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

50-438 PDF 2009

MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE: STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTING THE WEST 

JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

JOINT WITH 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, June 16, 2009 

Serial No. 111-24 

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 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chairwoman 

CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member 

George Miller, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Jim Costa, California 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

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

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Tom McClintock, California 

Doc Hastings, Washington, ex officio 

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 

(V) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, June 16, 2009 .............................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Utah ............................................................................................................... 6 

DeGette, Hon. Diana, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 7 

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

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 4 

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

Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wyoming .................................................................................................... 7 

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

McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Washington ..................................................................................... 3 

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 1 

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

Smith, Hon. Adrian, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Nebraska, Statement submitted for the record .......................................... 124 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bentz, Dr. Barbara, Research Entomologist, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture .......................... 34 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36 

Cables, Rick, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture ................................................................... 35 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36 

Frost, Dr. Herbert C., Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship 

and Science, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ..... 42 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44 

Kolb, Dr. Peter, Associate Professor of Forest Ecology and Management, 

University of Montana, Missoula, Montana ............................................... 114 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 115 

Larsen, Charles A., General Manager, Carbon Power and Light Inc., 

Saratoga, Wyoming ....................................................................................... 106 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 108 

Markey, Hon. Betsy, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Mathis, Mark, President, Confluence Energy, Kremmling, Colorado .......... 101 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 103 

McGuire, Brendan, Manager of Government Relations, Vail Resorts, 

Broomfield, Colorado .................................................................................... 109 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 111 

Minnick, Hon. Walt, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Idaho .............................................................................................................. 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 20 

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

Rehberg, Hon. Dennis, the Representative in Congress from the State 

of Montana ..................................................................................................... 12 

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

Page

VI 

Statement of Witnesses—Continued 

Rich, Judge John, Commissioner, Jackson County, Northwest Colorado 

Council of Governments, Walden, Colorado ............................................... 70 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 71 

Salazar, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Colorado ..................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

Scanlan, Hon. Christine, State Representative, State of Colorado, Dillon, 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 65 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 67 

Shoemaker, Sloan, Executive Director, Wilderness Workshop, Carbondale, 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 75 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 76 

Turley, Ronald, Special Programs Manager, Western Area Power 

Administration, U.S. Department of Energy .............................................. 48 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 49 

Wilkinson, Eric W., General Manager, Northern Colorado Water 

Conservancy District, Berthoud, Colorado .................................................. 84 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 86 

Additional materials supplied: 

Gibbs, Hon. Dan, Colorado State Senator, and Hon. Christine Scanlan, 

Colorado State Representative, Statement submitted for the record ....... 67 

(1) 

JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘MOUNTAIN 

PINE BEETLE: STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTING THE WEST’ 

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power, joint with the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests & Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Grace Napolitano 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Napolitano, Grijalva, Costa, DeGette, 

Inslee, Baca, Herseth Sandlin, Gallegly, McMorris Rodgers, 

Chaffetz, Lummis, McClintock, Smith of Nebraska, and Pierluisi. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This 

morning we are holding a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Water and Power and the Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests and Public Lands headed by my colleague, Rau ́l Grijalva. 

The hearing will come to order. 

Today’s meeting is an oversight hearing on the ‘‘Mountain Pine 

Beetle: Strategies for Protecting the West.’’ 

I will recognize all of the Members of the Subcommittee for any 

statement they may have after my opening statement. Any Member who desires to be heard will be heard, and any additional material may be submitted for the record by Members, by witnesses, or 

by any other interested party. The record will be kept open for 10 

business days following today’s hearing, and the five-minute rule, 

with our timer, will be enforced. Green means ‘‘go’’; yellow, ‘‘near 

end’’; and red means ‘‘wrap it up, stop.’’ 

It is with great urgency and concern that Chairman Grijalva and 

I hold this hearing with our respective Ranking Members Cathy 

McMorris Rodgers and Rob Bishop. The mountain pine beetle, an 

insect no greater than a grain of rice, has killed millions of acres 

of pines across the West and continues to spread quickly 

unabatedly. 

The death of those trees threatens the very existence of western 

communities. While presently most of the mountain pine beetle kill 

areas are found in Colorado, Wyoming, and even California, we 

should not make the mistake of thinking that the beetles will not 

continue to spread, infesting and killing massive numbers of trees 

in other states throughout the entire West. 

2 

We see evidence of bark beetle as far West now, like I said, into 

California. Even if the mountain pine beetle does not decimate tree 

populations in other areas, something else will. The United States 

Geological Survey published a report in January of this year showing evidence that the rate of death of trees in the western U.S. forests has more than doubled in the last two decades. The cause of 

this death has been linked to higher temperatures and scarce 

water, both of which are the result of climate change. 

Aside from higher temperatures and less water, climate change 

is conducive to outbreaks of pests like the mountain pine beetle 

and other diseases. The entire West needs to be on notice: this epidemic is one of many events that we can expect in the coming decades that will cause substantial death of trees in the western U.S. 

forests. 

The death of these trees threatens the safety of communities due 

to fires. The death of the trees threatens our watersheds, our 

power grids, transecting forests and other vital infrastructure. The 

death of these trees threatens the economic viability of the entire 

region; hence, we need to bring together all stakeholders from the 

entire region to share information about how best to move forward 

before we act. 

We will today hear from witnesses that the mountain pine beetle 

cannot be stopped. We will also hear that the damage is so widespread that a fire is inevitable. It is not a question of if, but when. 

As we hear from our witnesses today, I must remind everybody 

in this room that this horrible situation we currently find ourselves 

in probably will continue to repeat itself over time and throughout 

our entire nation. We must begin using this experience with the 

mountain pine beetle as a wake-up call to develop comprehensive 

strategies to protect western communities from future mass tree 

deaths in our forests. There are lessons to be learned about prevention of future outbreaks of disease and pests. We need to work cooperatively to develop a clear plan before outbreaks occur to know 

how to best manage and mitigate the damage. 

We must be ready to protect our forests, our western communities, and the livelihood of each and every person in the West. 

We will use today’s meeting not only to think about how we protect the western way of life in the face of this deadly beetle and 

protect our forests, but to learn lessons to help us combat widespread death of other trees in the future and to begin to understand how climate change will require us to think out of the box 

to forge new partnerships to protect the American way of life. 

Besides that, Ms. Ranking Member and Chairman Grijalva, I am 

very seriously contemplating following this hearing with a hearing 

with the Department of the Interior and other agencies to present 

the evidence that is given here today to move forward on maybe 

forging a plan that we can work with. 

Thank you. With that said, I am now pleased to yield to my 

friend and colleague, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 

Water and Power, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, for 

her opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Napolitano follows:] 

3 

Statement of The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

It is with great urgency and concern that we hold this hearing today. The mountain pine beetle, an insect no bigger than a grain of rice, has killed millions of acres 

of pine trees across the West and continues to spread unabated. The death of those 

trees threatens the very existence of Western communities and their residents. 

While presently most of the mountain pine beetle kill areas are found in Colorado 

and Wyoming, we should not make the mistake of thinking that the beetle won’t 

continue to spread, infesting and killing massive numbers of trees in other states 

throughout the entire West. 

Even if the mountain pine beetle doesn’t kill trees in other areas, something else 

will. The United States Geological Survey published a report in January of this year 

showing evidence that the rate of the death of trees in Western U.S. forests has 

more than doubled in the last two decades. The cause of this death has been linked 

to higher temperatures and scarce water, both of which are the result of climate 

change. 

Aside from higher temperatures and less water, climate change is conducive to 

outbreaks of pests like the mountain pine beetle and other diseases. The entire West 

needs to be on notice: this epidemic is one of many events that we can expect in 

the coming decades that will cause substantial deaths of trees in Western U.S. forests. The deaths of those trees threaten the safety of communities due to fires. The 

deaths of those trees threaten our watersheds, our power grid, and other vital infrastructure. The deaths of those trees threaten the economic vitality of the entire region. 

We will hear today from witnesses that the mountain pine beetle cannot be 

stopped. We will hear that the damage is so widespread that a fire is inevitable. 

While I accept those facts, I want to remind everyone in this room that the horrible 

situation we find ourselves in now will continue to repeat itself over time and 

throughout our entire country. 

We need to use this experience with the mountain pine beetle to develop comprehensive strategies to protect Western communities from future mass tree deaths 

in our forests. We need to learn lessons about prevention of future outbreaks of diseases and pests. We need to have a clear plan in place BEFORE outbreaks occur 

to know how to best manage them and mitigate the damage. We must be ready to 

protect our Western communities and the livelihoods of each and every person in 

the West. 

I look forward to learning today about how we protect the Western way of life 

in the face of this deadly beetle, and the lessons we can learn from this to help us 

combat the widespread death of other trees in the future. 

With that said, I am pleased to now yield to my friend and colleague, Ranking 

Member Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, for her opening statement. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I 

would first like to ask unanimous consent for my colleague from 

Utah, Jason Chaffetz, to participate at the dais. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Without objection, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

WASHINGTON 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I 

sincerely thank you for holding this hearing on the growing mountain pine beetle problem in the West. Like many areas of the Rocky 

Mountain West, forests in my district have been hit hard by the 

mountain pine beetle. 

The impacts have been devastating. More than half of the land 

base in the four northern counties of my district is forest. This is 

not a small area, considering Okanogan County, the largest of the 

four counties, is larger than the State of Connecticut. Much of this 

area is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. 

4 

I grew up in Stevens County, one of these four northern counties. 

I know it well, and I lived with the forest management issues for 

10 years as a State Legislator representing this area before coming 

to Congress. During that time, I was also a member of the Western 

States Legislative Forestry Task Force. 

Damage from the pine beetle can be spotted throughout these 

northern forests, with the heaviest infestations on the south side 

of the Methow Valley, which is close to a populated area. 

In 2006, 175,000 acres burned in the Okanogan National Forest 

on the north side of the Methow Valley. Lightning found fertile 

ground in beetle-killed trees that could not be harvested because 

conservation organizations assured the Forest Service they would 

sue to block the sale. 

As a result of these and other lawsuits, the Avista cogeneration 

plant at Kettle Falls, Washington, is hauling most of its fuel out 

of Canada because it is not available from the forest, although it 

operates right next to it. They actually haul 70 percent of their 

waste wood from Canada for this cogeneration plant. 

This is a sad commentary when Congress is in pursuit of alternative energy but continues to leave a wealth of energy to burn in 

wildfires. 

In addition, we waste valuable taxpayer dollars fighting wildfires 

when we could have prevented them in the first place. In fact, over 

half of our Forest Service budget goes to fighting wildfires that will 

only get worse if we do not address the root problem: overcrowded 

forests and diseased and dying trees. We cannot continue to grow 

over 20 billion board feet of timber annually and only harvest two 

billion board feet and expect to have healthy forests. 

The lack of management also impacts water supplies and the 

humans and species that depend on water. An unhealthy and overcrowded forest can literally drain our creeks and much of our rural 

watersheds, which will substantially decrease the water available 

for human use and can also have serious impacts on the needs of 

endangered species. 

There is much talk about removing the four Lower Snake River 

dams in the name of endangered salmon protection, yet few focus 

on managing our forests as a key way to help protect the species. 

This hearing is an important first step in managing our forests 

for the future. We cannot afford to wait any longer. 

In closing, I sincerely want to thank the Chairwoman again, 

thank the witnesses for their testimony and dedication. I look forward to working with everyone on this important issue. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, ma’am, and now we will hear from 

my good friend, the Chair of the Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests and Public Lands, Congressman Rau ́l Grijalva, for his 

statement. 

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now is a particularly 

relevant time for us to discuss this problem because in this season 

many beetles will be looking to infect new areas and new trees. 

In addition to describing the mountain pine beetle epidemic, we 

also need to focus on how to meet this challenge. The few isolated 

5 

communities that have had success fighting off the bark beetle 

have developed extensive action plans combining efforts at every 

level of government. Some of these efforts were focused on protecting healthy trees while other steps were taken to reduce the 

risk of wildfire. 

There have been some successes on both fronts, but there are 

also many reasons that the plan of a small community cannot be 

applied in the entire West. However, we can learn from these successes, much of which are credited to strong community support, 

private landowners, city officials, and residents all coming together 

to carry out the necessary work. 

We will need to develop an approach at a similar level for support. Let me just note that the level of support will not be easy to 

come by if cutting corners in the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process is the cornerstone of our plan. Instead, we 

need to focus on the best strategies for solving this problem without creating another one for future generations. 

Are there places we can protect from infestation? What are the 

options to preventing wildfire? Is it correct to link the beetle infestation to fire? Is it appropriate to say that increased cutting and 

logging is a preventive tool to the beetle and to the infestation? 

There are many questions about the best way to respond to this 

epidemic. I hope we can answer some of that today. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses, many from Colorado, for 

making this trip to D.C., and I look forward to their testimony, and 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Grijalva follows:] 

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

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Thank you Chairwoman Napolitano. 

Now is a particularly relevant time for us to discuss this problem, because this 

is the season that many beetles will be looking to infect new trees. In addition to 

describing the mountain pine beetle epidemic, we must also focus on how we respond to this challenge. 

The few isolated communities that have had success fighting off the bark beetle 

have developed extensive action plans, combining efforts at every level of government. Some of these efforts were focused on protecting healthy trees, while other 

steps were taken to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. There have been some 

successes on both fronts. 

There are many reasons that the plan of a small community can’t be applied to 

the entire West. However, we can learn from these successes, much of which are 

credited to strong community support. Private land owners, city officials, and residents all came together to carry out the necessary work. We will need to develop 

an approach that has a similar level of support. 

Let me just note, that level of support will NOT be easy to come by if cutting corners in the NEPA process is the cornerstone of our plan. Instead, we need to focus 

on the best strategies for solving this problem without creating another one for future generations. Are there places we can protect from infestation, and what are the 

options for preventing catastrophic wildfires? 

There are still many questions about the best way to respond to this epidemic, 

and I hope that we can answer some of them today. I want to thank all of our witnesses, many from Colorado, for making the trip to D-C, and I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the interest of time, we will just ask, if you have statements, 

let me know; otherwise, we will go straight into the hearing. 

Mr. Chaffetz? 

6 

Ms. DEGETTE. Madam Chair, may I? I will defer to my colleague. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chaffetz is next and then you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JASON CHAFFETZ, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for 

allowing me to participate. I do appreciate it. I appreciate all of the 

witnesses and the time that they are taking to be here and the 

number of Members who are here on our first panel. I think it is 

a representation of the severity of the challenges and the interests 

that lie in the many states out in the West. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to offer two documents for 

the record. 

First, I would like to share comments prepared by Iron County, 

Utah. Iron County is the home to a large percentage of Dixie National Forest, which is Utah’s largest national forest, covering nearly two million acres; second, a report prepared by Darren McAvoy, 

who is a forestry extension associate from the Department of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Sciences at Utah State University. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

For those of us who live in the 12 states in the West affected by 

the mountain pine beetle epidemic and the devastation it has 

brought to our forests, this problem has been developing before our 

eyes for years, even decades. The current course we are taking with 

dealing with the problem is unacceptable. Progress is being made 

in some areas, most notably in areas of Colorado; however, more 

can and needs to be done. 

The progress being made in Colorado was one in a way no other 

state, including my State of Utah, has to go through to achieve. 

The gains being made in Colorado are being made essentially because environmental groups have stopped litigating on trees that 

have been killed by mountain pine beetles. That same litigation 

drove 9 of the 10 timber mills in the state out of business. Litigation has stopped in the face of growing public concern over the 

amount of dead trees in the state. 

Of course, groups like Colorado Wild are still suing timber sales 

in healthy forests like they did two weeks ago, but I am confident 

they will stop once again. The beetle kill affects the Rio Grande 

National Forest as well. 

This is no different than what is happening on the Dixie National Forest or the Fish Lake National Forest in my State of Utah. 

It is no different than the lawsuits in California, Wyoming, and 

Montana or any other state where forests need management. 

I believe it is time we looked for a bipartisan legislation that will 

once again allow forest-management decisions to be made by those 

who wear the emblem of the Forest Service. 

We also need to end restrictions on harvesting biomass on Federal lands created by the 2007 energy bill. I believe H.R. 1190 is 

a good way to do this. No matter how much grant money we give 

out to biomass projects, they will all fail unless we can allow a sustainable timber yield to come off of our Federal lands. 

Finally, the Natural Resources Committee needs to hold oversight hearings over stimulus spending. Are stimulus funds going to 

7 

further the intended mission of the Forest Service to manage our 

forests, or are they going to other parochial goals? 

I am sure we will hear many good recommendations to combat 

the mountain pine beetle problem, and I am looking forward to the 

hearing. I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

[NOTE: Documents submitted for the record have been retained 

in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much, and Ms. DeGette. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I 

want to thank you for having this hearing, and I want to thank all 

of my colleagues, mostly from Colorado, but also from the whole 

West, for being here: Congressman Salazar, Congresswoman Markey, Congressman Polis, also State Senator Dan Gibbs and Representative Christine Scanlan, who are my buddies from the Legislature who are here. 

We also have people from the ski industry, water authorities, the 

Forest Service, and the power sector. I want to welcome all of 

them. 

All of us from Colorado know, Madam Chairwoman, that this is 

a terrible problem in the West, in particular, in Colorado. I borrowed this poster from our friend, Congressman Greg Walden from 

Oregon, who brought this to an Energy and Commerce meeting a 

couple of weeks ago. If you look at it, it looks like a really beautiful 

autumn scene. The problem is, these are evergreens that have 

turned this color. This is Grand County, Colorado, and all of us 

from Colorado know this level of devastation. 

It is a complex problem. It is complex at every level. I am really 

pleased to tell you that the Colorado delegation has been working 

closely together, on a bipartisan basis, and also with all of our colleagues in the State Legislature and in the state agencies to talk 

about what to do with this problem. There are no easy solutions 

because the magnitude is so great. 

So I am looking forward to this hearing. I will tell you, along 

with Congressman Walden and Congressman Baird from Washington State, we are looking at some amendments to the climate 

change bill which we expect to have up on the Floor to try to help 

us get out some of these dead trees from the forests, but the underlying problem remains, and it is complex. It is not easily solved, so 

I am happy that all of these experts have come today to help us 

figure out these problems. 

With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Ms. DeGette. 

With that, we have a statement. Make it a short one, please. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes, Madam Chairwoman. I would like to make an 

opening statement. Thank you kindly. 

As this body has heard from me before, my home State of 

Wyoming has many points of pride, but perhaps none rival our 

8 

public lands legacy. In addition to the beautiful forests that make 

up our National Parks in Yellowstone and Grand Teton, Wyoming 

is home to nine National Forests, encompassing roughly 8.8 million 

acres of land. Put into context, National Forests in Wyoming cover 

about a million more acres than the total land areas of Maryland, 

Delaware, and the District of Columbia combined. Add the vast 

tracts of state and private forests, and you begin to understand the 

monumental task of maintaining healthy forests in my state. 

Wyoming and her people are proud of the way our state has 

helped manage and protect our public lands and resources. Good 

stewardship of the land is a Wyoming value, and I hold it very personally dear. 

Unfortunately, Wyoming’s Federal partners are failing to carry 

their own weight when it comes to forest management in the West. 

I am not laying blame here. Our Federal land managers have 

struggled with restrictive policies created by Congress, ever increasing costs, droughts, devastating fire seasons, and, in the 

mountain pine beetle, a devastation of healthy trees like I have 

never seen before in my lifetime. 

While I am hopeful we can begin to dissect and better understand those challenges today, for much of our forested land in the 

West, it is too late: We have already lost the battle. 

Decisions about fuel reduction, beetle prevention and mitigation, 

prompt harvesting of dead and dying trees, and the overall health 

of our forests have real tangible effects on the livelihood of my constituents. We live near or even in these forests. We base entire industries off of them. We recreate and enjoy them, and we count on 

these forests to attract thousands of tourists every year. 

As I have testified in the past, we only have one sawmill left in 

the entire State of Wyoming, so this is not even so much about forestry; it is about recreation. 

Healthy forests are integral to our lives and livelihoods. The 

story you will hear today from Chuck Larsen, general manager of 

Carbon Power and Light in South Central Wyoming, is a perfect 

case study for how wide and diverse the effects truly are of this 

beetle epidemic on the average citizen. 

This picture, taken by Mr. Larsen just days ago, tells a story all 

by itself: Our forests are being ravaged. First managers estimate 

that, by 2012, every single adult, lodgepole pine in Southern 

Wyoming and Northern Colorado will be destroyed by beetle kill. 

This is devastating to our forest economies. We are also one unlucky lightning strike away from a serious threat to human health 

and safety. 

It is time we learned what tools our land managers need to address this epidemic and ensure they have those tools at their disposal. I look forward to making progress on that front today. Thank 

you, Madam Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lummis follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Cynthia Lummis, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Wyoming 

Thank you, Mr. and Madam Chairmen. 

As this body has heard me claim before, my home State of Wyoming has many 

points of pride, but perhaps none rival our public lands legacy. In addition to the 

beautiful forests that make up our National Parks in Yellowstone and Grand Teton, 

9 

Wyoming is home to 9 National Forests, encompassing roughly 8.8 million acres of 

land. Put into context, National Forests in Wyoming cover about a million more 

acres than the total land areas Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia 

combined. Add the vast tracts of State and private forests and you begin to understand the monumental task of maintaining healthy forests in my state. 

Wyoming and her people are proud of the way our State has helped manage and 

protect our public lands and resources. Good stewardship of the land is a Wyoming 

value I hold very personally dear. Unfortunately, Wyoming’s federal partners are 

failing to carry their own weight when it comes to forest management in the West. 

I’m not laying blame—our federal land managers have struggled with restrictive 

policies created by Congress, ever-increasing costs, droughts, devastating fire seasons, and—in the mountain pine beetle—a devastation of healthy trees like I’ve 

never seen in my lifetime. While I am hopeful we can begin to dissect and better 

understand those challenges today, for much of our forested lands in the west, it 

is too late—we have already lost the battle. 

Decisions about fuel reduction, beetle prevention and mitigation, prompt harvesting of dead and dying trees, and the overall health of our forests have real, tangible effects on the livelihood of my constituents. We live near or even in these forests, we base entire industries off of them, we recreate and enjoy them, and we 

count on these forests to attract thousands of tourists every year. Healthy forests 

are integral to our lives and livelihoods. The story you will hear today from Chuck 

Larsen, General Manager for Carbon Power and Light in south-central Wyoming is 

a perfect case-study for how wide and diverse the effects truly are of this beetle epidemic on the average citizen. This picture, taken by Mr. Larsen just days ago, tells 

a story all by itself. Our forests are being ravaged. 

Forest managers estimate that by 2012, every single adult lodge pole pine in 

southern Wyoming and northern Colorado will be destroyed by beetle kill. This is 

devastating to our forest economies. We are also one unlucky lightning strike away 

from a serious threat to human health and safety. It is time we learn what tools 

our land managers need to address this epidemic and ensure they have those tools 

at their disposal. I look forward to making progress on that front today. 

Thank you, Mr. and Madam Chairmen. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much, ma’am, and we now 

will proceed to hear from our witnesses. We do have four panels, 

so it is going to be a bit of a lengthy hearing. Witnesses will be 

introduced before they testify. After we hear from our panel, we 

will have questions for the panel. All of your submitted prepared 

statements, of which I have not received any, so I am assuming 

none of you had one, will be entered into the record, and all witnesses are kindly asked to summarize the high points of your testimony and limit your remarks to five minutes. 

Again, the timer before you will be used to enforce this rule. It 

also applies to all questioning: A total of five minutes for questions, 

including responses, applies to our Members. If there are any additional questions, we may have a second round, and I do not think 

today might be the time for it. 

For our first panel, we have Congressmen Rehberg, Salazar, 

Markey, Minnick, and Polis, and I am being very frugal on time. 

I would like to start with John Salazar, if you do not mind, Denny, 

for the first testimony. Mr. Salazar, you are on. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN T. SALAZAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. SALAZAR. Well, thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Rodgers and Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop, 

for having this hearing today. I am honored to be a part of it. 

I would also like to acknowledge a special person who is here 

who is the past director of the Colorado Department of Natural ReVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
10 

sources, Mr. Greg Walter, here in the back, who has worked on 

these issues for many, many years. 

The mountain pine beetle epidemic in Colorado and throughout 

the West is devastating, Madam Chair. It is destroying our forests 

and threatening our communities. 

I have some pictures today to show you, some that are up on the 

screen. I think the first one was shared by Mrs. DeGette. The picture gives you an idea of the magnitude of the problem we are 

dealing with. The red trees that you see in this picture are dead. 

Ninety percent of the trees in this picture are dead. 

These next two pictures that we will see show the magnitude of 

the impact on our recreational areas, one of the economic mainstays of Colorado. 

This next picture is a picture of one of our campgrounds at 

Steamboat Springs as the mountain pine beetle began going 

through it. 

Picture 3 shows what it looks like after the Colorado State Forest 

Service removed all of the hazardous trees. 

Picture 4 shows dead trees by a power line. Imagine what would 

happen to that power line if fire went through it like in Picture 5. 

Picture 6 actually is a map that demonstrates how far reaching 

the epidemic is in Colorado. It is over two million acres and growing. 

We have over 633 miles of electric transmission lines just in 

Colorado that are in the areas of dead or dying trees. We also have 

over 1,300 miles of electrical distribution lines at risk from falling 

trees or fire. A large fire could destroy many of these lines, causing 

power outages for months. 

While a wildfire is just a matter of when, falling trees are occurring now on the trails, on ranchers’ fences, and on campgrounds 

and power lines. How long before one of these falling trees kills 

someone? Already, we have had to close campgrounds and trails because of these hazards. 

We need to do something to ensure our communities’ watersheds 

and power and communication infrastructure are safe. We also 

need to be looking into the future, at the health of our industries, 

small and large, that utilize these dead trees, and keeping our future forests healthy so that epidemics such as this one are less 

likely to happen. 

Let me show you, in reference to some of the questions that Congressman Grijalva was asking, Picture 7 is a picture that shows 

where, several years ago, trees were harvested for water-distribution research. The areas that are in green were harvested many 

years ago and grew back. Those younger, healthy trees were not attacked by the mountain pine beetle. You can almost see a hand 

print of what happened there. 

The areas that are red were not harvested. Those trees were not 

as healthy, and most of them died. 

So, today, I am looking forward to hearing what the second and 

third panels are doing to avoid the almost certain catastrophe. I 

also want to hear suggestions for actions Congress should take, and 

Congresswoman DeGette mentioned that we, as the Colorado delegation, have moved forward in a bipartisan way trying to figure out 

a solution to the problem. We have been able to address some of 

11 

the issues along the urban interface areas, but, as you see, the devastation is incredible in Colorado. Most of the forests are dying up 

toward the Steamboat Springs are and Northwest Colorado. 

I welcome your ideas on the most strategic approaches we can 

make to protect our communities and natural resources, and I 

would like to thank the leadership of this Committee for addressing this critical issue, and thank you, Madam Chair, for making it 

a point that you will present the findings of these hearings to the 

Department of the Interior, and also I would appreciate it if you 

could share those with the Department of Agriculture as well. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Salazar follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable John T. Salazar, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Colorado 

Thank you Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop, and Chairwoman 

Napolitano and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers for having this hearing today. 

I am honored to be a part of it. 

The Mountain pine beetle epidemic in Colorado and throughout the West is devastating. It is destroying our forests and threatening our communities. 

I have some pictures I’d like to share with you and to submit for the record. 

(Picture 1) This picture gives you an idea of the magnitude of the problem we’re 

dealing with. The red trees you see in this picture are dead. 

Ninety percent of the trees in this picture are dead. 

These next 2 pictures shows the magnitude of the impact to our recreation areas, 

one of the economic mainstays of Colorado. 

(Picture 2) This is the picture of one of our campgrounds in Steamboat Springs 

as the mountain pine beetle went the area. 

(Picture 3) This is what it looks like after the Colorado State Forest Service removed the hazardous trees. 

(Picture 4) This picture shows dead trees by a power line. Imagine what would 

happen to that power line if a fire like this went through. (Picture 5) 

(Picture/Map 6) This map demonstrates how far reaching the epidemic in Colorado is. 

It is over 2 million acres and growing. 

We have over 633 miles of electrical transmission lines just in Colorado that are 

in areas of dead or dying trees. 

We also have over 1300 miles of electrical distribution lines at risk from falling 

trees or fire. 

A large fire could destroy many of these lines, causing power outages for months. 

While a wildfire is just a matter of when, falling trees are occurring now on trails, 

rancher’s fences, campgrounds, and powerlines. 

How long before one of those falling trees kill someone? Already we’ve had to close 

campgrounds and trails because of the hazards. 

We need to do something to ensure our communities, watersheds and power and 

communication infrastructure is safe. 

We also need to be looking into the future. 

At the health of our industries—small and large—that utilize the dead trees. 

At keeping our future forests healthy so epidemics such as this are less likely to 

happen. 

(Picture 7) This picture shows where several years ago trees were harvested for 

water distribution research. 

The areas that are green were harvested many years ago and grew back. Those 

younger, healthy trees were not attacked by the mountain pine beetle. 

The areas that are red were not harvested. Those trees were not as healthy and 

died. 

I am looking forward to hearing what the 2nd and 3rd panels are doing to avoid 

an almost certain catastrophe. 

I also want to hear suggestions for actions Congress should take. 

As this committee knows, I, along with several members of the Colorado delegation, have introduced legislation the last several Congresses addressing different approaches to tackle this problem. 

Our delegation is currently working on a bill we plan to introduce this summer. 

12 

I welcome your ideas on the most strategic approaches we can make to protect 

our communities and natural resources. 

I’d like to thank the leadership on the committee for addressing this critical issue. 

Thank you and I yield back the remainder of my time. 

[NOTE: Pictures have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much, Congressman. 

Mr. Rehberg, Congressman Rehberg. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DENNIS REHBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Chair and 

Members of both Subcommittees for allowing me this opportunity 

to testify today. 

The forests in Montana are quite different from the forests out 

East or even in Colorado. On the East Coast, masses of deciduous 

trees turn a variety of different colors each fall as the leaves fall 

off to conserve energy. In Colorado, masses of aspen tree growths 

change to gold each fall. 

Montana’s forests are primarily comprised of coniferous trees, or, 

as we call them, ‘‘evergreens.’’ With evergreens, nature has a different strategy for surviving the winter. Smaller leaves shaped like 

needles and sheathed in protective coatings require less energy 

during the winter months. As a result, as the name implies, our 

forests remain green year-round, or they are supposed to. 

Lately, massive infestations of western pine beetles have left 

their mark on more than the trees. Like a teenager with a paintball gun in an art museum, splotches of rust, red, and orange, mucous yellow being to corrupt the tapestry of our forests. It started 

small, a few trees peppered in a forest of millions, but eventually 

entire mountainsides turned yellow with the infestation. Visitors 

were forgiven for thinking that they were just seeing the annual 

life cycle of a deciduous forest, but the locals knew that something 

was very wrong. 

The western pine beetle has infested millions of acres of forests 

throughout the West, thanks to drought and burdensome litigation. 

Our forests have been inadequately managed as our local government agencies and timber companies have not been allowed to 

work hand in hand to combat this destructive insect. As a result, 

our western forests are now more vulnerable than they have ever 

been to massive forest fires that can engulf entire communities, undermine energy reliability by burning transmission lines, destroy 

historical, cultural, and recreational sites; and seriously compromise endangered species and water quality. 

While these losses alone are costly to taxpayers, they do not include the vast amounts of money spent every year to combat forest 

fires and that are fueled by pine beetle-infested trees. 

I paint a picture of this vicious cycle where the victims are our 

once-prestigious, green, western forests and the American taxpayer, and the problem is quickly getting worse. 

With the lack of local healthy forest management, the western 

pine beetle has increased the mortality rate of mature trees in 

Montana twofold in just the last year, from 735,000 acres in 2007 

to 1.8 million acres in 2008. One area, in particular, between Helena and Butte, has reported morality levels three to four times 

13 

higher in 2008 than compared with 2007. Additionally, at higher 

elevations, significant pine beetle-caused mortality has been noted 

in white bark pine stands on our state park lands and the Yellowstone National Park. 

It is no coincidence that as the acreage of infestation has risen, 

so have the costs of forest fire suppression. The Forest Service has 

approximately spent $225 million in suppression funds in Montana 

over the last three fiscal years. The Bureau of Land Management 

has spent over $33 million in the last three years compared to $24 

million in the subsequent three-year period. These costs are only 

for fighting fires, the forest fires themselves. They do not include 

loss of infrastructure, wildlife, and fish, and habitat for endangered 

species and dollars generated from tourism. 

Exhaustive research has been conducted over the years to determine the best methods for combating western pine beetle infestation. This research has proven, time and again, that the insect 

thrives in environments that are overcrowded, dense, and old 

growth, particularly during periods of drought. Under epidemic outbreak conditions, enough beetles can emerge from one infested tree 

and kill several trees the following year. 

Healthy forest management is best done at the local level by men 

and women who live in the forest and can read its signs. 

As an example of this, I want to tell you a success story near the 

ghost town of Garnet, Montana, located just east of Missoula. The 

areas surrounding this historic ghost town had become infested 

with the western pine beetle. In 2006, as other forest fires raged 

in nearby forest lands of Western Montana, local Bureau of Land 

Management officials were convinced that unless they thinned the 

forests around Garnet, they would lose the ghost town to a forest 

fire. Then the beetles showed up and infected twice as many trees 

as they had done in the previous years. 

Consequently, the BLM quickly teamed up with Pyramid Mountain Lumber Company to remove up to 60 percent of the standing 

trees in the 320-plus-acre area in the fall of 2008. The project successfully avoided sensitive cultural areas, saved a historical site, 

built several handicapped-accessible trails for recreational purposes, lessened the spread of the insect, promoted the diversification and growth of animal populations, including the snowshoe 

hare and the Canada lynx and utilized every part of the dead trees 

removed. 

From these 320 acres alone, trees were milled into building construction lumber, pulped into paper products, and even used as 

energy to fuel the kilns where green lumber is dried and cured. 

While this is just one success story, it is a success story. The view 

and perspective of what is happening and how it should be fixed 

looks very different to an out-of-state bureaucrat flying overhead at 

30,000 feet. When it comes to forest management, one-size-fits-all 

solutions can oftentimes cause more problems than they solve. 

We have boots on the ground. I only ask that we stay out of their 

way and let our forest managers do their job. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rehberg follows:] 

14 

Statement of The Honorable Denny Rehberg, the Representative in 

Congress for the State of Montana 

Thank you Chairwoman Napolitano, Chairman Grijalva and members of both subcommittees for allowing me to testify today on the Western Pine Beetle Infestation 

in our Western forests—the forests that many of the people I represent call home. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share with you what I have heard from Montanans 

and to explain our approach to healthy forest management. 

The forests in Montana are quite different from the forests out east, or even in 

Colorado. On the East Coast, massive deciduous trees turn a variety of different colors each fall as the leaves fall off to conserve energy. In Colorado, massive aspen 

tree groves change to gold each fall. Montana’s forests are primarily comprised of 

coniferous trees—or as we like to call them ‘‘evergreens’’. With evergreens, nature 

has a different strategy for surviving the winter—smaller leaves shaped like needles 

and sheathed in protective coatings require less energy during winter months. As 

a result, as the name implies, our forests remain green year-round. 

Or, they are supposed to. 

Lately, massive infestations of western pine beetles have left their mark on more 

than the trees. Like a teenager with a paintball gun in an art museum, splotches 

of rust orange and mucus yellow began to corrupt the tapestry of our majestic forests. It started small, a few trees peppered in a forest of millions, but eventually 

entire mountainsides turned yellow with the infestation. Visitors were forgiven for 

thinking that they were just seeing the annual lifecycle of a deciduous forest, but 

the locals knew that something was very wrong. 

The western pine beetle has infested millions of acres of forests throughout the 

West. Thanks to drought and burdensome litigation, our forests have been inadequately managed as our local government agencies and timber companies have not 

been allowed to work hand-in-hand to combat this destructive insect. As a result, 

our western forests are now more vulnerable than ever to massive forest fires that 

can engulf entire communities, undermine energy reliability by burning transmission lines, destroy historical, cultural and recreational sites and seriously compromise endangered species and water quality. While these losses alone are costly 

to taxpayers, they don’t include the vast amounts of money spent every year to combat forest fires that are fueled by pine beetle infested trees. I paint a picture of a 

vicious cycle where the victims are our once-prestigious green western forests and 

the American taxpayer. 

And the problem is quickly getting worse. 

With a lack of local healthy forest management, the western pine beetle has increased the mortality rate of mature trees in Montana National Forest lands twofold in just one year, from 734,500 acres in 2007 to 1.8 million acres in 2008. 

One area in particular, between Helena and Butte, has reported mortality levels 

3-4 times higher in 2008 as compared to 2007. Additionally, at higher elevations, 

significant beetle-caused mortality has been noted in white bark pine stands on our 

state park lands and in Yellowstone National Park. 

It’s no coincidence that as the acreage of infestation has risen, so have the costs 

of forest fire suppression. The Forest Service spent approximately $225 million in 

suppression funds in Montana over the last three fiscal years. The Bureau of Land 

Management has spent over $33 million in the last three years compared to $24 

million in the subsequent three year time period. These costs are only for fighting 

the forest fires themselves; they do not include loss of infrastructure, wildlife and 

fish, habitat for endangered species and dollars generated from tourism. 

Exhaustive research has been conducted over the years to determine the best 

methods for combating western pine beetle infestation. This research has proven 

time and again that the insect thrives in environments that are overcrowded, dense, 

and old growth—particularly during periods of drought. Under epidemic outbreak 

conditions, enough beetles can emerge from one infested tree and kill several trees 

the following year. 

The same research has also shown that the best way to combat the western pine 

beetle is through healthy forest management. As forest fires thrive in the same conditions as the insect, it is no surprise that we’ve seen a rise in fires in forests that 

have become victims of the western pine beetle. This relationship could be changed 

through healthy forest management such as creating forests with trees of various 

ages and sizes that are more resilient and less vulnerable to the western pine 

beetle. 

Healthy forest management is best done at the local level by the men and women 

who live in the forests and can read its signs. As an example of this, I want to tell 

you of a success story near the ghost town of Garnet, Montana. Located just east 

15 

of Missoula, the area surrounding this historic ghost town had become infested with 

the western pine beetle. 

In 2006, as other forest fires raged in nearby forest lands of western Montana, 

local Bureau of Land Management officials were convinced that unless they thinned 

the forest around Garnet, they would lose the ghost town to a forest fire. Then, the 

beetles showed up and infected twice as many trees as they had done in previous 

years. Consequently, the BLM quickly teamed with Pyramid Mountain Lumber 

Company to remove up to 60 percent of the standing trees in the 320-plus-acre area 

in the fall of 2008. 

The project successfully avoided sensitive cultural areas, saved a historical site, 

built several handicapped-accessible trails for recreational purposes, lessened the 

spread of the insect, promoted the diversification and growth of animal populations—including the snowshoe hare and the Canada lynx—and utilized every part 

of the dead trees removed. From these 320 acres alone, trees were milled into building construction lumber, pulped into paper products and even used as energy to fuel 

the kilns where green lumber is dried and cured. 

While this is just one success story on 320 acres in western Montana, our forests 

can be green once again, wild fires can be kept at bay, and every wood product from 

paper to energy can be produced—but only if our local professionals are allowed to 

thin the red and grey dying trees that have fallen victim to the western pine beetle. 

Through local healthy forest management, we can make substantial strides in a 

short amount of time. 

The view and perspective for what is happening and how it should be fixed looks 

very different to an out-of-state bureaucrat flying overhead at 30,000 feet. When it 

comes to forest management, one size fits all solutions can often times cause more 

problems than they solve. We’ve got boots on the ground, and in the forests of Montana ready to do what is necessary to restore our forests to a healthy, green state. 

I only ask that we stay out of their way and allow them to do their jobs. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Rehberg. Ms. Markey? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BETSY MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members for 

allowing me the opportunity to speak to your Subcommittee today. 

As you will hear from many members of the panel, the West is 

no stranger to bark beetle infestations. In the past, native bark 

beetles have served to renew forest ecosystems by weeding out 

older, mature trees to allow younger trees to regenerate. Unfortunately, warm winter temperatures, drought conditions, and uniform tree maturity have both stressed trees and created the perfect 

conditions for the current outbreak. 

While I will leave the etymology and ecology of park bark beetles 

to the experts on the next panel, I would like to stress to the Committee why this issue is important in my district. 

Until recently, the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains in 

Colorado has fared much better than the western slope in the bark 

beetle outbreaks. As my colleagues, Congressman Salazar and 

Polis, can attest, the western slope has seen a large swath of mature trees killed by the epidemic. 

The Forest Service expects this bark beetle outbreak will kill 

most of the mature lodgepole pines covering 2.2 million acres in 

Colorado and Southeastern Wyoming in the next five years. Some 

estimates indicate that almost two million acres have already been 

decimated. 

The epidemic can be seen by the characteristic reddish hues that 

the needles take on after about a year of infection. My district, on 

the eastern slope of the Rockies, is showing signs that the bark 

16 

beetles have made it over the ridge and are now spreading to the 

eastern slope and the Ponderosa pines in the front range. 

Infestation-prevention techniques in Colorado involve spraying 

individual trees, thinning highly susceptible areas, and monitoring 

individual healthy trees for infestation. These techniques are very 

labor intensive and do not guarantee the trees will survive. Therefore, it is important to focus on how to limit the damages brought 

on by the epidemic and study ways to reduce the intensity of outbreaks in the future. 

The Forest Service and Colorado State University are just two of 

the many entities studying the impact of bark beetle kill on wildfire risk. The Colorado Forest Restoration Institute at the Warner 

College of Natural Resources at Colorado State University works 

with other research institutions and private entities to apply fieldbased evidence to implement healthy forest-management practices. 

Catastrophic wildfires can also have detrimental effects on water 

quality and supply, as Mr. Wilkinson will testify in the next panel. 

Erosion and debris from wildfires can have long-lasting effects on 

water quality and incur great expenses to repair. 

The two biggest concerns in my district are the increased threat 

of wildfire due to the bark beetle-killed trees and the impact of the 

bark beetle infestation on watershed health and water quality. 

Colorado’s Fourth Congressional District covers part of Rocky 

Mountain National Park, extends east to Nebraska and Kansas 

borders, and runs as far south as the Oklahoma border. My district 

contains mountains, planes, grasslands, and some of the best agricultural land in Colorado. 

To ensure our forests and water are protected, it is imperative 

that we provide a stable source of funding for emergency wildfire 

suppression, such as provided in the FLAME Act. By creating a 

separate fund for unpredictable, emergency wildfire efforts, we can 

ensure annual funding for fire prevention and fuel reduction is not 

wiped out by sudden catastrophic wildfires. 

This bill also requires the development of wildfire management 

strategies by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of 

the Interior in addition to establishing wildfire grants to encourage 

individual communities to develop their own wildfire emergency 

plan. 

I would also like to stress how important it is for wildfire prevention plans to implement protections from hazards affecting water 

infrastructure and watershed health. These include plans to control 

debris and sediment accumulation, as well as thinning around potential critical access sites to ensure these control measures can be 

put in place as soon as possible. 

Federal programs like the Colorado Good Neighbor Authority 

and the pending FLAME Act are making strides in wildfire prevention and mitigation, but Congress can do more. 

The number one barrier to implementing wildfire prevention 

plans and beetle-kill-mitigation programs is funding. I, along with 

the rest of the delegation, sent a letter to Secretaries Salazar, 

Vilsack, and Chu and Chairwoman Napolitano urging these agencies to use recovery funds to address the bark-kill mitigation problem. 

17 

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not stress the importance of 

providing the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

with the resources they need to update the quarantined 37 regulations for the importation of plants into the U.S. While bark beetles 

are a native species to the West, our forests are prone to invasive 

species without these updated regulations. 

Thank you again for allowing me to speak to the Subcommittee, 

and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Markey follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Betsy Markey, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Colorado 

Chairman Grijalva and Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Members Bishop 

and McMorris Rodgers, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before 

your subcommittees today. I also want to thank you for holding this hearing on 

mountain pine beetles and highlighting what needs to be done to limit the hazards 

brought about by this epidemic. 

