carbon emissions, alternative energy sources and technologies must be developed and much of this development will take place on federal land. While the outdoor community heartily 

welcomes the chance to reduce the nation’s reliance on energy sources and technologies that damage our climate, we insist that this path is pursued in a manner 

that takes into account other aspects and values of federal land. Given the scale of 

renewable energy projects needed to adequately deal with climate protection, the 

landscape impact of renewable energy projects, including solar arrays, wind farms 

(and the necessary transmission lines) may very well dwarf the landscape impacts 

of traditional energy projects. 

As evidenced by our nation’s current hardrock mining policy, when a single use 

of federal land is generally allowed to trump all other uses, the costs will eventually 

outweigh the benefits (especially if the policy is essentially left in place for 137 

years). Thankfully, there are other federal laws on the books that balance the multiple uses of federal land more evenly, such as the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 

§ 791a, et. seq. In outlining the powers of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to issue licenses for the construction of hydropower projects, the statute 

requires FERC to: 

[G]ive equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of, fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), the protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. 

Federal Power Act § 797(e), 16 U.S.C. § 791a (2008). 

The practical effect of the equal consideration language, and the fact that hydropower projects are subject to a fixed term of 30 to 50 years, is that FERC must balance power and non-power values in their decision process. When rivers are developed for hydropower, mitigation measures ensure that the needs of fish and wildlife 

are addressed, recreational opportunities on the river are provided, and local communities’ needs are considered. In other cases where ecosystem and recreation values outweigh the value of the river for hydropower development, projects are not 

constructed or in some cases removed at the end of their license term. 

The outdoor community believes that analogous language to the Federal Power 

Act’s equal consideration clause should be used to guide the pending development 

of alternative and renewable energy projects on federal land. We also believe that 

this language may be appropriate for other endeavors to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, such as subterranean carbon sequestration, or other yet to be developed 

engineering techniques. The role for federal land is thus to aggressively combat the 

increase in atmospheric carbon, but not at the expense of the other inherent values 

of the land. 

Aside from legislative direction, we also feel that it is incumbent upon all public 

lands user communities, from recreation communities to the businesses that rely on 

101 

federal lands, to work directly and proactively with the renewable energy community. We believe this effort should develop common ground, and possibly some best 

management practices for assuring that renewable energy production and transmission can coexist with other sustainable uses of federal public land. 

III. Healthy Federal Land is Our Common Ground and Can Unify All 

Americans for the Present and Future Challenges Associated with 

Combating Climate Change 

Climate change is typically framed in dramatic and sobering terms. Currents of 

fear and guilt associated with an energy-intensive existence permeate much of the 

conversation, and there is great anxiety not only over the changes to the natural 

world, but the anticipated changes to the American economy and way of life. Though 

fear can be an excellent motivator in the short term, too much of it can lead to fatalism and apathy. Climate protection legislation is really only one of the first steps 

in a nation-wide effort that will last for decades. Fear must be tempered with hope 

and the expectation that there will be some positive developments along the way. 

When climbing North America’s highest mountain, Mount McKinley, climbers 

make momentous sacrifices. Ascending McKinley is expensive, long, grueling, and 

dangerous. Yet every year over a thousand aspiring summiteers embrace the challenge. When climbing McKinley it is critical that climbers respect the mountain and 

understand the inherent risks involved. However, if an expedition exercises careful 

planning, good judgment, team work, effective communication, acute awareness, and 

commitment, the risks can be managed and the goal of reaching the summit obtained. Like climbing McKinley, the road to a stable climate will be challenging and 

committing; we must not be fearful, but rather thoughtful, careful and decisive. 

Stabilizing our climate will require change and sacrifice, but there must be some 

public rewards woven into the plan to assure the public remains vested in this critical effort over the long term. Healthy public lands provide a tangible reward for 

our sacrifices and commitment to protecting our climate and the ecosystems that depend on it. Public lands provide citizens with the opportunity to view wildlife, play 

in the rivers and snow, test one’s skills on a steep rock or a single track, and experience first-hand the natural world. The importance of our public lands transcends 

their value as refuge for wildlife or as natural carbon sinks, they are the refuges 

for people as well. Our public lands provide the opportunity for Americans to stay 

connected to the natural world. Only through this connection will we have the commitment and collective endurance to achieve the goal of stabilizing our climate. 

