diff --git "a/data/CHRG-116/CHRG-116hhrg35200.txt" "b/data/CHRG-116/CHRG-116hhrg35200.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/data/CHRG-116/CHRG-116hhrg35200.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,5070 @@
+
+ - OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND PUBLIC LANDS: EXAMINING IMPACTS AND CONSIDERING ADAPTATION OPPORTUNITIES
+
+[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
+[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
+
+
+ CLIMATE CHANGE AND PUBLIC LANDS: EXAMINING IMPACTS AND CONSIDERING
+ ADAPTATION OPPORTUNITIES
+
+=======================================================================
+
+ OVERSIGHT HEARING
+
+ Before the
+
+ SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS
+
+ OF THE
+
+ COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
+ U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
+
+ ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
+
+ FIRST SESSION
+
+ __________
+
+ Wednesday, February 13, 2019
+
+ __________
+
+ Serial No. 116-5
+
+ __________
+
+ Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
+
+
+[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
+
+
+ Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
+ or
+ Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
+
+
+ __________
+
+
+ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
+35-200 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
+http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
+U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).E-mail,
+[email protected].
+
+
+ COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
+
+ RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
+ DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
+ GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
+ ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member
+
+Grace F. Napolitano, CA Don Young, AK
+Jim Costa, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
+Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Doug Lamborn, CO
+ CNMI Robert J. Wittman, VA
+Jared Huffman, CA Tom McClintock, CA
+Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Paul A. Gosar, AZ
+Ruben Gallego, AZ Paul Cook, CA
+TJ Cox, CA Bruce Westerman, AR
+Joe Neguse, CO Garret Graves, LA
+Mike Levin, CA Jody B. Hice, GA
+Debra A. Haaland, NM Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
+Jefferson Van Drew, NJ Daniel Webster, FL
+Joe Cunningham, SC Liz Cheney, WY
+Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Mike Johnson, LA
+Diana DeGette, CO Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
+Wm. Lacy Clay, MO John R. Curtis, UT
+Debbie Dingell, MI Kevin Hern, OK
+Anthony G. Brown, MD Russ Fulcher, ID
+A. Donald McEachin, VA
+Darren Soto, FL
+Ed Case, HI
+Steven Horsford, NV
+Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
+Matt Cartwright, PA
+Vacancy
+Vacancy
+
+ David Watkins, Chief of Staff
+ Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
+ Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
+ http://naturalresources.house.gov
+
+
+
+ ------
+
+ SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS
+
+ DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Chair
+ DON YOUNG, AK, Ranking Republican Member
+
+Joe Neguse, CO Louie Gohmert, TX
+Diana DeGette, CO Tom McClintock, CA
+Debbie Dingell, MI Paul Cook, CA
+Steven Horsford, NV Bruce Westerman, AR
+Jared Huffman, CA Jody B. Hice, GA
+Ruben Gallego, AZ Daniel Webster, FL
+Alan S. Lowenthal, CA John R. Curtis, UT
+Ed Case, HI Russ Fulcher, ID
+Vacancy Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
+Vacancy
+Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
+
+
+
+ ----------
+
+ CONTENTS
+
+ ----------
+ Page
+
+Hearing held on Wednesday, February 13, 2019..................... 1
+
+Statement of Members:
+ Dingell, Hon. Debbie, a Representative in Congress from the
+ State of Michigan, prepared statement of................... 66
+ Haaland, Hon. Debra A., a Representative in Congress from the
+ State of New Mexico........................................ 1
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 2
+ Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
+ of Alaska.................................................. 3
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 5
+
+Statement of Witnesses:
+ Cole, Hans, Director of Environmental Campaigns and Advocacy,
+ Patagonia, Inc., Ventura, California....................... 31
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 32
+ Questions submitted for the record....................... 34
+ Gonzalez, Patrick, Associate Adjunct Professor, University of
+ California-Berkeley, Berkeley, California.................. 6
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 7
+ Hansen, Lara J., Executive Director and Chief Scientist,
+ EcoAdapt, Bainbridge Island, Washington.................... 16
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 18
+ Questions submitted for the record....................... 26
+ Oneil, Elaine, Oneil Forest Research and Management, Tenino,
+ Washington................................................. 36
+ Prepared statement of.................................... 37
+
+Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
+ Harmon, Dr. Mark E., Professor Emeritus, Oregon State
+ University, statement for the record....................... 67
+ List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
+ Committee's official files................................. 73
+
+
+
+
+OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND PUBLIC LANDS: EXAMINING IMPACTS
+ AND CONSIDERING ADAPTATION OPPORTUNITIES
+
+ ----------
+
+
+ Wednesday, February 13, 2019
+
+ U.S. House of Representatives
+
+ Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
+
+ Committee on Natural Resources
+
+ Washington, DC
+
+ ----------
+
+ The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
+room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Deb Haaland
+[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
+ Present: Representatives Haaland, Neguse, DeGette,
+Horsford, Huffman, Lowenthal, Case, Grijalva; Young, Westerman,
+Hice, Curtis, Fulcher, and Bishop.
+
+ Ms. Haaland. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests,
+and Public Lands will now come to order. The Subcommittee is
+meeting today to hear testimony on the impacts of climate
+change on public lands, and to consider adaptation
+opportunities.
+ Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
+hearings are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Minority
+Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other
+Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record,
+if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today.
+ Hearing no objection, so ordered.
+
+ STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBRA A. HAALAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
+ CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
+
+ Ms. Haaland. Today is an exciting day. It will be the first
+of a new era for this Committee and for this Congress, an era
+of inclusion, where the diverse voices of the American people
+are clearly heard in these halls. We will uphold our public
+lands as a point of pride that all Americans can share and co-
+own. These special places will serve as refuge for our highest
+values, and as places of growth toward our Nation's future.
+ I want to start this hearing, the first of the 116th
+Congress for this Subcommittee, by thanking my fellow Members
+for joining me in this important work. I am grateful for the
+confidence you have expressed in selecting me to chair this
+Subcommittee. It is my sincere hope that we will find common
+ground on important issues, and I promise you that we will lead
+this Congress, the most diverse in history, toward bold policy
+solutions that benefit our Federal lands and our communities.
+ We begin that leadership today as we confront the most
+pressing issue facing our Nation, which is climate change. We
+will hear testimony from leading scientists about the
+disproportionate impact climate change is already having on our
+public lands.
+ Our national parks are warming twice as fast as the rest of
+the country. Parks in the Southwest, my home, and the home of
+many of my fellow Members here on this dais, are experiencing
+unprecedented aridity. That means less water for ecosystems,
+which, in turn, means less water for our homes and our farmers,
+because we live in a deeply inter-connected world, where
+changes to one system impact all others.
+ We rely on the natural world to provide us with many of the
+things we depend on each day, from clean water and clean air to
+flood control and coastal protection. At a time when these
+natural services are under threat from global climate change,
+Americans will require strong leadership to ensure that we are
+ready to adapt to these changes and to meet these challenges.
+ Unfortunately, the Trump administration has failed to
+provide this leadership. They see fit to pursue energy
+dominance at all costs, to push an extractive and destructive
+agenda that has left our public lands responsible for nearly
+one-quarter of all CO2 emissions. At the same time,
+the Administration has suppressed science and prevented
+adaptation. They canceled executive orders outlining adaptation
+strategies on public lands, and even pulled back guidance on
+climate change and national security. They ignored the science
+of climate change, relying on outdated and inadequate mandates,
+and put Americans in harm's way.
+ If this Administration will not take the lead, this
+Committee will. Dr. Gonzalez will help us to understand the
+threat we face by explaining the impact climate change will
+have on our public lands. We will then hear from a top climate
+change adaptation scientist, Dr. Lara Hansen, because we can no
+longer afford to stand on the sidelines and do nothing.
+ It is time for America to act on climate change, and our
+public lands are one of the best resources for us to do so.
+Public lands protect biodiversity and the ecosystems on which
+our daily lives depend. They provide space for the natural
+world to adapt to the new climate we have created. And they
+form the backbone of nearly a $1 trillion outdoor recreation
+economy that can help us create good, clean jobs.
+ Climate change is an unprecedented challenge that will
+require big and bold solutions. Today, we take the first step
+toward meaningful action by hearing the risks we face, and by
+considering how we can prepare our communities, our country,
+and our public lands for the challenges climate change
+presents.
+ Thank you all for joining me here today. I look forward to
+our leadership on these issues.
+ Thank you again to the witnesses. I look forward to your
+testimony.
+
+ [The prepared statement of Ms. Haaland follows:]
+Prepared Statement of the Hon. Debra A. Haaland, Chair, Subcommittee on
+ National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
+ Today is an exciting day. It will be the first of a new era for
+this Committee and for this Congress. An era of inclusion, where the
+diverse voices of the American people are clearly heard in these halls.
+We will hold up our public lands as a point of pride that all Americans
+share in and co-own. These special places will serve as refuge for our
+highest values and as places of growth toward our Nation's future.
+ I want to start this hearing, the first of the 116th Congress for
+the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, by
+thanking my fellow Members for joining me in this important work. I am
+grateful for the confidence you have expressed in selecting me to chair
+this Subcommittee. It is my sincere hope that we will find common
+ground on important issues, and I promise you that we will lead this
+Congress, the most diverse in history, toward bold policy solutions
+that benefit our Federal public lands and our communities.
+ We begin that leadership today as we confront the most pressing
+issue facing our Nation--climate change. We will hear testimony from
+leading scientists about the disproportionate impact climate change is
+already having on our public lands.
+ Our national parks are warming twice as fast as the rest of the
+country. Parks in the Southwest, my home, and the home of many of my
+fellow Members here on the dais, are experiencing unprecedented
+aridity. That means less water for our ecosystems--which in turn means
+less water for our homes and our farmers, because we live in a deeply
+interconnected world where changes to one system impact all others.
+ We rely on the natural world to provide us with many of the things
+we depend on each day, from clean water and clean air to flood control
+and coastal protection. At a time when these natural services are under
+threat from global climate change, Americans will require strong
+leadership to ensure that we are ready to adapt to these changes and to
+meet these challenges.
+ Unfortunately, the Trump administration has failed to provide this
+leadership. They see fit to pursue energy dominance at all costs; to
+push an extractive and destructive agenda that has left our public
+lands responsible for nearly one-quarter of all U.S. CO2
+emissions. At the same time, the Administration has suppressed science
+and prevented adaptation. They canceled Executive Orders outlining
+adaptation strategies on public lands and even pulled back guidance on
+climate change and national security. They ignore the science of
+climate change, relying on outdated and inadequate mandates, and put
+Americans in harm's way.
+ If this Administration will not take the lead, this Committee will.
+Dr. Gonzalez will help us understand the threat we face by explaining
+the impact climate change will have on our public lands. We will then
+hear from a top climate change adaptation scientist, Dr. Lara Hansen,
+because we can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines and do
+nothing.
+ It is time for America to act on climate change, and our public
+lands are one of the best resources for us to do so. Public lands
+protect biodiversity and the ecosystems on which our daily lives
+depend. They provide space for the natural world to adapt to the new
+climate we have created. And they form the backbone of a nearly
+trillion-dollar outdoor recreation economy that can help us create
+good, clean jobs.
+ Climate change is an unprecedented challenge that will require big
+and bold solutions. Today, we take the first step toward meaningful
+action by hearing the risks we face and by considering how we can
+prepare our communities, our country, and our public lands for the
+challenges climate change presents.
+ Thank you all for joining me here today. I look forward to our
+leadership on these issues.
+ Thank you again to the witnesses. I look forward to your testimony.
+
+ ______
+
+
+ Ms. Haaland. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
+Curtis, for his opening statement.
+ Mr. Curtis. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to sit in
+for our Ranking Member, Don Young. And on his behalf and all of
+our behalf, I would like to congratulate Representative Haaland
+on her election to the House of Representatives, and for being
+selected as the new Chair of the National Parks, Forests, and
+Public Lands Subcommittee.
+ I will now read Mr. Young's statement.
+
+ STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
+ FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
+
+ Mr. Curtis. I look forward to working with her and this
+Congress on the many important land issues facing our country.
+ Today, we meet to discuss the impacts of climate change on
+our Federal lands and to examine adaptation opportunities. It
+is certainly my hope that we will use this time to discuss
+innovative land management solutions that fall under this
+Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
+ All too often this issue has been used as a vehicle to push
+a radically progressive agenda that would prove to be
+devastating for American families, and would offer minimal, at
+best, climate results. Among the policy goals that have been
+expressed includes calls for complete elimination of air
+travel, cows, and nuclear energy.
+ Fearmongering and unrealistic rhetoric should have no place
+in this debate. Instead, we should focus on pragmatic solutions
+that offer realistic environmental solutions.
+ And on that note, I would like to turn the microphone over
+to Ranking Member Don Young to finish his statement.
+ [Laughter.]
+ Mr. Young. Madam Chair, I apologize.
+ Ms. Haaland. No need to apologize.
+ Mr. Young. I will say that those that live on the Hill have
+it made. Those that live 25 miles out, it is not good. I hate
+the traffic.
+ Ms. Haaland. We are happy to see you.
+ Mr. Young. I am here to--first, let me congratulate you for
+being Chairman, and I do apologize. This is a very important
+Committee.
+ I would say, seriously, we ought to start thinking about
+reducing carbon emissions, but we also ought to be talking
+about how do we address that in some of the areas which we have
+been working on.
+ I think we have to look at the forests, something I am very
+interested in, because we have the largest national forest in
+America in Alaska. And we have lost use of that: 16.8 million
+acres of the forest, only 4 percent has been managed for timber
+production. And consequently, we have very large forests that
+have dead trees. We have had that in other areas.
+ I can tell you that, in Alaska, because we did not manage,
+did not harvest some trees--I am not saying all--we have lost
+two pulp mills, five large sawmills, and a lot of small mills.
+But we also lost 6,000 good, high-paying, middle-class jobs.
+For what cause, I don't know. They say, we have to protect it.
+But what we don't manage, we lose the forest. This has happened
+in the Lower 48. People will talk to that, as we know.
+Tremendous forest fires. It is a loss. And it also contributes
+to the carbon, the gases in the air, and the particulate amount
+in the air.
+ So, I suggest, respectfully, one of our jobs is to see
+whether we can manage better, instead of saying no, ask what we
+can do. Other countries have done beautifully. If you go to
+Sweden, they have managed their forests for centuries, and they
+produce a lot of timber and they employ a lot of people. And it
+looks like a brand-new forest.
+ So, that is what we have to consider. And I do think this
+is a great hearing. We have good witnesses today. There are
+differences of opinion, but I just want us to adapt as part of
+this hearing, and I am happy with what we are proceeding here.
+I would submit the rest of my statement for the record and
+yield back the balance of my time.
+
+ [The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
+Prepared Statement of the Hon. Don Young, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
+ on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
+ I would first like to congratulate Representative Haaland on her
+election to the House of Representatives and for being selected as the
+new Chair of the National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
+Subcommittee. I look forward to working with her this Congress on many
+of the important land management issues facing our country.
+ Today we meet to discuss the impacts of climate change on our
+Federal lands and to examine adaptation opportunities. It is certainly
+my hope that we use this time to discuss innovative land management
+solutions that fall under this Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
+ All too often, this issue has been used as a vehicle to push a
+radically progressive agenda that would prove to be devastating for
+American families and would offer minimal at best climate results.
+Among the ludicrous policy goals that have been expressed includes
+calls for the complete elimination of air travel, cows, and nuclear
+energy.
+ Fearmongering and unrealistic rhetoric should have no place in this
+debate. Instead we should focus on pragmatic solutions that offer
+realistic environmental benefits.
+ One area of policy actually under this Committee's jurisdiction is
+forestry. It's common knowledge that the poor health of our Nation's
+forests is has reached crisis levels.
+ If the Democrat Majority is truly serious about reducing vast
+amounts of Carbon Emissions into the atmosphere, they should be working
+more closely alongside Republicans in supporting common-sense forest
+management reforms which include the responsible cutting and replanting
+of trees, as well as grazing on public lands.
+ Before our own eyes, we've seen the Nation's once flourishing
+Federal forests transform into dead and burned out waste lands.
+ The sorry state of our Federal forests has become a national
+disgrace and national emergency. While climate change has certainly
+exacerbated the challenges facing our Federal forests, there is much
+that we can be doing to help our forests adapt and become more
+resilient in a time of changing climate.
+ With 16.8 million acres, the Tongass National Forest is the largest
+national forest in the United States. In the last 90 years, only 4
+percent has been managed for timber production. To make matters worse,
+the Forest Service has been unwilling and unable to provide a reliable
+and sufficient supply of timber sales.
+ In my home state of Alaska, over the past 35 years we have seen the
+closure of two pulp mills, five large saw mills, and countless small
+mills due to misguided forest policy. This has cost Alaskans over 5,000
+good paying-family wage jobs.
+ For decades we have failed to proactively manage our forests in
+order to reduce hazardous fuels buildup. As a result, the excessive
+fuel loads that have piled up are increasing the likelihood of
+explosive, unmanageable and costly megafires that wreak havoc on our
+rural communities and emit millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide
+into the air.
+ We cannot continue to ignore the forest health crisis. The Federal
+Government's current rate, treating a paltry 2 percent of the nearly 60
+million acres identified as high risk to wildfire, is not acceptable.
+ To solve our Nation's forest health crisis, we must enact measures
+to increase the pace and scale of active management across our
+forestlands.
+ The American people want our forests returned to health. They want
+the growing scourge of wildfire brought back under control. They want
+the destruction of mountain habitats by fire, disease and pestilence
+arrested and reversed. They want the prosperity of their forest
+communities restored.
+ Our witness, Dr. Elaine Oneil, has spent her career specializing in
+forest health, climate change, and forest carbon accounting. Dr.
+Oneil's written testimony offers reasonable solutions that would be
+beneficial for our forests, for our climate, and for the American
+people.
+ I look forward to a robust discussion on the state of our Federal
+lands.
+
+ ______
+
+
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Mr. Curtis and Mr. Young.
+ I would like to introduce our witnesses. Under our
+Committee Rules, oral statements are limited to 5 minutes, but
+your entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
+ The lights in front of you will turn yellow when there is 1
+minute left, and then red when time has expired. After the
+witnesses have testified, Members will be given the opportunity
+to ask questions.
+ The Chair now recognizes Dr. Patrick Gonzalez for 5
+minutes.
+
+ STATEMENT OF PATRICK GONZALEZ, ASSOCIATE ADJUNCT PROFESSOR,
+ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
+
+ Dr. Gonzalez. Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and members of
+the Committee, thank you for the invitation to speak on the
+science of human-caused climate change in the U.S. national
+parks.
+ I am Patrick Gonzalez, a forest ecologist and associate
+adjunct professor at the University of California, Berkeley. I
+am also the principal climate change scientist of the U.S.
+National Park Service. But today I speak under my Berkeley
+affiliation, not for the Park Service.
+ I have conducted and published field research on climate
+change for over 25 years. I have also served as a lead author
+on four reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
+Change, the science organization awarded a share of the 2007
+Nobel Peace Prize.
+ Wildfires burning in Yosemite National Park in California,
+glaciers melting in Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska:
+published scientific research has detected these changes and
+others in U.S. national parks, and attributed them to human-
+caused climate change.
+ The human cause of climate change is an important
+scientific fact because it points us to the solutions to the
+problem. Measurements show that cars, power plants,
+deforestation, and other human sources have increased carbon
+dioxide to its highest levels in 800,000 years. This increase
+has intensified the greenhouse effect, and increased
+temperatures to their highest levels in over 800 years. Human
+activities have caused 97 percent of historical heating.
+ Colleagues and I published last year the first analysis of
+climate change trends across all 417 national parks. Our
+results revealed that climate change since 1895 has exposed the
+national parks to conditions hotter and dryer than the country,
+as a whole. Temperatures in the national parks increased at
+double the national rate. The temperature increase was 1 degree
+Celsius, or 2 degrees Fahrenheit per century.
+ That might not sound like a lot, but 1 degree is the
+equivalent of pushing a mountain down 170 meters, or 550 feet--
+that is the height of the Washington Monument--from cooler
+areas at higher elevations to warmer areas below.
+ Also, rain and snow decreased more in the national parks
+than in the country as a whole. Hotter and drier conditions
+occurred because many parks are located in the extreme
+environments: in the Arctic, in high mountains, and the arid
+Southwest.
+ As a result, in Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska,
+climate change has melted 640 meters of ice from Muir Glacier.
+That's 2,100 feet more than the height of One World Trade
+Center.
+ In Yosemite National Park and across the West, climate
+change has doubled wildfire, compared to the area of natural
+burning.
+ In Rocky Mountain National Park and across the West,
+climate change has doubled tree death, particularly from bark
+beetles.
+ In Noatak National Preserve in Alaska, climate change has
+shifted forests northward onto formerly treeless tundra.
+ Climate change has raised sea level halfway to your knee in
+Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Francisco, and all
+the way to your knee in New York City, not far from the Statue
+of Liberty.
+ Climate change has killed coral reefs in Biscayne National
+Park, Florida.
+ Continued climate change under the worst scenario could
+substantially heat the parks and the future up to 9 degrees
+Celsius or 16 degrees Fahrenheit in Alaska.
+ Our research shows that cutting carbon pollution could
+reduce projected heating in national parks by up to two-thirds.
+The lowered heating would lower future risks.
+ The United States has demonstrated its ability to cut
+emissions. The United States cut emissions 8 percent from 2007
+to 2015. The U.S. Climate Alliance of 19 states and 1 territory
+has cut its emissions 14 percent, on track to meet the Paris
+Agreement goals. We achieved this progress with energy
+conservation, energy efficiency, solar, public transit, and
+other sustainable actions.
+ In conclusion, the U.S. national parks protect some of the
+most irreplaceable natural areas and cultural sites in the
+world. Cutting carbon pollution would reduce human-caused
+climate change and help save our national parks for future
+generations. Thank you.
+
+ [The prepared statement of Dr. Gonzalez follows:]
+ Prepared Statement of Patrick Gonzalez, Ph.D., University of
+ California, Berkeley
+ executive summary
+ From wildfires burning in Yosemite National Park, California, to
+glaciers melting in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, published
+scientific research has detected changes globally and in United States
+(U.S.) national parks and attributed them to human-caused climate
+change. These impacts are occurring because climate change since 1895
+has exposed the national parks to twice the heating of the country as a
+whole and to more severe aridity. Without cuts to pollution from cars,
+power plants, deforestation, and other human sources, continued climate
+change could increase future temperatures up to six times faster than
+historical rates, threatening the unique landscapes, plants, and
+animals in parks. Adaptation of resource management could decrease some
+projected damage. Yet, cutting carbon pollution from human sources is
+the solution that targets the cause of climate change. Emissions
+reductions could lower projected heating in national parks by one-half
+to two-thirds. The lowered heating would reduce risks of severe
+wildfire, disappearances of plant and animal species, and other threats
+to our national parks.
+ introduction
+ Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and members of the Committee, thank you
+for the invitation to speak on the science of human-caused climate
+change in the U.S. national parks. I am Patrick Gonzalez, a forest
+ecologist and Associate Adjunct Professor at the University of
+California, Berkeley, in the Department of Environmental Science,
+Policy, and Management. I am also the Principal Climate Change
+Scientist of the U.S. National Park Service, but today I am speaking
+under my Berkeley affiliation, not for the Park Service. I earned my
+Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley, and have conducted and
+published field research on climate change for 25 years. I have also
+served for over 8 years as the lead for climate change science in the
+U.S. National Park Service. I am a lead author on four reports of the
+Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the organization that
+produces the authoritative scientific assessments of climate change,
+for which it was awarded a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
+ human cause of climate change
+ The human cause of climate change (1) is an important scientific
+fact because it points us to solutions to the problem. Atmospheric
+measurements show that carbon dioxide has increased to its highest
+level in 800,000 years (Figure 1) (2-5). Measurements show that the
+increased carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
+come from cars, power plants, deforestation, and other human sources
+(6). Chemical analyses show that the additional carbon dioxide bears
+the unique chemical signature of fossil fuels--coal, oil, and gas--not
+of natural emissions from volcanoes (7). Human sources now emit twice
+the amount of carbon dioxide that vegetation, soils, and the oceans can
+naturally absorb (6). This is the fundamental imbalance that causes
+climate change.
+
+ The increase in carbon dioxide has intensified the greenhouse
+effect, the trapping of heat close to the surface of the Earth.
+Consequently, the world has heated to its highest temperature in 800
+years (8). Measurements of the potential causal factors--human and
+natural--show that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human
+activities caused 97 percent of historical heating (9). Solar cycles
+and other natural factors caused just the remaining 3 percent.
+Therefore, scientific evidence shows that human activities are causing
+climate change.
+
+[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
+
+ Figure 1. Atmospheric carbon dioxide 800,000 years ago to 2018 AD.
+
+ historical impacts in u.s. national parks
+ The magnitude of climate change across all the U.S. national parks
+was not known until recent research by colleagues and me. In 2018, we
+published the first spatial analyses of temperature and precipitation
+trends across all 417 U.S. national parks (10). Our analyses of
+historical data revealed that climate change has exposed the national
+parks to conditions hotter and drier than the country as a whole. This
+occurs because extensive parts of the parks are in extreme
+environments--the Arctic, high mountains, and the arid Southwest.
+
+ Our findings show that temperatures in the national park area
+increased at a rate of 1+C (approximately 2+F.) per century from 1895
+to 2010, double the national rate. At the same time, precipitation
+decreased across a greater fraction of the national park area (12
+percent) than the country as a whole (3 percent). Out of all 417
+national parks, temperatures increased most in Denali National
+Preserve, Alaska (4.3+C [approximately 8+F.] per century) (Figure 2),
+and rainfall declined most in Honouliuli National Monument, Hawaii (85
+percent decrease per century).
+ The implications of this increased heat and aridity in the national
+parks were not comprehensively known until recently. In 2017, I
+published the first comprehensive assessment of published research on
+climate change impacts and vulnerabilities in U.S. national parks (11).
+This section on historical impacts provides cases from that
+publication, only including research that has employed the research
+procedures of detection and attribution (1).
+
+ Detection is the finding of statistically significant changes over
+time that are different than natural variation. Attribution is the
+analysis of different potential causes, natural and human, to determine
+their relative importance. In many national parks, it is easier to tell
+if human-caused climate change is the main cause of changes in the
+field because many parks have been protected from urbanization, timber
+harvesting, grazing, and other non-climate disturbances.
+
+[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
+
+Figure 2. Temperature change from 1895 to 2010 due to human-caused
+climate change. Map: Trend in annual temperature in degrees Celsius per
+ century, with park boundaries in green. Graph: Statistically
+ significant trend for the area of the 417 U.S. national parks.
+
+ Historical impacts detected and attributed to human-caused climate
+change include:
+
+ Glaciers melting In Glacier Bay National Park (NP),
+ Alaska, climate change melted 640 meters (2100 ft.) of ice
+ (depth) from Muir Glacier from 1948 to 2000 (Figure 3)
+ (12,13). In Glacier NP, Montana, climate change melted 1.5
+ km (1 mi.) of ice (length) from Agassiz Glacier from 1926
+ to 1979 (13,14). In the North Cascades NP complex,
+ Washington, climate change melted four glaciers away
+ completely from 1984 to 2004 (13,15).
+
+ [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5200.003
+
+ .epsFigure 3. Melting of Muir Glacier, Glacier Bay National Park,
+ Alaska. Top: August 13, 1941 (photo by William O. Field, U.S.
+Geological Survey). Bottom: August 31, 2004 (photo by Bruce F. Molnia,
+ U.S. Geological Survey).
+
+ Snowpack decline Across the western U.S., including North
+ Cascades NP, Washington, and 10 other national parks,
+ climate change has melted snowpack to its lowest level in
+ eight centuries (16).
+
+ Wildfire increase Across the western U.S., including
+ Yellowstone NP, Wyoming, and Yosemite NP, California,
+ climate change doubled the area burned by wildfire from
+ 1984 to 2015, compared to the area of natural burning (17).
+ Wildfire is a natural part of many ecosystems but excessive
+ wildfire can damage ecosystem integrity and hurt people.
+ Across the western U.S., climate was the dominant factor
+ controlling burning from 1916 to 2003, even during periods
+ of active fire suppression (18).