As you will hear from many members of the panels today, the west is no stranger 

to bark beetle infestations. In the past, native bark beetles have served to renew 

forest ecosystems by weeding out older mature trees to allow younger trees to regenerate. Unfortunately, warm winter temperatures, drought conditions and uniform 

tree maturity have both stressed trees and created the perfect conditions for the 

current outbreak. The range of various bark beetles species has been traditionally 

limited by climate, but warmer temperatures have contributed to the outbreaks 

spreading into new areas. 

While I will leave the entomology (en-toe-maul-o-gee) and ecology of bark beetles 

to the experts in the next panel, I would like to stress to the Committee why this 

issue is important to my district. Until recently, the Eastern Slope of the Rocky 

Mountains in Colorado has fared much better than the Western Slope in the bark 

beetle outbreaks. As my colleagues, Congressman Salazar and Polis can attest, the 

Western slope has seen large swaths of mature trees killed by the epidemic. The 

Forest Service expects this bark beetle outbreak will kill most of the mature 

Lodgepole pines covering 2.2 million acres in Colorado and southern Wyoming within the next 5 years. Some estimates indicate almost 2 million acres the have already 

been decimated. In 2007, the Forest Service detected bark activity in 4 million acres 

of lodgepole and ponderosa pine in the west. Many other states are being affected 

by beetle infestations. 

The epidemic can be seen by the characteristic reddish hue the needles take on 

after about a year of infection. My district on the Eastern slope of the Rockies is 

showing signs that bark beetles have made it over the ridge and are now spreading 

to the eastern slope and the ponderosa pines in the Front Range. 

Infestation prevention techniques in Colorado involve spraying individual trees, 

thinning highly susceptible areas, and monitoring individual healthy trees for infestation. These techniques are very labor intensive and do not guarantee the trees will 

survive. Therefore it is important to focus on how to limit the damages brought on 

by the epidemic and study ways to reduce the intensity of outbreaks in the future. 

The Forest Service and Colorado State University are just two of the many entities studying the impact of bark beetle kill on wildfire risk. The Colorado Forest 

Restoration Institute in the Warner College of Natural Resources at Colorado State 

University works with other research institutions and private entities to apply fieldbased evidence to implement healthy forest management practices. It is theorized 

that while canopy fire risks decreases as the dead needles drop to the ground, the 

threat of fire on the forest floor greatly increases due to the deadwood pile up on 

the surface. This deadwood can also contribute to increased nutrient loading in 

water supplies. Catastrophic wildfires can also have detrimental effects on water 

quality and supply as Mr. Wilkinson will testify in the next panel. Erosion and debris from wildfires can have long lasting effects on water quality and incur great 

expenses to repair. 

The two biggest concerns in my district are increased threat of wildfire due to the 

beetle-killed trees and the impact of the bark beetle infestation on watershed health 

and water quality. Colorado’s fourth Congressional District covers part of Rocky 

Mountain National Park, extends out east to the Nebraska and Kansas borders and 

runs as far south as the Oklahoma border. My district contains mountains, plains, 

grasslands, and some of the best agricultural land in Colorado. Weld County, in the 

4th CD, is the number one ranking county in the state for agricultural products sold 

18 

and eighth in the nation. The Eastern Plains of Colorado, including Weld County, 

depend on the water that flows from the Rocky Mountain forested areas. In the 

West, and especially in the dry state of Colorado, water is a resource more precious 

than gold. 

To ensure our forests and water are protected, it is imperative that we provide 

a stable source of funding for emergency wildfire suppression, such as provided in 

the FLAME Act. By creating a separate fund for unpredictable emergency wildfire 

efforts we can ensure annual funding for fire prevention and fuel reduction programs are not wiped out by sudden catastrophic wildfires. This bill also requires the 

development of wildfire management strategies by the Department of Agriculture 

and the Department of the Interior in addition to establishing wildfire grants to encourage individual communities to develop their own wildfire emergency plans. 

Being prepared for wildfire activity in advance will inherently reduce the risks of 

wildfire associated with the bark beetle kill. 

I would also like to stress how important it is for wildfire prevention plans to implement protections from hazards affecting water infrastructure and watershed 

health. These include plans to control debris and sediment accumulation as well as 

thinning around potential critical access sites to ensure these control measures can 

be put in place as soon as possible following wildfires. By putting in place infrastructure protections and response programs, we can ensure that should a wildfire 

take place, communities will be prepared to quickly mitigate the damage to our 

water supply. 

Federal programs like the Colorado Good Neighbor Authority and the pending 

FLAME Act are making strides in wildfire prevention and mitigation, but Congress 

can do more. The number one barrier to implementing wildfire prevention plans and 

beetle kill mitigation programs is funding. I along with the rest of the delegation 

sent a letter to Secretaries Salazar, Vilsack, Chu and Napolitano urging the agencies to use Recovery funds to address the bark beetle kill mitigation. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not to stress the importance of providing the 

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service with the resources they need to 

update the Quarantine 37 regulations for the importation of plants into the US. 

While bark beetles are a native species to the west, our forests are prone to invasive 

species without these updated regulations. Updating these regulations will ensure 

we are not unnecessarily exposing our forests to destructive invasive plants. 

Thank you again Chairman Grijalva and Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking 

Members Bishop and McMorris Rodgers for allowing me the opportunity to speak 

before the subcommittees this morning. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Next, we have The Honorable Walt Minnick. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WALT MINNICK, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Mr. MINNICK. Madame Chairman and colleagues, I was backpacking four summers ago with my fly rod and sleeping bag in 

Idaho’s spectacular Seven Devils Wilderness Area high above Hells 

Canyon, the deepest gorge in North America. These soaring peaks 

where snow lasts well into August are the home of the White Bark 

Pine, a gnarly, slow growing Evergreen which is my state’s highest 

and toughest native tree species. 

It was still summer, yet many of the Pine trees were yellow and 

dropping the needles. On closer examination, their trunks and 

limbs were riddled with tiny open holes, marks left by thousands 

of hatching bark beetles flying off to mate and lay their eggs on 

those neighboring trees still alive. In the four days I spent hiking 

over mountain passes from lake to lake stalking native Cutthroat 

Trout, I examined tree after tree and found that none were not 

dead or dying. 

At lower elevations the tree and bark species are slightly different but the results are the same: dead and dying forests. There 

are over 20 million acres of national forests in my state. They anVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
19 

chor a major part of Idaho’s tourism economy and supply raw material for lumber, construction and renewable energy. Millions of 

additional acres are in state and private ownership. Bark beetles 

are currently wrecking havoc on our healthy forests, damaging our 

state’s economy and increasing the risk and intensity of stand replacement wildfire. 

The cause of this epidemic is increasing drought and warmer 

winters, which in combination can cause a thousandfold increase in 

the intensity of bark beetle infestations. In recent years, climate 

change has brought longer, dryer summers which reduce a tree’s 

ability to drown bark beetle larvae, and less extreme winter cold 

temperatures, which kill bark beetle pupa. Bark beetles can now 

produce two generations in one summer and overwhelm entire forests instead of isolated trees. 

Whole mountainsides that used to be full of lush trees have 

turned brown and ready to burn. I worked in the forest products 

industry for over two decades and know that outside of protected 

roadless and wilderness areas, we need proactive forest management to restore our forests to a more healthy condition and reduce 

the threat to communities from raging wildfire. Restorative forestry, including thinning of mature and overgrown stands and replacement of forest monocultures with a variety of species and maturities, will help repel future beetle attacks. 

Healthier ecosystems can also provide economic and social benefits to both urban and rural communities, including better hunting, 

increased jobs in the woods, more logs for sawmills, forest residue 

for energy cogent plants, clean water and improved wildlife habitat. 

Earlier this year I introduced an amendment to H.R. 1404, the 

Flame Act, to help protect Idahoans and their communities from 

some of the dangers caused by the Bark Beetle. 

The bill, with my amendment, passed unanimously and directs 

new emergency funding to address land management costs posed 

by catastrophic wildfires, including those caused by beetle infestation. More aggressive forest management, together with the Flame 

Act, will help protected states like mine return to healthier and 

more productive forests. It is time for the Forest Service to act. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Minnick. We now have Honorable Jared Polis. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Minnick follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Walt Minnick, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Idaho 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues in speaking 

about the danger the Mountain Bark beetle poses to the health of our Western 

forests. 

I was backpacking four summers ago with my fly rod and sleeping bag in Idaho’s 

spectacular Seven Devils Wilderness high above Hells Canyon, the deepest gorge in 

North America. These soaring peaks, where snow lasts well into August, are the 

home to the Whitebark Pine, a gnarly, slow growing evergreen which is my state’s 

highest and toughest native tree species. It was still summer, yet many of the pine 

trees were yellow and dropping their needles. On closer examination, their trunks 

and limbs were riddled with tiny open holes—marks recently left by thousands of 

hatching bark beetles flying off to mate and lay their eggs on those neighboring 

trees still alive. In the 4 days I spent hiking over mountain passes from lake to lake 

stalking native cutthroat trout, I examined tree after tree—and found none that 

20 

were not dead or dying. At lower elevations the tree and bark beetle species are 

slightly different, but the results are the same. Dead and dying forests‘ 

There are over 20 million acres of national forest in my state. They anchor a 

major part of Idaho’s tourism economy and supply raw material for lumber, construction and renewable energy. Millions of additional acres are in state and private 

ownership. 

Bark beetles are currently wreaking havoc on our healthy forests, damaging our 

state’s economy, and increasing the risk and intensity of stand replacement wild 

fire. The epidemic threatens to impact Idaho’s vital watersheds, key wildlife habitats, destroy old-growth forests and impact popular recreation areas. National 

Forest Supervisors and private landowners are desperately seeking solutions to an 

increasingly serious situation. 

The cause of this epidemic is increasing drought and warmer winters which, in 

combination, can cause a thousand fold increase in the intensity of bark beetle infestations. In recent years climate change has brought longer drier summers, which 

reduce a tree’s ability to drown bark beetle larva and less extreme winter cold temperatures which kill bark beetle pupae. Bark beetles can now can produce two generations in one summer and overwhelm entire forests instead of isolated trees. 

Whole mountainsides that used to be full of lush trees have turned brown—and 

ready to burn. 

I worked in the forest products industry for over two decades and know that, outside of protected roadless and Wilderness areas, we need proactive forest management to restore our forests to a more healthy condition and reduce the threat to 

communities from raging wildfire. Restorative forestry, including thinning of mature 

and overgrown stands and replacement of forest monocultures with a variety of species and maturities, will help repel future beetle attacks. Healthier ecosystems also 

provide economic and social benefits to both urban and rural communities, including 

better hunting, increased jobs in the woods, more logs for sawmills, forest residue 

for green energy co-generation plants, clean water and improved wildlife habitat. 

Earlier this year, I introduced an amendment to H.R. 1404, the FLAME Act, to 

help protect Idahoans and their communities from some of the dangers caused by 

the bark beetle. The bill with my amendment passed unanimously and directs new 

emergency funding to address land management costs posed by catastrophic 

wildfires including those caused by beetle infestation. Passage of this amendment, 

together with the FLAME Act, will help forested states like mine return to healthier 

and more productive forests. 

It’s time to act. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED POLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano and Chairman 

Grijalva, as well as the Ranking Members, for holding this important hearing and giving me the opportunity to testify before your 

Subcommittee on an issue that is of enormous importance to the 

citizens of Colorado’s second congressional district, as well as those 

who visit our Alpine treasures. One of the primary needs in addressing this epidemic is increasing the awareness and understanding of how vast this problem is and what menu of options we 

have in mitigating its damage. 

This hearing will help to highlight the problems that we currently face and continue to bring more minds to the table and a 

better Federal partnership to join those who are working constantly to promote mitigation solutions and keep our communities 

and public lands safe. 

In my testimony today, I will highlight the sheer scope of this 

problem and why this outbreak demands the prompt attention of 

congressional leaders, the Administration, and our local and national land management officials, where we currently stand and 

what solutions currently exist, as well as what innovations are on 

21 

the horizon, and finally, the challenges we face in developing and 

implementing these solutions responsively and effectively. 

Colorado’s second congressional district relies on visitors who 

come to our state to ski, camp, climb, bike, boat and visit the incredible landscapes that define Colorado’s second congressional district. In Colorado, the tourism industry provides nearly $10 billion 

of in state spending annually. In addition to those who come to 

visit, those who call our district home are always outside enjoying 

the natural cornucopia of entertainment and adventure day in and 

day out, part of the fabric of our quality of life. 

However, the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic is fundamentally 

changing our landscape and with it, both our culture and our economy. We have seen outbreaks in the past, most recently in 1970s 

and early 1980s, but the combined forces of the current outbreaks 

make this epidemic the biggest in recorded history by far. For this 

reason, it demands our proactive attention. The current outbreaks 

are killing trees in large numbers, at faster rates and over longer 

periods of time than previous outbreaks. 

This outbreak has yet to get natural help that has stopped the 

past outbreaks from reaching the scale of devastation we see today. 

It was a severe cold period that was credited with stopping a rapidly growing outbreak in my district in Grand County, Colorado, in 

the 1980s. Today, temperature trends are pushing us in the opposite direction. In discussing the scope of this problem, the first and 

foremost concern is the safety of visitors and residents who live 

and play in the mountains that are being hardest hit. 

Fire is, of course, the danger that comes to mind. Research has 

suggested that large beetle outbreaks tend to happen on a 50 year 

cycle. Wildfires frequently follow 10 years to 15 years after, and 

there has been a strong correlation between catastrophic fire 

events and beetle kills 15 years later. This outbreak has been 

present in my district for just about 10 years now, and it is growing closer and closer to the time when evidence suggests a strong 

correlation between beetle kill and wildfire events. 

In addition to fire, this outbreak has significant safety repercussions from falling, dead and dying trees. Falling trees pose a hazard to power lines, trails, roads, campgrounds, rivers, ski lodges, 

infrastructure, as well as the patrons and workers who use them. 

Our economy also stands to suffer. The communities of Colorado’s 

second congressional district are blessed to have economies directly 

tied to our landscape and natural resources. 

As we move further into this summer, an ominous annual cycle 

dominates our mind, that of the growing wildfire danger. While 

there are mitigation efforts underway and programs and services 

are helping, our current resources are not enough. Trees do not cut 

down themselves. Broadly put, funding is one of the primary keys 

to quick mitigation. We are all aware that overwhelming firefighter 

costs have stifled our Federal land management budget. 

I hope that the Senate will act quickly to pass the Flame Act, 

following the House’s lead, and the excellent work of this Committee on passing that legislation. The Flame Act will have a drastic and immediate benefit for our communities and the effective 

and efficient use of our tax dollars. Our public land managers have 

project after project of fuel reduction efforts which have passed enVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
22 

vironmental assessment but are still waiting for funding to move 

forward. 

Reducing fuels in the wildland urban interface and around the 

critical infrastructure is critical to solving the safety concerns 

posed by the Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak. With budget shortfalls and the growing need for funding of hazardous tree removal, 

we are also looking at creative ways to decrease the cost of 

thinning responsibly bringing increased value to the wood products 

removed. Wood products, wood pellets, small scale energy products 

and other businesses can play a key role in mitigating the damage. 

Today you will hear from Mark Mathis, a wood pellet producer 

in my district, who will talk about the need to help local businesses 

to reduce the outbreak’s impact. I was also able to recently attend 

a blue stain showroom opening. We think that blue stain is a better name than Pine Beetle kill to market the wood. The Mountain 

Pine Beetle leaves a fungus that stains the dead trees blue without 

compromising the integrity of the wood that can be reduced by 

these trees. 

I recently purchased a coffee table that is a blue stained coffee 

table. The blue stain products and industry and small scale renewable energy are only a couple of examples of community businesses 

that can play a central role in creating private incentives to reduce 

fuels and remove hazardous trees in high risk areas. As Congress 

debates and moves closer to passing a wide sweeping overhaul of 

our nation’s energy policy, new resources of energy—thank you, 

Madam Chair. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That is quite a response. You may wrap it up. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I was just going to refer to a woody biomass within a renewable energy standard has additional potential 

to provide incentives for taking the trees, and there are efforts to 

work on the upcoming energy bill to include those elements. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Polis follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Jared Polis, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Colorado 

Chairman Grijalva and Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Members Bishop 

and McMorris Rodgers, 

Thank you very much for holding this hearing, and particularly the opportunity 

to testify before your subcommittee on an issue that is of chief importance to the 

citizens of Colorado’s second district and those who visit its alpine treasures. The 

mountain pine beetle outbreak that is currently expanding throughout the Rocky 

Mountains, and particularly the Lodgepole pine ecosystems of my district, and 

Whitebark pine of the Northern Rockies, is a critically important topic. One of the 

primary needs in addressing this epidemic is increasing the awareness and understanding of how vast this problem is, and what menu of options we have in mitigating its damage. This hearing will help to highlight the problems that we currently face, and continue to bring more minds to the table, joining those of us who 

are working constantly to promote mitigation solutions and keep our communities 

and public land’s patrons safe. 

In my testimony today I hope to highlight: 1) The scope of this problem and why 

this outbreak demands the prompt attention of congressional leaders, the administration and our local and national lands management officials. 2) Where we currently stand, what solutions exist and what innovations are on the horizon that will 

mitigate the damages of this outbreak responsibly and effectively 3) The challenges 

we face in developing and implementing those solutions responsibly and effectively. 

23 

How big of a problem is this? 

Colorado’s Second District relies heavily on those visitors who come to our state 

to ski, camp, climb, bike and boat the incredible landscapes that define Colorado’s 

Second Congressional District. In Colorado, the tourism industry provides nearly 

$10 billion dollars of in state spending annually. In addition to those who come to 

visit, those who call the second district home are outside enjoying this natural cornucopia of entertainment and adventure day in and day out. My district is home 

to world class ski areas, dozens of fourteen thousand foot peaks, and countless 

trails, campgrounds and rivers that define our economy and culture as much as they 

define our landscapes. However, the mountain pine beetle epidemic is fundamentally changing this landscape, and with it our culture and economy. 

In the last ten years, more than 150 million acres of trees, from New Mexico to 

British Columbia, have died as a result of beetle infestation. While my district is 

most heavily affected by the mountain pine beetle in its Lodgepole pine forests, 

other states are seeing similar outbreaks involving other species of trees and 

beetles. 

We have seen outbreaks in the past, most recently in the late 1970’s and early 

80’s, but the combined force of the current outbreaks make this epidemic the biggest 

in recorded history and for this reason it demands our proactive attention. The current outbreaks are killing trees in larger numbers, at faster rates, and over longer 

time periods; they are happening in numerous ecosystems across the western U.S. 

and are occurring at the same time. 

The scope of this outbreak demands our attention because it has yet to get the 

natural help that has stopped past outbreaks from reaching the scale of devastation 

we see today. Beetles are a temperature dependant being, limited by colder temperatures and colder climates. It was a severe cold period that was credited with 

stopping a rapidly growing outbreak in my district in Grand County, Colorado in 

the 1980’s. Today, temperature trends and drought conditions are pushing us in the 

opposite direction. 

The beetle’s life cycles are also greatly determined by temperature. Generally, 

species that live in colder climates have a two year life cycle, but we’re starting to 

see the beetles at higher elevations reproducing more like beetles in warmer and 

lower elevations, once every year to even twice a year, greatly expanding the speed 

with which this outbreak spreads. Regionally, the mountain pine beetle hasn’t been 

found in British Columbia, the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. Now, British 

Columbia is one of the areas hit hardest by the current epidemic. 

In discussing the scope of this problem, the first and foremost concern is the safety of the visitors and residents who live and play in the mountains that are being 

hit hardest. Fire is, of course, the danger that comes to mind first. Research is still 

being conducted on the direct influence between beetle kill and wildfires, and I 

know I speak for everyone here when I say that I hope the links are minimal. I 

say this because if beetle-killed forests are at greater risk of burning, or fuel more 

intense fires, then many communities in my district are getting closer to catastrophe 

every year. 

Some research has suggested that larger beetle outbreaks tend to happen on a 

50 year cycle, while large wildfire events don’t necessarily follow those same trends. 

However, additional research has suggested that 5 to 10 years after a beetle outbreak there is little correlation between wildfires and beetle kill, while 15 years out 

the correlation is much stronger. This outbreak has been present in my district for 

over ten years and is growing closer and closer to the time when evidence suggests 

a stronger correlation between beetle kill and wildfire events. Our communities, 

homeowners, ski areas, towns and businesses know all too well the personal effects 

of major wildfire events, but the sheer scale of dead and dying timber in our surrounding forests speaks to a greater catastrophic potential, and that is truly worrying. 

In addition to fire, this outbreak has significant safety repercussions from falling 

dead and dying trees. Mountain pine beetles attack larger trees more often, as these 

trees serve as better hosts for the beetle’s larvae. When these trees die, the root systems die as well, and the trees and soil around them become less stable leading to 

larger falling trees. These falling trees pose significant hazards to trails, roads, 

campgrounds, rivers, ski lodges, vital infrastructure, and the patrons and workers 

who use them. 

Our economies also stand to suffer. The communities of Colorado’s second district 

are blessed to have economies directly tied to our landscapes and natural resources. 

However, for the many communities who share this trait throughout the region, the 

mountain pine beetle epidemic poses a threat of disastrous proportions. The visitors 

that come to Colorado for recreation and tourism drive our economies and sustain 

our communities. The damage to our tourism industry through threat of fire, damVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
24 

age to infrastructure from falling trees or the damage to our landscape’s beauty, 

give rise to severe concerns about our community’s economic and cultural future. 

Where are we now and what’s on the horizon? 

As I’m giving this testimony, Colorado’s mountains are drying out from a muddy 

spring, with snow melting, runoff filling our rivers and creeks and wildflowers dominating the high alpine meadows. However, as our mountains and forests move further into the summer, a more ominous annual cycle dominates our minds...that of 

the growing wildfire danger. Now more than ever, the pine beetle epidemic has concerns running high about a wildfire season of catastrophic possibilities. Our communities are not as prepared as they could be, and they need federal help to ensure 

the highest level of safety is achieved. 

While there are mitigation efforts underway and programs and services helping 

a great deal on the ground...broadly put, funding, funding, funding is one of the primary keys to quick mitigation. 

We are all aware that overwhelming firefighting costs have stifled our federal 

lands management budget. I hope that the Senate will act quickly to pass the 

FLAME Act, following the House’s lead, and the excellent work of this committee 

in passing that legislation. The FLAME Act will have drastic and immediate benefits for our communities and the effective and efficient use of our tax dollars. 

When it comes to spending the limited mitigation money we do have, the 

Wildland Urban Interface and areas around critical infrastructure, where civilization and wildlands come face to face, are the areas where expended funding should 

be focused to ensure the most effective, efficient and responsible use of our tax dollars. Thinning projects done in the Wildland Urban Interface (or woo-ee) and around 

critical infrastructure, creates fire breaks between less accessible wildlands and the 

population centers and infrastructure that we hope to protect when a fire occurs. 

Additionally, it allows fires away from civilization to run their course naturally, benefiting those ecosystems, without concern of a fire quickly spreading to threaten 

homes or communities. By maintaining a healthy WUI, we can cut firefighting costs, 

better protect our communities, and give our agencies the freedom to focus on a mission of lands management and stewardship, instead of constant attention to local 

and residential firefighting. 

Our public lands managers have project after project of fuel reduction efforts, 

which have passed environmental assessment but are still waiting on funding to 

move forward. Reducing fuels in the Wildland Urban Interface is absolutely critical 

to solving the safety concerns posed by the mountain pine beetle outbreak quickly 

and efficiently. Funding these waiting projects will have a significant and immediate impact on reducing our wildfire risks, reducing the costs of wildfire suppression activities...it is truly the low hanging fruit in addressing the mountain pine 

beetle problem. 

With budget shortfalls, and the growing need for funding of hazardous tree removal and fuel reduction efforts, we are looking at other creative ways to decrease 

the costs of thinning responsibly, bringing increased value to the wood we need removed. When weighing policy approaches and concepts new and old, we must ensure that in creating value and new markets for this wood, we don’t create too great 

an incentive to where the harvesting of this resource becomes unsustainable in its 

own right. 

Whether including woody biomass in the definition of Renewable Energy and thus 

allowing for incentives under a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS or RES), 

or through the growing prevalence of ‘‘bluestain’’ wood products as a decorative 

building material...creating new market demand for the dead and dying trees provides hope to the communities who want to see fuel reduction efforts moving forward. 

Wood products, wood pellets, small scale energy projects and other local businesses can play a key role in mitigating the damage and lessening the danger from 

this outbreak’s effects. Today you will hear from Mark Mathis, a wood pellet producer in my district on this subject who can speak to the help that local businesses 

can provide in reducing this outbreak’s impacts. By adding value to beetle kill, we 

create a new demand for this wood and decrease the cost to our federal land management agencies to remove these fuels from our federal lands. 

I was recently able to attend a bluestain showroom grand opening, where more 

and more individuals are leaning about the bluestain wood products industry, buying bluestain products and bringing value to the trees that we need to have removed. The mountain pine beetle leaves in its wake a fungus that stains the dead 

trees blue without compromising the integrity of the wood that can be produced 

from these dead trees. The Bluestain products industry and small scale renewable 

energy development are only a couple examples of community businesses that 

25 

should play a central role in creating private incentives to reduce fuels and remove 

hazardous trees high risk areas. 

The Challenges We Still Face 

I’ve discussed several of the options and needs that we know of with regard to 

the mountain pine beetle epidemic in the West. However, there are a multitude of 

unanswered questions, challenges, and bridges that we still must cross. 

While funding will go a long way to lessening the risk immediately, we face the 

need for additional and expanded programs that assist fuels reduction efforts on 

state and private lands. Nearly 70% of the Wildland Urban Interface exists on private lands, and private property owners must have the knowledge and incentives 

to maintain a healthy WUI for the benefit of public safety. Programs like the State 

and Private Forestry program, good neighbor authority, and the community fire 

planning provisions of the FLAME Act, along with the ability for local community 

companies to carry out this work are excellent examples of what we need to be promoting. 

However, much is left to be done as the public safety is put at risk and more and 

more federal dollars are spent fighting fires or repairing damage that could have 

been lessened or avoided all together. Whether on public or private land, we need 

to promote safety and responsibility first and foremost. 

We also want to ensure that the measures we do take to mitigate the effects of 

this problem don’t create other or longer lasting problems. Specifically, we need to 

maintain a focus on environmental responsibility, particularly when discussing 

thinning outside the WUI and / or creating a new form of value and increased demand for the dead and dying timber that is produced. 

As Congress debates and moves closer to passing a wide sweeping overhaul of our 

nation’s energy policy, new sources of energy will become greatly valued and heavily 

sought after. A properly crafted, specific and responsible definition for woody biomass within a Renewable Energy Standard has a significant and positive role to 

play in helping fund wildfire mitigation projects, and relieve the backlog of projects 

that the Forest Service is waiting to have funded. This definition can also mean that 

we see an expansion of cleaner and less carbon intensive energy sources, like wood 

pellet heating, that will help combat one of the primary causes of the beetle epidemic: climate change. 

However, it is essential that this definition and the resulting technology and markets are constructed with sustainability as a first priority. Any industry, technology 

or practice we support must use resources in a manner that will conserve those resources for future generations and will create careers that can sustain communities, 

not short term jobs that will disappear along with our resources. 

Closing Statements 

The current beetle outbreak in the west is reaching a scale of epic and catastrophic proportions; it is truly a perfect storm of forest age and health, climate 

change and drought paired with combined regional outbreaks spreading rapidly 

throughout the Rocky Mountains. The residents, visitors, communities and economies of my district in Colorado are facing new questions and a more uncertain future because of this epidemic. To address it we will need to employ new policies, 

provide better funding practices and be sure that as we’re addressing this problem 

we don’t create new problems or systems that can’t sustain themselves in the long 

term. 

This outbreak will leave a lasting scar on the land for years, but I am confident 

that the forests will rebound and regenerate. It is our responsibility to be knowledgeable and conscientious of our natural world, ensuring that our wild areas can 

undergo their process of healing, and ensuring that our communities and visitors 

aren’t put in harm’s way during that process. 

Thank you again to the members of this subcommittee, and to Chairman Rahall, 

Congressman Grijalva, Congresswoman Napolitano, Congressman Bishop and Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers for giving your committee’s time to the challenges 

that my constituents face on a daily basis. I also thank you for the opportunity to 

testify in front of your committee and the opportunity to participate in this hearing. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your testimony. All of the 

panel, you are very passionate about the issues in your district and 

I am very glad that you are joining together. I hope that of this 

we will continue to not only work on this issue, but look at the solutions to the problem. May I ask that you turn over your testiVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
26 

mony since it wasn’t submitted for the record, if you would not 

mind? Members, do you have questions of the panel? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. Quick question. Maybe 

we can start with Mr. Polis and work our way down the panel. Do 

you believe that biomass is renewable, and why isn’t biomass considered renewable in the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill in your 

opinion? 

Mr. POLIS. Well, we are working for a properly crafted and specific definition for woody biomass within a renewable energy standard and that can have a significant and positive role to play in 

helping fund wildfire mitigation projects in this case, as well as potentially other cases, and also help relieve the backlog of projects 

that the Forest Service is waiting to have funding. 

By getting the definition right it can also mean that we can have 

an expansion of cleaner and less carbon intensive energy sources, 

like wood pellet heating, that will also help combat one of the primary causes of the Pine Beetle epidemic, global climate change. 

Mr. MINNICK. The short answer, Congressman Chaffetz, is when 

we get through with it, it will be. I have been encouraged. I have 

been working with some members of your panel, Congresswoman 

Herseth Sandlin and others of us from the northwest, to get that 

modification made in the bill, and committee staff and the Congressmen have been quite forthcoming, so I am encouraged that by 

the time the bill is passed we will have that corrected. 

Ms. MARKEY. I will echo that as well. As a member of the Committee on Agriculture, we have been discussing this quite a bit and 

making sure that woody biomass is included in renewable standard 

definition. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I could agree with all my colleagues here. I know 

that we have been working on it, I know that Stephanie Herseth 

Sandlin has been working on it in the Ag Committee for several 

years. If you look at northwestern Colorado and you see all the 

dead trees, can you imagine what an incredible resource that would 

be? There are some pellet mills that are going up, there is one pellet mill that is actually working with trying to create an ethanol 

production facility so that we can use that wood twice, to make ethanol, and then the residue then becomes pellets. 

I just want to thank the Chairwoman for flying over the areas 

in Colorado that she saw the devastation that is happening there. 

Woody biomass, I think, should be within the climate change bill. 

Mr. REHBERG. It is renewable. Cap in tax is not the solution. An 

all of the above energy policy is the solution. However, if we don’t 

address the litigation, it doesn’t matter how much legislation or 

how much language you include in any comprehensive energy policy, litigation is going to keep you from having access. We can give 

you example after example in Montana where we have cogeneration facilities attached to schools, hospitals and nursing homes that 

cannot get access to put their public lands because of excessive litigation. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Appreciate it. Yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Wonderful. Thank you. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Madam Chair, move to strike the last word. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So moved. 

27 

Ms. DEGETTE. Madam Chair, as a member of the Energy and 

Commerce Committee let me take a stab at Congressman 

Chaffetz’s question. In fact, in the current draft of the WaxmanMarkey Climate Change Bill woody biomass is included in the renewable electricity standard. However, as I noted in my opening remarks, there are some definitional issues with the way it is defined 

in there. Mr. Walden and I are trying to expand this standard so 

that we can get these downed trees out of the forests. 

In the current draft of the bill, it talks about old growth forests 

or established forests and that is the problem that we have in a 

lot of these forests in the West—in Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, and 

other states. Some of this downed wood from pine beetle kill that 

is in our national forests and our other public lands may not be included. So we are trying to work on language before that bill gets 

to the Floor. 

I am working with every single one of my colleagues here, plus 

Mr. Inslee, Ms. Herseth Sandlin and others, to make sure that we 

get a definition of woody biomass that is going to give incentives 

so that we can get these downed trees out of these forests. Thank 

you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Ms. DeGette. Mr. McClintock? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Question I 

would have is how important is tree thinning to combating the 

Pine Beetle infestation? Yes, Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Let me just answer by could you put that photograph up, my number seven, the hand? That is the one. That is it. 

I was accused by Mr. Rehberg, he thought that maybe aliens did 

this. This is a primary example of how managed versus unmanaged 

areas. The trees in the darker green areas had been thinned and 

there is no devastation, there are no dead trees. The brown areas 

are the ones that have not been managed. So we do have to give 

our Federal agencies the authority and the ability to be able to 

manage our forests better. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, they certainly have the responsibility to 

manage the forests. What is keeping them from doing so? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Well, as Mr. Rehberg stated prior to this, it is lawsuit after lawsuit and then it is very difficult. 

Mr. REHBERG. Tree thinning is very important but is just one aspect. If you are going to holistically manage your forests you need 

to have a grazing policy because undergrazing grass kills it as dead 

as overgrazing it. Underthinning kills it every bit as much as overlogging it. Fire can be used as a tool. I don’t know why we are 

afraid of using the word logging because logging is nothing more 

than a tool to help us manage the forests the way we want it to 

look, and the interesting thing is we use their labor, their capital, 

their equipment, we tell them what tree to take, when to take it 

and how to take it. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, this seems to be a recurring theme before this Committee: litigation stopping vitally needed forest management practices. The absence of those forest management practices are killing our forests. I can’t imagine anything more devastating to a forest, environmentally devastating to a forest, than 

a forest fire. 

28 

The pictures that you have presented of beetle-killed trees paints 

another environmentally devastating picture. According to the testimony here and testimony we have had before other committees 

on other aspects of this, it is litigation from environmental groups 

that is impeding the Forest Service from doing its job. What do we 

do about that, Mr. Salazar? 

Mr. SALAZAR. All I can tell you is that the findings of what—I 

mean, that is what this hearing is all about, and I think we need 

to present these to our agencies, the Department of the Interior, 

USDA, and try to figure out what we do. We have a judicial system. We are just the Legislative Branch. We are working together, 

in fact, with some of the Members from western states, to try to 

put together and craft a bipartisan bill that will address this issue. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I don’t recall the exact figures but we had received testimony in another hearing that the commercial value of 

thinning these forests is rather substantial. We own that timber. 

We actually sell it to the timber companies. They buy it from us 

and pay quite a bit for it. On top of that, I assume that the beetlekilled timber also has considerable commercial value and that if we 

could sell it immediately that it would produce additional revenues 

which we could then use to better manage our forests. Why aren’t 

we? 

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. McClintock, maybe I can put it into perspective. You have used the word immediately and therein lies the difficulty. If we don’t get in and get it before there is a period of time 

where it is destroyed and cannot be commercially viable, then the 

agency has to make the decision whether it is worth it or not. I 

might go back to the year 2001. There were fires in 2000. 

Dale Bosworth was the head of the Forest Service. He had to 

make a determination after a Court case said that he could in fact 

go in, but he had to appeal a part of it. He had to make the decision to settle the lawsuit rather than carry it forward because time 

is of the essence. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And they don’t even need to win the lawsuit. 

All they need to do is delay it substantially—— 

Mr. REHBERG. That is correct. He would have probably won the 

lawsuit. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We are watching the same tactics in my area, 

and again, a recurrent theme. The litigation is a creature of this 

Congress. Perhaps we ought to reign it in. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Inslee? 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I just want to express the hope that 

when we get in the next few weeks dealing with a way to really 

solve this problem that all my colleagues will help to really solve 

the problem because there is not enough thinning money, or treatment money, or tea to spread in the globe to solve this problem 

once we get a hand on climate change. 

Does everybody on the panel agree? Does anybody disagree with 

that? Anybody disagree that climate change caused by humans putting CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the factors for the problem 

we are suffering here? Does anybody disagree with that? Guess everybody agrees with it. Mr. Rehberg, are you going to support a cap 

on carbon dioxide emissions so we can save our forests? 

29 

Mr. REHBERG. The Devil is always in the details, Mr. Inslee. 

What is your definition of human impact on global warming? If you 

are going to suggest that the forests are turning the colors that 

they are because of CO2 emissions, I guess I have a problem with 

that premise. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, that is what I thought I was asking you. Do 

you disagree that one of the reasons that our forests have such—— 

Mr. REHBERG. You phrased your question in such a way as you 

asked if I thought there was a human element of CO2 and whether 

it had an impact on our temperature. I cannot either agree or disagree, but if it is the factor that has created the problem that we 

are discussing today, I would suggest not. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, the reason I asked you that is when I listened 

to your testimony, it was like the environmentalists are killing the 

forests. I just want to ask you, do you agree with the proposition 

that humans’ contribution of CO2 loads in the atmosphere are one 

of the factors that are causing climate change that are causing one 

of the factors in the devastation of the forests that we are talking 

about here? Do you agree with that? 

Mr. REHBERG. Why don’t we go back to your initial statement, 

do I think environmentalists are killing our forests? I think they 

are loving it to death. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, let me just ask you a question. Do you think 

that human-caused CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are one 

of the reasons these forests are in such terrible shape? 

Mr. REHBERG. I would suggest the forests are in such terrible 

shape because of the lack of management on the part of the 

humans that are in the agencies that are not given the ability to 

use their brains to in fact manage it the way it needs to be managed, whether it is selective logging, whether it is grazing management, whether it is prescribed burns. The continuation of the extreme environmental community in the tying up in litigation—and 

you cannot deny that excessive litigation has in fact kept us from 

actively managing our forests the way they deserve to be managed. 

Mr. INSLEE. What I want to know is—and you can take a stab 

at a ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No’’ answer because I think this is an important 

issue in our ability to fashion some bipartisan response to what is 

really killing our forests. Environmentalists aren’t there planting 

bark beetles in the forests. This problem is caused by climate 

change where the winters are not cold enough to kill the beetles 

and causing the drought which is making the trees less healthy 

and more susceptible to beetle infestations, and until we get a cap 

on carbon dioxide, this problem is going to worsen. 

Mr. REHBERG. I would suggest—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Let me finish my question. Just let me finish my 

question. Do you agree that we ought to limit carbon dioxide emissions so that we can hopefully reduce the climate change that is 

making these forests susceptible to beetle kills? 

Mr. REHBERG. I don’t think anybody is going to disagree that to 

the extent possible we, as humans, should eliminate as much pollution as we possibly can, whether it is our air, our water, our ground 

and such. Nobody is going to deny that. If you are asking whether 

I think that our forests are mismanaged, I do believe that to be the 

30 

case. Nobody asks for cancer, and yet, nobody stands in the way 

of a doctor trying to go in and take that cancer out. 

When you talk about the cancer of a forest, there are people that 

are litigating their way through the Court system keeping us from 

going in, cleaning out the dead and dying trees and trying to eliminate the beetle infested trees. That is what the hearing is about 

today. 

Mr. INSLEE. So would you support some cap on carbon dioxide to 

try to reduce the threat that these forests are having? 

Mr. REHBERG. Once again, I am doing everything I possibly can 

on the Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, as one of the 

members of that Committee, to fund through the Department of 

Energy everything we possibly can with sequestration, with biomass. We want a comprehensive energy policy. 

I think this Congress ought to spend its time on getting something that clearly understands nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, oil, 

gas, coal, conservation and grants the loans to help us invent our 

way into the next generation rather than spending as much time 

on a cap and tax policy that frankly isn’t bipartisan because a lot 

of us have not been invited to the table. 

Mr. INSLEE. So that was sort of a no. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Inslee, thank you. Ms. Lummis? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My questions are 

primarily for Mr. Rehberg and Mr. Salazar. Has this Congress, to 

your knowledge, ever invoked sovereign immunity for a specific 

purpose, for a specific period of time, to suspend the ability to sue 

the United States in order to resolve a specific issue? 

The purpose of my question, of course, being I would like to see 

us explore the idea of invoking sovereign immunity, preventing the 

United States from being susceptible to lawsuits for the purposes 

of saving our forests for a period of time in a certain geographic 

area with regard to bark beetle. Your response, your thoughts, 

please. 

Mr. REHBERG. I cannot answer whether that has occurred in any 

other area—natural resources or others. I am not proposing, nor 

would I ever suggest, limiting access to the Courts. Everybody has 

an opportunity to avail themselves through the Court system when 

they feel they have been wronged. That is just part of our system. 

What we have attempted to do, both on this Committee when I 

served on the Committee and other committees, is try and provide 

some kind of reasonableness or common sense, whether it is a bond 

to suggest that you have to have a dog in the fight, a financial interest, it can’t just use a stamp and an envelope to stop something 

that in fact does do damage to our environment, and so it would 

be a limited access, but not an elimination of access, to our Court 

system. I would suggest it would probably not be possible, and I 

am not sure I would support an entire elimination of the judiciary 

in this process. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Your thoughts, Mr. Salazar? 

Mr. SALAZAR. Well, I tend to agree with Mr. Rehberg. I know 

that we do have a major problem. We have to address it. I tend 

to also agree with Mr. Inslee. I know all of us have some kind of 

impact on what is happening through climate change. However, I 

can’t say that that is the entire reason for this happening. I mean, 

31 

when Mr. Polis gave his testimony he talked about this cycle happening like every 50 years or so when we have droughts. 

We suffered a major drought in Colorado and across the western 

United States in 2000, 2001, a massive drought, and that is what 

made these trees more vulnerable, but we do have a problem. I 

wouldn’t support stopping anyone from using our legal system to 

protect our forests, but at the same time, we need to have some 

kind of a common sense attitude and figure out what resources we 

can give our departments to handle this. 

The question before was asked, I can’t remember by which Member, can we address this issue? I mean, it is such a massive issue 

right now. We can’t just go and clearcut all this wood, take it out. 

I think it would be devastating to our watershed. We have to figure 

out some way to manage it and look forward into the future, and, 

looking at these photographs, how we manage our forests in the future. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chair, Mr. Polis wanted to answer that 

question. 

Mr. POLIS. May I just address something you said in the latter 

part of the question? You put these out as a way of saving the forest. I just wanted to make a point that in large parts of my district 

in Colorado it is no longer a discussion of saving the forest. Our 

forest has died off. Nearly every Lodgepole Pine is dead. It is an 

issue of dealing with the mitigation, reducing the forest fire impact. 

Several of the questions have dealt or people have been thinking 

about how perhaps to do better forest management and prevent 

this type of crisis from happening again, but I would just like to 

remind the Committee that the sheer magnitude of where we are 

today and the urgent need to deal with that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much for that statement. Now 

we have Ms. Herseth Sandlin. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to 

thank you and Chairman Grijalva for having today’s hearing. Unfortunately, I am very familiar with this problem as well. Black 

Hills National Forest in western South Dakota and parts of 

Wyoming has about a million and a half acres. 340,000 of those 

acres have been infested with Mountain Pine Beetles contributing 

to the wildfire risk because much of the Black Hills National 

Forest is typical of wildland urban interface. 

It is the most heavily roaded forests in the country. Since 2000, 

the wildfires have burned 180,000 acres of land. In the Black Hills, 

going to Mr. McClintock’s point and others that the panelists have 

addressed, thinning has been a key tool. We have been able to use 

it maybe a little bit more effectively in the Black Hills because of 

how well our regional advisory board has worked to reduce some 

of the litigation that we have seen previously in the 1990s and the 

first part of this decade. 

It is a key tool, as I think we all agree, to keep the problems in 

check, to deal with mitigation, as well as trying to preserve the forests that can be preserved. As Mr. Inslee stated, the funding for 

thinning and for commercial timber sales hasn’t met the demand 

for the treatments. Now, the partnership that we have between the 

32 

timber industry, because we still have one in South Dakota, and 

the Forest Service has been invaluable to address this problem. 

We need to do more and find the strategies, which is the purpose 

of today’s hearing, to address some of the other problems that have 

come out of my colleagues’ testimony. I do want to point out, 

though, and I respect where Mr. Inslee is coming from, but the line 

of questioning I felt with Mr. Rehberg assumes that climate change 

alone is the only factor contributing to this problem. There are several other contributing factors. Mr. Salazar and Mr. Polis both said 

different cycles who have experienced drought. Those of us in the 

Great Plains have experienced these droughts before. 

We just got out of one in South Dakota. I don’t think that we are 

climate change deniers, but we simply have to look at the other factors, whether it is the fact that with declining timber sales with a 

declining harvest, particularly when you look at the rate of growth 

in the forest and what is being taken out, that is contributing to 

unhealthy forests. You have more trees and overgrown stands that 

are competing for water resources that are scarce, that are then 

contributing to the hazardous fuel situation and making them more 

susceptible to the beetle infestation. 

