[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE: STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTING THE WEST
=======================================================================
JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
joint with the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS,
FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-24
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-438 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Jeff Flake, Arizona
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Louie Gohmert, Texas
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Rob Bishop, Utah
Jim Costa, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chairwoman
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
George Miller, California Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Mike Coffman, Colorado
Jim Costa, California Tom McClintock, California
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Jay Inslee, Washington officio
Joe Baca, California
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Elton Gallegly, California
Grace F. Napolitano, California John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Jeff Flake, Arizona
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Carolina
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Louie Gohmert, Texas
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Islands Mike Coffman, Colorado
Diana DeGette, Colorado Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Tom McClintock, California
Lois Capps, California Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Jay Inslee, Washington officio
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, June 16, 2009........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 6
DeGette, Hon. Diana, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 7
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wyoming....................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington............................... 3
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Smith, Hon. Adrian, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nebraska, Statement submitted for the record...... 124
Statement of Witnesses:
Bentz, Dr. Barbara, Research Entomologist, Rocky Mountain
Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture................................................ 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Cables, Rick, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............. 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Frost, Dr. Herbert C., Associate Director, Natural Resource
Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Kolb, Dr. Peter, Associate Professor of Forest Ecology and
Management, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana....... 114
Prepared statement of.................................... 115
Larsen, Charles A., General Manager, Carbon Power and Light
Inc., Saratoga, Wyoming.................................... 106
Prepared statement of.................................... 108
Markey, Hon. Betsy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Mathis, Mark, President, Confluence Energy, Kremmling,
Colorado................................................... 101
Prepared statement of.................................... 103
McGuire, Brendan, Manager of Government Relations, Vail
Resorts, Broomfield, Colorado.............................. 109
Prepared statement of.................................... 111
Minnick, Hon. Walt, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Rehberg, Hon. Dennis, the Representative in Congress from the
State of Montana........................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Rich, Judge John, Commissioner, Jackson County, Northwest
Colorado Council of Governments, Walden, Colorado.......... 70
Prepared statement of.................................... 71
Salazar, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Scanlan, Hon. Christine, State Representative, State of
Colorado, Dillon, Colorado................................. 65
Prepared statement of.................................... 67
Shoemaker, Sloan, Executive Director, Wilderness Workshop,
Carbondale, Colorado....................................... 75
Prepared statement of.................................... 76
Turley, Ronald, Special Programs Manager, Western Area Power
Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.................. 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Wilkinson, Eric W., General Manager, Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, Berthoud, Colorado................... 84
Prepared statement of.................................... 86
Additional materials supplied:
Gibbs, Hon. Dan, Colorado State Senator, and Hon. Christine
Scanlan, Colorado State Representative, Statement submitted
for the record............................................. 67
JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE: STRATEGIES FOR
PROTECTING THE WEST'
----------
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power, joint with the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests & Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Grace
Napolitano [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Napolitano, Grijalva, Costa,
DeGette, Inslee, Baca, Herseth Sandlin, Gallegly, McMorris
Rodgers, Chaffetz, Lummis, McClintock, Smith of Nebraska, and
Pierluisi.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This
morning we are holding a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on
Water and Power and the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests
and Public Lands headed by my colleague, Raul Grijalva. The
hearing will come to order.
Today's meeting is an oversight hearing on the ``Mountain
Pine Beetle: Strategies for Protecting the West.''
I will recognize all of the Members of the Subcommittee for
any statement they may have after my opening statement. Any
Member who desires to be heard will be heard, and any
additional material may be submitted for the record by Members,
by witnesses, or by any other interested party. The record will
be kept open for 10 business days following today's hearing,
and the five-minute rule, with our timer, will be enforced.
Green means ``go''; yellow, ``near end''; and red means ``wrap
it up, stop.''
It is with great urgency and concern that Chairman Grijalva
and I hold this hearing with our respective Ranking Members
Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Rob Bishop. The mountain pine
beetle, an insect no greater than a grain of rice, has killed
millions of acres of pines across the West and continues to
spread quickly unabatedly.
The death of those trees threatens the very existence of
western communities. While presently most of the mountain pine
beetle kill areas are found in Colorado, Wyoming, and even
California, we should not make the mistake of thinking that the
beetles will not continue to spread, infesting and killing
massive numbers of trees in other states throughout the entire
West.
We see evidence of bark beetle as far West now, like I
said, into California. Even if the mountain pine beetle does
not decimate tree populations in other areas, something else
will. The United States Geological Survey published a report in
January of this year showing evidence that the rate of death of
trees in the western U.S. forests has more than doubled in the
last two decades. The cause of this death has been linked to
higher temperatures and scarce water, both of which are the
result of climate change.
Aside from higher temperatures and less water, climate
change is conducive to outbreaks of pests like the mountain
pine beetle and other diseases. The entire West needs to be on
notice: this epidemic is one of many events that we can expect
in the coming decades that will cause substantial death of
trees in the western U.S. forests.
The death of these trees threatens the safety of
communities due to fires. The death of the trees threatens our
watersheds, our power grids, transecting forests and other
vital infrastructure. The death of these trees threatens the
economic viability of the entire region; hence, we need to
bring together all stakeholders from the entire region to share
information about how best to move forward before we act.
We will today hear from witnesses that the mountain pine
beetle cannot be stopped. We will also hear that the damage is
so widespread that a fire is inevitable. It is not a question
of if, but when.
As we hear from our witnesses today, I must remind
everybody in this room that this horrible situation we
currently find ourselves in probably will continue to repeat
itself over time and throughout our entire nation. We must
begin using this experience with the mountain pine beetle as a
wake-up call to develop comprehensive strategies to protect
western communities from future mass tree deaths in our
forests. There are lessons to be learned about prevention of
future outbreaks of disease and pests. We need to work
cooperatively to develop a clear plan before outbreaks occur to
know how to best manage and mitigate the damage.
We must be ready to protect our forests, our western
communities, and the livelihood of each and every person in the
West.
We will use today's meeting not only to think about how we
protect the western way of life in the face of this deadly
beetle and protect our forests, but to learn lessons to help us
combat widespread death of other trees in the future and to
begin to understand how climate change will require us to think
out of the box to forge new partnerships to protect the
American way of life.
Besides that, Ms. Ranking Member and Chairman Grijalva, I
am very seriously contemplating following this hearing with a
hearing with the Department of the Interior and other agencies
to present the evidence that is given here today to move
forward on maybe forging a plan that we can work with.
Thank you. With that said, I am now pleased to yield to my
friend and colleague, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Water and Power, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, for her
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Napolitano follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Water and Power
It is with great urgency and concern that we hold this hearing
today. The mountain pine beetle, an insect no bigger than a grain of
rice, has killed millions of acres of pine trees across the West and
continues to spread unabated. The death of those trees threatens the
very existence of Western communities and their residents.
While presently most of the mountain pine beetle kill areas are
found in Colorado and Wyoming, we should not make the mistake of
thinking that the beetle won't continue to spread, infesting and
killing massive numbers of trees in other states throughout the entire
West.
Even if the mountain pine beetle doesn't kill trees in other areas,
something else will. The United States Geological Survey published a
report in January of this year showing evidence that the rate of the
death of trees in Western U.S. forests has more than doubled in the
last two decades. The cause of this death has been linked to higher
temperatures and scarce water, both of which are the result of climate
change.
Aside from higher temperatures and less water, climate change is
conducive to outbreaks of pests like the mountain pine beetle and other
diseases. The entire West needs to be on notice: this epidemic is one
of many events that we can expect in the coming decades that will cause
substantial deaths of trees in Western U.S. forests. The deaths of
those trees threaten the safety of communities due to fires. The deaths
of those trees threaten our watersheds, our power grid, and other vital
infrastructure. The deaths of those trees threaten the economic
vitality of the entire region.
We will hear today from witnesses that the mountain pine beetle
cannot be stopped. We will hear that the damage is so widespread that a
fire is inevitable. While I accept those facts, I want to remind
everyone in this room that the horrible situation we find ourselves in
now will continue to repeat itself over time and throughout our entire
country.
We need to use this experience with the mountain pine beetle to
develop comprehensive strategies to protect Western communities from
future mass tree deaths in our forests. We need to learn lessons about
prevention of future outbreaks of diseases and pests. We need to have a
clear plan in place BEFORE outbreaks occur to know how to best manage
them and mitigate the damage. We must be ready to protect our Western
communities and the livelihoods of each and every person in the West.
I look forward to learning today about how we protect the Western
way of life in the face of this deadly beetle, and the lessons we can
learn from this to help us combat the widespread death of other trees
in the future.
With that said, I am pleased to now yield to my friend and
colleague, Ranking Member Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, for her
opening statement.
______
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would
first like to ask unanimous consent for my colleague from Utah,
Jason Chaffetz, to participate at the dais.
Mrs. Napolitano. Without objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I
sincerely thank you for holding this hearing on the growing
mountain pine beetle problem in the West. Like many areas of
the Rocky Mountain West, forests in my district have been hit
hard by the mountain pine beetle.
The impacts have been devastating. More than half of the
land base in the four northern counties of my district is
forest. This is not a small area, considering Okanogan County,
the largest of the four counties, is larger than the State of
Connecticut. Much of this area is managed by the U.S. Forest
Service.
I grew up in Stevens County, one of these four northern
counties. I know it well, and I lived with the forest
management issues for 10 years as a State Legislator
representing this area before coming to Congress. During that
time, I was also a member of the Western States Legislative
Forestry Task Force.
Damage from the pine beetle can be spotted throughout these
northern forests, with the heaviest infestations on the south
side of the Methow Valley, which is close to a populated area.
In 2006, 175,000 acres burned in the Okanogan National
Forest on the north side of the Methow Valley. Lightning found
fertile ground in beetle-killed trees that could not be
harvested because conservation organizations assured the Forest
Service they would sue to block the sale.
As a result of these and other lawsuits, the Avista
cogeneration plant at Kettle Falls, Washington, is hauling most
of its fuel out of Canada because it is not available from the
forest, although it operates right next to it. They actually
haul 70 percent of their waste wood from Canada for this
cogeneration plant.
This is a sad commentary when Congress is in pursuit of
alternative energy but continues to leave a wealth of energy to
burn in wildfires.
In addition, we waste valuable taxpayer dollars fighting
wildfires when we could have prevented them in the first place.
In fact, over half of our Forest Service budget goes to
fighting wildfires that will only get worse if we do not
address the root problem: overcrowded forests and diseased and
dying trees. We cannot continue to grow over 20 billion board
feet of timber annually and only harvest two billion board feet
and expect to have healthy forests.