+
+ Tree death Across the western U.S., including Kings Canyon
+ NP, Lassen Volcanic NP, Sequoia NP, and Yosemite NP,
+ California, Mount Rainier NP, Washington, and Rocky
+ Mountain NP, Colorado, climate change doubled tree
+ mortality from 1955 to 2007 (19), due to increased aridity
+ (19,20), the most extensive bark beetle infestations in a
+ century (19-22), and increased wildfire (20).
+
+ Vegetation shifts In Yosemite NP, California, climate
+ change shifted subalpine forest upslope into subalpine
+ meadows between 1880 and 2002 (23). In Noatak National
+ Preserve, Alaska, climate change shifted boreal conifer
+ forest northward onto formerly treeless tundra between 1800
+ and 1990 (24). Climate change, by shifting warmer
+ conditions upslope and farther north, has shifted major
+ vegetation types (biomes) at sites around the world (25).
+
+ Wildlife shifts In Yosemite NP, California, field research
+ showed that climate change shifted the ranges of the
+ American pika, a small alpine mammal, and other species 500
+ meters upslope (approximately 1600 ft.) from 1920 to 2006,
+ when temperature increased 3+C (approximately 5+F) (26).
+ Because the national park had protected the survey area,
+ timber harvesting, grazing, and hunting were not major
+ factors.
+
+ Analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird Count data across the U.S.,
+ including sites in numerous national parks, found that
+ climate change shifted the average winter range of 254 bird
+ species northward 15 km (9 mi.) from 1975 to 2004 (27).
+ Because of this, the evening grosbeak disappeared from
+ counts in Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Michigan,
+ and Shenandoah NP, Virginia.
+
+ Sea level rise Climate change has raised sea level 22 cm
+ (9 in.) since 1854 at Golden Gate National Recreation Area,
+ San Francisco, California (28-30), 42 cm (17 in.) since
+ 1856 at New York City (29-31), not far from the Statue of
+ Liberty National Monument, and 30 cm (12 in.) since 1924 at
+ Washington, DC (29,30,32), not far from the Jefferson
+ Memorial and the White House, which is a national park.
+
+ Coral bleaching Climate change bleached and killed up to
+ 80 percent of coral reef area in 2005 at sites in Biscayne
+ NP, Florida, and Buck Island Reef National Monument, Salt
+ River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve,
+ Virgin Islands National Park, and Virgin Islands Coral Reef
+ National Monument (33,34). That year, climate change had
+ caused the hottest sea surface temperatures recorded in the
+ Caribbean Sea since 1855.
+
+ future vulnerabilities
+ To quantify potential future changes in national parks, colleagues
+and I analyzed all available climate projections from the
+Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as part of the first spatial
+analysis of climate trends across all 417 U.S. national parks (10). Our
+results indicate that continued carbon emissions under the worst
+scenario could increase temperatures in the 21st century six times
+faster than occurred in the 20th century. Temperatures in national
+parks could increase up to 9+C (16+F.) by 2100, in the national parks
+of Alaska, and rainfall could decline by as much as 28 percent, in the
+national parks of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Aridity could also increase
+in Big Bend NP, Texas, Everglades NP, Florida, and other national parks
+at southern latitudes.
+
+ Published research on U.S. national park resources indicates that
+continued climate change could damage many of the globally unique
+ecosystems and resources that the parks protect. These vulnerabilities
+include:
+
+ Loss of glaciers Climate change could cause, under the
+ worst scenario, complete melting of glaciers from Glacier
+ National Park, Montana, by the 2030s (35) and the
+ disappearance of Sperry Glacier from Rocky Mountain NP by
+ the 2040s (36).
+
+ Wildfire increase The hotter temperatures of climate
+ change could, under a high emissions scenario, increase
+ wildfire frequencies in Yellowstone NP and Grand Teton NP,
+ Wyoming, 300 percent to 1000 percent (37) and up to 300
+ percent in Yosemite NP, California, by 2100 (38).
+
+ Tree death The more severe aridity of climate change
+ could, under a high emissions scenario, reduce suitable
+ habitat of the Joshua tree in the southwestern U.S. 90
+ percent by 2100, leading to extensive death of Joshua trees
+ in Joshua Tree NP, California (39,40). The more severe
+ aridity of climate change also increases the risk of higher
+ mortality of foothills palo verde and ocotillo in Saguaro
+ NP, Arizona (41), pinon pine in Bandelier National
+ Monument, New Mexico (42), and coast redwoods, the tallest
+ living things on Earth, in Muir Woods National Monument,
+ California (43,44). Loss of snow under projected climate
+ change increases the vulnerability of Alaska yellow cedar
+ to increased mortality in Sitka National Historical Park,
+ Alaska (45). Under projected climate change, 16 percent to
+ 41 percent of total national park area is highly
+ vulnerability to northward and upslope vegetation shifts
+ (biome shifts) (25).
+
+ Loss of wildlife Climate change may shift habitats upslope
+ to such an extent that the American pika, a small alpine
+ mammal that lives at the highest elevations, could
+ disappear from Lassen Volcanic NP, California (46). Climate
+ change could also exacerbate cheatgrass invasions in
+ Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve, Idaho,
+ leading to substantial decline of the sage grouse (47,48).
+ Numerous national parks could lose local bird species and
+ be colonized by new migrants (49). At Canaveral National
+ Seashore, Florida, green turtles are vulnerable to
+ increased mortality from flooding of nests by increases in
+ storms (50).
+
+ Inundation from sea level rise Sea level rise due to
+ climate change could inundate much of Everglades National
+ Park, Florida (51), the center of Golden Gate National
+ Recreation Area, California (52,53), the National Mall and
+ other national parks in Washington, DC (54), one-third of
+ the area of Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland
+ (55), and the Statue of Liberty National Monument, New York
+ (56).
+
+ Ocean acidification Corals and other marine life in Dry
+ Tortugas National Park, Florida (57), and Channel Islands
+ NP and Cabrillo National Monument, California (58), are
+ vulnerable to dissolving in acidified waters under
+ continued climate change.
+
+ adaptation of natural resource management
+ Adaptation to climate change is the adjustment of practices in a
+way that moderates future harm. One adaptation measure under
+implementation in a national park is the protection of refugia for the
+Joshua tree in Joshua Tree NP, California (40). Other adaptation
+measures under consideration for parks include conservation of refugia
+for mountain plants and animals (59,60), and conservation of cooler
+water refugia for fish (61). Prescribed burning is an adaptation
+measure that reduces future risks of catastrophic wildfire and tree
+death by removing an unnatural buildup of fuel and small trees where
+old policies suppressed natural wildfire (62,63). While adaptation
+measures are important to help maintain ecosystem integrity, they only
+treat symptoms of climate change, not the cause.
+ carbon solutions
+ Published research by colleagues and me concludes that reducing the
+cause of climate change--carbon pollution from cars, power plants,
+deforestation, and other human sources--can save national parks from
+the most extreme heat in the future (10). Compared to the worst
+scenario, reduced carbon emissions would lower projected heating in
+national parks by one-half to two-thirds by 2100.
+ The reduced heating could produce real benefits on the ground.
+While under the worst emissions scenario, 16 percent of plant and
+animal species globally could be at risk of extinction (64), the risk
+drops to 5 percent under the lowest emissions scenario of meeting the
+Paris Agreement goal (65). Similarly, global sea level could rise 74 cm
+(29 in.) under the worst emissions scenario, but rise 44 m (17 in.)
+under the Paris Agreement goal (29). In Yosemite NP, California,
+climate change under the worst emissions scenario could triple burned
+area by 2100, but a low emissions scenario could keep wildfires near to
+their current level (38).
+ A supplemental carbon solution is the conservation of forests,
+which naturally reduce climate change by removing carbon dioxide from
+the atmosphere and storing it in leaves and wood. Coast redwood forest
+near Redwood NP, California, contains more carbon per area on the
+ground than any other forest in the world (66). The 27 national parks
+in California together contain as much carbon as the annual emissions
+of 7.4 million Americans, or the combined population of the cities of
+Boston, Charlotte, Dallas, Kansas City, Los Angeles, and Miami (67).
+This is a substantial amount of carbon, but those millions of people
+can burn the equivalent of all the carbon in the coast redwoods and
+other vegetation in the national parks in California in just one year.
+Therefore, forest conservation is insufficient as a sole solution to
+climate change. This points to the need for reducing emissions from
+fossil fuel burning.
+ Analyses by the IPCC recently confirmed that it is still possible
+to limit future heating to the Paris Agreement goal of a temperature
+increase less than 2+C (approximately 4+F) (68). The U.S. has already
+demonstrated its ability to cut emissions. From 2007 to 2015, the U.S.
+cut emissions 8 percent (69). From 2005 to 2016, the U.S. Climate
+Alliance of 19 states and one territory cut its emissions 14 percent,
+on track to meet the Paris Agreement goal (70). We have achieved this
+progress through energy conservation, improved efficiency, renewable
+energy, public transit, and other available practices.
+ The U.S. national parks protect some of the most irreplaceable
+natural areas and cultural sites in the world. Cutting carbon pollution
+would reduce human-caused climate change and help save our national
+parks for future generations.
+ scientific references
+1. Bindoff, N.L. et al. 2013. Detection and attribution of climate
+change: From global to regional. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
+Change. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. [Stocker, T.F.
+et al. (eds.)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
+
+2. Petit, J.R. et al. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past
+420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-
+436.
+
+3. Monnin, E. et al. 2004. Evidence for substantial accumulation rate
+variability in Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization
+of CO2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C, and DML ice cores. Earth
+and Planetary Science Letters 224: 45-54.
+
+4. Luthi, D. et al. 2008. High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration
+record 650,000-800,000 years before present. Nature 453: 379-382.
+
+5. Bereiter, B. et al. 2015. Revision of the EPICA Dome C
+CO2 record from 800 to 600 kyr before present. Geophysical
+Research Letters 42: 542-549.
+
+6. Ciais, P. et al. 2013. Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. In
+Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: The
+Physical Science Basis. [Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)] Cambridge
+University Press, Cambridge, UK.
+
+7. Denman, K.L. et al. 2007. Couplings between changes in the climate
+system and biogeochemistry. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
+Change. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. [Solomon, S.
+et al. (eds.)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
+
+8. Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. 2013. Information from paleoclimate
+archives. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change
+2013: The Physical Science Basis. [Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)]
+Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
+
+9. Myhre, G. et al. 2013. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.
+In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: The
+Physical Science Basis. [Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)] Cambridge
+University Press, Cambridge, UK.
+
+10. Gonzalez, P. et al. 2018. Disproportionate magnitude of climate
+change in United States national parks. Environmental Research Letters
+13: 104001. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aade09.
+
+11. Gonzalez, P. 2017. Climate change trends, impacts, and
+vulnerabilities in US national parks. In Beissinger, S.R., D.D.
+Ackerly, H. Doremus, and G.E. Machlis (eds.) Science, Conservation, and
+National Parks. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
+
+12. Larsen, C.F. et al. 2007. Glacier changes in southeast Alaska and
+northwest British Columbia and contribution to sea level rise. Journal
+of Geophysical Research 112: F01007. doi:10.1029/2006JF000586.
+
+13. Marzeion, B. et al. 2014. Attribution of global glacier mass loss
+to anthropogenic and natural causes. Science 345: 919-921.
+
+14. Pederson, G.T. et al. 2004. Decadal-scale climate drivers for
+glacial dynamics in Glacier National Park, Montana, USA. Geophysical
+Research Letters 31: L12203. doi:10.1029/2004GL019770.
+
+15. Pelto, M.S. 2006. The current disequilibrium of North Cascade
+glaciers. Hydrological Processes 20: 769-779.
+
+16. Pederson, G.T. et al. 2011. The unusual nature of recent snowpack
+declines in the North American Cordillera. Science 333: 332-335.
+
+17. Abatzoglou, J.T. and A.P. Williams. 2016. Impact of anthropogenic
+climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proceedings of
+the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 113: 11,770-11,775.
+
+18. Littell, J.S. et al. Climate and wildfire area burned in western
+U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916-2003. Ecological Applications 19: 1003-1021.
+
+19. van Mantgem, P.J. et al. 2009. Widespread increase of tree
+mortality rates in the western United States. Science 323: 521-524.
+
+20. Berner, L.T. et al. 2017. Tree mortality from fires, bark beetles,
+and timber harvest during a hot and dry decade in the western United
+States (2003-2012). Environmental Research Letters 12: 065005.
+doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6f94.
+
+21. Raffa, K.F. et al. 2008. Cross-scale drivers of natural
+disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: The dynamics of bark
+beetle eruptions. BioScience 58: 501-517.
+
+22. Macfarlane, W.W., J.A. Logan, and W.R. Kern. 2013. An innovative
+aerial assessment of Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem mountain pine
+beetle-caused whitebark pine mortality. Ecological Applications 23:
+421-437.
+
+23. Millar, C.I. et al. 2004. Response of subalpine conifers in the
+Sierra Nevada, California, U.S.A., to 20th-century warming and decadal
+climate variability. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 36: 181-
+200.
+
+24. Suarez, F. et al. 1999. Expansion of forest stands into tundra in
+the Noatak National Preserve, northwest Alaska. Ecoscience 6: 465-470.
+
+25. Gonzalez, P. et al. 2010. Global patterns in the vulnerability of
+ecosystems to vegetation shifts due to climate change. Global Ecology
+and Biogeography 19: 755-768.
+
+26. Moritz, C. et al. 2008. Impact of a century of climate change on
+small-mammal communities in Yosemite National Park, USA. Science 322:
+261-264.
+
+27. La Sorte, F.A. and F.R. Thompson. 2007. Poleward shifts in winter
+ranges of North American birds. Ecology 88: 1803-1812.
+
+28. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2019. Relative sea
+level trend 9414290 San Francisco, California. https://
+tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414290.
+
+29. Church, J.A. et al. 2013. Sea level change. In Intergovernmental
+Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
+Basis. [Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)] Cambridge University Press,
+Cambridge, UK.
+
+30. Slangen, A.B.A. et al. 2016. Anthropogenic forcing dominates global
+mean sea-level rise since 1970. Nature Climate Change 6: 701-705.
+
+31. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2019. Relative sea
+level trend 8518750 The Battery, New York. https://
+tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750.
+
+32. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2019. Relative sea
+level trend 8594900 Washington, District of Columbia. https://
+tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8594900.
+
+33. Eakin, C.M. et al. 2010. Caribbean corals in crisis: Record thermal
+stress, bleaching, and mortality in 2005. PLoS ONE 5: e13969.
+doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013969.
+
+34. Cramer, W. et al. 2014. Detection and attribution of observed
+impacts. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change
+2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. [Field, C.B. et al.
+(eds.)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
+
+35. Hall, M.H.P. and D.B. Fagre. 2003. Modeled climate-induced glacier
+change in Glacier National Park, 1850-2100. Bioscience 53: 131-140.
+
+36. Brown, J., J. Harper, and N. Humphrey. 2010. Cirque glacier
+sensitivity to 21st century warming: Sperry Glacier, Rocky Mountains,
+USA. Global and Planetary Change 74: 91-98.
+
+37. Westerling, A.L. et al. 2011. Continued warming could transform
+Greater Yellowstone fire regimes by mid-21st century. Proceedings of
+the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 108: 13165-13170.
+
+38. Westerling, A.L. et al. 2011a. Climate change and growth scenarios
+for California wildfire. Climatic Change 109: S445-463.
+
+39. Cole, K.L. et al. 2011. Past and ongoing shifts in Joshua tree
+distribution support future modeled range contraction. Ecological
+Applications 21: 137-149.
+
+40. Barrows, C.W. and M.L. Murphy-Mariscal. 2012. Modeling impacts of
+climate change on Joshua trees at their southern boundary: How scale
+impacts predictions. Biological Conservation 152: 29-36.
+
+41. Munson, S.M. et al. 2012. Forecasting climate change impacts to
+plant community composition in the Sonoran Desert region. Global Change
+Biology 18: 1083-1095.
+
+42. Williams, A.P. et al. 2013. Temperature as a potent driver of
+regional forest drought stress and tree mortality. Nature Climate
+Change 3: 292-297.
+
+43. Johnstone, J.A. and T.E. Dawson. 2010. Climatic context and
+ecological implications of summer fog decline in the coast redwood
+region. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 107:
+4533-4538.
+
+44. Fernandez, M., H.H. Hamilton, and L.M. Kueppers. 2015. Back to the
+future: Using historical climate variation to project near-term shifts
+in habitat suitable for coast redwood. Global Change Biology 21: 4141-
+4152.
+
+45. Buma, B. et al. 2017. Emerging climate-driven disturbance
+processes: Widespread mortality associated with snow-to-rain
+transitions across 10+ of latitude and half the range of a climate-
+threatened conifer. Global Change Biology 23: 2903-2914.
+
+46. Stewart, J.A.E. et al. 2015. Revisiting the past to foretell the
+future: Summer temperature and habitat area predict pika extirpations
+in California. Journal of Biogeography 42: 880-890.
+
+47. Coates, P.S. et al. 2016. Wildfire, climate, and invasive grass
+interactions negatively impact an indicator species by reshaping
+sagebrush ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
+of the USA 113: 12,745-12,750.
+
+48. Boyte, S.P., B.K. Wylie, and D.J. Major. 2016. Cheatgrass percent
+cover change: Comparing recent estimates to climate change-driven
+predictions in the northern Great Basin. Rangeland Ecology and
+Management 69: 265-279.
+
+49. Wu, J.X. et al. 2018. Projected avifaunal responses to climate
+change across the U.S. National Park System. PLoS ONE 13 e0190557
+doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190557.
+
+50. Pike, D.A. and J.C. Stiner. 2007. Sea turtle species vary in their
+susceptibility to tropical cyclones. Oecologia 153: 471-478.
+
+51. Flower, H., M. Rains, and C. Fitz. 2017. Visioning the future:
+Scenarios modeling of the Florida coastal Everglades. Environmental
+Management 60: 989-1009.
+
+52. Griggs, G. et al. 2017. Rising Seas in California: An Update on
+Sea-Level Rise Science. California Ocean Science Trust, Oakland, CA.
+
+53. CMG Landscape Architecture. 2016. Crissy Field + Sea Level Rise-Up.
+CMG, San Francisco, CA.
+
+54. Ayyub, B.M., H.G. Braileanu, and N. Qureshi. 2012. Prediction and
+impact of sea level rise on properties and infrastructure of
+Washington, DC. Risk Analysis 32: 1901-1918.
+
+55. Murdukhayeva, A. et al. 2013. Assessment of inundation risk from
+sea level rise and storm surge in northeastern coastal national parks.
+Journal of Coastal Research 29: 1-16.
+
+56. Marzeion, B. and A. Levermann. 2014. Loss of cultural world
+heritage and currently inhabited places to sea-level rise.
+Environmental Research Letters 9: 034001. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/
+034001.
+
+57. Kuffner, I.B., T.D. Hickey, and J.M. Morrison. 2013. Calcification
+rates of the massive coral Siderastrea siderea and crustose coralline
+algae along the Florida Keys (USA) outer-reef tract. Coral Reefs 32:
+987-997.
+
+58. Marshall, K.N. et al. 2017. Risks of ocean acidification in the
+California Current food web and fisheries: ecosystem model projections.
+Global Change Biology 23: 1525-1539.
+
+59. Johnston, K.M., K.A. Freund, and O.J. Schmitz. 2012. Projected
+range shifting by montane mammals under climate change: implications
+for Cascadia's National Parks. Ecosphere 3(11): 97. doi:10.1890/ES12-
+00077.1.
+
+60. Morelli, T.L. et al. 2016. Managing climate change refugia for
+climate adaptation. PLoS One 11: e0159909. doi:10.1371/
+journal.pone.0159909.
+
+61. Briggs, M.A. et al. 2018. Shallow bedrock limits groundwater
+seepage-based headwater climate refugia. Limnologica 68: 142-156.
+
+62. van Mantgem, P.J. et al. 2016. Does prescribed fire promote
+resistance to drought in low elevation forests of the Sierra Nevada,
+California, USA? Fire Ecology 12: 13-25.
+
+63. Boisrame, G. et al. 2017. Managed wildfire effects on forest
+resilience and water in the Sierra Nevada. Ecosystems 20: 717-732.
+
+64. Urban, M.C. 2015. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change.
+Science 348: 571-573.
+
+65. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
+2015. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Document FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add1,
+Decision 1/CP21. UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany.
+
+66. Van Pelt, R. et al. 2016. Emergent crowns and light-use
+complementarity lead to global maximum biomass and leaf area in Sequoia
+sempervirens forests. Forest Ecology and Management 375: 279-308.
+
+67. Gonzalez, P. et al. 2015. Aboveground live carbon stock changes of
+California wildland ecosystems, 2001-2010. Forest Ecology and
+Management 348: 68-77.
+
+68. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2018. Global warming of
+1.5+C. [Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. (eds.)]. World Meteorological
+Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
+
+69. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2018. Inventory of
+U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2016. US EPA, Washington,
+DC.
+
+70. U.S. Climate Alliance. 2018. Annual Report. U.S. Climate Alliance,
+Washington, DC.
+
+Publications and information by Patrick Gonzalez at http://
+www.patrickgonzalez.net, https://ourenvironment.berkeley.edu/people/
+patrick-gonzalez, and https://twitter.com/pgonzaleztweet.
+
+ ______
+
+
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Dr. Gonzalez.
+ The Chair now recognizes Dr. Lara Hansen.
+
+ STATEMENT OF LARA HANSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF
+ SCIENTIST, EcoAdapt, BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON
+
+ Dr. Hansen. Good morning, and thank you, Ms. Chairwoman,
+Ranking Member, and the Committee, for inviting me to speak
+about climate change and our public lands. I have had the honor
+to visit the Hill twice before to talk about climate change,
+first in 2004, when I was pregnant with my son. And I talked
+about the hopeful work I was conducting around the world to
+improve ecosystem management in the face of climate change: a
+discipline called adaptation. I urged the Senate to reduce
+greenhouse gas emissions and keep climate change to less than 2
+degrees Celsius.
+ In 2007, I was invited back to testify on the effects of
+climate change on marine ecosystems. My son was now three. I
+applauded Congress for the existence of several bills to reduce
+greenhouse gas emissions. I repeated the need to keep climate
+change to less than 2 degrees Celsius, and I added a request
+for the creation of a national adaptation policy with an
+extension agency to provide technical support.
+ The following year, two colleagues and I co-founded
+EcoAdapt, in order to bring the skills we were supporting
+internationally to the United States, so our own country could
+become more durable to the insults of climate change.
+ A decade later EcoAdapt is now a team of 12 supporting the
+innovation of adaptation approaches across the United States.
+We see a growing number of people incorporating the realities
+of climate change into their work, but not nearly to the extent
+necessary.
+ We host the biennial National Adaptation Forum, and in 2017
+we had over 1,000 attendees. We are a country of 325 million.
+Certainly, we need more than 1,000 people doing this work. Our
+country is utterly unprepared for the scale of this challenge.
+ In every one of your districts, there are decisions being
+made every day, not only on public lands, but also on private
+lands and in our communities that are vulnerable to climate
+change. Not considering the implications of climate change will
+result in investments in infrastructure, management, and
+protection that will not garner the anticipated outcomes.
+Instead, we will end up spending additional funds to rebuild,
+risking community members' lives and livelihoods, and doing
+damage to our environment. Explicit consideration of climate
+change and our actions today is vital for our lives tomorrow.
+ As lawmakers, you have the power to do something. For my 20
+years of professional experience in the field of adaptation, I
+recommend the following.
+ One, create a national adaptation policy that requires the
+consideration of the impacts from and to climate change, and
+evaluation of funding and permitting for land use activities
+and, quite frankly, everything else.
+ Two, create a national climate change adaptation and
+mitigation extension agency. This would provide technical
+support to public and private land managers and everyone else
+at the Federal, state, and local level.
+ Three, require the protection and management of our public
+lands with an awareness that the climate is changing. This
+means the agencies entrusted to protect our public lands must
+evaluate the climate change vulnerability of ecosystems and the
+actions proposed on these lands such that they can act to
+reduce that risk. This needs to be part of how we do business.
+ We must ensure that we are protecting adequate and
+appropriate space for ecosystems to function under changing
+conditions, including protecting refugia, connectivity,
+functionality, and employing forward restoration.
+ We must support our land stewards with the staff and
+funding to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of
+management, and give them the ability to make management
+decisions that prepare us for future conditions.
+ We must manage lands for the long term, to maximize our
+rate of return, which will be realized as access to clean air,
+clean and plentiful water, flood control, wildlife habitat,
+improved mental health, spiritual opportunities, recreational
+enjoyment, and long-term jobs. Our public lands must not be
+managed for quarterly profit margins.
+ Four, re-evaluate acceptable levels of non-climate
+stressors on our public lands. From roads or invasive species,
+to over-harvest or eutrophication, to industrial chemicals from
+gas extraction and mining, or chemical fire suppressants, the
+impact of these stressors can be compounded by the
+manifestations of climate change.
+ And, of course, since that child I spoke about at the
+beginning of my testimony is now a teenager, I know that I
+often have to repeat myself to get action, such as emptying the
+dish rack. So, here it goes.
+ Number 5, keep global climate change to well below 2
+degrees Celsius. Actually, we now know that 1.5 degrees Celsius
+is the more prudent target. We need to reduce our national
+consumption and production of fossil fuels to stop making the
+problem worse. The cost of inaction is unaffordable for us and
+our children.
+ I am delighted that Congress and this Committee are again
+taking up the issue of climate change. This time let's do
+something to increase the likelihood of good outcomes. Let's
+act now. Thank you.
+
+ [The prepared statement of Dr. Hansen follows:]
+Prepared Statement of Dr. Lara J. Hansen, Chief Scientist and Executive
+ Director, EcoAdapt
+ Protecting our public lands is a critical part of an adaptation
+strategy that not only safeguards these areas and the ecosystems that
+inhabit them, but also the ecosystem services upon which our citizens
+rely. Investment in the protection of public lands may be our best path
+to enduring access to clean air, clean and plentiful water, flood
+control, wildlife habitat, improved mental health, spiritual heritage,
+and recreational enjoyment. In my testimony I will introduce you to the
+ways by which we can increase the resilience of our public lands in the
+face of climate change and what we need to make this happen.
+
+ I would like to begin by providing some context. I am the head of a
+non-profit organization that is filling a very large gap--creating a
+climate-savvy society by innovating, facilitating and training
+practitioners in adaptation solutions. EcoAdapt's \1\ sole focus is to
+``meet the challenges of climate change.'' That means helping everyone
+from foresters and marine protected area managers to city planners and
+public health officials apply a climate lens through which to evaluate
+their work and develop solutions that will allow them to succeed in
+meeting their mandate even as the world is changing around them. We do
+this through four programs. Our State of Adaptation program takes a
+research approach to assessing what activities people are undertaking,
+what is working and what is preventing success. Our Climate Adaptation
+Knowledge Exchange is the largest adaptation resource database. It is
+available via an online, open access portal (CAKEx.org) \2\ that is
+accessed by thousands of people from around the world each month.
+Awareness to Action is our workshop methodology that has provided
+hands-on training in climate change adaptation to over 6,000
+individuals representing hundreds of organizations and agencies across
+the country (and a few around the world). Finally, our National
+Adaptation Forum \3\ is a biennial convening of adaptation
+professionals that affords the opportunity for the exchange of ideas
+and the innovation of the next generation of climate solutions.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \1\ http://ecoadapt.org/.
+ \2\ https://www.cakex.org/.
+ \3\ https://www.nationaladaptationforum.org/.
+
+ In the past 10 years, my team at EcoAdapt has learned a lot about
+good adaptation practice--on the ground and through government support.
+I'd like to share some of that with you today. My hope is that you will
+see the importance of supporting this type of work in your own
+Districts and through the Federal mechanisms that can help to make all
+of our lands and communities climate savvy. Because the effects of
+climate change that are being felt today will continue and intensify
+for centuries or millennia to come, every day we are afforded the
+opportunity to make management and planning decisions that either help
+us prepare for these changes or leave us more and more vulnerable.
+Let's take the path that leads to a better future. A path on which we
+take both mitigation (reducing the greenhouse gases that cause climate
+change) and adaptation (preparing for and responding to the climate
+change impacts that are unavoidable due to past emissions) seriously.