So I hope that as we move forward, whether it is the next week 

to 10 days or the next many weeks to months as it relates to an 

energy policy and a climate policy, that we do come to some conclusion on the woody biomass issue because I think that that is a key 

mitigation issue. Going to Mr. Polis’ point, as well as a key to rural 

economies that can contribute to the solution of renewable 

energy—whether it is electricity and cogeneration or fuels and cellulosic ethanol—to meet our energy independence goals, as well as 

through thinning and using wood biomass and making our forests—those that can be saved—better carbon sinks to help address 

the issue that ag and forestry lands can be utilized to help reduce 

the carbon in the atmosphere while we develop and deploy new 

technologies to help sequester carbon more effectively. 

So I guess the only question I would have for the panel—given 

the relative success I think we have had in South Dakota with the 

regional advisory committee—have any of you had experience with 

those regional advisory boards? Is that one way, in addition to 

some of the others that have been suggested, that we can work 

through this issue in a more local and forest-specific manner to reduce litigation? Mr. Minnick, you have a response I presume? 

Mr. MINNICK. From Ms. Sandlin on her side, I think that is the 

key, and we are currently doing that in my district. In fact, I am 

starting one in North Idaho in the Panhandle Forrest. We are also 

doing it in the Clearwater Forrest. 

It is the key to bring the interest groups together. We all have 

an interest in healthy forests. We all love our forests, regardless of 

our party or ideology; and if we can get people to sit down together 

and agree on a forest plan, that makes a lot of sense. 

I would add, though, a couple of things to what you suggested, 

based on my 20 years in the forest products industry. It is not just 

thinning. Beetles attack weak trees, unhealthy trees. So the key is 

to have a healthy forest. That involves not just thinning. But it 

also involves getting to a variety of species. Monocultures tend to 

be weaker and more susceptible to beetles and other pests. 

33 

So if you can get a variety of species, if you can get a variety of 

ages, uniform age forests are also weaker and more susceptible, 

and then have proper thinning—all of that in combination, which 

modern forestry has learned a lot about, delivered through a collaborative process, with adequate funding, is the way, I think, we 

can collectively move forward. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you; your time is expired. With that, 

I believe everybody has spoken to the issue. I do ask unanimous 

consent that Congressman Gallegly’s testimony be allowed to be 

entered into the record; and without objection, so ordered. 

I would also ask unanimous consent that the Members who have 

testified before us today be allowed to sit on the dias and participate in the Subcommittee’s proceedings today; and without objection, so ordered. Any of you are welcome to please sit with us for 

the rest of the three other panels; thank you very much. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So we will move on to our second panel; thank 

you very much. You are now dismissed, and we appreciate your 

being with us for about an hour and 15 minutes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. While they are leaving, I would like to suggest 

that President Obama has appointed a number of czar-type positions. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, before you do, can we get the other panels to start coming up, so we do not lose time then. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And I would encourage President Obama to make 

Representative Minnick the Forest Czar, to address bark beetle 

issues. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your comments, Mrs. Lummis. 

We now will hear from Barbara Bentz, Research Entomologist for 

the Rocky Mountain Research Station and the Bureau of Forestry 

in the Department of Agriculture in Ft. Collins, Colorado; Mr. Rick 

Cables, Regional Forester for the Rocky Mountain Region, Bureau 

of Forestry, Department of Agriculture from Golden, Colorado; Dr. 

Herbert Frost, Associate Director for the National Resources Stewardship and Science from the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Ronald Turley, 

Special Programs Manager for the Western Area Power Administration from the Department of Energy in Montrose, Colorado— 

welcome panel, and we will begin with testimony from Dr. Barbara 

Bentz; yes, Dr. Bentz? 

Mr. CABLES. If I may, Madam Chair—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right; both of you have a joint statement, certainly. You have nine minutes. 

Mr. CABLES. Thank you; and thank you, Madam Chairwoman 

and Chairman Grijalva and Members of the Committee. My name 

is Rick Cables. I am the Regional Forester for the Rocky Mountain 

Region, which is five states in the Inner Mountain West. We really 

appreciate you inviting us here today. I have submitted our written 

testimony for the record. 

With me is Dr. Barbara Bentz from the Rocky Mountain Research Station, who is one of the foremost authorities on bark 

34 

beetle ecology. She has over 30 years’ experience studying bark 

beetles; Dr. Bentz? 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA BENTZ, RESEARCH ENTOMOLOGIST, 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION, FOREST SERVICE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. BENTZ. Good morning; as Rick mentioned, I am an entomologist with the Research Branch of the U.S. Forest Service, and 

it is my job to study and help us better understand the many native bark beetle species that are severely impacting our western 

forest ecosystems. Forest Health Protection estimates that in 2008 

alone, eight million acres have been affected by these native insects. 

These native species have historically played very important 

roles in our forest ecosystems; but with both changing climate and 

forest conditions, we feel that some of them might be a little bit 

out of balance. 

The mountain pine beetle is the main species affecting the majority of both low elevation pine, as well as high elevation pine systems that are very critical for maintaining the health of high elevation watersheds. They are tiny. They attack trees in mass, and 

that way they can overcome the defenses of the tree. 

Temperature is the driving factor behind mountain pine beetle 

life cycle survival and timing. They use a very powerful pheromone 

communication system to attack trees in the summer. They stay 

under the bark the entire year, and come out and exit the next 

summer, to go and fly, attack a tree, and kill it. 

Trees are not passive, though. Healthy trees have very vigorous 

resonance defense systems that allow them to, when possible, expel 

beetles that are attacking them. 

However, if you can imagine millions of beetles flying through a 

forest with all those aggregating pheromones that they are responding to, even a healthy tree is oftentimes unable to fend off the 

beetles. 

After the adults attack the tree, the larvae mine horizontally 

through the forum around the circumstance of the bowl; and it is 

that that cuts off the nutrients and water flowing up and down 

that basically kills the tree. 

So we believe that the severity, duration, and extent of these recent outbreaks is heavily influenced by two factors that have to 

deal with the food supply and warming temperatures associated 

with climate change. 

Those extensive landscapes across the West of healthy lodgepole 

pine—large healthy pole pine—while stressed trees provide a jumping board for these outbreaks to start, it is these large healthy 

trees that have the really fat, juicy food that the beetles need to 

sustain their long-term population growth. 

Second, warming temperatures associated with climate change is 

reducing winter mortality; like everybody said. They have the research to show that. But it is also increasing summer population 

growth. 

So I would just like to end by saying that the research branch 

of the Forest Service is very well poised, and we have the expertise 

35 

to really look at these problems. I would be happy to answer any 

questions, following the panel. 

STATEMENT OF RICK CABLES, REGIONAL FORESTER, ROCKY 

MOUNTAIN REGION, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE 

Mr. CABLES. Thank you, Dr. Bentz; we are really privileged in 

the Forest Service to have a world class research organization 

within our agency. 

The story I am going to tell here, really quickly, tells the story 

about how valuable forests are to so many people. I have been Regional Forester since 2001 in the Rocky Mountain Region; so basically through the whole duration of this episode. I will tell you that 

it is one of the most profound issues I have ever dealt with in my 

30-plus years in the agency. 

If you will cycle through this series of slides, it will show the 

growth. Just watch this picture; watch the explosion of red and 

blue—red being lodgepole pine and blue being spruce beetle. This 

has occurred in the last dozen years. That is how fast the bark 

beetle has consumed nearly two and-a-half million acres in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming. 

There are two major public hazards associated with this. One is 

wildfire. Wildfire peaks—it is a bimodal situation with fire 

hazard—when the needles are still on the trees. The trees turn red. 

The needles are the fine fuels which will allow fire to carry from 

crowns of the trees, from tree to tree. 

Then the needles fall off. The fire hazard is reduced for a period 

of time, until the trees start falling over, which is somewhere between six and twenty years. We are already starting to see trees 

fall in the forest right now. When the trees get on the forest floor, 

it is a continuous bed of fuel that carries fire, and particularly potentially high intensity fire. 

The picture here shows a sea of black sticks, a sea of dead trees. 

Most of the public that I talked to really do not like what that 

looks like. They do not appreciate the effect on wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, forest products, carbon. And as we get to 

understand that more, by far the profound, and in my opinion, the 

most profound influence potentially on these forested watersheds in 

Colorado and southern Wyoming is on water. 

This is a picture of the Hayman fire after it burned in 2002. You 

can just see the sedimentation and the issues associated with that; 

and then the Strontia Springs Reservoir, which is a reservoir maintained by Denver water, which has over a million customers, filled 

up with sediment after the Buffalo Creek fire in 1997. The water 

literally ran dark and brown in people’s taps in Denver, and really 

got people’s attention. 

National forests in the West, in particular, are the water towers 

of the West. These forested headwaters play a huge role in water; 

and it is an issue of national significance, because as I said, in the 

nine inland western states, 62 percent of the water comes from 

these forests. 

And the reach, if you wonder whose headwaters we are talking 

about, both Chairwoman Napolitano and Chairman Grijalva—both 

36 

of your states’ watershed are these lands we are talking about, 

with that lodgepole. 

So there are 13 western states, 177 counties, and 33 million 

people served by the water that starts in the national forests of 

Colorado and southern Wyoming. 

The second hazard I want to talk about, in addition to fire, is 

falling trees; and this is a real and present danger. As I said, the 

trees are already starting to fall. 

Can you imagine two and-a-half million acres of flat trees, and 

the effects on infrastructure, roads, trails, and so on and so forth? 

Just yesterday, we had a near miss on the Holy Cross Ranger District, where a tree almost landed on a citizen. 

If you look at what we are working on, in terms of clearing, this 

is 25 years of a trail, and look how labor-intensive that is to clear 

one area where the trees have fallen down. So it is a massive 

project for us to work on. 

The other issue I want to talk about with relations to both fallen 

trees and fires is energy security in the form of power lines. One 

tree falling on a power line means the power is out; and in this 

particular area, we have distribution lines. We have large corridors 

with major transmission lines crossing through this area; over 

1,300 miles of power lines that are at risk to either fallen trees or 

fire, if we have a catastrophic burn, which could potentially either 

burn the poles or melt the infrastructure associated. 

We do have plan. We have an incident management covering the 

three forests in this area. Our focus is on community protection 

and infrastructure. We are shifting regional funding toward these 

areas. We have collaborative groups working together. We need a 

stable forest products industry that is diverse. We need stable markets for this renewable material. 

You are going to hear from some folks later on, on the panel, 

that are going to talk about that. I am really worried about our 

timber industry today. The situation is dire. They cannot borrow 

money. They are on the risk of actually going out of business, 

which is really going to hurt us. 

Last, I would say that restoring this two and-a-half million acres 

in our area, or working toward restoration will take all of us. It 

will take all of our resources. It will take multiple states bonding 

together, because multiple states are affected. 

The situation is urgent. It is going to cost more later than it will 

today, and we need to get after it. We are getting after it; but more 

help would be appreciated. So thank you very much, and we look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared joint statement of Dr. Bentz and Mr. Cables 

follows:] 

Statement of Rick Cables, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, and 

Dr. Barbara Bentz, Research Entomologist, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to come 

before these subcommittees and to discuss the impacts of mountain pine beetles on 

national forests in the West, and strategies for protecting infrastructure and resources from the hazards resulting from millions of acres of dead trees. I am the 

Regional Forester for the Rocky Mountain Region (Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas) and with me is Dr. Barbara Bentz, Research EntoVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
37 

1 Bentz, et. al. (2009)Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird, Utah. 2 Bentz, et. al. (2009)Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird, Utah. 3 USDA-APHIS. 2008; Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, 2009 

4 Bentz, et. al. (2009)Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird, Utah. 5 USDA Forest and Disease Leaflet 2, Mountain Pine Beetle, 1989, reprinted 1990 

6 Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird, Utah. 7Major Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the United States 2007. USDA Forest Service, 

FS-919. March 2009. 8W.H. Romme, J. Clement, J. Hicke, D. Kulakowski, L.H. MacDonald, T.L. Schoennagel, and 

T.T. Veblen, Recent Forest Insect Outbreaks and Fire Risk in Colorado Forests: A Brief Synthesis of Relevant Research, p. 3. 

mologist with the Rocky Mountain Research Station. Thank you for inviting us here 

today. 

The Big Picture 

Outbreaks of bark beetles, which are occurring in numerous forest ecosystems 

across western North America, are the biggest in recorded history. 1 Although western forests have experienced regular infestations throughout their history, the current outbreaks are notable for their intensity, extensive range, and simultaneous occurrence in multiple ecosystems. These beetles are not only attacking forests where 

they have traditionally been found, but are thriving in some places where widespread infestations have not previously been recorded. 2 The unusual extent of the 

outbreaks has prompted concern that this loss of trees may impair ecosystem functioning and reduce the ability of our forests to provide future wildlife habitat, to protect watershed quality, to store carbon and to be a source of timber and recreational 

opportunities. In the western United States, beetle-killed trees cover nearly 8 million acres of the Northern Rockies, the Southwest, and dry forests in the Northwest. 3

The Bark Beetle 

Mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae), a native insect to North America, have co-evolved over thousands of years with their host trees in western North 

American forest ecosystems and have been a regular force of change in western 

North America forest ecosystems. Native insects, including bark beetles, are among 

the greatest forces of natural change in forested ecosystems of North America. Every 

few decades, depending on weather and local forest conditions, bark beetle populations increase and infest large areas of conifer forest. In doing so, they play an 

essential role in forest’s natural cycle of growth and regeneration. 4

In a one-year life cycle, bark beetles bore through the bark of pine trees and chew 

galleries in the inner bark, where they lay their eggs. The beetles carry the spores 

of blue-staining fungi. As the fungi develop and spread into the tree sapwood, they 

interrupt the flow of water to the tree crown—and the hatched larvae feed on the 

tree sapwood. The combined effects of the larvae and the fungi kill the tree. When 

the larvae grow into adult beetles, they emerge from the bark to attack more trees. 5

Bark beetle epidemics resulting in acreages of dead trees are natural, cyclic 

events. Historically, bark beetles have not destroyed entire forests, and can serve 

as positive forces of change that redistribute nutrients and growing space. 6 Since 

2000, the mountain pine beetle affected millions of acres across the Western United 

States. In 2007, aerial surveys detected about 4 million acres where mountain pine 

beetles were actively killing trees. (In 2008, aerial surveys detected 6.42 million 

acres of forests affected—data is as yet unpublished, but has been gathered by the 

Forest Service Health and Technology Enterprise team) The mountain pine beetle 

epidemic in the central Rocky Mountains is larger than any previously recorded in 

the area and is expanding rapidly. 7 However, in the absence of tree ring reconstructions or other spatially detailed information on historical mountain pine beetle outbreaks in Colorado, we do not know if similar outbreaks occurred in the same locations or habitats prior to the past 150 years. 8

A panel of experts at a recent symposium, ‘‘Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western 

North America: Causes and Consequences,’’ suggested that two major factors appear 

to be driving the current outbreaks: 1) forest history and host susceptibility, and 2) 

changing climatic conditions, especially elevated temperatures and drought. 

38 

9Koch, Peter (1996) Lodgepole Pine in North America. Forest Products society, volume 1, P 

314. 10 2006 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests, available at http://csfs.colostate.edu/pdfs/ 

06fhr.pdf 11 Bentz BJ, Re ́gnie`re J, Fettig CJ, Hansen EM, Hayes, JL, Hicke JA, Kelsey RG, Lundquist 

J, Negro ́n J, Progar R, Seybold SJ, Vandygriff JC (2008) Climate Change and Western U.S. 

Bark Beetles: Rapid Threat Assessment. Prepared for the Western Wildland Environmental 

Threat Assessment Center; http://www.fs.fed.us/wwetac/projects/PDFs/RTAlBarklBeetle.pdf 12 Bentz, B.J., J.A. Logan, and G.D. Amman. 1991. Temperature dependent development of the 

mountain pine beetle (Coleopter: Scolytidae), and simulation of its phenology. The Canadian Entomologist 123: 1083-1094. 13 Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird, Utah. 14 Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird, Utah. 15Pogar, R.A. (2005) Five-Year Operational Trial of Verbenone to Deter Mountain Pine Beetle 

(Dendroctonus ponderosae; Coleoptera: Scolytidae) Attack of Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta) Environmental Entomology 34(6):1402-1407. 2005 

A ‘‘Perfect Storm’’ 

At the landscape scale including lodgepole forests, a mosaic of stand ages and 

types helps reduce the susceptibility to mountain pine beetles at one time. 9 Over 

the past couple of centuries, fire exclusion and natural and human caused disturbances such as stand-replacing fires and mining-era timber cutting have contributed 

to the existence of large areas of old trees that are very similar in age and size. 10

Many lodgepole pine forests are greater than 80 years-old and thus are relatively 

even-aged, and are therefore highly susceptible to bark beetles and fire. The size 

of these old trees makes them an ideal food source for the bark beetles. Increasing 

winter temperatures associated with climate change are fostering increased survival 

of bark beetle populations. (Sustained cold winter temperatures are needed to kill 

bark beetles.) 11 The West’s changing climate—rising temperatures and decreasing 

precipitation—has created weather conditions that are ideal for bark beetle outbreaks. Beetles are extremely sensitive to changes in temperature. 12 Longer, warmer summers have extended reproductive and growth periods, and fewer cold snaps 

and higher winter temperatures have allowed bark beetles to survive in winter 

spring and fall. 13 The prolonged drought across the West has also weakened trees 

and made them more susceptible to bark beetle attacks. Entire forests full of 

drought stressed trees, combined with a rapidly expanding bark beetle population 

combine to fuel exponential beetle population growth. 14

The primary difference between previous beetle outbreaks and the current epidemic is people now live, work and recreate throughout the lodgepole pine ecosystem. Dozens of communities surrounded by dead trees are at risk of wildfire. 

This area includes world-class ski resorts such as Vail, Breckenridge, and Winter 

Park. In addition, the forest products industry infrastructure needed to help address 

some of the potential public health and safety impacts is nearly nonexistent within 

Colorado. These important differences along with the scale of infestations, requires 

approaches to reduce the safety threats to people while ensuring that the forests 

that replace these dying forests are diverse and resilient to change across the landscape. 

I’ll use the outbreak in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming as a case study 

of what the Forest Service is facing with large bark beetle infestations throughout 

the West. The beetle infestation has spread at a rapid rate over the last ten years. 

Forest Service entomologists forecast that in the next two to five years, if the infestation continues at this intensity and rate of spread, as much as 90 percent of the 

mature lodgepole will die. The results of our forest health and protection 2008 aerial 

survey show that we have some level of infestation in most of the lodgepole in the 

Rocky Mountain Region, coupled with heavy mortality. It is clear that we can’t stop 

this current infestation. Thinning stands has proved ineffective. Spraying carbaryl, 

an insecticide, is environmentally safe when properly applied, and can be effective 

in small, high-value areas such as campgrounds, but is far too expensive to use at 

the forest scale. Pheromone traps are similarly ineffective in reducing the rate of 

the spread of such a large infestation. Verbenone, a repelling pheromone, failed in 

the presence of large beetle populations. 15

When it became apparent that we could not suppress the infestation, we changed 

our focus from prevention to reducing risks to public safety and infrastructure to 

restoration of the forest to include a mosaic of tree species and ages classes that 

may be more resilient to the stresses of climate change into the future. 

39 

16 Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird, Utah. 17The term Fire hazard as used here refers specifically to the state of fuels in a given stand— 

independent of variables such as temperature, wind, and precipitation that influence fuel moisture content and fire occurrence. 18 Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird, Utah. 19Page, W.; Jenkins, M. 2007. Mountain pine beetle-induced changes to selected lodgepole 

pine fuel complexes within the intermountain region. Forest Science 53(4):507-518. 

Page, W.; Jenkins, M. 2007. Predicted Fire Behavior in Selected Mountain Pine BeetleInfested Lodgepole Pine. Forest Science 53(6):662-674 

Hawkes, B. 2008. Effects of the mountain pine beetle on fuels and fire behaviour. In Mountain 

Pine Beetle: From Lessons Learned to Community-based Solutions Conference Proceedings, 

June 10-11, 2008. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 9(3):77-83. http://www.forrex.org/ 

publications/jem/ISS49/vol9lno3lMPBconference.pdf 

Jenkins, M., Hebertson E., Page, W. and Jorgensen C. 2008 Bark beetles, fuels, fires and implications for forest management in the Intermountain West. Forest Ecology and Management 

254 (2008) 16-34 20 Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird, Utah. 21 Barrows, J. 1951. Fire Behavior in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Station Paper No. 29. 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Missoula MT. 133 pages 22 Alexander, M and Stam, J. 2003. Safety Alert for Wildland Firefighters: Fuel Conditions in 

Spruce Beetle-Killed Forest of Alaska. Fire Management Today 63 (2) 25. 23 US Census 2000 24

25 Brown, T.C.; Hobbins, M.T.; Ramirez, J.A. 2008. Spatial distribution of water supply in the 

coterminous United States. Jour. Amer. Water Resource. Assn. 44(6):1-14. Dec. 2008. 

Public Hazards 

Several critical hazards to public safety are posed by dead trees: local fire hazards 

in times of drought, threats to water supplies, and falling dead trees along utility 

corridors, roads, trails, and other infrastructure. 

Wildfire Implications 

The relationship between bark beetle outbreaks and subsequent fire at the larger 

landscape scale is not yet fully understood. 16 Outbreaks in the recent years have 

provided scientists with excellent opportunities to conduct studies and gather new 

information about the role of bark beetles in western forests, but much research remains to be done. 

At the stand level, both crown and surface-fire hazards 17 change through time 

after a bark beetle outbreak in a stand of living trees. 18 The fire hazard is high in 

the period one to two years after pine trees die since the dead needles are retained 

in the tree’s crown, stocking the canopy with dry, fine fuels that can ignite quickly 

during weather conditions conducive to fire. 19 As the trees lose their needles, the 

fire risk in the crowns of the trees decreases as fire doesn’t spread through standing 

dead trees with no needles very quickly. Surface fire hazard increases again as dead 

trees begin to fall and create a heavy fuel bed with young trees growing up through 

the tangle of down logs. 20 In dry, hot, windy weather conditions, fires burning in 

heavy surface fuels can move fast, burn extremely hot, and be very resistant to control. 21 An additional significant concern is the safety of our firefighters. Large areas 

of fallen trees limit escape routes for crews, severely limiting our ability to deploy 

firefighters in these areas. 22

Water 

The value of water flowing from our public forests is enormous and is a matter 

of national significance. Forest Service Hydrologists estimate that the forests of the 

Rocky Mountain Region contain the headwaters for much of the western United 

States; people in 177 counties in 13 states rely on water from the National Forests 

of the Rocky Mountain Region. Thirty-three million people live in these counties. 23

Forest Service management analysis indicates that people in Phoenix, Tucson, San 

Diego and Los Angeles who get their tap water from the Colorado River get one 

quart of every gallon from the National Forests of the Rocky Mountain Region. 24

The economic value of water flowing from the National Forests of this region numbers in the billions of dollars. 25

By themselves, insect outbreaks are unlikely to cause erosion or degrade water 

quality because they do not disturb the forest soil. Unpaved roads and high-severity 

wildfires can cause much greater effects on runoff, erosion, and water quality. Regardless of whether or not caused by beetle infestations, massive tree mortality can 

40 

26 Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird, Utah. 27 Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird, Utah. 28Figure derived from data in the Forest Service Special-Use Database System, Region 2. 29 2007 Bark Beetle Incident Implementation Plan (updated in 2009), http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ 

bark-beetle/index.html . 

affect watershed quality and quantity. 26 Live trees in high-elevation watersheds 

provide shade and shelter that help to maintain the winter snow pack and prevent 

quick runoff during the spring melt and summer storms. While beetle-killed trees 

do not produce the same level of erosion as a wildfire, large numbers of bark beetlekilled trees within a watershed increase the risk of rapid snow loss and can enhance 

annual stream flow. 27

A wildfire burning in the heavy fuels close to the soil that result from a largescale infestation can literally bake the soil, sterilizing the soil and sometimes leaving a water-repellent surface that sheds rain, leading to severe gully erosion, debris 

flows into reservoirs and streams, and flood damage. We experienced these effects 

after the Hayman Fire in central Colorado in 2002. After the Buffalo Creek Fire in 

1996, Strontia Springs Reservoir filled with sediment that washed off burned areas 

after heavy rains, and the South Platte River was running brown with mud. 

Falling Dead Trees 

Falling dead trees are an immediate hazard. In the beetle-infested area of northern Colorado and southern Wyoming, over 900 miles of trails and 3500 miles of 

roads are lined with dead trees that will fall. More than 21,000 acres of developed 

recreation sites—such as campgrounds and picnic areas—have hazard trees. 

Powerlines and communication sites are also threatened by hazard trees. There 

are more than six thousand acres of right-of way corridors for authorized transmission and distribution lines in the area affected by bark beetle infestation in 

northern Colorado and southern Wyoming. 28 Forest Service resource specialists 

have estimated this represents over 1000 miles of transmission lines. Dead trees lining transmission corridors can fall on lines, starting wildfires and disrupting power 

supplies to cities and towns—potentially for days. 

Strategies to Protect the West 

The scale of the bark beetle infestation and its threats to public safety and infrastructure requires a concentrated response. We established the Bark Beetle Incident 

Management Team in 2007 to plan and coordinate mitigation work on the National 

Forests in Colorado and Wyoming most affected by the outbreak—the Medicine 

Bow-Routt, Arapaho-Roosevelt and White River. 

The team produced a five-year strategic plan in 2007, developed in coordination 

with collaborative groups such as the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative—a group 

comprising federal, state, local, and non-profit members. The plan identifies over 

240 projects over the next six years—over 100 thousand acres of treatments involving timber removal of dead or beetle-infested trees, stewardship projects to remove 

low-value trees, fuel treatments to reduce wildfire hazard, preventive spraying in 

high-value developed areas, and removal of hazard trees that can fall on infrastructure and people. 29 Regional funding was refocused to enable a sharp ramp-up in 

work on the national forests affected by the infestation. 

The three forests treated more than 24,000 acres in 2008. Fourteen thousand of 

these acres were fuel reduction in the wildland urban interface. Ten thousand acres 

included fuels treatment outside the wildland urban interface, hazard tree removal 

for public safety and infrastructure protection, spraying some trees in high-value 

areas such as campgrounds to keep some green trees on the landscape, and timber 

sales to capture economic value. The forests removed hazard trees from 31 recreation sites, and this year the forests are removing hazard trees from an additional 

40 sites. 

On May 18, 2009 I met with regional utility companies to discuss steps needed 

to facilitate extensive removal of hazard trees within and outside of the authorized 

right-of-way of power line corridors. Current permits, easements, memorandums of 

understanding, and other types of authorizations allow utilities to remove trees that 

pose an imminent hazard to the safe operation of power line facilities, and I have 

notified the companies in writing that they may immediately remove them. However, cutting and removal of dead trees in a wider corridor than the currently authorized right-of-way width to provide long-term protection of power lines will require environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. We 

have formed an interdisciplinary team, selected a team leader, and started this 

analysis. We anticipate it will be completed by fall. 

41 

30 CCSP. May 2008. Executive Summary in 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. 3, P. Backlund, A. Janetos, and D. Schimel, lead authors. A report 

by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). 31Fettig, Christopher J.; Klepzig, Kier D.; Billings, Ronald f.; Munson, A. Steven; Nebeker, 

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

practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest ecology and management. 238(1-3): 24-53 32W.H. Romme, J. Clement, J. Hicke, D. Kulakowski, L.H. MacDonald, T.L. Schoennagel, and 

T.T. Veblen, Recent Forest Insect Outbreaks and Fire Risk in Colorado Forests: A Brief Synthesis of Relevant Research, p. 12. 

We’re making significant strides in protecting infrastructure, using the Colorado 

Good Neighbor Authority, the Wyden Authority, and the authorities provided by the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act to the extent possible. There is much still to do to 

restore a forested landscape after this infestation of beetles runs its course. This 

work will encompass engagement with the public to plan for and implement forest 

restoration projects that may result in a more diverse mosaic of tree species and 

ages. 

The Next Forest 

Future forests in the Rocky Mountain West will likely look very different from the 

vast landscapes of old lodge-pole pine one sees today. We’re thinning some stands 

and conducting salvage harvest of dead lodgepole while leaving understory spruce 

and fir to grow. (Lodgepole will regenerate naturally—it doesn’t have to be planted 

in most areas.) We’re also conducting aspen regeneration cuts to stimulate aspen 

clones to produce new, vigorous growth, and we’re removing conifers from aspen 

stands to prevent conversion to conifer type. 

The effects of climate change are becoming apparent on the forests and grasslands, 30 and must be factored into our planning. The changing dynamics of current 

outbreaks make management decisions even more difficult. One important aspect of 

future forest management will be an evaluation of multiple approaches across a 

range of spatial scales and outbreak severity levels. Many areas will regenerate naturally following a bark beetle outbreak and require no action. In some areas land 

managers may want to consider the creation of a diverse forest through modifications to species and age classes at a regional scale. Some ecosystems that have highly susceptible forest conditions may benefit from actions to reduce stand density. 

This is particularly true in lodgepole and ponderosa pine stands where research has 

shown that thinning can reduce susceptibility. 31

There are many areas where we are not removing dead trees due to the following: 

steep slopes, the area is congressionally designated Wilderness, economic feasibility, 

or for other reasons. In some areas where we don’t undertake active management, 

spruce and fir are already present as understory saplings and will be released to 

grow as overstory lodgepole pines fall. Where appropriate, fire may play a more active role on the landscape creating a diverse landscape of openings and ages. In the 

longer term, a bark beetle outbreak that kills many of the conifers may be beneficial 

to aspen stands, if aspen clones were present before the beetle outbreak. If aspen 

is not present, then composition of the forest will not change and the conifers that 

survive—including smaller trees and less susceptible species—will increase their 

growth rates and replace the large conifer trees that were killed by beetles. 32

The Challenge: Timber Industry in Decline 

The forest products industry is a primary partner in accomplishing work integral 

to sustaining the health, diversity, and productivity of the National Forest System, 

and can help us in our work to mitigate the risks of the bark beetle infestation and 

moving beyond it to restore our forests. The Forest Service recognizes the impact 

a depressed market is having on the forest products industry in Colorado and Wyoming, and much of the West. We are working to modify down payment and periodic 

payment requirements, as well as taking other actions to free up capital for purchasers. We are carefully reviewing timber sale design criteria to ensure that 

projects are economically viable. New forest products businesses are starting up. 

Two new pellet mills in northern Colorado are using beetle-killed trees to produce 

pellets for wood stoves. Some dead trees are being used for house logs, furniture, 

and decorative items. These businesses and others that constitute a viable and diverse forest industry complete with a skilled workforce are important in assisting 

the Forest Service conduct active forest management in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 

That concludes my prepared statement. I’ll be happy to take any questions you 

may have. 

42 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir; and now we will hear from Dr. 

Herbert Frost. 

STATEMENT OF HERBERT C. FROST, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

NATURAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND SCIENCE, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Mr. FROST. Chairwoman Napolitano and Chairman Grijalva and 

Members of the Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today and discuss mountain pine beetles, and 

the devastating impacts to our western forests. 

I am joined today by representatives of other bureaus within the 

Department of the Interior, who share in the management of public 

lands affected by the mountain pine beetle. 

The Department of the Interior is extremely concerned about escalating mountain pine beetle populations, and the associated disastrous impacts to public and private lands. This testimony highlights the collaborative efforts of the bureaus within the department to combat the immediate threat of the mountain pine beetle, 

while also promoting the long-term stewardship and sustainability 

of healthy and resilient forests, which would be better able to endure cyclic mountain pine beetle epidemics and their potential impacts. 

Since the Forest Service has already covered many of the facts 

related to the biology of the pine beetle, I will focus on specific impacts to public lands managed by the Department of the Interior, 

and the strategies we have undertaken in response to this threat. 

Under typical conditions, bark beetles play an important role in 

forest ecosystems, providing the periodic forest renewal, re-shaping 

our forest landscapes, and resulting in healthy forest succession. 

When trees are killed by the beetle, the resulting impacts are 

significant. Dead trees produce additional fuel for wildfires that 

can lead to the destruction of large numbers of natural and cultural resources, including tribal values on Indian reservations, archeological sites in park units, view sheds, and economically valuable timber. 

Large scale fires can also destroy high value resources, such as 

campgrounds and visitor centers, that can quickly spread from our 

public lands to surrounding communities. 

Mortality of these tree stands also negatively affects wildlife. 

Pine forests offer critical habitat for many wildlife species, providing vital sources of food, protection, and breeding sites. For example, white bark pine produced seeds that are a major source of 

grisly bears in the late summer and early fall. 

No effective treatment for suppression of large scale pine beetle 

outbreaks currently exists. But many bureaus within the department area approaching this problem in a variety of ways. 

Approximately 40 percent of the National Park Service lands in 

the West are forested; and a significant percentage of those lands 

are occupied by valorous species or by human settlement. 

The National Park Service is approaching this problem by mapping the outbreaks of pine beetles within the park units, which at 

this time is now occurring in all western states except North DaVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
43 

kota. Within these states, 57 national parks have reported elevated 

populations of beetle infestations. 

The NPS is also responding to escalated pine beetle epidemics by 

providing for visitor safety, minimizing fire danger to visitors in 

neighboring communities; protecting dependent wildlife species, 

habitats, and watersheds; and providing for long-term sustained 

healthy forest eco-systems. 

In campgrounds, in visitor centers and other high use areas, a 

combination of actions are being employed to ensure these goals 

and objectives are met with highly susceptible trees and hazard 

trees being removed. 

Specifically, with respect to the Rocky Mountain National Park 

in Colorado, pine beetles are rapidly expanding—with mortality in 

lodgepole pine approaching nearly 100 percent. 

The park has identified more than 350 locations in the park, 

where life and property are at risk. Current projections indicate the 

park will need to remove more than one million hazard trees, costing more than $7 million during the upcoming years. In areas 

where heavy tree mortality is occurring adjacent to towns and communities, fire reduction treatments are planned. 

For all parks, much of the beetle-killed trees will remain standing in accordance with NPS Organic Act and management policies, 

which allow for national recovery of areas, following disturbances 

such as fires. Less additional action is needed to protect cultural 

historic resources for park development, or to ensure human safety. 

The Bureau of Land Management estimates that up to 800,000 

of BLM managed forest land in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and 

Idaho, are infested by the pine beetle and, therefore, at risk of wide 

spread mortality. 

Warm winters, drought, stress, and a prevalence of large 

amounts of overstock, even age, single species forest present an 

idea condition for such a severe outbreak. The unhealthy condition 

of the forest makes it susceptible to a fatal insect attack. 

Harmful impacts to BLM are numerous, including tree mortality; 

which leads to increased fire hazards, degraded conditions for wildlife impact; cultural resources; and negative effects on wood products and declining tourism. 

Approximately 50 percent of the 32 million acres of public domain, that BLM manages; and the lower 48 states are vulnerable 

to over-stock. 

Where devastated areas of pine stands occur on reservation 

lands, under the Bureau of Indian Affairs—for example large 

pulled pine stances have nearly wiped out the Yakima reservation 

in Washington. 

Tribal, agency, and regional staff at these locations are concerned 

that the high beetle populations may significantly alter the ecosystem by effectively removing lodgepole pine as a component. 

In response to the devastation of Indian lands, BIA and others 

assisted Reservations in taking steps to protect the remaining 

stands. 

There are also severe issues in Fish & Wildlife Service; and I will 

conclude my testimony, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frost follows:] 

44 

1 USDA-APHIS. 2008; Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, 2009. 

2Shrimpton, D.M. 1994. A report for Forest Health. DC Ministry of Forests, December 1994; 

Davis and Johnson. 1987. Forest Management 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill; Bentz, et al. (2005) 

Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird, Utah. 3 USDA-APHIS. 2008; Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, 2009. 

4Logan J.A.; Powell J.A. 2001. Ghost Forests, Global Warming, and the Mountain Pine Beetle 

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

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

Statement of Herbert C. Frost, Associate Director, Natural Resource 

Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior 

Chairwoman Napolitano, Chairman Grijalva, and members of the subcommittees, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss mountain pine 

beetles and the devastating impacts to our western pine forests. 

I am Dr. Herbert C. Frost, Associate Director for Science and Stewardship in the 

National Park Service. I am joined today by representatives of other bureaus within 

the Department of the Interior who share in the management of public lands affected by the mountain pine beetle, including the Bureau of Land Management, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The Department is extremely concerned about escalating mountain pine beetle 

populations and the associated disastrous impacts to public and private lands including the increased risk of wildfires from dead or dying trees, loss of wildlife habitat, impacts to natural and cultural resources, and threats to surrounding communities. This spread, and the related impacts that are currently being experienced, 

are at epidemic proportions throughout the west, and appear to be the result of a 

number of factors including natural beetle population cycles, continuous mild winters, and an abundance of uniformly mature pine forest stands. 

This testimony highlights the collaborative efforts of bureaus within the Department to combat the immediate threat of the mountain pine beetle while also promoting the long-term stewardship and sustainability of healthy, resilient forests 

that will be better able to endure cyclic mountain pine beetle epidemics and their 

potential impacts. 

Background 

The mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) ranks first in destructiveness among the tree-killing bark beetles that are native to the west, although there 

are many native beetle species affecting a host of other pine tree species nationally. 

The mountain pine beetle affects numerous species of western pine, including ponderosa, lodgepole, and the five-needle white pine species. In recent years, outbreaks 

have increased mortality rates well above ambient levels within forestlands in the 

Northern and Central Rockies, in Eastern Oregon and Washington, and as far north 

as Canada. A current and very visible outbreak is affecting virtually all mature 

lodgepole pine in Colorado, along with large areas of lodgepole and limber pine in 

Wyoming. Affected lodgepole pine trees are as young as sixty years old and as small 

as six inches in diameter at breast height. Tree mortality from this outbreak is estimated to have now occurred on nearly 8 million acres nationwide. 1

Bark beetles infest pine trees by laying eggs under the bark. When the eggs 

hatch, the larvae mine the area beneath the bark and eventually cut off the tree’s 

supply of nutrients. The beetles also carry a fungus that causes dehydration and 

inhibits a tree’s natural defenses against beetle attacks. 

Under typical conditions, bark beetles play an important role in forest ecosystems, 

providing for periodic forest renewal. Periodic outbreaks help shape our forested 

landscapes, resulting in forest succession. The dead trees also provide critical habitat for birds, bats, and other cavity-dependent species. 2

Although mountain pine beetle outbreaks and associated pine tree die-offs are a 

natural cyclic phenomenon, the current outbreak is epidemic due to several variables. 3 One variable is that the northern part of the beetle’s geographic range has 

expanded to include high-elevation areas that historically were too cold for the 

beetle to survive during the winter months. These high elevation pine stands, such 

as the five-needle pines, do not have an historic evolutionary relationship with the 

beetles and hence, the beetles act in similar ways to an invasive species. This range 

expansion may be the result of reoccurring drought and climate change, which contribute to warming trends in mountain ecosystems. 4 Another variable is that certain 

45 

5Davis and Johnson. 1987. Forest Management 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill. 

6Felicetti, L.A., C.C. Schwartz, R.O. Rye, M.A. Haroldson, K.A. Gunther, D.L. Phillips, and 

C.T. Robbins. 2003. Use of sulfur and nitrogen stable isotopes to determine the importance of 

whitebark pine nuts to Yellowstone grizzly bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:763-770; 

Lanner, R.M., and B.K. Gilbert. 1994. Nutritive value of whitebark pine seeds, and the questions of their variable dormancy. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-309. 

pp. 206-211; Mattson, D.J., B.M. Blanchard, and R.R. Knight. 1992. Yellowstone grizzly bear 

mortality, human habituation and whitebark pine seed crops. Journal of Wildlife Management 

56:432-442; Robbins, Charles T.; Schwartz, Charles C.; Gunther, Kerry A.; Servheen, Chris. 

2006. Grizzly Bear Nutrition and Ecology: Studies in Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone 

Science, Volume 14, Number 3, pg. 19-26. 

species throughout our western forests have been impacted by years of fire suppression efforts, aimed at protecting critical infrastructure and developed areas. 5

When trees are killed by the beetle, the resulting impacts are significant. Dead 

trees produce additional fuel for wildfires that can lead to the destruction of large 

numbers of natural and cultural resources including tribal values on Indian reservations, archeological sites in park units, and economically valuable timber. Largescale fires can also destroy high-value resources such as campgrounds and visitor 

facilities, and can quickly spread from our public lands to surrounding communities, 

causing death and destruction of property. High severity fires can also result in 

ground surface heating and consequential increased erosion in some watersheds. 

Mortality of these tree stands also negatively impacts wildlife. Pine forests offer 

critical habitat for many wildlife species, providing vital sources for food, protection, 

and breeding sites. For example, white bark pine produce seeds that are a major 

source of food for federally listed grizzly bears in the late summer and early fall. 6

No effective treatment for suppression of large-scale pine beetle outbreaks currently exists, but many bureaus within the Department are approaching this problem in a variety of ways based upon their individual missions, policies, laws, and 

management mandates under which they operate. 

National Park Service 

Although there are no current estimates of the potential acres involved, approximately 40% of National Park Service (NPS) lands in the west are forested and a 

significant percentage of those lands are occupied by vulnerable species. The NPS 

is approaching this problem by mapping the outbreaks of mountain pine beetles 

within its park units, which at this time is now occurring in all western states except North Dakota; areas of California, the front range of Colorado, the Black Hills 

of South Dakota, and the North Cascades are particularly hard hit. Within these 

states, 57 national park units have reported elevated populations of beetle infestations. An additional 21 units are within the affected area but have not yet reported 

increased beetle activity. 

Outbreaks in the1970’s-1980’s contributed to the historic Yellowstone fires of 

1988, the largest wildfire in the history of the park, which destroyed over 793,000 

acres. At that time, dense, 90+ year old stands of lodgepole pine were further 

stressed by several years of drought, adding to the vulnerability of these trees and 

leading to thousands of acres of beetle-killed lodgepole in the park. These beetles 

are now again playing a role in changing ecosystems within the greater Yellowstone 

area, including Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. 

NPS is also responding to escalating mountain pine beetles epidemic by providing 

for visitor safety, minimizing fire danger to visitors and neighboring communities, 

protecting dependent wildlife species and habitats, and providing for long-term sustained healthy forest ecosystems. In campgrounds, visitor centers, and other highuse areas, a combination of actions are being employed to ensure these goals and 

objectives are met with highly susceptible trees and problem trees being removed. 

These actions are helping to manage existing infestations and protect vulnerable 

areas. In some parks, targeted insecticides are being used to save high-value trees. 

Specifically with respect to Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, mountain 

pine beetles are rapidly expanding with mortality in lodgepole pine approaching 

nearly 100%. Beetle outbreaks in the park represent only a small portion of the Colorado forests that are a part of this current outbreak. Response to the potential fire 

and watershed consequences of this outbreak are being coordinated through an 

interagency task group that includes federal, state, and 22 counties. The goals of 

the plan at Rocky Mountain National Park are consistent with the task force recommendations: to remove or protect high-value resources in or near park facilities, 

such as campgrounds, housing areas, and visitor centers. The plan identified more 

than 350 locations in the park where life and property are at risk. Current projections indicate that the park will need to remove more than one million hazard trees, 

costing more than $7 million dollars during the upcoming years. In areas where 

46 

heavy tree mortality is occurring adjacent to towns and communities, fire reduction 

treatments are planned. 

Even with the aggressive plan at Rocky Mountain National Park, approximately 

95% of the park lands will not be treated. Unlike other agencies, commercial timber 

sales are not authorized on NPS lands. Consequently, much of beetle-killed trees 

will remain standing. In accordance with our the Organic Act and our National Park 

Service Management Policies, NPS allows natural recovery of areas following disturbances, such as fires, unless additional action is needed to protect cultural and 

historic resources, protect park developments, or to ensure human safety. 

Bureau of Land Management 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) estimates that up to 800,000 acres of 

BLM-managed forestland in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are infested 

by the mountain pine beetle. Warm winters, drought stress, and a prevalence of 

over-mature, over-stocked, even-aged, single species forests present ideal conditions 

for such a severe outbreak. The unhealthy condition of the forest makes it susceptible to fatal insect attack. 

Harmful impacts to BLM lands are numerous. Increased tree mortality leads to 

increased fire hazards, degraded conditions for wildlife, negative effects on wood 

products industries, and declining tourism. In some areas of high tree mortality, fire 

suppression will be difficult and dangerous. 