Conclusion 

As Congress pursues this daunting, but profoundly necessary legislative effort; 

Outdoor Alliance encourages a central role of science and perhaps a new level of 

bureaucratic flexibility to better cope with the interrelated nature of the challenges 

ahead. 

Because different parcels of federal lands are managed according to the priorities 

and peculiarities of the different land management agencies’ organic acts, there is 

some utility in exploring new ways that the federal land management agencies can 

work collaboratively on climate protection. Likewise, we believe that the three roles 

for federal lands outlined in this testimony—facilitating ecosystem adaptation, protecting carbon sinks while supporting careful renewable energy development, and 

motivating long-term public support for the associated challenges, should be pursued in a manner where they can coexist and complement each other. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Let me ask a couple of questions. Mr. Ridgeway, going back and 

referencing that fourth point about the involvement of private landowners in the process of identification and development of corridors, the discussion today has been about public lands, but the 

question is, how should private landowners be involved and connected to this process that you pointed out that they are an essential part of as well? 

Mr. RIDGEWAY. Yes. As you point out, Mr. Chairman, private 

landowners will be very essential to the protection of wildlife corridors because, of course, so many of those corridors are on private 

lands, and I think we will be discovering, with more clarity, just 

102 

where those overlaps are as we begin this process of identifying 

further all of the wildlife corridors in the United States and across 

North America. 

Our coalition wants to bring tools to the table, tools that can be 

used by private landowners to allow them to continue to live and 

ranch on those lands but do it in ways that are consistent with 

long-term survival needs of wildlife, and tools, such as conservation 

easements, are very useful toward those goals. And we want to 

work together collaboratively, as a broad-based group, again, to 

bring the resources to the table that can be used, in that case, by 

private landowners to, again, ranch, maintain, and manage their 

properties in ways consistent with the wild animals that are on 

them. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Are there particular wildlife corridors that Freedom To Roam can identify now? 

Mr. RIDGEWAY. Yes. There are many, and they come in two different categories. There are corridors that migrating animals use 

to get from A to B seasonally. There are also corridors that nonmigrating animals use to get between their different populations, 

which, if cut off, ruin those populations, as you saw on that map 

with the lynx. 

Perhaps one of the best known and identified and understood 

corridors in the United States is the path of the pronghorn that I 

showed you briefly in our presentation, and that one is well known 

because wildlife biologists have collared animals and followed them 

as they have gone from beginning to end on that corridor, and they 

know the boundaries and the measure of it very accurately. 

Interestingly, that corridor crosses public lands. It starts in a national park. It then goes across the bridge at Teton National Forest. It then enters into private lands, and most of those are 

ranches, but some of those ranches have already been subdivided, 

forcing the animals into the forest, where they prefer not to go. 

Antelope, because of their predators, like to stay in the open. 

They have eyes that can see for miles, and they hate going in the 

trees, and that path of the pronghorn corridor has almost been permanently disrupted because of two subdivisions of ranch lands 

that, given the resources, might have been able to avoid that subdivision, and that is, again, the resource that we want to bring to 

the table for private landowners. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. McCarthy, the public lands are 

being called upon to help address our energy needs. Part of this 

whole discussion in the Full Committee and this Subcommittee will 

be the calls for increased oil and gas extraction and also the creation of a new capacity for nuclear energy production, which involves uranium mining near places like the Grand Canyon, for instance. But there is also discussion about creating a balance between the extraction/protection side of this question. 

The user groups you represent, the outdoor industry that you 

represent; how would you define that balance? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I think the best model for that, 

as I mentioned earlier, is the Federal Power Act, with the equalconsideration clause, that was used on rivers, and, taking into account the history of damming rivers, that, in future river projects 

103 

for energy, other attributes, including ecological recreation, need to 

be considered. 

I also think a good model is to look at these things proactively. 

I know there is an organization in Wyoming called the Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance, which has already, in a Geographic Information System (GIS), mapped out all of the important areas for 

wildlife in the State of Wyoming and then overlaid with wind potential to say, these are the areas that have critical wildlife value 

and are not appropriate for wind development. These are areas 

that we need to proceed cautiously, and these are the areas where 

they do not have any conflict. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Regulatory and statutory changes; would that be 

part of the equation in developing balance? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, you asked, earlier in the hearing, appropriate of NEPA, and I think, you know, in consideration of those 

projects where environmental assessment of these projects, is it an 

appropriate application of that? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. Jungwirth, you mentioned your 

experience in your community of Trinity. Could you talk to us 

about the impacts that you have seen of climate change that you 

have witnessed on Federal lands from that very close perspective 

that you have? 