+These are not choices to be played against each other--both are
+necessary responses to climate change. Doing one without the other will
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+lead us to a false sense of failure.
+
+ Ignoring climate change in the management of National Parks,
+forests and other public lands is not an option. It was not an option
+the first time I testified before a congressional committee (Senate
+Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation) in March 2004,
+almost exactly 15 years ago, when atmospheric CO2 was 378
+ppm and global temperature had increased 0.6 degrees Celsius. Yet we
+did not take action. It was not an option when I testified in 2007 to
+the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation's
+Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, when
+atmospheric CO2 was 386 ppm. And still we did not change our
+trajectory. Today atmospheric CO2 has reached 410 ppm and
+global temperature has risen 1 degree Celsius. I am back today hoping
+that we are ready to fully address this massive problem with the level
+of action it requires. The best place to start is somewhere, so let's
+start by taking action on our public lands.
+ how can we increase the resilience of public lands in the face of
+ climate change?
+ Public lands are the places where plants and animals thrive, where
+they have the space to move and grow. They are vital for providing
+intact ecosystems and connectivity, supporting high biodiversity and
+healthy species. Public lands also provide critical ecosystem services
+upon which neighboring and non-neighboring communities, non-local
+visitors, and others have come to rely. In particular, public lands
+provide abundant fresh water for human and environmental uses; building
+materials and other wood products; forage for livestock; clean air;
+water filtration and maintenance of water quality; protection from
+wildfire, floods, and erosion; carbon sequestration; recreational
+opportunities; aesthetic values from scenery; spiritual and religious
+values; and cultural heritage.
+
+ Climate change presents a significant threat to our public lands
+and the services that they provide. Resilient public lands enable
+species and ecosystems and the services they provide to rebound in the
+face of rapid environmental change. We can increase the resilience of
+public lands by implementing a number of well-understood practices,
+including incorporating climate change impacts and adaptation into all
+planning efforts, improving regional coordination, assessing the
+effectiveness of adaptation actions and implementing those that
+represent the ``best bets'' under changing climate conditions,
+protecting adequate and appropriate space, reducing local and regional
+climate change and non-climate stressors, and reducing the rate and
+extent of climate change. By implementing these practices, we are
+safeguarding the species, ecosystems, and services that we not only
+hold dear but are essential to our way of life.
+
+ Incorporate climate change impacts and adaptation into all planning
+efforts. Incorporating climate change into planning efforts can take
+the form of discrete ``climate action or adaptation plans'' or the
+direct integration of climate change into existing planning processes.
+For example, through our vulnerability assessment and adaptation
+planning methodologies, EcoAdapt helps natural resource managers from
+state and Federal agencies evaluate how the species and habitats they
+manage are vulnerable to climate change, reassess and revise their
+current actions and projects to address vulnerabilities, and identify
+new actions to integrate into future projects. Some examples include
+work in California and the Hawaiian Islands.
+
+ EcoAdapt, in collaboration with numerous other partners, worked
+with the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (located along
+the north-central California coast and ocean) to evaluate vulnerability
+of their species, habitats, and ecosystem services to climate change
+and create a Climate Adaptation Plan.\4\ The region's natural resources
+and the services they provide are vulnerable to increasing ocean
+temperatures, sea level rise, and extreme weather events (winds, waves,
+storms). The plan integrates climate adaptation into existing
+management frameworks and recommends over 75 adaptation strategies for
+regional management agencies to take to enhance coastal resilience,
+including implementing living shorelines, protecting and restoring
+habitat, limiting human disturbance, addressing invasive species,
+promoting education, and investing in science needs.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \4\ Hutto, S. 2016. Climate-Smart Adaptation for the North-central
+California Coast and Ocean. Ed. Rachel M. Gregg [Case study on a
+project of the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary]. Retrieved
+from CAKE: https://www.cakex.org/case-studies/climate-smart-adaptation-
+north-central-california-coast-and-ocean.
+
+ In Southern California, EcoAdapt worked with natural resource
+managers to re-examine the Ojai Community Defense Zone Project, which
+planned to restore and expand fuel-breaks in chaparral habitats
+adjacent to multiple human communities.\5\ Chaparral habitats, as well
+as adjacent communities, are vulnerable to increased wildfire severity
+and increased extreme precipitation events projected under climate
+change. Increasing human populations may exacerbate these impacts, as
+fire ignitions in the region are primarily human-caused. While a number
+of existing management actions help to alleviate climate impacts,
+resource managers identified new actions to integrate into future
+projects. For example, planting native perennial grasses within fuel-
+breaks to reduce invasive grass establishment (invasive grasses
+contribute to more severe wildfires) and establishing trigger points
+for recreation closures and restrictions (helps reduce the number of
+human-caused ignitions).
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \5\ Kershner, J.M., L.E. Hilberg, and W.A. Reynier. 2017. The Ojai
+Community Defense Zone Project: A Southern California Climate Change
+Adaptation Case Study. Retrieved from CAKE: https://www.cakex.org/case-
+studies/ojai-community-defense-zone-project-southern-california-
+climate-change-adaptation-case-study.
+
+ In Hawaii, after going through a vulnerability assessment-
+adaptation planning process \6\ with EcoAdapt, managers from the Plant
+Extinction Prevention Program decided to shift the amount of seeds they
+plant vs. store in response to projected climate threats such as
+increased drought risk and altered precipitation amount and timing.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \6\ Gregg, R.M., editor. 2018. Hawaiian Islands Climate
+Vulnerability and Adaptation Synthesis. EcoAdapt, Bainbridge Island,
+WA. http://bit.ly/HawaiiClimate.
+
+ Improve regional coordination. Improving coordination helps
+increase the resilience of public lands and associated ecosystem
+services by providing opportunities to leverage resources (e.g.,
+funding, data, people time), building buy-in and support for plans and
+on-the-ground projects, improving communication about planned and
+ongoing activities, and providing a shared understanding of threats,
+solutions, and priorities. For example, the Flagstaff Watershed
+Protection Project is a partnership effort between the state of
+Arizona, city of Flagstaff, and Coconino National Forest to help reduce
+the risk of devastating wildfire and post-fire flooding in neighboring
+watersheds.\7\ In 2010, the Schultz Fire in Coconino National Forest
+severely burned thousands of acres of steep terrain; over 20 major
+flash flooding events occurred after the fire, destroying community
+drinking water and costing over $130 million in damages. Increased fire
+severity and extreme precipitation events are projected to continue
+with climate change, requiring targeted forest restoration work and
+collaboration to reduce the risk of fire and flooding and subsequent
+impacts on the community. This project is one of only a handful of
+examples where restoration work on a national forest is being funded
+primarily by a municipality.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \7\ Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project: http://
+flagstaffwatershedprotection.org.
+
+ The Northern California Climate Adaptation Project is a multi-
+stakeholder, collaborative effort to assess the impacts of climate
+change on and co-develop adaptation strategies and actions for habitats
+and species of northwestern California.\8\ The USDA Forest Service and
+Bureau of Land Management manage over 6 million acres of public lands
+in the region, and plan to use findings from this project to inform
+revisions of their land management plans. Many tribes occur within or
+around these public lands and are affected by management decisions made
+by these two entities. Tribal input and participation have been
+critically important in this project, helping to identify potential
+conflicts with adaptation options. For example, increasing the use of
+prescribed burning reduces the likelihood of high-severity wildfires (a
+current and future threat to the region) however, increased burning in
+the spring has the potential to conflict with cultural values and site
+use during the season. Explicitly incorporating tribal considerations
+into adaptation planning can help build buy-in for management actions
+on public lands and enhance the resilience of neighboring tribal
+communities.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \8\ Northern California Climate Adaptation Project: http://
+ecoadapt.org/programs/adaptation-consultations/norcal.
+
+ Assess adaptation effectiveness. The importance of making informed
+decisions to alleviate the environmental, financial, and emotional
+costs of climate change cannot be overstated. Climate change presents a
+variety of impacts to which managers and planners must respond, ranging
+from habitat restoration and designation of protected areas to
+increased public education and outreach and broad policy changes.
+Several adaptation case studies and guidebooks have been released in
+recent years with recommendations of suitable adaptation actions to
+address different climate impact concerns. However, determining when,
+where and how a particular action may be best implemented is more
+difficult to discern. Synthesizing what has worked and what has not
+worked, as well as why, can help identify potential modifications to
+current management practices and facilitate understanding of the
+consequences of decisions. Further, science- and evidence-based
+decision making supports better management outcomes, while reducing
+costs and lowering the risk of implementing policies that may be based
+on well-intentioned but insufficient research. In addition to improving
+overall practice, a better understanding of which actions can be most
+effectively applied in different settings helps managers identify and
+leverage funding opportunities and create new or enhance existing
+partnerships to advance climate adaptation. Evaluating the science
+behind management approaches of the past to determine their usefulness
+under changing climate conditions is an evolving area of research by
+EcoAdapt. We have embarked on an effort to evaluate the body of
+scientific knowledge supporting specific climate adaptation actions to
+determine the conditions under which particular actions may be most
+effective for achieving management goals. Since 2014, we have assessed
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+wildfire, sea level rise, and ecological drought adaptation options.
+
+ Protect open space. Protecting adequate and appropriate space,
+including identifying and protecting areas of climate refugia (places
+with more stable climatic conditions, current and/or future),
+connectivity and corridors, and/or the geophysical setting continues to
+be a critical strategy for increasing the resilience of public
+lands.9,10 Protecting habitats and areas of refugia provide
+a safe haven that species can retreat to and/or persist in under
+climate change, and ensures that important ecosystem services continue
+to be available. For example, protecting habitats such as headwater
+streams or groundwater sources may be critical for maintaining water
+supply that human communities depend on. Similarly, protecting
+geophysical settings may help maintain regional biodiversity with
+climate change.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \9\ Hansen, L.J. and J.R. Hoffman. 2011. Climate Savvy: Adapting
+Conservation and Resource Management to a Changing World. Island Press,
+Washington, DC.
+ \10\ Hansen, L.J., et al. 2010. Adapting conservation to climate
+change. Conservation Biology. 24:63-68.
+
+ Reduce local and regional climate change, as well as non-climate
+stressors. Reducing local and regional climate change and minimizing
+non-climate stressors are key to increasing the resilience of public
+lands.\11\ In some cases, it may be possible to reduce local or
+regional climate changes. For example, replanting riparian vegetation
+along streams can limit water temperature increases and help keep water
+in the system. Non-climate stressors have the potential to exacerbate
+(or be exacerbated by) climate impacts. For example, invasive grasses
+alter the availability and continuity of fire fuels, contributing to
+more severe wildfires.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \11\ Hansen, L.J. and J.R. Hoffman. 2011. Climate Savvy: Adapting
+Conservation and Resource Management to a Changing World. Island Press,
+Washington, DC.
+
+ Restoration of habitat structure, function, and processes continues
+to be one of the best ways to address both climate and non-climate
+stressors. However, it is not enough to engage in restoration
+activities as we have done in the past and, in fact, ``restoring''
+ecosystems to some former state will likely make them ill-equipped to
+deal with the challenges of climate change. Instead, restoration
+activities now need to be designed with climate impacts integrated from
+the start. For example, planting drought-tolerant native species in
+areas projected to get drier rather than planting the species that have
+historically been there under wetter conditions, or implementing a
+landscape-scale approach that combines thinning, prescribed burning,
+and managed wildfire to reduce tree densities and understory vegetation
+in an area projected to see more high-severity fires, rather than
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+relying only on forest thinning.
+
+ Wildfires, particularly in the West, are increasing in frequency
+and severity. With increasing air temperatures and decreasing summer
+soil moisture levels, the probability of widespread, catastrophic
+wildfires continues to rise, threatening habitats, species, and public
+health and safety.12,13 Several approaches are used to
+manage wildfire risk, including prescribed fire, thinning, mechanical
+fuel treatments, and wildfire managed for multiple objectives. For
+example, prescribed fire has been used for decades to reduce fuel
+loads, promote more open and diverse forest structure, maintain or
+increase biodiversity, and preserve defensible space around
+infrastructure and human communities.\14\ As a climate adaptation
+action, prescribed fire reduces the risk of catastrophic or stand-
+replacing fire by targeting and reducing surface and ladder fuels,
+allows for the re-introduction of natural fire regimes, and prepares
+the landscape for the re-establishment of fire-tolerant native species
+that may be better adapted to shifting fire regimes.13,15
+Managers are already modifying their use of prescribed fire in
+responses to changing conditions, such as earlier spring burn windows,
+although institutional and sociopolitical constraints, such as a lack
+of funding and trained staff, liability issues, and public acceptance
+of smoke, limit its application across the landscape.13
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \12\ Westerling, A., et al. 2006. Warming and earlier spring
+increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science (313)5789: 940-
+943. DOI: 10.1126/science.1128834.
+ \13\ Gregg, R.M., et al. 2016. Available Science Assessment
+Project: Prescribed Fire and Climate Change in Northwest National
+Forests. Report to the Department of the Interior's Northwest Climate
+Science Center.
+ \14\ Scott, G., et al. 2013. Reforestation-Revegetation Climate
+Change Primer: Incorporating Climate Change Impacts into Reforestation
+and Revegetation Prescriptions. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
+Service, Northern Region.
+ \15\ Spies, T.A., et al. 2010. Climate change adaptation strategies
+for federal forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA: ecological, policy,
+and socio-economic perspectives. Landscape Ecology 25(8): 1185-1199.
+
+ In coastal systems, sea level rise is causing saltwater intrusion
+into freshwater ecosystems and aquifers, habitat conversion,
+infrastructure loss, and in some cases, forced relocation of coastal
+communities, such as in Alaska (e.g., Native Alaska Villages of
+Kivalina and Newtok) and Washington State (e.g., Hoh Tribe). The
+primary adaptation approaches employed to address sea level rise,
+flooding, and erosion issues include: engineered structures (rip rap,
+bulkheads, tide gates), natural and nature-based approaches (natural
+habitats such as wetlands or engineered natural features such as living
+shorelines), and policy and regulatory techniques (tools that either
+prevent infrastructure in at-risk areas, such as conservation
+easements, managed retreat; or modify how activities are implemented to
+reduce risk such as rolling easements, minimum development buffers,
+real estate disclosures).16 Natural and nature-based
+approaches are being increasingly used throughout the United States,
+especially in lieu of structural approaches that are experiencing
+limited and declining use, largely due to their cost, lifetime, and the
+potential for negative ecological consequences.16 New and
+novel approaches, including prioritizing, protecting and restoring
+coastal wetlands with room to migrate inland as sea levels rise, as
+well as purchasing inland/upland land to create new opportunities for
+coastal habitat migration, are also important.16
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \16\ Gregg R.M., et al. 2018. Available Science Assessment Process
+(ASAP): Sea Level Rise in the Pacific Northwest and Northern
+California. Report to the Northwest Climate Adaptation Science Center.
+EcoAdapt (Bainbridge Island, WA) and the Institute for Natural
+Resources (Corvallis, OR).
+
+ Reduce the rate and extent of climate change. Decreasing greenhouse
+gas emissions, planting trees, restoring vegetative cover, and
+preserving open space can help to reduce climate change. If we are
+looking for solutions to climate change, ending fossil fuel extraction
+from public lands is a fine place to start. For every barrel of oil not
+extracted from U.S. public lands, it has been estimated that global
+demand decreases by half a barrel, leading to a reduction in U.S.
+emissions of 280 million tons annually by 2030.\17\ This is the
+essential climate change mitigation role for our public lands. Fossil
+fuels left in the ground will not be entering our atmosphere as
+greenhouse gases, however the carbon storage potential of biological
+carbon is not so certain. For example, the carbon storage of coastal
+wetlands decreases significantly as sea levels rise, drown existing
+wetlands, and release carbon back into the atmosphere.\18\
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \17\ Erickson, P., and M. Lazarus. 2018. Would constraining US
+fossil fuel production affect global CO2 emissions? A case
+study of US leasing policy. Climatic Change 150: 29-42.
+ \18\ Thorne K, et al. 2018. U.S. Pacific coastal wetland resilience
+and vulnerability to sea-level rise. Science Advances 4:eaao3270.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ how are adaptation efforts on public lands threatened?
+ Despite the urgent need for climate-informed action, the science
+and practice of adaptation in the United States is at risk from recent
+intentional and systematic disruptive actions. Public lands are
+threatened by energy development interests, and Federal climate
+programs and regulations are being defunded and dismantled.
+
+ Energy development and mining interests--oil, gas, coal, uranium,
+vanadium, cobalt--have driven the reduction of boundaries of Bears Ears
+and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments by 85 percent and 45
+percent, respectively. Bears Ears in particular is rich with cultural
+significance for Native Americans, featuring over 100,000 well-
+preserved cultural and archaeological sites. It is an area that is more
+than tracts of land--it is a profoundly sacred place of spirituality
+and subsistence. Bears Ears is also home to forests, grasslands, and
+headwaters, and 18 species listed under the Endangered Species Act,
+including the California condor and greenback cutthroat trout.\19\ A
+recent study found that this area provides unrivaled ecological
+connectivity, which is essential for species resilience as well as
+biodiversity and ecological function preservation in a changing
+climate.19 The Navajo people describe such intact landscapes
+as Nahodishgish or ``places to be left alone.'' \20\
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \19\ Dickson, B.G., M. McClure, and C.M. Albano. 2017. A landscape-
+level assessment of conservation values and potential threats in the
+Bears Ears National Monument. A report to The Center for American
+Progress. http://www.csp-inc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CSP-
+BENM_Landscape_Assessment_032717.pdf.
+ \20\ Bears Ears Coalition. 2016. Bears Ears: A Native perspective
+on America's most significant unprotected cultural landscape. http://
+www.bearsearscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Bears-Ears-
+bro.sm_.pdf.
+
+ In 2009, President Obama enacted Executive Order 13514, which
+mandated the evaluation and assessment of vulnerabilities that climate
+change may pose to Federal agency operations and missions, as well as
+the creation and implementation of agency-specific climate adaptation
+plans. During that administration's tenure, many Federal agencies and
+departments developed individual plans and policies, and collaborated
+through interagency working groups to facilitate funding of climate
+science and adaptation projects, resources, and tools to support on-
+the-ground action by other governmental and non-governmental entities.
+Over the last 2 years, there has been a notable shift in the support
+for Federal action on climate change, largely due to a growing
+politicization of science by elected and appointed officials. Federal
+regulations have been dismantled, climate programs defunded, and
+critical climate resources and tools removed, altered, or obfuscated,
+all of which directly impacts the country's ability to prepare for,
+respond to and recover from the effects of climate change. In addition
+to the threatened withdrawal of the United States from the Paris
+Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
+Change, numerous Executive Orders have been enacted to roll back
+climate policies (e.g., reversal of the Federal Flood Risk Management
+Standard, requiring Federal agencies to account for sea level rise in
+building infrastructure; Executive Order 13693 on Planning for Federal
+Sustainability in the Next Decade was revoked in May 2018 \21\). In
+2017 alone, the current administration undertook 60 actions aimed at
+removing or altering environmental regulations, laws, policies and
+protections.\22\
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \21\ Executive Order 13834 Regarding Efficient Federal Operations:
+https://www.whitehouse.gov/Presidential-actions/executive-order-
+regarding-efficient-Federal-operations/.
+ \22\ Eilperin, J. and D. Cameron. 2017. ``How Trump is rolling back
+Obama's legacy.'' The Washington Post, 24 March 2017.
+
+ Funding has also been stripped from most climate-related Federal
+programs, which limits not only our Federal partners' capacity to
+support or implement climate action, but that of by those tribal,
+state, and local governments and non-governmental entities that depend
+on resources and services produced at the Federal level. For example,
+the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), housed within the
+Department of the Interior, were established to provide capacity and
+technical expertise to 22 regional networks of Federal, tribal, state,
+and local governments, NGOs, universities, and private organizations.
+Today, most LCCs are in limbo without dedicated funding and some have
+been redesigned and renamed (i.e., Landscape Conservation Partnerships)
+in instances where there were non-Federal partners that could provide
+interim support. In addition, Federal advisory panels have been
+dismantled or simply not continued, including those for the National
+Climate Assessment, Interagency Land Management Adaptation Group, the
+Environmental Protection Agency's Board of Scientific Counselors, and
+the Department of the Interior's Advisory Committee on Climate Change
+and Natural Resource Science.23,24 Finally, resources
+developed by Federal agencies and their partners are now vulnerable or
+have been altered or removed.25,26 While action is being
+taken by many non-governmental groups to protect climate data, there is
+less attention being paid to protecting the tools, reports, and
+metadata that are the resources relied on by civil society.\27\ And
+even where it has been ``rescued'' it become harder for users to find
+when it is no longer on a Federal website.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \23\ Eilperin, J. 2017. ``The Trump administration just disbanded a
+federal advisory committee on climate change. The Washington Post, 20
+August 2017.
+ \24\ Doyle, M. and B. Patterson. 2017. ``Climate advisory group
+died quietly.'' Climatewire, 17 August 2017.
+ \25\ Kahn, B. 2017. ``The EPA has started to remove Obama-era
+information.'' Climate Central, 2 February 2017.
+ \26\ Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Silencing Science
+Tracker: http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/resources/silencing-science-
+tracker.
+ \27\ Varinsky, D. ``Scientists are banding together to fight a
+looming threat from the Trump administration.'' Business Insider, 19
+January 2017.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ what is needed to ensure we optimize adaptation?
+ When access to sound science and case studies, technical experts
+and peer networks, and funding streams is restricted, decision makers
+are severely limited in their ability to adequately engage in climate
+adaptation. Organizations such as EcoAdapt and our partners are working
+every day to prevent this stagnation. Crucial to advancing adaptation
+and the climate-informed management of public lands are:
+
+ 1. Access to sound science and technical experts
+
+ 2. Clear climate-informed mandates, laws, and policies
+
+ 3. Accessible and sustained finance streams for adaptation
+ initiatives
+
+ 4. Increased capacity, coordination, and collaboration
+ Access to sound science and technical experts. Natural and cultural
+resource managers are faced with various challenges on how to avoid,
+minimize and/or recover from the effects of climate change. Decision
+making can be complicated by uncertainty in the rate and extent of
+climate change impacts over time, as well as knowledge gaps in terms of
+which adaptation actions are best suited for different conditions, most
+effective in reducing climate change impacts, and supported by
+scientific evidence.28-31 Numerous Federal statutes call for
+using the ``best available science'' to inform natural resource
+management (e.g., Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
+Act, U.S. Endangered Species Act), and scientists and decision makers
+consistently agree that the best available science improves the quality
+of management decisions.\32\
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \28\ Bayliss, H.R., et al. 2012. Does research information meet the
+needs of stakeholders? Exploring evidence selection in the global
+management of invasive species. Evidence and Policy 8(1): 37-56.
+ \29\ Cook, C.N., M. Hockings, and R.W. Carter. 2009. Conservation
+in the dark? The information used to support management decisions.
+Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8(4): 181-18.
+ \30\ Eriksen, S., et al. 2011. When not every response to climate
+change is a good one: Identifying principles for sustainable
+adaptation. Climate and Development 3(1).
+ \31\ Sutherland, W.J., et al. 2004. The need for evidence-based
+conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(6):305-308.
+ \32\ Sullivan, P.J., et al. Defining and Implementing Best
+Available Science for Fisheries and Environmental Science, Policy, and
+Management. Marine Sciences Faculty Scholarship. Paper 30.
+
+ Making climate-informed decisions requires the integration of
+science, including evidence of effectiveness. The presence of and
+access to high-quality research, including data collection, analysis,
+and synthesis, supports optimal decision-making conditions for managers
+and planners, particularly in light of climate change. Identifying what
+approaches are being implemented and to what degree of success expands
+the list of options for managers seeking to address climate change
+impacts. Part of this critical need for research is understanding and
+learning from past and ongoing efforts. Since 2009, EcoAdapt has
+engaged in a sustained research initiative--the State of Adaptation
+Program--to identify, evaluate, and assess climate adaptation
+activities in planning and underway. These projects have included
+identification and synthesis of best available science on historic,
+observed, and projected future climatic changes and impacts, extensive
+reviews of Federal, tribal, state, and local climate change planning
+documents, over 4,000 interviews with practitioners in order to
+identify trends and barriers to climate adaptation action, and over 400
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+case studies.
+
+ Knowledge transfer and sharing of lessons learned among managers is
+fundamental to ensuring effective, successful adaptation outcomes.
+Federal (Climate Resilience Toolkit \33\) and non-governmental
+(EcoAdapt, Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange \34\) knowledge
+brokers play central roles in gathering, synthesizing, and
+contextualizing science into digestible and actionable information
+sources. Action must be taken to preserve what credible Federal
+resources are still available and support non-Federal adaptation
+science providers and brokers. Over the past 2 years, as Federal
+websites were stripped of mentions of climate change and access to
+adaptation guidance and examples were moved, key boundary organizations
+stepped up to fill these gaps. To protect access to sound science,
+EcoAdapt implemented a multi-phased plan to ensure the public could
+continue to rely on Federal resources through the CAKE database. While
+other groups focused on basic climate data rescue, we prioritized
+adaptation resources including reports, guidance, tools, and records of
+projects and case studies.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \33\ Climate Resilience Toolkit: https://toolkit.climate.gov/.
+ \34\ Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange: http://www.CAKEx.org.
+
+ Clear climate-informed mandates, laws, and policies. Through the
+State of Adaptation Program interviews, we have found that one of the
+leading motivations of adaptation action on public lands is clear
+agency mandates, laws and policies. To move agencies and departments
+beyond planning into needed implementation projects on public lands,
+bringing back agency mandates to intentionally address and incorporate
+climate change in all their management decisions is critical. These
+mandates and policies should require agencies to work across
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+jurisdictions to increase the likelihood of success.
+
+ Accessible and sustained finance streams for adaptation
+initiatives. One of the biggest barriers to adaptation action is a lack
+of funding,\35\ inability to apply funding to adaptation efforts, or a
+lack of access to sustained funding. Adaptation is a multi-phased
+process that includes scientific assessments, planning, implementation,
+and monitoring and evaluation. Funding directed to just one of these
+phases will not deliver the results needed to comprehensively address
+climate change. Therefore, it is imperative that the Federal Government
+increase its capacity to provide sustained funding to all stages of the
+adaptation process, particularly to implementation where upfront costs
+tend to be higher. Emphasis must also focus on increasing the capacity
+of boundary organizations, such as non-governmental partners, to
+execute climate adaptation work. These organizations are sources of
+highly specialized and locally relevant expertise, and execute on-the-
+ground work from technical decision support to facilitating community
+discourse through workshops. Additional funding sources include
+foundations and local and state governments. However, many of these
+initiatives have resulted in piecemeal, fragmented, and disparate
+approaches, as well as a lack of movement beyond assessment and
+planning into implementation and evaluation. Federal finance plays a
+key role in funding all phases of the climate adaptation process. In
+fact Federal funding that is used to support projects that are not
+inherently taking climate change into account is likely to be money
+misspent--unable to create the benefits it was intended to achieve when
+the effects of climate change erode the target efforts.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \35\ Archie, K.M., et al. 2012. Climate change and western public
+lands: a survey of U.S. federal land managers on the status of
+adaptation efforts. Ecology and Society 17(4).
+
+ Increased capacity, coordination, and collaboration. One the
+greatest resources we have to address climate change is the collective
+capacity of scientists and managers in our Federal, tribal, and state
+agencies and non-governmental institutions. The knowledge, experience,
+and ingenuity brought by our Federal partners cannot be undervalued as
+a key part of the solution to climate change. To capitalize on this
+asset, we need increased capacity, coordination, and collaboration
+among and between Federal agencies and their non-Federal partners,
+including tribal nations, non-profits, small businesses, frontline
+communities, and academic institutions.
+ concluding thoughts
+ The problems presented by climate change are vast and the solutions
+are innumerable and already overdue. With a challenge as urgent and
+pervasive as climate change, any delay in action is harmful. We have
+been underachieving for decades. Further prevention of progress will
+result in backsliding with irreversible and in some cases deadly
+consequences. What we need is someone to step forward. As a co-equal
+branch of government, this Congress has the ability to right the ship
+and advance climate action like never before--at a rate appropriate for
+the scale and speed of this problem. Key items for prioritization
+include:
+
+ Continued protection and restoration of existing public
+ lands and, where possible, expansion of these areas to
+ maintain ecological functions, ecosystem services, and
+ overall resilience. These efforts should include
+ prioritizing areas that may serve as refugia--places that
+ are likely to maintain more stable conditions over time--
+ for plant, fish, and wildlife species, and eliminating
+ energy development.