The lack of management also impacts water supplies and the
humans and species that depend on water. An unhealthy and
overcrowded forest can literally drain our creeks and much of
our rural watersheds, which will substantially decrease the
water available for human use and can also have serious impacts
on the needs of endangered species.
There is much talk about removing the four Lower Snake
River dams in the name of endangered salmon protection, yet few
focus on managing our forests as a key way to help protect the
species.
This hearing is an important first step in managing our
forests for the future. We cannot afford to wait any longer.
In closing, I sincerely want to thank the Chairwoman again,
thank the witnesses for their testimony and dedication. I look
forward to working with everyone on this important issue.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, ma'am, and now we will hear
from my good friend, the Chair of the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Congressman Raul Grijalva, for
his statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now is a particularly
relevant time for us to discuss this problem because in this
season many beetles will be looking to infect new areas and new
trees.
In addition to describing the mountain pine beetle
epidemic, we also need to focus on how to meet this challenge.
The few isolated communities that have had success fighting off
the bark beetle have developed extensive action plans combining
efforts at every level of government. Some of these efforts
were focused on protecting healthy trees while other steps were
taken to reduce the risk of wildfire.
There have been some successes on both fronts, but there
are also many reasons that the plan of a small community cannot
be applied in the entire West. However, we can learn from these
successes, much of which are credited to strong community
support, private landowners, city officials, and residents all
coming together to carry out the necessary work.
We will need to develop an approach at a similar level for
support. Let me just note that the level of support will not be
easy to come by if cutting corners in the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is the cornerstone of
our plan. Instead, we need to focus on the best strategies for
solving this problem without creating another one for future
generations.
Are there places we can protect from infestation? What are
the options to preventing wildfire? Is it correct to link the
beetle infestation to fire? Is it appropriate to say that
increased cutting and logging is a preventive tool to the
beetle and to the infestation? There are many questions about
the best way to respond to this epidemic. I hope we can answer
some of that today.
I want to thank all of our witnesses, many from Colorado,
for making this trip to D.C., and I look forward to their
testimony, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Thank you Chairwoman Napolitano.
Now is a particularly relevant time for us to discuss this problem,
because this is the season that many beetles will be looking to infect
new trees. In addition to describing the mountain pine beetle epidemic,
we must also focus on how we respond to this challenge.
The few isolated communities that have had success fighting off the
bark beetle have developed extensive action plans, combining efforts at
every level of government. Some of these efforts were focused on
protecting healthy trees, while other steps were taken to reduce the
risk of catastrophic wildfire. There have been some successes on both
fronts.
There are many reasons that the plan of a small community can't be
applied to the entire West. However, we can learn from these successes,
much of which are credited to strong community support. Private land
owners, city officials, and residents all came together to carry out
the necessary work. We will need to develop an approach that has a
similar level of support.
Let me just note, that level of support will NOT be easy to come by
if cutting corners in the NEPA process is the cornerstone of our plan.
Instead, we need to focus on the best strategies for solving this
problem without creating another one for future generations. Are there
places we can protect from infestation, and what are the options for
preventing catastrophic wildfires?
There are still many questions about the best way to respond to
this epidemic, and I hope that we can answer some of them today. I want
to thank all of our witnesses, many from Colorado, for making the trip
to D-C, and I look forward to hearing their testimony.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the interest of time, we will just ask, if you have
statements, let me know; otherwise, we will go straight into
the hearing.
Mr. Chaffetz?
Ms. DeGette. Madam Chair, may I? I will defer to my
colleague.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chaffetz is next and then you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JASON CHAFFETZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
allowing me to participate. I do appreciate it. I appreciate
all of the witnesses and the time that they are taking to be
here and the number of Members who are here on our first panel.
I think it is a representation of the severity of the
challenges and the interests that lie in the many states out in
the West.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to offer two
documents for the record.
First, I would like to share comments prepared by Iron
County, Utah. Iron County is the home to a large percentage of
Dixie National Forest, which is Utah's largest national forest,
covering nearly two million acres; second, a report prepared by
Darren McAvoy, who is a forestry extension associate from the
Department of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Sciences at Utah
State University.
Mrs. Napolitano. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
For those of us who live in the 12 states in the West
affected by the mountain pine beetle epidemic and the
devastation it has brought to our forests, this problem has
been developing before our eyes for years, even decades. The
current course we are taking with dealing with the problem is
unacceptable. Progress is being made in some areas, most
notably in areas of Colorado; however, more can and needs to be
done.
The progress being made in Colorado was one in a way no
other state, including my State of Utah, has to go through to
achieve. The gains being made in Colorado are being made
essentially because environmental groups have stopped
litigating on trees that have been killed by mountain pine
beetles. That same litigation drove 9 of the 10 timber mills in
the state out of business. Litigation has stopped in the face
of growing public concern over the amount of dead trees in the
state.
Of course, groups like Colorado Wild are still suing timber
sales in healthy forests like they did two weeks ago, but I am
confident they will stop once again. The beetle kill affects
the Rio Grande National Forest as well.
This is no different than what is happening on the Dixie
National Forest or the Fish Lake National Forest in my State of
Utah. It is no different than the lawsuits in California,
Wyoming, and Montana or any other state where forests need
management.
I believe it is time we looked for a bipartisan legislation
that will once again allow forest-management decisions to be
made by those who wear the emblem of the Forest Service.
We also need to end restrictions on harvesting biomass on
Federal lands created by the 2007 energy bill. I believe H.R.
1190 is a good way to do this. No matter how much grant money
we give out to biomass projects, they will all fail unless we
can allow a sustainable timber yield to come off of our Federal
lands.
Finally, the Natural Resources Committee needs to hold
oversight hearings over stimulus spending. Are stimulus funds
going to further the intended mission of the Forest Service to
manage our forests, or are they going to other parochial goals?
I am sure we will hear many good recommendations to combat
the mountain pine beetle problem, and I am looking forward to
the hearing. I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
[NOTE: Documents submitted for the record have been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, and Ms. DeGette.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I want
to thank you for having this hearing, and I want to thank all
of my colleagues, mostly from Colorado, but also from the whole
West, for being here: Congressman Salazar, Congresswoman
Markey, Congressman Polis, also State Senator Dan Gibbs and
Representative Christine Scanlan, who are my buddies from the
Legislature who are here.
We also have people from the ski industry, water
authorities, the Forest Service, and the power sector. I want
to welcome all of them.
All of us from Colorado know, Madam Chairwoman, that this
is a terrible problem in the West, in particular, in Colorado.
I borrowed this poster from our friend, Congressman Greg Walden
from Oregon, who brought this to an Energy and Commerce meeting
a couple of weeks ago. If you look at it, it looks like a
really beautiful autumn scene. The problem is, these are
evergreens that have turned this color. This is Grand County,
Colorado, and all of us from Colorado know this level of
devastation.
It is a complex problem. It is complex at every level. I am
really pleased to tell you that the Colorado delegation has
been working closely together, on a bipartisan basis, and also
with all of our colleagues in the State Legislature and in the
state agencies to talk about what to do with this problem.
There are no easy solutions because the magnitude is so great.
So I am looking forward to this hearing. I will tell you,
along with Congressman Walden and Congressman Baird from
Washington State, we are looking at some amendments to the
climate change bill which we expect to have up on the Floor to
try to help us get out some of these dead trees from the
forests, but the underlying problem remains, and it is complex.
It is not easily solved, so I am happy that all of these
experts have come today to help us figure out these problems.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. DeGette.
With that, we have a statement. Make it a short one,
please.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Mrs. Lummis. Yes, Madam Chairwoman. I would like to make an
opening statement. Thank you kindly.
As this body has heard from me before, my home State of
Wyoming has many points of pride, but perhaps none rival our
public lands legacy. In addition to the beautiful forests that
make up our National Parks in Yellowstone and Grand Teton,
Wyoming is home to nine National Forests, encompassing roughly
8.8 million acres of land. Put into context, National Forests
in Wyoming cover about a million more acres than the total land
areas of Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia
combined. Add the vast tracts of state and private forests, and
you begin to understand the monumental task of maintaining
healthy forests in my state.
Wyoming and her people are proud of the way our state has
helped manage and protect our public lands and resources. Good
stewardship of the land is a Wyoming value, and I hold it very
personally dear.
Unfortunately, Wyoming's Federal partners are failing to
carry their own weight when it comes to forest management in
the West. I am not laying blame here. Our Federal land managers
have struggled with restrictive policies created by Congress,
ever increasing costs, droughts, devastating fire seasons, and,
in the mountain pine beetle, a devastation of healthy trees
like I have never seen before in my lifetime.
While I am hopeful we can begin to dissect and better
understand those challenges today, for much of our forested
land in the West, it is too late: We have already lost the
battle.
Decisions about fuel reduction, beetle prevention and
mitigation, prompt harvesting of dead and dying trees, and the
overall health of our forests have real tangible effects on the
livelihood of my constituents. We live near or even in these
forests. We base entire industries off of them. We recreate and
enjoy them, and we count on these forests to attract thousands
of tourists every year.
As I have testified in the past, we only have one sawmill
left in the entire State of Wyoming, so this is not even so
much about forestry; it is about recreation.
Healthy forests are integral to our lives and livelihoods.
The story you will hear today from Chuck Larsen, general
manager of Carbon Power and Light in South Central Wyoming, is
a perfect case study for how wide and diverse the effects truly
are of this beetle epidemic on the average citizen.
This picture, taken by Mr. Larsen just days ago, tells a
story all by itself: Our forests are being ravaged. First
managers estimate that, by 2012, every single adult, lodgepole
pine in Southern Wyoming and Northern Colorado will be
destroyed by beetle kill. This is devastating to our forest
economies. We are also one unlucky lightning strike away from a
serious threat to human health and safety.
It is time we learned what tools our land managers need to
address this epidemic and ensure they have those tools at their
disposal. I look forward to making progress on that front
today. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back the balance of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lummis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Cynthia Lummis, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wyoming
Thank you, Mr. and Madam Chairmen.
As this body has heard me claim before, my home State of Wyoming
has many points of pride, but perhaps none rival our public lands
legacy. In addition to the beautiful forests that make up our National
Parks in Yellowstone and Grand Teton, Wyoming is home to 9 National
Forests, encompassing roughly 8.8 million acres of land. Put into
context, National Forests in Wyoming cover about a million more acres
than the total land areas Maryland, Delaware, and the District of
Columbia combined. Add the vast tracts of State and private forests and
you begin to understand the monumental task of maintaining healthy
forests in my state.