BLM is approaching this epidemic by treating, in Fiscal Year 2009, 9,500 acres 

to mitigate impacts of the mountain pine beetle outbreak. The treatments are focused on protecting high-value recreation sites through placement of pheromone 

traps to prevent tree mortality, and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire events 

by reducing fuels through salvage of dead and dying trees. Some challenges to conducting treatments of additional acreage include poor markets for treatment byproducts, limited inventory data, limited numbers of contractors to perform the 

work, steep and/or inaccessible site conditions, and time required to complete the 

necessary National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes. 

While this hearing is focused on the mountain pine beetle outbreak, there are 

other insects that could create similar impacts in crowded, drought-stressed forests. 

Creating resilient landscapes is one possible long term solution to addressing outbreaks of insect infestation. Approximately 50% of the 32 million acres of public domain forestland that BLM manages in the lower 48 States are vulnerable due to 

overstocking and are therefore at great risk of increased insect and disease attacks 

and catastrophic wildfires. To restore forest health, projects are planned to achieve 

the correct density, species composition, and stand structure for a given site, so that 

insect and disease agents will remain at endemic levels as opposed to epidemic levels now seen in pine beetles. 

In Fiscal Year 2009, BLM is also thinning 25,000 acres to improve forest health 

via commercial timber sales, service contracts, and stewardship contracts. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Some of the most devastated areas of pine stands in the west occur on reservation 

lands under the management of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). In the Central 

and Northern Cascades (Northwest Region), the Warm Springs Reservation in Oregon has experienced mortality in some of their lodgepole pine stands due to mountain pine beetles—69,000 acres are infested, of which 40,000 acres are completely 

dead. Similarly, the lodgepole pine stands have been nearly wiped out on the 

Yakama Reservation in Washington. In many of these areas, the beetle has run its 

course, with few healthy lodgepole pines left. 

Tribal, agency and regional staff at these locations are concerned that the high 

beetle populations may significantly alter the ecosystem by effectively removing mature lodgepole pine as a component. They are also concerned that the resulting extremely high fuel hazards will create a catastrophic wildland fire risk that could not 

only endanger the lodgepole pine areas, but the surrounding forest and its multitude of tribal values as well. 

In response to the devastation on Indian lands, BIA has assisted reservations in 

taking steps to protect the remaining pine stands. At the Colville Indian Reservation in Washington, 8,000 acres of lodgepole pine stands are at high-risk for mountain pine beetle infestation. The main treatment is a regeneration harvest and conversion to a different species, mostly western larch. About 10,000 acres have been 

converted since the 1970’s. 

At the Rocky Boys Indian Reservation, the reservation has been successful in timber harvest salvaging of the mortality, but is still facing ongoing infestation. Noncommercial stands have been affected as well. On other reservations, the incompatiVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
47 

bility between salvage operations and reservation uses, and proximity to markets 

are restricting large-scale salvage operations. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mountain pine beetles are not a significant issue on lands managed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), specifically National Wildlife Refuge System 

and National Fish Hatchery System lands. Very few USFWS lands have significant 

forested habitat and thus the Service only administers small amounts of acreage of 

western pine forest, most of which consists of ponderosa pine, not the mature (and 

over-mature) lodgepole pine that has, to date, suffered from the most intensive 

beetle infestation. 

Leadville National Fish Hatchery (NFH) in Leadville, Colorado, is an exception. 

NFH lands total over 3,000 acres of timber, including 2,500 acres of mature 

lodgepole pine. The hatchery is near the epicenter of the severe beetle infestation 

in the Colorado High Country and beetle infestation is an active management issue 

at the hatchery. The majority of this timber is in the Mt. Massive Wilderness Area; 

approximately 500 acres of the hatchery’s timbered areas lie outside the wilderness. 

The hatchery manager first observed beetle kill on hatchery forests in 2006 and 

has tasked staff and volunteers to remove dead/infected individual trees on an annual basis. Pheromone packets are applied each year to protect individual pine trees 

in the hatchery headquarters area, and in 2008, the Service participated in an interagency effort with the Bureau of Land Management to thin lodgepole and to encourage aspen, spruce, and fir regeneration on hatchery lands. Additional pine thinning 

partnership projects are planned for 2009 and beyond. 

While the USFWS does not anticipate these efforts will completely prevent beetlekill of the hatchery’s lodgepole forest, the Service is hopeful the efforts will help reduce fuel loads and stimulate regeneration of other species. It remains unclear if 

thinning in uninfested forest stands will have any mitigating impact on mortality 

of mature lodgepole on USFWS or any other infested lands in Colorado. 

Department Efforts 

In addition to all the actions being taken by specific bureaus, the Department is 

coordinating several efforts including integrated pest management (IPM), creation 

of an incident commander for beetle control efforts in Colorado, multi-agency discussions, and blended fuels treatment plans and zones. The Department is also collaborating with the Department of Agriculture (through the U.S. Forest Service) who 

provides forest health information and support annually to the bureaus. 

In the face of rising mountain pine beetle infestations across the west, the Department will need increasing attention and dedicated resources to face this challenge. 

The greatest need will be for continued mapping and monitoring, fuel treatment 

around high-value areas, and for careful assessment of stressors such as sustained 

drought, climate change, beetle spread and impacts to the other integral flora and 

fauna components that make up a healthy, intact forest. 

Conclusion 

Mountain pine beetles will continue to be a part of the western landscape. It is 

an episodic pest reoccurring periodically throughout our western forests. It is currently rapidly expanding to epidemic levels in parts of the west. Some of this expansion is beyond the historic parameter for this species, in part assisted by reoccurring 

drought, climate change, overly dense mature forests, and changes in the biology of 

mountain pine beetle. 

The Department is committed to continued monitoring of the mountain pine 

beetle as it spreads to new areas and expands its range. We will continue to coordinate and support our federal, state and local partners to address this issue. The Department is dedicated to the interagency fuels and fire suppression efforts to respond to the inevitable fires and loss of habitat that will occur as a result of this 

outbreak. Although stopping the mountain pine beetle is not a viable option, management strategies to control its damage in priority areas, and protect resources and 

communities from catastrophic wildfires are critical. The continued collaboration 

and support between the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture will help us 

to face this unprecedented forest health challenge. 

This concludes my prepared testimony. I, along with our technical witnesses from 

the other bureaus, would be happy to answer any questions you or the other members of the subcommittees have on this topic. 

48 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you; your testimony is in the record. So 

thank you very much for being here as a witness. It is good to see 

you, Mr. Turley; you are next. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD TURLEY, SPECIAL PROGRAMS 

MANAGER, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. TURLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman; good morning 

Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, my 

name, of course, is Ron Turley. I am the Special Programs Manager for Western Area Power Administration. 

I am here today to try and provide the technical support that 

this committee needs to investigate this important issue. I just 

want to say at the onset though that I cannot speak toward policy. 

I am more of a technical type. 

For those that do not know, Western is a Federal agency. Western owns and operates 17,000 miles of transmission in most of the 

states west of the Mississippi. In many cases, as in Colorado, Western is the backbone of the electrical grid. 

So today, I am talking about transmission and not distribution. 

Transmission is the bulk of the energy grid. That is what I am 

speaking to. 

Transmission lines, of course, are linear features that traverse 

great distances across many vegetation types and, of course, of one 

common one is our western forests. We are all aware that we have 

unhealthy, unstable forest conditions in many forest types. Today, 

we are focusing on the bark beetle and lodgepole pine. But there 

are many forest types that have health and stability issues. 

When conditions are right, experience has shown that multiple, 

large fire events will occur, and they often continue for long periods 

of time. 

Western has concern about the potential for an overlap of multiple, simultaneous fire events on multiple parts of the grid. This 

could have significant regional and potentially national consequences. 

Just very briefly, from a technical aspect, there are two components to vegetation management that utilities face, that relate to 

the safety, liability, and secure operations of a power grid. The first 

is tall trees. The second is fire. 

Now tall trees are pretty easy to understand. It is traditional. It 

is well addressed by FERC and NRC mandatory reliability standards that rolled out of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Fire, however, is new. It is untraditional. It is more complex. It 

involves larger areas, and it is not addressed by any standards or 

any guidelines. Fire, itself, has two consequences for utility operations. The first is smoke. Smoke has short-term impacts to the operation of the power system. the more significant one, though, is 

the actual physical damage to power facilities; and that potentially 

could take long periods of time to repair. 

Concern for fire has led to a new concept of managing to enhance 

fire survivability. This involves different thinking by all. To utilities, thinking about adjusting maintenance strategies to manage 

for fire survivability, it means not only managing for tall trees, but 

also managing for fuels on your right-of-way. 

49 

For others, changes in thinking require that the grid be recognized as critical, wildland-urban interface, requiring priority protection. 

As noted, managing for fire survivability often requires treating 

areas larger than narrow rights-of-way. Survivability, however, 

does not mean exclusion of fire. It just means managing the intensity and duration of the heat. 

Because this involves areas larger than a right-of-way, it requires collaborative partnerships, and a coordination with various 

stakeholders. It is usually best to integrate these with other management objectives; and unfortunately, this requires time and process. 

Western feels we have some good examples to point on the 

Uncompahgre Plateau project, where we have some power line projection projects on the ground already. One other comment, technically I wanted to give is, the power system has its own communications network. Obviously, there is a lot of information that goes 

back and forth on the condition of the grid, and a lot of information 

goes back and forth on controlling the grid. 

It is an independent stand-alone system. So when we think about 

protecting the transmission grid, we also need to remember to protect the communication system that goes with that. 

That concludes my opening remarks. I thank you for having 

Western here today to help, and I am happy to answer any questions that the committee may have; thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turley follows:] 

Statement of Ron Turley, Special Programs Manager, 

Western Area Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy 

I am Ron Turley, Special Programs Manager for the Department of Energy’s 

Western Area Power Administration (Western). This is my testimony for the June 

16 hearing on ‘‘Mountain Pine Beetle: Strategies for Protecting the West.’’ 

Good morning, Madame Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman, and Subcommittee members. Western is committed to delivering reliable, cost-based Federal electrical 

power. We do this over an integrated 17,000 circuit-mile, high-voltage transmission 

system—an electrical Federal highway system—that spans most of the western half 

of the United States. Our role, as transmission owner and provider, is not only critical to the delivery of Federal power, it is integral to our Nation’s interconnected 

electrical grid and helps ensure reliable and secure delivery of our Nation’s power 

supply. 

Given the importance of this role, I appreciate the opportunity to update you on 

the urgency of real risks to public safety and power system security and reliability 

resulting from the bark beetle epidemic in the Rocky Mountains. This situation in 

Western’s service area is a great concern. Wildfires in dead and dying timber stands 

of beetle-infested forests can seriously interrupt power system operations and significantly damage transmission lines. This situation could result in widespread, regional power outages potentially requiring extended periods of repair time. 

Today I will provide technical information on the risks that beetle-kill forests pose 

to Western’s power system; the substantially more aggressive vegetation management practices required to reduce these risks; and how Western is taking an active 

role to address the issue. 

Beetle-killed, forested landscapes and Western’s transmission 

infrastructure 

Today, the impact to Western’s transmission lines and facilities from the bark 

beetle is concentrated in Colorado. Much of Western’s transmission system in Colorado is located on heavily forested lands administered by the United States Forest 

Service (USFS), as well as on lands under other ownerships (private, Bureau of 

Land Management, tribal and others). 

50 

Dead and dying trees are threats to public safety, reliability and grid security 

Our transmission lines cross a variety of vegetation types, but trees are one of 

the main vegetation management concerns when it comes to ensuring public safety, 

reliable system operations and grid security. 

Today, vegetation management includes more than just cutting danger trees— 

trees tall enough to either grow into contact with electrical conductors or fall into 

the conductors or structures. It involves actively managing the plant communities 

beneath our transmission lines and within our rights of way as well as addressing 

fire-related impacts that affect the overall ability of transmission facilities to withstand a fire. 

Under extreme fire conditions, multiple large, high-intensity wildfire events can 

simultaneously impact multiple electrical grid components resulting in potentially 

severe regional consequences. 

Direct risks to Western’s lines 

Many segments of Western’s grid-critical transmission system pass through 

lodgepole pine areas impacted by the mountain pine beetle. The dead and dying 

trees present multiple risks to transmission lines, including physical damage and 

operational threats to facilities from falling trees, increased threats to facility operation and physical damage from wildfire events and the possibility of causing wildfire by igniting trees that fall on or near high-voltage transmission lines. Associated 

power outages could be sudden or extended, or both, potentially jeopardizing public 

safety. Accordingly, Western is concerned about management implications of forest 

health not only associated with lodgepole pine but in many other forest types as 

well. 

Indirect risks to Western’s lines 

In addition, indirect risks in the forested areas—sometimes many miles from 

Western’s facilities—may put Western’s transmission facilities at risk. The potential 

for large fires in beetle-killed timber presents a serious risk to continuous power 

system operations and the integrity of transmission lines. Fuels treatments in areas 

both adjacent to and, in some cases, distant from the right of way may mitigate but 

not completely eliminate the risk presented by wildfires and enhance the likelihood 

of the operational security of our transmission facilities when fire occurs within 

these fire-adapted landscapes. As illustrated in the attached photos, managing fuels 

to enhance transmission line fire survivability is complex. However, utilities’ rights 

and authority concerning vegetation management end at the edge of the transmission line’s right of way. 

Western’s vegetation management program—adapting to new realities 

Today, the goal of our vegetation management program is to establish a more 

manageable, long term right-of-way condition that reduces the build up and concentration of fire fuels and reduces the overall risk of tree-caused outages or fires, 

increasing public safety and enhancing power system security and reliability. 

Program history 

Western has always conducted a robust vegetation management program to manage and control vegetation on its rights of way. Historically, we performed maintenance work when vegetation had grown near the point of becoming a problem. We 

principally focused on managing tall trees, consistent with industry standards. 

With the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) have established mandatory vegetation management standards. The electric utility industry 

is now required to actively manage vegetation well before it can potentially threaten 

reliable power system operations. Consequently, Western must significantly change 

its past practices on some forested transmission line rights of ways ‘‘most of which 

are on National Forest System lands. 

Two-phased approach tackles major workload 

To meet these new and more stringent NERC reliability requirements, Western 

undertook an intensive, systematic review of the power system to locate and remove 

danger trees with the intent to immediately ensure the safety, security and reliability of the Federal transmission system. 

Western plans to follow with a second phase of more aggressive treatments to convert heavily forested rights of ways to a more manageable condition of stable, lowgrowth and slow-growing native vegetation. This conversion process involves removing or grinding previously cut trees and debris, removing standing trees, and actively selecting for native, lower-growth plant species. This approach increases speVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
51 

cies diversity through the establishment and retention of early-succession plant 

communities that are appropriate to the ecology of the area. 

This second phase is pending the completion of an environmental review process 

co-led by the USFS and Western. Western and the USFS are in negotiations regarding this environmental review process, and we anticipate a lengthy review and analysis. In the interim, trees continue to grow, and Western will continue to annually 

remove danger trees on previously treated transmission line sections. This is required to maintain the integrity of the Federal power system and remain in compliance with the mandatory reliability standards. 

Western’s role—solutions to the bark beetle threat 

Western provides industry leadership on vegetation management issues related to 

power grid safety, security and reliability. Western is recognized for collaborative 

approaches to address today’s complex natural resources management issues. As a 

result, Western sits on the steering committee for the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative and has been appointed to Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s Healthy Forest Advisory Council. We have been appointed to the NERC Standards Drafting Team 

tasked with writing international industry reliability standards for vegetation management. 

Expedited environmental review 

Western continues to work with the USFS on the environmental review and other 

steps required to fully implement our vegetation management program. To help address the immediate need created by the bark beetle epidemic, Western is exploring 

a recent proposal by the USFS to provide an expedited, programmatic environmental analysis for a one-time, limited authorization to treat fuels and mitigate 

wildfire hazards. 

Collaborative partnerships show promise 

In addition, Western is encouraged by our participation in the Uncompahgre Plateau Project in Colorado. This project is an example of a collaborative approach to 

addressing multiple resource objectives, including transmission line protection and 

fire-hazard mitigation projects, across jurisdictional boundaries using a variety of 

authorities and funding sources. 

The goal of the Uncompahgre Plateau Project is to develop collaborative approaches to improve or restore ecosystem health on various landscapes, using best 

available science, community and other stakeholder partnerships and adaptive management practices. Principal project partners include: the Public Lands Partnership, 

Bureau of Land Management, Colorado Division of Wildlife, the USFS, Western and 

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Primary components of the Project include: landscape scale project planning, 

invasive species management, a native plant program, on-the-ground treatments, 

and education and technology transfer. The Project directs, coordinates and/or facilitates these activities across jurisdictional boundaries, but does not supersede management authority on any Federal, state, or private lands. 

Through its innovative powerline protection projects, the Uncompahgre Plateau 

Project model works well for protecting transmission resources—critical wildland 

and urban interface infrastructure traversing these lands. An environmental decision memo further describing one of these projects is attached. 

Cooperative effort—key to solution 

Many questions remain, but the need is urgent. The solution will involve all 

stakeholders working cooperatively. Western is committed to being part of the solution, continuing our role as an industry leader in enhancing public safety and increasing the security and reliability of the electric grid. 

Thank you, Madame Chairwoman and Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or the Subcommittee members may have. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much for your testimony; 

and we will begin the round of questions. Now I can start off with 

Mr. Turley. I have been privileged to see the sites that you presented here on the committee today. 

And I know in speaking to some of your personnel, some of the 

impediments on the right-of-ways is permission to be able to go in 

and do some clearance in some areas. But what are the biggest impediments pertaining to those transmission lines; and getting to 

52 

that, whose responsibility should it be or is it for clearing the vegetation outside of the right-of-way? 

Mr. TURLEY. Madam Chairwoman, traditional vegetation management practices for a utility involves managing tall trees. Today, 

we need to think not only about tall trees, but also fuels management; that is a change in management practice that requires 

NEPA review. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you explain fuels management? 

Mr. TURLEY. The best way to explain fuels management is, there 

has been an accumulation of biomass. You allow trees to grow. 

That is traditionally how right-of-ways are managed. It was justin-time maintenance. When a tree got too tall and became a problem, then you dealt with it. 

Fuels management means not only dealing with tall trees, but 

also dealing with the rest of the biomass that is on that right-ofway. Trees that you may have cut down previously were typically 

cut, lopped and scattered, and left there. 

There has been 50 or 60 years of materials accumulating on 

these right-of-ways; and in the western United States, this material does not rot. It is good sound wood—good sound fuel. You have 

re-generation that is coming up through this material. So you have 

your fine fuels, as well. That needs to be managed. 

Fuels management means cleaning up or addressing that entire 

problem, versus the previous approach of just dealing with tall 

trees. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. TURLEY. Off the right-of-way is an entirely different issue. 

Tall trees, fuels on the right-of-way, you have tall trees and fuels 

off the right-of-way, as well. Tall trees off the right-of-way are pretty easy to understand. But it is a matter of risk. The farther the 

tree gets away from the power line, the more precisely it has got 

to fall toward the power line to create a problem. 

So how far do you go? How much risk do you want to mitigate? 

How much resource do you have? How much can you really do? 

Fuels off the right-of-way is a much bigger problem. We have 

seen some of the fire photos today, and these are pretty catastrophic events. The utility’s responsibility ends at the edge of the 

right-of-way. That is the cold, hard fact of it. So the utility really 

does not have the rights, the authority, much ability to work off the 

right-of-way. 

So it really falls to others. When you are dealing with fuels off 

the right-of-way, utilities do not know what to do. We are not fire 

scientists. We understand tall trees. We have been doing that a 

long time. But fuels management is a much tougher nut to crack; 

and as I noted in my opening comments, oftentimes, it needs to be 

integrated with other management objectives. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How much is your right-of-way; how many 

feet? 

Mr. TURLEY. How wide? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How wide. 

Mr. TURLEY. It depends on your voltage. Larger voltages have 

wider right-of-ways. A 354 KV, 345,000 volt, which would be typical or the biggest you would find in the Rocky Mountain Region, 

53 

would be about a 150,000/175,000 foot right-of-way. A 115,000 volt 

would be about 75 foot right-of-way. So you are in that range. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would it make any sense to widen the rightof-way to prevent venue fires adjacent to that right-of-way to the 

grids from endangering the grids? 

Mr. TURLEY. When you are dealing with fire and fuels, again, the 

areas are so large, I do not know that it would be very effective 

in dealing with that part of the problem. Perhaps tall trees may 

be a little better. 

Let me note, as well, we are not talking clear cuts. We are not 

talking going from Point A to Point B and doing everything. We 

need to have a strategic approach. We just do not have the resources. You need to very strategically get the best bang for your 

buck; get the highest priority areas. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you; Mr. Cables, if a tree standing outside of the right-of-way falls in the line and starts a fire, who is 

liable for the damages? 

Mr. CABLES. I am not completely positive how that would be legally interpreted. I think Ron made a significant point, in terms of 

this is uncharted territory right now for us; something at this scale, 

1,3000 miles all at once. 

We had a meeting on May 18th, where we invited all the utility 

electrical providers that have these transmission and distribution 

lines. Subsequent to that meeting, I wrote a letter essentially 

granting permission to immediately remove hazard trees, whether 

within or outside the right-of-way that were an imminent threat to 

the power line. And we are also working on a longer term, more 

robust strategy to consider fuels treatment or anticipating fire effects beyond the width of the right-of-way. 

We have right-of-ways that are 15 feet wide for some of these 

distribution lines, which obviously is not adequate if the trees are 

80 feet tall. 

So there are a whole series of things that we are working on 

right now, to try to mitigate this problem and to do it as quickly 

as we can. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. There was one of the testimonies in the witnesses who are yet to come, stating that they had been told that 

they are responsible for any damages within or outside the rightof-way. In the many years the Forest Service has been managing 

it, has there not been an attempt to clarify this, not only for the 

benefit of the public, but for the benefit of the grids and others? 

Mr. CABLES. First of all, I am not familiar with that particular 

citation, what the situation was. I think that historically, clearly, 

we have tried to hold the utility companies or whoever responsible 

for those area within the authorization. 

So they are authorized to cross National Forest System lands, 

and they have an authorization and some form of special use permit—an easement, a memorandum of understanding—that allows 

that; and there are responsibilities within that corridor. 

Again, I cannot speak to the citation. But your point about, have 

there not been an opportunity to clarify—probably there have been, 

or maybe there has actually been clarification that I am unaware 

of. 

54 

But in this particular instance, again, we are just trying to catch 

up with an event of the scale that we are talking about, and try 

to do it all together with some consistency across the different jurisdictions. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, knowing that there are many thousands 

of miles of grid lines, I think that is incumbent upon the Forest 

Service to sit and determine what needs to be done and at the 

table. If it needs us to be able to work with you, I would be delighted to do that, sir. 

Dr. Frost, would you provide a little more detail on the specific 

actions the Department of the Interior has taken to protect isolated 

tribal lands and communities from the effects of the beetle epidemic? 

Mr. FROST. Yes, I can give a couple of examples, and there is not 

a lot I can tell you, and I may have to get back with you. 

But at the Flathead Indian Reservation in Montana, there are 

20,000 acres of dead trees, and only 5,000 acres have been able to 

be treated to date. At the Yakima Indian Reservation in Washington, 14,000 acres are dead, and none have been treated. 

In the Colville Indian Reservation in Washington, 8,000 acres of 

lodgepole pines are at high risk for beetle infestation; and the main 

treatment there is a re-generation harvest and a conversion to different species; mostly western large. About 10,000 acres have been 

converted since 1970. I can submit these to you. I can go on, and 

I have a list here. 

So there are a number of activities that are going on. Another 

one is in Montana. They have been working for 12 years or more 

at the Rocky Boys Indian Reservation, and they have had a successful program in timber harvesting in terms of salvaging the 

mortality. But they just cannot seem to get ahead of the infestation. 

They have forest health money from the Forest Service. In the 

past, they have been pheromone traps. So they have tried to do all 

the treatments. But again, for lack of personnel, lack of expertise, 

it has been very difficult for them. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you; and thank you all for submitting 

your testimony. I am very disappointed, to say the least, in OMB 

in the delay; because some of your testimony did not reach me until 

this morning. I take great exception to that, because I like to read 

it and be able to formulate the question, based on your testimony, 

so that I am very much in tune with what we are discussing. 

To me, it is unacceptable that they would not release the testimony; whether they are backlogged or whatever. There is a message going to be given to that effect. But thank you for submitting 

your testimony to them on time. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman and Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask that a photograph of the slash piles in 

Wyoming be held up, and I have a question, Mr. Cables. I have 

seen slash piles like the one that we have here in a photograph. 

And these are slash piles from existing and approved operations 

that would be used as woody biomass, under the RFS or RES wood 

bi-products that would otherwise go to waste, and we are getting 

there. 

55 

What I am talking about. They are whopping slash piles that are 

going to be burned as soon as the snow flies or something; and it 

would be so great if they could be used for creating fuel. 

What is the Forest Service stance on the potential of woody biomass gathered on public lands, as a renewable fuel source? 

Mr. CABLES. Well, obviously, it definitely has high potential. The 

USDA proposes to use the definitions of biomass that are in Titles 

I and III in the 2008 Farm Bill; and have previously testified or 

made public comments to that effect. That would enable products 

that come from the public lands and the National Forest Service 

lands to be considered as part of the renewable biomass standard. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you; my next question is for Mr. Cables and 

Dr. Bentz. I preface this by saying, I would love it if you or your 

staff would stick around and hear Mr. Larsen’s testimony on the 

fourth panel later today; and this is about the battle on this epidemic. It has not been successful thus far. I am talking about the 

pine beetle epidemic. 

What specific and immediate steps can the Forest Service take 

to step up—and I want to emphasize that word—step up the reduction of this growing hazardous fuel load in the west? 

Mr. CABLES. Well, thank you for the question. We have specific 

and immediate steps. We have a five-year plan right now. We have 

multiple thousands of acres that are NEPA ready, with full concurrence by a wide spectrum of participants and interests. We have 

a collaborative group, the bark beetle collaborative, and you will 

hear from members of that group in subsequent panels, and I will 

stay around for subsequent panels. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thanks. 

Mr. CABLES. So we have a lot of work being done, and we have 

a lot of work on the shelf; and we are just trying to be as efficient 

with the money as we can. 

One of the dilemmas that we have—and again, within my region, 

I have shifted funds, to the extent I can. But as Representative 

Sablan pointed out, the Black Hills are also in our region, the 

Rocky Mountain Region, which includes parts of Wyoming and 

South Dakota. 

And if we overly shift dollars to Colorado and southern Wyoming 

for this, away from areas on the Black Hills, then we are going to 

just be creating a problem in a different place, or accelerating a 

problem in a different place. Because as the representative pointed 

out, we have 300,000 acres of bark beetle mortality in the Black 

Hills. 

So again, it is trying to figure out how to put your finger in the 

dike in different places on this problem; and I am just speaking for 

our region. There are multiple regions in the West, and even in the 

east, that had these insect problems. 

I think we have the steps, in terms of the projects, laid out. It 

is again trying to allocate the resources necessary to get the work 

done. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Cables. 

Ms. BENTZ. Could I just make a statement regarding the science 

part of it? So the mountain pine beetle is undoubtedly changing the 

fuel dynamics, in lodgepole pine forests. 

56 

The issue is that this has happened on such a large scale, that 

we really do not have any research to say what the intricacies of 

those changes are. There is a lot of research that suggests that you 

can do tree removal and thinning in wild line urban interfaces, and 

really have a big impact on saving infrastructure and homes. 

But there is just really hardly any research to say what is going 

to happen if you try to take out dead trees across large expanses, 

in terms of the ecological consequences or the changes to the fuel 

dynamics. 

We are talking about things that we really do not know what is 

going to happen. So I just wanted to make that comment. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you; Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, Dr. Bentz; thank you for that last comment. 

I think it is important for all of us to reflect on the enormity of the 

issue that we are dealing with here today. Simply put, is there a 

direct correlation between fire and the beetle attack? 

Ms. BENTZ. Did fire influence the insect attack, or the other way 

around? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Vice versa. 

Ms. BENTZ. Vice versa? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. 

Ms. BENTZ. Well, that was the comment I was just making. We 

do not have a whole lot of research or really data to pinpoint. But 

we have information that we have compiled to suggest that it is a 

very dynamic process. 

The potential for crown file will be really high, early on, as all 

those needles are in the trees; and when those drop and you have 

dead standing snags, the potential for crown fire goes down. As the 

snags fall over, which has been mentioned several times in a 10 to 

20 year time period, and vegetation grows up, then you get this increase in potential for a surface fire with the ladder fuels that 

could then go into the crown. 

It is a very dynamic process, and it is going to vary from place 

to place. And I think the overriding factor is the weather. You have 

to have extreme fire weather to get these fires going, irregardless 

of the fuel dynamics. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you; Mr. Cables, recently, a report was released indicating that the Forest Service spent only three percent 

of its money to reduce fire danger in the wildland-urban interface. 

That was overall. How does that compare in Colorado and other 

parts of your region? 

Mr. CABLES. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva; this report was just 

released last week. Quite frankly, I was perplexed when I saw it. 

We got to looking at our data. In our region, in total, it is over 63 

percent of treatments that have occurred in the wildland-urban 

interface; and in the bark beetle area, it is 80 percent, and we are 

shooting for 90 percent. 

So we have very specifically focused our energy—and not just in 

hazardous fuels money—but the other programs that manage vegetation, in the areas that are what we called the zones of agreements. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Is that percentage based on location or overall 

budget of the region? 

57 

Mr. CABLES. That percentage is based on location. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So overall budget, what would that be? 

Mr. CABLES. I do not have the figures by budget. I just have the 

figures by acreage. But we can get you that information. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK, I think one of the issues is a resource issue; 

part commentary, part question, Mr. Cables. Right now, there is 

not even a sponsor for the Flame Act in the Senate. 

I would suggest that particularly in some of these states in the 

western states regarding the infestation and fire prevention and 

suppression strategies vital, that it would behoove some of the 

members of that body to get behind this. 

It has already passed the House. I think it is a resource issue 

that deals with the percentage I asked you about; that deals with 

community planning; and I think it is an attempt to begin to deal 

with this issue—not only the infestation issue, but the fire suppression issue. 

But anyway, it is based on the resource question, Mr. Cables. 

The resource needs that you have for your region, in order to carry 

out some of the strategies that you discussed is, you redirect funds 

from your existing budget. You mentioned that. But if you were to 

have resource additions, what would that percentage of that 

amount look like? Because I think overall, we are still talking 

about the need to invest some resources in this whole issue; and 

until we do that, I think we are just going to talk in circles. 

Mr. CABLES. Well, let me understand, Mr. Chairman. Are you 

asking, how would we invest additional resources? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. How much more would you need in order to do the 

job that you were talking about? 

Mr. CABLES. That is really a good question. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CABLES. I wrote a letter to the Chief of the Forest Service 

on June 6th, and requested emergency funding over a three-year 

period, in an amount of $213 million for Fiscal Years 2009, 2010, 

and 2011, that would allow us to deal with emergency threats to 

human life and safety from falling trees; clear the rights-of-ways 

and ensure that we do not have trees falling on power lines and 

infrastructure and camp ground maintenance and all those things. 

So that was just an immediate, short-term burst of a request to 

deal with the problems of the mountain pine beetle. 

In the long run, I would say that most regional foresters, if they 

were sitting here, would say they would invest the money, working 

collaboratively with community people, to try to do community protection, watershed protection, and try to keep up with things. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK, thank you; Mr. Turley, the Western Power 

Administration—at least from your testimony, and correct me—has 

now discovered recently the issue of fuel management. That is a 

question. 

Mr. TURLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I think the whole industry traditionally has managed tall trees. But you had not had the 

fire incident. You had not had the biomass problems that we are 

starting to see today. 

I think the entire industry is starting to look at the fuels management and the fire survivability part now, and saying, ‘‘Hey, we 

certainly need to be doing something on our right-of-way.’’ That is 

58 

just like you would ask a private citizen around their home to be 

firewise. I think utilities need to be firewise. 

But again, that fire problem is so big, so massive, it extends way 

off the right-of-way. So yes, it is kind of a new concept; not just to 

Western, but to the entire industry. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And with that fuels management, also I would assume the fire issue is now a more prevalent issue with the Administration than it was, say, previously, as a priority issue? 

Mr. TURLEY. That is more of a policy-type question, that I am not 

sure I can really answer, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK, I yield back. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you; Mrs. McMorris Rodgers? 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman; I 

mentioned in my opening statement that in eastern Washington, 

Avista has a biomass facility, 50 megawatts in Kettle Falls, right 

next door to the Colville National Forest. And yet, they have to import from Canada 70 percent of what they burn at that facility. 

I also have a mill, the Vaagen Brothers Mill, in Caldwell, that 

re-tooled probably 10 years ago now, to really focus on small diameter trees. So it is six inches or less, really. Yet, both of these 

facilities have trouble getting access to material, despite the fact 

that we are right next door to the Caldwell National Forest. 

I might also mention that there has been a tremendous collaborative effort under way in this region between environmental 

groups, the industry, and recreational users, trying to come up 

with a way that locally we could actually move forward. 

But instead, we still cannot move forward. The Caldwell National Forest has, I do not know, how many acres in mountain pine 

beetle and trees that are dead from burns or beetle infestation or 

other reasons. It needs a lot of attention; and we live in fear of catastrophic fires every year. 

So I just wanted to ask, or to have you just talk a little bit, Mr. 

Cables and Dr. Frost, about the problem we face with the overstocking of our Federal lands; and does it not increase the risk of 

higher intensity fires? And do you believe that the role of the 

Forest Service is shifting from management of Forest to simply 

protecting houses from fires? 

Mr. CABLES. Let me start, Representative McMorris Rodgers. Let 

me first mention that the two mills in our region have re-tooled to 

do just as we have asked, to deal with smaller diameter material. 

Both the Diamond Brothers Mill in Wyoming and South Dakota, 

and the two mills in Inner Mountain over in Montrose, Colorado, 

have been very heavily invested in trying to create an industry 

that actually meets the needs; and I really would like to give them 

credit for that. 

Our issue in our region is not so much access to material. I do 

not think that you would hear very much from the woods products 

industry folks. But that is really a huge problem. 

I think, right now, the problem is more just the situation with 

the industry, in terms of the economy, and trying to get cash and 

the amount of cash that is tied up in some of our requirements in 

our contracting and they are cash poor. The market is so depressed, and it really started going down in 2004. So I think that 

is a larger issue. 

59 

Has the Forest Service changed priorities? I do not believe we 

have at all. I believe, at least in some of these cases, the size and 

scale of the events have become overwhelming, to an extent; and 

you saw the speed with which this particular issue in the pine 

beetle in Colorado and southern Wyoming has accelerated. 

Again, I think it is working to have the social license from the 

communities of interest to allow us to move forward and work together; and there are barriers always with that. But I feel like we 

are making a lot of headway in those particular areas, and that we 

now do have the social license to practice on the ground what needs 

to get done. 

That is my sense of it, from our field people and talking to folks. 

So I think our priorities are still looking at maintaining that forest 

in the way that it is healthy, and that continue to give the benefits 

that people want; whether it is water, wildlife habitat, recreation 

opportunities, wood products for society—you name it; and I do not 

know how Dr. Frost would answer. 

Mr. FROST. I would agree with a lot of what Mr. Cables has to 

say. Availability of wood products may be at different levels across 

different regions. What I have been told is that in areas like in 

Colorado, there is more than enough wood products for the mills 

that are there. So the situation that you are experiencing may be 

a low cause phenomenon. I do not know what the situation is 

there. 

But again, I think the key to managing the forest to be sustainable over time; and to protect health and human safety in the circumstances that we are now in. 

The policies at the Department of the Interior, we have different 

bureaus, so we have different policies. The Park Service is very different than the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM manages 

very similar, and the BIA manages very similar to the Forest Service. Whereas, the Park Service, we look at ecosystem function and 

things like that. So how we manage the forest maybe is very different. 

While we want to protect infrastructure and urban interface and 

heath and human safety, the larger issues for the Park Service is 

to maintain those healthy systems over time through the national 

processes. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Just for my own edification, can you 

give me a sense of the infrastructure that exists in Colorado then, 

as far as mills or biomass facilities? 

Mr. FROST. I cannot. But we can get you that information. I do 

not have that right here. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. OK, that would be great. 

Mr. CABLES. We currently have one, what I would call medium 

to large size saw mill left in Montrose, Colorado; and we have two 

pellet plants in northern Colorado, in the bark beetle area. 

We have a mill that was shut down in Saratoga, Wyoming, which 

is just north of the Colorado border in Wyoming, that is the company that owns Inner Mountain Resources, that owns the mill the 

mill in Montrose. It has been trying to invest and buy equipment 

to start that mill, which would certainly reduce the haul costs of 

this material and the fossil fuels associated, hauling heavy things 

like wood long distances. 

60 

So that is the current state in Colorado and Southern Wyoming; 

and of course, there is a mill up in Hewlett, Wyoming, which is associated with the Black Hills. That is in the northeast corner of 

Wyoming. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Well, just for the committee’s information, my region is very concerned about losing what existing infrastructure we have; and the issue of having access to timber has 

been a huge issue. I think we are fearful that we are going to head 

down the same path, where we will be in Washington State, saying 

we have one mill, two pellet plants, whatever it may be. 

There was one other question I wanted to ask on the stimulus 

dollars. Because in the stimulus, I think if I remember correctly, 

it is $4 billion for the Forest Service for fuel management, fuel reduction. And so far, what I have seen is, the money is going more 

for roads—either tearing out roads, rather than really addressing 

this fuel management, fuel reduction issue. 

In my region, we are very anxious to have access to some of that 

fuel right now, because we could use it at the biomass facility to 

generate electricity; or Vaagens could use it to keep their mill running. 

Mr. CABLES. I only wish it were $4 billion. No, the Forest Service 

received—I believe it was a billion and a half dollars—through the 

stimulus funding. And in the Rocky Mountain Region, we have received $26 million 

to date of approved projects. That was as of June 11th. I would say 

90-plus percent of those projects have to do with hazardous fuels 

work and vegetation management; and we have also just released 

some wood energy biomass utilization grants—four that total a million dollars. 

The stimulus money that we have received, the AARA funding 

that we have received to date has been heavily oriented toward 

working on this problem with managing the vegetation to maintain 

the conditions we want in the forest. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you; Ms. DeGette? 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Madam Chair; I just want to emphasize something that Congressman Powell has said, which is in 

Colorado, at least, we are really in a crisis situation. What we are 

looking at is, how do we do triage with this beetle kill? 

There are a lot of different issues. One of this is, what do we do 

with the urban interface? What do we do with our power lines? 

What do we do with our watersheds? You heard about Denver 

Water, which affects my congressional district directly. 

And then the question is, what do we do in the longer range? For 

example, if we pass climate change legislation today, that is not 

going to help us deal with this crisis situation; but we hope it will 

help us in the long run. 

When you go beyond that, then you have to ask, what do we do 

about the moving of this wood, or what do you do about stabilizing 

these forests for the next century? So I want to ask a few questions 

about all of those complicated issues. 

The first question, I want to ask Mr. Cables; but Dr. Bentz, you 

might be able to lend some light to this, as well. I hear conflicting 

information about, we all know that climate change, warm winters 

and warmer summers cause some of this. And in addition, we have 

61 

mature forests that all are roughly the same age, so that the 

beetles have really been able to go in. 

But what I am wondering is, what we can do in the long run. 

Because it seems to me that this crisis that we are in right now, 

no matter how we remove this wood, 100 years from now, these forests are now all going to be the same age again, because the forest 

management techniques we were using 100 years ago made all 

these forests be this age. 

So what can we do to avoid the next generation’s inheriting this 

same problem with our healthy forests; Mr. Cables or Dr. Bentz? 

Ms. BENTZ. Thank you; I can start. Again, this is such a new 

thing. We are kind of like adaptive management at its best, I 

guess. 

But thought is, as many have said, yes, the reason that this is 

such an explosive problem is because there is a ton of food and favorable weather conditions. So the thought is that on a very large 

landscape scale, the forests need to be diversified; not only in species, but also in age classes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now how do we do that, when the whole forest is 

dying at once? 

Ms. BENTZ. Well, I do not think the whole forest is dying at once. 

I mean, there may be places where lodgepole regenerates naturally 

on its own. So there may be places where there could be natural 

regeneration; and maybe we want to go in and plant other species. 

It is going to take some management to make that diversity. 

But I think we also need to realize that climate change is not 

just affecting the insect. It is not just affecting fire. But the tree 

species that are growing there may not be the ones that are the 

best to grow there in another 150 years or 100 years. So we need 

to factor that into the concept, also, if we are going to plant, what 

do we want to plant. 

Mr. CABLES. It is a great question, and I have thought about 

this. If you cycle forward 50 years, and if we do get re-generation 

of lodgepole, and you have this green 50-year-old forest; then we 

suggest that we need to create a mosaic of age classes and go into 

some large chunks and put fire on the landscape and flow out 1,000 

acres or 5,000-acre chunks so we can get younger age classes—to 

diversify the age structure. The public may look at us and say, 

‘‘What is wrong with the situation right now? It is beautiful.’’ 

So I think it is going to be a continuing education process. But 

we need a diversity of species, to the extent we can. So where we 

have aspen, they are going to flourish right now, because they are 

going to be exposed to full sunlight. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. 

Mr. CABLES. And I think we need to either, through a combination of mechanical treatments or fire, create some different age 

classes over this next 50 or 60 years, so that we do not replicate 

history in 100 years, and find ourselves facing the same problem. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right, OK, I have some other questions. But 

maybe we can have a meeting, and I will ask you later. 

I want to ask you, for the dead trees that we are removing from 

public lands, I am assuming or inferring really from something you 

said, Mr. Cables, that is happening under the NEPA process. Is 

that correct? And so I would assume that any further woody bioVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
62 

mass that we are removing from these lands, they would also be 

doing that under NEPA restrictions, correct? 

Mr. CABLES. Yes, that is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, and before I move on to Mr. 

McClintock, Mr. Turley—before I forget it, it does not stay at home 

too much—in your testimony on page four, you indicated that 

Western is exploring a recent proposal by the U.S. Forest Service 

to provide an expedited programmatic environmental analysis for 

a one time limited authorization to treat fields and mitigate wild 

fire hazards. 

Can you comment on that? Because we have not really touched 

upon that. Are there any arrangements for the partnerships that 

are happening, to be able to begin mitigating some of the issues? 

Mr. TURLEY. Thank you, Congresswoman; Western actually has 

two environmental processes ongoing. I talked earlier about changing practices, from managing tall trees to managing tall trees and 

fuels on your right-of-way. 

Western is involved, as a caudally agency with the Forest Service 

on an EIS, an Environmental Impact Statement, to review and 

allow for that change in management practices. That is probably 

going to be a long-term deal, two to three years out. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right, but I am specifically referring to this 

one, the one time. 

Mr. TURLEY. Right, the one-time one is for utilities treating 

things off the right of way. That is proposed to be a more expedited 

environmental review process that will pave the way for utilities to 

function off the right-of-way. Utilities really do not have the right 

to be off the right-of-way. It is kind of a question we need to work 

through. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And as you are working on that specific pilot, 

if you will, because it is a one-time, would you be able then to indicate whether or not that is helpful to be able to mitigate some of 

the issues that are affecting the right-of-way. 

Mr. TURLEY. Well, it is certainly good that there is urgency and 

we are trying to address issues. But it wrought with a lot problems; 

as to who has the lead, who has the resources. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But how do we get to that? How do we go past 

all of that and get down to getting it done? 

Mr. TURLEY. I am not sure if I have the answer, other than we 

keep making it a priority and working on it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I know. But if it continues to go back 

and forth—that, no, you do it; no, I do it, you are still going to go 

back to the same old argument, which is who is responsible or 

whose responsibility it is; who will be in charge, if you will. Is this 

coming to a head; or is this again another delay that is going to 

not help the process? 

Mr. TURLEY. We really have not had that much time to work on 

it. As Mr. Cables pointed out, we met on May 18th. So we are just 

30-some odd days down the road. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It is not done yet? 

Mr. TURLEY. No; I am sorry, it is not done. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK, never mind; Mr. McClintock? 

63 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Madam Chairman; a lot has been 

said about the interaction of temperature and water on the beetle 

infestation. A quick technical question for Dr. Bentz, what has the 

temperature trend been in that region, over the past couple of 

years? 