+
+ Increased investments in science- and evidence-based
+ approaches to climate adaptation while allowing for
+ flexibility to identify, develop, and test promising, novel
+ approaches. This includes not just funding for modeling and
+ data collection, but also increased funding for
+ implementation of activities with requirements for the
+ evaluation of effectiveness, and capturing and sharing
+ lessons learned.
+
+ Increased coordination and collaboration between Federal
+ entities and non-Federal partners (including international
+ partners) to advance climate adaptation objectives. For
+ example, the majority of Federal dollars goes toward fire
+ suppression rather than prevention activities. Getting fire
+ back onto the landscape (both natural and prescribed burns)
+ to support ecological functions is critical, especially as
+ a means to reduce wildfire risk. This includes supporting
+ tribal cultural burning practices across the landscape.
+
+ Discontinue (and certainly do not expand) the extraction
+ of fossil fuels from Federal lands for use in energy
+ generation. Not only does the practice of fuel extraction
+ cause environmental degradation that reduces resilience,
+ but the burning of those fuels literally adds insult to
+ injury causing the changes that require even greater
+ resilience. Simply put, we need to stop increasing the rate
+ and extent of climate change in order to protect our public
+ lands and the services they provide to us.
+
+ Congress' power to appropriate funds can be wielded as one of the
+most effective tools to ensure the protection of public lands and the
+prioritization of climate adaptation overall. Appropriations should be
+viewed through a climate lens to ensure that the agencies, departments,
+and research programs most qualified and poised to meet the climate
+challenge are adequately funded, and that any investments of tax payer
+dollars are not mis-spent on efforts that are likely to be undermined
+by the effects of climate change. We need simultaneous action at the
+scale required to solve the problem on climate change mitigation and
+adaptation. Approaches like the Green New Deal present the types of
+opportunities we need to seize to take action on mitigation, while
+working to integrate investments in climate adaptation across all
+agencies to address the effects of climate change we are and will
+experience due to the past emissions we did not curb.
+
+ I invite the current Congress to have the fortitude your
+predecessors have lacked. The time to take meaningful action on climate
+change to protect not only our public lands but our citizens and our
+neighbors around the globe is upon us. It is your job as elected
+officials to recognize the scope of this crisis and make the changes
+that are needed. Be brave. Be bold. Take action today for a better
+tomorrow.
+
+ ______
+
+
+Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Haaland to Dr. Lara Hansen,
+ Executive Director and Chief Scientist, EcoAdapt
+ Question 1. Both your and Dr. Gonzalez's work and testimony
+suggests the need to protect more places from the dangers of climate
+change.
+
+ 1a. As policy makers, are there any places that we should
+prioritize for protection?
+
+ Answer. Climate change is already affecting natural and cultural
+resources and the human communities that depend on them, and is
+projected to continue for centuries to come. Impacts include loss of
+habitats and connectivity, shifts in animal and plant species
+distribution and abundance, alteration of natural communities, and
+significant changes in water availability and supply. Places to
+prioritize for protection in terrestrial systems include areas of
+climate refugia, wildlife corridors, enduring features, and headwater
+and groundwater sources. In particular, it is essential that we
+implement a portfolio of prioritization approaches to better cope with
+climate-related uncertainty. Protecting these places will help maintain
+habitat and species diversity, as well as the services they provide to
+people, over the long term.
+
+ Climate refugia, or areas relatively buffered from contemporary
+climate change over time, provide locations that species can retreat
+to, persist in, and potentially expand from under changing climate
+conditions.\1\ Protecting areas of climate refugia can include
+identifying places that have remained relatively stable from historic
+to current conditions or places that are projected to remain stable
+with future climate change. For example, identifying places that have
+effectively maintained soil moisture levels over the last 100 years,
+even in the face of episodic droughts, or identifying places that are
+likely to continue to maintain adequate soil moisture levels even under
+hot and dry future climate conditions. Protecting wildlife corridors
+(both current and potential future routes) as well as habitat linkage
+areas (i.e. those places that connect intact or core habitats to one
+another) allows species to move across the landscape in response to
+changing conditions, helping to facilitate gene flow and decrease
+extinction risk. This could also include planning along latitudinal and
+elevational gradients. Enduring geophysical features (e.g., topography,
+soils, geology) seem to be the factors that help create species
+diversity in the first place.\2\ Protecting areas with a diversity of
+geophysical features provides species and communities with the space to
+move and reorganize in response to climate change. Last, given the
+inherent uncertainty associated with precipitation projections (amount,
+timing, type), it is critical to prioritize the protection of our
+headwater and groundwater sources as it will help minimize the impacts
+of other non-climate stressors. Because the locations of many
+groundwater sources are currently unknown, an important first step will
+be providing the resources necessary to find and map these locations.
+It is also important to protect the area around these sites such that
+they are buffered and connected to the greater landscape.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \1\ Morelli TL, et al. 2017. Climate change refugia and habitat
+connectivity promote species persistence. Climate Change Responses
+4(8).
+ \2\ Lawler JJ, et al. 2015. The theory behind, and the challenges
+of, conserving nature's stage in a time of rapid change. Conservation
+Biology 29(3): 618-629.
+
+ 1b. How might we work with the Federal land management agencies to
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+identify and prioritize the protection of these places?
+
+ Answer. It is important to note that effective natural resources
+management includes a balance between ``hands off'' preservation of
+some natural areas and the conservation of natural areas for continued
+and sustainable use. While preservation efforts may be appropriate in
+protecting specific sites to eliminate all human activity, the vast
+majority of conservation efforts require some active management of
+natural lands to ensure the continued availability and use of ecosystem
+services, such as food, timber, water supply, and cultural heritage.
+This is particularly true for climate adaptation practices wherein
+reducing vulnerability to both climate and non-climate stresses (e.g.,
+pollution, water and oil withdrawals) is key. Congress has several
+tools at its disposal to support natural resources management in a
+changing climate--legislation, appropriations, oversight, and public
+hearings.
+
+ Legislation. Congress can support climate-informed action by
+passing climate change legislation, creating amendments to existing
+legislation, integrating climate change into National Environmental
+Policy Act (NEPA) processes, and designating public lands that support
+climate change mitigation and adaptation goals. For example, Congress
+could create an amendment to the Coastal Zone Management Act, calling
+for the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program to not only
+protect coastal areas with ``significant conservation, recreation,
+ecological, historical, or aesthetic values'' (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1456-1),
+but also to explicitly protect areas of climate adaptation significance
+(e.g., refugia, corridors). Congress should encourage all NEPA-related
+environmental analyses to consider both the effects of climate change
+on projects and the effects of projects on climate change (e.g., how a
+proposed project may exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions). A tool like
+the Climate Change Adaptation Certification \3\ could be employed. In
+addition, Congress may designate public lands and review designations
+made by Executive Order to ensure that public lands maintain ecological
+functions and services in a changing climate. For example, Congress can
+create national monuments on public lands (e.g., Tule Springs Fossil
+Beds in Nevada) or review and reverse national monument decisions
+(e.g., Mount Olympus National Monument was re-designated as Olympic
+National Park in 1938 \4\). Congress can establish other public lands--
+national parks, national conservation areas, wilderness areas--to
+support climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. These decisions may
+be made in consultation with Federal land management agencies to ensure
+protection of sites that include climate refugia, wildlife corridors,
+enduring features, and headwater and groundwater sources.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \3\ Justus Nordgren, S. and L.J.Hansen. 2018. Climate Change
+Adaptation Certification. EcoAdapt. https://www.cakex.org/adaptation-
+certification.
+ \4\ National Park Service. 2018. Monuments List. National Park
+Service Archaeology Program, https://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/
+antiquities/MonumentsList.htm.
+
+ Appropriations. Congressional appropriations should be viewed
+through a climate lens to ensure that the agencies, departments, and
+research programs most qualified and poised to meet the challenges of
+climate change are adequately funded. Sufficient budgets and staffing
+of Federal agencies are needed to facilitate institutional capacity for
+climate action. Adequate funds also need to be available to support on-
+the-ground climate action by other governmental and non-governmental
+entities. Congress can also eliminate riders that are contrary to
+climate mitigation and adaptation and conservation goals (e.g.,
+blocking consideration of the economic costs of carbon pollution,
+repealing clean water rules). Congressional appropriations can be used
+to fund the scientific research, data collection, mapping, modeling,
+and staff time necessary to identify climate refugia, wildlife
+corridors and linkage areas, enduring features, and headwater and
+groundwater sources. Appropriations also allow Federal land managers to
+manage the best they can; for example, while the majority of Federal
+dollars goes toward fire suppression rather than prevention activities,
+most land managers recommend getting fire back onto the landscape
+through both natural and prescribed burns to better support ecological
+functions and reduce wildfire risk.\5\
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \5\ Gregg RM, et al. 2016. Available Science Assessment Project:
+Prescribed Fire and Climate Change in Northwest National Forests.
+Report to the Department of the Interior's Northwest Climate Science
+Center.
+
+ Oversight. Congress can use its oversight powers to review,
+monitor, and otherwise supervise Federal agencies, programs, and
+activities to ensure that climate change mitigation and adaptation are
+adequately integrated. For example, Congress can hold polluters
+accountable for carbon emissions and other sources of pollution.
+Reducing these non-climate stresses, many of which can exacerbate the
+effects of climate change (e.g., temperature affects the toxicity of
+various chemicals \6\), increases overall resilience.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \6\ Gregg RM, et al. 2011. The State of Marine and Coastal
+Adaptation in North America: A Synthesis of Emerging Ideas. EcoAdapt,
+Bainbridge Island, WA.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Public Hearings. Congress can give a voice to the land managers and
+everyday Americans experiencing climate change on the ground. In
+addition to inviting scientists to present their findings, we would
+encourage you to amplify the voices of the managers of these public
+lands who are making the everyday decisions in light of climate change
+as well as the administrative restrictions they are under. Part of
+EcoAdapt's role as climate adaptation facilitators is to identify the
+ways in which managers can make modifications to current practices and
+co-produce (with the relevant stakeholder communities) new, innovative
+strategies to address the climate challenge. No one is more passionate
+about protecting public lands than the people who work on them every
+day. Giving them the space to share their challenges, needs, and
+successes will be critical to informing Federal action.
+
+ Question 2. Dr. Hansen, when you say ``protecting adequate and
+appropriate space for ecosystems to function under changing
+conditions,'' what kind of actions would that include?
+
+ Answer.
+
+ This means protecting ample space for ecosystem services
+ such as hydrological function under changing precipitation
+ patterns. For example, what are the new requirements the
+ recharge of groundwater or flow of surface water.
+
+ This means protecting locations that appear to be climate
+ refugia, meaning those locations that are changing less
+ quickly and may afford natural systems the ability to
+ respond on their own.
+
+ This means supporting connectivity across landscapes so
+ species (animal and plant) can move in response to changing
+ climatic conditions. This includes thinking about
+ latitudinal and elevational gradients.
+
+ This means keeping systems as intact as possible so
+ natural diversity can allow for the greatest number of
+ potential response avenues.
+
+ This means designing restoration efforts for not only
+ current and future conditions, not reach for a past that
+ cannot exist again given the elevated levels of carbon
+ dioxide in our atmosphere.
+
+ Question 3. Dr. Hansen, in your testimony you mentioned that we
+need to provide our agencies with clear, informed mandates to begin
+preparing for climate change.
+
+ 3a. Has this Administration provided these?
+
+ Answer. In short, no. The Administration has intentionally and
+systematically worked to eliminate or repeal climate-informed mandates,
+policies, and regulations. Furthermore, Federal climate programs have
+been defunded or dismantled, and scientific advisory groups dedicated
+to advising the Federal Government on best approaches to prepare for
+and respond to climate change have been disbanded.\7\
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \7\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/
+08/20/the-trump-administration-just-disbanded-a-federal-advisory-
+committee-on-climate-change/?utm_term=.5d89 df6ed69d.
+
+ This Administration has taken more than 70 actions aimed at
+removing or altering environmental and climate mandates, regulations,
+and policies.\8\ From international actions, such as announcing the
+withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, to revoking an Obama-era
+Executive Order setting Federal Flood Risk Management Standards,
+climate mandates put in place by previous administrations are under
+attack. Under the explanation of streamlining the approval process for
+building infrastructure, the current administration signed an Executive
+Order eliminating Obama-era planning step to make roads, bridges and
+buildings more resilient to climate and flood dangers. The current
+administration has also dissolved the Federal advisory panel for the
+National Climate Assessment, a group that helps policy makers and
+private-sector officials incorporate the government's climate analysis
+into long-term planning. In addition, the EPA and Department of the
+Interior have followed suit, with the EPA dismissing dozens of
+scientists from their Board of Scientific Counselors and Interior is
+not renewing the charters of numerous scientific advisory panels.
+Beyond these actions, the agencies are failing to enforce existing
+regulations and limiting enforcement mechanisms by others.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \8\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-rolling-
+back-obama-rules/?utm_term =.0aec397d6676.
+
+ The loss of adaptation resources (and government services in
+general) is further exacerbated by recent changes in funding streams
+through changing tax law. Reduced Federal tax revenue will result in
+further cuts to Federal programs, and changes in state tax deductions
+will likely erode local tax revenue streams. With state and local
+programs being touted as the backstop to lost Federal action this may
+undermine that potential. Should charitable contribution tax deductions
+be changed that would also undermine NGO adaptation activities, leaving
+American society with little access to information or support as it
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+faces the perils of climate change.
+
+ 3b. What type of mandates might we give to help the Government
+begin to address the impacts of climate change?
+
+ Answer. Through EcoAdapt's State of Adaptation Program, we have
+found that the leading motivations for adaptation action on public
+lands is clear agency mandates, laws, and policies.
+
+ We recommend mandates focus on:
+
+ 1. Changing goal of public land management from short-term, multi-
+ use industry concerns to a focus on the maintenance of the
+ long-term health of our public lands for ecosystem services
+ (which themselves have strong fiscal value) and public
+ health. This shift in focus will enable agencies to embrace
+ and prioritize planning for long-term uses including
+ insurance against the effects of climate change, over
+ short-term uses that often exacerbate climate change. We
+ should definitely ensure that our public lands are not
+ being used to make climate change worse by increase
+ greenhouse gas emissions either through fossil fuel
+ extraction or unmitigated use.
+
+ 2. Focus on science, research, and technical experts
+
+ Prioritization of science and research is crucial
+ because most agencies current mandates direct them to use the
+ best available science. This science needs to reflect current
+ and up to date understanding of current and future climate
+ conditions and the implications of those conditions.
+
+ Technical experts are crucial to moving beyond
+ research and planning into implementation. Without specific and
+ clear direction from technical experts, Federal mandates will
+ not translate into effective on-the-ground actions.
+
+ 3. Require agencies to capture, share, and translate climate
+ adaptation knowledge
+
+ Capture and Share: Most crucial to on-the-ground
+ adaptation success are lessons learned from practitioners
+ around the field. Given the scope of the lands managed by
+ Federal agencies, these managers play a key role in building
+ and advancing the field of adaptation.
+
+ Translation and synthesis: Managers often cite
+ relevance, scale, and context as a barrier to the usability of
+ climate science. Translation, or knowledge brokers, of climate
+ science and adaptation research such as the Climate Adaptation
+ Knowledge Exchange (CAKE), are vital to ensure on the ground
+ managers have access to digestable and actionable information.
+
+ 4. Require all phases of the adaptation process (assessment,
+ planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation) as
+ well as thorough reporting on progress (including
+ successes, failures, and modified approaches or lessons
+ learned).
+
+ Include thorough reporting/oversight processes on
+ progress including successes and failures, and modified
+ approaches.
+
+ Reported progress should be tied to previous
+ planning phase (e.g. planning should be tied to reducing
+ vulnerability identified in assessment phase).
+
+ Mandate needs to identify accountability for
+ progress, as well as highlight champions and leadership.
+
+ Finally, mandates need to be coupled with climate adaptation
+capacity at the agency and external partner level, appropriations and
+funding, and accountability and oversight. This means that Federal
+staff need appropriate training in climate change adaptation, which is
+often required through professional continuing education opportunities
+as much of the Federal work force has no formal training in this area
+of science and management practice. This should be supported through
+the National Conservation Training Center, Sea Grant, a national
+adaptation extension service, and other venues such as the National
+Adaptation Forum. Congress must ensure that there is sufficient funding
+to not only support training of Federal staff, but the funding for
+sufficient staff and the inclusion of funds to design, implement,
+monitor and share adaptation actions.
+ Question 4. Dr. Hansen, you suggest in your testimony that Federal
+funding for projects that don't account for climate change is often
+money misspent.
+
+ 4a. Can you please elaborate on this claim?
+
+ Answer. When climate change is not recognized, and a project (or
+policy) is design or implemented without explicitly considering the
+implications of climate change, the project (or policy) is vulnerable
+to the effects of climate change. When those vulnerabilities become
+realities the climate uninformed project (or policy) will no longer be
+effective. It will then need to be repaired, replaced, removed or
+repeated elsewhere. This means that the initial projected or policy was
+taxpayer dollars not delivering the outcome they paid for.
+
+ Additionally, citizens, businesses, communities and ecosystems may
+incur harm from the project (or policy) that did not deliver on its
+intended and advertised outcome.
+
+ There are at least two major categories in by which this can
+happen.
+
+ 1. Funds (or Federal employee effort) are expended in a manner that
+ assumes conditions today are the same as they were in the
+ past and will not change in the future. As a result, the
+ work will not garner the desired effects given the reality
+ that climate change will mean that today is different from
+ yesterday and tomorrow will be different than today. For
+ example, consider a coastal infrastructure investment such
+ as a road, an estuary restoration project, or a coastal
+ sewage treatment plant that are designed without taking sea
+ level rise projections (relevant to the project lifetime)
+ into account. You could also consider building standards or
+ land use management in increasingly fire prone regions that
+ does not take into account the increasing risk therefore
+ putting new structures, communities and associated
+ ecosystems at risk. You could also consider changing
+ frequencies of flood events, wherein older flood projection
+ maps continue to be used to make land use decisions or
+ allow for the use of FEMA funds to rebuild in harm's way--
+ again putting people, property, business and government
+ function at risk.
+
+ Uninformed decisions such as all of these (and many more) may
+ result in either the need to spend additional funds to
+ redesign the project when the vulnerability becomes an
+ ``event'' that renders the project ineffective. For
+ example, the restoration project fails because the site is
+ inundated or the species used for the project has moved out
+ of the region as temperatures change. Similarly, if a road
+ is inundated it may require a sea wall, drains or pumps; or
+ it may require that the road is moved to an entirely new
+ location. In all cases there is an additional expenditure
+ of funds to provide the same service as the initial outlay
+ before the lifetime of the project should have ended.
+
+ 2. Funds are not spent to address the challenges of climate change
+ leaving existing efforts vulnerable to the impacts of
+ climate change. Often there are existing investments or
+ resources that need new actions to protect them. This can
+ include creating living shorelines to protected coastal
+ infrastructure, funding the application of prescribed fire
+ to protect our forestlands, upgrading culverts and bridges
+ to avoid flood and erosion damage, funding enforcement to
+ protect natural habitats and species from illegal poaching
+ and destruction.
+
+ 4b. How do we best ensure we're getting a fair return on taxpayer
+funded infrastructure projects?
+
+ Answer. First of all, it is not just infrastructure projects that
+may be vulnerable to these issues. The simplest path to this is to both
+build the capacity of Federal agency staff and Congress about climate
+science and adaptation, and to create explicit review mechanisms that
+require evaluation of the implications of climate change on any Federal
+expenditure, project or other action. Using a tool such as the Climate
+Change Adaptation Certification,\9\ provides a structure for how to do
+this, along with direction to readily available climate science to use
+in the evaluation, and a structure around how to make decisions based
+on what this analysis indicates. This is very similar to how current
+analyses are done to the financial or environmental impact of a project
+(or policy).
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \9\ Justus Nordgren, S. and L.J. Hansen. 2018. Climate Change
+Adaptation Certification. EcoAdapt. Bainbridge Island, WA.
+www.CAKEx.org/Adaptation-Certification.
+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ ______
+
+
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Dr. Hansen.
+ The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hans Cole.
+
+STATEMENT OF HANS COLE, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGNS AND
+ ADVOCACY, PATAGONIA, INC., VENTURA, CALIFORNIA
+
+ Mr. Cole. Chairman Haaland, Ranking Member Young, thank you
+for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Hans Cole, and
+I am the Director of Campaigns and Advocacy for Patagonia.
+ At Patagonia, we are in business to save the home planet.
+On behalf of our 3,000 employees and their families and
+communities across America and around the world, I commend the
+Committee for tackling this issue, and I strongly urge you to
+take bold action to address our planet's climate crisis before
+it is too late.
+ The science reflects what we are seeing with our own eyes,
+and the voices of the American people and responsible
+businesses on the topic are clear. If we fail to change course,
+global temperatures will continue to rise and environmental
+emergencies, wildfires, deadly heat waves, hurricanes,
+flooding, and growing food shortages will grow worse.
+ At Patagonia, we believe that clean, renewable energy,
+regenerative organic farming, and public land and water
+protection should play critical roles in addressing the climate
+crisis. My testimony today will focus on our public lands.
+ America's public lands are one of our greatest collective
+assets, but they are also the source of substantial greenhouse
+gas emissions. Almost a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions
+in the United States come from fossil fuels extracted from
+public lands or offshore waters. This will get much worse, as
+the Trump administration continues its assault on land and
+water protections, despite outcries from outdoor enthusiasts
+and companies of all political stripes who, together, represent
+a nearly $900 billion industry.
+ We oppose the Administration's proposed offshore leasing
+and drilling. It would make more than 90 percent of U.S. waters
+available to oil and gas companies.
+ We oppose an attack on Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife
+Refuge that would open one of our planet's truly wild places
+for drilling.
+ And we oppose the slashing size of Utah's Bears Ears and
+Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, and any reduction
+in size of other monuments, as well.
+ The Administration's actions not only rob native people and
+all Americans of their natural and cultural heritage, threaten
+communities that depend on the outdoor economy, poison our
+water and air, and damage vulnerable species, they also make
+the climate crisis worse.
+ Opening up public lands to more extraction will increase
+emissions and destroy ecosystems that help mitigate climate
+change by storing carbon. Instead, Congress should impose a
+moratorium on oil and gas drilling in Federal waters, and bar
+drilling in Alaska's remaining wild places.
+ We urge you to restore Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-
+Escalante National Monuments, and support measures like
+Representative Haaland, yours, and Senator Udall's bill to make
+it clear that no president has the authority to undermine the
+protection of America's national monuments.
+ Congress should also permanently re-authorize and fully
+fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has used a
+small percentage of revenues from existing offshore drilling
+leases to protect 5 million acres of public parks, wildlife
+habitats, and recreation areas.
+ Instead of further slicing up our landscapes and waterways,
+we should build wildlife overpasses and underpasses, invest in
+communities eager to remove unsafe and damaging dams, and
+strengthen large-scale wildlife corridors for migratory
+species. These are all bipartisan solutions that address
+climate issues and appeal to outdoor enthusiasts and businesses
+in every single state.
+ Patagonia supports proposals to transition to 100 percent
+clean, renewable energy by 2050. We need to focus on the
+cleanest available technology, including wind, solar, and
+geothermal, and not rely on the false promise of outdated
+technologies like hydro-electric dams and nuclear power that
+have catastrophic consequences for our public lands and waters
+by producing toxic waste and driving species to extinction.
+ If Congress takes bold action to address this crisis, it
+will challenge the private sector to step up, as well, and
+Patagonia will continue to do our part. We are reinvesting $10
+million from the 2017 irresponsible corporate tax cuts to
+groups working to solve the causes of the climate crisis. And
+Patagonia is committed to becoming carbon neutral across our
+entire business, including across our supply chain, by 2025.
+ Please make 2019 the year that the United States finally
+takes decisive action to fight the climate crisis. Please
+reclaim our public lands and waters from the polluters and give
+them back to the people.
+ Thank you, and I look forward to any questions you may have
+for me.
+
+ [The prepared statement of Mr. Cole follows:]
+Prepared Statement of Hans Cole, Director of Environmental Campaigns &
+ Advocacy, Patagonia, Inc
+ Chairman Haaland, Ranking Member Young. Thank you for the
+opportunity to testify today. My name is Hans Cole, and I am director
+of Campaigns and Advocacy for Patagonia. At Patagonia, we are in
+business to save our home planet. On behalf of our 3,000 employees, and
+their families and communities across America and around the world, I
+commend the Committee for tackling this issue, and I strongly urge you
+to take bold action to address our planet's climate crisis head-on
+before it is too late.
+ The science reflects what we see with our own eyes, and the voices
+of the American people and responsible businesses on the topic are
+clear. If we fail to change course, global temperatures will continue
+to rise and environmental emergencies--massive wildfires, deadly heat
+waves, disastrous hurricanes, major flooding, growing food shortages--
+will grow worse.
+ The U.S. Government's 2018 National Climate Assessment noted that
+ecological catastrophe will lead to an economic catastrophe, wiping out
+up to 10 percent of the American economy by 2100. That is not good for
+business, but it's even worse for our employees, our customers and your
+constituents who could see wages drop and unemployment rise.
+ We believe that clean renewable energy, regenerative organic
+farming, and purposeful public lands protection should play critical
+roles in addressing the climate crisis. Consistent with this
+Committee's interest in public lands, my testimony today will focus on
+purposeful protection of these important places and the need to
+transition to a more sustainable future.
+
+ America's public lands are one of our greatest collective assets
+but they are also the source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions.
+According to the U.S. Geological Survey, almost a quarter of all
+greenhouse gas emissions in the United States come from fossil fuels
+extracted from public lands or offshore waters. Oil, gas, and mining
+corporations are damaging our public lands and waters and worsening the
+climate crisis. This will get much worse as the Trump administration
+continues an assault on land and water protections, despite outcries
+from outdoor enthusiasts and companies of all political stripes who
+together represent a nearly $900 billion industry. We oppose:
+
+ The Administration's proposed offshore leasing and
+ drilling that would make more than 90 percent of U.S.
+ waters available to oil and gas companies, including the
+ entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the entire Gulf of
+ Mexico, and most of Alaska's available coastal waters.
+
+ An attack on Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that
+ would open one of our planet's last truly wild places to
+ drilling and accelerate the destruction of the Western
+ Arctic.
+
+ Slashing the size of Utah's Bears Ears and Grand
+ Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, in violation of the
+ Antiquities Act.
+
+ The Administration's actions not only rob Native people and all
+Americans of their natural and cultural heritage, threaten communities
+that depend on the outdoor industry for economic survival, poison our
+water and air, and wreak untold damage on vulnerable species--they also
+exacerbate the climate crisis. Opening up public lands to more
+extraction will increase emissions and destroy ecosystems that help
+mitigate climate change by storing carbon.
+ Instead, Congress should impose a moratorium on oil and gas
+drilling in Federal waters and bar drilling in Alaska's remaining wild
+places. We urge you to restore Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante
+National Monuments, and support measures like Senator Udall and
+Representative Haaland's bill to make it clear that the President has
+no authority to undermine the protection of America's National
+Monuments.
+ Congress should also permanently reauthorize and fully fund the
+Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has used a small percentage of
+revenues from existing offshore drilling leases to protect 5 million
+acres of public parks, wildlife habitats, and recreation areas across
+the country. Instead of further slicing up our important landscapes and
+waterways, we should build wildlife overpasses and underpasses, invest
+in communities eager to remove unsafe and damaging dams and diversions,
+and strengthen large-scale wildlife corridors for migratory species.
+These are all bipartisan solutions that address climate issues and
+appeal to the outdoor enthusiasts in every single state, as well as the
+small and big businesses that rely on tourism and protected natural
+resources for their livelihood.
+ Along with protecting our public lands as one of our greatest
+resources to combat climate change, we must also transition our economy
+to rely on clean, renewable energy. Congress should stop spending
+taxpayer dollars subsidizing large oil and gas companies and approving
+destructive projects like the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines,
+and reverse the drive to loosen restrictions on coal-fired power
+plants, inefficient cars and trucks, and polluters of all kinds.