Wyoming and her people are proud of the way our State has helped
manage and protect our public lands and resources. Good stewardship of
the land is a Wyoming value I hold very personally dear. Unfortunately,
Wyoming's federal partners are failing to carry their own weight when
it comes to forest management in the West. I'm not laying blame--our
federal land managers have struggled with restrictive policies created
by Congress, ever-increasing costs, droughts, devastating fire seasons,
and--in the mountain pine beetle--a devastation of healthy trees like
I've never seen in my lifetime. While I am hopeful we can begin to
dissect and better understand those challenges today, for much of our
forested lands in the west, it is too late--we have already lost the
battle.
Decisions about fuel reduction, beetle prevention and mitigation,
prompt harvesting of dead and dying trees, and the overall health of
our forests have real, tangible effects on the livelihood of my
constituents. We live near or even in these forests, we base entire
industries off of them, we recreate and enjoy them, and we count on
these forests to attract thousands of tourists every year. Healthy
forests are integral to our lives and livelihoods. The story you will
hear today from Chuck Larsen, General Manager for Carbon Power and
Light in south-central Wyoming is a perfect case-study for how wide and
diverse the effects truly are of this beetle epidemic on the average
citizen. This picture, taken by Mr. Larsen just days ago, tells a story
all by itself. Our forests are being ravaged.
Forest managers estimate that by 2012, every single adult lodge
pole pine in southern Wyoming and northern Colorado will be destroyed
by beetle kill. This is devastating to our forest economies. We are
also one unlucky lightning strike away from a serious threat to human
health and safety. It is time we learn what tools our land managers
need to address this epidemic and ensure they have those tools at their
disposal. I look forward to making progress on that front today.
Thank you, Mr. and Madam Chairmen. I yield back the balance of my
time.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much, ma'am, and we now
will proceed to hear from our witnesses. We do have four
panels, so it is going to be a bit of a lengthy hearing.
Witnesses will be introduced before they testify. After we hear
from our panel, we will have questions for the panel. All of
your submitted prepared statements, of which I have not
received any, so I am assuming none of you had one, will be
entered into the record, and all witnesses are kindly asked to
summarize the high points of your testimony and limit your
remarks to five minutes.
Again, the timer before you will be used to enforce this
rule. It also applies to all questioning: A total of five
minutes for questions, including responses, applies to our
Members. If there are any additional questions, we may have a
second round, and I do not think today might be the time for
it.
For our first panel, we have Congressmen Rehberg, Salazar,
Markey, Minnick, and Polis, and I am being very frugal on time.
I would like to start with John Salazar, if you do not mind,
Denny, for the first testimony. Mr. Salazar, you are on.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN T. SALAZAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Salazar. Well, thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking
Member Rodgers and Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop,
for having this hearing today. I am honored to be a part of it.
I would also like to acknowledge a special person who is
here who is the past director of the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources, Mr. Greg Walter, here in the back, who has
worked on these issues for many, many years.
The mountain pine beetle epidemic in Colorado and
throughout the West is devastating, Madam Chair. It is
destroying our forests and threatening our communities.
I have some pictures today to show you, some that are up on
the screen. I think the first one was shared by Mrs. DeGette.
The picture gives you an idea of the magnitude of the problem
we are dealing with. The red trees that you see in this picture
are dead. Ninety percent of the trees in this picture are dead.
These next two pictures that we will see show the magnitude
of the impact on our recreational areas, one of the economic
mainstays of Colorado.
This next picture is a picture of one of our campgrounds at
Steamboat Springs as the mountain pine beetle began going
through it.
Picture 3 shows what it looks like after the Colorado State
Forest Service removed all of the hazardous trees.
Picture 4 shows dead trees by a power line. Imagine what
would happen to that power line if fire went through it like in
Picture 5.
Picture 6 actually is a map that demonstrates how far
reaching the epidemic is in Colorado. It is over two million
acres and growing.
We have over 633 miles of electric transmission lines just
in Colorado that are in the areas of dead or dying trees. We
also have over 1,300 miles of electrical distribution lines at
risk from falling trees or fire. A large fire could destroy
many of these lines, causing power outages for months.
While a wildfire is just a matter of when, falling trees
are occurring now on the trails, on ranchers' fences, and on
campgrounds and power lines. How long before one of these
falling trees kills someone? Already, we have had to close
campgrounds and trails because of these hazards.
We need to do something to ensure our communities'
watersheds and power and communication infrastructure are safe.
We also need to be looking into the future, at the health of
our industries, small and large, that utilize these dead trees,
and keeping our future forests healthy so that epidemics such
as this one are less likely to happen.
Let me show you, in reference to some of the questions that
Congressman Grijalva was asking, Picture 7 is a picture that
shows where, several years ago, trees were harvested for water-
distribution research. The areas that are in green were
harvested many years ago and grew back. Those younger, healthy
trees were not attacked by the mountain pine beetle. You can
almost see a hand print of what happened there.
The areas that are red were not harvested. Those trees were
not as healthy, and most of them died.
So, today, I am looking forward to hearing what the second
and third panels are doing to avoid the almost certain
catastrophe. I also want to hear suggestions for actions
Congress should take, and Congresswoman DeGette mentioned that
we, as the Colorado delegation, have moved forward in a
bipartisan way trying to figure out a solution to the problem.
We have been able to address some of the issues along the urban
interface areas, but, as you see, the devastation is incredible
in Colorado. Most of the forests are dying up toward the
Steamboat Springs are and Northwest Colorado.
I welcome your ideas on the most strategic approaches we
can make to protect our communities and natural resources, and
I would like to thank the leadership of this Committee for
addressing this critical issue, and thank you, Madam Chair, for
making it a point that you will present the findings of these
hearings to the Department of the Interior, and also I would
appreciate it if you could share those with the Department of
Agriculture as well. Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Salazar follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John T. Salazar, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Colorado
Thank you Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop, and
Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers for having
this hearing today. I am honored to be a part of it.
The Mountain pine beetle epidemic in Colorado and throughout the
West is devastating. It is destroying our forests and threatening our
communities.
I have some pictures I'd like to share with you and to submit for
the record.
(Picture 1) This picture gives you an idea of the magnitude of the
problem we're dealing with. The red trees you see in this picture are
dead.
Ninety percent of the trees in this picture are dead.
These next 2 pictures shows the magnitude of the impact to our
recreation areas, one of the economic mainstays of Colorado.
(Picture 2) This is the picture of one of our campgrounds in
Steamboat Springs as the mountain pine beetle went the area.
(Picture 3) This is what it looks like after the Colorado State
Forest Service removed the hazardous trees.
(Picture 4) This picture shows dead trees by a power line. Imagine
what would happen to that power line if a fire like this went through.
(Picture 5)
(Picture/Map 6) This map demonstrates how far reaching the epidemic
in Colorado is.
It is over 2 million acres and growing.
We have over 633 miles of electrical transmission lines just in
Colorado that are in areas of dead or dying trees.
We also have over 1300 miles of electrical distribution lines at
risk from falling trees or fire.
A large fire could destroy many of these lines, causing power
outages for months.
While a wildfire is just a matter of when, falling trees are
occurring now on trails, rancher's fences, campgrounds, and powerlines.
How long before one of those falling trees kill someone? Already
we've had to close campgrounds and trails because of the hazards.
We need to do something to ensure our communities, watersheds and
power and communication infrastructure is safe.
We also need to be looking into the future.
At the health of our industries--small and large--that utilize the
dead trees.
At keeping our future forests healthy so epidemics such as this are
less likely to happen.
(Picture 7) This picture shows where several years ago trees were
harvested for water distribution research.
The areas that are green were harvested many years ago and grew
back. Those younger, healthy trees were not attacked by the mountain
pine beetle.
The areas that are red were not harvested. Those trees were not as
healthy and died.
I am looking forward to hearing what the 2nd and 3rd panels are
doing to avoid an almost certain catastrophe.
I also want to hear suggestions for actions Congress should take.
As this committee knows, I, along with several members of the
Colorado delegation, have introduced legislation the last several
Congresses addressing different approaches to tackle this problem.
Our delegation is currently working on a bill we plan to introduce
this summer.
I welcome your ideas on the most strategic approaches we can make
to protect our communities and natural resources.
I'd like to thank the leadership on the committee for addressing
this critical issue.
Thank you and I yield back the remainder of my time.
[NOTE: Pictures have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much, Congressman.
Mr. Rehberg, Congressman Rehberg.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DENNIS REHBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Chair and
Members of both Subcommittees for allowing me this opportunity
to testify today.
The forests in Montana are quite different from the forests
out East or even in Colorado. On the East Coast, masses of
deciduous trees turn a variety of different colors each fall as
the leaves fall off to conserve energy. In Colorado, masses of
aspen tree growths change to gold each fall.
Montana's forests are primarily comprised of coniferous
trees, or, as we call them, ``evergreens.'' With evergreens,
nature has a different strategy for surviving the winter.
Smaller leaves shaped like needles and sheathed in protective
coatings require less energy during the winter months. As a
result, as the name implies, our forests remain green year-
round, or they are supposed to.
Lately, massive infestations of western pine beetles have
left their mark on more than the trees. Like a teenager with a
paint-ball gun in an art museum, splotches of rust, red, and
orange, mucous yellow being to corrupt the tapestry of our
forests. It started small, a few trees peppered in a forest of
millions, but eventually entire mountainsides turned yellow
with the infestation. Visitors were forgiven for thinking that
they were just seeing the annual life cycle of a deciduous
forest, but the locals knew that something was very wrong.
The western pine beetle has infested millions of acres of
forests throughout the West, thanks to drought and burdensome
litigation. Our forests have been inadequately managed as our
local government agencies and timber companies have not been
allowed to work hand in hand to combat this destructive insect.
As a result, our western forests are now more vulnerable than
they have ever been to massive forest fires that can engulf
entire communities, undermine energy reliability by burning
transmission lines, destroy historical, cultural, and
recreational sites; and seriously compromise endangered species
and water quality.
While these losses alone are costly to taxpayers, they do
not include the vast amounts of money spent every year to
combat forest fires and that are fueled by pine beetle-infested
trees.
I paint a picture of this vicious cycle where the victims
are our once-prestigious, green, western forests and the
American taxpayer, and the problem is quickly getting worse.
With the lack of local healthy forest management, the
western pine beetle has increased the mortality rate of mature
trees in Montana twofold in just the last year, from 735,000
acres in 2007 to 1.8 million acres in 2008. One area, in
particular, between Helena and Butte, has reported morality
levels three to four times higher in 2008 than compared with
2007. Additionally, at higher elevations, significant pine
beetle-caused mortality has been noted in white bark pine
stands on our state park lands and the Yellowstone National
Park.
It is no coincidence that as the acreage of infestation has
risen, so have the costs of forest fire suppression. The Forest
Service has approximately spent $225 million in suppression
funds in Montana over the last three fiscal years. The Bureau
of Land Management has spent over $33 million in the last three
years compared to $24 million in the subsequent three-year
period. These costs are only for fighting fires, the forest
fires themselves. They do not include loss of infrastructure,
wildlife, and fish, and habitat for endangered species and
dollars generated from tourism.