Ms. JUNGWIRTH. Sure. We have seen the size of fires move from 

a 100-acre fire to a 200,000-acre fire in the period of about 40 

years. 

We have increased chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 

(COPD) in our elders, as the Hoopa Reservation, which is next door 

to us, they have really documented that. 

We have seen dewatering of streams. We have seen forests converting to brush fields. 

Last year, we lost our tourism and recreation industry that we 

were trying to diversify to, as a public land community, because nobody wants to come and look at an ashtray and breathe smoke. 

We will lose our lake-resort tourism business this summer because of the low waterflows, and we are also trying to diversify our 

economy by growing grapes, and the grape crop—you know, they 

will not press smoked grapes. They actually test for smoke in California to see how bad it is for your grapes, and our grape crops 

were thrown in the garbage can. 

So it affects every single aspect of our lives. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Holt, any questions, comments? 

Mr. HOLT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

Mr. Ridgeway, first of all, thank you for coming, and I commend 

you on your work for Freedom To Roam. 

It seems to me that this is a pretty complicated idea. In some 

sense, it is very simple. You just have these corridors, or ‘‘string 

of emeralds,’’ or however you want to call it, but, it seems to me, 

it is really very complicated to figure out how you can have a corridor that, clearly, if it is going to be interrupted with fences, well, 

you might make those fences passable for pronghorn or lynx. If you 

design it to make it passable for them, it might not be passable for 

other species. 

So I wanted to find out how well developed the idea is. I think 

there are, certainly, some ecologists at Princeton I know and at 

104 

other places who having studying these things, but how thoroughly 

is it studied so you can find an optimal design for these things so 

that they will pass all of the critical species, and how do you determine the length? You talked about, for the pronghorn, you need a 

couple of hundred miles, I guess, but, for other species, you might 

need a thousand miles. 

So where does one get the information that puts all of this together to come up with an optimal design for how the corridors 

would be put together? 

Mr. RIDGEWAY. Well, it has to be, of course, based on best 

science, and that science is provided by wildlife biologists, and, as 

you pointed out, it is specific to species, that multiple species will 

use certain corridors, like the pronghorn corridor is also used by 

mule deer migrating north and south. In fact, the mule deer do not 

have problems with the fences because they can jump right over 

them. Pronghorn are forced to crawl under because, as an animal 

that runs very fast, they cannot jump high, so they have to go 

under. 

Again, the solutions are species specific. Again, in the case of 

mule deer and pronghorn in that area, in Montana and Wyoming, 

one of the critical factors in protecting their corridors is also protecting them with road crossings. In the case of both species, they 

can be lured and directed by fencing that they cannot get over or 

under into underpasses, but the underpasses have to be designed, 

again, to accommodate the needs of the specific species. 

In the case of a pronghorn, the underpasses have to be wide 

enough and open enough and not so tunnel-like that they are inhibited from crossing under them. A mule deer is easier to actually 

get to go through an underpass, and there are many underpasses 

that have been finished recently in Southern Wyoming that are 

very successfully being used by mule deer. 

There is much, much work to be done, by species, to, again, identify their specific needs, not only where the corridors are but what 

their needs are within those corridors. So that is work still to be 

done. We believe that our coalition can provide a great benefit by 

organizing many of the groups regionally around the country that 

are working on different aspects of this. They are often working 

independent of each other. 

One of the great jobs that needs to be done, for example, is to 

identify where their habitats are going to shift to under different 

global-warming scenarios. 

There are several groups around the country that are starting on 

that right now. We are discovering that they do not even know 

about each other yet. Scientists working on habitat shift, under 

global-warming scenarios here in Washington, D.C., with the Geological Survey, for example, do not know that colleagues out in 

California, at the Academy of Sciences, are doing the same thing. 

So we can provide a great service by coordinating those groups, 

regionally and internationally, that are beginning the work, all of 

the work, that has to be done, and it is very extensive. It is going 

to take some years, I think, to achieve the final goals, but it has 

to get started now. 