Ms. BENTZ. I cannot talk specifics. But again, I know that it is 

not getting as cold for as long. I mean, this insect is able to withstand temperatures. It produces this anti-freeze compounds; and it 

is able to withstand temperatures of minus 40 degrees C. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, I understand that. But the temperature 

trend itself over the past couple of years—you have testified already that you think a rise in temperature is a major factor. But 

you are not prepared to tell us what the trend has been over the 

last couple of years. 

Ms. BENTZ. I can say what the trend has been in places that I 

have studied that trend. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, no, in this region, in the past couple of 

years—that is what we are talking about. 

Ms. BENTZ. Yes, in Idaho, where I have quantitative data I can 

send you, it has been an increasing trend of, the minimum winter 

temperatures have been increasingly warmer. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. In the past couple of years? 

Ms. BENTZ. That is a trend since the early 1990s. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, here is a Fox news report. I mean, you 

can Google and find a number of reports of similar kind. Now there 

is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets release data showing the temperatures have dropped significantly 

over the last year. 

California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65 hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75 hundredths of a degree Centigrade. It is reportedly the single fastest 

temperature change ever recorded, up or down. 

Ms. BENTZ. I do not know where those temperatures are from. 

But I am measuring floor temperature, where the insects live, in 

many, many places throughout the west; and I can send you graphs 

that are showing that it is in the environment that is important 

to this insect. It is the trends that we have stated. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The most significant testimony we have had 

today, in my opinion, was the picture presented by Mr. Salazar, I 

think it was number seven in his series, the handprint, that 

showed the difference between forests that have been thinned and 

those portions that had not been thinned. 

Mr. Cables, why are you not thinning those forests? I mean, that 

shows a very, very dramatic solution to the problem. If we thin the 

forests, they are healthy; if we fail to thin them, they are ravaged. 

Why are you not thinning those forests? 

Mr. CABLES. Two points, Representative McClintock, first of all, 

we are so overwhelmed with the dead trees, and trying to remove 

the dead trees from the forest, that our program has shifted from 

trying to get in front and treat green stands, to deal with only the 

salvaging of the material or working on the material that is already dead and removing the hazards, as I described. That is point 

number one. 

64 

Point number two, that picture is taken on the Fraser Experimental Forest. It is a research site. That picture was depicting different cutting regimes to do research on water yield; and those are 

not thinnings. Those actually were where all the trees were cut. 

So you could see in fingers of that hand, you could see the younger green trees were areas where we completely removed the trees 

prior, and left a strip of mature trees, and then cut a stripe completely clean and then a strip of mature trees, so we could measure 

water. 

What the research from that study shows is, in the upper watersheds, we have to remove 25 percent of the tree cover, and maintain it as open, to get an appreciable gain in water, which is a rather significant number. 

So we are managing the forest, to the extent we can, within our 

budgets; and frankly, are overwhelmed with the bark beetle right 

now. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. If I could just ask you a final question then. 

Is there not a great deal of commercial value to trees through 

thinning, if they are used for lumber production; and second, is 

there not a great deal of commercial value for the beetle-killed 

trees, provided that they are salvaged within a year or so of their 

being killed? 

Mr. CABLES. The commercial value of the lodgepole species we 

are talking about, the size is not great. This is a species that has 

never been a real high value species; but there is value. We are 

trying to utilize that value, to the extent we can access the areas 

we can get to, as rapidly as we can, with the industry that we 

have. 

Your point about thinning, the most active force management we 

have in the region I am responsible for is on the Black Hills. And 

as Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin said, we have actually still got 

a viable industry there, and we have been able to keep up with 

that system. Now that is Ponderosa pine, which is a very different 

ecology than the lodgepole system. 

In areas like that, where we have industry and we are able to 

stay ahead of the beetles and the fire issues, we have been able to 

do that, to some extent. Again, in Colorado and southern Wyoming 

right now, we have just got so many acres of dead trees, that we 

are trying our best to salvage what we can. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But if we salvage them for lumber, and do so 

in a timely fashion, is that not a money maker for the Federal Government? 

Mr. CABLES. I do not know if it would be construed as a money 

maker, if you consider all costs. However, it does help defray the 

costs of treating the acres. So if we can get the private sector to 

help us in partnership, then the taxpayer does not have to pay— 

just appropriated funds to treat the acres to remove the wood. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I think that is the last of the questions for 

this panel. We certainly thank this panel for their forbearance and 

for their testimony. It has been enlightening. And there will be 

more questions in writing I am sure. We hereby dismiss the panel 

and bring on our next panel. 

This is panel three, Representative Christine Scanlan, John Rich, 

Commissioner of Jackson County, and Sloan Shoemaker, Executive 

65 

Director of the Wilderness Workshop of Carbondale, Colorado, and 

Eric Wilkinson, General Manager of North Colorado Water Conservancy District. 

Please as we are having the transition, a little quiet, please, so 

we can move on to our next panel. We expect votes shortly, so we 

may have to recess. We would like to be able to start the questioning. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Christine Scanlan. 

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTINE SCANLAN, 

COLORADO 56TH DISTRICT, DILLON, COLORADO 

Ms. SCANLAN. Thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman and committee. I appreciate the time today. I will pull 

some highlights from my testimony that we have submitted. And 

I would like to recognize State Senator Dan Gibbs, who is here 

with me in the audience. 

Senator Gibbs and I have done some dozen bills in Colorado related specifically to the impacts of the bark beetle infestation. 

My district lies within Congressman Polis’s district. I am about 

70 miles west of Denver. My district starts at the Continental Divide, and runs another 100 miles. We are right in the center of the 

pine beetle epidemic. 

I also am home to seven different ski resorts. So the mountain 

environment is important to my community. 

The Rocky Mountain pine beetle epidemic is changing Colorado 

and the American West. This transformation is immediately apparent to anyone spending time in the Rocky Mountains. Even a cursory glance from a visitor emerging from the Eisenhower Tunnel 

heading west on I-70 evokes reaction. 

Acre upon acre of orange, red, and brown mingle with green as 

far as the eye can see. This striking color stretches out in all directions, an eerily beautiful reminder of the permanent change of our 

landscape, our ecology, and our communities, and what we are currently undergoing. 

I would like to talk a little bit about what we have tried to do 

at a state level with regard to this. Community strategies for living 

within disturbing ecosystems, such as the Lodgepole Pine Forest of 

Northern Colorado, must address the reliability and long-term protection of our critical assets. 

Essentially, in such environments, policy makers are required to 

be more flexible and innovative. At the state level we have undertaken vigorous efforts to mitigate the threat with a number of 

unique collaborations between state and local government and private industry. 

Our creativity stems from necessity. Colorado possesses very limited resources to apply toward mitigating the infestation. As such, 

we focus on passing enabling legislation to empower communities 

to write comprehensive and integrative fire-preparedness plans, to 

improve formation and sharing between state, Federal, and local 

agencies, and to create incentives for private businesses that deforest impact areas and utilize those resources. 

As the scale of the infestation has clarified, policy makers have 

been able to thoughtfully target which were once disparate legislative efforts. 

66 

For example, this past legislative session we passed an aggressive agenda that oriented in a special interim committee. The integrative legislative package not only emphasized mitigating the 

threat, but provided new solutions to assist local and Federal officials to partner more effectively, and to encourage private industry 

to take advantage of potential economic growth opportunities that 

may exist. 

The capstone of our efforts was a sweeping piece of legislation 

making $3 million available for a series of initiatives to combat the 

epidemic. Money from the legislation will assist mountain and 

front-range communities plan for forest health management activities by addressing what is known as the wildland-urban interface, 

expanding protection for Colorado’s watersheds, local communities 

and vital infrastructure, and providing grants for market-based solutions to reduce what is the overall threat posed by wildfire. 

Where we need help is at the Federal level. And we are very 

grateful to our delegation which has taken the lead on this issue 

over the past three years, and worked so collaboratively with us. 

We hope the FLAME Act passes the Senate in its current or 

similar form. And likewise, expanded funding over the past two fiscal years has improved our ability to prevent fires before they 

occur, and suppressed by us when they happen. But far more is 

needed. 

As Rick Cables noted, we advocated strongly for the $200 million 

in emergency funding that he requested this past year. This included money for threats to human life and safety posed by falling 

trees, and emergency and non-emergency hazard mitigation and infrastructure protection. 

We know that President Obama has included additional funding 

for both suppression and prevention in this year’s budget. It is absolutely essential that these funds remain within the budget that 

is eventually passed, and that funds can be distributed in such a 

way that they reach the state and local officials who can properly 

apply them. 

We hope the FLAME Act reaches President Obama’s desk with 

an extension of the good neighbor policy, which we have used very 

effectively and quite extensively in Colorado. It is essential that we 

continue this very basic policy of partnership, granting flexibility to 

both local officials and property owners to go where they need to 

go to mitigate fire danger. 

Areas where expanded partnerships may flourish also exist. 

State and local officials must have a proper authority to venture 

into private land. Likewise, private landowners must be empowered to protect their land when it abuts state or Federal property. 

And finally, the epidemic poses a serious challenge to Colorado, 

but it also poses a unique economic development opportunity. The 

blue-tinged wood from beetle-killed timber creates a desirable aesthetic. If it is harvested early enough, it may be used for a variety 

of products, including furniture. The timber may also be ground 

into pellets that can provide cheap, efficient, and green sources of 

energy, and biomass can be used for both large-scale and smallscale power production. 

67 

We have done a lot to incentivize and foster this industry, but 

there is more to do. And we hope that we can work with you all 

in partnership. 

Thank you for your time today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Scanlan follows:] 

Statement submitted for the record by Colorado State Senator Dan Gibbs 

and Colorado State Representative Christine Scanlan 

Senator Gibbs’ district encompasses lands affected by the Rocky Mountain Pine 

Beetle epidemic and is a Type II Wildland Firefighter with experience fighting fires 

in Colorado and California. 

Representative Scanlan is a long-time resident of the high country and has 

worked hard to help lands and communities affected by the Beetle infestation. 

Together, the two Colorado legislators have passed more than a dozen laws relating to the Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic. 

TESTIMONY 

The Rocky Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic is changing Colorado and the American 

west. This transformation is immediately apparent to anyone spending time in the 

Rocky Mountains. Even a cursory glance from a visitor emerging from the Eisenhower Tunnel heading west on I-70 evinces reaction, acre upon acre of orange, red 

and brown stretch as far as the eye can see, a striking reminder of the permanent 

change our landscape, our ecology, and our communities are undergoing. 

Of the 2.2 million acres of lodgepole pine forest that extend from Wyoming to New 

Mexico, the Mountain Pine Beetle has already killed 1.5 million, and current estimates indicate that every lodgepole pine forest in the state will be dead within a 

decade. The sweeping beetle-kill and the specter of fire threatens Colorado’s local 

communities, the region’s drinking water, wildlife, landscape and recreation economies, and the country’s food supply. 

In response, local, state and federal agencies as well as private businesses have 

joined together to address the growing devastated areas and the threats that they 

present. The State of Colorado has adopted a number of innovative strategies, including the creation of public-private partnerships and cross-jurisdictional forest 

management techniques. But the cost of forest treatment is high, and the difficulty 

of disposing resulting woody material represents a major challenge. 

The beetle infestation requires immediate action, and more careful land management in the future. In the short term, the top priorities are to reduce the threat 

through prevention, and ensuring sufficient fire suppression resources are available 

when a fire does occur. Our long-term response will emphasize managing the next 

forest for greater diversity and resilience. 

In spite of the state’s best efforts, resources are limited, and it is incumbent upon 

the federal government to act more aggressively to suppress and prevent fires, and 

to take advantage of a unique economic development opportunity by fostering the 

growing market for beetle-killed timber. 

Specifically, we are asking for the following: 

• Increased funding for local, state and federal officials to apply toward fire prevention and suppression. 

• Passage of the FLAME Act to decouple fire prevention and suppression funding, 

and to continue the ‘‘good neighbor’’ policy that has been so effective. 

• Follow Colorado’s lead to introduce legislation that removes barriers to crossjurisdictional cooperation and that encourages public-private collaboration. 

• Foster the creation of new markets for beetle-impacted blue wood products and 

wood pellets for woody biomass. 

THE THREATS 

Unfortunately, many dead tree stands pose grave threats to Colorado’s growing 

mountain communities and vital assets. In 2008, within the five-county epicenter of 

the infestation: 

• 12 incorporated municipalities were within impacted forest, and another 11 adjacent to forest lands. 

• 28 incorporated municipalities that derive most of their drinking water from 

sources that flow through dead and dying forests. 

• 2,000 miles of roadways, including many sole evacuation routes, jeopardized by 

dead trees. 

• 1,500 miles of hiking and biking trails spanning three national forests that are 

in danger of closure this year. 

68 

• 52 emergency communications sites at risk. • The Colorado River, which supplies seven western states and major metropolitan areas including Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Southern California with 

fresh drinking water. • 633 miles of electrical transmission lines and 1,300 miles of electrical distribution lines—including major lines that feed power to the entire western United 

States—at-risk from falling trees and fire. 

Tens of millions of people across the west depend on the electricity that travels 

across impacted lands, and most everyone in the country depends on the water that 

flows downstream from Colorado, and the food that that water is used to grow. Let 

us make no mistake: the bark beetle epidemic poses an immediate threat to the 

United States’ national security. 

The impact of a regional power and communications network failure resulting 

from fire would be catastrophic to the entire western United States. According to 

the Tri State Generation and Transmission Association, if just one dead lodgepole 

collapses on the wrong transformer or power line, it could cause a fire that initiates 

an uncontrolled cascading power outage in Colorado and neighboring states. 

According to Colorado State Forester Jeff Jahnke, the bark beetle affects more 

than 100 miles of WAPA, Tristate, Platte River Power Authority and Xcel transmission lines and an uncalculated number of smaller distribution lines. Electricity 

generation in western Colorado must cross many high-elevation areas to serve Front 

Range energy demands, and high-voltage transmission lines can be forced out of 

service by smoke or damaged from the extreme heat of wildfires. Shutting down 

transmission lines can threaten power in Denver and other Front Range communities, areas throughout Colorado, and neighboring states. More than 500 miles of 

high voltage transmission corridors—WAPA has a over 350 in USFS Region 2 being 

addressed in the joint EIS Xcel and Tristate have at least another 150—in both Colorado and southern Wyoming can be affected. And the number of miles of lower 

voltage distribution lines serving Colorado mountain communities is even greater. 

A cascading power outage would, at the very least, cost billions of dollars to correct. 

The threat to our water is equally significant. The Colorado River’s headwaters 

are located in Colorado, and an estimated 75 percent of the Colorado River’s total 

flow originates in the state. The river’s tributaries and transmountain diversions— 

which cut through thousands of bark beetle-infested areas—serve nearly two million 

people in Colorado, and tens of millions across the west. Access to the river, which 

provides millions of acre feet of fresh water annually for agriculture, recreation and 

drinking in 13 western states, could be crippled by a severe wildfire stemming from 

Colorado’s tinder-dry lodgepoles. If the Colorado River became overburdened with 

refuse from a fire, the cost to the upper and lower basin states’ recreation economies, and the country’s agricultural system, is incalculable. 

A fire originating from beetle-killed forests would likely burn incredibly hot, increasing the potential for scorched earth. In turn, forest regeneration would take 

longer due to the destruction of organic matter, increased erosion and flood, and debris flows into our fresh water supplies—including the Colorado River—would greatly expand. This type of devastation is not unknown: the Hayman Fire, which burned 

more than 138,000 acres along the Front Range in 2002 caused millions of dollars 

in damage to Denver’s water supply in particular, and Colorado’s more generally. 

Indeed, cleanup efforts from the Hayman Fire requiring ‘‘substantial expenditures’’ 

continue to this day, according to the utility Denver Water. 

Moreover, the specter of danger posed to the west’s fresh water supplies is far 

greater today than in 2002 when the Hayman Fire occurred due to the rise in dry 

and dead forestlands (2.2 million acres). 

Additionally, with expanded urbanization comes an unprecedented risk to people 

living in both rural and urban settings. Today more than one million people live 

within Colorado’s Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Local communities also face significant economic concerns, as the loss of Colorado’s scenic landscapes and injury 

to the state’s world-class ski resorts could eventually cause a decrease in all-important tourism dollars. 

Put plainly, the bark beetle epidemic poses a very real threat to Colorado’s local 

communities and economies, but also national food and water supplies, as well as 

our national security. 

LOCAL SOLUTIONS 

Community strategies for living within disturbance-driven ecosystems such as the 

lodgepole pine forests of northern Colorado must address the reliability and longterm protection of assets critical to our way of life. Essentially, in such environments policy makers are required to become more flexible and innovative. At the 

state level, we have undertaken vigorous efforts to mitigate the threat with a numVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
69 

ber of unique collaborations between state and local government and private 

industry. 

Our creativity stems from necessity; Colorado possesses very limited resources to 

apply toward mitigating the infestation. As such, we have focused on passing enabling legislation to empower communities to write comprehensive and integrated 

fire preparedness plans; to improve information sharing between state, federal and 

local agencies; and to create incentives for private businesses that deforest impacted 

areas and utilize those resources. 

As the scale of the infestation has clarified, policymakers have been able to strategically target what were once disparate legislative efforts. For example, this past 

legislative session, we passed an aggressive agenda that originated in a special interim committee. The integrated legislative package not only emphasized mitigating 

the threat, but provided new solutions to assist local and federal officials partner 

more effectively, and to encourage private industry to take advantage of economic 

growth opportunities that may exist. 

The capstone of the General Assembly’s legislative efforts was a sweeping piece of legislation making $3 million available for a series of initiatives to combat the 

epidemic. Moneys from the legislation will assist mountain and Front Range communities plan for forest health management activities by: addressing the population 

centers along the wildland-urban interface; expanding protection for Colorado’s watersheds, local communities and vital infrastructure; and providing grants for market-based solutions to reduce the overall threat posed by wildfire. 

This new funding is critical, as we have demonstrated that even small state investments pay large dividends. Each state dollar receives a matching fund, so with 

just $1 million in state funding, we’ve been able to treat $5 - $6 million in forest 

land. 

Additional efforts included the following: 

• We provided a 5-year exemption from business personal property taxes for 

qualified businesses that remove trees killed by bark beetles when they assist 

with forest restoration efforts on the affected land after the beetle-killed timber 

is removed. Also creates a fund to provide start-up money for new Colorado 

businesses that process and sell beetle-killed timber and products. 

• We expanded the ability of counties to raise money to fight fires. Specifically, 

the bill removes the limit on property taxes that a county can collect—with 

voter approval—for forest fire fighting. 

• We required the state forester to establish guidelines for Community Wildfire 

Protection Plans with input from state, local and federal government officials, 

and other interested parties. 

• We streamlined and clarified the roles of state and local emergency personnel 

when fires occur, specifically allowing sheriffs to develop and update wildfire 

preparedness plans, and to specify what information should be included in a 

plan to be effective. 

FEDERAL COLLABORATION: 

Colorado lawmakers are committed to fighting the fire threat and restoring our 

forests. However, the need has simply outpaced our financial resources. 

We are grateful to our Congressional delegation for taking the lead on this issue 

to develop new and exciting federal level solutions. For example, we are thrilled that 

the FLAME Act has already passed the House; recognizing the need to disentangle 

fire prevention from fire suppression is a huge step forward. We hope the FLAME 

Act passes the Senate in its current or similar form. 

Likewise, expanded funding over the past two fiscal years has improved our ability to prevent fires before they occur, and suppress fires when they happen. But far 

more is needed to fulfill our priorities. 

Last year, Rick Cables and the Regional Forester’s Office estimated the cost of 

mitigating the bark beetle impact effectively at more than $200 million over three 

years. That includes money for threats to human life and safety posed by falling 

trees, and emergency and non-emergency hazard mitigation and infrastructure protection. 

We know that President Obama has included additional funding for both suppression and prevention in this year’s budget. It is absolutely essential that these funds 

remain within the budget that is eventually passed by Congress, and that funds can 

be distributed in such a way that they reach the state and local officials who can 

properly apply them where they are most critically needed. 

By disentangling suppression and prevention, and expanding funding overall, we 

will be able to address our varied needs more effectively. For example, two-thirds 

of Colorado’s fire protection districts are comprised of volunteer firefighters, and 

many lack adequate wildfire training. Likewise, despite our best efforts to create inVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
70 

centives and provide grants for drafting community wildfire prevention plans, many 

still have not written these very basic documents. Each activity requires a separate 

funding source. 

There are 22.6 million acres of forestland in Colorado. Of this acreage, nearly 70 

percent is federally owned, including 49 percent managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Private landowners oversee an additional 28 percent. Fire knows no boundaries. 

So fire management actions must cross-jurisdictional to be effective. 

We hope the FLAME Act reaches President Obama’s desk with an extension of 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ policy. It is essential that we continue this basic policy of partnership, granting flexibility to both local officials and property owners to go where 

they need to go to mitigate fire danger. 

Areas where expanded partnerships may flourish also exist, but state and local 

officials must have the appropriate authority to venture onto private land when necessary to squelch wild fires. Likewise, and within reason, private landowners must 

be empowered to protect their private land when it abuts state or federal property. 

Finally, while the epidemic poses a serious challenge to Colorado, it also poses a 

unique economic development opportunity. The blue-tinged wood from beetle-killed 

timber creates a desirable aesthetic effect. If harvested early enough, wood from 

beetle-killed trees may be used for a variety of wood products, including furniture. 

The timber can also be ground into pellets that can provide a cheap, efficient, and 

green source of energy. Biomass can be used for both large-scale and small-scale 

power production. 

Colorado has passed various laws creating incentives to help foster this industry. 

However, we believe that local timber harvesting contractors and wood processing 

businesses could still better help with management solutions if they had a long term 

guarantee of a viable market for their products. Additionally, these huge swaths of 

timber will only be viable for a discrete period of time, as nature and rot eventually 

take their toll on the integrity of the wood. 

We would encourage Congress to create a permanent and viable market by continuing and expanding federal incentives for woody biomass, and creating a new incentive for other beetle-killed wood products. 

CONCLUSION: 

While we have undertaken vigorous efforts to mitigate the threat with limited resources through a number of unique collaborations between state and local government and private industry, we are not able to address the infestation adequately 

without further help. 

It is now incumbent upon the federal government to act. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. Mr. Rich, Commissioner of Jackson County. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN RICH, COMMISSIONER, JACKSON 

COUNTY, NORTHWEST COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, 

WALDEN, COLORADO 

Mr. RICH. Well, thank you for allowing me to come here. I feel 

that I am really out of my league, from the little county that I live 

in of one person per square mile. 

I don’t speak as eloquent as I would like to, and I wish you to 

kind of bear with me with that. But don’t ever question the passion 

that burns in my heart for the land that I live on and the United 

States of America. 

We live in a small community. There is kind of a mission statement that some of the oldtimers have. They hope for the best, they 

expect the worst, and they prepare for the impossible. That is what 

my grandfather taught me. 

We can’t stop the beetles, but we can get an economic use out 

of the timber. We can cut some fire control so the catastrophic fire 

will not kill us, and we can prepare for the future forests. 

The threats to my community—it can bankrupt Jackson County. 

A catastrophic fire can bankrupt it. And you have heard what it 

71 

will do to the water, the power lines, the air quality. There is a little local saying that the four-letter word with S rolls downhill. 

I live on the Continental Divide, and everything is down. So 

below me took up when we started having problems, and we do 

have problems in Jackson County. 

The one failure that we have is a failure to move. History shows 

that the little guy in Rome fiddled while it burned. I don’t want 

to hear the sound of music; I want to hear the sound of chainsaws. 

We need to get moving on it. 

Solutions? You can look at Jackson County for some solutions. 

Most of our private people who have timber have went on there, 

and cut it and thinned it, and done what they needed to do. 

We have most of our area covered with CWPPs, which is community-wide protection plans. They are trying to make their place 

firewise. We have a pellet mill that came in without government 

help. Unbelievable. And then we have a small sawmill. 

But we need some more help. We need a biomass. A biomass 

making electricity in Jackson County would be a godsend. It would 

solve a lot of problems. It would get rid of the beetle-killed timber. 

When that timber falls like jackstraws, the squirrel can go 

under, the crow can go over the top, but the rest of us are going 

to have a hard time moving that. Then when it burns, it will sterilize the soil. 

We need a biomass generating electricity right in Jackson County, or right near the timber. They tell me that we need energy. We 

have grids running through there. Local jobs. We just need a little 

more help. And we need to prove that we can have a reliable 

source; the businesses that invest $10 million or $12 million can be 

assured that they can pay their mortgages off. So a lot of our 

people are private for our pellet mill. That is what he worries 

about, he is buying timber off of private, and private has supplied 

it. But he worries about a reliable source. 

And just that this is a horrendous problem, it seems to me. And 

we just need to ask that God would bless us a little bit in our endeavors, too. 

And thank you again for listening to an old dog from the 

mountains. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rich follows:] 

Statement of Judge John Rich, Commissioner, Jackson County, Colorado 

Chairman Grijalva and Chairwoman Napolitano and members of the House SubCommittees on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands and Water and Power, 

thank you for inviting me to present testimony to you today. 

My name is John Rich and I live in unincorporated Jackson County, Colorado. 

Thank you for inviting me to come to Washington, D.C. to tell you about the impacts 

facing my family, my neighbors, and my community resulting from the bark beetle 

epidemic on the Routt National Forest. But, I did not come to talk only about impacts, but to also offer common sense federal actions that can positively address the 

deplorable situation. 

I am here today wearing many hats. First of all, I am a husband, father, and 

grandfather, working and caring for the same cattle ranch as my Grandfather who 

came into the valley in 1883. I am a Jackson County Commissioner in my second 

term of office. I also own a small propane delivery business and drive a school bus 

when needed. I am an emergency medical technician and serve as the director of 

the local hospital district. And, I am the municipal judge for Walden, Colorado, the 

only incorporated municipality in Jackson County. I am here today also representing the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments as a member of the execVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
72 

utive board and the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative as its county government representative. 

In order to give you a glimpse of where I come from, please allow me to tell you 

a little about the high mountain valley that I call home. Jackson County comprises 

a large mountain valley in northern Colorado called North Park. In Colorado, mountain valleys are known as parks. North Park is surrounded by high mountain 

ranges with the Park Range to the west, the Rabbit Ears and the Never Summer 

Mountains to the south and the Medicine Bow Range to the east. The ColoradoWyoming state line is the northern boundary of Jackson County. The elevation 

ranges from 7,800 to 12,953 feet above sea level. North Park is the headwaters of 

the North Platte River which flows northward into Wyoming making Jackson County the only county in Colorado on the North Slope of the state. The largest land 

owners in Jackson County are the people of the United States with their lands managed by several federal agencies; the USDA Forest Service, the Bureau of Land 

Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Three Congressionally designated Wilderness Areas are located in Jackson County. North Park has a population of 1,476 people spread over 1,621 square miles. Jackson County is the third 

least populated county in Colorado, but its people are hard working rural folks who 

live there because they want to, not because they have to. 

Although the mountain pine bark beetle is always present in the Lodgepole pine 

forests of North Park, the current outbreak that has infected over two million acres 

of mostly federal forests in northern Colorado began in earnest in 2000. Some areas 

of the Routt National Forest in Jackson County are experiencing 95% mortality of 

mature Lodgepole pine. I am not here today to point a finger of blame, but only to 

say that a combination of federal and state policies, changing social values, economics, and nature itself have all contributed to the dire situation we currently face. 

Lodgepole pine is a fire dependent, stand replacement species, which simply means 

that a forest of Lodgepole pine tends to seed, grow, mature and die at relatively the 

same time. In Colorado, Lodgepole pine matures around 100 years of age and the 

health of the forest begins to decline around 120 years of age, they are pretty well 

dead by 140 years of age, and the cycle begins anew. This is precisely the current 

situation of the Lodgepole pine forests in northern Colorado. Insects, disease and 

fire are nature’s way of renewing a Lodgepole pine forest, while prescriptive 

thinning, logging, and prescribed fire are the human ways of doing what nature 

does. Through a combination of decades of aggressive fire prevention and control, 

disallowing timbering activities in much of the national forests, and the resulting 

economic collapse of the wood products industry in much of Colorado, we are now 

reaping what we have sown. 

If this were a totally natural cycle with no human presence on the land, then I 

would not be here today to talk about this because it would not be a problem. But 

the fact is that humans, beginning with my grandfather and his contemporaries 

made permanent settlements in North Park. Today, human communities and all of 

the appurtenances that provide the standard of living that we Americans have come 

to depend upon are located adjacent to and within the forests that are dying. On 

a regional basis, in the area covered by Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, here are some of the facts: 

1. Nearly 2,000,000 acres of Colorado’s high elevation Lodgepole pine forests 

have been infected by the Mountain Pine Beetle. 

2. Over seventy percent of those forests are owned by the federal government 

and are managed by the USDA Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. 

3. Twelve incorporated municipalities are located within the dead and dying 

forest and eleven more are adjacent to the forest. 

4. Twenty-eight incorporated municipalities derive their primary source of 

drinking water from creeks flowing through the dead and dying forests. 

5. Seven thousand acres in Summit County and Grand County need treatment 

to protect Denver Water’s supply system. 

6. Two thousand miles of roadways, many that would be utilized in evacuation 

scenarios are in jeopardy due to dead standing trees in the right of way. 

7. One thousand five hundred miles of recreational trails on three national forests are in jeopardy of closure due to trees being toppled by the wind in the 

dead Lodgepole pine forests in which they are located. 

8. Twenty-one thousand four hundred fifty-five acres of national forest developed 

recreation sites, not including ski areas are in jeopardy of closure due to falling tree hazards. 

9. More than two thousand miles of national forest grazing fences, which are the 

responsibility of the rancher permittee, are in jeopardy of damage due to falling trees. 

73 

10. Fifty-two emergency communications sites are in jeopardy. 

11. Six hundred thirty-three miles of electrical transmission lines are in jeopardy 

of falling trees and are not survivable in a wildfire. 

12. One thousand three hundred fourteen miles of electrical distribution lines are 

in jeopardy of falling trees and are not survivable in a wildfire. 

13. Water is supplied to the major Western metropolitan areas of the Denver 

Front Range, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Southern California from the Colorado 

River which rises and flows through the dead and dying forest. 

14. Major electrical transmission lines feeding the Western Grid, serving the entire West run directly through the heart of these same dying and dead forests. 

15. These water supply systems and electrical transmission lines are also keys to 

maintaining the security of millions of Americans in the homeland. 

In light of the reality of the statistics, the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative, a 

place based, multi-stakeholder collaborative group in its fourth year of operation has 

listed its top objectives as: • Protection of human life. • Protection of public infrastructure. • Protection of critical water supplies. • Development of communities that are resilient and adaptable to disturbance 

driven ecosystems. 

Former Colorado Senator and now Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar has termed 

the bark beetle outbreak the ‘‘Katrina of the West’’ due to the gravity of the situation and of its potential to severely disrupt the social and economic systems of the 

West. 

Although the magnitude of the bark beetle outbreak can be viewed as overwhelming, especially in light of the serious economic situation facing the nation, I 

retain a sense of optimism seen through these old cowboy’s eyes. It seems to me 

and many of my Colorado colleagues that there are some common sense actions that 

can be taken to positively address the situation. Please allow me to share some of 

them with you. 

1. The intent of the National Environmental Policy Act is to make certain that 

sufficient analysis and public consideration is given to proposed actions on federal lands before decisions are made. As a locally elected official I am painfully 

aware of the bane of unintended consequences of making decisions without 

adequate data or public review, but I am also aware of the harm that can occur 

through inaction of decision makers whose hands may be tied for lack of funding or expertise. Two things need to be applied in this situation: 1) Federal 

agencies responsible for the application of NEPA need adequate funding and 

qualified personnel to do the required analysis, and 2) Provisions in the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act requiring the analysis of only the proposed action alternative and the no action alternative in qualified projects needs to be 

aggressively utilized. 

2. The Colorado Good Neighbor Program, re-authorized in the 2005 Interior Appropriations Act, has been successful in creating ‘‘boundary-less management’’ 

along national forest and private lands boundaries. Since the pine bark beetle 

does not respect property boundaries, we need to extend and expand the use 

of this valuable management tool that allows for seamless actions between the 

U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Colorado State 

Forest Service in order to leverage scarce resources. The Good Neighbor Program is scheduled to expire in September of this year. 

3. The Federal Land Assistance Management and Enhancement Act, better 

known as the FLAME Act (H.R. 1404) needs to become law. Thank you for 

passing the FLAME Act in the House of Representatives last March and I urge 

you to work for its passage in the Senate. The FLAME Act is absolutely necessary to protect the budgets of crucial non-fire suppression programs in the 

U.S. Forest Service. One of the Forest Service programs that is in jeopardy of 

losing funding due to the increasing costs of fire suppression is State and Private Cooperative Forestry that is responsible for funding significant portions 

of state forestry agencies, including the Colorado State Forest Service. The efforts of the Colorado State Forest Service are essential in addressing the bark 

beetle outbreak on private lands adjacent to federal lands. 

4. As the American Climate and Energy Security Act (H.R. 2454) is currently 

drafted, woody biomass from federal lands is disqualified from incentives designed to increase renewable energy production. Utilizing woody biomass in the 

form of billions of beetle-killed Lodgepole pine on national forests accomplishes 

three things: 

a. It provides a valuable source of renewable energy. 

b. It reduces hazardous fuel loadings on federal lands. 

74 

c. It creates jobs. 

I personally worked with the Rocky Mountain Pellet Company, Inc. to locate a wood pellet mill in North Park. The company produces bagged wood 

pellets for retail home stove consumption as an alternative fuel source to 

natural gas, electricity, propane, and fuel oil. The pellet mill is currently 

utilizing dead Lodgepole pine harvested from private lands, but will need 

to expand to federal beetle-killed pine to meet growing national and international demand for the high quality affordable wood pellet fuel. The mill 

generated forty-six badly needed jobs in North Park, making them a primary employer in our small rural community. The success of this sustainable mill is crucial to our local economy and the incentives provided in 

H.R. 2454 if extended to dead federal timber would go a long ways in securing its future. The best way to support a sustainable wood products industry in Colorado is for the federal land management agencies to be able 

to provide a long-term, reliable supply of timber so small business owners 

can develop realistic business plans. 

5. Currently, the operation of Colorado’s last large modern sawmill is in jeopardy 

due to severe restrictions on cash flow. The company purchased federal timber 

sales before the economic recession and had to secure them with cash. The U.S. 

Forest Service is currently holding more than $2,000,000 of the company’s 

cash, creating a severe cash flow shortage to the company in light of the downturn in housing construction. Allowing the company to secure those timber 

sales with bonds, freeing up the cash seems to make sense in light of our nation’s current growing unemployment situation. We could perhaps learn from 

those who went before us. During the first part of the Twentieth Century farmers were paid for their costs in producing grain even though markets would 

not support excess grain. Not only did the federal government pay the farmers 

to keep producing the grain, they also built government storage facilities to 

store it until the market could utilize it. It seems to me that a similar program 

to pay the loggers and saw mills the costs of producing wood products, even 

though the current market cannot utilize the surplus makes sense. We know 

that one day the housing markets will recover and there will be a demand for 

lumber. If we do not assist the wood products industry now, the beetle-killed 

Lodgepole pines will become useless as lumber and we may well lose our last 

large sawmill in Colorado. 

6. Federal contracting is a very complicated process that often dissuades smaller 

companies from competing in the system, and the terms of the contracts are 

not long enough for a small business to take the contract to the bank to borrow 

funds to purchase necessary equipment. There is a type of contract that makes 

sense and it is called a Stewardship Contract that is multi-year in duration 

and will exchange goods for services. However, the requirements placed on the 

U.S. Forest Service to reserve a ‘‘cancellation ceiling’’ to cover contract costs 

in case of government default is hampering the agency from moving forward 

with increasing number of Stewardships Contracts due to the fact that the 

agency does not have excess budget to place cash in a reserve account. By relaxing the requirements for the cancellation ceiling, more Stewardship Contracts could be awarded to small companies to do work on the national forests 

while preserving and creating jobs. 

7. My part of Colorado is known as the Mother of Rivers. The high Rocky Mountains of Colorado give birth to major rivers including the Colorado, the North 

and South Platte, the Arkansas, the Rio Grande, the San Juan and the Yampa. 

The birthplaces of these river systems that nourish so much of the American 

West are in the beetle-killed Lodgepole pine forests. When a watershed burns, 

the ability of the soil to hold rainfall and snowmelt is severely diminished resulting in floods and mud and the silting up of water reservoirs and clogging 

water treatment facilities. It is impossible to fire proof watersheds, but if we 

are diligent and wise we can take actions to control the sedimentation of our 

built water facilities. I encourage you to: 

a. Approve the use of Federal Emergency Management Agency pre-disaster mitigation funds to pay for the environmental assessment, NEPA 

analysis, and pre-engineering of appropriate sediment control structures at strategic locations above water impoundment, transmission 

and treatment structures. The structures would not be built unless a 

fire burned the watershed. Then, if the watershed is burned, the structures could be immediately built while the ground was still warm to 

control the sediment that will eventually flow. 

8. Finally, the electrical transmission and distribution system is currently at 

great risk as the lines run though the heart of the dead and dying forests of 

75 

Colorado. The U.S. Forest Service has committed $400,000 to expediting the 

NEPA analysis in northern Colorado required before work can be done reducing hazardous fuels and falling tree hazards, but time is of the essence as trees 

have already begun to fall and the wild fire season approaches. The electrical 

providers have funds available to do the work, but need the NEPA approvals 

to commence. This would also be a source of needed employment for persons 

willing to do the hard work. 

Once again I want to thank you for inviting me to come to Washington, D.C. to 

talk with you. I know that federal rules and regulations are very complicated things 

based on the consideration of many factors, but one thing is certain—the beetles do 

not care about our human rules and regulations. As they continue to do what nature 

designed them to so efficiently do, the inevitable looms on the horizon like a gathering storm. Shame on us if we do not heed the storm clouds and fail to take the 

actions necessary to adequately prepare. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You are very welcome. And I found your testimony very entertaining, and very helpful. You are welcome, sir. 

Mr. Sloan Shoemaker, Executive Director in the Wilderness 

Workshop. 

STATEMENT OF SLOAN SHOEMAKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WILDERNESS WORKSHOP, CARBONDALE, COLORADO 

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, 

Chairwoman Napolitano, Chairman Grijalva. 

I represent the Wildlife, I am the director of a small conservation 

organization located in the White River National Forest, which is 

part of the epicenter of the bark beetle outbreak. And I represent 

the conservation community on the Colorado Bark Beetle Collaborative. 

Colorado is pretty unique, I think, in terms of getting diverse 

stakeholder groups together to hammer through, at the local level, 

some consensus on what do we do about this, this issue. 

Well, at least the conservation community defines the problem. 

It is not an ecological problem. If this outbreak would have occurred 150 years ago, we would be looking at the regenerated forest. It would have inconvenienced the Indians, but life would have 

moved on. 

But now the problem is we live there, we occupy these forests. 

And it is clearly a very dire socioeconomic problem. And we are as 

anxious as Commissioner Rich to hear chainsaws singing in the 

forest. It is just a matter of where exactly, and for what reasons. 

And it is a matter of getting, using those very limited resources 

that everyone has remarked on in a very strategic manner to treat 

the right acres for the right reasons, to have the right outcomes. 

And so that is why we are at the table collaborating with all the 

different stakeholders. And the Bark Beetle Cooperative or the Collaborative has identified some priorities to protecting life, property, 

and critical community infrastructure. 

Protecting life is like making sure that firefighters aren’t put in 

harm’s way to have to do the impossible. Protecting property is 

clear. There is a large scientific body of literature that tells us how 

to do that; that the factors that affect how structures burn occur 

within the 40 meters immediately adjacent to the structure itself. 

So we know how to do that. 

Critical community infrastructure, water supplies, communication sites, roadways, all those things, those are protected at, again, 

76 

within those 40 meters immediately adjacent to that piece of, that 

infrastructure that has been identified. 

And these are the priorities of the collaborative, which includes 

the BLM, Forest Service, State Forest Service, local governments, 

councils of governments, conservation interests, recreation interests, certainly with WAPA. We support the notion of a very strategic application of our limited resources to ensure that our power 

lines, our delivery system, our transition system is protected. 

And an analysis needs to be done to identify exactly what those 

threatening fuels are. They are not uniform across the landscape. 

There are places where it crosses over sage, so it doesn’t do any 

good to do a uniform clearcut across an entire swath. 

But there are places where you can identify very threatening 

fuels, and we must do that. But it takes resources to do that. 

I would argue that, that expedited process is collaboration. That 

sometimes we have to go slow to go fast. And that is what we are 

doing in the Bark Beetle Collaborative, is that we are bringing 

stakeholders together, we are coming to consensus, we are identifying priorities. And once we have that buy-in, that social license 

that Rick referred to, then projects flow out the back side of that 

process. 

And that is what is happening in some account. They are treating thousands of acres at that wildland-urban interface to protect 

those communities, to protect those water supplies, protect that infrastructure. That has been our experience. And we have had a 

pretty positive experience with that in Colorado. 

I would suggest that we don’t forget that bark beetles are part 

of the forest dynamic in Colorado. The community of Glenwood 

Springs has had two devastating fires blow through there, with loss 

of life and homes. There wasn’t a bark beetle or a lodgepole pine 

tree in sight. In fact, it was burning mostly through the shrubland 

community of Gambel Oak and Mountain Serviceberry. And there 

is not an ounce of commercial value in any of those things, but they 

are very threatening types of vegetation clearly, from our experience. 

So what can the feds do? We need resources on the ground. We 

would like to see those resources applied to where we have created 

this sort of agreement at the local level, where we have come to 

consensus on what those priority needs and those resources are. 

And encourage you to please, if one size does not fit all, different 

ecosystems have different requirements, different communities 

have different requirements. Just tie those funds to local consensus-building. Because we think the most durable solutions are 

the ones we can agree to. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shoemaker follows:] 

Statement of Sloan Shoemaker, Executive Director, Wilderness Workshop 

Introduction 

Thank you for the opportunity to bring the on-the-ground perspective to DC. 

My name is Sloan Shoemaker and I am the executive director of the Wilderness 

Workshop, a grassroots, place based conservation organization founded in 1964. Wilderness Workshop self-describes as the conservation watchdog of the White River 

National Forest. 

77 

The White River National Forest is the nation’s most visited national forest and 

one of the crown jewels of the National Forest System. The White River’s 2.3 million 

acres contain a dizzying diversity of ecosystems and attractions, from world class 

ski resorts like Aspen and Vail to a dozen or so of Colorado’s 14,000 ft peaks to the 

highest concentrations of caves in Colorado to what’s reputedly the nation’s largest 

elk herd affording world class hunting opportunities. The White River is considered 

the Cradle of Wilderness because it was here that the young landscape architect Arthur Carhart, sent to the survey Trappers Lake area for vacation cabins, first articulated the notion that some landscapes are too valuable in their wild state to develop. From this seed grew the 750,000 acres of congressionally designated wilderness now on the forest, wilderness containing such renowned features as the Mount 

of the Holy Cross and the twin peaks of the Maroon Bells. 

These superlatives are not without their costs. The WRNF exemplifies the New 

West as amenity refugees relocate from their former lives to the resorts and communities surrounding the Forest, attracted to the extraordinary recreational opportunities and quality of life made possible by the Forest. This New West demographic, 

coupled with the easy interstate access to the Denver metropolitan area’s 3 million 

people and the high volume airports servicing the resort communities, recreation 

management on the WRNF poses a huge challenge. 

In addition, the WRNF provides summer grazing allotments for dozens of ranches 

inhabiting the lowlands around the forest, ranches that contain the critical winter 

range for the vast herds of mule deer and elk that summer on the Forest and provide unparalleled hunting opportunities in the fall. The WRNF also overlies the 

eastern edge of the Piceance Basin, a natural gas sweet spot that’s seen unprecedented rates of drilling in the last 8 years. Gas leasing and development is a complex resource management issue in its own right, but made even more difficult by 

the fact that much of the WRNF’s gas potential lies in roadless areas, grazing allotments, or trophy hunting range. Further complicating White River forest management is the fact that it is the partial epicenter of the mountain pine beetle outbreak 

in northern Colorado, which brings us all together today. 

I cite this inventory of forest management challenges to give you some background on the breadth and complexity of resource management issues my organization has been deeply involved with for the last 45 years. 