Exhaustive research has been conducted over the years to
determine the best methods for combating western pine beetle
infestation. This research has proven, time and again, that the
insect thrives in environments that are overcrowded, dense, and
old growth, particularly during periods of drought. Under
epidemic outbreak conditions, enough beetles can emerge from
one infested tree and kill several trees the following year.
Healthy forest management is best done at the local level
by men and women who live in the forest and can read its signs.
As an example of this, I want to tell you a success story
near the ghost town of Garnet, Montana, located just east of
Missoula. The areas surrounding this historic ghost town had
become infested with the western pine beetle. In 2006, as other
forest fires raged in nearby forest lands of Western Montana,
local Bureau of Land Management officials were convinced that
unless they thinned the forests around Garnet, they would lose
the ghost town to a forest fire. Then the beetles showed up and
infected twice as many trees as they had done in the previous
years.
Consequently, the BLM quickly teamed up with Pyramid
Mountain Lumber Company to remove up to 60 percent of the
standing trees in the 320-plus-acre area in the fall of 2008.
The project successfully avoided sensitive cultural areas,
saved a historical site, built several handicapped-accessible
trails for recreational purposes, lessened the spread of the
insect, promoted the diversification and growth of animal
populations, including the snowshoe hare and the Canada lynx
and utilized every part of the dead trees removed.
From these 320 acres alone, trees were milled into building
construction lumber, pulped into paper products, and even used
as energy to fuel the kilns where green lumber is dried and
cured. While this is just one success story, it is a success
story. The view and perspective of what is happening and how it
should be fixed looks very different to an out-of-state
bureaucrat flying overhead at 30,000 feet. When it comes to
forest management, one-size-fits-all solutions can oftentimes
cause more problems than they solve.
We have boots on the ground. I only ask that we stay out of
their way and let our forest managers do their job. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rehberg follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Denny Rehberg, the Representative in
Congress for the State of Montana
Thank you Chairwoman Napolitano, Chairman Grijalva and members of
both subcommittees for allowing me to testify today on the Western Pine
Beetle Infestation in our Western forests--the forests that many of the
people I represent call home. I appreciate the opportunity to share
with you what I have heard from Montanans and to explain our approach
to healthy forest management.
The forests in Montana are quite different from the forests out
east, or even in Colorado. On the East Coast, massive deciduous trees
turn a variety of different colors each fall as the leaves fall off to
conserve energy. In Colorado, massive aspen tree groves change to gold
each fall. Montana's forests are primarily comprised of coniferous
trees--or as we like to call them ``evergreens''. With evergreens,
nature has a different strategy for surviving the winter--smaller
leaves shaped like needles and sheathed in protective coatings require
less energy during winter months. As a result, as the name implies, our
forests remain green year-round.
Or, they are supposed to.
Lately, massive infestations of western pine beetles have left
their mark on more than the trees. Like a teenager with a paintball gun
in an art museum, splotches of rust orange and mucus yellow began to
corrupt the tapestry of our majestic forests. It started small, a few
trees peppered in a forest of millions, but eventually entire
mountainsides turned yellow with the infestation. Visitors were
forgiven for thinking that they were just seeing the annual lifecycle
of a deciduous forest, but the locals knew that something was very
wrong.
The western pine beetle has infested millions of acres of forests
throughout the West. Thanks to drought and burdensome litigation, our
forests have been inadequately managed as our local government agencies
and timber companies have not been allowed to work hand-in-hand to
combat this destructive insect. As a result, our western forests are
now more vulnerable than ever to massive forest fires that can engulf
entire communities, undermine energy reliability by burning
transmission lines, destroy historical, cultural and recreational sites
and seriously compromise endangered species and water quality. While
these losses alone are costly to taxpayers, they don't include the vast
amounts of money spent every year to combat forest fires that are
fueled by pine beetle infested trees. I paint a picture of a vicious
cycle where the victims are our once-prestigious green western forests
and the American taxpayer.
And the problem is quickly getting worse.
With a lack of local healthy forest management, the western pine
beetle has increased the mortality rate of mature trees in Montana
National Forest lands two-fold in just one year, from 734,500 acres in
2007 to 1.8 million acres in 2008.
One area in particular, between Helena and Butte, has reported
mortality levels 3-4 times higher in 2008 as compared to 2007.
Additionally, at higher elevations, significant beetle-caused mortality
has been noted in white bark pine stands on our state park lands and in
Yellowstone National Park.
It's no coincidence that as the acreage of infestation has risen,
so have the costs of forest fire suppression. The Forest Service spent
approximately $225 million in suppression funds in Montana over the
last three fiscal years. The Bureau of Land Management has spent over
$33 million in the last three years compared to $24 million in the
subsequent three year time period. These costs are only for fighting
the forest fires themselves; they do not include loss of
infrastructure, wildlife and fish, habitat for endangered species and
dollars generated from tourism.
Exhaustive research has been conducted over the years to determine
the best methods for combating western pine beetle infestation. This
research has proven time and again that the insect thrives in
environments that are overcrowded, dense, and old growth--particularly
during periods of drought. Under epidemic outbreak conditions, enough
beetles can emerge from one infested tree and kill several trees the
following year.
The same research has also shown that the best way to combat the
western pine beetle is through healthy forest management. As forest
fires thrive in the same conditions as the insect, it is no surprise
that we've seen a rise in fires in forests that have become victims of
the western pine beetle. This relationship could be changed through
healthy forest management such as creating forests with trees of
various ages and sizes that are more resilient and less vulnerable to
the western pine beetle.
Healthy forest management is best done at the local level by the
men and women who live in the forests and can read its signs. As an
example of this, I want to tell you of a success story near the ghost
town of Garnet, Montana. Located just east of Missoula, the area
surrounding this historic ghost town had become infested with the
western pine beetle.
In 2006, as other forest fires raged in nearby forest lands of
western Montana, local Bureau of Land Management officials were
convinced that unless they thinned the forest around Garnet, they would
lose the ghost town to a forest fire. Then, the beetles showed up and
infected twice as many trees as they had done in previous years.
Consequently, the BLM quickly teamed with Pyramid Mountain Lumber
Company to remove up to 60 percent of the standing trees in the 320-
plus-acre area in the fall of 2008.
The project successfully avoided sensitive cultural areas, saved a
historical site, built several handicapped-accessible trails for
recreational purposes, lessened the spread of the insect, promoted the
diversification and growth of animal populations--including the
snowshoe hare and the Canada lynx--and utilized every part of the dead
trees removed. From these 320 acres alone, trees were milled into
building construction lumber, pulped into paper products and even used
as energy to fuel the kilns where green lumber is dried and cured.
While this is just one success story on 320 acres in western
Montana, our forests can be green once again, wild fires can be kept at
bay, and every wood product from paper to energy can be produced--but
only if our local professionals are allowed to thin the red and grey
dying trees that have fallen victim to the western pine beetle. Through
local healthy forest management, we can make substantial strides in a
short amount of time.
The view and perspective for what is happening and how it should be
fixed looks very different to an out-of-state bureaucrat flying
overhead at 30,000 feet. When it comes to forest management, one size
fits all solutions can often times cause more problems than they solve.
We've got boots on the ground, and in the forests of Montana ready to
do what is necessary to restore our forests to a healthy, green state.
I only ask that we stay out of their way and allow them to do their
jobs.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Rehberg. Ms. Markey?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BETSY MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. Markey. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members for
allowing me the opportunity to speak to your Subcommittee
today.
As you will hear from many members of the panel, the West
is no stranger to bark beetle infestations. In the past, native
bark beetles have served to renew forest ecosystems by weeding
out older, mature trees to allow younger trees to regenerate.
Unfortunately, warm winter temperatures, drought conditions,
and uniform tree maturity have both stressed trees and created
the perfect conditions for the current outbreak.
While I will leave the etymology and ecology of park bark
beetles to the experts on the next panel, I would like to
stress to the Committee why this issue is important in my
district.
Until recently, the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains in
Colorado has fared much better than the western slope in the
bark beetle outbreaks. As my colleagues, Congressman Salazar
and Polis, can attest, the western slope has seen a large swath
of mature trees killed by the epidemic.
The Forest Service expects this bark beetle outbreak will
kill most of the mature lodgepole pines covering 2.2 million
acres in Colorado and Southeastern Wyoming in the next five
years. Some estimates indicate that almost two million acres
have already been decimated.
The epidemic can be seen by the characteristic reddish hues
that the needles take on after about a year of infection. My
district, on the eastern slope of the Rockies, is showing signs
that the bark beetles have made it over the ridge and are now
spreading to the eastern slope and the Ponderosa pines in the
front range.
Infestation-prevention techniques in Colorado involve
spraying individual trees, thinning highly susceptible areas,
and monitoring individual healthy trees for infestation. These
techniques are very labor intensive and do not guarantee the
trees will survive. Therefore, it is important to focus on how
to limit the damages brought on by the epidemic and study ways
to reduce the intensity of outbreaks in the future.
The Forest Service and Colorado State University are just
two of the many entities studying the impact of bark beetle
kill on wildfire risk. The Colorado Forest Restoration
Institute at the Warner College of Natural Resources at
Colorado State University works with other research
institutions and private entities to apply field-based evidence
to implement healthy forest-management practices.
Catastrophic wildfires can also have detrimental effects on
water quality and supply, as Mr. Wilkinson will testify in the
next panel. Erosion and debris from wildfires can have long-
lasting effects on water quality and incur great expenses to
repair.
The two biggest concerns in my district are the increased
threat of wildfire due to the bark beetle-killed trees and the
impact of the bark beetle infestation on watershed health and
water quality.
Colorado's Fourth Congressional District covers part of
Rocky Mountain National Park, extends east to Nebraska and
Kansas borders, and runs as far south as the Oklahoma border.
My district contains mountains, planes, grasslands, and some of
the best agricultural land in Colorado.
To ensure our forests and water are protected, it is
imperative that we provide a stable source of funding for
emergency wildfire suppression, such as provided in the FLAME
Act. By creating a separate fund for unpredictable, emergency
wildfire efforts, we can ensure annual funding for fire
prevention and fuel reduction is not wiped out by sudden
catastrophic wildfires.
This bill also requires the development of wildfire
management strategies by the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of the Interior in addition to establishing wildfire
grants to encourage individual communities to develop their own
wildfire emergency plan.
I would also like to stress how important it is for
wildfire prevention plans to implement protections from hazards
affecting water infrastructure and watershed health. These
include plans to control debris and sediment accumulation, as
well as thinning around potential critical access sites to
ensure these control measures can be put in place as soon as
possible.