+ Patagonia supports proposals to transition to 100 percent clean,
+renewable energy by 2050. We need to invest in transformative research
+and green infrastructure like a smart electric grid. Congress should
+provide incentives to encourage American consumers and businesses to
+install solar panels, build wind turbines, buy electric vehicles, and
+retrofit buildings to make them more energy efficient.
+ The traditional ``all-of-the-above'' approach has unfortunately
+relied on the false promise of outdated technologies like nuclear
+plants and hydroelectric dams that have catastrophic consequences for
+our environment by producing toxic waste and driving species to
+extinction. The only viable path for the planet's survival is to
+embrace wind, solar, geothermal, and other truly clean and renewable
+sources of energy.
+ This transition toward a less-polluting economy must account for
+how American's food is grown and distributed. Agriculture is a
+significant part of the American economy, contributing billions to GDP,
+and is also a source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions, emitting
+about 650 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent annually.
+But how we grow our food also holds great promise in combatting climate
+change. At Patagonia we have helped develop a new standard--the
+Regenerative Organic Certification--that builds on current organic
+practices to improve soil health. Regenerative organic farming has the
+potential to remove carbon from the atmosphere, storing it in the soil.
+Studies indicate that if we moved from current industrial farming to
+regenerative organic practices we could sequester enough carbon to
+slow, if not completely halt, the growing amount of CO2 in
+our atmosphere. And experts agree we could feed our growing population
+using regenerative organic farming.
+ If Congress takes bold action in all these areas--protecting public
+lands and waters and promoting a change to clean, renewable energy
+along with encouraging regenerative organic agriculture--it will
+challenge the private sector to step up as well. Patagonia will
+continue to do our part.
+ We are re-investing $10 million we received from the 2017
+irresponsible corporate tax cuts by donating to groups that are
+fighting to protect our air, land, and water to save our planet.
+Patagonia is committed to becoming carbon neutral across our entire
+business--including across our supply chain--by 2025. That means we
+will reduce, capture or otherwise mitigate all of the carbon emissions
+we create, including the emissions from the factories that make our
+textiles and finished clothing. We will use only renewable or recycled
+materials in our products, and by 2020 we will use only renewable
+electricity in our stores and offices. We are similarly piloting
+products made and built compliant with the new Regenerative Organic
+Certification to show the world that products can be built using these
+practices.
+ Patagonia will continue to encourage our community and customers to
+participate in the democratic process. As long as polluters wield
+power, Patagonia will speak out and fight back. We will proudly and
+transparently support candidates and causes we believe in.
+ Please make 2019 the year that the United States finally takes
+decisive action to fight the climate crisis. Please reclaim our public
+lands and water from the polluters and give them back to the people.
+ Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. I look forward
+to any questions you may have for me.
+
+ ______
+
+
+ Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Haaland to Hans Cole,
+ Director of Environmental Campaigns and Advocacy, Patagonia, Inc.
+ Question 1. Mr. Cole, some conservatives, especially those from the
+West, often cast our public lands as a burden. They claim that public
+lands hurt economies and ruin development potential. Do you at
+Patagonia think that public lands harm communities?
+
+ Answer. At Patagonia, we do not think of public lands as a burden,
+and in fact just the opposite: as a business that relies on protected
+public lands for our very existence, we know that public lands,
+particularly protected public lands, contribute immensely to the health
+and economic vitality of local communities. Looking first at the data,
+Headwaters Economics, an independent, non-partisan research firm, has
+shown that from the early 1970s to the early 2010s, ``. . . rural
+counties in the West with more federal lands or protected federal lands
+[perform] better on average than their peers with less federal lands.''
+This was shown to be true for four key economic measures: population,
+employment, personal income, and to a smaller extent, per capita income
+growth. Public lands also bring value across numerous different areas:
+from the ecosystem services of clean water and air (for example,
+National Forests provide as much as 33 percent of our water in the
+West), to the more community-based values of healthy opportunities for
+kids and families, to the recreation sector and economy that Patagonia
+is a part of. This sector, which brings economic opportunity for many
+``gateway'' communities that sit at the doorstep of our public lands,
+now provides $887 billion in annual consumer spending and 7.6 million
+jobs (as compared with about 180,000 jobs from oil and gas extraction).
+National parks, national wildlife refuges, national monuments and other
+public lands and waters account for $45 billion in economic output and
+about 396,000 jobs nationwide--many of which are in communities with
+close proximity to public lands.
+
+ It's equally clear when you ask the public: a clear majority of
+people from across the political spectrum love our protected public
+lands and recognize the importance of the outdoor economy they support.
+For example, in the 2019 Colorado College ``Conservation in the West''
+poll, results indicate that ``. . . there is almost no partisan
+distinction in perceptions of outdoor recreation's importance to the
+economic future of the West.'' Whether it was Republicans, Independents
+or Democrats responding, over 85 percent indicated that outdoor
+recreation is important to their state's economic future.
+
+ Finally, coming out of the hearing on February 13, it's critical to
+note that our public lands are an important and often overlooked
+component of community-level efforts to address climate change.
+Protected public lands (where forests, wetlands, grasslands and other
+ecosystems are intact) have increased carbon storage capacity that will
+be needed to reduce greenhouse gases in the long term, and in the short
+term, provide the ecosystem services and resilience that communities
+will require as precipitation patterns and temperatures change, and as
+we face increasing fires, floods and other challenges. Intact and
+protected public lands provide a refuge for biodiversity and
+connectivity for migrating species that will need to move and adapt in
+response to a changing climate. And, with care given to smart and
+ecologically sensitive citing, we can even consider renewable energy
+development opportunities on our public lands. In summary, protected
+public lands are one of our greatest assets in the fight to protect our
+communities and ecosystems in the face of climate change.
+
+ Question 2. Mr. Cole, this Administration has prioritized
+extraction on our public lands over other uses, exposing us to the
+dangers of climate change and to the local impacts associated with
+methane leakage and groundwater depletion and contamination. This
+prioritization includes the alteration of our national monuments,
+seemingly for the benefit of fossil fuel interests.
+
+ 2a. Why is it important that we protect our public lands from
+unbridled extraction and depletion?
+
+ 2b. What benefits do national monuments provide that supersede the
+benefits of short-term and short-sighted extraction?
+
+ Answer. Public lands provide a diverse array of values to local
+communities, and they are critical to maintaining a life-sustaining
+climate and biosphere on a macro level. However, when we prioritize
+using these lands for resource extraction--particularly without any
+sense of balance or attention to sensitive ecosystems--we quickly lose
+access to many of the values that protected public lands offer.
+Unbridled resource extraction creates serious and long-lasting impacts
+(for example: pollution, disturbance, aesthetic impacts, barriers such
+as dams and fences, and carbon emissions), that permanently damage
+natural ecosystems, threaten biodiversity, exacerbate climate change,
+and exclude, often permanently, other more sustainable activities.
+While sometimes touted as part of a ``multi-use'' agenda on our public
+lands, the truth is that unwise resource extraction can turn our public
+lands into a single-use landscape, one where corporate interests are
+favored over those of citizens who rely on the place to support a more
+diverse, sustainable economy, or to recreate and spend time with family
+and community. Intensive resource extraction can also damage cultural
+resources and uses of the land important to native communities, who in
+many cases live closest to these landscapes and have a connection with
+them that stretches back hundreds, even thousands of years.
+
+ By contrast, National Monument designation can prevent unwise
+resource extraction on sensitive landscapes that hold incredible
+natural and cultural value. Whether we're talking about the sensitive
+cultural and ecological landscape of Bears Ears, the forests of
+Katahdin Woods and Waters, or the still largely unknown depths of the
+Northeast Canyon and Seamounts--National Monument status can quickly
+and effectively provide significant immediate protection, allowing for
+more thoughtful management planning to take place and giving Congress
+the time and opportunity to consider greater protection down the road
+if needed. It should be no surprise that almost half of our treasured
+National Parks started as National Monuments, including many of our
+most popular parks: Teton, Grand Canyon, Acadia, Zion, Olympic, and
+Arches. National Monument management plans offer an opportunity for
+diverse stakeholders to come to the table together, to discuss and plan
+for truly sustainable use of the landscape--allowing sensitive areas to
+have a rest, while simultaneously enabling a greater swath of the
+public to access, enjoy, and gain benefit from the area. The beauty of
+thoughtful management is that long-standing uses of the landscape can
+be grandfathered in where appropriate--for example, ranching, hunting,
+firewood gathering, and similar activities. Thus, a National Monument,
+while off limits to corporate oil and gas development, is not an
+exclusive model at all, but instead can host a variety of activities
+and groups of people, many of whom have had life-long and multi-
+generational connection to the place. Finally, in terms of long-term
+impact vs. short-term gain, there is no more convincing argument than
+the fact that National Monument protection can keep more fossil fuels
+in the ground, preventing further impact to our climate.
+
+ ______
+
+
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Cole.
+ The Chair now recognizes Dr. Elaine Oneil.
+
+ STATEMENT OF ELAINE ONEIL, ONEIL FOREST RESEARCH AND
+ MANAGEMENT, TENINO, WASHINGTON
+
+ Dr. Oneil. Thank you, Chairman Haaland and Committee
+members. I am Dr. Elaine Oneil, a forest scientist and
+management consultant specializing in forest health, climate
+change, and forest carbon accounting.
+ Today, I will be providing comments on research I conducted
+at the University of Washington that examined the impacts of
+climate change on forest carbon in the 11 western states. That
+is contiguous states; we didn't look at Alaska. These results
+speak to the heart of the question before you today: What
+climate impacts are occurring on our public lands, and what
+adaptation opportunities exist?
+ I am going to place that research into context using
+examples from Washington State, my home state.
+ First, some easy math. Trees take up carbon dioxide out of
+the atmosphere and use it to make wood, roots, needles, leaves,
+and branches, ending up at about 50 percent carbon by dry
+weight. Superficial analysis suggests that the more trees we
+have, the more carbon dioxide they can suck out of the
+atmosphere.
+ That is only true if you ignore biological principles that
+dictate forest growth and death related to site carrying
+capacity. And in our western forest landscapes--and we have a
+lot of Members here representing them, and it is also where
+most of our public lands are located--that is only true if we
+ignore fire, which would be a mistake.
+ What we are seeing in the western United States is an
+epidemic of insects and disease and wildfires brought on, in
+large part, by what one of your Federal scientists calls an
+``epidemic of too many trees.'' He talked about that epidemic
+of too many trees at a recent TEDx talk called ``The Era of
+Mega-Fires,'' and I have to say we are in an era of megafires.
+ When we first began the analysis of climate impacts on
+forest carbon in these 11 western states we used both
+historical fire rates for the region, and fire rates that were
+predicted to occur by 2050. A look at the wildfire statistics
+since 2000 is sobering. We have doubled the average acres
+burned since 2000, with 10 of the worst fire years on record
+occurring since that time, and that doesn't even count last
+year. The statistics aren't in on that date.
+ That means that the climate science published as late as
+2004 was wildly optimistic. We are seeing future expected fire
+rates 30 years earlier than anticipated.
+ So, what do we do about these climate impacts? It is a bit
+counter-intuitive, but we cut more trees. This wildly unpopular
+idea has been the recommendation of fire scientists who have
+studied the fire ecology of these systems for decades. This is
+not new information. It is completely in line with our fire and
+carbon analysis that examined nine management alternatives
+across 25,000 forest inventory plots in the West. In other
+words, we didn't cherry-pick the data; we looked at every plot
+and said what would happen here.
+ In most cases, managing forests creates a more favorable
+forest outcome than letting nature take its course. Like any
+other potential natural disaster, whether driven by climate
+change or not, wildfire mitigation demands a response.
+ [Slide.]
+ Dr. Oneil. Forest inventory data already show that two-
+thirds of the Federal forest growth is lost to wildfire,
+insects, and disease, as shown on this chart on the wall. In
+some states, mortality already exceeds growth, meaning the
+forests are now carbon sources and not sinks. In other words,
+they are emitting more than they are absorbing.
+ So, while forests do store carbon, when they are left
+without care the results are usually not what we want. Clearly,
+letting nature take its course did not provide much carbon
+benefit, especially since the climate impacts we are seeing are
+real, current, and often devastating.
+ We know how to mitigate these climate impacts at both the
+stand and landscape level. It starts with greatly reducing the
+number of trees, keeping fire-resistant species, and
+interrupting fuel ladders so the fires don't spread as easily.
+Across the West, this treatment has been proven to keep forests
+alive when wildfires hit, and they will hit. That is
+inevitable. It is part of the fire ecology of the system. They
+can be easily replicated across the landscape using a
+systematic approach that considers adjacent landowners in order
+to create a patchwork of defensible space that is actually more
+akin to what our natural forests looked like than they do now.
+ Coordination across landowners is required, so is
+infrastructure that can handle the harvested material. Even
+with the best of intentions, we will not be successful unless
+efforts are made to ensure milling infrastructure remains
+viable. Shared stewardship approaches like we have in
+Washington State, including the Good Neighbor Authority and
+local forests collaboratives, should continue to be supported
+and encouraged as a fundamental mechanism to move forward with
+keeping our public lands and adjacent forestlands healthy, fire
+resilient, and green.
+ Thank you.
+
+ [The prepared statement of Ms. Oneil follows:]
+ Prepared Statement of Dr. Elaine Oneil, Oneil Forest Research and
+ Management
+ I am Dr. Elaine Oneil, a forest scientist and management consultant
+specializing in forest health, climate change, and forest carbon
+accounting. My comments are focused on research I conducted while at
+the University of Washington that examined the impacts of climate
+change on forest carbon in the 11 western states. Key results from that
+research, combined with data on wildfire impacts, forest management,
+and regional forest health strategies will be used to provide context
+for the comments.
+
+ Commentary can be categorized into four main themes:
+
+ 1. Forests are suffering from too many trees for the site and extant
+ climate conditions. Overstocking creates conditions that
+ kill trees. That mortality combined with wildfire has
+ changed the calculus for defining the optimal strategies
+ for climate mitigation and adaptation in forests.
+
+ 2. Management provides for improved firefighting capability and
+ improved forest carbon outcomes in nearly every forest type
+ across the 11 western states.
+
+ 3. Wildfire ignition is random, but the consequences of wildfires
+ are driven by forest cover conditions, climate, and
+ prevailing weather patterns. Forests that have too many
+ trees, and which contain large amounts of dead trees,
+ produce conditions for wildfires that are uncontrollable,
+ with devastating consequences to the forest, the adjacent
+ landowners and communities, and the budgets of land
+ management agencies.
+
+ 4. Like any other potential natural disaster, wildfire mitigation
+ demands a response. Letting nature take its course is not
+ supported by the science of forest carbon dynamics.
+
+ forest carbon primer
+ Trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using
+photosynthesis to produce wood, roots, needles, leaves, and branches.
+Carbon is also released via respiration, either directly from the
+plant, or indirectly via decomposition or combustion pathways. Growth,
+and therefore carbon accumulation in forests is constrained by limiting
+factors that range from climatic parameters driving growing season,
+moisture and temperature conditions, to nutrient availability,
+competition, and species growth habit and longevity. There is some
+variability in carbon content between tree components and species but
+on average trees are about 50 percent carbon by dry weight. This has
+led some to suggest that leaving forests to grow without management or
+interruption would be a sound climate solution. That is only true if
+you ignore biological principles that dictate forest growth and death,
+including site carrying capacity. And in our western forest landscapes
+where most of our public lands are located, that is only true if you
+ignore fire.
+
+1. Forests are suffering from having too many trees for the site and
+extant climate conditions. Overstocking creates conditions that kill
+trees. That mortality combined with wildfire has changed the calculus
+for defining the optimal strategies for climate mitigation and
+adaptation in forests.
+
+ What we are seeing in the western United States is an epidemic--of
+insects and disease and wildfires--brought on in large part by An
+Epidemic of Too Many Trees. That epidemic is summarized in a TED talk
+called the Era of Megafires and is described it in much greater detail
+in a hour long multimedia presentation that is available here. Wildfire
+data from the National Interagency Fire Center supports the idea that
+we are in an Era of Megafires. Their wildfire statistics show that the
+average acres burned since 2000 has doubled relative to the prior four
+decades, with 10 of the worst fire years on record occurring since 2000
+(excluding 2018 data which is not available yet).
+ Every 10 years a U.S. forest inventory report (Resource Planning
+Assessment or RPA) is published that summarizes growth, harvest, and
+mortality by region, forest landowner, and forest type. Data are
+collected over a 10-year period, so the final numbers are more
+representative of an average for the 10-year period than a summary of
+the endpoint. These data show a fourfold increase in mortality on
+National Forests in the 40-year period from 1976-2016. Of total forest
+growth on National Forests about two-thirds is lost to wildfires,
+insects and disease (Figure 1). Wildfire is not the only mortality
+agent that is on the rise on Federal lands. Insects and diseases are
+prevalent and their threat is growing (Littell et al. 2010).
+
+[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
+
+Figure 1. Growth, Mortality, and Harvest on National Forest
+ Timberlands 1952-2016. Data provided by Oswalt et al. 2018.
+
+ The current rate of mortality is unsustainable. This may well lead
+to a tipping point wherein additional uncontrolled damage can be
+expected. It is doubtful that any one scientist or group of scientists
+has any idea where that tipping point is and what reaching it might
+cause. With policies and management approaches that pull us back from
+that brink by reducing risk and building resilience we can ensure that
+these forests remain a part of our heritage and serve a vital role as
+carbon sinks into the future.
+
+2. Management provides for improved firefighting capability and
+improved forest carbon outcomes in nearly every forest type across the
+11 western states.
+
+ Fire scientists who have studied the fire ecology of these systems
+for decades have long advocated for management action to mitigate fire
+risk and bring the forest condition into alignment with the fire
+ecology of the west (Agee and Skinner 2005, Skinner et al. 2004). Fire
+impacts can be substantially reduced by thinning treatments that
+restore densities more like those observed before fire suppression was
+introduced. Multiple studies have shown that thinning reduces fire
+severity, sufficient for firefighters to gain control and maintain
+forest structure, tree seed source, and other values (e.g. Agee and
+Skinner 2005, Moghaddas 2006, Skinner et al. 2004). General principles
+of fire management based on long-term research have been integrated
+into tools that can assess the impacts of fire and management for any
+combination of site, stand and climate conditions. These tools were
+used to model nine different forest management treatments on over
+25,000 forest inventory plots in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
+Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
+Results show that in most cases, managing forests created a more
+favorable forest carbon outcome (Figure 2b) than letting nature take
+its course (Figure 2a).
+
+[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
+
+Figure 2a. Unmanaged forest with 100% mortality from wildfire.
+
+ Figure 2b. Managed forest with jackpot burns to reduce fuel loads.
+
+ Even better carbon outcomes are possible if harvested material is
+large enough to be used for solid wood products as the wood also stores
+carbon during its use phase (Oneil and Lippke 2010).
+ Research identifies how to mitigate climate impacts at both the
+stand and landscape level. In dry forests it starts with greatly
+reducing the number of trees, keeping fire resistant species, and
+interrupting fuel ladders so that fires don't spread as easily
+(Moghaddas 2006). Across the West, this treatment method has been
+proven to keep forests alive when wildfires hit. It can be easily
+replicated across the landscape using a systematic approach that
+considers adjacent landowners, in order to create a patchwork of
+defensible space that is more akin to historical natural conditions on
+our forests.
+ Under future climate conditions which predict longer, drier,
+hotter, summers (Littell et al. 2010, McKenzie et al. 2004) we can
+expect regeneration failure in burned forests, which will push these
+forests toward being a net carbon source. Mitigation measures include
+thinning the forests to prevent the loss of all trees and to reduce the
+fire impacts on soils somewhat so that successful regeneration is more
+likely. By thinning we also are building resilience into the existing
+trees, and ideally choosing the specimens and species that we think can
+survive and perpetuate on these landscapes.
+
+3. Wildfire ignition is random, but the consequences of wildfires are
+driven by forest cover conditions, climate, and prevailing weather
+patterns. Forests that have too many trees, and which contain large
+amounts of dead trees, produce conditions for wildfires that are
+uncontrollable, with devastating consequences to the forest, the
+adjacent landowners (Figure 3) and communities, and the budgets of land
+management agencies.
+
+ Coordination across landowners is required. So is infrastructure
+that can handle the harvested material. Shared stewardship approaches
+like we have in Washington State, including use of the Good Neighbor
+Authority and local Forest Collaboratives, should continue to be
+supported and encouraged as a fundamental mechanism to move forward
+with keeping our public lands, and adjacent forest lands, healthy, fire
+resilient, and green.
+
+[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
+
+Figure 3. Wildfire impacts on adjacent state and private forest
+ land from ignition on public forestland.
+
+4. Like any other potential natural disaster, wildfire mitigation
+demands a response. Letting nature take its course is not supported by
+the science of forest carbon dynamics.
+
+ Jerry Franklin (ecologist) and Jim Agee (fire scientist) from the
+University of Washington offer their perspective on the need for a
+rationale national forest policy that incorporates ecology, fire
+science, known benefits of treatment and social benefits. Their
+perspective is that ``Letting nature take its course in the current
+landscape is certain to result in losses of native biodiversity and
+ecosystem functions and other social benefits . . .'' (Franklin and
+Agee 2003).
+ Other social benefits include smoke free summers. Emissions from
+wildfires are not inconsequential. In addition to the large amounts of
+carbon dioxide released, there are also releases of methane, nitrous
+oxides, and volatile organic carbons which are all potent greenhouse
+gases that have a greater atmospheric impact than the release of carbon
+dioxide alone (Wiedinmyer and Neff 2007). The net result is that
+emissions from wildfires can produce higher carbon dioxide equivalent
+values than the total equivalent carbon dioxide equivalent
+(CO2e) content of the biomass that is consumed (data
+analysis of factors in Wiedinmyer et al. 2006). This means that a 20
+percent reduction in forest carbon stocks from wildfire generates more
+than a 20 percent increase in CO2e in the atmosphere.
+ summary
+ We have experienced two decades of unprecedented mortality in our
+western forests, and much of that mortality is concentrated on Federal
+lands. In some states, mortality on public forests has reached a point
+where they are now emitting carbon rather than sequestering it thus
+exacerbating our current greenhouse gas emissions profile. Forest
+health treatments that reduce tree density, create canopy
+discontinuities, and open patches will become both the climate
+mitigation and adaptation strategy on these forests. They will also
+more closely replicate historical forest conditions. Letting forests
+die and burn in anticipation that the past will replicate itself in a
+future with large uncertainties around climate conditions is a high-
+risk approach.
+ references
+Agee, J.K. and C.N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel
+reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 211(1-2): 83-96.
+
+Franklin, Jerry F. and James K. Agee. 2003. Forging a science-based
+national forest fire policy. Issues in Science and Technology 20(1):
+59-66.
+
+Littell, Jeremy S., et al. 2010. Forest ecosystems, disturbance, and
+climatic change in Washington State, USA. Climatic Change 102(1-2):
+129-158.
+
+McKenzie, D., et al. 2004. ``Climatic change, wildfire, and
+conservation.'' Conservation Biology 18(4): 890-902.
+
+Moghaddas, J.J. 2006. A fuel treatment reduces potential fire severity
+and increases suppression efficiency in a Sierran mixed conifer forest.
+In: Andrews, P. L. and B. W. Butler (comps). Fuels Management--How to
+Measure Success, Proceedings RMRS-P-41, Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S.
+Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
+Station. p. 441-449.
+
+Oneil, Elaine E. and Bruce R. Lippke. 2010. Integrating products,
+emission offsets and wildfire into carbon assessments of Inland
+Northwest forest. Wood and Fiber Science 42(Special Issue): 144-164.
+
+Skinner, C.N., et al. 2004. Effects of prescribed fire and thinning on
+wildfire severity: the Cone Fire, Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest,
+Proceedings 25th Vegetation Management Conference, Redding, California.
+12 pp.
+
+Wiedinmyer, C. and J.C. Neff. 2007. Estimates of CO2 from fires in the
+United States: implications for carbon management. Carbon Balance and
+Management 2(10): doi:10.1186/1750-0680-2-10.
+
+Wiedinmyer, C., et al. (2006). ``Estimating emissions from fires in
+North America for air quality modeling.'' Atmospheric Environment
+40(19): 3419-3432.
+
+ ______
+
+
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Dr. Oneil. Thank you for
+the valuable testimony that you have given this morning.
+ The Chair will now recognize Members for questions. Under
+Committee Rule 3(d), each Member will be recognized for 5
+minutes. And I would like to recognize myself first for 5
+minutes.
+ My question to each of you--and if you could just each
+answer this one after the other, that would be great--thank you
+all again for being here and for your testimony.
+ As I mentioned in my statement, I am excited for this
+Subcommittee to take the lead on these issues. To fill that
+role, we need to recognize that now is the time to act on
+climate change. We can't wait any longer. While some response
+efforts may be beyond this Committee's purview, the impacts of
+climate change affect the resources, lands, and communities we
+are here to protect. So, it is our responsibility to consider
+all options.
+ My first question for each of you is, can we prevent the
+worst impacts of climate change by land management strategies
+alone?
+ Dr. Gonzalez. Land management strategies and adaptation are
+important for improving ecosystem integrity. But our research
+shows that, compared to the worst emission scenario, cutting
+carbon pollution could reduce projected heating in the national
+parks by up to two-thirds. And clearly, that attacks the cause
+of climate change.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you. Dr. Hansen?
+ Dr. Hansen. I agree that one of the most important things
+we can do is adjust our land use. And in reality, almost
+everything in the United States is affected by land use. Our
+transportation habits are affected by land use. Our energy
+consumption habits, both transportation and our homes, are
+affected by land use. However, at the end of the day, the core
+component that we have to take care of is addressing the root
+cause of climate change. We need to stop emitting greenhouse
+gases into the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you.
+ Mr. Cole. I would say, from our perspective, we need to use
+all the techniques at our disposal. Land management is
+certainly one of them. We need to look at the types of land
+management. Protected public lands can help us make space for
+renewable energy and reduce our emphasis on fossil fuel
+extraction across the country, which can provide a massive
+impact on the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
+ But we also need to think about other ways of addressing
+the climate crisis, including regenerative organic agriculture
+and looking at our entire energy mix across the board. Thank
+you.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you.
+ Dr. Oneil. I think that land management alone cannot
+address or prevent the worst impacts. But if you look at the
+way within the wheelhouse of forests and forest management,
+part of the way we look at that and we think about it is if you
+are able to maintain that sort of average forest carbon in your
+landscape, and then use those products to substitute for other
+products that have a higher greenhouse gas footprint, like
+steel and concrete, then you do have an opportunity to have an
+additive effect, based on how you use any kind of material that
+would be removed if you were removing those trees.
+ There are some complicated processes in there, but there is
+a possibility to actually leverage land management and land use
+activities where they are allowed--obviously, not in parks, but
+where they are allowed--to achieve additional benefits in terms
+of greenhouse gas mitigation.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Dr. Oneil. I am glad we largely
+agree on that point.
+ Now, Dr. Hansen, can you please explain why adaptation,
+particularly on public lands, can help us fight the impacts of
+climate change?
+ Dr. Hansen. I would be happy to. Adaptation offers you the
+opportunity to try to maintain the function of whatever it is
+you are trying to do. In this case, it is the function of
+public lands, which are vitally important to all of our lives,
+whether we live in a city or we live in more rural parts of the
+country.
+ Adaptation allows us to reflect directly on what are the
+implications that we anticipate happening from climate change,
+and how do we change management to respond to that. That will
+affect our ability to access water, for example.
+ In the Sierra Nevada of California, the way that those
+forests are managed provides water for most of the largest
+places in the state. Water is, obviously, a big issue there.
+But if we continue to manage the water resource and the forest
+resource, as we always have, ignoring the facts that
+precipitation patterns are changing, ignoring the fact that
+human use rates are changing because of increasing
+temperatures, we will not have the rate of return that we
+expect on those resources. And public lands are probably one of
+the best insurance investments we have in maintaining all those
+ecosystem services for our country.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Dr. Hansen. And now the Chair
+recognizes Ranking Member Young for 5 minutes of questions.
+ Mr. Young. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
+ Mr. Cole, Patagonia, what do they sell?