Coming to Terms with the Beetle 

The mountain pine beetle outbreak is not an ecological problem, but it is a socioeconomic one. One hundred and fifty years ago, the mountain pine beetle outbreak 

would have run its course as it has for millennia without furrowing a brow. But over 

the ensuing 100 years, humans have taken up residence in these mountains and 

now there are densely populated communities embedded in these disturbance dependent ecosystems. Consequently, the pine beetle epidemic has put many socio-economic values at stake. 

Interestingly, the beetle outbreak has created a teachable moment. Whereas before, residents old and new had taken the picture-window view for granted, assuming it’d never change, communities are now learning that, not only are forest ecosystems not static, they are subject to rather dramatic and rapid change that we 

have no control over. That lesson hasn’t come easily or painlessly. 

As the beetle epidemic has expanded from community to community, I have observed a consistent pattern that closely resembles the classic stages of grieving. At 

first, people simply deny that it could happen to them. Then, when the evidence is 

too great to further ignore, they get angry because they love the forest the way it 

was and don’t want it to change. Next comes bargaining when people rather heroically but desperately devise strategies to stop the beetle, saying we’re not going to 

let what happened to the community next door happen to us. In the end, though, 

comes resignation and acceptance that there are forces at work larger than us and 

all we are left with is to narrow our focus on identifying what little we can actually 

do. 

Working Together 

What’s become crystal clear is that none of us can afford to act alone, but that 

together we can get a whole lot done. This too has presented us with a teachable 

moment as diverse stakeholders, normally inclined to operate from our own narrow 

interests, have learned how to sit together at the collaborative table working towards mutually beneficial goals. 

I am the Colorado conservation community’s representative to the Colorado Bark 

Beetle Cooperative (CBBC). CBBC started as an intergovernmental group for sharing information on how individual member organizations were approaching the bark 

beetle issue. Over time it became apparent that a more coordinated response was 

78 

needed and that the tent must be enlarged to bring in the spectrum of stakeholders 

that would have to be dealt with eventually anyway. It took us awhile to learn to 

share the sandbox and trust each other. Perhaps our biggest lesson was that sometimes you have to go slow to go fast and, at times, it had to be learned the hard 

way. In everyone’s understandable rush to get chainsaws running, little misunderstandings or oversights inevitably grow into broad disagreements and things grind 

to a halt. On the other hand, taking the time to carefully build trust and consensus 

pays off, greasing the skids for projects in those zones of agreement to hit the 

ground running. Collaboration and consensus building provides the social license to 

move forward expeditiously—it’s the ultimate process streamlining. 

Another important benefit derived from the hard work of hammering out the zone 

of agreement is that it creates a very safe and attractive place for decision makers 

and politicians to focus their attention and resources. It’s hard to argue when the 

enviros and the timber industry, the Forest Service and local government, sportsmen, recreationists, and trade associations all agree on what’s to be done. As a result, the CBBC has been extremely successful in capturing the attention of the Colorado delegation who is unified in its legislative efforts to direct relief to the bark 

beetle affected region. 

Prioritizing 

As you’ve heard today, the scale of this outbreak is huge. Conversely though, the 

resources available to mitigate its effects are quite limited and must be applied very 

judiciously and strategically where we get the biggest bang for the buck. We simply 

can’t afford to waste precious resources for narrow, marginal or dubious gain. The 

CBBC’s collaborative setting is the ideal venue for diverse stakeholders to come to 

consensus on priorities, a process that pretty quickly cuts through the rhetoric and 

grandstanding. CBBC’s priorities are the protection of life, property and critical 

community infrastructure—priorities that transcend this particular disturbance 

event and strike right at the heart of what it means to sustain mountain communities in the face of disturbance dependent forest ecosystems. Ultimately, our goal 

is to ensure that, as forest disturbances come and go (fire, bug epidemics, floods, 

blowdowns, etc), mountain communities remain resilient, insulated from their destructive and disruptive effects. We all recognize that we can’t, nor should we, control forest ecosystems. But what we can control is how badly our communities are 

impacted by them. What does this mean in practice? 

Protecting lives means things like: 

• Removing hazard trees that could fall directly on people 

• Clearing hazard trees from transportation corridors so emergency access and 

egress isn’t impaired 

• Protecting homeowners and fire fighters by creating defensible space around 

homes because no fire fighters life is worth risking to protect an indefensible 

home 

Protecting property means: 

• Conducting public education to help homeowners participate in their own rescue 

by implementing appropriate measures to keep their homes from burning, like: 

Æ Structures must be constructed of ignition resistant materials...shake roofs 

guarantee home ignition and loss 

Æ Reduce fuels creating defensible space within the 40 meters immediately surrounding the structure 

Æ Scrutinize residences for and eliminate ember traps like needle filled gutters, 

unscreened roof vents, wood piles under overhanging porches 

Æ Ensure safe access and emergency egress so that firefighters can get in and 

get out in a hurry if they need to 

Protecting critical community infrastructure means: 

• Clear hazard trees from electrical transmission and distribution rights of way 

Æ Trees can fall on electrical lines causing fires or arcing and blackouts 

• Assess wildfire risks along and adjacent to electrical transmission and distribution ROWs and conduct strategic fuels treatments to eliminate the threat of 

dense smoke caused arcing or heat damage to lines and towers 

• Protect water supplies by; 

Æ removing fuels within the immediate vicinity of water supply delivery system 

to prevent direct damage from hazard tree fall or direct heat damage from 

fire 

Æ conducting watershed risks assessments that identify where mass land wasting events are most likely to occur post-fire 

Æ pre-engineering and pre-permitting strategically placed erosion catchment 

structures as informed by the watershed risk assessment—the next fire’s location can’t be predicted (nor are there enough resources to construct 

79 

catchments everywhere) but these catchments are intended to be shelf-ready 

for immediate implementation the day after the fire passes through Æ strategically fell and leave trees on the contour across slopes where sensitive, 

erosive soils have been identified to reduce fire severity and to pre-position 

surface water decelerators • Protect economic infrastructure 

Æ Remove hazard trees from public land campgrounds, trails, and roads Æ Mitigate beetle kill impacts to ski areas by removing hazard trees and initiating early establishment of critical forest cover between ski runs by replanting trees Æ Remove hazard trees from recreation sites to protect lives as well as to keep 

them open and generating tourist traffic Æ Reduce hazard tree, fuel, and erosion threats to agricultural irrigation systems; many ranches have irrigation ditches that originate in or travel 

through beetle affected forests • Protect transportation system 

Æ Remove trees within a tree height of community road networks; even light 

winds will blow down beetle-killed lodgepole, quickly cutting off emergency 

access or egress Æ Reduce fuel loads adjacent to roadways to reduce threat that fire will shut 

off access/egress or will directly injure traveling public or emergency services 

personnel. 

The abundance of so many red and dead trees also makes apparent the everpresent of risk of wildfire. I emphasize ever-present because lodgepole pine is a fire 

dependent species. It co-evolved with fire which is necessary sustain its presence 

across the landscape. This ecological reality is often lost upon newcomers to these 

mountains who misunderstand fire as an alien invader that must be eliminated. 

Green forests arguably pose a risk of fire equal to and, at times, even greater than 

that posed by the beetle-killed forest. If there is one lesson painfully clear from the 

last century, it’s that fire suppression and attempts to exclude fire from forest ecosystems backfires, simply putting off the problem until it returns with larger, more 

severe and more damaging fires than would otherwise have been experienced. Protecting communities from wildfire begins out the back door, not in the back country. 

The most, if not only, effective measures are those prescribed by USFS Fire Scientist Dr. Jack Cohen (see http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/titles/videos/wildfire.html and http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/titles/videos/protecting.html). Dr. 

Cohen’s groundbreaking research has proven that the factors influencing survivability of homes and structures are within the 40 meters immediately surrounding 

that structure. Because burning embers or firebrands can launch as much as 2 

miles from an active flame front, showering communities and homes with a hail of 

burning material, it’s generally ember triggered fires that cause home loss. If homes 

are Firewise, meaning built of ignition resistant materials and surrounded by defensible space with discontinuous fuels, they have the highest likelihood of survival. 

Resources 

As communities grapple with where to start, it’s becoming immediately apparent 

that the there is way more work to do than resources to get it done. As we speak, 

trees are blowing down across county roads in Jackson, Routt, and Grand Counties 

faster than limited crews can keep up with. Throwing money at the problem would 

certainly help get equipment and manpower on the ground. But, even if we could 

get experienced sawyers and enough saws on site, we couldn’t do anything with the 

trees due to a lack of timber haulers. If a flood of haulers magically appeared, 

there’s no place to take the wood. Colorado’s wood products industry is bare bones 

and, alternatively, there simply aren’t enough piling yards available to accommodate 

the volume of material. And with high fuel prices, the hauling distance to existing 

mills is simply uneconomic in many instances. 

For the first time in decades, Coloradoans are interested in bringing back the timber industry to help us deal with all the wood coming out of beetle-killed forests. 

The trouble is, there will be a large pulse of wood flowing off the forests over the 

next 5-10 years as communities implement their priority projects but wood volume 

will taper off fairly steeply on the back side of that. The concern is that a reinvigorated timber industry be appropriately scaled and flexible to deal with the near 

term pulse of wood yet not need to maintain the same level of supply over the long 

term. Simply put, Coloradoans want a tactical timber industry that can scale up for 

the near term and scale down as supply wanes. 

We all agree that a reinvigorated wood product industry is an important part of 

the solution. However, there’s a persistent and vexing barrier to the wood product 

industry’s reestablishment. No one knows what the long term, guaranteed wood 

80 

supply is nor where precisely it’s located. Given 2 million acres of beetle kill, it may 

seem a trivial point to get high centered on. However, not all those acres are available or appropriate for harvest. Some are statutorily off limits like congressionally 

designated wilderness and inventoried roadless areas. There are environmental constraints like steep slopes and wetlands. Finally there are less tangible but equally 

important constraints imposed by what the public is willing to tolerate. Responsible 

investors want to know how big is their social license to work in the woods because 

business plans can quickly run aground when they exceed their social license. Yet, 

no one has performed the type of comprehensive, state wide assessment of long term 

wood supply that investors can take to the bank as collateral for loans. And without 

it, banks are loath to invest in uncertain ventures based on speculative and unsubstantiated assertions of long term wood supply. 

We’d all like to see this nut cracked as soon as possible so we can get on with 

the important business of mitigating the bark beetles effects. Colorado’s conservation community is as anxious as the next guy to hear chainsaws in the woods—we 

just want to make sure that they’re treating the right acres. Because durable solutions are rooted in consensus, we are prepared to continue collaborating with all 

stakeholders to collectively identify what those right acres are. After all, I live, 

work, play and am raising a family in the midst of this too. 

Future Forests 

I have appended to my testimony an abridged version the state of the art, consensus science statement on our current understanding of mountain pine beetle 

ecology and fire behavior. It’s a remarkable and ambitious document in the scope 

of the issues it attempts and diversity of scientific voices it represents. The full report is worth the read and can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/bark-beetle/ 

mbp6092008.pdf . 

Here’s my synopsis: 

1. The scale and intensity of the ongoing mountain pine beetle epidemic is unlike 

any outbreak that has been observed before, but that does not mean the end 

of lodgepole pine in the Rockies. 

2. These forests have undergone dramatic change in the past, and they are resilient to mountain pine beetle and other disturbances. 

3. Even in the existing forest, variability in age, density, and species composition 

ensures that there will be different responses to the beetle outbreak. 

4. Once an outbreak gets going, there are no known treatments that can influence 

its spread. 

5. Infrequent, large fires are the norm in lodgepole pine forests, as they are likely 

to be in the future—with or without beetles. There is general agreement that 

as the dead needles fall from the trees, the probability of crown fire will diminish, but the probability of surface fire may increase. 

6. Because mountain pine beetle outbreaks do not disturb the soil, they are not 

likely to cause increased erosion, though they may increase water yield. 

7. Changes such as we are observing in the current mountain pine beetle outbreak are not unlike the changes we should expect from climate change in the 

decades ahead. 

The take-home message is that the bark beetle epidemic is not the ecological Armageddon it’s often portrayed as. The future forest is already establishing itself in 

the understory. And because of the legacy of other tree species in the lodgepole pine 

forest understory, the new forest will be markedly more diverse than the forest it’s 

replacing. We’ll see Engelmann spruce, sub-alpine fir, Douglas fir and aspen trees 

filling in where previously existed a homogenous sea of lodgepole pine. Contrary to 

the more hyperbolic rhetoric about the end of lodgepole pine forests in northern Colorado, lodgepole will return, though not exactly in the same density and distribution 

we are used to. 

People often ask what we ought to be doing to accelerate establishment of the new 

forest. Perhaps a more fundamental question is should we, and if so, where? The 

first step should be to do a comprehensive assessment of what sort of natural regeneration is already occurring. From a distance, the 2 million acres of beetle kill seem 

devoid of a green stick. However, if you walk around in the beetle-killed forest, it’s 

apparent that the overstory of red or grey trees disguises the extent of young, vigorous new trees now taking advantage of the reduced competition for water and nutrients. A comprehensive assessment would tell us if the type and location of regeneration matches our desired future conditions and whether intervention is warranted or not. But, because this isn’t getting done, time and energy is wasted 

handwringing about the disappearance of the forest and its calamitous implications 

for our tourist dependent economies. 

(Abridged by Wilderness Workshop due to space limitations) 

81 

The Status of Our Scientific Understanding of Lodgepole Pine and 

Mountain Pine Beetles—A Focus on Forest Ecology and Fire Behavior 

A synthesis of our current knowledge about the effects of the mountain pine beetle 

epidemic on lodgepole pine forests and fire behavior, with a geographic focus on Colorado and southern Wyoming. 

Merrill R. Kaufmann1, Gregory H. Aplet, Mike Babler, William L. Baker, Barbara 

Bentz, Michael Harrington, Brad C. Hawkes, Laurie Stroh Huckaby, Michael J. Jenkins, Daniel M. Kashian, Robert E. Keane, Dominik Kulakowski, Charles McHugh, 

Jose Negron, John Popp, William H. Romme, Tania Schoennagel, Wayne Shepperd, 

Frederick W. Smith, Elaine Kennedy Sutherland, Daniel Tinker, and Thomas T. 

Veblen (complete version available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/bark-beetle/ 

mbp6092008.pdf) 

Introduction 

Major lodgepole pine forest changes and how they affect us. Mountain pine beetle 

populations have reached outbreak levels in lodgepole pine forests throughout North 

America. The geographic focus of this report centers on the southern Rocky Mountains of Colorado and southern Wyoming. The epidemic extends much more widely, 

however, from the southern Rocky Mountains in Colorado in the United States to 

the northern Rocky Mountains in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. 

Worries about large-scale tree mortality in lodgepole pine forests have created 

public concerns across the West. The appearance of red trees during the last decade, 

a clear sign of recent beetle attack, has been followed by bare dead tree skeletons 

throughout this large area. Unquestionably, millions of dead trees foretell large 

forest changes in the near future, and more might be anticipated in areas where 

the mountain pine beetle has not yet reached epidemic levels. 

People are concerned for many reasons. At a minimum, the loss of mature 

lodgepole pine trees will significantly change the present and future appearance of 

affected forests for half a century or more. Extensive areas of dead trees and snags 

are not as aesthetically appealing as live forests. Perhaps more seriously, dying and 

dead trees raise fears of increased fire danger. Some people worry that the dead 

needles and wood generated by the mountain pine beetle epidemic will lead, perhaps 

quickly, to severe wildfires that threaten lives, property, wildlife, and watersheds. 

Many are concerned that trees not yet attacked will succumb to the epidemic. Some 

people worry that the forest in and around our communities and recreation areas 

will become sparse or disappear forever, and that these forest changes will affect 

timber commodities, game habitat, and recreation resources. 

Some contend that the current epidemic with synchronous outbreaks at many locations is unprecedented and a clear warning of global climate change impacts on 

ecosystems around the world. Scientists and others point to other changes occurring 

in our region—Ips beetle-caused mortality of pin ̃ on pine in the Southern Rocky 

Mountains, aspen decline, and large fires in Front Range ponderosa pine forests and 

elsewhere. It is difficult to prove cause and effect, but all of these changes began 

during the last 10-15 years, coinciding with recent warm climatic conditions, increasing numbers of large trees, and advancing age of many forests. Whether or not 

the current epidemic is unprecedented is a question to which there is currently no 

clear answer because of the lack of precise information on extent and severity of 

beetle outbreaks prior to the early 1900s. Nevertheless, many in the scientific community believe the probability of a similar event historically over at least the past 

few 100 years is low. 

There are many insights and opinions about lodgepole pine being discussed by 

stakeholders of all kinds—forest managers, agency administrators, researchers, policy-makers, politicians, the news media, industries, and the general public. Some 

concerns and fears are supported by scientific evidence. Others are probably justified given the current status of our scientific knowledge, but lack clear scientific 

support. Still others are myths with little or no basis in science. A further complication is that some of the information emerging from the science community has appeared on the surface to be somewhat contradictory. 

The reason for this report. This document is written to report our current scientific 

understanding of the ecology and fire behavior of lodgepole pine, with a focus on 

the direct and indirect effects of the current mountain pine beetle epidemic that is 

so dominant in our minds. We recognize that important socioeconomic implications 

stemming from the mountain pine beetle epidemic exist, and we hope that examining the status of science will aid in addressing these issues. While this document 

focuses on lodgepole pine and mountain pine beetles, there are also many other 

forest types and non-forested systems subject to extreme or at least unexpected impacts of climate, other insect and pathogen species, and other disturbances including 

fire and wind. 

82 

This report results from a meeting in January 2008 convened in Colorado by The 

Nature Conservancy, bringing together expertise of scientists who study lodgepole 

pine throughout its geographic range. We hope to provide as much scientific help 

to stakeholders as possible by sorting out what is known with a high degree of certainty, what we are confident about but with less certainty, and what is truly not 

understood and in need of more research. While our primary geographic focus during the workshop was Colorado and southern Wyoming, some of the findings may 

be appropriate for lodgepole pine throughout much of its natural range of distribution. We urge caution, however, in applying our findings beyond our initial area of 

focus or to other forest types in the region. 

During the workshop and through subsequent email dialogue, the lodgepole pine 

team reached consensus on nine key points. As always, science is a work in 

progress, and uncertainties surfaced during discussion of some key points. For some 

points we provide what is known with adequate confidence rather than waiting for 

more definitive information, when this information is useful to interested stakeholders. This report provides the nine key points along with explanatory material 

intended to help the reader understand the degree of confidence we have from scientific study for these key points. To help the reader, we provide a list of suggested 

reading at the end of this report for more detailed information on many of the topics 

discussed. We begin with the obvious. 

A. Lodgepole pine forests are being heavily impacted by the ongoing 

mountain pine beetle epidemic. 

From British Columbia to Colorado, forests are experiencing high mortality of 

lodgepole pine trees from attack by mountain pine beetles. An insect epidemic with 

multiple outbreaks at this scale has not been observed during the last century of 

scientific study, though small outbreaks have occurred. This mortality is changing 

forest structure and composition, and modifying fuels in ways that will affect fire 

behavior for decades. 

B. Not all lodgepole pine forests are the same. 

Some forests are composed of nearly pure lodgepole pine established following 

large fires decades or centuries ago. Others are mixtures of lodgepole pine with subalpine species such as Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and aspen at higher elevations, or with mixed conifer species such as ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and 

aspen at lower elevations. Each type of forest has unique features of ecology and 

fire behavior. And lodgepole pine trees in all three types are vulnerable to attack 

by mountain pine beetles. 

C. Forests are living systems subject to constant change. 

It is normal and expected that many natural agents, including mountain pine 

beetles, fire, and wind, change forests over time. Some changes are so gradual that 

we barely notice them, while others are relatively sudden and extensive. 

The forests that are presently losing many trees to insect attack will not look the 

same in our lifetimes, but healthy and vigorous forests will eventually return in 

most locations. 

D. Lodgepole pine will not disappear from the southern Rocky Mountains. 

The make-up of our forests is already changing where mountain pine beetles 

cause high mortality of lodgepole pine. However, this event will not cause the extinction or disappearance of lodgepole pine, and forests dominated by or including 

lodgepole pine will persist in the southern Rockies, though they may look different 

from those of the past due to changing climate. Future forests will continue to provide valuable ecological services and aesthetic and recreational benefits. 

E. Active vegetation management is unlikely to stop the spread of the 

current mountain pine beetle outbreak. 

Mountain pine beetles are so numerous and spreading so rapidly into new areas 

that they will simply overwhelm any of our efforts where trees have not yet been 

attacked, and no management can mitigate the mortality already occurring. However, judicious vegetation management between outbreak cycles may help mitigate 

future bark beetle-caused tree mortality in local areas. 

F. Large intense fires with extreme fire behavior are characteristic of 

lodgepole pine forests, though they are infrequent. 

Very dry and windy conditions can lead to large intense fires in lodgepole pine 

forests. Such fires are a natural way for lodgepole pine to be renewed and are largely responsible for extensive pure lodgepole pine forests. 

83 

G. In forests killed by mountain pine beetles, future fires could be more 

likely than fires before the outbreak. Large intense fires with extreme 

fire behavior are again possible. 

There is considerable uncertainty about fire behavior following a mountain pine 

beetle epidemic on this scale. In pure lodgepole pine forests, crown fires are possible 

both before an epidemic and after while needles are still on trees. Intense surface 

fires are possible after most dead trees have fallen to the ground. The probabilities 

of such fires are uncertain, and more research is needed to learn in what ways and 

how long the fuels and fire environment are altered by the beetles. Nevertheless, 

protection of communities and other values at risk continues to be imperative. 

H. Mountain pine beetle outbreaks are not likely to cause increased 

erosion. 

Soils are not disturbed and protective ground cover is not reduced when mountain 

pine beetles kill lodgepole pine trees. If anything, understory plants may grow more 

vigorously in the increased light and with the higher available soil moisture and nutrients. Where tree mortality is high, annual streamflow may increase and the timing of water delivery may be changed, because of reduced canopy interception of precipitation and reduced water uptake by the trees. 

I. Climate changes will most likely contribute to substantial forest changes 

in the decades ahead. 

Given the climate changes in the last several decades and projected changes for 

coming decades, large fires and other natural disturbances and shifts in vegetation 

composition and distribution are anticipated in many ecosystems of Colorado and 

southern Wyoming. These large disturbances and other changes in growing conditions will likely contribute to restructuring many forest landscapes. 

J. Summary 

The current mountain pine beetle epidemic affecting lodgepole pine forests is an 

important ecological event with significant socio-economic implications. What will be 

the consequences for the affected ecosystems? How do we protect our communities 

and other human values at risk in ways that are socially and economically (as well 

as ecologically) feasible? These are difficult questions. This report has focused specifically on the ecology and fire behavior issues associated with lodgepole pine and 

the mountain pine beetle epidemic. We recognize that the socio-economic aspects are 

as important as the ecological issues, but they are beyond the scope of this report. 

Ecologically, much is known about lodgepole pine and mountain pine beetles. 

Even though the scale of the current epidemic is unprecedented over the past approximately 100 years of reliable observations, beetle-caused tree mortality at some 

scale has long been part of the dynamics of the lodgepole pine ecosystems. Similarly, 

fire behavior and its role in ecological processes and fuel management practices are 

relatively well understood. While we are confident about our general understanding, 

we have identified at least some scientific uncertainties about lodgepole pine, mountain pine beetle effects, and fire behavior that should be acknowledged and further 

researched. 

We are most concerned about several wildcard issues that create some uncertainty 

in applying what we know from science. The scale of this epidemic is larger than 

any mountain pine beetle epidemic studied thus far. We do not fully understand if 

or how the magnitude of this ecological event will affect future forests in terms of 

regeneration of the present species or transitions to different vegetation types. Furthermore, there is the question—both tantalizing and troubling—about possible climate change (including its rate, direction and magnitude) and the degree to which 

scientific findings need to be qualified as they are applied. 

If humans were not a part of the equation, forests would simply mature, die, and 

regenerate or be replaced by other vegetation types, following ecological trajectories 

over time driven by climate, environment, and species capabilities. 

Because humans cause changes in forests by choosing to live there and deriving 

economic services from them, our communities are impacted by forest changes, 

whether they are natural or not. Thus both the scale of the mountain pine beetle 

epidemic and the uncertainties about future forests leave us with questions that are 

important to us but may not be answerable with the knowledge we have now. 

Knowledge from scientific research about lodgepole pine and mountain pine 

beetles is valuable in two ways. It offers answers to some of the questions we have 

about forest ecology and provides valuable insight for management of these forests 

for ecological and community protection purposes. It also clarifies what we do not 

know. This is valuable not just to direct new research, but also to inform stakeVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
84 

holders of the degree of confidence they should have as land and natural resource 

management practices are considered. 

As noted in the introduction, science is a work in progress. Many of the scientific 

uncertainties discussed in this report already are receiving attention in the research 

community. Even as research continues, however, the scientific knowledge already 

available is usable by a wide variety of stakeholders and in the collaborative and 

adaptive management process. Adaptive management is perhaps best described as 

managing while learning on the fly. In this report, the scientific community provides 

information to managers and other stakeholders, but the scientific community also 

will help advance the knowledge base through lessons learned as management practices are planned, implemented, monitored, and evaluated. We humans must decide 

how to manage forests based upon their intrinsic value and natural processes as 

well as some desired future condition contingent on human wants and needs. We 

must be realistic about the degree to which we as observers, managers and stewards 

of the forest can affect what is happening now and what will happen in the future. 

Whatever we do from here should be done together. 

Authors and their affiliations 

• Merrill R. Kaufmann (science team leader), U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain 

Research Station (emeritus) and The Nature Conservancy 

• Gregory H. Aplet, The Wilderness Society 

• Mike Babler (science team co-leader), The Nature Conservancy 

• William L. Baker, University of Wyoming 

• Barbara Bentz, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 

• Michael Harrington, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 

• Brad C. Hawkes, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service Pacific 

Forestry Centre 

• Laurie Stroh Huckaby, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 

• Michael J. Jenkins, Utah State University 

• Daniel M. Kashian, Wayne State University 

• Robert E. Keane, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 

• Dominik Kulakowski, Clark University 

• Ward McCaughey, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 

• Charles McHugh, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 

• Jose Negron, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 

• John Popp, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 

• William H. Romme, Colorado State University 

• Tania Schoennagel, University of Colorado 

• Wayne Shepperd, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 

(retired) 

• Frederick W. Smith, Colorado State University 

• Elaine Kennedy Sutherland, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research 

Station 

• Daniel Tinker, University of Wyoming 

• Thomas T. Veblen, University of Colorado 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so much for your testimony, sir. I 

also thank you for the reference to the full report, the state-of-theart consensus service statement, and that document apparently is 

available for the general public. And hopefully we will be able to 

get it. And your key points were very much appreciated. 

Mr. Wilkinson, General Manager of the North Colorado Water 

Conservancy District. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC WILKINSON, GENERAL MANAGER, 

NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, 

BERTHOUD, COLORADO 

Mr. WILKINSON. Thank you, Madame Chairman, Members of the 

Committee. I am the General Manager of the Northern Colorado 

Water Conservancy District, and its municipal subdistrict. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the combined Subcommittees on the real threat posed to watersheds and 

water supplies by the pine beetle. 

85 

Northern Water was created in 1937. It is the first water conservancy district in the State of Colorado, as can be seen on Attachment 1 of my written testimony. Northern Water is located in 

northeastern Colorado, and includes approximately 640,000 acres 

of irrigated farmland, and a constituency population of about 

800,000 people. 

In 1938, Northern Water entered into a contract with the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation to become the local sponsor and contract 

beneficiary of the Colorado Big Thompson project. 

The CBT project annually yields an average of 220,000 acre feet 

of high quality supplemental water from the project’s 466-squaremile watershed in the headwaters of the Colorado River. The 

project then conveys that water under the Continental Divide to 

the Water Shore South Platte Basin. This water supply is essential 

to northeastern Colorado. 

The municipal subdistrict developed, operates, and maintains the 

Windy Gap project, designed to annually capture 48,000 acre feet 

of water, primarily relying on the 313-square-mile watershed of the 

Fraser River, a tributary to the Colorado River. The Windy Gap 

project utilizes the excess capacity in the CBT project to convey 

that water to the eastern slope. 

Both the watersheds of the CBT project and the Windy Gap 

project are heavily infested by the pine beetle, with infestation beginning in the early 1990s. I direct your attention to Attachment 

4 of my written testimony, a map showing the extent of the pine 

beetle infestation in those watersheds. This map depicts the extent 

of the current pine beetle infestation in the watershed’s tributary 

to both of these projects. 

Experts estimate that eventually well over 90 percent of the 

lodgepole pine, the dominant species in this area, will be killed by 

the pine beetle. 

Pine beetle infestation poses a significant immediate and continuing threat to forest watersheds that produce water supplies, 

and the associated water supply facilities by dramatically increasing the possibility and potential severity of wildfires and the resulting watershed erosion and sediment deposition. It also causes secondary water quality effects. 

In my written testimony I cite the Colorado examples of the Buffalo Creek fire in 1996, and the Hayman fire in 2002, to demonstrate the devastating and costly impact to infrastructure and 

water supplies caused by wildfire. 

Because of the pine beetle infestation in 2006, Northern Water 

contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey to perform a pre-wildfire study to determine the potential post-wildfire grade flows within the CBT project watershed. The study results were alarming. 

In July 2007, the Pinchot Institute for Conservation released a 

report entitled ‘‘Protecting Front-Range Forest Watersheds from 

High-Severity Wildfires.’’ As a result of that study, the Colorado 

State Forest Service, the United States Forest Service, and water 

users began a collaborative effort to define and address problems 

caused by pine beetle infestation. 

Over the next two years, this group developed methodologies to 

evaluate the vulnerability of, and consequences to, watersheds 

posed by wildfire, based on the watershed physical characteristics. 

86 

These evaluations are used to prioritize those watersheds most 

threatened by wildfires, and most needing remedial action to reduce the risk. These cooperative efforts to address wildfire risks 

must continue. 

Further, my written testimony contains a number of recommendations needed to deal with the threat to watersheds and 

water supplies posed by the pine beetle epidemic. 

Addressing the threat of wildfires, as well as other water quality 

and water supply challenges caused by the pine beetle epidemic, is 

a daunting task, in light of the millions of acres of lands affected, 

and the cost of implementing adequate and effective measures. 

However, the cost of dealing with the aftermath of a wildfire can 

be magnitudes greater than the cost of proactive preventive measures. We must learn from our experiences, and initiate long-term 

forest management practices that will lessen the probability of future pine beetle infestation, and will reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fires in the next generation of forest scrub that will follow 

this pine beetle epidemic. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkinson follows:] 

Statement of Eric W. Wilkinson, General Manager, 

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District 

INTRODUCTION 

The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water) was created 

by decree of the Weld County District Court in September 1937 as the first water 

conservancy district in the State of Colorado. Northern Water is located along the 

northern front range of Colorado, extending from the City and County of Broomfield 

and Fort Lupton on the south, to north of Fort Collins and Greeley on the north, 

then extending northeastward along the South Platte River to the Colorado/Nebraska state line (see Attachment 1). Northern Water encompasses parts of eight 

counties and includes approximately 1.6 million acres within its boundaries, including about 640,000 acres of irrigated farmland. The constituency population of Northern Water is approximately 800,000 people. 

The impetus for the creation of Northern Water was to serve as the sponsoring 

agency to contract with the United States, through the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the ColoradoBig Thompson Project (C-BT Project). The 220,000 acre-feet of high quality, supplemental water supplies that are diverted on average each year by the C-BT Project 

from the headwaters of the Colorado River into the South Platte Basin for use by 

the constituents of Northern Water, are as important today to the health, economy, 

and sustainability of northeastern Colorado as they have ever been during the history of the C-BT Project. 

An explanation of the background and history related to the development and operation of the C-BT Project and Northern Water is contained in Attachment 2 to 

this testimony entitled ‘‘Background and History of the Northern Colorado Water 

Conservancy District and the Colorado-Big Thompson Project.’’ 

C-BT PROJECT WEST SLOPE COLLECTION SYSTEM 

The 220,000 acre-feet of average annual yield provided by the C-BT Project is captured from the 466 square-mile watershed located within the headwaters of the Colorado River. Over the past 15 years, this watershed has been severely infested by 

the Pine Beetle. The integrity and functionality of the collection system facilities are 

threatened by the potential consequences of the beetle infestation. Such consequences include the higher risk of catastrophic wildfires and resulting watershed 

erosion and sediment deposition. The water quality of this valuable supply is already being adversely impacted as a result of the infestation. 

A diagram of the C-BT Project’s integrated collection system is shown on Attachment 3. The collection system consists of: Shadow Mountain and Lake Granby reservoirs and Grand Lake all within the Colorado River Basin; and Willow Creek Reservoir within the Willow Creek drainage, which is a tributary to the Colorado River. 

The collection system utilizes two large pumping plants to move water between faVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
87 

cilities. The Willow Creek Pumping Plant pumps water stored and released from 

Willow Creek Reservoir into Lake Granby Reservoir. The Farr Pumping Plant 

pumps water stored in Lake Granby Reservoir into Shadow Mountain Reservoir so 

it can then flow by gravity through Shadow Mountain Reservoir, into and through 

Grand Lake, to the intake of the Adams Tunnel. Water then flows by gravity from 

Grand Lake through the 13.1-mile long Adams Tunnel beneath the Continental Divide to the eastern slope, where water continues to be conveyed through C-BT 

Project facilities, ultimately being delivered to C-BT Project allottees and beneficiaries within the boundaries of Northern Water for beneficial use. 

MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT AND THE WINDY GAP PROJECT 

In 1970, the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy 

District (Municipal Subdistrict) was formed by a decree of the Weld County District 

Court and included six municipal water purveyors within northeastern Colorado. 

The purpose of the Municipal Subdistrict is the development and operation of the 

Windy Gap Project. The Windy Gap Project was constructed on the Colorado River 

approximately 1 mile west of the Town of Granby from 1981 to 1985 (location noted 

on Attachment 1). 

The Windy Gap Project consists of a 415 acre-foot reservoir and a pumping plant 

that pumps water captured by the reservoir into Lake Granby Reservoir. Excess capacity in the C-BT Project, when available, is then used to convey the Windy Gap 

Project water to Windy Gap Project participants on the eastern slope. The average 

annual yield of the Windy Gap Project is approximately 48,000 acre feet. 

Water yielded by the Windy Gap Project is from the 313 square mile drainage 

area of the Fraser River Basin. This watershed has also been severely infested by 

the Pine Beetle. 

FORESTED WATERSHEDS 

The drainage areas tributary to both the C-BT Project and the Windy Gap Project 

are heavily forested by predominately uniform-age, high-density, lodgepole pine. 

Nearly the entire drainage area tributary to the C-BT Project is federally owned and 

under the jurisdiction of the United States Forest Service or the National Park 

Service. Lands controlled by the National Park Service are limited to Rocky Mountain National Park. In 2009, Congress passed legislation designating most all of 

Rocky Mountain National Park as Wilderness. The drainage area tributary to the 

Windy Gap Project has a higher percentage of private ownership with the federallyowned lands being under the jurisdiction of the United States Forest Service. 

PINE BEETLE INFESTATION IN THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN 

In the early 1990’s, initial evidence of Pine Beetle infestation was noted in the 

Upper Colorado River Basin, including the drainage areas tributary to the both the 

C-BT and Windy Gap projects. Over the next several years, the infestation would 

reach epidemic proportions, encompassing a majority of the forested areas in the 

Upper Colorado River Basin. Attachment 4 is a map indicating the extent of the 

Pine Beetle infestation in the drainage areas tributary to these two projects. It is 

important to note that to-date over 50% of the respective drainage area tributary 

to either the C-BT Project or the Windy Gap Project are infected by the Pine Beetle. 

The area infected continues to grow with many experts estimating that eventually 

over 90% of the lodgepole pine within the respective drainage basins will be infected 

by the Pine Beetle. Attachment 5 is an aerial photograph of the Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain, Lake Granby area showing the reddish-colored areas infected by the 

Pine Beetle. 

Pine Beetle infestation poses significant, immediate, and continuing threats to the 

forest and the water supply originating as run-off from the affected forested areas. 

Trees killed by Pine Beetles are initially identified by their reddish color. The red 

needles provide a dry, highly combustible fuel load, dramatically increasing both the 

possibility and severity of wildfires. Although fire is needed to regenerate forest 

growth in lodgepole pine forests, uncontrolled wildfires in old, dense, uniform-age 

forests are not only highly destructive to the forest and its environment, but are 

also devastating to the water supplies that originate on those forests. 

Addressing the threat of wildfire, as well as other water quality and water supply 

challenges caused by the Pine Beetle epidemic, is a daunting task in light of the 

millions of acres of land affected and the high cost of implementing adequate and 

effective measures. However, the cost of dealing with the aftermath of a wildfire 

may be magnitudes greater than the cost of proactive preventive measures. 

The Buffalo Creek Fire in 1996 and the Hayman Fire in 2002 within the upper 

South Platte River Basin, although not occurring on Pine Beetle infested forests, are 

outstanding examples of the devastation that wildfires can cause to water supplies 

and water supply infrastructure. The Buffalo Creek Fire, a relatively small fire, cost 

88 

the Denver Water Department (Denver Water) approximately $20 million to protect 

and restore water supply facilities, including the dredging of a reservoir to remove 

debris and sediment deposited from the erosion of the watershed following the fire. 

Significant expenditures were also required to address issues associated with the 

substantial deterioration in water quality caused by the fire. The adverse effects of 

that fire on Denver Water’s supplies are still being felt. The Hayman Fire burned 

over 138,000 acres and resulted in costs of over $6.5 million just to protect Denver 

Water’s Cheesman Reservoir in the two years immediately following that fire. The 

monies expended on Cheesman Reservoir are only a fraction of the total costs incurred by Denver Water because of this fire. Denver Water continues today to deal 

with the adverse effects of the Hayman Fire. 

The debris, sediment, and nutrient loading that are captured by water facilities 

following a wildfire have the potential to reduce, significantly impact, or even destroy the functionality of those facilities. The resulting adverse effects on water 

quality are very detrimental and, depending on the characteristics of the watershed, 

can last for years or even decades. Remediation of the effects of wildfire for facilities 

associated with the C-BT Project or the Windy Gap Project could easily cost several 

million dollars for each facility. 

If the reddish and dead Pine Beetle-infected trees are not the victim of wildfires, 

those trees will eventually lose their needles, with a commensurate decrease in the 

risk of wildfire. In some cases, the decrease in the forest canopy area will result in 

an increase in run-off from the affected areas, resulting in a benefit for water users. 

The increase duff on the forest floor resulting from the falling needles and the associated vegetative decaying process may result in higher nutrient loading in the runoff from the previously forested area. This increase in nutrient loading can cause 

several issues for water supplies including, but not limited to, causing increased 

growth of algae in the water supply, significantly decreased overall water quality, 

and greater challenges in treating the water without introducing threats to public 

health, such as disinfection by-products. Treatment of affected water supplies to 

drinking water standards may, in some cases, require costly modifications to water 

treatment facilities. 

As these trees continue to deteriorate, they will eventually fall, posing threats to 

the safety of those in the affected areas. Over time, with increasing deadfall on the 

forest floor, the threat of wildfire and the associated problems again increases. 

NORTHERN WATER AND MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT EXPERIENCES 

Over 700,000 people in northeastern Colorado depend on C-BT Project and Windy 

Gap Project water as a source of their drinking water supply. The effects of a wildfire resulting from the Pine Beetle infestation within the two projects’ watersheds 

would be devastating to the quality, quantity, and reliability of this water supply. 

As the drainage areas tributary to the C-BT Project became more heavily infected 

by the Pine Beetle, Northern Water became increasingly concerned about the possibility and the consequences of a wildfire. In 2006, Northern Water contracted with 

the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to perform a pre-wildfire study to determine the potential for post-wildfire debris flows within the C-BT Project watershed. The purpose of the study was to estimate the probability of post-wildfire debris flows and to estimate the volume of debris flows that might occur. The results 

were alarming as the study showed significant adverse consequences to the C-BT 

Project and its water supplies as the result of a wildfire. 

In July 2007 the Pinchot Institute for Conservation released a report entitled, 

‘‘Protecting Front Range Forest Watersheds from High-Severity Wildfires.’’ In an 

outreach effort, the Colorado State Forest Service and the U.S. Forest Service 

hosted a meeting with water providers to discuss potential methods to protect Front 

Range watersheds and their associated produced water supplies from the devastation of wildfires. 

Over the next two years, this group would develop methodologies that would be 

used to evaluate the vulnerability of a watershed to wildfires and the consequences 

that might result based on the watershed’s physical characteristics. Characteristics 

evaluated include wildfire hazard ratings, watershed steepness or ruggedness, soil 

erodibility, and water use ranking. These evaluations could then be used to 

prioritize those watersheds most threatened by wildfire and most needing remedial 

action to reduce the wildfire risk and the consequences of a wildfire. Preliminary 

results from the study of Colorado Front Range watersheds have recently been 

made available. Those study results show: more than 2 million acres are classified 

as high hazard for wildfire; all major water collection, storage, and conveyance 

structures are threatened; the current measures being pursued to address the wildfire threat are inadequate; and adequate corrective actions in the form of forest 

treatments will require considerable increases in funding. 

89 

Based on the methodology developed for the evaluation of wildfire risk and 

prioritization of watershed protection, Denver Water, Northern Water, the Municipal Subdistrict, and other water providers engaged a consultant to evaluate the watersheds in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Watersheds evaluated included those 

tributary to the C-BT Project, the Windy Gap Project, and facilities owned and operated by Denver Water in the Colorado River, Fraser River, and Williams Fork River 

basins. Those preliminary results have very recently been released, pointing to the 

need for remedial measures to protect several vulnerable watersheds. 

FUTURE ACTIONS TO ADDRESS PINE BEETLE-CAUSED THREATS TO 

WATERSHEDS 

The Pine Beetle epidemic in Colorado has affected critical watersheds throughout 

Colorado, raising the risk of wildfires and the risk of the resulting devastating impact to watershed health and to the quality of the water supplies produced. It is 

important to note that on most infected watersheds where fires have thankfully not 

occurred and the infected trees have lost their needles, the wildfire threat has, as 

a result, been significantly reduced. However, the decaying needles on the forest 

floor are causing, and will continue to cause, adverse water quality effects. The cooperative efforts in Colorado to address the wildfire risks, led by the Colorado State 

Forest Service and the U.S. Forest Service, must continue with the timely and focused implementation of corrective or remedial measures necessary to address this 

real threat to water supplies. Scientifically based procedures have been developed 

to evaluate the threats posed to watersheds and prioritize those watersheds needing 

immediate remedial action to address the wildfire threat. The following steps are 

recommended: • Prioritize watersheds based on risk for wildfire and consequences that may be 

caused by wildfire. This prioritization can then be used to allocate resources 

needed to address the wildfire risk in a region. • Implement appropriate forest management practices to reduce the potential for 

wildfires. This would include such things as forest thinning, timber harvesting, 

fuel breaks to prevent the uncontrolled spread of wildfire, prescribed and controlled burning, and the natural use of fire. • Develop and implement a plan to mitigate the adverse effects of post-wildfire 

impacts. This could include such things as construction of debris control dams 

upstream of reservoirs to limit debris flow into the reservoir or emergency action plans to limit erosion within the affected watershed. • Develop the equivalent of Community Wildfire Protection Programs for the protection and restoration of critical water supply facilities within affected watersheds. • Develop pre-event permitting processes for emergency corrective measures that 

would be necessary to implement a Community Wildfire Protection Program or 

an emergency action plan during and following a wildfire. This would allow the 

implementation of emergency mitigation measures in a timely, effective, and efficient manner. • Develop federal funding mechanisms necessary to address and mitigate the 

threat posed by catastrophic wildfires resulting from the Pine Beetle infestation. Federal agencies should establish an emergency fund that could be utilized 

to pay for remediation of watersheds, water supplies, and water supply infrastructure during and following a wildfire. These funds would be available for 

protecting water quality and restoring the functionality of water supply facilities. 

CONCLUSION 

Addressing the threat of wildfire, as well as other water quality and water supply 

challenges caused by the Pine Beetle epidemic, is a daunting task in light of the 

millions of acres of land affected and the cost of implementing adequate and effective measures. However, the cost of dealing with the aftermath of a wildfire may 

be magnitudes greater than the cost of proactive preventive measures. 