Federal programs like the Colorado Good Neighbor Authority
and the pending FLAME Act are making strides in wildfire
prevention and mitigation, but Congress can do more.
The number one barrier to implementing wildfire prevention
plans and beetle-kill-mitigation programs is funding. I, along
with the rest of the delegation, sent a letter to Secretaries
Salazar, Vilsack, and Chu and Chairwoman Napolitano urging
these agencies to use recovery funds to address the bark-kill
mitigation problem.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not stress the
importance of providing the USDA Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service with the resources they need to update the
quarantined 37 regulations for the importation of plants into
the U.S. While bark beetles are a native species to the West,
our forests are prone to invasive species without these updated
regulations.
Thank you again for allowing me to speak to the
Subcommittee, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Markey follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Betsy Markey, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado
Chairman Grijalva and Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Members
Bishop and McMorris Rodgers, thank you for allowing me the opportunity
to testify before your subcommittees today. I also want to thank you
for holding this hearing on mountain pine beetles and highlighting what
needs to be done to limit the hazards brought about by this epidemic.
As you will hear from many members of the panels today, the west is
no stranger to bark beetle infestations. In the past, native bark
beetles have served to renew forest ecosystems by weeding out older
mature trees to allow younger trees to regenerate. Unfortunately, warm
winter temperatures, drought conditions and uniform tree maturity have
both stressed trees and created the perfect conditions for the current
outbreak. The range of various bark beetles species has been
traditionally limited by climate, but warmer temperatures have
contributed to the outbreaks spreading into new areas.
While I will leave the entomology (en-toe-maul-o-gee) and ecology
of bark beetles to the experts in the next panel, I would like to
stress to the Committee why this issue is important to my district.
Until recently, the Eastern Slope of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado
has fared much better than the Western Slope in the bark beetle
outbreaks. As my colleagues, Congressman Salazar and Polis can attest,
the Western slope has seen large swaths of mature trees killed by the
epidemic. The Forest Service expects this bark beetle outbreak will
kill most of the mature Lodgepole pines covering 2.2 million acres in
Colorado and southern Wyoming within the next 5 years. Some estimates
indicate almost 2 million acres the have already been decimated. In
2007, the Forest Service detected bark activity in 4 million acres of
lodgepole and ponderosa pine in the west. Many other states are being
affected by beetle infestations.
The epidemic can be seen by the characteristic reddish hue the
needles take on after about a year of infection. My district on the
Eastern slope of the Rockies is showing signs that bark beetles have
made it over the ridge and are now spreading to the eastern slope and
the ponderosa pines in the Front Range.
Infestation prevention techniques in Colorado involve spraying
individual trees, thinning highly susceptible areas, and monitoring
individual healthy trees for infestation. These techniques are very
labor intensive and do not guarantee the trees will survive. Therefore
it is important to focus on how to limit the damages brought on by the
epidemic and study ways to reduce the intensity of outbreaks in the
future.
The Forest Service and Colorado State University are just two of
the many entities studying the impact of bark beetle kill on wildfire
risk. The Colorado Forest Restoration Institute in the Warner College
of Natural Resources at Colorado State University works with other
research institutions and private entities to apply field-based
evidence to implement healthy forest management practices. It is
theorized that while canopy fire risks decreases as the dead needles
drop to the ground, the threat of fire on the forest floor greatly
increases due to the deadwood pile up on the surface. This deadwood can
also contribute to increased nutrient loading in water supplies.
Catastrophic wildfires can also have detrimental effects on water
quality and supply as Mr. Wilkinson will testify in the next panel.
Erosion and debris from wildfires can have long lasting effects on
water quality and incur great expenses to repair.
The two biggest concerns in my district are increased threat of
wildfire due to the beetle-killed trees and the impact of the bark
beetle infestation on watershed health and water quality. Colorado's
fourth Congressional District covers part of Rocky Mountain National
Park, extends out east to the Nebraska and Kansas borders and runs as
far south as the Oklahoma border. My district contains mountains,
plains, grasslands, and some of the best agricultural land in Colorado.
Weld County, in the 4th CD, is the number one ranking county in the
state for agricultural products sold and eighth in the nation. The
Eastern Plains of Colorado, including Weld County, depend on the water
that flows from the Rocky Mountain forested areas. In the West, and
especially in the dry state of Colorado, water is a resource more
precious than gold.
To ensure our forests and water are protected, it is imperative
that we provide a stable source of funding for emergency wildfire
suppression, such as provided in the FLAME Act. By creating a separate
fund for unpredictable emergency wildfire efforts we can ensure annual
funding for fire prevention and fuel reduction programs are not wiped
out by sudden catastrophic wildfires. This bill also requires the
development of wildfire management strategies by the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of the Interior in addition to
establishing wildfire grants to encourage individual communities to
develop their own wildfire emergency plans. Being prepared for wildfire
activity in advance will inherently reduce the risks of wildfire
associated with the bark beetle kill.
I would also like to stress how important it is for wildfire
prevention plans to implement protections from hazards affecting water
infrastructure and watershed health. These include plans to control
debris and sediment accumulation as well as thinning around potential
critical access sites to ensure these control measures can be put in
place as soon as possible following wildfires. By putting in place
infrastructure protections and response programs, we can ensure that
should a wildfire take place, communities will be prepared to quickly
mitigate the damage to our water supply.
Federal programs like the Colorado Good Neighbor Authority and the
pending FLAME Act are making strides in wildfire prevention and
mitigation, but Congress can do more. The number one barrier to
implementing wildfire prevention plans and beetle kill mitigation
programs is funding. I along with the rest of the delegation sent a
letter to Secretaries Salazar, Vilsack, Chu and Napolitano urging the
agencies to use Recovery funds to address the bark beetle kill
mitigation.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not to stress the importance of
providing the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service with the
resources they need to update the Quarantine 37 regulations for the
importation of plants into the US. While bark beetles are a native
species to the west, our forests are prone to invasive species without
these updated regulations. Updating these regulations will ensure we
are not unnecessarily exposing our forests to destructive invasive
plants.
Thank you again Chairman Grijalva and Chairwoman Napolitano and
Ranking Members Bishop and McMorris Rodgers for allowing me the
opportunity to speak before the subcommittees this morning.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Next, we have The Honorable Walt Minnick.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WALT MINNICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Minnick. Madame Chairman and colleagues, I was
backpacking four summers ago with my fly rod and sleeping bag
in Idaho's spectacular Seven Devils Wilderness Area high above
Hells Canyon, the deepest gorge in North America. These soaring
peaks where snow lasts well into August are the home of the
White Bark Pine, a gnarly, slow growing Evergreen which is my
state's highest and toughest native tree species.
It was still summer, yet many of the Pine trees were yellow
and dropping the needles. On closer examination, their trunks
and limbs were riddled with tiny open holes, marks left by
thousands of hatching bark beetles flying off to mate and lay
their eggs on those neighboring trees still alive. In the four
days I spent hiking over mountain passes from lake to lake
stalking native Cutthroat Trout, I examined tree after tree and
found that none were not dead or dying.
At lower elevations the tree and bark species are slightly
different but the results are the same: dead and dying forests.
There are over 20 million acres of national forests in my
state. They anchor a major part of Idaho's tourism economy and
supply raw material for lumber, construction and renewable
energy. Millions of additional acres are in state and private
ownership. Bark beetles are currently wrecking havoc on our
healthy forests, damaging our state's economy and increasing
the risk and intensity of stand replacement wildfire.
The cause of this epidemic is increasing drought and warmer
winters, which in combination can cause a thousandfold increase
in the intensity of bark beetle infestations. In recent years,
climate change has brought longer, dryer summers which reduce a
tree's ability to drown bark beetle larvae, and less extreme
winter cold temperatures, which kill bark beetle pupa. Bark
beetles can now produce two generations in one summer and
overwhelm entire forests instead of isolated trees.
Whole mountainsides that used to be full of lush trees have
turned brown and ready to burn. I worked in the forest products
industry for over two decades and know that outside of
protected roadless and wilderness areas, we need proactive
forest management to restore our forests to a more healthy
condition and reduce the threat to communities from raging
wildfire. Restorative forestry, including thinning of mature
and overgrown stands and replacement of forest monocultures
with a variety of species and maturities, will help repel
future beetle attacks.
Healthier ecosystems can also provide economic and social
benefits to both urban and rural communities, including better
hunting, increased jobs in the woods, more logs for sawmills,
forest residue for energy cogent plants, clean water and
improved wildlife habitat. Earlier this year I introduced an
amendment to H.R. 1404, the Flame Act, to help protect Idahoans
and their communities from some of the dangers caused by the
Bark Beetle.
The bill, with my amendment, passed unanimously and directs
new emergency funding to address land management costs posed by
catastrophic wildfires, including those caused by beetle
infestation. More aggressive forest management, together with
the Flame Act, will help protected states like mine return to
healthier and more productive forests. It is time for the
Forest Service to act. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Minnick. We now have
Honorable Jared Polis.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Minnick follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Walt Minnick, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Idaho
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues in
speaking about the danger the Mountain Bark beetle poses to the health
of our Western forests.
I was backpacking four summers ago with my fly rod and sleeping bag
in Idaho's spectacular Seven Devils Wilderness high above Hells Canyon,
the deepest gorge in North America. These soaring peaks, where snow
lasts well into August, are the home to the Whitebark Pine, a gnarly,
slow growing evergreen which is my state's highest and toughest native
tree species. It was still summer, yet many of the pine trees were
yellow and dropping their needles. On closer examination, their trunks
and limbs were riddled with tiny open holes--marks recently left by
thousands of hatching bark beetles flying off to mate and lay their
eggs on those neighboring trees still alive. In the 4 days I spent
hiking over mountain passes from lake to lake stalking native cutthroat
trout, I examined tree after tree--and found none that were not dead or
dying. At lower elevations the tree and bark beetle species are
slightly different, but the results are the same. Dead and dying
forests`
There are over 20 million acres of national forest in my state.
They anchor a major part of Idaho's tourism economy and supply raw
material for lumber, construction and renewable energy. Millions of
additional acres are in state and private ownership.
Bark beetles are currently wreaking havoc on our healthy forests,
damaging our state's economy, and increasing the risk and intensity of
stand replacement wild fire. The epidemic threatens to impact Idaho's
vital watersheds, key wildlife habitats, destroy old-growth forests and
impact popular recreation areas. National Forest Supervisors and
private landowners are desperately seeking solutions to an increasingly
serious situation.