+ Mr. Cole. We are an outdoor clothing and gear company.
+ Mr. Young. OK. And where are most of those products made?
+ Mr. Cole. We have a supply chain that is global in nature.
+We manufacture----
+ Mr. Young. Where are they mostly made?
+ Mr. Cole. Across about 20 different countries, from the
+United States to China and----
+ Mr. Young. Most of them are made in China. I happened to go
+to your store. And the ironic part about it is most of your
+products are a result of fossil fuels. They are made by fossil
+fuels, the material is fossil fuels. They are made in China.
+The biggest polluter we have is China. And I often think it is
+hypocrisy to talk about we cannot use fossil fuels when the
+product they sell and advocate against is made by fossil
+fuels--in China, not with American labor. I just wanted to
+bring that up.
+ Dr. Oneil, some environmental activists argue that fuel
+loads or too many trees are not a problem. However, in your
+testimony you argue the epidemic of insects and disease in our
+western forests have been brought down in a large measure by an
+epidemic of too many trees. How does that work, too many trees?
+ Dr. Oneil. The work that myself and other scientists in
+that space--as opposed to activists, we work as scientists. We
+look at the numbers, and we look at the data.
+ If you are wanting to mitigate fire impacts, you have to
+think about it within the framework of how does fire actually
+work, and it is real simple. It is what is called a fire
+triangle. You have fuels, oxygen, and heat. The only thing we
+can affect in the fire triangle is the fuels. The more fuel you
+have, and the drier it is--which that will be exacerbated with
+warmer weather, drier weather, longer seasons--the more fuel
+you have, the more chance that when you get that lightning
+strike, when you get that ignition source, that you are going
+to end up with a catastrophic event.
+ Fire ecologists have been talking about this for 40 years,
+that this is a problem. And it is continuing to be a problem.
+And now we are seeing that it is a problem.
+ Mr. Young. You bring up a very valid point. For those
+members on the Committee from California, when I was 5 years
+old we were pasturing sheep in Paradise. My father and I had
+5,000 ewes. And we didn't have any fires of any consequence
+because there was no over-burden, no volatility that was left
+on the ground.
+ And what I see now, when there is a fire, there is so much
+heat that it destroys the tree and actually destroys a lot of
+the ground, which probably would add later on with more trash
+timber than real timber. And I just--I watch that fire.
+ By the way, how many acres did you burn? Anybody know?
+Anybody ever put a pencil to it?
+ [No response.]
+ Mr. Young. I want to get the science, how much pollution
+was put in the air by that fire. A lot.
+ I think if they had managed it to begin with, you wouldn't
+have that fire. There is the big argument. Are we going to let
+the trees still be natural, or are we going to manage the
+timber? We have to manage the timber. But you even mention
+cutting the tree and, ``Oh, we can't do that,'' including those
+people who sell goods made in China. You can't do it.
+ But in reality, if we don't do it, we will never address
+this issue. That is called adapting. That is all I ask, is
+think about adapt. Just don't automatically say no.
+ I yield back the balance of my time.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Young. The Chair now recognizes
+Mr. Grijalva.
+ Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to you and to the
+members of this Committee, thank you very much for the hearing.
+ I want to associate myself with some of your comments at
+the outset, Madam Chair, and that was climate change isn't just
+in our jurisdiction. I think it falls under the shared
+responsibility for all Members, all decision makers. And I
+think this Subcommittee and the Committee as a whole plays a
+big role, a very expansive role, in addressing climate change.
+And within that jurisdiction, a very large nexus to be able to
+address those issues. So, I appreciate you mentioning that,
+because I think it is important to keep that in mind.
+ Dr. Hansen, let me ask you, both your and Dr. Gonzalez's
+work suggest that we need to protect more places from the
+dangers of climate change. An example that you could respond
+to, Dr. Hansen, is the Sky Islands along the southern border
+region in Arizona as a place for further protection. Can you
+speak about that, specifically, in terms of those Sky Islands
+being potential adaptation tools on the issue of climate
+change?
+ Dr. Hansen. One of the effects of climate change that was
+alluded to in testimony today is about the movement of
+ecosystems and species in response to climate change. In order
+for that movement to happen, there has to be a place for that
+to happen.
+ The Sky Islands Region offers a unique suite of opportunity
+because, not only does it involve space that moves up in
+latitude to some degree, but it also creates elevational
+refugia, places that stay a little bit cooler, perhaps, as the
+overall landscape is changing, and places for things to move.
+ Thinking about how we use the space we have to allow
+natural systems to respond to the extent they can by themselves
+in conditions like that is a vital component of adaptation. We
+do not have the money to hand-manage all of the systems. We do
+not have the ability to move species manually. We need to come
+up with how do we create an intact landscape across which
+things can move on their own.
+ Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
+ Mr. Cole, based partly on Dr. Hansen's response and the
+testimony today, we talk about these efforts at adaptation. The
+Land and Water Conservation Fund, of which your organization
+and your business have been large supporters of, what role do
+you believe that plays in the discussion?
+ Mr. Cole. I think the Land and Water Conservation Fund is
+one of our most important conservation measures in the United
+States. It has impacts in every single state, almost every
+single county across the country. And it takes a small amount
+of money from revenues from offshore drilling and leasing, and
+puts that into conservation. And I think that, whether you are
+living in a community that has city parks, or whether you are
+living in a community that is close to wilderness area, you
+could be helped by the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
+ And with climate change, we need more of those protected
+spaces to allow for resilience, to allow for protection of
+biodiversity, to allow for carbon storage, all those things.
+The Land and Water Conservation Fund can contribute to all
+those benefits in the face of climate change.
+ Mr. Grijalva. And last, Dr. Hansen, you served on the
+Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resources
+Science under the previous administration. Let's take a
+snapshot of where we are right now, in the last 2 years, under
+this Administration.
+ Dr. Hansen. Unfortunately, that committee no longer exists.
+ Mr. Grijalva. Any action on the findings?
+ Dr. Hansen. No. In fact, most of the suggestions that were
+made by that committee, the structures that were part of that
+set of ideas, that set of principles no longer exists, or are
+quite vestigial with no funding.
+ Mr. Grijalva. If you could respond, there was a beginning
+effort of utilizing public lands as an adaptation vehicle going
+forward. And that has stopped, as well. The issue now becomes,
+are we contributing to the overall negative effect of climate
+change as public lands, or retreating from any commitment to
+adaptation. Are we part of the problem now, as opposed to being
+part of the solution?
+ Dr. Hansen. Yes. I mean, unfortunately, the dominant
+contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere from public
+lands is our use of them for the extraction of fossil fuels.
+And increasing that increases the problem not only for all of
+us, but for public lands themselves. We need to be stopping
+climate change to save our public lands, not using our public
+lands to stop climate change, as a friend of mine would be
+paraphrased to say.
+ Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
+ Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. The Chair now
+recognizes Mr. Westerman.
+ Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the
+witnesses for being here today. I have read all of your
+testimonies last night, plus listened to your testimonies
+today.
+ Dr. Gonzalez, I would like to commend you on the written
+testimony and the research behind the data that you presented.
+And Dr. Oneil, as well, I appreciate you bringing to the
+forefront things that need to be talked about, as far as the
+benefits of healthy forests to helping our environment.
+ Dr. Gonzalez, part of your testimony, you said prescribed
+burning is an adaptation measure that reduces future risk of
+catastrophic wildfire and tree death by removing an unnatural
+buildup of fuel and small trees, where old policies suppressed
+natural wildfire. I agree with that.
+ Can you elaborate on that a little bit more about carrying
+capacity of land and how many trees per acre? Is it just small
+trees, or are there places where larger trees need to be
+removed and then do the controlled burning?
+ Dr. Gonzalez. Well, the published scientific research shows
+that two major factors have caused the catastrophic wildfires
+that we are seeing. It is the old policies that have led to
+this unnatural accumulation of small trees and, of course,
+woody debris. And then human-caused climate change has ignited
+that and doubled the wildfire since 1984.
+ Mr. Westerman. All right, I agree----
+ Dr. Gonzalez. It is mainly the small trees and the coarse,
+woody debris.
+ Mr. Westerman. Right. And I agree the suppression tactics
+over the decades have increased fire potential.
+ Dr. Oneil, would you like to talk about the carrying
+capacity, stems per acre, or biomass per acre, and how that
+contributes to more fires?
+ Dr. Oneil. Thank you. What we are dealing with in the
+western United States in particular, we have done some research
+looking at carrying capacity under these various alternative
+scenarios of a warmer and drier region.
+ In 2010, we published this over-arching document that
+looked at this carrying capacity issue, and realized that,
+going forward, we might end up losing two, three, or more
+species in particular areas because of increasing aridity.
+ What that really means is that there isn't enough water
+there to sustain forests. As most people who live in the West
+know, you have forests in places where you have a little bit
+more moisture, and as soon as you leave those places and go
+into more arid regions, it turns into grassland. So, we are
+seeing that----
+ Mr. Westerman. I am going to have to move on, but I
+appreciate you highlighting that part about the water. And I
+know there were questions about the role of land management and
+the role of adaptation management, which gets into water and
+how important our healthy forests are for providing good water.
+ But there is one thing that I think is confusing out there,
+and that is how managed forests helped to sequester more carbon
+over the long run. I have a slide I would like to put up.
+ [Slide.]
+ Mr. Westerman. It is very hard to see, especially at that
+scale. But basically, the top chart shows an unmanaged forest
+over 160 years. The bottom chart shows a managed forest. And
+those curved lines are the amount of carbon stored over that
+time frame. That is a logarithmic scale, so that is actually 10
+times more carbon on the bottom than on the top.
+ And when you use these wood products, you are storing the
+wood in buildings. If you look at not managing the forest, the
+top chart, and the one in the middle is where you do harvest
+every 70 years, the one on the top does store more carbon. But
+the one on the bottom, because you are storing the carbon in
+buildings--plus, the amount of energy that it takes to produce
+wood versus other building materials, which that was alluded
+to.
+ And if you will, put the next slide up there.
+ [Slide.]
+ Mr. Westerman. This is another very-hard-to-see chart. But
+the black line there in the middle, the large black line, that
+is the amount of cement--on the first column--that China used
+in 2017. The very top one is how much the United States used.
+ So, China used 2.4 billion tons of cement in 2017. That is
+three times more than the United States used in the previous 10
+years combined. And then we look at using wood in a building
+as--it takes 1.9 times more energy, more fossil fuels to
+produce concrete than it does to produce wood. So, you get this
+huge cumulative effect, globally, when you substitute wood for
+other materials.
+ I wish we had more time to talk about this. I am out.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
+ The Chair now recognizes Ms. DeGette.
+ Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
+congratulations on your new position. I want to congratulate
+the Chair on having her very first hearing as a hearing on
+climate change, which is so important for our public lands and
+for our country.
+ I also sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and we had
+a hearing last week on climate change. I asked the panel a
+question that I am going to also ask this panel here today,
+vis-a-vis public lands. And it will require only a yes or no
+answer, so we will start with you, Dr. Gonzalez.
+ And the question is, is climate change real, largely due to
+human activity, a source of profound risk to the health,
+safety, and welfare of our country, including to our public
+lands, and something we urgently need to address? Yes or no?
+ Dr. Gonzalez. Yes.
+ Ms. DeGette. Dr. Hansen?
+ Dr. Hansen. Yes.
+ Ms. DeGette. Mr. Cole?
+ Mr. Cole. Yes.
+ Ms. DeGette. Dr. Oneil?
+ Dr. Oneil. Yes.
+ Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much. And as I said last week
+in Energy and Commerce, the very fact that we have a bipartisan
+panel here who all agree with the basic foundation of what we
+need to address is actually a big step forward for Congress.
+And it gives me great hope that we can work in a bipartisan way
+on really addressing these issues.
+ As a westerner, I see the impacts on our public lands for
+myself. And I just have a few follow-up questions.
+ Dr. Gonzalez, you testified that temperatures have
+increased in national parks more than other places. Could you
+briefly tell us why that is?
+ Dr. Gonzalez. National parks are located in our most
+extreme environments: in the Arctic, in high elevation
+mountains, and in the arid Southwest. And those are the areas
+that climate change is exposing more. And that is where we have
+placed----
+ Ms. DeGette. They are the most vulnerable areas. Would that
+be----
+ Dr. Gonzalez. Yes, they are the most exposed. And America's
+most special places, the national parks, happen to be located
+in those extreme environments.
+ Ms. DeGette. Dr. Oneil, I wanted to talk with you about
+some issues, because I think we agree on a lot, which is when
+you would have a forest, normally that would help offset carbon
+emissions. But as you accurately point out in your testimony,
+when you have massive forest fires, that increases carbon
+emissions. Would that be a fair assessment of your testimony?
+ Dr. Oneil. That is a fair assessment.
+ Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
+ Dr. Oneil. The difficulty is that the global carbon budgets
+don't actually count emissions from public lands as something
+that is human caused, so they get excluded.
+ Ms. DeGette. We should probably fix that.
+ But one of the things that you testified about is the
+increased vulnerability of our forests from issues of aridity
+and also things like insects, which we have seen in Colorado
+and throughout the rest of the Rocky Mountain West very
+dramatically the last few years.
+ Scientists say that the reason why we have had the
+devastating pine beetle kill, for example, in our western
+forests is in large part because of climate change, because it
+doesn't get cold enough in the winters any more to kill the
+insects. Would you agree with that statement about pine
+beetles?
+ Dr. Oneil. No.
+ Ms. DeGette. You don't?
+ Dr. Oneil. No, because that is the focus of my Ph.D. And,
+in fact, in Colorado and the southern states, it is not colder
+winters, it is hotter summers that is causing----
+ Ms. DeGette. But in any event, the hotter summers are due
+to climate impacts, correct?
+ Dr. Oneil. When you see these changes----
+ Ms. DeGette. You know what? I only have a minute left. Can
+you answer that yes or no?
+ Dr. Oneil. There is that pattern that is in that system----
+ Ms. DeGette. Right. So, I will say if we address the
+climate issues as Dr. Hansen was talking about, if we can keep
+climate change down below 2 degrees, that will help with the
+initial causes of the devastating forest fires that we have, as
+well as other issues. And that is what I think we need to look
+at.
+ And one last thing I will say. I was just telling
+Congressman Huffman forest management is really important in a
+lot of these areas. And to my view, one of the reasons why we
+have had such devastating fires is previous forest management
+plans where we didn't let naturally occurring fires burn. But
+now we have millions of acres in the West, millions of acres of
+public lands. The idea that we would harvest wood from these
+areas in order to have better forest management is just simply
+not tenable. We have to work on a lot of other issues, and we
+have to be practicable.
+ Thank you, Madam Chair.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Ms. DeGette. The Chair now
+recognizes Mr. Hice.
+ Dr. Hice. Thank you, Madam Chair.
+ Today, we are engaging in--from my count, at least--this
+Committee's fifth hearing on anthropogenic climate change and
+the horrible consequences that will occur unless, of course--
+and this is my concern--unless we take action which includes
+massively expanding government, ultimately destroying
+federalism, and restricting individual liberties.
+ And I go back and look at the first five hearings of the
+115th Congress that this Committee had, and it included
+modernizing water and power infrastructure, improving
+infrastructure for tribal and insular communities, examining
+management of marine sanctuaries, improving infrastructure for
+National Park Service and Forest Service, and how best to use
+our natural raw materials for national security.
+ But today, again, if my count is correct, we have the fifth
+hearing--this time in the National Parks, Forests, and Public
+Lands Subcommittee, in what amounts to me as a publicity stage
+for the Green New Deal, which is championed by many of my
+colleagues across the aisle. And this resolution--which, of
+course, was named, at least recalls the name from FDR's New
+Deal, which, arguably, intended to put Americans back to work--
+this resolution does just the opposite.
+ In fact, one really has to wonder, in looking at the
+details of this, whether or not there will actually be new
+regulations that would be created regarding the manner in which
+we breathe because of the carbon dioxide that we ourselves
+produce.
+ This deal calls for a massive mobilization of resources,
+resources that could be more appropriately used to pay down
+$11.6 billion in Park Service maintenance backlog, which, of
+course, Chairman Grijalva and Republican Leader Bishop in a
+bipartisan manner put forth last Congress in the Restore Our
+Parks Act.
+ And I can't recall the number of times that I have heard
+from my colleagues across the aisle talking and complaining
+about how offshore oil rigs so far off they can't even be seen,
+and yet they ruin our environment. But this Democratic plan
+would now call for hundreds of thousands of square miles of
+wind turbines and solar panels. More precisely, a 2015 study by
+Stanford engineers noted that to meet the Nation's power needs
+entirely with clean energy would require almost 500,000 on- and
+off-shore wind turbines and over 75 million solar panels, and
+would cost roughly $7 trillion.
+ All of this new infrastructure would somehow, amazingly,
+not run into any problems with the Endangered Species Act or
+Clean Waters Act, and environmental impact studies would
+apparently just sail right through the approval process,
+although in this Committee we have had countless witnesses
+testify that oftentimes we are looking at a 7- to 10-year
+average of getting some of these permits.
+ This is potentially, I would say, the Green New Deal's only
+winning strategy, which I would assume supporters on the other
+side would aggressively help to overhaul, some of the
+ridiculous burdensome hoops that must be jumped through. And I
+would certainly welcome that conversation.
+ But overall, I am extremely disappointed with the direction
+of this Committee and the Subcommittees in these first few
+weeks of business. It seems to have taken the very important
+issue we have of managing the American people's natural
+resources and disguise the Committee as one focused on climate
+alarmism.
+ No doubt clean air, clean water, and healthy environment
+are important issues, one that I certainly want to help pass on
+to my children and my grandchildren. But so is the business of
+managing our Federal lands and parks, and making sure that we
+are focused on the issues like the national parks' maintenance
+backlog and a host of other issues. This is an immediate
+concern to the function of these parks, so that they continue
+to be enjoyed.
+ My hope is that in the near future we will come back to
+this Committee's agenda to match more closely the mission and
+our jurisdiction, and that we would get away from these
+continued rainbow and unicorn promises of the fairyland Green
+New Deal.
+ With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you so much, Mr. Hice. The Chair now
+recognizes Mr. Neguse.
+ Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair. And also,
+congratulations to you on your election. And I appreciate the
+opportunity to participate in this hearing, and the fact that
+this first hearing of the Subcommittee is on such an important
+issue, and as existential an issue as climate change.
+ I would just say, with respect to my colleague on the other
+side of the aisle, I respectfully disagree in the framing of
+this hearing as a publicity stage or publicity stunt, something
+to that effect. I think this hearing is an opportunity for
+members of this Committee to hear from some world-renowned
+experts and scientists in their respective fields, both
+witnesses from the Majority and the Minority. And I have
+appreciated, actually, the give and take and some of the
+thoughtful questions with respect to forest management, and so
+forth.
+ So, I think that this could hardly be described as a
+publicity stage, that this is, in fact, an important
+Subcommittee hearing on the defining issue of our time, which
+is the planetary crisis that we find ourselves in.
+ Dr. Hansen, I found your testimony very compelling with
+respect to your comment to testifying in 2004. As I mentioned
+at the last Full Committee meeting, my wife and I are new
+parents. I have a 6-month-old. Or she is 5 months, 2 weeks old,
+Natalie, our daughter. And I think a lot about the work that we
+do here in the context of the world that she will inherit.
+ When some of the most catastrophic consequences of climate
+change are set to occur at the IPCC report and, of course, we
+have several members of the IPCC here with us today, my
+daughter will be 12 years old, 13 years old. So, it really
+brings into clarity just how important the work is that this
+Committee is undertaking. I appreciate the Chairwoman holding
+the hearing, and the Members participating, and, of course, the
+witnesses, for joining us today.
+ I want to ask a question of Dr. Gonzalez. And you
+referenced Rocky Mountain National Park. I happen to represent
+the great state of Colorado, Northern Colorado, Boulder, Fort
+Collins, and Rocky Mountain National Park. I have spent my life
+as a child and a young adult and, of course, now, as a father,
+going to the park and enjoying the park as so many countless
+Americans do. You talked a lot about the consequences, just in
+terms of how our national parks are faring as a result of
+climate change, including Rocky Mountain National Park. I guess
+I am wondering if you can put a finer point on what we are to
+expect in the coming years if we don't take decisive action.
+ I agree with Dr. Hansen, that inaction is just simply not
+an option, but I am curious if you could provide sort of some
+additional details about just how dire the consequences will be
+for our national parks.
+ Dr. Gonzalez. Yes. Rocky Mountain actually has experienced,
+historically, some of the more severe impacts of climate
+change: the increased wildfire; the bark beetle kill, which,
+across the western United States has been the most severe in
+125 years; and the reduction of snow cover. If we don't reduce
+carbon emissions from human activities, wildfire could
+substantially increase--published research estimates in
+Yellowstone an increase of 300 to 1,000 percent. And with the
+increased aridity and the increase in bark beetles, more
+massive tree death, tree mortality across the western United
+States.
+ In addition, the wildlife right now in Yosemite National
+Park, historically, wildlife have been shifting up-slope,
+following the cooler temperatures. That shifting might go off
+the top of mountains.
+ And in Lassen Volcanic National Park, the American pika,
+small mammal, might completely lose its habitat and locally
+disappear.
+ Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Dr. Gonzalez. My next question is
+for Mr. Cole.
+ I want to thank you for your testimony, and certainly for
+your leadership. I want to give you an opportunity to respond,
+to the extent that you would like to, to the Ranking Member of
+this Subcommittee's comments with respect to your company and
+manufacturing and so forth. My understanding is Patagonia was a
+founding member of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, and does
+quite a bit in that regard. So, I just want to make sure you
+have an opportunity to respond to the extent you would like to.
+ Mr. Cole. Thank you. I appreciate that. In regards to our
+company's activities and our approach to this problem, we have
+a goal of being carbon neutral by 2025. This is in alignment
+with 40 years of our work around sustainability, as you note.
+And we are working hard across our entire supply chain to make
+that happen.
+ We do make products around the world, in about 20 different
+countries. We also are proud to make products in the United
+States, and we support about 1,500 to 2,000 jobs in the United
+States, depending on the season. We are proud of those
+employees and that contribution to our economy here.
+ We are also a part of an $887 billion industry, the outdoor
+recreation economy, that is present in the United States and
+supports about 7.6 million U.S. jobs, direct jobs, that derive
+directly from the protection of our public lands and from
+having a climate that supports the kind of lifestyle and
+economy that we are used to.
+ So, I would say, internationally, that having a global
+supply chain is an advantage for us, in understanding this
+global problem. And we are working with our suppliers in China,
+frankly, and other places around the world to also address
+these key issues. Climate is not just a problem for our
+country, but it is a global problem, as well. Thank you.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Cole.
+ Thank you, Mr. Neguse.
+ Mr. Neguse. Thank you, I yield back.
+ Ms. Haaland. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Curtis.
+ Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I, with my
+colleagues, would like to express my appreciation for the
+opportunity to talk about this important topic. If any of you
+have been to Utah, you will understand why I believe Utahans
+have it in their DNA to be good stewards of this earth. It
+comes quite naturally.
+ As a Boy Scout, I was taught to leave my campground cleaner
+than I found it. And I actually believe that both Republicans
+and Democrats believe that to be true. I regret the stereotypes
+that are often formed around this issue. Somehow all
+Republicans hate the environment and all Democrats are
+alarmist. And I don't believe either of those stereotypes are
+true. I hope we can find common ground as we talk.
+ You have heard from a lot of my colleagues today how
+important the forests are. I would like to add to that. Clean
+air and natural disaster resiliency, I think it is a mistake
+not to be talking about resiliency to these natural disasters.
+ There has been, interestingly, something that, in my
+opinion, has been totally missed in our dialogue today, and is
+almost always missed in this dialogue in Washington, DC, and
+that is the impact of local and state governments and elected
+officials. I believe, personally, having been a former mayor,
+that if you want to reduce it by 2 degrees, mayors know how to
+solve this. And I think it is a mistake when we feel like there
+is somehow one magic fix at the Federal level that we can
+mandate in a one-size-fits-all to solve this problem.
+ And I want to give you a quick example. In Utah, in Salt
+Lake City in Utah County, we have a unique problem, that we are
+surrounded by mountains on all sides. And particularly in the
+winter months, we get what is called an inversion, where a
+high-pressure system comes in and traps there in those valleys.
+And, therefore, if you ask Utahans what the largest
+environmental crisis is, they will say clean air. And they will
+say it about 15 times a year. Otherwise, we enjoy beautiful
+mountain, clean air.
+ In response to this, our governor, in his last State of the
+Union just several weeks ago, increased the money in his budget
+not 2 times, not 3 times, but 117 times for clean air,
+introducing initiatives with transit. And we have a big issue
+with wood-burning stoves, and that was a big part of it,
+electrical vehicles charging stations, things like that were
+part of his plan.
+ I mentioned that I was mayor before I came here, and our
+city recognized the need to take responsibility, and we
+produced something called the Provo Clean Air Toolkit. The name
+of the city is Provo. I would also invite all of you to Provo.
+And I would hope that you would all search on the Internet for
+the Provo Clean Air Toolkit. In it, I think you will see a
+masterful plan for cities about what individuals can do, what
+municipal government can do, what colleges can do, what
+businesses can do to improve air quality.
+ We also introduced transit. We worked on walking and
+biking. As the mayor, I committed to ride my bike to work 100
+times in a given year to try to inspire my residents to do the
+same.
+ We introduced renewables, we are a municipal power city. We
+were 70 percent coal when I took over. We introduced renewables
+and gave our residents a chance to buy as much as 100 percent
+of their energy from renewables.
+ And one fun thing that we did is, we also recognized no
+matter what we did as a government, unless the hearts and minds
+of our residents were in tune with this need, that we could
+accomplish nothing. So, we came up with what we called the
+Provo Clean Air Challenge pledge, and we had several points
+that we challenged our residents to do. We asked them to
+carpool as much as possible.
+ We have a unique situation in Utah, where you can find a
+church house on almost every corner. And most of us live within
+walking distance of that church. Embarrassingly, the Curtis
+family sometimes will take three cars to that church three or
+four blocks away. And we are not the only ones, so challenging
+my residents to carpool when it was appropriate.
+ Park and ride, instead of going into a drive-up restaurant
+was on the list, not letting your vehicle idle for more than 30
+seconds, and ride or bike or carpool and use public transit
+wherever possible.
+ So, today I invite all of my colleagues to take this
+challenge. And I have for you a pin that we wear on our lapel
+in Provo, if any of you feel so inclined to take that personal
+responsibility.
+ Thank you, Madam Chairman. The very first one I have given
+out in Washington, DC.
+ But before my time expires, I would just like to really
+emphasize how important it is that, first of all, as a Member
+of Congress, we personally are doing what we can do before we
+ask other people to do it. Are we changing our light bulbs? Are
+we not using plastic bags, and all of those things?
+ And the second thing is to remember the power of local
+government in solving this problem, and make sure that we are
+empowering them and not ignoring them.
+ Thank you very much. I yield my time. Thank you.
+ Ms. Haaland. Yes, thank you, Mr. Curtis. I walk to work
+every day. Just letting you know that. And I haven't used a
+plastic disposable water bottle since I have been here on
+Capitol Hill. So, thank you so much.
+ The Chair now recognizes Mr. Case.
+ Mr. Case. Thank you, Chair.
+ Dr. Oneil and Dr. Gonzalez, I have two questions, one for
+each of you, both sides of the same coin. I will give them to
+you both up front.
+ Dr. Oneil, I will start with kind of a very abbreviated
+story from my own home state of Hawaii, where the indigenous
+peoples of Hawaii, the native Hawaiians, lived for generations
+and generations in isolation, no contact, a very ecologically
+and environmentally balanced and sustainable society.
+ And then what happened was the first western ships brought
+with them rats, and the rats wreaked havoc on the local
+wildlife, and also on human beings. Therefore, we imported the
+mongoose from India to take care of the rats. Well, the
+mongoose started killing off the foul population, and they went
+from hero to enemy. So, we brought in something else to take
+care of the mongoose, et cetera, et cetera. You can see that
+sometimes the best intentions of humans are not as good as what
+nature wrote to start with.