We must learn from our experiences and initiate long-term forest management 

practices that will lessen the future probability of Pine Beetle infestation and that 

will reduce the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire in the next generation of forest 

growth that will follow this Pine Beetle epidemic. Testimony Presented by Eric 

Wilkinson 

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS TO WRITTEN TESTIMONY 

ATTACHMENT 1 Map of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and 

Colorado-Big Thompson Project 

ATTACHMENT 2 Background and History of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Colorado-Big Thompson Project 

90 

ATTACHMENT 3 Schematic Diagram of the West Slope Collection System of the 

Colorado-Big Thompson Project 

ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado-Big Thompson Project and Windy Gap Project - Drainage Basins Affected by Beetle Infestation 

ATTACHMENT 5 Aerial Photograph of Colorado-Big Thompson Project Drainage 

Basin 

[NOTE: The aerial photograph (Attachment 5) has been retained in the 

Committee’s official files.] 


50438.001
91 


50438.002
92 


50438.003
93 


50438.004
94 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Wilkinson. And your last comment in regard to the cost, in reading some of the testimony, it is 

stated that it is prohibitive to be able to do chemical spray over the 

trees. Prohibitive is the word. 

Yet, when you quantify the loss of everything else—the industry, 

the watershed, the cost of the water districts to be able to clean up 

the silt, removal of the silt, all of that—we have not quantified 

that. 

And we are saying it is prohibitive. What do we measure it 

against? 

Mr. WILKINSON. The costs that we have heard in initial conversations back in 2007 on the cost of addressing the wildfire examples 

are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The effectiveness of 

spraying, as I understand it—and I am not an expert on infestation 

prevention—is likewise prohibitive from the standpoint of each tree 

has to be individually sprayed, because of the way that the insects 

attack the tree. 

It is easy for any individual water supply facility, such as the 

Strontia Springs Dam that you saw a picture of earlier in the presentation, it is easy to incur a cost of $20 million on remedial measures to dredge out those reservoirs. 

Reservoirs associated with the Colorado Big Thompson project, 

for example, if there is a wildfire above them, would become sediment collection facilities that would obviously require dredging to 

take care of that, as well. 

Costs are indeed prohibitive. If there were, I believe, substantial 

corrective measures that could be taken, such as spraying, that 

were economically viable and effective, I think the water users and 

the community would probably endorse that. But it is my understanding that those really aren’t practical or implementable, from 

either an economic standpoint or from a physical standpoint. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But I have yet to hear, sir, of anybody indicating that the research and development has identified a way to 

cope with it. Or at least to not totally eradicate it, because that 

probably is impossible, but to be able to deal with the quick production of itself. In other words, it just keeps spreading, and there is 

really no talk of any other predators that we can look at to address 

this epidemic. 

It has been around for 39 years. 

Mr. WILKINSON. Exactly. Your representation is my understanding, Madame Chairwoman. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Does anybody know of any research, anything 

being done on the actual beetle itself, and how to address its demise? And I guess maybe I would go back to a few years ago, when 

I sat on City Council. The local RECTA control was trying to do 

away with the mosquitoes that were spreading the—they didn’t call 

it the Nile virus back at that time. We are talking about the 1980’s. 

And what they did is they were able to get females, and put 

them through a process. And don’t ask me, I am not the researcher 

that did it. But they would sterilize the females. And that helped 

the propagation of the mosquitoes. 

So I am not sure who is doing any kind of research on the actual 

beetle itself to be more specific about what other measures can be 

done. Because we are looking at everything else, or at least talking 

95 

about it. And we are not quite sure if anybody knows anything 

about that. 

Yes, ma’am, Ms. Scanlan. 

Ms. SCANLAN. Thank you, Madame Chair. In my community, we 

first focused on prevention, because we saw this happening in a 

county near ours and didn’t want the effects to be the same. 

Graham County, Colorado, is the epicenter of the beetle epidemic, and they have tried everything. There is a lot of research 

going on in terms of pheromone packs that you can put out into 

trees that will maybe send them elsewhere. 

Nothing works with any certainty on a landscape scale. So what 

we focus on are what we call high-value trees. I know the ski resorts will be here to testify about that later on how you can protect 

those. Even that is quite expensive to do on private property. 

Anything dealing with the National Forest, there is a lot of talk 

about what you can do. But this is one of the largest infestations 

of insects ever seen in North America. We don’t have any tools that 

are effective in stopping or mitigating their travel. What we have 

heard is they will continue at this pace until they run out of habitat, and that is, in fact, what we are seeing. 

So when Congressman Polis said we are focused now on triage, 

that is all we can do. We spent a few years trying to get ahead of 

it; we are now years behind. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. What barriers do you see exist on cross-jurisdictional cooperation? 

Ms. SCANLAN. Thank you, Madame Chair. We have been really 

trying to use the good neighbor policy, which allows us access to 

Federal lands in a way that I am not sure other states need, or 

need to have as a priority on. 

We had to add additional staffing on our State Forest Service Office to do that, though, because it is a fairly bureaucratic process 

to engage in. And we wanted to support our local citizens and private landowners on how to get that kind of access. 

Because if you are in the wildland-urban interface, everything 

abuts. Ninety-nine percent of my entire district where I live, my 

county where I live, is in that same interface, so it is surrounded 

by public lands. 

So we have to be cooperative in how we can get easier access. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How do you achieve mitigation? 

Ms. SCANLAN. Pardon? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How do you achieve—— 

Ms. SCANLAN. I think that enhancing the good neighbor policy, 

making sure that we still have the good neighbor policy is a first 

priority that we would like to ask of this body. 

But second, enhancing that, maybe taking down some of the bureaucracy associated with it, so that we can have easier access back 

and forth. That would be a tremendous tool. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Excuse me. Mr. Shoemaker, you 

have advocated for some timber harvesting to mitigate the damage 

inflicted by the beetle. Do you believe in expediting NEPA? And if 

not, why not? 

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. We do advocate for chainsaws in the woods to protect those priorities that we 

have identified collaboratively. And we do not advocate for some 

96 

streamlining of NEPA. In fact, the bottleneck for getting projects 

on the ground is not NEPA. There are tens, if not hundreds of 

thousands of acres of NEPA-ready projects that just need to be 

pulled off the shelf and hit the ground. And what is holding that 

up is the resources to get people into the woods. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Just to follow up on that point. You say there 

are plenty of NEPA-ready projects, and yet we have a number of 

NEPA-ready projects in my district in northeastern California with 

33 million board feet already under contract; 31.5 million board 

feet are tied up in litigation. 

We have had testimony with respect to forest fire-killed trees, 

that these lawsuits are being filed simply to delay the harvesting 

beyond the point where they are commercially salvageable. 

What is your comment on that? 

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Well, I restrict my comments to Colorado, 

where I function and where I study. And the same dynamic is not 

playing out in Colorado. 

We have a fairly healthy collaborative atmosphere in Colorado, 

where we have regular meetings with my good buddy, Rick Cable, 

sitting behind me, and others, like local governments like Commissioner Rich. And we come to agreement. We recognize that when 

there are very limited resources and there is a lot of high-value 

community infrastructure and lives at risk, that we need to make 

priority decisions. Where those priorities are is where we all agree, 

and that is where the projects are hitting the ground. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Rich, you testified that you thought NEPA 

could be better implemented. What would you recommend? 

Mr. RICH. I feel that NEPA has a purpose, but it has been used 

to slow down—like you said—lawsuits and things like that have 

slowed down the process to where there is no action, and an alternative speeds it up quite a bit. 

As a lawmaker, I need to hear both sides of it, but I hate to be 

stalled by someone who is using a law to, just for that purpose. 

And that does happen. There are some environmental people out 

there who feel that preservation means do not cut a tree. I do not 

share that concept with them. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What would you recommend? What changes 

ought we to make to NEPA to keep this from happening? 

Mr. RICH. I think if we understand that we need to move ahead. 

They had talked about maybe backing off of some lawsuits, but just 

don’t use it to slow things down. Use it for what it was designed 

to kind of check out. 

I think if the motive is just to stop the process, that is not a good 

use of the law. Use it as it is appropriate and maybe they won’t 

use it. Maybe they won’t sue, but it sure has slowed things down. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Let me ask each of the panelists just for the 

single most cost-effective recommendation you could make to deal 

with the infestation. 

Ms. SCANLAN. Thank you. That is a tough question, because this 

is a multi-faceted, complex problem. It is, as someone mentioned, 

a near-term and a long-term issue for us. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I also don’t want to get bogged down in analysis paralysis, either. We have, I think, established that this is a 

97 

very serious problem. What would be the single most cost-effective 

solution that you could offer us today? 

Ms. SCANLAN. I think that we need funding on the ground. We 

have a list of priority projects in Colorado that are critical to both 

the public safety and infrastructure that we would like to have—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Funding on the ground for what? 

Ms. SCANLAN. To do wildfire mitigation. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Specifically, removing overgrowth? 

Ms. SCANLAN. It is largely removing the fuel-loaded trees out in 

the forest, yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. All right. Mr. Rich, you talked about litigation. 

That would be it? The single most cost-effective way to—— 

Mr. RICH. The most cost-effective would get some money on the 

ground to Jackson County. To have to place an economic value on 

the product—whether it is timber or biomass for electricity—we 

need a little help to get it going. Then it will start rolling on its 

own. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Again, if we sell the timber for lumber production, that actually makes us money. 

Mr. RICH. Some of the value of the timber is not worth—yes, the 

good saw logs, you bet. I mean, there is a lot of solutions. We in 

the cattle industry used to use a sale market, where we would take 

our cattle, and then they would sell them. Why not have a lumber, 

where you take your logs, the 35-acre people take their logs? And 

then you have got saw logs, timber, all different kinds of logs that 

you can pick right out of there. And that would be an effective way, 

an economic way to make it roll. It has got to pay. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I will leave Mr. Shoemaker and Mr. Wilkinson 

to argue with the Chairwoman over time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, we have one more panel. We will be 

going to the votes pretty soon, so we need to really move on. I 

would appreciate it if you would maybe answer in writing. 

Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Madame Representative, could you please tell us a little bit in your testimony 

about the incentives created to foster the kind of partnership between a state and private industry? 

And specifically, how do you pick a company? And who is in 

charge of distributing the funding? 

Ms. SCANLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are working with 

our State Forest Service Office in distributing those funds. And 

they do help identify the private folks who might want to come forward and utilize those. 

What we have done is a series of tax credits, tax exemptions, 

anything that we can do at a state level to bolster what is a fledgling industry, particularly in terms of the niche market for bark 

beetle trees. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Shoemaker, you referred to tactical timber industry. If you could expand on what that would look 

like, and are there any areas that you know in the country where 

that has been successful. 

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva. I referred to 

tactical timber industry, and that is just a term that I came up 

with. 

98 

But the notion is that we have got, we need—industry is part of 

the solution in Colorado, and we don’t have enough of the right industry in the right place to help us move this, this wood from these 

right acres that we have identified through collaborative process. 

And the trouble is that there is a tremendous volume of beetlekill wood available now, and will be in the short, in the near term. 

But after that its value is going to fall off pretty quickly, in terms 

of commercial value. 

And so we need a timber industry that is nimble enough to ramp 

up a way to process this large volume of woods coming off of these 

thousands of acres of priority protection for communities. And then 

on the back side, can scale down in a way as the supply of wood 

scales down, so that it is sustainable in the future. 

And really what we are talking about is trying to create a situation where our communities can remain sustainable in the face of 

the disturbances that keep moving through these forests and so 

that the timber industry can respond in a way that addresses supply as it ebbs and flows. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And as I mentioned in my opening 

statement, I think the essential part of the response to the outbreak is going to be the kind of extensive coordination and community support that we bring to bear on this issue. 

And just for, in looking ahead, what are some of the pitfalls, 

some of the non-starters, in your experience with the cooperative? 

Mr. SHOEMAKER. With the cooperative? The pitfalls as we go forward, we can avoid. Gosh, do it sooner. It took a while for the 

Colorado bark beetle, it started as a cooperative, then moved into 

a collaborative. And it took a while to recognize that there are 

multi-stakeholders that have, that need to be involved at the table, 

because we all have a stake in the national forest, because that is 

our livelihoods there. 

It took a couple of years of inter-agency or inter-government discussion before they finally realized that our tent is not big enough. 

So I encourage the opening of the tent earlier in the process. 

But there is one pitfall that is kind of outside the spectrum of 

your question that I would like to address. That is, when the industry goes to the bank to get a loan, they need to demonstrate a guaranteed reliable supply of timber over X period of years until the 

loan is paid off. Right now, while there is this plethora of wood in 

the forest, it seems like a minor issue. 

However, what has never been done is a statewide comprehensive analysis or assessment of how much supply there is. It has to 

be done where you remove wilderness, wetlands, the two steepest 

slopes, and the other areas that are just prohibitive to get into. 

Then you identify where the local collaboratives, like I sit at the 

table with, have identified priorities where there is that zone of 

agreement, where there is that social license, and how much supply 

is in that area. 

Then the industry can make carefully calculated investment decisions based on that quantification of supply. Right now, people are 

kind of shooting in the dark. The guys who get there early have 

a more compelling argument because there is more wood. 

But as we need more industry to ramp up to help us process the 

wood out of these interface areas, that question is going to be comVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
99 

ing increasingly as the bottleneck, I believe, in developing the infrastructure to deal with it. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mrs. Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madame Chairman, in the interest of time I am 

going to submit my questions for this panel to you in writing. I 

have just a couple of editorial comments, though. 

Eight months ago Wyoming had three large operating sawmills 

in our state. Since then, two of them have closed. Roughly 400 employees and contractors were put out of work when those mills shut 

their doors, further exasperating Wyoming’s inability to thin the 

forests or protect rights-of-way for transmission lines in a way that 

will address immediate needs on the ground. 

If we don’t protect these forest industries, to a certain extent we 

are fueling our own problems. 

I also want to stress that it is so good to hear from county commissioners back here, because we need to be coordinating with 

counties. Not making them cooperate with the Federal government. 

And it is a coordination effort. The people on the ground are the 

ones with the expertise to understand how to address issues in 

their area. 

So I want to applaud Commissioner Rich for joining us today. I 

will submit my questions to you in writing. But thank you very 

much, all of you, for attending today. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mrs. Lummis. We expect the votes 

within the next 10, 15 minutes, so I would like to—Ms. DeGette. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Madame Chair. I really 

also want to thank our elected officials for coming today, Representatives Scanlan and Gibbs, and also Commissioner Rich, for 

sharing your local perspective. It really helps. 

I mean, those of us from Colorado, you saw the delegation, we 

understand the devastation of this problem. We are trying to work 

with everybody. 

It is beyond comprehension unless you see it, and it is beyond 

avoiding. So now we are trying to deal with it. 

Representative Scanlan, I want to ask you, you referenced that 

the Federal government could help with these collaboratives and 

break down some barriers. I am wondering if you could tell me specifically what we can do to the Federal agencies to try to put these 

inter-agency and inter-governmental collaboratives together in a 

better way. 

Ms. SCANLAN. Thank you, Congresswoman DeGette. I do want to 

acknowledge what Sloan Shoemaker was saying. I do think we 

have a very healthy collaborative environment in Colorado. Because of the urgency of the situation, it has brought people to the 

table who are very intent on finding solutions. 

I think there are good models in that that could be translated 

into the Federal level, on how we need to work across agencies in 

particular. We tend to do shuttle diplomacy, if you will, a bit, as 

well as when we are tied or hamstrung by levels of bureaucracy 

from a state perspective. If we could get help in streamlining those 

processes, that would be terrific. 

Ms. DEGETTE. If you could, if you or some of your staff could help 

us put together some specific recommendations for the Federal 

100 

agencies. We will work with Secretary Salazar and Secretary 

Vilsack and others to make sure we can do that. 

Commissioner Rich, one thing that you mentioned really struck 

me. That is, that it would be helpful to get some of this dead wood 

out—if we could get some economic incentives to people to come in 

and take it out. 

I am wondering if you or your Northern Colorado Collaborative 

have looked at some of the economic incentives for woody biomass. 

If you have any opinions, if there is anything we can do at a Federal level to encourage development of that. 

Mr. RICH. I would feel that woody biomass is an economic value. 

But we have to save our loggers. 

One thing that, kind of out of the idea, but during the Depression, farmers were in real trouble, and the U.S. Government stored 

commodities. Why don’t they store two-by-fours, or cants, or something like that until it gets back? 

But yes, economics run itself—if we can make it pay. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Super, thank you. Mr. Shoemaker, I wanted to 

ask you a couple of questions. The first one is, I am wondering 

what the wilderness workshop and some of the environmental 

groups do on economic incentives for woody biomass are, and if you 

could talk about that for a moment. 

Mr. SHOEMAKER. I tread here very carefully, because I don’t—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. So do I. 

Mr. SHOEMAKER. I don’t have a tremendous amount of 

background in this, though having talked to some in that industry, 

my understanding is that the best, the most efficient use of the 

woody biomass is for direct heat generation—not for electrical 

generation. 

I think fundamentally that is a sound use of the material. For 

us, it is more a matter of where it comes from, and an industry 

that is scaled properly, so that we don’t end up with more industrial capacity than we have supply for on the tail end, which is 

going to create problems, economic disruption and job loss. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, just to let you know that any removal of the 

woody biomass would still need to comply with the NEPA rules, 

just like it is right now, and several witnesses referenced it. 

It seems to us as we do this climate change bill, which ultimately 

can help with the bark beetles, that we might be able to get incentives for folks to remove some of the downed trees, the woody 

biomass. 

I want to ask you one last question, which is a follow-up on the 

question I had asked to Mr. Cables earlier. I wonder if you can give 

your brief opinion about how we can find a balance in the future 

between protecting healthy trees, while allowing the thinning of 

the dead trees. 

I am particularly worried, as I mentioned to Mr. Cables, about 

what will happen once all of this—Madame Chair, I ask unanimous 

consent just to finish this question, please. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We do have another panel coming up. 

Ms. DEGETTE. What we can do to make sure the forests in 50 

or 100 years are healthy, that we don’t have the same problem 

now, because all the forests are the same age. 

101 

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Thank you, Ms. DeGette. I kind of get hung up 

on the question and how you define health. Arguably, the next 

forest is already started. It is in the understory of the dead forest 

now. One of the goals for diverting this potential in the future is 

a more diverse forest. 

If you get out and walk around the understory of that dead forest, you see spruce, you see fir, you see douglas fir, you see aspen 

establishing. In some place there might not be any forest; other 

places there is going to be some lodgepole, thin or thick, depending 

on the cones. 

So before we make assumptions about what exactly is going to 

happen in the future, I think that we need to make sure we understand what exactly is happening now, and what we are getting set 

up for. 

The future is somewhat unknown because of climate change. We 

are operating in a world that we do not have experience in. Therefore, the conservation community’s perspective generally is that we 

try to give ecosystems the opportunity to respond in ways that they 

have the wisdom that we don’t. 

I think we have tried managing and imposing our human will in 

forests in the past, and that has led to things like the fire special 

policy that led to overstocked forests, and therefore ultimately more 

severe fires. 

I would argue that we need to figure out ways that we can restore forests that are degraded because of human settlement, and 

then have a more observant approach to how those ecosystems are 

going to respond in the future. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madame Chair. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You are welcome. Panelists, thank you very 

much for your testimony. You have been very patient, and your testimony has been very helpful. Again, we thank you for being here. 

You are now dismissed. 

We would like to call up the fourth panel. 

Mr. MATHIS. I would like to give you a pencil made out of beetlekilled wood made in Colorado that I would like to present you as 

a token from Jackson County. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. I need to know the amount, the 

dollar amount of the gift. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I receive it into the record for the Subcommittees’ use, either one. 

I would like to call up Mr. Mark Mathis, President and CEO of 

Confluence Energy in Kremmling, Colorado; Mr. Charles Larsen, 

General Manager, Carbon Power and Light, Inc., Saratoga, 

Wyoming; Brendan McGuire, Manager of Government Relations, 

Vail Resorts in Broomfield, Colorado; and Dr. Peter Kolb, Society 

of American Foresters, Missoula, Montana. 

Welcome. Thank you so very much. I would like to now begin to 

ask Mr. Mark Mathis to begin his testimony. If you will, please. 

STATEMENT OF MARK MATHIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

CONFLUENCE ENERGY, KREMMLING, COLORADO 

Mr. MATHIS. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman and distinguished 

Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come 

102 

here and speak to you about our current bark beetle epidemic. We 

believe we have some opportunity to help alleviate this problem 

and to be a part of the solution. 

First, a little bit about Confluence Energy. We are one of the pellet plants, the pellet plants you have heard several people talk 

about. We produce approximately 100,000 tons of finished products 

a year. It is enough fuel to heat 30,000 to 40,000 homes. It displaces about 12 million gallons of heating oil with clean-burning renewable energy, reduces carbon emissions by 264,000 pounds by 

creating a carbon-neutral energy. 

We purchase approximately 150,000 tons of green feed stock a 

year, a fair amount off of Federal land, as well as private lands. 

We have approximately 30 jobs; we just added six more this week. 

We create about $10 million in circulating funds within the economy. 

Part of the process that we have that I just want to touch base 

with so that everybody is familiar with what our process is, is that 

we are the first pellet plant to my knowledge to completely utilize 

dead and dying pine beetle trees as 100 percent of their feed stock. 

Most of the pellet plants utilize waste stream from sawmills that 

are currently, in this environment, hurting. 

As a manufacturer, we take that pole tree, grind it up, as well 

as the flash and the other material, and do chips. We take all the 

combustibles and produce a bullet-size piece of renewable energy 

we tend to refer to as a solar battery, as one of my colleagues said. 

The pellet itself is very uniform in size, and therefore very easy 

to handle, transport, convey, and to burn. The utilization in this 

picture that I have, if you look up at these woods now—and people 

have much better pictures than I do—this is virtually 90 percent 

dead. This is taken right outside my house about three years ago. 

Currently, the utilization for the material in our area has been 

non-existent. We put our plants in a little bit over a year ago, and 

we have been putting value to that material. Currently off of the 

U.S. Forest Service projects that we do, we pay 25 percent higher 

price than we do for our product off private land. That is by our 

own doing just to try to help the U.S. Forest Service, Rick’s team 

and whatnot, spend their dollars a little wisely and help it go a little bit further. 

The value, unfortunately, when we talk about the utilization for 

the higher-value material, only about 15 percent to 20 percent of 

this material coming off the woods is viable saw material, or has 

a higher-value use than grinding it into a pellet. 

One of the largest impediments that we face, or the largest impediment that we face, is access to the woods. I won’t beat that 

horse, because it seems like it has been beaten pretty well today 

already. We would like to see some longer term, and right now the 

best tool that the Forest Service has to do that is long-term stewardship contracts. We would like to see that extended a little, for 

about another 10 years up to that 20-year level. 

It does help us to get access to capital markets when we can 

show those feed stocks. That feed stock is going to be available now 

and in the future. 

The shelf life on the material is something that you have heard 

today that is relative. Any action that is going to be taken needs 

103 

to be taken now. Every day we go by, it is less opportunity, and 

the feed stock degrades in value. 

People think that the material, I get comments from friends and 

peers all the time, that they must just be paying you to take this 

material out of there. It is not the case, and availability is an issue. 

We actually ran out of material last week. We were shut down for 

three days for having lack of material, and not being able to get 

material in. 

One of the other pieces, and I am not sure how familiar everybody is with the actual uses for these pellets, here are just some 

samples of some pellet-stove commercial boilers central heating 

systems. They are very clean-burning, and they are used by about 

a million homes and businesses throughout the United States. A 

third of the consumption of energy in this country is for meeting 

thermal demands. 

Your Honor, just if we could skip to a couple slides forward. I 

just want to put this slide up there, the existing plants. I thank 

you for your testimony, and we will move this along because I 

know you are in a hurry. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mathis follows:] 

Statement of Mark Mathis, President, Confluence Energy 

Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished subcommittee members, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss the epidemic of the Mountain Pine Beetle 

and what we can do to help alleviate the problem. This joint hearing is timely as 

more of our forests are being ravaged by these beetles. 

Confluence Energy is helping the State of Colorado with the removal of the effected timber and is putting it to beneficial use. Confluence Energy, LLC was 

formed in June 2007 and operates a wood pellet manufacturing facility in 

Kremmling, Colorado, which is 70 miles northwest of Denver. 

Our plant is taking advantage of the regional pine beetle infestation to access 

dead and dying timber for use in its pelletization process. Lodge pole pine is delivered to the Colorado plant where these trees are chipped and then dried using heat 

from a sawdust-powered furnace. The wood chips are then ground into a course sawdust and sent to the pellet mills. The pellet mills press the wood particles through 

a die using intense pressure, forming the pellets without using any binding agents. 

The result is a pure wood product. The pellets are then either bagged in 40 pound 

bags, or stored in silos for bulk deliveries. The fuel created by the plant is both high 

in energy value and carbon neutral. 

The biomass industry is in need of better access to this type of feedstock. The 

dead, dying, downed and diseased wood in our forests could be put to beneficial use. 

The pellet industry, along with other biomass industries, could utilize this feedstock 

in a sustainable manner, while also helping with forest fire mitigation and suppression. 

Pellet fuel is a renewable, clean-burning and cost stable home heating alternative 

currently used throughout North America. It is a biomass product made of renewable substances, such as Mountain Pine Beetle infested trees. There are approximately 1,000,000 homes in the U.S. using wood pellets for heat, in freestanding 

stoves, fireplace inserts and even furnaces. Pellet fuel for heating can also be found 

in such large-scale environments as schools and prisons. North American pellets are 

produced in manufacturing facilities in Canada and the United States, and are 

available for purchase at fireplace dealers, nurseries, Home Depot and other building supply stores, feed and garden supply stores and some discount merchandisers. 

In short, pellet fuel is a way to divert millions of tons of waste and turn it into 

energy. 

As a wood pellet manufacturer, we take ground wood, waste wood, paper, bark 

and other combustibles and turn them into bullet-sized pellets that are uniform in 

size, shape, moisture, density and energy content. Their uniform shape and size allows for a smaller and simpler conveying system that reduces costs. Because of pellets’ high density and uniform shape, they can be stored in standard silos, transported in rail cars and delivered in truck containers. Of course, in transport as well 

as end use, pellets pose none of the risk of explosion that fossil fuels do. 

104 

About Confluence Energy: 

• 100,000 tons of fuel production per year—largest wood pellet facility in Western 

U.S. • 35,000 homes and businesses that can be heated with our fuel • 12 million gallons of heating oil displaced by our clean, renewable pellet fuel • 264 million annual pounds of CO2 displaced by our carbon-neutral fuel if heating oil is replaced, thus helping to address global warming and climate change • 160,000 tons per year of annual wood purchases—approximately 100% beetle 

kill material, providing valuable market for USFS and private land owners in 

Colorado • $10 million annual payroll, wood and materials purchases, circulating in local 

economy • Approximately 30 full-time employees and indirect job creation in wood supply, 

pellet distribution, retail sales • 25 trucks per day—all through local contract hauling—making wood and packaging supply deliveries, and shipping pellets throughout the region 

We are a developer, owner and operator of renewable energy production facilities. 

Our goal is to generate cleaner, more reliable, cost-effective and sustainable energy 

by combining a cellulosic ethanol generation facility with a wood pellet production 

facility. From a single feedstock of timber by-product or woodland waste, we will 

both power our combined facilities and generate two distinct energy products, ethanol and wood pellets. 

Currently, there are a number of opportunities that our business model may be 

able to benefit from: • Utilizing dead and dying trees for use of renewable energy product • Create utilization park that would use 100% of the forest material and create 

some of the following products: 

Æ Wood pellets Æ Second generation bio-fuels (ethanol) Æ Electricity generation Æ High value lumber products Æ Landscape products Æ Animal bedding Æ Provide local communities with renewable energy Æ Create energy independence for our local communities • Most experts have estimated that fossil fuel cost will increase in price over the 

next five years and most industry experts agree that the cost will continue to 

move higher over longer periods of time. We believe this will drive consumers 

and business owners to look for viable alternatives to fossil fuels. 

The utilization of the material from U.S. forests and parks will put value to the 

material which is currently considered a substantial liability to the U.S. taxpayers. 

Confluence Energy has viewed documents created by United States Forest Service 

(USFS) personnel that suggest that the cost to treat the some of the existing area 

in USFS Region 2 would exceed $220 million over the next three years. Confluence 

Energy suggests that by lowering some of the existing hurdles in accessing the dead 

and dying trees, private industry can put value to the material and dramatically 

reduce the cost to the tax payers. Confluence Energy would estimate the saving to 

be in the range of $75 million over the course of five years. 

There is no current access to large volume long-term USFS or Bureau of Land 

Management Lands (BLM) lands. There is no current legislation that allows the 

USFS to allow for 20 year stewardship or other agreements to access national forests. Confluence Energy will suggest allowing private industry the access to large 

volumes of the dead and dying trees over extended periods of time (long term stewardship agreements). The long term access to feed stock supplies will allow private 

industry accessibility to equity and debt markets that require long term views. Accelerated access to beetle infested material could also be done trough abbreviating 

the current National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for these infested 

areas. 

There are a few pieces of pending legislation that would restrict access to dead 

and dying material. As problem grows the liability to the tax payers increases. 

There is pending legislation (e.g., H.R. 1190) that would allow access to the dead 

and dying materials that could be used to create jobs and produce renewable energy, 

building materials, and economic development in rural areas. 

The dead and dying trees have a limited shelf life. It is estimated that once the 

trees die and turn red they have eight to 15 years before they blow over. Once the 

trees blow over, they will create a jack straw effect which will make it nearly impossible to be harvested affordably. When trees blow over, they rot dramatically faster 

and remove any value in the wood. Every minute we talk and do not act, not only 

105 

are we are losing value, but we are reducing the time private industry has to get 

a return on their money to justify investing in these types of projects. 

Confluence Energy’s wood utilization facility can use the material long after there 

is no value for the high value user (e.g., house logs and architectural beams). Most 

forestry experts will agree once the beetles kill epidemic moves through a lodge pole 

pine forest, that the forest will regenerate into what is referred to as a dog hair 

stand (3,000 to 4,000 trees per acre). A healthy lodge pole forest has approximately 

300 to 400 trees per acre. A pre-commercial thinning will be required to accomplish 

any future commercial value in future generations. Removing 60 to 80% of the small 

diameter trees in 20 to 25 years will allow the trees to grow in healthy stands for 

future generations. To summarize, the small wood utilization facility is a good forest 

management tool, now and for generations to come. 

The sizes of the facilities are critical to the success of the forests now and in the 

future. We suggest that several of these facilities could and should be built in the 

beetle infested areas. Care should be taken not to make the facilities too large. 

Over-sized facilities could potentially place incremental demand on the forest that 

is not sustainable, creating a boom and bust cycle for the local economies. In many 

of the areas that are predominately lodge pole forests, there is a limited 10 to 15 

year window for the higher grade material. This is due to the fact that after the 

initial beetle kill material is utilized, blown down, or consumed by fire, the pre-commercial thinning projects in the future would not yield large enough trees to yield 

a high value. 

There is currently some USDA programming that is almost available to fund this 

sort of project. Confluence Energy would require $10 million in grant funding and 

an additional $20 million in USDA backed loans. The loans and grants would allow 

Confluence Energy to: 

• Build an 8 to 10 million gallon ethanol plant (Confluence Energy has partnership with large U.S. fossil fuel company that is interested in the joint venture 

project) 

• Build a five megawatt power generation system to provide clean renewable 

energy to meet all the facilities needs. Excess power would meet entire energy 

needs of the town of Kremmling. Any excess power can be sold back to grid. 

Excess heat from electrical generation will be used in both the pellet plant and 

ethanol plant. 

• Retrofit and remodel the 50,000 sq. ft. existing facility to manufacture high 

value wood products 

• Renovate existing rail loading facility to transport all finished products to market 

• Expand current pellet facility to maximize potential output 

The current USDA programs require the participation of a conventional lender. 

The current credit market makes it very difficult to fund these types of projects. The 

current USDA programs only cover 75% of such a project. The lenders risk on the 

remaining 25% is enough to scare away most lenders. The limitations on the grants 

that we qualify for are $500,000. 

The implementation of a wood utilization facility would allow companies like Confluence Energy to place the highest possible value to the existing dead and dying 

trees. Each and every tree would be sorted in effort to have the tree go to its highest 

value use. The facility will be designed to utilize 100% of the unwanted biomass material. Confluence Energy can create a system that will not require incremental federal money once the facility is up and running. Confluence Energy would pay a high 

enough value for the material that the USFS and other agencies would not be required to subsidize the removal of the trees. 

It is estimated that the suggested facility would utilize approximately 400,000 

tons of material. The estimated feed stock cost is $14 million a year. Confluence 

Energy estimates that USFS and other federal agencies would realize greater than 

$10 million in annual savings. 

The utilization facility would create over 100 good-paying full time jobs in rural 

areas. The jobs would include chemical engineers, mill rights, carpenters, managers 

and operators. Confluence Energy currently employs over 30 people and pays wages 

that are 25% higher than the average wage in the area. 

The biomass industry is virtually not recognized by federal government as part 

of the solution to help this county realize our energy independence. We would like 

to see biomass treated on an equal playing field with the other renewable energy 

industries. The industry would expect to see production tax credits similar to what 

others receive. In fact, the Pellet Fuels Institute, a trade association representing 

biomass pellet manufacturers and equipment suppliers, is currently working to 

make this tax credit a reality. Creating thermal energy using biomass is given no 

106 

federal support of any kind, which is inexplicable, given that thermal energy accounts for 32% of this country’s energy needs. 

We believe that conditions are ripe for expanding our business and co-locating 

wood pellet, cellulosic ethanol, power generation and high value building products 

utilization facilities. Our combined facilities could take advantage of all of the opportunities noted above. The implementation of combined facilities would allow us to 

expand what we can use as raw feedstock and to then allocate our raw feedstock 

costs across several business streams. The wood pellet plant alone—or a combined 

facility—is an effective forest management tool. The plants can utilize low or no 

value material from forests and turn it into high value renewable energy sources. 

The ethanol processing residue would also be used to provide the process heat requirement for both plants. This results in a processing facility with lower emissions 

and two fuel streams (ethanol and wood pellets) that are cleaner and more environmentally friendly than their fossil fuel counterparts. High grade logs would be separated on site and utilized to make several building products including flooring, paneling, house logs, architectural beams, round wood products and etc. It is estimated 

that only 10% to 15% of the standing dead trees would qualify for the high value 

use. 

Our experience suggests that we have solid demand for our existing wood pellet 

manufacturing capability in both residential and commercial applications. Residential applications have existed for more than 20 years and sales of residential stoves 

are forecast to increase in popularity. To date, we have had success in securing distribution contracts with hundreds of retail stores. We have packaging capabilities 

and are readily able to serve the residential market. Moreover, as pellets can be produced, delivered and fired for 50% less than propane, fuel oil or electric heat, this 

fuel savings is creating fast-growing interest in using wood pellets in commercial applications. With expanded capacity, we intend to focus on the commercial market. 

The pellet industry is part of the solution to the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation. 

These infested trees are a detriment to the health of the forest and can lead to massive wildfire hazards. The pellet industry can use this un-merchantable wood and 

put it to a beneficial use. This form of renewable energy is a win-win proposition 

to address this problem. Thanks again for allowing me to testify regarding this 

Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic and what we can do to help alleviate the problem. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. We do have your slides 

in the testimony for the record, and appreciate your testimony, 

your verbal testimony, because that adds a little more of the understanding to how you view the issue. 

I would like to then move on to our next panelist, Mr. Larsen. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. LARSEN, GENERAL MANAGER, 

CARBON POWER AND LIGHT INC., SARATOGA, WYOMING 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Madame Chairman. They tell you when 

you write testimony that you should really hit them off hard right 

when you get up front with the testimony. But you have all witnessed the pictures that have been up here today, and there is 

nothing I can say to you today that would give you a better image 

of the grave issue that we are facing in the West. These are visions 

that I get to look at every day. 

As it says in my testimony, I am the General Manager of Carbon 

Power and Light. We are a rural electric cooperative in south central Wyoming. We are a small co-op. We have a large service territory of 3.3 customers per mile, 6,100 meters, and we serve in portions of the Medicine Bow Mountain, the Sierra Madre and the 

Medicine Bow Range. 

In 2006 and 2007 we watched from the valley as it had been 

moving into the area, but it really seemed to explode, the bark 

beetle issue really came on strong. As the General Manager of a 

rural electric cooperative with distribution power lines serving 

cabin communities, a reservoir providing water to the City of CheyVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
107 

enne, communication sites, and Forest Service facilities, we became 

quite concerned of what the impact would be as these trees died 

along our power line right-of-ways. 

Typically our right-of-ways are 10 to 15 feet either side of center 

line, or 20 to 30 feet in width. That doesn’t seem like it is very 

much. But with a healthy forest, they have been working quite well 

for years. 

As you can see from these pictures, we have a lot of trees that 

are dying along those right-of-ways, and we became quite concerned. 

At that time, in early 2007, or October 2007, I called a meeting 

with the Forest Service folks in our area because we were concerned. Two of my staff members and myself met with nine Forest 

Service officials and expressed our concern, and were asking questions as to what was going to happen. 

Much to my surprise, I was informed that there was no budget 

on the Forest Service side to handle any clearing outside of our existing right-of-ways, and that they would be our responsibility. 

In subsequent meetings I was also informed that if one of those 

trees fell from outside that area, my cooperative would be held liable. This was an extreme concern to us. Our legal counsel approached the Forest Service people in our area and said, where 

does it say that in our special permits, that we could be held liable. 

He asked for a legal opinion; was never given one. Was told that 

the Forest Service legal counsel could not talk to him on this, and 

that we would remain liable. 

Having been faced with that, we had no decision to make but to 

move on. We worked with the Forest Service. Our local Forest 

Service people had been very good about trying to help us get 

going. They have come up with a streamline approach from the 

NEPA program; it is called an environmental assessment. But you 

have to put streamlined in context here. 

We started on this process in early 2008. We have not had a complete EA approved at this time. We have not been able to cut a 

tree, and we are going to more than likely not cut a tree in 2009. 

For clarification, our special use permits say that we are responsible for clearing the trees in that permit area. They also go on to 

say that any tree that is a danger that is leaning in toward the 

power line, we must contact Forest Service to get permission to cut 

that tree. If it is an immediate danger we can cut it, but we have 

48 hours to notify them that we have done so. 

That led us to believe that all those trees outside our permit area 

were not our responsibility, but now they are. While we go through 

the EA process and all the rules and regulations, and all the study 

associated with this project, the clock is ticking, and the liability 

is still hanging over my head. 

At the beginning of this process, I guess one of the biggest problems we had is we were the first guys, to my knowledge, we were 

the first ones that moved ahead with a distribution power line 

clearing project. I guess one of the problems with being first is all 

the rules get created as you go along. That is one of the biggest 

things that has hindered us in moving forward with this. 

I would like to just close, and I thank you for your time. Again, 

the clock is ticking for us. I still have the liability issue as a cooperVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
108 

ative. Many cooperatives in the state, in the states represented 

here today, have that hanging over their heads right now. We need 

your help. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larsen follows:] 

Statement of Charles A. Larsen, General Manager, 

Carbon Power and Light Inc., Saratoga, Wyoming 

Honorable Committee Chairmen and Committee Members, my name is Charles 

A. Larsen and I am the General Manager of Carbon Power and Light Inc.(Carbon), 

a Rural Electric Cooperative providing distribution electric service to Member-Owners (consumers) of the Cooperative in south central Wyoming. The purpose of my 

testimony today is to provide you with information specific to Carbon’s experiences 

associated with the impact of the Mountain Pine Beetle (Pine Beetle) infestation 

and the impact that infestation is having on the Cooperative. 

As stated Carbon is a Rural Electric Cooperative and like many Electric Cooperatives our service areas are large and our numbers of consumers are low. Carbon’s 

consumer density is 3.3 consumers per mile of line for a total of 6,100 meters. The 

geological makeup of Carbon’s service territory ranges from grassland, to foothills 

and portions of the Medicine Bow and Sierra Madre mountain ranges. For the purpose of this hearing, we will be focusing on Carbon’s distribution electric system 

serving within the aforementioned mountainous areas. 

In 2006 and 2007 those of us living in south central Wyoming, watched as the 

Pine Beetle infestation, which was devastating Colorado’s northern forests, rapidly 

spread into our forested areas. Because Carbon has several ‘‘Special Use Permits’’ 

within the National Forests, which provide right-of-way access and allows us to provide distribution electrical service to numerous cabin communities, communication 

sites, a reservoir providing water to the City of Cheyenne and Forest Service Facilities we understandably became quite concerned with the inevitable impact that 

these dying trees would have on our overhead power lines within these permit 

areas. At the start of this process, it was anticipated that within a 5 year period 

the mortality rate of the lodge pole pine species in our forested areas will be 90 to 

95%—this estimation is proving to be correct. 

For clarification, each time Carbon extends its electrical distribution lines within 

the National Forest, we are required to apply for and receive approval from the U.S. 

Forest Service (Forest Service), under their permitting process, prior to constructing 

our facilities. Historically, the Forest Service has granted us right-of-way widths of 

20 and 30 feet (10 to 15 feet either side of centerline). Carbon is then required to 

maintain that permit area, based on a set of guidelines provided for in the ‘‘Special 

Use Permit’’. As you probably have already noted—20 to 30 feet is not very wide, 

however under a healthy forest situation, these widths have been adequate for 

many years. The permits for these right-of-ways are also very clear as to how Carbon must address trees leaning into the right-of way from outside the cleared permit 

area. Carbon must either notify the Forest Service that a tree is a problem and get 

permission to remove it or if it is an immediate hazard it can be removed, provided 

we notify the Forest Service within 48 hours after doing so. 

In October of 2007, recognizing the pending impact this tree mortality would have 

on our power lines; I requested a meeting with the Forest Service to discuss the 

situation. That meeting was held on October 9th and included myself, two Carbon 

employees and nine Forest Service employees. After expressing our concerns I was 

very surprised to learn that—all of those trees—dead and dying—outside our permit 

area, were now Carbon’s future responsibility and expense to deal with. At this 

meeting and in subsequent meetings we were also informed that Carbon would be 

liable, if in fact one of those trees fell from outside the permit area, contacted our 

power line and started a forest fire. 

This was the beginning of Carbon’s quest to address the Pine Beetle impact—a 

process that to date has failed to facilitate the large scale removal of any hazard 

trees adjacent to our permit areas. 

Early in this process, it seemed that the existing Forest Service Rules and Regulations were clear as to how to manage a healthy forest and the transition in dealing 

with a dead forest was something they had not planned for. For my part, I wrote 

numerous letters and met with Forest Service Officials, Wyoming’s Congressional 

delegates, the Rural Utilities Service, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and neighboring Electric Cooperatives expressing my concerns and to attempt to seek some cohesive common ground in addressing the problem. Unfortunately—it was clearly apparent that no one knew just what to do. At this point, I 

must admit it felt pretty lonely out here in Wyoming. 

109 

Since that time, after numerous meetings (12 total), countless phone calls and 

emails, the Forest Service has worked with Carbon to commence with the process 

of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) which will be required prior to 

achieving our goal of widening the existing right-of-ways to 150 feet. That process 

started in November of 2008 and is yet to be completed. There is currently discussion regarding the requirement of an additional ‘‘Goshawk Study’’ under the biological component of the EA. It is now extremely unlikely that Carbon will be allowed 

to move ahead with any right-of-way widening in the current year. 

Carbon currently has 34 miles of distribution power line that must be addressed. 

To address our potential liability Carbon has increased its general liability insurance amount from $4 million to $10 million. It is estimated that before this project 

is completed, the general expenses associated with the project, the EA and the actual clearing, Carbon will expend an amount in excess of $1.3 million. In the scope 

of things currently taking place nationally—that may seem like a small amount, but 

for Carbon and other Cooperatives facing this similar issue, it is funding that we 

must borrow and which will be paid back through the electric rates of our current 

and future Member-Owners. 

In closing, there are those who say this is a natural occurrence, those that say 

it is caused by climate change and there are those who say that it is due to mismanagement of our forests. At this point however, laying blame accomplishes very 

little. The Forest Service, Environmental Community, General Public, Utilities and 

our Congressional Representatives must come together to address this issue. For 

Carbon—and other Electric Cooperatives serving in Pine Beetle impacted forests we 

need your help—the clock is ticking—and time is running out. 