The cause of this epidemic is increasing drought and warmer winters
which, in combination, can cause a thousand fold increase in the
intensity of bark beetle infestations. In recent years climate change
has brought longer drier summers, which reduce a tree's ability to
drown bark beetle larva and less extreme winter cold temperatures which
kill bark beetle pupae. Bark beetles can now can produce two
generations in one summer and overwhelm entire forests instead of
isolated trees. Whole mountainsides that used to be full of lush trees
have turned brown--and ready to burn.
I worked in the forest products industry for over two decades and
know that, outside of protected roadless and Wilderness areas, we need
proactive forest management to restore our forests to a more healthy
condition and reduce the threat to communities from raging wildfire.
Restorative forestry, including thinning of mature and overgrown stands
and replacement of forest monocultures with a variety of species and
maturities, will help repel future beetle attacks. Healthier ecosystems
also provide economic and social benefits to both urban and rural
communities, including better hunting, increased jobs in the woods,
more logs for sawmills, forest residue for green energy co-generation
plants, clean water and improved wildlife habitat.
Earlier this year, I introduced an amendment to H.R. 1404, the
FLAME Act, to help protect Idahoans and their communities from some of
the dangers caused by the bark beetle. The bill with my amendment
passed unanimously and directs new emergency funding to address land
management costs posed by catastrophic wildfires including those caused
by beetle infestation. Passage of this amendment, together with the
FLAME Act, will help forested states like mine return to healthier and
more productive forests.
It's time to act.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED POLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano and Chairman
Grijalva, as well as the Ranking Members, for holding this
important hearing and giving me the opportunity to testify
before your Subcommittee on an issue that is of enormous
importance to the citizens of Colorado's second congressional
district, as well as those who visit our Alpine treasures. One
of the primary needs in addressing this epidemic is increasing
the awareness and understanding of how vast this problem is and
what menu of options we have in mitigating its damage.
This hearing will help to highlight the problems that we
currently face and continue to bring more minds to the table
and a better Federal partnership to join those who are working
constantly to promote mitigation solutions and keep our
communities and public lands safe.
In my testimony today, I will highlight the sheer scope of
this problem and why this outbreak demands the prompt attention
of congressional leaders, the Administration, and our local and
national land management officials, where we currently stand
and what solutions currently exist, as well as what innovations
are on the horizon, and finally, the challenges we face in
developing and implementing these solutions responsively and
effectively.
Colorado's second congressional district relies on visitors
who come to our state to ski, camp, climb, bike, boat and visit
the incredible landscapes that define Colorado's second
congressional district. In Colorado, the tourism industry
provides nearly $10 billion of in state spending annually. In
addition to those who come to visit, those who call our
district home are always outside enjoying the natural
cornucopia of entertainment and adventure day in and day out,
part of the fabric of our quality of life.
However, the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic is fundamentally
changing our landscape and with it, both our culture and our
economy. We have seen outbreaks in the past, most recently in
1970s and early 1980s, but the combined forces of the current
outbreaks make this epidemic the biggest in recorded history by
far. For this reason, it demands our proactive attention. The
current outbreaks are killing trees in large numbers, at faster
rates and over longer periods of time than previous outbreaks.
This outbreak has yet to get natural help that has stopped
the past outbreaks from reaching the scale of devastation we
see today. It was a severe cold period that was credited with
stopping a rapidly growing outbreak in my district in Grand
County, Colorado, in the 1980s. Today, temperature trends are
pushing us in the opposite direction. In discussing the scope
of this problem, the first and foremost concern is the safety
of visitors and residents who live and play in the mountains
that are being hardest hit.
Fire is, of course, the danger that comes to mind. Research
has suggested that large beetle outbreaks tend to happen on a
50 year cycle. Wildfires frequently follow 10 years to 15 years
after, and there has been a strong correlation between
catastrophic fire events and beetle kills 15 years later. This
outbreak has been present in my district for just about 10
years now, and it is growing closer and closer to the time when
evidence suggests a strong correlation between beetle kill and
wildfire events.
In addition to fire, this outbreak has significant safety
repercussions from falling, dead and dying trees. Falling trees
pose a hazard to power lines, trails, roads, campgrounds,
rivers, ski lodges, infrastructure, as well as the patrons and
workers who use them. Our economy also stands to suffer. The
communities of Colorado's second congressional district are
blessed to have economies directly tied to our landscape and
natural resources.
As we move further into this summer, an ominous annual
cycle dominates our mind, that of the growing wildfire danger.
While there are mitigation efforts underway and programs and
services are helping, our current resources are not enough.
Trees do not cut down themselves. Broadly put, funding is one
of the primary keys to quick mitigation. We are all aware that
overwhelming firefighter costs have stifled our Federal land
management budget.
I hope that the Senate will act quickly to pass the Flame
Act, following the House's lead, and the excellent work of this
Committee on passing that legislation. The Flame Act will have
a drastic and immediate benefit for our communities and the
effective and efficient use of our tax dollars. Our public land
managers have project after project of fuel reduction efforts
which have passed environmental assessment but are still
waiting for funding to move forward.
Reducing fuels in the wildland urban interface and around
the critical infrastructure is critical to solving the safety
concerns posed by the Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak. With
budget shortfalls and the growing need for funding of hazardous
tree removal, we are also looking at creative ways to decrease
the cost of thinning responsibly bringing increased value to
the wood products removed. Wood products, wood pellets, small
scale energy products and other businesses can play a key role
in mitigating the damage.
Today you will hear from Mark Mathis, a wood pellet
producer in my district, who will talk about the need to help
local businesses to reduce the outbreak's impact. I was also
able to recently attend a blue stain showroom opening. We think
that blue stain is a better name than Pine Beetle kill to
market the wood. The Mountain Pine Beetle leaves a fungus that
stains the dead trees blue without compromising the integrity
of the wood that can be reduced by these trees.
I recently purchased a coffee table that is a blue stained
coffee table. The blue stain products and industry and small
scale renewable energy are only a couple of examples of
community businesses that can play a central role in creating
private incentives to reduce fuels and remove hazardous trees
in high risk areas. As Congress debates and moves closer to
passing a wide sweeping overhaul of our nation's energy policy,
new resources of energy--thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. That is quite a response. You may wrap it
up.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. I was just going to refer to a woody
biomass within a renewable energy standard has additional
potential to provide incentives for taking the trees, and there
are efforts to work on the upcoming energy bill to include
those elements. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Polis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jared Polis, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado
Chairman Grijalva and Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Members
Bishop and McMorris Rodgers,
Thank you very much for holding this hearing, and particularly the
opportunity to testify before your subcommittee on an issue that is of
chief importance to the citizens of Colorado's second district and
those who visit its alpine treasures. The mountain pine beetle outbreak
that is currently expanding throughout the Rocky Mountains, and
particularly the Lodgepole pine ecosystems of my district, and
Whitebark pine of the Northern Rockies, is a critically important
topic. One of the primary needs in addressing this epidemic is
increasing the awareness and understanding of how vast this problem is,
and what menu of options we have in mitigating its damage. This hearing
will help to highlight the problems that we currently face, and
continue to bring more minds to the table, joining those of us who are
working constantly to promote mitigation solutions and keep our
communities and public land's patrons safe.
In my testimony today I hope to highlight: 1) The scope of this
problem and why this outbreak demands the prompt attention of
congressional leaders, the administration and our local and national
lands management officials. 2) Where we currently stand, what solutions
exist and what innovations are on the horizon that will mitigate the
damages of this outbreak responsibly and effectively 3) The challenges
we face in developing and implementing those solutions responsibly and
effectively.
How big of a problem is this?
Colorado's Second District relies heavily on those visitors who
come to our state to ski, camp, climb, bike and boat the incredible
landscapes that define Colorado's Second Congressional District. In
Colorado, the tourism industry provides nearly $10 billion dollars of
in state spending annually. In addition to those who come to visit,
those who call the second district home are outside enjoying this
natural cornucopia of entertainment and adventure day in and day out.
My district is home to world class ski areas, dozens of fourteen
thousand foot peaks, and countless trails, campgrounds and rivers that
define our economy and culture as much as they define our landscapes.
However, the mountain pine beetle epidemic is fundamentally changing
this landscape, and with it our culture and economy.
In the last ten years, more than 150 million acres of trees, from
New Mexico to British Columbia, have died as a result of beetle
infestation. While my district is most heavily affected by the mountain
pine beetle in its Lodgepole pine forests, other states are seeing
similar outbreaks involving other species of trees and beetles.
We have seen outbreaks in the past, most recently in the late
1970's and early 80's, but the combined force of the current outbreaks
make this epidemic the biggest in recorded history and for this reason
it demands our proactive attention. The current outbreaks are killing
trees in larger numbers, at faster rates, and over longer time periods;
they are happening in numerous ecosystems across the western U.S. and
are occurring at the same time.
The scope of this outbreak demands our attention because it has yet
to get the natural help that has stopped past outbreaks from reaching
the scale of devastation we see today. Beetles are a temperature
dependant being, limited by colder temperatures and colder climates. It
was a severe cold period that was credited with stopping a rapidly
growing outbreak in my district in Grand County, Colorado in the
1980's. Today, temperature trends and drought conditions are pushing us
in the opposite direction.
The beetle's life cycles are also greatly determined by
temperature. Generally, species that live in colder climates have a two
year life cycle, but we're starting to see the beetles at higher
elevations reproducing more like beetles in warmer and lower
elevations, once every year to even twice a year, greatly expanding the
speed with which this outbreak spreads. Regionally, the mountain pine
beetle hasn't been found in British Columbia, the Yukon or the
Northwest Territories. Now, British Columbia is one of the areas hit
hardest by the current epidemic.
In discussing the scope of this problem, the first and foremost
concern is the safety of the visitors and residents who live and play
in the mountains that are being hit hardest. Fire is, of course, the
danger that comes to mind first. Research is still being conducted on
the direct influence between beetle kill and wildfires, and I know I
speak for everyone here when I say that I hope the links are minimal. I
say this because if beetle-killed forests are at greater risk of
burning, or fuel more intense fires, then many communities in my
district are getting closer to catastrophe every year.
Some research has suggested that larger beetle outbreaks tend to
happen on a 50 year cycle, while large wildfire events don't
necessarily follow those same trends. However, additional research has
suggested that 5 to 10 years after a beetle outbreak there is little
correlation between wildfires and beetle kill, while 15 years out the
correlation is much stronger. This outbreak has been present in my
district for over ten years and is growing closer and closer to the
time when evidence suggests a stronger correlation between beetle kill
and wildfire events. Our communities, homeowners, ski areas, towns and
businesses know all too well the personal effects of major wildfire
events, but the sheer scale of dead and dying timber in our surrounding
forests speaks to a greater catastrophic potential, and that is truly
worrying.