Mr. HOLT. Which brings me to my next question. On what time 

scale are we talking about? If we are going to accommodate variVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jun 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\47754.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
105 

eties of species and bring together all of this information, as you 

say, it is going to take a long time. How much time do we have? 

What is the time scale for which we will acquire land or acquire 

rights-of-way or whatever else needs to be done? 

Mr. RIDGEWAY. In my testimony, I said, we are entering unknown territory here. We do not know the answers to those questions precisely. 

The shift that you saw for the lynx; it was using the IPCC models developed in 2007 for the most pessimistic predictions that were 

out there at that time. We are two years later. The pessimistic predictions that you saw up there are now the middle-of-the-ground 

ones. That is the average that we chose to present to you. It is a 

shifting target. There is not much time on this. We have to get 

started right away. 

We believe the first step, as I said in my testimony, is to work 

together with your Subcommittee, especially, to achieve a definition 

of what ‘‘wildlife corridors’’ are. That is the first step. 

With a definition of what they are, corridors can begin to be identified and then designated. We would very much like to work with 

your Subcommittee to figure out how to make that happen. Those 

are the first steps, we believe. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me ask the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. 

Lummis, for her questions or comments. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, first and foremost, I would like to welcome Mr. McCarthy 

to our hearing. This is a fellow gentleman from Wyoming, and I am 

delighted to see you here and am pleased that you have chosen to 

share your time and expertise with us. 

You know, as I do, that tourism is Wyoming’s second largest in- dustry and contributes $2.6 billion to Wyoming’s economy, and a 

lot of that spending occurs on activities on public lands. So I am 

delighted that you have chosen to join us today and speak of your 

experiences in Wyoming and the West. 

Here is a quote that I am going to give to you from Gifford 

Pinchot, who was, of course, the first chief of the Forest Service: 

‘‘Conservation is the application of common sense to the common 

problems for the common good,’’ very much a wise-use doctrine, 

and it essentially serves as the last century’s Forest Service motto. 

Much of your testimony follows a similar line of thinking; that 

is, we pursue new renewable energy projects and fuels-reduction 

strategies and other public land uses and that we do so with moderation in mind. 

So my question, Mr. Chairman, is about adaptive management 

flexibility, and would you agree that adaptive management flexibility for our public-land-management agencies is a key tool to protecting the concept of share use, and what specifically are your 

thoughts in that regard? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, thank you for the warm welcome, Representative Lummis. 

‘‘Adaptive management.’’ By ‘‘adaptive,’’ you are referring to ecological. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I think I would put a premium on open space. 

106 

One of my other hats I wear is I am the planning commissioner 

in Teton County, in a county, 97 percent of which is Federal land. 

Currently, we are redoing our comprehensive plan that oversees 

some of the private lands that include the path of the pronghorns 

that Mr. Ridgeway spoke to. 

What I would address is we are currently trying to encourage 

conservation easements in those places. So putting together tax incentives and land trades to be able to protect those areas is one 

adaptive way I look at to accomplish this goal. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is music to my ears. I 

was involved in the Wyoming Stockgrowers Agricultural Land 

Trust, and we hold, along with the other rangeland trusts in the 

West, the Partnership of Rangeland Trusts, or ‘‘PORT,’’ the largest 

number of rangeland conservation easements in the United States, 

and it is a magnificent testament to public and private efforts to 

conserve land because, of course, wildlife does not know whether 

they are on public land or private land. They migrate according to 

habitual practices. 

So I am delighted to hear you say that. I look forward to working 

with you on conservation-easement issues. The tax advantages that 

were put into the Farm Bill last year made an enormous difference 

in our State of Wyoming, in terms of adding to the number of conservation easements that were donated for the tax advantages by 

people who, but for the tax advantages, would not have been able 

pencil out the opportunity to conserve land in that manner. 

So, again, Mr. McCarthy, thank you so much for joining us. I 

yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

As this Committee continues to explore this priority issue of 

climate change on the Federal lands, I want to thank all our 

panelists today for a really excellent start. 

So, as we go through this, there are obvious things—examination 

of statutory and regulatory issues as this Administration defines 

the issue of ‘‘balance’’ in terms of extraction and protection—that 

will fit into the discussion we need to have here. 

I think the important point, and the impression that I have from 

all of our panelists, is this is a real issue, and it has got to be taken 

seriously and dealt with seriously. 

Thank you very much for an excellent start, and this meeting is 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