I would like to thank the Committees for your time and your consideration in this 

matter. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. 

Mr. McGuire, we will finish your testimony. We already have a 

vote on the Floor, so we will have to leave. There will be no questions directed at you. The committee will submit them to you. If 

you will respond as promptly as you could. 

And your testimony, sir. 

STATEMENT OF BRENDAN McGUIRE, MANAGER OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, VAIL RESORTS, BROOMFIELD, 

COLORADO 

Mr. MCGUIRE. Excellent, thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you 

for the opportunity to be here and present the views of Vail Resort 

on the bark beetle and potential strategies for protecting the West. 

Just to dive right in, we really have three main recommendations. This committee should be commended for its work on the 

FLAME Act, disentangling the fire suppression account from the 

Forest Service budget, and allowing for increased resources to flow 

to forest health and recreation operations is a major step forward. 

It is probably the most important action that Congress can take. 

Number two, I think, as you have heard today, this outbreak is 

beyond the capabilities of any single stakeholder in the forests to 

deal with on their own. We need to increase the partnerships that 

we have with all the stakeholders. For the ski resorts, that means 

increasing the partnership with the Forest Service in terms of increased funding to work on that vegetation management on the ski 

resorts, which are also basically part of the wildland-urban interface. 

Third, other opportunities to respond to the bark beetle include 

supporting the forest product infrastructure, opportunities in biomass energy, renewable energy standard; providing the Forest 

Service with increased flexibility to respond to this epidemic; and 

reforestation where it is appropriate. 

110 

A little bit of information about Vail Resorts. We operate five of 

the most visited of the 10 most visited ski resorts in the United 

States. In Colorado those operations are Vail Mountain, Beaver 

Creek, Breckenridge, and Keystone, all located on the White River 

National Forest. Our fifth resort is Heavenly Mountain Resort in 

Lake Tahoe, and that is a management unit. 

We accounted for 5.9 million skier visits last season. That is the 

majority of visits in Colorado, about 10 percent of the United 

States skier visits. 

I see that, because I want to emphasize how important recreation 

is on the forest, and especially to Colorado, it is not only the economic base for our forest communities, but it is one of the economic 

bases for the State of Colorado. We have the most visitors to our 

national forests out of any state in the country, just a little bit 

above California. 

Tourism is our second-largest industry, and employs over 143,000 people in our state. There is about $15 billion in annual 

travel spending. 

We do operate our resorts on the national forests under special 

use permits from the Forest Service. We really do value our partnership with the Forest Service, on the district, forest, regional, 

and national level. Without this partnership, our critical day-to-day 

operations really would be negatively impacted. We look forward to 

continuing to work closely with the men and women of the Forest 

Service. 

Our resorts are fortunate. We do have a diversity of trees. We 

are not totally dependent on the lodgepole pine. We have aspen and 

spruce and firs. But the beetle is in our trees. We have seen it before, but the extent this time around is much greater than we have 

seen before. 

It is going to necessitate a continued increased level of forest 

health work on our part. We need to do this in conjunction with 

the Forest Service, and we are committed to doing this really for 

two reasons: the safety of our guests and infrastructure, and to be 

responsible stewards of the public lands. 

The safety of our guests and the infrastructure is our numberone primary driver. To that end, we have to identify and remove 

hazard trees, much like the transmission folks do. Hazard trees are 

trees that get too close to the buildings or within our defensible 

space for wildfire purposes, and also trees that have the danger of 

dead falling or blowing down onto our lift lines or infrastructure, 

or onto the trails that our guests use. 

Since the outbreak began, we have seen a dramatic increase in 

the number of hazard trees that we need to take out of the forest. 

We work closely with the Forest Service to do this. We really appreciate the Forest Service’s prompt responses to us. It is just very 

important that we get those trees down as quickly as possible once 

they are identified. 

With this widespread infestation we have to do more than just 

sort of look at individual hazard trees. We really need to look at 

the landscape, the mountain as a whole; looking at the entire stand 

of trees, and prioritizing treatment options. 

We are working closely with the Forest Service. We are consolidating this work into updated vegetative management plans for our 

111 

mountains. These are in various stages of environmental review 

and implementation. 

So I am just going to sort of skip to the end. Those two recommendations I have—funding, funding, funding; resources, resources, resources—really is the crux of all the issues—in terms of 

what we can do, whether it is collaboratively, state, local, private 

lands. It is especially important for the Federal partnership that 

we have with the Forest Service. 

We would like to do more—leverage our dollars with the Forest 

Service, leverage the Forest Service dollars to do more work on 

these recreation areas, where millions upon millions of people visit 

their national forests every day and really get that good impression. 

So with that, I will conclude. Thank you very much for your 

time. It is an important issue. We look forward to working with 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McGuire follows:] 

Statement of Brendan McGuire, Manager of Government Relations, 

Vail Resorts 

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to present Vail Resorts’ views 

on the mountain pine beetle (MPB) and strategies for protecting our natural resources. 

My name is Brendan McGuire and I am the Manager of Government Relations 

at Vail Resorts. I also serve on Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s Forest Health Advisory Council. 

This hearing is of critical interest to Vail Resorts and the following testimony will 

focus on these recommendations: 

• Disentangling fire suppression costs from the Forest Service budget and increasing funding for forest health and recreation operations is the most important action Congress can take. 

• The MPB outbreak has created forest health challenges beyond the capabilities 

of any single stakeholder and increased partnerships are essential to achieve 

the desired outcomes. 

• Other opportunities to responding to the MPB include supporting forest products infrastructure, biomass energy, providing the Forest Service with increased 

flexibility to respond to the MPB, and reforestation. 

Background 

Vail Resorts is the premier mountain resort company in the world operating five 

of the 10 most visited ski resorts in the United States: 

• Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, and Keystone located entirely or partially on 

the White River National Forest in Colorado; and 

• Heavenly Mountain Resort in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit in California & Nevada. 

During the recent 2008/2009 season our resorts drew 5.9 million skier visits (approximately 10% of United States skier visits). In addition to the ski season, thousands of people visit the communities in which we operate to enjoy the beautiful 

summer weather and multitude of activities including recreating in the woods. 

These tourism/recreation based activities are the economic base for not only Colorado’s forest communities but for Colorado’s economy as whole. Tourism is Colorado’s 2nd largest industry with over 143,000 employees and $15 billion in annual 

travel spending. 

Vail Resorts operates its resorts on National Forests under special use permits 

from the United States Forest Service (USFS). Our resorts value the partnership 

we have with the USFS on the district, forest, regional and national level. This partnership is critical to the day-to-day operations of our resorts and we look forward 

to continuing to work closely with the dedicated men and women of the USFS. 

Vail Resorts Forest Health & Response to Mountain Pine Beetle 

This testimony is based on our operations in Colorado where the MPB is currently 

active. However, at the end of the testimony I will briefly comment on forest health 

at Heavenly Mountain Resort in Lake Tahoe. 

112 

The USFS are the forestry experts in the room so I will defer to them to elaborate 

on the state of forest health in the west and the MPB. However, for some context 

in my testimony, the Colorado State Forest Service’s 2008 forest health report (to 

which the USFS contributed) estimates that the MPB has infested a total of 1.9 million acres 1996 when the outbreak was first noted. The MPB are primarily infesting 

lodgepole pines older than 30-40 years with a mortality rate of 90% and higher. 

While our resorts are fortunate to be home to diverse species of trees (including 

aspen, spruce, and fir), the extent of the MPB activity in aging lodgepole pines at 

our resorts necessitates an increased level of forest health efforts. In carrying out 

these efforts, in conjunction with the USFS, Vail Resorts is committed to the safety 

of our guests and the responsible stewardship of the environment. 

The safety of our guests and the resort infrastructure that serves them is our primary concern. To that end the identification and removal of hazard trees is an ongoing initiative. Examples of hazard trees include: • Trees within the wildfire defensible space of resort structures. • Trees with the potential to dead-fall or blow-down onto lift lines, buildings, or 

trails. 

Since the MPB outbreak began we have seen a dramatic increase in the number 

of hazard trees that need to be removed each year. 

In addition to hazard tree removal, other forest health efforts are aimed at promoting increased species and age diversity through selective tree thinning, small 

patch cuts, and forest restoration work where the MPB has had or will have the 

greatest impact. Vail Resorts has also successfully utilized spraying to protect certain high value trees from MPB. 

In the past our forest management was focused on identifying and removing individual trees that had succumbed to insects before the next generation of insects 

emerged. Now, with a widespread infestation beyond anything we have experienced 

before, we are shifting our focus to more of a landscape level, looking at entire 

stands of trees (including what younger vegetation is present), evaluating treatment 

options for those stands, and prioritizing treatments. Working closely with the 

USFS, we have consolidated this work into updated vegetation management plans 

that are in various stages of environmental review and implementation. 

This landscape focus is leading to larger projects that accomplish the dual goals 

of protecting infrastructure as well as promoting reforestation. An example of that 

work is a project on Vail Mountain carried out in the fall of 2008. Over the course 

of three to four weeks, 16 acres of infested lodgepoles were treated along the Eagle 

Bahn Gondola line. Other species and small lodgepoles were retained. This pro-active treatment removed hazard and potential hazard trees as well as encourages accelerated reforestation by creating space for younger trees to thrive. 

As the visual impact of the MPB killed trees grew, it was important for us to inform our guests that the changing forest landscape was the result of a naturally occurring MPB. We deliver this message on our trail maps, websites, local resort television, and through the ‘‘Ski with a Ranger’’ program in partnership with the USFS. 

Through our charitable giving, employee engagement, and environmental stewardship program, Vail Resorts 360, we have also engaged our guests to actively support restoration work on the forest through a partnership with the National Forest 

Foundation Ski Conservation Fund. Our guests have the opportunity to support the 

fund with $1 when they purchase lift tickets, ski passes, or stay in our lodges. The 

National Forest Foundation uses these contributions for on-the-ground conservation 

work in the National Forests. 

Recommendations for Protecting the West 

• Forest Service Budget Flexibility & Funding 

First and foremost, the Natural Resources Committee is to be commended 

for re-introducing and passing the FLAME Act out of the full House. Beginning to untangle the fire suppression budget from the rest of the USFS 

budget is a critical step to let USFS focus resources on forest health and 

recreation. 

The need for sustained funding increases to address forest health challenges related to MPB is well documented. The USFS has responded with 

some additional funds, however the need for additional funding grows every 

year. 

Congress should consider additional funding for the USFS to specifically address critical forest health issues related to MPB in our region. 

• Partnerships 

Congress has long recognized the importance of partnering with local stakeholders and prioritizing finite resources for forest health projects that proVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 Dec 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\50438.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
113 

vide the most ‘‘bang for the buck.’’ In that spirit, the USFS should be commended for its existing partnerships in Colorado including its close work 

with ski resorts. 

Given the unprecedented scale of the management challenges facing the 

USFS and ski resorts, encouraging increased partnerships through greater 

funding to achieve successful forest management outcomes is warranted. 

Increased funding to USFS for the development, approval, and implementation of vegetation management plans for special use permit areas will 

greatly assist the USFS and its partners in managing MPB areas. 

• Safety 

Vail Resorts would like to thank the USFS for working closely with our 

mountain crews to facilitate the timely removal of hazard trees presenting 

safety issues to our guests and infrastructure. The importance of this work 

cannot be overstated. 

• Timber/Biomass Markets 

A major challenge facing all stakeholders is what to do with the relatively 

low value timber coming off the forest. 

To help create and ensure a viable forest products infrastructure in the 

West, Congress should continue to look for opportunities to promote the use 

of forest biomass in renewable energy efforts, such as a national renewable 

energy standard and the Biomass Commercial Utilization Grant Program 

in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 

• Increased Flexibility for the USFS 

The USFS, operating within the relevant laws and regulations, has demonstrated a great willingness to work with stakeholders in a collaborative 

and flexible manner to facilitate the response to MPB related forest health 

challenges. 

However, with the extreme challenge presented by the current MPB outbreak it may be appropriate to consider allotting more flexibility to the 

USFS to address forest health challenges. 

This flexibility does not need to call the NEPA process into question. Rather, Congress should work with the USFS and other stakeholders to determine if there are very specific areas (such as stumpage fees for MPB killed 

trees) where the USFS response to MPB would benefit from increased flexibility. 

• Reforestation 

Ecologically speaking, many western forests have evolved to naturally regenerate after disturbances such as fire, insects, or logging. However, in 

some cases it is appropriate to aid reforestation through replanting of native species. On national forests, this reforestation must be done with specifically approved species that are ecologically appropriate. The USFS provides these stocks of trees (grown from cones and seeds collected from the 

local area) from its system of nurseries. Congress should provide the USFS 

with the resources needed for the collection of cones and seeds and the development of a stock of seedlings for reforestation efforts to help accelerate 

the natural reforestation. 

Lake Tahoe 

I would like to briefly comment on forest conditions at Heavenly Mountain Resort 

in Lake Tahoe. 

Currently, forest insect hot spots are developing in Lake Tahoe where a mix of 

conditions is creating what could be an ideal environment for an insect outbreak. 

The Lake Tahoe region is experiencing reduced precipitation levels and large swaths 

of the forest are over-stocked with aged trees in the 80 to 120-year age class. Recognizing these conditions has led stakeholders in the region to look towards increased 

active management to stay ahead of potential insect outbreaks. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of Vail Resorts. I am happy 

to take any questions that the Committee may have and we look forward working 

closely with the Committee, Members of Congress, and the USFS on this and other 

issues. 

114 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thanks for your testimony, and appreciate 

your being so patient. We will be submitting some questions for 

some answers. 

Dr. Kolb. 

STATEMENT OF DR. PETER KOLB, SOCIETY OF 

AMERICAN FORESTERS, MISSOULA, MONTANA 

Mr. KOLB. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of 

the Society of American Foresters, an organization with over 

15,000 professional foresters as members. 

I am the Montana State Extension Forestry Specialist. I am also 

a forest ecologist and management professor at the University of 

Montana. So I work with practitioners, industry, private landowners. I also do research on larger ecological cycles in the forests 

of the northern Rocky Mountain ecosystems. 

I have a lot of slides. I won’t put them up. I encourage you to 

look at them when you have the opportunity, and I would be delighted to provide a narrative for them. But I will put up this last 

slide, and I will get to that in a second. 

But listening to the testimony today, a few observations and a 

few comments to make on this. 

First off, it is my overall impression that you are trying to deal 

with a symptom, and not the root cause here. There are multiple 

pests that are working on forests. In Montana, unprecedented 

spruce budworm, douglas fir beetle. We also have mountain pine 

beetle. We have introduced species that are working on there. 

These are all symptoms of a changing climate. Whether it is 

human-caused or non-human-caused, from my perspective it is 

irrelevant. 

There is a plethora of research. Climates have always fluctuated. 

The current trend and the current predictions under the best scenarios, if it is anthropogenically caused, is that things will get 

warmer and drier. This will be a benefit to all these pests, and a 

stressor to our forests. 

The problem with our forests is, as you have heard, and I concur 

with all of the testimony before, is we have large landscapes with 

similar-aged similar species. What we need to do is bring back the 

mosaic to these landscapes. This involves proactive management. 

Again, there are many slides that show that, and I will highlight 

what the Rocky Boy Reservation, Chippewa Cree Nations are 

doing, and the Salish and Kootenai Tribes. They have gone through 

an extensive planning process. They are extensively using harvests 

to recreate a natural historical mosaic. It is just like investing in 

a bank portfolio: you diversify, particularly under uncertain times, 

which is what we are seeing. 

Younger trees are less susceptible. We need to have all age classes represented on these landscapes, and all natural species that 

occur on those landscapes, which we currently do not have. 

The long-term implications of these massive scales of mortality 

is that we have hundred-hour and thousand-hour fuels that end up 

on the surface. We have new tree species regenerating in those. 

In a drier, warmer climate, these hundred-hour and thousandhour fuels will ignite and will burn, which adds a magnitude of 

115 

energy release that is phenomenal. It is the difference between a 

firecracker and a bunker-buster bomb going off. 

Those kill the regeneration. We lose our genetic resource off 

these sites. That is the long-term consequence that is going on 

there. 

So what do we need to do? I have grown up here, I have had the 

opportunity in the last six months, as a Fulbright Scholar in Germany, to look at their forest ecosystems. The reason for this is Germany and Montana have similar forest land base sizes. 

Montana’s annual harvest on average is 750 million board feet. 

Germany’s, off of the same land base, is 12 billion board feet, off 

a country with 83 million inhabitants. They export wood to the 

United States. 

This map is the state of Bavaria in Germany. Those are all the 

wood product facilities, in a state the size of Massachusetts. The 

black dots are wood biomass energy plants, cogent plants. They 

have a diversified forest parts industry. Lumber and waste products go into bioenergy. That is what keeps their industry robust, 

keeps it functioning, even during periods of economic downturn. 

The other most important factor is their forests are managed for 

diversity, but overall sustainability, and a predictable wood supply. 

Investing in a mill requires hundreds of millions of dollars. Investing in modern logging technology requires millions of dollars. 

We have loggers in Montana that right now do not have work, 

and they have a million dollars’ worth of ecologically sensitive 

equipment sitting on their front lawn. This is a very skilled, experienced workforce that we are about to lose, and we won’t get back, 

because there are no schools that teach these skills. 

So as you work through these solutions, and I would suggest 

long-term planning processes across landscapes, a 10-year planning 

cycle does not work in an ecosystem that cycles in 100 to 500 years. 

I would suggest long-term stewardship contracts, 20 to 50 years, 

where you do the NEPA on an entire watershed. Once you are 

through that rigorous and painful process, a mill can bid on that, 

and now they have 20 to 50 years of sustainable management activities that they can conduct, which allows them to invest and pay 

off their equipment. 

These are some real solutions. Collaborative meetings are great 

if the collaborators must come to an agreement, and people can’t 

come out of left field and suddenly appeal. One of the best forest 

practitioners in Montana also has his own logging operation, has 

been now to count 554 collaborative meetings, with no results. He 

is currently clearing brush under power lines in Kansas instead of 

working in the forest. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kolb follows:] 

Statement of Dr. Peter Kolb, Montana State University 

My name is Peter Kolb, and I am the Montana State University Extension Forestry Specialist and an Associate Professor of Forest Ecology and Management at 

the University of Montana College of Forestry and Conservation. I’m here today 

speaking on behalf of the Society of American Foresters (SAF), an organization of 

over 15,000 forest managers, researchers, and educators. I’ve been a SAF member 

for 27 years. 

I am here today to offer you my testimony with regard to the bark beetle situation 

across western forests with specific reference to the conditions across the Montana 

116 

with which I am most familiar. My perspective is not that of an entomologist, but 

that of a forest ecologist and management specialist whose main work objective is 

to help implement the results and conclusion of scientific research into practical 

working applications. I work in both academic circles as an applied researcher and 

educator, and in the forest practitioners’ realm, which gives me the opportunity not 

only to conduct relevant research, but to examine the effects of forestry applications. 

Just three days ago I returned from a week of working with family landowners and 

the Cree and Chippewa tribes of central Montana where we examined the forest 

conditions there and the effectiveness of various forest practices in combating a 

mountain pine beetle outbreak in the Bearpaw Mountains. 

Bark Beetles 

The bark beetle outbreak we are experiencing across the entire western portion 

of North America is the result of multiple ecological factors converging at the same 

time. Its occurrence is not a surprise for foresters across western forests as the current expansiveness of bark beetle activity has been building for many years. Bark 

beetles such as mountain pine beetles, one of the main culprits in the current outbreaks, have been extensively studied since the mid 1970s. Its life cycle and ecology 

are very well understood. It has been a natural part of western forests for millennia 

and its population cycles are fairly predictable. Under what we would characterize 

the average forest and climatic conditions of the past century it exists as a chronic 

population within pine forests, colonizing and killing trees that are unable or incapable of defending themselves due to a variety of physiological, genetic or environmental factors. It may be considered analogous to wolves circling a herd of caribou, 

culling out the weak, unfit and injured. As with any species, bark beetles have numerous pests and predators themselves including a variety of predatory beetles, 

wasps, nematodes, mites, fungal diseases, and larger predators such as bark gleaning birds and woodpeckers. Depending on the populations of these predators and 

pests, chronic bark beetle populations might be kept in check. 

Perhaps one of the most important factors affecting bark beetle populations is climate. Typically higher elevation and northern latitude forests experience extreme 

cold periods where air temperatures hover at minus 30-40°F for several or more 

weeks in winter. Under such temperatures overwintering beetles or larvae experience significant mortality. Similarly, cool moist summers can inhibit beetle activity 

and larval development and increase the effects of fungal pathogens. When climatic 

conditions cycle into warmer and drier trends, beetle populations are favored with 

less winter mortality and faster and better reproductive cycles. Across higher elevation lodgepole pine forests in Montana for example, mountain pine beetles rarely 

have been able to expand into larger populations in the past 100 years because of 

extremely cold winter temperatures. Also, short summers have only allowed the 

beetles to typically have one reproductive cycle. When warmer winters, earlier 

springs and resulting longer summers prevail, bark beetle populations gain an advantage. Under longer summer scenarios, such as we experienced across Montana 

for the past decade, mountain pine beetles may start to achieve two regeneration 

cycles. Two bark beetles produce an average of 80 offspring on one reproductive 

cycle. With a second cycle the first generation then can produce 3,200 offspring by 

the end of summer. Milder winters then allow most overwintering beetles to survive, 

which means in the second summer the overwintering beetles can produce 128,000 

offspring in the first reproductive cycle and 5,120,000 offspring in the second cycle. 

An equally important factor that influences bark beetle populations is the availability of suitable host trees. Each bark beetle species has adaptations that allow 

it to attack and reproduce best in specific tree species, and when those trees are 

in a certain size and age range. The greater the suitable host tree number, the 

greater the potential food source and thus the larger the population of bark beetles 

that can develop. Likewise, the greater the percentage of host trees that are similar 

in age and size, the greater the probability of bark beetles successfully attacking 

and colonizing them at the same time. 

A landscape such as Yellowstone National Park, that had a large acreage burn 

catastrophically in 1988, will develop an even aged forest of fire adapted lodgepole 

pine that are all similar in size equivalent in expansiveness as the area of disturbance. When these trees reach 90-100 years of age, they will mostly become suitable 

host trees at the same time that under the right climatic conditions can allow an 

epidemic of bark beetles to develop once again. The epidemic will then persist as 

long as there are host trees within flying distance of beetles and the climate remains favorable. The same is true, for example, of Colorado and Wyoming’s 

lodgepole pine forests. By and large, these forests are mature, even age forests of 

lodgepole pine stressed by drought and high densities of trees combined with warmer temperatures that foster mountain pine beetle population explosion. 

117 

Since native tree species and their pests have coevolved, trees have natural defense mechanisms against herbivore attacks. Most conifers, the prevalent category 

of trees in the western United States, produce pitch, which is a viscous liquid and 

toxic defensive compound (not to be confused with sap, which is the water and nutrient conducting liquid within a tree) and if present in adequate amounts can be 

used to kill bark intruders such as bark beetles as well as seal off tree wounds. 

Likewise secondary metabolite products such as terpene and phenolic compounds 

can be produced as toxic countermeasures to insect or disease attack. The forest 

products industry processes these very materials out of harvested wood to produce 

a variety of chemicals we use in our everyday lives as disinfectants, preservatives 

and even products such as arabinogalactan that is thought to enhance human immune systems. The production of these defense mechanisms, however, only occurs 

in adequate quantities when a tree has the resources needed to grow well, such as 

enough sunlight, water and nutrients. Stress brought on by drought periods, mechanical injury, or excessive competition with neighboring trees results in a weakened tree defense capability (Hermes and Matson 1992). The energy allocation within a tree is thought to be prioritized first on maintenance respiration (keeping its 

cell structure alive), next in adding new growth, and only then in producing defense 

mechanisms. Thus weakened trees become the natural targets for pests such as 

bark beetles. 

Mature forests with dense canopies have the additive effects of transpiring more 

water than forests of younger trees with less needle area, and intercepting rainfall 

and snowfall in their dense canopies that evaporates back into the atmosphere before having a chance to enter the soil where trees can absorb it. The additive impacts of greater water and energy production requirements, less soil water recharge, 

and limited space for photosynthetic (needle) area leads to significantly weakened 

trees. At this point the trees in this condition represent a large food source without 

any defenses, the perfect target for bark beetles and a host of other tree pests and 

pathogens. 

When mild winters, early springs and longer summers, perfect conditions for bark 

beetle survival and reproduction, are combined with a landscape covered with a disproportionately large population of mature preferred host trees, that are suffering 

from the stress of overcrowding coupled with drought brought on by the warmer 

winters and longer summers, the conditions for a perfect bark beetle storm arise. 

If the climatic conditions that favor bark beetles persist, this storm will last as long 

as there are host trees available to eat. When epidemic populations develop, trees 

that originally exhibited resistance to pest attack can succumb to the sheer number 

of successive attacks. It is not uncommon to find trees that have resisted and survived the first year of a bark beetle attack only to be successfully colonized in the 

second or third year of an outbreak. This may be a significantly undesirable impact 

of a forest pest epidemic as the trees exhibiting superior survival abilities and possibly genetically desirable characteristics as the potential seed sources of the future 

forest are also lost. Local seed sources have their limits, especially when trying to 

restore ecosystems across broad geographic scales. Diverse seed sources are relevant 

to restoring vegetation that is resilient, ecologically competent and possesses the evolutionary potential required to meet changing and challenging environments 

(Broadhurst et al 2008). This can reduce the overall genetic diversity within a population, weaken the robustness and health of a species, and reduce the ability of the 

species to adapt to new environmental conditions such as may be the case with global climate change. Genetic variation within populations of tree species is a substantial component of biodiversity and appears to be a significant prerequisite for the 

survival and persistence of forest ecosystems, particularly under heterogeneous and 

changing environmental conditions. Inbreeding results in weaker individual trees 

with less stress resistance (Mu ̈ller-Stark et al 2005). 

As long as forests have been a primary provider of resources for human populations, tree damaging agents have been considered unwelcome. Scientific understanding of how forest ecosystems function has progressed to the point in the recent 

half century to where we understand and appreciate that most organisms perform 

an important function in keeping forests healthy and in a sense, push species to continue to evolve. Bark beetles are no different and not only continue to help select 

for genetically strong individuals, but also create habitat and provide food sources 

or multiple other organisms. As such it would be unwise to eradicate bark beetles 

and other natural organisms that interfere with our immediate needs from the forest. At some point, however, an organism may reach a tipping point where it gains 

an unfair advantage against another organism. The result is that the disadvantaged 

species goes extinct or is pushed onto a small fraction of its former distribution. 

118 

German Forests 

Across central Europe forests have been harvested intensively and continually for 

over 2000 years. Many countries there, notably Sweden, Germany, Austria, France 

and Switzerland have developed forest management practices that maintain forest 

productivity, biodiversity, scenic and recreational beauty, and that have greatly limited catastrophic disturbances including bark beetle outbreaks. 

As an example, the country of Germany has roughly the equivalent land area and 

forested area as Montana. A greater oceanic effect provides for a slightly milder climate and more evenly distributed annual precipitation. Tree growth rates can be 

twice as high there as in Montana. Whereas Montana has approximately 950,000 

permanent residents, Germany has 83 million residents. Hiking and nature appreciation is a national pastime, and a large proportion of German forests have a primary nature reserve or biodiversity protection designation. Important to note is that 

forest management including tree harvesting is not viewed as a barrier to such objectives, but rather a tool to help achieve desired conditions for rare and endangered 

species and recreational quality. Wood has also been identified as a primary mechanism of reducing atmospheric carbon emissions and global warming as it sequesters 

large amounts of carbon in living trees, wood products, and offsets fossil fuel consumption when used as a primary building material and source of energy. It is a 

highly valued product in the European carbon cap and trade system. According to 

the European Forestry Institute, ‘‘When wood products are used instead of non renewable materials such as steel or plastics, the carbon is sequestered longer before 

it is released back into the atmosphere. 

On an annual basis Germany harvests 12.6 billion board-feet equivalent of wood, 

Montana over the past decade has annually harvested an average of 750 million 

board-feet, most of which has come from private lands, not federal lands even 

though the later accounts for 67% of the Montana forest land base. To put this in 

perspective, the height of the timber harvest from national forests was roughly 12 

billion board-feet in the 1980s. Now the entire harvest off of national forests is 

roughly two billion board-feet. For Montana, as many other western states, the repercussions have been devastating to the wood products industry, forestry and logging professions. 

Bark beetles are a common problem in all forests in Germany for the most prevalent tree species, yet in the past decades bark beetle epidemics have not occurred, 

mainly because they have been prevented. The one exception is in the Bavarian National Park, were forest management was excluded as the purpose of the park was 

for nature to run its course without human interference, and for the dominating native pure spruce forest to grow into ancient old growth character. In the late 1990’s 

a spruce bark beetle population started to build in this forest. In the past decade 

it has killed 80% of the trees across 60% of the park and is expected to decimate 

the rest in the next five years. This past year, the Bavarian government agreed to 

allow foresters to start implementing measures to attempt to control the epidemic 

as it is now spilling out of the park onto private forested lands. The measures being 

used, which are successfully used to prevent outbreaks across the rest of the nation 

are: 1) remove beetle infested trees before the brood hatches out of it, 2) bait and 

trap beetles, 3) manage surrounding spruce forests with thinning applications to enhance tree vigor and natural resistance, 4) increase non-host tree species diversity 

in forests around the park to limit beetle food sources, 5) divert planned harvests 

of green trees to harvesting of beetle infected or killed trees instead, 6) pursue research into other methods for controlling bark beetle outbreaks, 7) manage for tree 

species that are calculated to be adapted for future (warmer) climate scenarios. 

Management Solutions for the US? 

Can these management tactics also work for forest across the western United 

States? Our understanding of tree and beetle biology for our afflicted areas and species, as well as experiential knowledge certainly matches what German foresters 

have to work with. Multiple studies have shown that thinning forest stands to alleviate the impacts of light and water competition on tree vigor while leaving what 

appear to be the best trees results in less successful bark beetle attacks (Schmid 

et al. 2007). It has also been postulated that the greater heating from sunlight increases stress on bark beetles as they seek out trees. Increasing the diversity of tree 

species in forests that are primarily monocultures, such as the situation we see in 

Wyoming and Colorado with lodgepole pine, thus reducing contiguous host tree 

availability also makes for a more difficult environment for bark beetles, and reduces the ability of epidemics to develop. Similarly, decreasing the size of similar 

tree age and size patches of host trees will have the same effect as increasing species diversity, as younger age trees are not suitable host trees for most of the most 

prevalent tree killing bark beetle species. Finally, using harvest trees to trap beetles 

119 

into, and then processing those trees thereby destroying the brood, combined with 

the use of synthesized aggregation and anti-aggregation pheromones (attractants 

and repellents) to manipulate and control populations of beetles. All of these tactics 

have been used with documented success in western forests. They do require the 

skill and expertise of forest managers and forest entomologists, as well as a skilled 

and modern logging workforce. They also require a funding mechanism as the extensiveness of bark beetle mortality and risk is enormous (Figure 1). As a side note, 

we are quickly losing our skilled logging workforce in Montana (and across the 

West). Without this workforce and infrastructure to take these materials, we’ll lose 

our ability manage forests. 

Another issue is what to do with the significant volume of already dead trees. In 

Germany much of the beetle infested or killed wood is harvested. Fifty percent of 

the more than four billion board-feet equivalent annual harvest in the German state 

of Bavaria, a forested land base of slightly more than 6 million acres, is salvage and 

sanitation harvest of dead and dying trees. This is all accomplished in a taxable 

profit generating free market system. What is suitable goes to sawmills and much 

of the rest is utilized for electricity, steam and home heating (Figure 2) with one 

third of all households heating with wood. Wood is rated as a renewable biomass 

source and replaces an equivalent of 396 million gallons of heating oil per year in 

Bavaria alone. Across the western United States, such utilization also occurs at a 

small scale in the form of rural home heating and cogeneration ‘‘hog-fuel’’ of some 

wood products industries. For Montana the calculated home heating oil replacement 

for national forest private firewood cutting permits is 3.1 million gallons. Several 

small wood burning school heating systems have been installed in recent years, and 

several of the few remaining sawmills are considering investing in wood generated 

power plants as the heat by-product of a wood-to-energy plant can be used heat the 

dry kilns of the sawmills, thereby increasing the efficiency and output of such a facility. One of the major barriers for such investments remains the availability of 

wood raw materials where 67 percent of the forested land base, bark beetles and 

all, is under federal management. 

Forests suffering from large scale bark beetle outbreaks accumulate significant 

amounts of dead wood. Mountain pine beetle-killed trees of ponderosa and lodgepole 

pine typically topple over within 2-10 years, creating large fuel loading for wildfires. 

Such heavy fuel accumulations represent challenging wildfire control scenarios, and 

if the larger diameter stem material dries out sufficiently, as has occurred frequently in the past decade, wildfire severity and intensity is greatly increased, 

which can result in mortality of beetle surviving trees and their seed source. Such 

scenarios can further decrease the genetic diversity of forests, particularly during 

a time when such diversity may be needed to help forests adapt to projected climatic 

change. Fuel management addresses directly the root of the wildfire problem and 

when properly designed and implemented increases the effective weather threshold 

for effective fire control, which is even more relevant in a climate change scenario 

(Rigolot et al. 2009). 

Conserving tree species across their historical range with densities fitting the definition of ‘‘forest’’ both in the short term (next 50 years) and long term (next 50-200 

years), that are capable of naturally regenerating and conserving their gene pool 

will be challenging if the predictions of climate change are realized. In addition, the 

characteristics and values associated with those forests have a greater probability 

of being conserved with active forest management than if left to what are deemed 

‘‘natural’’ processes and consequences. ‘‘Active management’’ is defined here as the 

process where forests are inventoried within a reasonable scale for their biological 

and physical properties, that this knowledge is used to plan and implement landscape activities that provide for greater tree survival and natural regeneration when 

exposed to significant changes in temperature, precipitation and associated disturbances (wildfires, insects and diseases), and that all management options ranging 

from benign neglect to commercial tree harvesting are utilized. A thus managed forested landscape would consist of a mosaic of ‘‘wilderness’’ and ‘‘old-growth’’ patches 

as well as areas with harvests designed to promote tree vigor (thinning) and species 

and age class diversity (seed tree, shelterwood, patch cutting). In Montana, most 

Native American tribes have already adopted this management style on their reservation lands. Both the confederated Salish and Kootenai tribes (Flathead reservation) and Chippewa and Cree tribes (Rocky Boy reservation) are using active forest 

management as well as rapid salvage and sanitation harvesting to stem bark beetle 

epidemics and reduce the probability of catastrophic wildfire effects in their forests. 

Forest ecosystems are an important part of the global carbon cycle since they are 

estimated to sequester and store approximately 80% of the aboveground terrestrial 

carbon (Waring and Running 1998) which equates to estimates from 380 to 458 Pg 

of total global stored biologically based carbon (1 petagram = 1 gram x 1015 or 

120 

about 1,100,000,000 tons). These estimates have put forests and their management 

into the forefront of anthropogenic caused global climate change debates as they 

may be one of the most efficient and effective mechanisms for offsetting the most 

common human caused source of atmospheric carbon dioxide: fossil fuel consumption that emits an estimated global rate of 5.5 Pg of carbon per year (Waring and 

Running 1998). The European Community has instigated policy that offers financial 

support for afforestation of agricultural lands and silvicultural actions that may increase carbon sequestration (FAO 2009). 

Larger disturbance such as a wildfire can kill many trees, thereby releasing the 

stored carbon quickly through wood combustion or slowly by killing the tree and 

thus releasing carbon through the slower decomposition process. Wildfires release 

an instant pulse of carbon and then changes the albedo of the land surface that allows for a much greater absorption of solar energy that may last decades in boreal 

forests (Running 2008). A young forest that may develop in the burned area over 

the next 100-300 years recaptures the carbon again leading to the concept that forests are actually ‘‘carbon neutral’’ in the long term. However, if forest’s natural cycles are altered, their overall contribution to atmospheric carbon-dioxide also 

changes. Enhanced growing conditions resulting from factors such as increased precipitation, milder or shorter winters, fewer pests and pathogens, faster growing or 

longer lived species to name a few all can lead to greater carbon sequestration and 

carbon storage. Alternatively, conditions such as less precipitation, greater drought 

periods, uncharacteristic summer and winter temperatures, unusual wind events, 

and increased pest, pathogen and wildfire occurrence can result in lower rates of 

tree carbon sequestration, and the loss of total forested area and the release of large 

amounts of wood sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. The global carbon cycle 

can be converted into atmospheric carbon dioxide, a primary greenhouse gas when 

trees burn or decay, or atmospheric carbon can be sequestered when trees grow and 

produce wood. As part of the IPCCs 4th assessment, seven general circulation model 

simulations unanimously project an increase in June through August temperatures 

of 2 to 5°C by 2040 to 2069. Wildfire burn areas in Canada and the western United 

States are expected to increase by 74 to 118%. Wildfires add an estimated 3.5 x 10 

15 g atmospheric carbon each year equivalent to 40% of annual fossil fuel emissions 

(Running 2006). Forests thus represent both a potential source of atmospheric carbon dioxide if they are degraded, or the most efficient land based sink with a large 

capacity to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide when trees are rapidly growing. 

Opinions vary and range from those that advocate active forest management to 

enhance forest’s resilience to bark beetle epidemics, wildfires and ability to adapt 

as well as increase atmospheric carbon dioxide sequestration rates and fixed carbon 

storage capacity to those that feel active management of forests causes a net carbon 

storage loss as well as less carbon sequestration capacity and overall harm to forest 

function and integrity. As with all complex natural resource issues, there are valid 

arguments based on site specific and single species research that can be made to 

support both sides of the issue. As a forest practitioner with now 29 years of applied 

experience caring for trees and managing forests as well as extensive academic and 

scientific training and work on the ecology of Northern Rockies forest ecosystems, 

it is my opinion that active forest management and the use of wood-based renewable 

bioenergy applied in appropriate locations using both the academic and practical 

knowledge and experience currently available, will most likely result in greater 

forest resilience to large landscape level disturbances that are both within and outside of the historic range of variability. This will also maintain or increase most 

forest ecosystems ability to store and sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide. 

121 


50438.005
122 

Bibliography 

Alvarez, M. 2007. The State of America’s Forests. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters. 68 pgs. 

Broadhurst L.M., Lowe, A., Coates, D.J., Cunningham, S.A., McDonald, M., Vesk, 

P.A., and C. Yates. 2008. Seed supply for broadcast restoring: maximizing evolutionary potential. Evolutionary applications CSIRO ISSN 1752-4571. Blackwell 

Publishing Ltd 1, 587-597. 

European Forest Institute. 2009. Climate change and other a(biotic) disturbances. 

www.efi.int/research/themes/climatelchangelandlotherlalbioticldisturbances.htm 

FAO. 2009. Climate change and the forest sector. www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5647e/ 

y5647e05.htm 

Gannon A., and S. Sontag. Compilers 2008 MONTANA Forest Insect and Disease 

Conditions and Program Highlights—2004. Report 08-1 USDA Forest Service, 

Northern Region, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection. 80 pgs. 

Herms, D.A. and W. J. Mattson. 1992. The Dilemma of Plants: To Grow or Defend 

Author(s): Source: The Quarterly Review of Biology, (67) 3, pp. 283-335 

Immler, T. 2004. Waldbauliche Pflegestandards zu den 

Fortbildungsveranstaltungen. Landesanstalt fu ̈ r Wald und Forst. Freising 

Bayern. 19 pgs. 

Janisch J.E. and M.E. Harmon. 2002 Successional changes in live and dead wood 

carbon stores: implications for net ecosystem productivity. Tree Physiology 22, 

77-89. 

J. Jouzel C. Lorius J. R. Petit C. Genthon N. I. Barkov V. M. Kotlyakov & V. M. 

Petrov. 1987. Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope temperature record over the 

last climatic cycle (160,000 years) Nature 329, 403-408 

Keane, Robert E.; Agee, James K.; Fule, Peter; Keeley, Jon E.; Key, Carl; Kitchen, 

Stanley G.; Miller, Richard; Schulte, Lisa A. 2008. Ecological effects of large 

fires on U.S. landscapes: benefit or catastrophe?. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 17: 696-712. 

Kolb, P. 2002. Forest stewardship field guide for alternative forest management 

practices and forest wildfire hazard reduction. MSU Extension Forestry misc. 

publications, Missoula, MT. 140 pgs. 

Meyer, L. Compiler 2005. MONTANA Forest Insect and Disease Conditions and 

Program Highlights—2004. Report 05-1 USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, 

State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection. 50 pgs. 


50438.006
123 

Mu ̈ller-Stark, G. M. Ziehe, and R. Schubert. 2005. Genetic diversity parameters associated with viability selection, reproductive efficiency, and growth in forest 

tree species. Springer-Verlag Berlin. Ecological Studies, Vol 176, 87-108. 

Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N.I.,Barnola J.M., Basile I., Bender M., 

Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., 

Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pe ́pin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. (1999), 

Nature, 399: 429-436. 

Rigolot, E., Fernandes, P., and F. Rego. 2009. Managing wildfire risk: prevention, 

suppression. European Forest Institute, Discussion Paper 15. In: Living with 

Wildfires: What science can tell us, Yves Birot (ed.) 49-52. 

Running, S. 2008. Ecosystem Disturbance, Carbon, and Climate. Science 11, 652- 

653. 

Running, S. 2006. Is global warming causing more larger wildfires? Science 313, 

927-928. 

Schmid, J.M, S.A. Mata, R.R. Kessler, and J.B. Popp. 2007. The influence of partial 

cutting on mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality in Black Hills ponderosa 

pine stands. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, RMRSRP-68. 19 pgs. 

Waring R. and S. Running.1998. Forest Ecosystems Analysis at multiple scales. 

Academic Press, San Diego CA. 370 pgs. 

Wegener, G., and B. Zimmer. 2000. Wald und holz als kohlenstoffspeicher und 

energietrager. Chancen und wege fur die forst und holzwirtschaft. In: Schulte 

A. et al (ed) Weltforstwirtschaft nach Kyoto: Wald und holz als 

kohlenstoffspeicher und regenerativer energietrager: Aachen Shaker V1g. ISBN 

3-8265-8641-7, 113-122. 

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

and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313, 

940-943 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Dr. Kolb, for your testimony. I 

apologize for the rush, but we have about one minute to get to the 

Floor. 

We thank the panel for your forbearance, and your testimony has 

been very, very enlightening. We hope to pursue this to a greater 

extent. 

I want to add a special thanks to the Forest Service people who 

are dedicated to our forests. 

With that, this concludes the Subcommittees’ oversight hearing 

on the mountain pine beetle, strategies for protecting the West. 

Thanks to all of you for appearing before the Subcommittees. Your 

testimonies and expertise have, of course, been very enlightening 

and helpful. 

Under Subcommittee Rule 4[h], additional material for the 

record should be submitted within 10 business days after the hearing. Your cooperation in replying promptly to any questions submitted to you in writing will be very much and greatly appreciated. 

With this, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 1:38 p.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[A statement submitted for the record by Mr. Smith of Nebraska 

follows:] 

124 

Statement of The Honorable Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Nebraska 

Good morning and thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers and Ranking Member Bishop for holding this important oversight hearing today on the Mountain Pine Beetle. 

As a member of this Committee and the House Agriculture Committee, today’s 

discussion must give attention to the need for better forest management. The overgrowth of trees coupled with stringent fire suppression policies has increased the 

stress on the West’s water supply. This scarcity of water not only makes trees susceptible to disease and insect infestation, such as the Mountain Pine Beetle, but also 

can significantly reduce water flows. The West’s Platte River, which feeds into my 

district in Nebraska, is undergoing far-reaching new ecosystem management in 

order to restore the wildlife habitat lost from years of declining water flows. 

All that said, I question why the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service stopped managing the overgrowth of trees over the past few decades. Besides the 

massive damage from the mountain pine beetle, there are many other consequences 

from inaction. 

Thank you again. I appreciate both Subcommittees for holding this joint hearing 

today on recommendations for improving our nation’s land management. I look forward to hearing testimony from the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, 

Department of Energy, and all of our witnesses. I hope they will be able to shed 

light on these important issues. 

Æ