In addition to fire, this outbreak has significant safety
repercussions from falling dead and dying trees. Mountain pine beetles
attack larger trees more often, as these trees serve as better hosts
for the beetle's larvae. When these trees die, the root systems die as
well, and the trees and soil around them become less stable leading to
larger falling trees. These falling trees pose significant hazards to
trails, roads, campgrounds, rivers, ski lodges, vital infrastructure,
and the patrons and workers who use them.
Our economies also stand to suffer. The communities of Colorado's
second district are blessed to have economies directly tied to our
landscapes and natural resources. However, for the many communities who
share this trait throughout the region, the mountain pine beetle
epidemic poses a threat of disastrous proportions. The visitors that
come to Colorado for recreation and tourism drive our economies and
sustain our communities. The damage to our tourism industry through
threat of fire, damage to infrastructure from falling trees or the
damage to our landscape's beauty, give rise to severe concerns about
our community's economic and cultural future.
Where are we now and what's on the horizon?
As I'm giving this testimony, Colorado's mountains are drying out
from a muddy spring, with snow melting, runoff filling our rivers and
creeks and wildflowers dominating the high alpine meadows. However, as
our mountains and forests move further into the summer, a more ominous
annual cycle dominates our minds...that of the growing wildfire danger.
Now more than ever, the pine beetle epidemic has concerns running high
about a wildfire season of catastrophic possibilities. Our communities
are not as prepared as they could be, and they need federal help to
ensure the highest level of safety is achieved.
While there are mitigation efforts underway and programs and
services helping a great deal on the ground...broadly put, funding,
funding, funding is one of the primary keys to quick mitigation.
We are all aware that overwhelming firefighting costs have stifled
our federal lands management budget. I hope that the Senate will act
quickly to pass the FLAME Act, following the House's lead, and the
excellent work of this committee in passing that legislation. The FLAME
Act will have drastic and immediate benefits for our communities and
the effective and efficient use of our tax dollars.
When it comes to spending the limited mitigation money we do have,
the Wildland Urban Interface and areas around critical infrastructure,
where civilization and wildlands come face to face, are the areas where
expended funding should be focused to ensure the most effective,
efficient and responsible use of our tax dollars. Thinning projects
done in the Wildland Urban Interface (or woo-ee) and around critical
infrastructure, creates fire breaks between less accessible wildlands
and the population centers and infrastructure that we hope to protect
when a fire occurs. Additionally, it allows fires away from
civilization to run their course naturally, benefiting those
ecosystems, without concern of a fire quickly spreading to threaten
homes or communities. By maintaining a healthy WUI, we can cut
firefighting costs, better protect our communities, and give our
agencies the freedom to focus on a mission of lands management and
stewardship, instead of constant attention to local and residential
firefighting.
Our public lands managers have project after project of fuel
reduction efforts, which have passed environmental assessment but are
still waiting on funding to move forward. Reducing fuels in the
Wildland Urban Interface is absolutely critical to solving the safety
concerns posed by the mountain pine beetle outbreak quickly and
efficiently. Funding these waiting projects will have a significant and
immediate impact on reducing our wildfire risks, reducing the costs of
wildfire suppression activities...it is truly the low hanging fruit in
addressing the mountain pine beetle problem.
With budget shortfalls, and the growing need for funding of
hazardous tree removal and fuel reduction efforts, we are looking at
other creative ways to decrease the costs of thinning responsibly,
bringing increased value to the wood we need removed. When weighing
policy approaches and concepts new and old, we must ensure that in
creating value and new markets for this wood, we don't create too great
an incentive to where the harvesting of this resource becomes
unsustainable in its own right.
Whether including woody biomass in the definition of Renewable
Energy and thus allowing for incentives under a Renewable Energy
Portfolio Standard (RPS or RES), or through the growing prevalence of
``bluestain'' wood products as a decorative building
material...creating new market demand for the dead and dying trees
provides hope to the communities who want to see fuel reduction efforts
moving forward.
Wood products, wood pellets, small scale energy projects and other
local businesses can play a key role in mitigating the damage and
lessening the danger from this outbreak's effects. Today you will hear
from Mark Mathis, a wood pellet producer in my district on this subject
who can speak to the help that local businesses can provide in reducing
this outbreak's impacts. By adding value to beetle kill, we create a
new demand for this wood and decrease the cost to our federal land
management agencies to remove these fuels from our federal lands.
I was recently able to attend a bluestain showroom grand opening,
where more and more individuals are leaning about the bluestain wood
products industry, buying bluestain products and bringing value to the
trees that we need to have removed. The mountain pine beetle leaves in
its wake a fungus that stains the dead trees blue without compromising
the integrity of the wood that can be produced from these dead trees.
The Bluestain products industry and small scale renewable energy
development are only a couple examples of community businesses that
should play a central role in creating private incentives to reduce
fuels and remove hazardous trees high risk areas.
The Challenges We Still Face
I've discussed several of the options and needs that we know of
with regard to the mountain pine beetle epidemic in the West. However,
there are a multitude of unanswered questions, challenges, and bridges
that we still must cross.
While funding will go a long way to lessening the risk immediately,
we face the need for additional and expanded programs that assist fuels
reduction efforts on state and private lands. Nearly 70% of the
Wildland Urban Interface exists on private lands, and private property
owners must have the knowledge and incentives to maintain a healthy WUI
for the benefit of public safety. Programs like the State and Private
Forestry program, good neighbor authority, and the community fire
planning provisions of the FLAME Act, along with the ability for local
community companies to carry out this work are excellent examples of
what we need to be promoting.
However, much is left to be done as the public safety is put at
risk and more and more federal dollars are spent fighting fires or
repairing damage that could have been lessened or avoided all together.
Whether on public or private land, we need to promote safety and
responsibility first and foremost.
We also want to ensure that the measures we do take to mitigate the
effects of this problem don't create other or longer lasting problems.
Specifically, we need to maintain a focus on environmental
responsibility, particularly when discussing thinning outside the WUI
and / or creating a new form of value and increased demand for the dead
and dying timber that is produced.
As Congress debates and moves closer to passing a wide sweeping
overhaul of our nation's energy policy, new sources of energy will
become greatly valued and heavily sought after. A properly crafted,
specific and responsible definition for woody biomass within a
Renewable Energy Standard has a significant and positive role to play
in helping fund wildfire mitigation projects, and relieve the backlog
of projects that the Forest Service is waiting to have funded. This
definition can also mean that we see an expansion of cleaner and less
carbon intensive energy sources, like wood pellet heating, that will
help combat one of the primary causes of the beetle epidemic: climate
change.
However, it is essential that this definition and the resulting
technology and markets are constructed with sustainability as a first
priority. Any industry, technology or practice we support must use
resources in a manner that will conserve those resources for future
generations and will create careers that can sustain communities, not
short term jobs that will disappear along with our resources.
Closing Statements
The current beetle outbreak in the west is reaching a scale of epic
and catastrophic proportions; it is truly a perfect storm of forest age
and health, climate change and drought paired with combined regional
outbreaks spreading rapidly throughout the Rocky Mountains. The
residents, visitors, communities and economies of my district in
Colorado are facing new questions and a more uncertain future because
of this epidemic. To address it we will need to employ new policies,
provide better funding practices and be sure that as we're addressing
this problem we don't create new problems or systems that can't sustain
themselves in the long term.
This outbreak will leave a lasting scar on the land for years, but
I am confident that the forests will rebound and regenerate. It is our
responsibility to be knowledgeable and conscientious of our natural
world, ensuring that our wild areas can undergo their process of
healing, and ensuring that our communities and visitors aren't put in
harm's way during that process.
Thank you again to the members of this subcommittee, and to
Chairman Rahall, Congressman Grijalva, Congresswoman Napolitano,
Congressman Bishop and Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers for giving your
committee's time to the challenges that my constituents face on a daily
basis. I also thank you for the opportunity to testify in front of your
committee and the opportunity to participate in this hearing.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your testimony. All of the
panel, you are very passionate about the issues in your
district and I am very glad that you are joining together. I
hope that of this we will continue to not only work on this
issue, but look at the solutions to the problem. May I ask that
you turn over your testimony since it wasn't submitted for the
record, if you would not mind? Members, do you have questions
of the panel?
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Quick question. Maybe
we can start with Mr. Polis and work our way down the panel. Do
you believe that biomass is renewable, and why isn't biomass
considered renewable in the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill in your
opinion?
Mr. Polis. Well, we are working for a properly crafted and
specific definition for woody biomass within a renewable energy
standard and that can have a significant and positive role to
play in helping fund wildfire mitigation projects in this case,
as well as potentially other cases, and also help relieve the
backlog of projects that the Forest Service is waiting to have
funding.
By getting the definition right it can also mean that we
can have an expansion of cleaner and less carbon intensive
energy sources, like wood pellet heating, that will also help
combat one of the primary causes of the Pine Beetle epidemic,
global climate change.
Mr. Minnick. The short answer, Congressman Chaffetz, is
when we get through with it, it will be. I have been
encouraged. I have been working with some members of your
panel, Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin and others of us from the
northwest, to get that modification made in the bill, and
committee staff and the Congressmen have been quite
forthcoming, so I am encouraged that by the time the bill is
passed we will have that corrected.
Ms. Markey. I will echo that as well. As a member of the
Committee on Agriculture, we have been discussing this quite a
bit and making sure that woody biomass is included in renewable
standard definition.
Mr. Salazar. I could agree with all my colleagues here. I
know that we have been working on it, I know that Stephanie
Herseth Sandlin has been working on it in the Ag Committee for
several years. If you look at northwestern Colorado and you see
all the dead trees, can you imagine what an incredible resource
that would be? There are some pellet mills that are going up,
there is one pellet mill that is actually working with trying
to create an ethanol production facility so that we can use
that wood twice, to make ethanol, and then the residue then
becomes pellets.
I just want to thank the Chairwoman for flying over the
areas in Colorado that she saw the devastation that is
happening there. Woody biomass, I think, should be within the
climate change bill.
Mr. Rehberg. It is renewable. Cap in tax is not the
solution. An all of the above energy policy is the solution.
However, if we don't address the litigation, it doesn't matter
how much legislation or how much language you include in any
comprehensive energy policy, litigation is going to keep you
from having access. We can give you example after example in
Montana where we have cogeneration facilities attached to
schools, hospitals and nursing homes that cannot get access to
put their public lands because of excessive litigation.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Appreciate it. Yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Wonderful. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. Madam Chair, move to strike the last word.
Mrs. Napolitano. So moved.