+ And I say that by way of asking you this question. When I
+hear your testimony, what I hear you saying is that, hey, we
+have a climate change problem, we have incredible risk to our
+public lands, to include our forests. And, obviously, that is
+creating a number of problems, whether it be wildfires or
+whether it be the lack of a natural solution to climate change
+and CO2 emissions. But the way to do that is to
+harvest the forest. And I just pause on that when I think about
+it, from a science perspective, because you are asking me to
+really say that my solution to the problem I had in Hawaii was
+to introduce another human solution, when the problem was the
+rat coming in to start with. The problem was climate change to
+start with.
+ So, I just ask you to comment on--are you saying that the
+out, in terms of the impact of climate change on our public
+lands, is to enhance harvesting, or is there a human solution?
+I am just having--I am not a scientist, I am not a climate
+scientist, but I am a skeptic of that position. As opposed to
+just going back to a more natural cycle.
+ I am sorry. And, Dr. Gonzalez, the flip side is, is there a
+way to manage our forests that helps climate change?
+ Dr. Oneil. I think that the challenge is do nothing or log
+it to the beach. And that is not actually an alternative that
+you would look at, in terms of the national forests, which is
+where I have done a lot of this analysis and work. Those are
+areas that are available, they are considered timberlands. And
+there are a lot of different alternatives of the way that you
+would treat those forests to get to a condition that was more
+fire resilient.
+ Like the example that you just explained--I was just in
+Hawaii at Christmas, so I got the story of the errors of the
+mongoose way--but the idea that if we just leave it to nature
+everything would be wonderful would suggest that we haven't
+spent 40 or 50 years doing fire suppression and, therefore,
+that historic fire return interval would be such that we would
+get back to a natural condition. And because we are so far out
+of synch, that is not actually possible.
+ Mr. Case. So, are you saying that we are out of synch
+because of human-caused management, and we have to get back
+into synch by human ways, as opposed to----
+ Dr. Oneil. It is a combination of all of those things. It
+is a combination of the management decisions that were made in
+the last 100 years, including stopping all fires by 10 a.m.
+ Mr. Case. OK.
+ Dr. Oneil. And the recognition of that probably--like I
+said, for the past 30 or 40 years, fire ecologists are saying
+we are going to have a problem, we are going to have a problem.
+And now we have a problem.
+ Mr. Case. OK, I get it. I appreciate your answer. That was
+an honest answer.
+ Dr. Gonzalez, what do you think? Can we handle climate
+change in some forest management way to include continued
+harvesting? What does that do?
+ Dr. Gonzalez. Well, published scientific research by my
+colleagues at the University of California-Berkeley in Yosemite
+National Park and elsewhere shows that prescribed burning and
+the use of wildland fire can effectively restore ecosystem
+function to our forests, and that it reduces risks of high-
+severity fire in the future, improves their resilience to
+drought, and improves soil moisture.
+ Also, fire is more efficient, cost effective, and
+environmentally sound than timber harvesting or thinning.
+ I would underline also that prescribed burning also results
+in long-term accumulation of carbon, which naturally reduces
+climate change. And the way it does that is you remove the
+small trees and the large trees get larger. And over the long
+term, the research shows that the large trees will store more
+carbon than you release in the short-term burn.
+ Mr. Case. OK, I am out of time.
+ So, you are saying, just briefly, yes, there are
+appropriate forest management techniques that actually help
+climate change?
+ Dr. Gonzalez. Yes, prescribed burn and wildland fire.
+ Mr. Case. OK, thank you.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Case. The Chair recognizes Mr.
+Bishop.
+ Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
+ Dr. Oneil, I appreciate you not speaking in glittering
+generalities. But I have 1 minute to ask this question and have
+it answered.
+ Traditionally, forests are thought of as carbon sinks to
+suck up carbon. Instead, they are now emitting it. Are there,
+in your opinion, some creative ways of forest resiliency that
+we could use for these extreme events that we have had? Forty-
+one seconds, go for it.
+ Dr. Oneil. There are a number of examples that are
+occurring here. There is an example in Arizona, where they are
+looking at forest restoration. They removed the trees, they
+have to find a market for them. Unfortunately, there are no
+markets to be found.
+ And part of their requirement is actually to do the fire
+risk reduction and get rid of all the biomass before they can
+move on to the next area. And I think this is important. When
+you harvest, you also have to treat those residues, usually
+through some kind of a fire effort.
+ Now, the challenge is----
+ Mr. Bishop. I am sorry. Let me go on with this. So, you are
+talking about there are practices, but they also have to have
+some private-sector economy to make them functional at the same
+time?
+ Dr. Oneil. Absolutely.
+ Mr. Bishop. All right. Mr. Cole, I appreciate the fact that
+you are here when none of your company actually was going to
+attend last year. So, thank you for accepting a Democrat
+invitation. I think it clearly illustrates how crony capitalism
+is working very well in the last administration, and may do it
+again in the future.
+ I have been reading in Matthew about how Christ and John
+talked about the hypocrites, except the word ``hypocrite''
+comes from a Greek word, which actually is better translated as
+a play actor. There are roles people are playing. And I think
+we have roles that people are playing here.
+ Now, the slur against Patagonia is, is Patagonia made in
+China? Because that is what all the labels say. I want everyone
+to know that is not true. I cleaned out my closet and found a
+vest that was purchased from Patagonia, so I looked at the
+label. And it was not made in China, it was made in Sri Lanka.
+ So, the $900 billion industry you are talking about--which
+is a slight exaggeration--is basically there to improve the
+bottom line, not necessarily improve the planet.
+ So, for example, the stuff that is made in China by your
+company, your company clearly put out the statement that, ``We
+made the choice not to disengage with countries on the basis of
+their policies.'' I wish you would do that in the United
+States, as well.
+ But amongst those policies which the company now wishes to
+ignore is the internment, re-education of over a million Uighur
+Muslims; routine jailing of environmental activists and civil
+rights campaigners; destroying over 3,000 acres of coral reefs
+in the South China Sea with ports and military facilities;
+subsidizing long-range commercial fishing fleets that threaten
+the viability of fishing around the world; providing $36
+billion in financing to developing countries for the
+construction of over 102 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants.
+ In addition, just the Patagonia businesses in China, 65
+percent of all those businesses are run on coal. If you had
+actually done your work in America, the average in the United
+States is only 37 percent, which would be a lot nicer.
+ Now, in addition to that, the testimony you have given here
+has a whole bunch of false narratives in there. If I read the
+paragraph you said simply about Bears Ears and Grand Staircase,
+but specifically Bears Ears, ``The Administration's actions not
+only robbed Native Americans,'' which is false, ``and all
+Americans of their natural and cultural heritage,'' false,
+``threatened communities that depend on outdoor industries for
+economic survival,'' false, ``poison our air and water,''
+false, ``wreaked untold damage on vulnerable species,'' false,
+``exacerbate climate change,'' false, ``and open up public
+lands to more extraction.''
+ Mr. Curtis, if I can yield to you for a second, you had a
+bill to actually legalize the Bears Ears situation and create
+it the proper way. Did you open up extraction in the area that
+was no longer part of the Bears Ears Monument that was done,
+unfortunately, by President Obama in Hawaii?
+ Mr. Curtis. I regret that, because of the anger in that
+area, nobody realized that my bill did more to protect the land
+than President Obama's designation. There was a mineral
+withdrawal throughout the entire area that President Obama had
+designated.
+ Mr. Bishop. All right. Well, get this in 40 seconds, 50
+seconds or less: Did you ban extraction?
+ Mr. Curtis. Yes.
+ Mr. Bishop. Why?
+ Mr. Curtis. It is the right thing to do.
+ Mr. Bishop. And was there any potential of extraction in
+that entire area?
+ Mr. Curtis. No.
+ Mr. Bishop. So, that is why we were able to do it.
+Actually, the association Patagonia leads was organized to
+avoid paying taxes so that you can get the taxpayer to fund all
+these programs to exist with your bottom line.
+ I am pleased that on the tax break that you got, you got
+$10 million and you decided to put that into politics. Had you
+done that into something actually enhancing the backlog problem
+we have in maintenance, that could have been real, and that
+could have been something specific, and that could have been
+happily there.
+ Madam Chairman, I have 15 seconds. I want to congratulate
+you. You are the only member on your side that has not gone
+over the 5-minute limit. In fact, so far, everyone totals 2
+minutes and 44 seconds. We should get another speaker on our
+side, just to do that. But I appreciate the fact there is a 5-
+minute limit. I am quitting.
+ Ms. Haaland. You are amazing. Thank you very much, Mr.
+Bishop.
+ The Chair now recognizes Mr. Horsford.
+ Mr. Bishop. For 5 minutes.
+ Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Madam Chair. And it gives me great
+honor to say that, and I am very pleased to be on this
+Committee.
+ Not to belabor the comments that were just made, I would
+like to divert back to the interest from my home state of
+Nevada, which depends heavily on public lands, and has a long-
+standing partnership with government agencies, that we work to
+both manage and protect the public lands in partnership
+together.
+ In fact, my district, Nevada's 4th Congressional District,
+is home to Great Basin National Park, Death Valley National
+Park, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, as well as Gold
+Butte, Basin and Range, and Tule Springs National Monument,
+something that I am proud to have worked with Ranking Member
+Bishop in prior congressional sessions.
+ Nevada's 4th Congressional District is also home to three
+national forests, which span more than 3.5 million acres. In
+total, Nevada has more than 59 million acres of public lands.
+Eighty-six percent of our state is made up of public land
+managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park
+Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and other Federal agencies.
+ Nevada's public lands provide unparalleled outdoor
+recreational opportunities for the people of Nevada and the
+visitors to our state. In 2017 alone, the National Park Service
+accommodated more than 6 million visits to Nevada's parks. And
+in 2017, visitors to land managed by the National Park Service
+spent more than $250 million supporting 3,281 jobs.
+ Sadly, due to the impacts of climate change, Nevada's
+public lands face an ever-increasing list of threats. In recent
+years, rising temperatures have allowed the bark beetle to
+multiply faster, putting more forest area at risk of
+infestation. Now, the bark beetle may not sound too threatening
+to some. But as it continues to infest our forest, it will
+substantially increase the forest fires and threaten the health
+of Nevada's national forests.
+ Climate change continues to contribute to longer wildfire
+seasons in Nevada. And we have also seen a decline in our water
+rates at the Lake Mead National Recreational Area.
+ All the impacts of climate change increase in scope and
+severity. Managers of public lands will continue to face
+increased challenges.
+ Dr. Gonzalez, your research spoke to the disproportional
+impacts of climate change on national parks in the Southwest.
+And I would like to ask, if you could, if we allow climate
+change to continue unabated, what will this mean for districts
+like mine?
+ Dr. Gonzalez. Already in Lake Mead National Recreation
+Area, in your district, climate change has combined with
+increased water withdrawals from cities and agriculture to
+lower the level of the lake to its lowest level since it was
+filled in the 1930s. That is in part due to a drought in the
+southwestern United States that published research has shown
+has been caused by human-caused climate change since 2000, and
+is ongoing.
+ Continued climate change could continue to reduce water
+flow in the Colorado River, which threatens the level of the
+lake, which not only provides for the ecosystems in the area,
+but sustains the people of southern Nevada.
+ Mr. Horsford. Thank you. And Mr. Cole, can you explain how
+the threats outlined by Mr. Gonzalez might impact outdoor
+recreation on our public lands?
+ Mr. Cole. Absolutely. And first off, Nevada is a very
+important state for us. We will have upwards of 1,000 employees
+as of the end of this year.
+ Mr. Horsford. We appreciate your contribution to our state
+and the creation of those jobs.
+ Mr. Cole. Thank you, and thanks for your leadership. And
+those employees--for a business, we need to attract employees
+like that to our locations, to places like our distribution
+center in Reno, Nevada. And we can't do that without an
+attractive state to bring them into. And part of the
+attraction, as you have just noted, about Nevada are its public
+lands. It has incredible places for people to come and
+recreate, spend time outdoors.
+ It is an attractive thing for a business like ours. I think
+that is the case for businesses across the spectrum in outdoor
+recreation, whether it is small mom-and-pop businesses on a
+local level that rely on protected places for their business
+and to bring people in, or large ones like ours. It was a huge
+economic impact, for sure.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Cole.
+ Thank you, Mr. Horsford. The Chair recognizes Mr. Fulcher.
+ Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Madam Chairman and panel, thank you
+for being here. I have a question for Dr. Oneil, but I need to
+set the stage for that because I think, from what I am hearing,
+the situation in our state of Idaho is different than what I am
+hearing from my colleagues.
+ But in our state, approximately two-thirds of our land is
+Federal land, so we are really tenants there, instead of
+landlords in that sense. And the problem is that our landlord
+is about $22 trillion in debt, and they don't have the ability
+to manage what is theirs, so they don't.
+ So, in a given year, we will burn up--just in the forest
+areas--about a half-a-million acres, if you want to average it
+out over time. And that has kind of turned into a worse-of-all-
+worlds scenario, because the wildlife gets decimated in that
+circumstance, tons of carbon emissions get kicked up into the
+air. We will collectively, state and Federal, spend six-digit
+millions in trying to suppress it. But when it is not managed
+at all, there is this fuel load that builds up so much that a
+lightning strike, boom, hits it and then it is decimated for
+our wildlife, our sportsmen, our timber industry, all of that.
+ So, what is left of our timber industry, what is left of
+our sportsmen, our recreationalists, and our farmers, our
+ranchers, they would just like to engage in some fashion to try
+to put some wisdom--and that is all, just that, just wisdom--
+into how that land is managed, the land that is within our
+state borders.
+ From your perspective and your homework, what are the
+biggest obstacles and some of the things we might be able to
+do, just simply to take the stakeholders who live there, who
+want to take care of it, to have a little bit more say in how
+that is done?
+ Dr. Oneil. In Washington State, we have adopted an all-
+lands, all-hands approach, where you systematically--looking at
+these very high-risk areas, including state, private, and
+Federal land, and tribal lands, and looking at how it is that
+we could create these large areas that have some resilience in
+them. That is sort of a shared stewardship model. They work
+very closely with the U.S. Forest Service to try to accomplish
+that kind of effort.
+ But it wouldn't happen without on-the-ground forest
+collaboratives. In Washington State, we have a large number of
+forest collaboratives that very much speak to that local input
+and local outcomes. I would suggest that is a model that is
+usable in almost every area. They use it in Arizona, they use
+it in Washington State, where they are actually looking at ways
+that the local people can get their needs addressed well.
+ And also public-private relationships because, obviously,
+the Forest Service or any other public agency is not in the
+business of marketing any kind of material that they remove.
+And you do need markets to be able to sustain this stuff. We
+have had stewardship contracts for years, and the difficulty is
+being able to actually market the material and, therefore,
+nobody bids on it, or they don't bid enough to do the work to
+actually create this really significant change.
+ So, it is a systemic challenge, especially if you lose your
+infrastructure.
+ Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Dr. Oneil.
+ And Madam Chair, just a closing statement. And I really do
+appreciate the perspective of the panelists. And I would just
+invite you, if you really believe that fires in their natural
+state and just leaving things alone is the best thing to do for
+the environment, then I would just encourage you during fire
+season, when we are pumping tons of carbon into the air and
+spending hundreds of millions to try to suppress it, I would
+encourage you just to come visit. We live there. It is our
+home. And we just want to take care of it. Thank you.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. The Chair now
+recognizes Mr. Lowenthal.
+ Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair and the witnesses for
+being here. I have sat here through this, listening to this,
+and I really think it reflects the fact that--later on we are
+going to be voting about a package to keep the government open
+or not. And we may have some issues later on around the
+President thinking about a national emergency. What we are
+talking about here is the national emergency that the Nation
+confronts, and the planet confronts. So, I am really glad to be
+part of this hearing and listen to it.
+ Yesterday, we held hearings in the Natural Resources
+Committee on the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, and
+again, as witnesses have pointed out, 25 percent of our
+Nation's energy sources--oil, gas, coal, and then also
+renewables--come from Federal lands. That is all the offshore,
+all the onshore that are under the control of the Federal
+Government, about 25 percent. So, I think that is a great
+discussion.
+ And we have heard from some of the witnesses. I am going to
+ask all the witnesses to really answer three questions.
+ Should we now be placing a moratorium on issuing any new
+permits or any new leases for onshore and offshore oil, gas,
+and coal? Should we be?
+ Should we also look at, on existing extraction, to place a
+fee or a tax on fossil fuel extraction to fund some of the
+impacts of climate change? Should those that are contributing
+now, should we be looking at that?
+ And if we are going to fund some of the impacts, what would
+you set up as our priorities from some kind of fee on oil
+extraction, or carbon fee, but from Federal lands? How would
+you spend, as your highest priority, in terms of some of the
+impacts?
+ I am going to go right across, start with Dr. Gonzalez.
+First question, should we place a moratorium on all now new
+development on Federal lands?
+ Dr. Gonzalez. The scientific research clearly shows that we
+need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. And
+moving to renewable, solar, wind, and energy conservation, and
+energy efficiency is the way to do that.
+ Many policy mechanisms to do that, and the one that you
+have identified is one of them, it is not in my particular area
+of expertise to judge that moratorium, but anything that moves
+us away from fossil fuels is good.
+ Dr. Lowenthal. OK, Dr. Hansen. Should we be placing a
+moratorium on all new development, permits, leases?
+ Dr. Hansen. If our bottom-line goal is to stop making this
+problem worse, I would say that would be a prudent course of
+action, especially when the injury from the action affects the
+very place from which that energy is being extracted.
+ Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
+ Mr. Cole?
+ Mr. Cole. Yes, we have already been pretty public in
+stating that, for offshore drilling, we believe very firmly the
+moratorium should be in place. And similarly, for onshore, I
+think it is a prudent action to proceed that way.
+ Dr. Lowenthal. And Dr. Oneil?
+ Dr. Oneil. Offshore oil and gas is outside of my realm of
+expertise, as a scientist. I am going to decline that one.
+ Dr. Lowenthal. OK. On existing oil extraction, which is
+approximately 25 percent of the Nation's oil, gas, and coal,
+should we be having some kind of fee or extraction to really
+begin to pay for some of the both short-term and long-term
+impacts?
+ And if it is so, what other kinds of impacts, whether
+environmental, whether it is economic development, transitions,
+labor, disruptions, if we begin to do this, how should we begin
+to use some of the resources?
+ And anybody can jump in. Because we are going to have to
+prioritize.
+ First of all, should we be--is there a cost to carbon
+extraction? And should they be part of the solution by helping
+to fund impacts?
+ Dr. Gonzalez. Again, clearly, the research shows that the
+real cost of fossil fuels, the social cost of carbon, has not
+been reflected in the price, the environmental impacts and the
+social costs. So, any policy that can integrate that real
+social cost of carbon into fossil fuel use would be a good
+advance.
+ Dr. Lowenthal. Anybody else? I think I am running out of
+time.
+ Dr. Hansen. I would just like to quickly say that solving
+the problem of climate change is addressing the need for fiscal
+prudence. The cost of the impacts of climate change is already
+upon us. We have already talked about a lot of the effects that
+have been seen in everybody's home states.
+ What that will mean if it continues unchecked for our
+economy is catastrophic. Coming up with ways that we create
+market incentives to move us away from that and toward the
+economy of the future, I think, is vital. I am not an
+economist, so I don't know what the best mechanisms are, but we
+certainly do need to account for those costs.
+ Dr. Lowenthal. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield
+back.
+ Mr. Huffman [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. The
+Chair now recognizes the acting Chair. And I allowed a little
+extra time there, unlike Ranking Member Bishop, who did a great
+job bringing his comments in precisely within the time limit.
+ However, I think he may have exceeded the limit of
+reasonable credibility with some of that anger and sanctimony
+directed at Patagonia. It seems that all of this anger and
+passion about doing business with China and other countries for
+clothing is reserved for companies that want to protect public
+lands and national monuments, and do something about climate
+change and be good corporate citizens.
+ I wish we had more even-handed sanctimony that applied to
+the Trump family. After all, these are the biggest hypocrites
+of all. They attend their MAGA rallies, they whip people into a
+nationalist fervor, railing against doing business and trade
+with China, and then they turn around and do exactly that. So,
+I hope we cannot only honor time limits, but also honor even-
+handedness in our sanctimony, as we go forward.
+ I was pleased by the other side's calling a witness to this
+hearing--the first time, I believe, in any of our Natural
+Resource Subcommittee hearings--Dr. Oneil, who firmly reflects
+the mainstream of the global scientific community in
+acknowledging climate change. I am getting a little whiplash,
+because we have heard previous witnesses that tell us no big
+deal, nothing to see here.
+ But Dr. Oneil, I found your testimony refreshing and
+welcome. The only piece that I wanted to push back on a little
+is the notion that we might be able to log ourselves out of
+this problem, or log ourselves even to fire resilience. I
+represent a lot of forestland and a lot of public land that has
+much in common with some of my Republican colleagues. And I am
+glad you clarified a little bit that you are not talking about
+logging all the way to the beach, so I appreciate that comment
+very much that you made.
+ But I think it is important to acknowledge--because I live
+this reality, too--that the 2017 North Bay Fires and last
+year's Mendocino Complex Fire, which devastated parts of my
+district, burned primarily in chaparral. These were not large-
+standing merchantable trees. Sixty percent of wildfires occur
+on chaparral and grasslands, so they are not going to be
+stopped by logging, they are not going to be stopped even by
+many conventional fuels reduction projects. And these fires
+also are exceptional because of weather events: high winds, dry
+ground, all of these factors, not simply this simplistic notion
+that we don't cut enough trees.
+ That is why many of us want to prioritize mitigation
+projects in and around at-risk communities, ensuring that those
+communities have the resources and guidance that they need to
+establish fire-safe neighborhoods. That is smart fire
+resiliency.
+ But you might be surprised, Dr. Oneil. I think if you and I
+sat in a room, we would agree on a lot of things where we can
+do more cutting of trees and more harvesting. And we can do it
+thoughtfully, with shaded fuel breaks. We can do thinning of
+some of these second and third-growth plantation stands that
+are extreme risks for catastrophic fires.
+ So, I don't want to suggest that we are totally on opposite
+pages, or that the choice is to discontinue all harvesting and
+just open the doors to unlimited harvesting with impunity. I
+think there is a lot of common ground that we can work on
+together.
+ Now, Dr. Gonzalez, we have heard at length about logging to
+reduce fuel loads, and I want to ask you. Does the best
+available science suggest that commercial logging in this
+fashion is a silver bullet to reduce fire risk?
+ Dr. Gonzalez. Published scientific research shows the
+opposite. It is that pre-emptively using fire management,
+prescribed burning, and wildland fire is the way to restore
+ecosystem integrity to our forests, and to reduce high-severity
+fire in the future.
+ Mr. Huffman. OK. Mr. Cole, I know Patagonia is based in
+Ventura, close to where the devastating Thomas Fire burned
+hundreds of thousands of acres around Ventura. Was this the
+fire in an unthinned tree stand?
+ Mr. Cole. No, those fires which did impact us heavily--we
+had over half of our employees evacuated at given times over
+the past couple of years--that was in exactly the kind of
+habitat you described, which is chaparral. It is coastal scrub.
+ A policy to log more would not have helped that area at
+all.
+ Mr. Huffman. OK. Moving to a different subject, we have
+talked a lot about our public lands being a great asset for
+this country, and a contributor to emissions. But they can also
+be part of the solution through carbon sequestration, soil
+health, and other factors. Can you speak very briefly about
+regenerative agriculture, and healthy soils on our public
+lands, as a strategy to reduce emissions?
+ Mr. Cole. Yes, this is another sort of pillar of our policy
+and approach around addressing the climate crisis, is
+regenerative organic agriculture. The concept is one that goes
+back, literally, thousands of years. It is a sort of low-till,
+no-till crop rotation orientation to agriculture that has huge
+benefits in storing carbon in the soil. And we know that simply
+cutting back on fossil fuels and shifting to renewables is not
+enough. We have to store carbon.
+ Mr. Huffman. Thank you----
+ Mr. Cole. So, this is a great approach----
+ Mr. Huffman. I apologize that I don't have more time,
+because we deserve to have a longer conversation about that
+subject, but we are out of time.
+ Mr. Westerman.
+ Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate----
+ Mr. Huffman. I think we have reached the end.
+ Mr. Westerman. Yes, OK, I thought we were doing a second
+round.
+ Mr. Huffman. Are we going to do a second round? Oh, the
+Chair is here.
+ Mr. Westerman. We still have time on the clock.
+ Mr. Huffman. I am happy to--let me leave that tough
+decision to the Chair, though.
+ Ms. Haaland [presiding]. Thank you so much. I wanted to go
+until noon. We have 10 minutes. So, we have time for two more
+questions, one on your side and one on ours. How is that? If
+you would like to go over your time, I am more than happy to
+accommodate you. Thank you.
+ Mr. Westerman. We are burning them now.
+ Ms. Haaland. Exactly. Mr. Westerman.
+ Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you
+doing a second round. I think southerners should be given more
+minutes. I think we are being discriminated against because of
+our slow cadence in speaking, but we will try to get more
+questions in this time.
+ I would like to make a bit of a clarification. I think we
+have to distinguish between public lands and Federal lands. We
+have the national parks and we have the Forest Service, which I
+think are two land bases that should be managed differently.
+ Dr. Gonzalez, I know you talked about Yellowstone. I got to
+spend some time in Yellowstone. I never realized before going
+out there just how much of a lodgepole pine cohort is in
+Yellowstone, which we know has about a 100-year life
+expectancy, until you get a stand-replacing fire. I think the
+one in the 1980s took out about half of Yellowstone. It is
+going to burn. I don't think we need to manage on Yellowstone,
+we can let nature manage Yellowstone. That is what has been
+going on there. And there are other places on our national
+parks where I have never promoted doing intensive management on
+those parks. There could be stuff in the wildland-urban
+interface.
+ But the Forest Service is a different story. And I would
+like to just go back briefly to my previous testimony, where I
+had the chart up that showed that active management plus using
+wood materials, overall, is a bigger carbon synch, better for
+the environment than just a hands-off approach to management.
+And I want to ask the scientist this.
+ Dr. Gonzalez, do you agree with that assessment, that
+management plus using wood materials is better than non-
+management?
+ Dr. Gonzalez. Prescribed burning, again, has been shown to
+increase carbon storage in forests more than mechanical
+thinning.
+ Mr. Westerman. Dr.----
+ Mr. Huffman. Could I ask if Mr. Westerman would yield just
+for a clarification of his question? And I will give you all of
+my time, as far as----
+ Mr. Westerman. I will yield to the gentleman.
+ Mr. Huffman. I am just wondering if you are asking
+categorically, across the board. Because sometimes we talk as
+if all forests and all fires are the same, and they are just--
+--
+ Mr. Westerman. No, I am not talking across the board.
+ Mr. Huffman. OK.
+ Mr. Westerman. But in areas where we can actively manage,
+where we produce wood products, we build wood buildings, build
+furniture, the research shows that that, overall, is better for
+the environment than no management at all. And I am just asking
+if you agree with that research, or do you disagree with it.
+ Dr. Gonzalez. Storage and harvested wood products can, yes,
+increase carbon storage. But the point I was making was the
+difference between prescribed burning, proactive fire
+management, versus logging and thinning. And it is the
+proactive fire management that has been shown----
+ Mr. Westerman. I need to move on. Dr. Hansen?
+ Dr. Hansen. My area of expertise is not forest dynamics.
+However, what I do know is that if, in fact, you want to have
+forest products in order to be harvested, we need to start
+managing our forest systems for future conditions. Otherwise,
+we will end up with not----
+ Mr. Westerman. Agreed, that the adaptive management----
+ Dr. Hansen. We need to undertake adaptation principles,
+yes.
+ Mr. Westerman. And Dr. Oneil?
+ Dr. Oneil. I have worked extensively in this area. In fact,
+some of the published research quantifies those differences in
+just leaving the forests alone or managing it for wood products
+to both store the carbon in the wood and offset the use of
+other materials like steel and concrete. So, yes, I do agree
+with that.
+ Mr. Westerman. OK. And Madam Chair, I would like to submit
+for the record the charts that I have put up that were so hard
+to read. They did come from this graduate-level textbook called
+Global Resources and the Environment, by Chad Oliver, who is a
+professor at Yale University. I would like to submit those for
+the record, that show that managing forests and using wood
+products are better for the environment.
+ Ms. Haaland. Without objection, so ordered.
+ Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
+ Dr. Oneil, you also supplied this chart that shows forests
+on the Federal lands have a higher mortality rate than a growth
+rate, which is very concerning.
+ Contrary to that, in my state of Arkansas we produce 16
+million more tons of wood per year every year. And with your
+data of 50 percent of that is carbon, we are actually synching
+8 million more tons of carbon per year in the state of
+Arkansas. The state of Georgia, it is 9\1/2\ million tons of
+carbon more per year that is going into synch.
+ Should states like Arkansas, who have a healthy forest, be
+rewarded for that, versus states who have--or the Federal
+Government, that have forests that have higher mortality and
+are emitting more carbon, storing less carbon? Should they be
+punished?
+ Dr. Oneil. I am not into the punishment and reward thing
+here.
+ Mr. Westerman. Well, maybe that wasn't the right word.
+Should there be more incentives for states like Arkansas, that
+are sequestering more carbon?
+ Dr. Oneil. I think the incentive is to promote and support
+a sector, for a sector that will encourage that investment in
+growing forests and using them for harvested wood products, and
+then using those harvested wood products, as many of them as
+possible and long-lived products.
+ Certainly in the Southeast we have a really vibrant forest
+industry. And actually, that same report that looked at the
+national forests and the level of mortality also speaks to the
+fact that in the southeast United States there are more acres
+under management, and they are harvesting more than they ever
+have, but yet they are carrying more than they ever had because
+there is investment, because there is a market. And that market
+promotes the reinvestment in forestry.
+ We also see that in the Pacific Northwest in the coastal
+areas, where you have a lot of private forestland, and the
+investment supports the idea of continued forest management.
+ When we lose that market, we lose the investment potential,
+we lose the potential to use those lands to sequester carbon
+and then produce wood products. It is a different calculus.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Dr. Oneil.
+ Thank you, Mr. Westerman. And I would like to make note
+that we did yield to your southern cadence, so thank you for
+bringing that up.
+ Mr. Huffman. Madam Chair, would you please deduct Mr.
+Westerman's extra time from mine? And I will yield back.
+ [Laughter.]
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you. I will ask the last question of
+this hearing, and my question goes to Dr. Hansen. The first is
+a yes-no question, the second one I will ask you to expand on
+the answer.
+ In your testimony, you mentioned that we need to provide
+our agencies with clear, informed mandates to begin preparing
+for climate change. In your opinion, has this Administration
+provided these?
+ Dr. Hansen. No.
+ Ms. Haaland. And what should we be requiring our agencies
+to do?
+ Dr. Hansen. It should be a required part of how they do
+business. And I am going to preface this by saying this isn't
+just because of environmental interests. This should also be an
+interest by every taxpayer in this country.
+ We should not be allowing decisions to be made that are not
+going to be effective for what we want our government to be
+doing for us, because they will be undermined by the effects of
+climate change. So, the need would be for all decisions made,
+all actions taken by Federal agencies to be evaluated for their
+vulnerability to climate change, and designed to maximize the
+reduction of that risk so that we can deliver on the promises
+that we are making to the American people, to future
+generations, and to the environment that we are stewards of.
+ Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Dr. Hansen. And that
+concludes our hearing on this climate change and public lands.
+ I want to thank you all again for being here today, and for
+helping us start this important conversation. It is imperative
+that we hear the best science, and that we understand the
+impacts so that we can begin to act on climate change.
+ Unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle have chosen
+to focus on land use scenarios and outdated rhetoric, but these
+claims will not slow us down.
+ To our witnesses, your insights and policy recommendations
+have been helpful, and will help us craft bold and impactful
+legislation around climate change adaptation. Let us not forget
+how momentous it is that we are once again hosting these
+important conversations in the halls of Congress.
+ And this is the end of the hearing.
+ That is right. The members of the Committee may have some
+additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to
+respond to these in writing.
+ Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must
+submit witness questions within 3 business days following the
+hearing, and the hearing record will be held open for 10
+business days for these responses.
+ If there is no further business, without objection, the
+Committee stands adjourned.
+
+ [Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
+
+ [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
+
+ Prepared Statement of the Hon. Debbie Dingell, a Representative in
+ Congress from the State of Michigan
+ Thank you, Chairman Haaland and Ranking Member Young, for convening
+this hearing to discuss the threat of climate change and the unique
+challenges it poses to our Nation's public lands.
+ Public lands are key to the economic and ecological health of
+Michigan. As they comprise almost 10 percent of Michigan's total land
+area, these areas drive tens of millions of dollars in tourism and
+support thousands of jobs.
+ From the iconic Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore to Isle
+Royale National Park, these areas are fundamental to Michigan's
+identity and the state's outdoor recreation economy.
+ Given the integral role that public lands play in Michigan, I am
+highly concerned about the effects of climate change that these areas
+face. We know that public lands will face disproportionate impacts as a
+result of climate change.
+ Over the last century, the mean annual temperature experienced
+across the United States' national park system increased at double the
+rate of the United States as a whole.
+ As a result of reduced winter ice and snow cover caused by climate
+change, the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore will face
+accelerated loss from increased erosion. Additionally, other national
+parks both in Michigan and across the United States face potentially
+existential risks.
+ The need for action is clear--we must work to address climate
+change without delay by taking strong and decisive action at the
+Federal level.
+ Protections for public lands are critical for not only mitigating
+the impact of climate change on sensitive ecosystems, but also,
+properly managed, can serve as a climate adaption solution.
+ Unfortunately, the Trump administration has elected to ignore the
+numerous economic, public health, and ecological benefits that public
+land preservation provides. Instead, they have prioritized oil
+drilling, mining and resource extraction at all costs.
+ The Administration's actions include rescinding Department of the
+Interior guidance to prepare for the impacts of climate change on
+public lands, as well as unprecedented actions to put public lands in
+private hands.
+ These actions are highly misguided. Instead, we should be renewing
+our commitment to preserving America's public lands for future
+generations.
+ It is my hope that today's witnesses will provide context on the
+importance of public land protections in addressing climate change, and
+the key role that they will play as we examine solutions to this
+pressing issue.
+
+ ______
+
+
+ Dr. Mark E. Harmon, Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University
+ Statement Submitted for the Record Concerning Committee Hearing dated
+February 13, 2019 on Climate Change and Public Lands: Examining Impacts
+ and Considering Adaptation Opportunities
+ My name is Dr. Mark E. Harmon and I am currently a professor
+emeritus at Oregon State University. I wish to offer the Subcommittee
+my personal comments and opinions on the issue you are considering.
+These are based on my 33 years of professional experience examining
+these and related issues. Over my career I have received a large number
+of grants (78 in total), published numerous peer-reviewed journal
+articles (over 140), been an author of three major reviews (one cited
+over 3,900 times), reviewed about 175 research proposals for agencies
+such as NASA, NSF, and USDA, served as a referee on many scientific
+manuscripts (over 450 for a total of 100 different journals), taught
+several graduate level courses on the topic of forest ecosystems and
+forest carbon dynamics and well as made dozens of scientific and
+outreach presentations on these topics, and served as a scientific
+expert to Oregon's and Federal agencies including the US EPA (biogenic
+carbon). To give more details I am providing my abbreviated curriculum
+vitae, but I believe most scientists in this field would consider me a
+leading expert particularly in the field of forest carbon.
+ I have a general concern about both the written and transcribed
+testimony from Dr. Oneil (the Minority witness) that I have recently
+read regarding the examination of climate change impacts on public
+lands and adaptation opportunities. To sum up the basic logic that
+appears to have been presented: (1) a warming climate coupled with
+increased tree density has lead increased disturbance caused by fire,
+insects, and disease in forests; (2) therefore more trees must be
+harvested to reduce tree density; (3) these management actions will
+reduce the amount of disturbance; and (4) will result in greater stores
+of carbon thus reducing one of the key drivers of climate change,
+atmospheric carbon dioxide. I find this analysis to be overly
+simplified, lacking context, and incomplete as it leaves out many key
+concepts that need to be part of any practical and credible solution.
+In the following sections I elaborate.
+ selecting a management solution
+ The choice presented in the testimony seemed to have been that one
+can either let nature take its course or institute management involving
+deliberate campaign of widespread tree harvesting. I believe that is a
+false choice that does not reflect the diversity of forest management
+objectives present in the United States, nor does it reflect the range
+of forest conditions and responses; nor does it reflect the practical
+and economic limitations that will undoubtedly shape management
+choices. One can envision a wide diversity of potentially effective
+management options that go far beyond what was offered:
+
+ In some remote wilderness/park/reserve areas the best choice
+ might be to allow nature take its course given lack of access,
+ expense, and management objectives (which might include
+ allowing nature to dominate);
+
+ In other such areas it might make sense to reintroduce
+ disturbances such as fires to achieve objectives;
+
+ In yet other areas it might make sense to suppress fires
+ aggressively under certain weather conditions, but not others;
+
+ In the interfaces between forests and human communities it
+ might make sense to not only reduce tree density, but to remove
+ trees altogether.
+
+ This not an exhaustive list, but the point is that the management
+solution must match the specific management objectives, have a strong
+chance of achieving the objectives, and be realistic regarding economic
+and logistical limitations. Using forest harvest such as thinning in
+all situations would mean roads would have to be built into parks and
+wilderness areas often at extreme financial and environmental cost, but
+it would also mean that areas where complete tree removal is needed,
+such as for fire breaks and defensible spaces, would not be managed
+appropriately either. In plain terms we need to match specific
+solutions to specific conditions, not find a general problem to impose
+the single solution that we desire to implement.
+ In deciding which management actions to take, the primary objective
+of management for a particular forest needs to be recognized. Despite
+studying forest carbon for decades, I do not believe that carbon
+sequestration is the primary reason why most forests are managed today.
+While certainly important, carbon is a secondary objective/concern that
+should be managed to maximize stores (in the forest, in products, and
+substitutions) within the constraints of the primary management
+objective. One of my concerns with the testimony I read is that it
+seems to suggest that management actions will be taken to increase
+carbon stores and that other benefits such as economic, housing, energy
+benefits will follow. I would encourage everyone to stop dropping ``the
+carbon bomb'' to convince others of the validity of their desired
+management objective. There is a wide range of valid forest management
+objectives that have little to do with carbon. A more productive
+pathway would involve accepting the wide range of forest management
+objectives that exist and within those consider how carbon can be
+managed effectively.
+ mortality considered
+ Increased mortality beyond the historic range of this process is a
+concern, and I have no doubt some aspects of these changes need to be
+managed and mitigated through adaptation. However, it is overly
+simplistic and counterproductive to imply that mortality is always
+undesirable or that it automatically degrades forest ecosystem
+function. Mortality has always occurred in forests and that is why
+there are numerous species of animals, plants, and fungi that have
+evolved to take advantage of dead trees. Moreover, mortality is how
+forests thin themselves and coupled with decomposition is how forests
+recycle the nutrients they need to grow. Preventing mortality in
+forests or removing dead trees, as in the very intensive management
+best seen in 1980s northern Europe, has reduced the abundance of many
+species by removing their habitat and limiting the structural
+development/diversification of forests. That is why current forest
+management in many parts of northern Europe is trying to restore dead
+tree habitat. It should be noted that mortality does not equate with
+the loss of carbon or any other general function of forest ecosystems.
+The concept that carbon is completely lost or habitat is completely
+lost because of mortality is mistaken at best. When trees die in a
+forest from natural causes, a substantial part of the carbon remains
+(even in the case of severe fires more than 90 percent remains) and
+this carbon is gradually lost through the process of decomposition
+(which takes decades to centuries). While live tree habitat is lost
+during mortality, dead tree habitat is gained. What occurs in mortality
+is that the form of carbon and type of habitat changes. The only known
+process to immediately remove live and/or dead tree carbon and habitat
+at a large scale from a forest is timber harvest. We know this because
+trees, at least the aboveground part, are deliberately removed from the
+forest in a harvest!
+ Mortality is a natural process and ranges from the death of
+scattered individual trees to small patches of trees all the way up to
+major episodes covering broad areas. These forms of mortality have
+occurred in forests as long as forests have existed. None of these
+scales is more natural than another and over a broad area about as many
+trees die as scattered individuals as in major episodes. In and of
+itself these forms of mortality are not cause for concern. What is a
+concern is the degree that these forms of mortality change forests in
+ways that prevent specific management objectives from being achieved.
+This means that we cannot assume that the level of mortality tolerated
+in an intensively managed forest (very little) is the same as expected
+in a wilderness area where the creation of open habitats might be an
+important management objective (a great deal).
+ If maintaining forests is the management objective, then widespread
+mortality coupled with low tree regeneration success is the key
+concern, not mortality on its own. Mortality need not lead to a
+permanent loss of desired forest conditions, especially when a
+disturbed forest retains and regenerates the elements needed to restore
+these conditions. In many cases, disturbance-related mortality is a
+temporary reorganizer of forests and there are natural processes that
+allow forests to ``recover'' the conditions that are desired. The
+recovery process can begin quickly (years) or slowly (decades), but one
+must bear in mind that the perceived speed of successful recovery is
+strongly influenced by management objectives: 5 years may be too long
+for tree regeneration in a short rotation production forest, but 50
+years or more may be appropriate in a remote wilderness. If management
+actions such as seeding and planting are needed to speed forest
+regeneration, then these actions need to be targeted to specific
+locations and situations as they may be neither needed (moist soils)
+nor effective (persistently very dry soils) in all locations. Moreover,
+if regeneration is assisted, the approach should be to introduce a wide
+range of genetic stock and species to cover the possible spectrum of
+future conditions. This acknowledges our uncertainty in predicting
+future conditions and increases changes of success because it allows
+natural processes to find the most successful ``players'' in the future
+forest.
+ To understand how to solve a problem one must understand what the
+problem is. Much was made in the testimony of the observation that
+mortality has increased fourfold in National Forest timberlands over
+the 1976-2016 period. While the data support this observation, it is
+misleading if taken at face value. The implication is that if mortality
+has increased fourfold, it must be solely due to increases in
+disturbance. This is misleading because, as noted above, about half of
+all tree mortality occurs at the individual level (which is not
+generally considered a disturbance), but also because mortality as it
+was expressed (that is a volume dying per year) depends on two items:
+(1) the proportion dying each year and (2) the volume of trees that can
+potentially die. Mortality can increase if either term increases. As
+Figure 1 in Dr. Oneil's written statement makes clear, net growth (the
+amount forest live volume/biomass/carbon increases) has been positive
+throughout the 1952-2016 period. This means, despite the occurrence of
+mortality, that live tree volume has increased over this time period.
+Based on the values presented in Dr. Oneil's testimony I estimate that
+tree volume may have roughly doubled over this period.\1\ Thus, one
+would expect half of the fourfold mortality increase evoking concern to
+have been caused simply by the fact that today's forest has
+substantially more volume than earlier forests. By analogy if one plans
+to buy a house at 4 percent annual mortgage interest then do not be
+surprised if the $100,000 house has one-half the interest payment of
+the $200,000 house. This not to say that there has not been an increase
+in the proportion of tree volume dying. Using the mortality rate
+reported by Dr. Oneil, it does appear that the proportion of tree
+volume dying has increased by about a factor of two between 1972 and
+2016 with much of this increase occurring in the past two decades.
+However, in addition to knowing what level of reduction is required one
+must also understand the specific mechanisms behind the changes: one
+has to ask why the proportion of tree volume dying has increased. The
+suggestion in the testimony seems to be that it is related to fire and
+bark beetles; while I suspect this is partially true and there is
+evidence to support this hypothesis, there are other substantial
+sources of tree mortality that have increased over this period such as
+those related to wind and invasive species that are not related to
+either tree density or drought. Therefore, it is hard to envision how
+forest thinning, the proposed solution to reducing fires, disease, and
+insect attacks, would decrease the impact of wind disturbance, or that
+related to invasive insects such as the woolly adelgids attacking
+eastern hemlocks and Fraser fir or the emerald ash borer attacking
+green ash much less diseases such as sudden oak death. In fact, in some
+cases thinning might exacerbate these forms of mortality.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \1\ Unfortunately the data used in this figure is not publicly
+available as far as I could determine and a full citation was not
+provided limiting my ability to find it. I have no doubt that the data
+presented are relatively accurate, however, without knowing the
+starting volume it is difficult to precisely estimate the degree volume
+has increased in a relative sense. The data presented suggest that
+cubic volume has increased by 212,150 million cubic feet over the 1952-
+2016 period. However, we know that cubic volume was not zero in 1952.
+Based on the likely fraction of live tree volume dying in 1952-1976,
+something in the range of 0.3-0.6 percent per year, it is likely the
+volume in 1952 was in the range of 250,000 cubic feet. If provided the
+1952 volume from this dataset I could easily make a more precise
+estimate of the relative increase in live tree volume between 1952 and
+2016.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ While an increase in the proportion of trees dying each year is of
+concern, the idea that the proportion of gross growth (NPP) allocated
+to mortality is indicative of a problem is misguided. Specifically,
+concern was expressed that two-thirds of gross growth (equivalent to
+net primary production or NPP) is currently being ``lost'' to
+mortality. The suggestion is that this ``large'' proportion is
+unnatural, but that ignores the fact that, absent harvests (which are
+after all forms of human induced mortality), forests allocate gross
+growth (NPP) into either net growth or mortality and this allocation
+changes as forests age. In young forests the majority of gross growth
+is allocated toward net growth (leading to a rapid increase in volume)
+and in older forests an increasing share of gross growth (up to 100
+percent) is allocated toward mortality. This change is why forest
+volume does not increase forever and tends to saturate as forests age.
+This is a fundamental relationship found in all forests, documented in
+the forestry literature for more than a century, and is observed even
+those in management systems in which harvest mortality replaces natural
+mortality as a source of live tree removal. In fact when a sustainable
+harvest system is implemented, the expectation is that harvest and
+mortality comprise 100 percent of gross growth, hence the volume over a
+large area remains constant. As a specific example of how the
+allocation of mortality changes as forest age, we can examine the case
+when tree maximum life span is about 500 years. For this kind of
+forest, mortality would comprise 63 percent of the gross growth of an
+even-aged stand at about 100 years. In a stand that is 200 years of age
+one would anticipate that mortality would comprise 85 percent of gross
+growth and for a stand of 300 years age mortality would comprise 95
+percent. Returning to the National Forest timberlands data we find that
+between 1952 and 2019 all forms of mortality (harvest included) have
+increased as a share of gross growth from 53 to 69 percent. But much of
+this is related to the fact that these forests have become older, a
+fact consistent with the observed twofold increase in volume over this
+period. The only alternative explanation for increased live mass is
+that National Forest timberland acreages have increased twofold,
+whereas we know these acreages have remained relatively constant.
+ where and when is high tree density a problem?
+ The idea that high tree density (that is number of stems) is the
+primary cause of recent unnatural mortality levels is overly
+simplistic. This is because it ignores the natural variation in space
+and time that one expects of tree density. In closed forest ecosystems,
+tree density is highest once forest stands have regenerated. As trees
+grow and start to compete for resources, mortality is expected to
+increase. Harvest thinning in these forests is a way to mimic and
+control this expected natural mortality process.
+ While some forests have higher tree density because of management
+actions such as fire suppression, others have climates and reproductive
+strategies that lead to high tree density. Those most influenced by
+fire suppression in the West include ponderosa pine and mixed conifer
+types where tree density has greatly increased over the period of fire
+suppression. One could argue that harvest thinning in these types would
+be appropriate. However, in many other forest types tree density is
+naturally high and is unlikely the direct cause of recent widespread
+mortality. A prime example would be the recent massive beetle-kill in
+lodgepole pine forests. The cause of these outbreaks was not high tree
+density. Tree densities in these types are naturally very high because
+of this species' reproductive strategy and tree densities in these
+forests have not noticeably increased substantially due to fire
+suppression. Rather, warmer conditions allowed bark beetle populations
+to increase and coupled with a long-term drought widespread mortality
+occurred. Ironically, the lodgepole pine stands least susceptible to
+beetle-kill were those with small diameter and high tree density, the
+conditions where drought conditions should have had the highest impact
+due to high levels of competition. The ecology of these species tells
+us why: this beetle species cannot reproduce when bark falls below a
+certain thickness and adult beetles will not attack trees if the
+beetles cannot reproduce within them, regardless of the tree's drought
+stress. It is therefore important to apply basic ecological knowledge
+in developing an effective solution and not impose a one-size-fits-all
+solution unrelated to addressing actual mechanisms.
+ effective management solutions with a responsive system
+ While it tempting to assume that once a management treatment is
+imposed from ``above'' that the problem is solved, this is a mistake
+when applied to forests.\2\ This is because forests do not stay the way
+one leaves them, and they often respond in ways that counter treatment
+objectives. Perhaps the best example of this is fire suppression and
+its effects on fuels: suppressing fires initially leads to a decrease
+in fire impacts, but as fuels increase (because of the lack of fire)
+the impacts (at least in some forests) eventually increase. A similar
+response behavior is quite possible for the management actions being
+proposed. Specifically, reducing tree density or carbon in the form of
+fuel is a temporary solution because, unless the underlying controls
+are changed, forests will respond to these actions by increasing tree
+density and carbon. Hence, the solution will have to be repeated
+frequently raising long-term logistical, environmental, and economic
+concerns. This repeated treatment also leads to permanent carbon debts:
+if high fuel/carbon level is the cause of undesired levels of
+disturbance, then to solve the problem one must reduce fuel/carbon
+permanently, hence a carbon permanent debt develops. I should add that
+the argument that carbon debts cannot occur in forests because forests
+are renewable resources is completely erroneous: if high fuel/carbon is
+causing a problem then why would be want this high level to renew?
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \2\ A mistake that I might add which has been repeated to the
+degree that an alternative to top down control management approaches
+has recently been developed.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Even if the goal of reducing tree density is permanently achieved,
+forests may react in ways that counter the expected goal. Suppose the
+goal is to greatly reduce the occurrence of crown fires; then tree
+density would have to be greatly reduced because average tree distance
+has to be increased beyond that needed to spread these types of fires.
+This degree of opening in turn would allow smaller forms of vegetation
+(fine fuels associated with fire spread) to greatly increase and these
+openings would also greatly increase the rate of fuel drying. So while
+crown fires might be reduced, fires would continue to be widespread and
+challenge control efforts. In other words, one would replace one
+problem with a slightly different one.
+ To avoid these problems, one cannot think of forests as static
+systems that do what they are ``told.'' Instead forests are adaptive,
+responsive systems than need to be persistently ``persuaded'' to move
+in the directions consistent with our management objectives.
+ the fate of harvested trees
+ In the testimony harvest removal is viewed as not only solving the
+problem, but having major benefits in terms of goods and economic gain
+as well as major carbon benefits that would exceed carbon losses
+incurred in the forest. The carbon benefits would come in two forms:
+(1) carbon stores related to forest products and (2) substitutions that
+would reduce the use of fossil carbon. While there is an element of
+truth to these statements, they are misleading if accepted at face
+value.
+ Let us consider the statement that harvested carbon is stored in
+products. A more accurate statement would be that some harvested carbon
+is stored in products for some time. Although these sound similar, they
+are profoundly different in their effects. Specifically, when carbon is
+removed from forests through harvest, not all of the carbon ends up as
+solid products. If the harvested carbon is used for lumber/plywood/OSB
+production then somewhere between 30-40 percent is lost to the
+atmosphere in the manufacturing process. If the harvested carbon is
+used to make paper, then the amount lost to the atmosphere is around 50
+percent and if used as fuel then it is 100 percent. Contrast these
+amounts to the range of live carbon lost to the atmosphere during
+natural disturbances: somewhere between zero and 10 percent. Moreover,
+consider the fact that wood products have varying life spans in use and
+after they are disposed, that these time frames can be quite short, and
+are roughly comparable to those found for wood decomposing naturally.
+While is it often assumed that the carbon related to mortality is lost
+to the atmosphere, that process can take 3 to 50 decades to complete.
+Taken together, the initial losses in manufacture and the losses in use
+and disposal means that removing carbon by harvest have roughly the
+same carbon storages effects as leaving the wood in the forest to
+decompose. Granted harvesting produces items that humans can use and
+generates wealth, but that should not be conflated with carbon effects.
+ Perhaps the biggest misconception is that using harvested wood will
+lead to large amounts of fossil carbon not being used through the
+process of substitution. While this is theoretically possible, there
+are several considerations that must be acknowledged to determine the
+degree this actually will happen. For example, in the case of product
+substitution (that is substituting wood for concrete and steel in
+construction), the preferences for materials has to be considered. In
+North America wood is the preferred material for residential homes,
+with about a 95 percent preference for wood. That would mean that one
+could try to replace the 5 percent of buildings not utilizing wood and
+gain a substitution benefit, but it is not possible to substitute wood
+for wood and gain a substitution benefit for the other 95 percent. The
+situation for taller buildings would differ as concrete and steel are
+currently preferred, but this raises a different problem: to build
+taller buildings using wood one need to engineer laminated materials, a
+process that involves more energy. It is highly unlikely that concrete
+and steel manufacturers will increase their fossil carbon use to keep
+the product-related displacement factor the same. Hence, it is possible
+that amount of fossil carbon displaced by wood use could decrease
+substantially in the case of taller buildings. Finally, for both
+substitutions related to products and energy one must recognize that
+the fossil carbon not used by the building sector today will likely be
+used by other sectors in the future. Consider the estimates of the
+times that fossil fuel carbon is likely to be depleted: 50-250 years
+depending on the form of fossil carbon. Unless this substitution-
+related carbon is protected by some actual mechanism, the assumption
+that unused fossil carbon today will never be used in the future is
+completely naive. Taken together it is highly likely that actual
+substitution benefits will be far lower than most expect and, in some
+cases, will not fully counter carbon losses related to forest harvest.
+ a strategy that acknowledges odds of success and failure
+ As described in the testimony, the suggested management treatments
+appear to assure complete success. Conversely, the path of allowing
+nature to take its course appears to assure complete failure. That may
+be, but this view seems overly deterministic given the system we are
+actually dealing with: critical conditions such as drought and
+temperature that vary greatly from place to place, season to season and
+year to year; different historical pathways creating varying forest
+structures that react to climate and other stressors in different ways;
+and species that not only have different characteristics, but that do
+not interact in consistent ways.\3\ In other words, the system we have
+to deal with is not deterministic, it is highly stochastic (seemingly
+random). Like it or not, we are forced to play games of chance in our
+management.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \3\ The case of bark beetles illustrates this point. When bark
+beetle populations are low, many of these species attack recently
+killed trees, but not living ones. When bark beetle populations are
+high many species attack weakened living trees, and when very high they
+attack even vigorously growing trees. This behavior is related to the
+ability to mass attack trees which is in turn a function of the
+beetles' population size.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ There are several ways to increase the odds of success when playing
+games of chance including: (1) know the rules and the possibilities,
+(2) understand the odds regarding outcomes, (3) use a range of
+strategies, (4) recognize that while there is a chance of winning,
+there is also a chance of losing, and (5) decide where and when it is
+best to not play at all. This general strategy is applied to everything
+from poker to investments to medicine. I am not sure why we would not
+apply it to climate change adaptation.
+ summary
+ I believe that it is a mistake to apply a single solution (such as
+more tree harvest) to a problem with the complexity of forest
+adaptation to climate change. A more appropriate and productive
+approach would be the development of a broad strategy that considers
+the likelihood of climate change-related phenomena modifying forests in
+ways that do not meet the very wide range of management objectives
+related to forests. To work, this strategy would have to be applied a
+local level given the wide variation at multiple scales from landscapes
+to regions to the Nation in terms of management objectives as well as
+the conditions present in forests. Moreover, it would have to assess
+the range of negative responses possible, their magnitude, and
+likelihood so that efforts can be prioritized. Management solutions
+would have to be tied to the actual mechanisms causing the undesired
+changes and the possible negative side effects (environmental,
+economic, ecosystem) and potential countervailing processes would have
+to be considered to evaluate the chances of success once the solution
+is implemented. Finally, given the inherently stochastic nature of this
+problem it would make sense to use a diversity of approaches (even at
+the local scale) until more information can be gathered as to the most
+effective and efficient solutions.
+
+ ______
+
+
+[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
+ OFFICIAL FILES]
+
+Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman
+
+ -- Two graphs from Global Resources and the Environment,
+ published by Cambridge University Press.
+
+ [all]
+