Ms. DeGette. Madam Chair, as a member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee let me take a stab at Congressman Chaffetz's
question. In fact, in the current draft of the Waxman-Markey
Climate Change Bill woody biomass is included in the renewable
electricity standard. However, as I noted in my opening
remarks, there are some definitional issues with the way it is
defined in there. Mr. Walden and I are trying to expand this
standard so that we can get these downed trees out of the
forests.
In the current draft of the bill, it talks about old growth
forests or established forests and that is the problem that we
have in a lot of these forests in the West--in Colorado,
Wyoming, Idaho, and other states. Some of this downed wood from
pine beetle kill that is in our national forests and our other
public lands may not be included. So we are trying to work on
language before that bill gets to the Floor.
I am working with every single one of my colleagues here,
plus Mr. Inslee, Ms. Herseth Sandlin and others, to make sure
that we get a definition of woody biomass that is going to give
incentives so that we can get these downed trees out of these
forests. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. DeGette. Mr. McClintock?
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Question I would
have is how important is tree thinning to combating the Pine
Beetle infestation? Yes, Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Salazar. Let me just answer by could you put that
photograph up, my number seven, the hand? That is the one. That
is it. I was accused by Mr. Rehberg, he thought that maybe
aliens did this. This is a primary example of how managed
versus unmanaged areas. The trees in the darker green areas had
been thinned and there is no devastation, there are no dead
trees. The brown areas are the ones that have not been managed.
So we do have to give our Federal agencies the authority and
the ability to be able to manage our forests better.
Mr. McClintock. Well, they certainly have the
responsibility to manage the forests. What is keeping them from
doing so?
Mr. Salazar. Well, as Mr. Rehberg stated prior to this, it
is lawsuit after lawsuit and then it is very difficult.
Mr. Rehberg. Tree thinning is very important but is just
one aspect. If you are going to holistically manage your
forests you need to have a grazing policy because undergrazing
grass kills it as dead as overgrazing it. Underthinning kills
it every bit as much as overlogging it. Fire can be used as a
tool. I don't know why we are afraid of using the word logging
because logging is nothing more than a tool to help us manage
the forests the way we want it to look, and the interesting
thing is we use their labor, their capital, their equipment, we
tell them what tree to take, when to take it and how to take
it.
Mr. McClintock. Well, this seems to be a recurring theme
before this Committee: litigation stopping vitally needed
forest management practices. The absence of those forest
management practices are killing our forests. I can't imagine
anything more devastating to a forest, environmentally
devastating to a forest, than a forest fire.
The pictures that you have presented of beetle-killed trees
paints another environmentally devastating picture. According
to the testimony here and testimony we have had before other
committees on other aspects of this, it is litigation from
environmental groups that is impeding the Forest Service from
doing its job. What do we do about that, Mr. Salazar?
Mr. Salazar. All I can tell you is that the findings of
what--I mean, that is what this hearing is all about, and I
think we need to present these to our agencies, the Department
of the Interior, USDA, and try to figure out what we do. We
have a judicial system. We are just the Legislative Branch. We
are working together, in fact, with some of the Members from
western states, to try to put together and craft a bipartisan
bill that will address this issue.
Mr. McClintock. I don't recall the exact figures but we had
received testimony in another hearing that the commercial value
of thinning these forests is rather substantial. We own that
timber. We actually sell it to the timber companies. They buy
it from us and pay quite a bit for it. On top of that, I assume
that the beetle-killed timber also has considerable commercial
value and that if we could sell it immediately that it would
produce additional revenues which we could then use to better
manage our forests. Why aren't we?
Mr. Rehberg. Mr. McClintock, maybe I can put it into
perspective. You have used the word immediately and therein
lies the difficulty. If we don't get in and get it before there
is a period of time where it is destroyed and cannot be
commercially viable, then the agency has to make the decision
whether it is worth it or not. I might go back to the year
2001. There were fires in 2000.
Dale Bosworth was the head of the Forest Service. He had to
make a determination after a Court case said that he could in
fact go in, but he had to appeal a part of it. He had to make
the decision to settle the lawsuit rather than carry it forward
because time is of the essence.
Mr. McClintock. And they don't even need to win the
lawsuit. All they need to do is delay it substantially----
Mr. Rehberg. That is correct. He would have probably won
the lawsuit.
Mr. McClintock. We are watching the same tactics in my
area, and again, a recurrent theme. The litigation is a
creature of this Congress. Perhaps we ought to reign it in.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I just want to express the hope that
when we get in the next few weeks dealing with a way to really
solve this problem that all my colleagues will help to really
solve the problem because there is not enough thinning money,
or treatment money, or tea to spread in the globe to solve this
problem once we get a hand on climate change.
Does everybody on the panel agree? Does anybody disagree
with that? Anybody disagree that climate change caused by
humans putting CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the
factors for the problem we are suffering here? Does anybody
disagree with that? Guess everybody agrees with it. Mr.
Rehberg, are you going to support a cap on carbon dioxide
emissions so we can save our forests?
Mr. Rehberg. The Devil is always in the details, Mr.
Inslee. What is your definition of human impact on global
warming? If you are going to suggest that the forests are
turning the colors that they are because of CO2
emissions, I guess I have a problem with that premise.
Mr. Inslee. Well, that is what I thought I was asking you.
Do you disagree that one of the reasons that our forests have
such----
Mr. Rehberg. You phrased your question in such a way as you
asked if I thought there was a human element of CO2
and whether it had an impact on our temperature. I cannot
either agree or disagree, but if it is the factor that has
created the problem that we are discussing today, I would
suggest not.
Mr. Inslee. Well, the reason I asked you that is when I
listened to your testimony, it was like the environmentalists
are killing the forests. I just want to ask you, do you agree
with the proposition that humans' contribution of
CO2 loads in the atmosphere are one of the factors
that are causing climate change that are causing one of the
factors in the devastation of the forests that we are talking
about here? Do you agree with that?
Mr. Rehberg. Why don't we go back to your initial
statement, do I think environmentalists are killing our
forests? I think they are loving it to death.
Mr. Inslee. Well, let me just ask you a question. Do you
think that human-caused CO2 concentrations in the
atmosphere are one of the reasons these forests are in such
terrible shape?
Mr. Rehberg. I would suggest the forests are in such
terrible shape because of the lack of management on the part of
the humans that are in the agencies that are not given the
ability to use their brains to in fact manage it the way it
needs to be managed, whether it is selective logging, whether
it is grazing management, whether it is prescribed burns. The
continuation of the extreme environmental community in the
tying up in litigation--and you cannot deny that excessive
litigation has in fact kept us from actively managing our
forests the way they deserve to be managed.
Mr. Inslee. What I want to know is--and you can take a stab
at a ``Yes'' or ``No'' answer because I think this is an
important issue in our ability to fashion some bipartisan
response to what is really killing our forests.
Environmentalists aren't there planting bark beetles in the
forests. This problem is caused by climate change where the
winters are not cold enough to kill the beetles and causing the
drought which is making the trees less healthy and more
susceptible to beetle infestations, and until we get a cap on
carbon dioxide, this problem is going to worsen.
Mr. Rehberg. I would suggest----
Mr. Inslee. Let me finish my question. Just let me finish
my question. Do you agree that we ought to limit carbon dioxide
emissions so that we can hopefully reduce the climate change
that is making these forests susceptible to beetle kills?
Mr. Rehberg. I don't think anybody is going to disagree
that to the extent possible we, as humans, should eliminate as
much pollution as we possibly can, whether it is our air, our
water, our ground and such. Nobody is going to deny that. If
you are asking whether I think that our forests are mismanaged,
I do believe that to be the case. Nobody asks for cancer, and
yet, nobody stands in the way of a doctor trying to go in and
take that cancer out.
When you talk about the cancer of a forest, there are
people that are litigating their way through the Court system
keeping us from going in, cleaning out the dead and dying trees
and trying to eliminate the beetle infested trees. That is what
the hearing is about today.
Mr. Inslee. So would you support some cap on carbon dioxide
to try to reduce the threat that these forests are having?
Mr. Rehberg. Once again, I am doing everything I possibly
can on the Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, as one of
the members of that Committee, to fund through the Department
of Energy everything we possibly can with sequestration, with
biomass. We want a comprehensive energy policy.
I think this Congress ought to spend its time on getting
something that clearly understands nuclear, wind, solar,
geothermal, oil, gas, coal, conservation and grants the loans
to help us invent our way into the next generation rather than
spending as much time on a cap and tax policy that frankly
isn't bipartisan because a lot of us have not been invited to
the table.
Mr. Inslee. So that was sort of a no. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Inslee, thank you. Ms. Lummis?
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My questions are
primarily for Mr. Rehberg and Mr. Salazar. Has this Congress,
to your knowledge, ever invoked sovereign immunity for a
specific purpose, for a specific period of time, to suspend the
ability to sue the United States in order to resolve a specific
issue?
The purpose of my question, of course, being I would like
to see us explore the idea of invoking sovereign immunity,
preventing the United States from being susceptible to lawsuits
for the purposes of saving our forests for a period of time in
a certain geographic area with regard to bark beetle. Your
response, your thoughts, please.
Mr. Rehberg. I cannot answer whether that has occurred in
any other area--natural resources or others. I am not
proposing, nor would I ever suggest, limiting access to the
Courts. Everybody has an opportunity to avail themselves
through the Court system when they feel they have been wronged.
That is just part of our system.
What we have attempted to do, both on this Committee when I
served on the Committee and other committees, is try and
provide some kind of reasonableness or common sense, whether it
is a bond to suggest that you have to have a dog in the fight,
a financial interest, it can't just use a stamp and an envelope
to stop something that in fact does do damage to our
environment, and so it would be a limited access, but not an
elimination of access, to our Court system. I would suggest it
would probably not be possible, and I am not sure I would
support an entire elimination of the judiciary in this process.
Mrs. Lummis. Your thoughts, Mr. Salazar?
Mr. Salazar. Well, I tend to agree with Mr. Rehberg. I know
that we do have a major problem. We have to address it. I tend
to also agree with Mr. Inslee. I know all of us have some kind
of impact on what is happening through climate change. However,
I can't say that that is the entire reason for this happening.
I mean, when Mr. Polis gave his testimony he talked about this
cycle happening like every 50 years or so when we have
droughts.
We suffered a major drought in Colorado and across the
western United States in 2000, 2001, a massive drought, and
that is what made these trees more vulnerable, but we do have a
problem. I wouldn't support stopping anyone from using our
legal system to protect our forests, but at the same time, we
need to have some kind of a common sense attitude and figure
out what resources we can give our departments to handle this.
The question before was asked, I can't remember by which
Member, can we address this issue? I mean, it is such a massive
issue right now. We can't just go and clearcut all this wood,
take it out. I think it would be devastating to our watershed.
We have to figure out some way to manage it and look forward
into the future, and, looking at these photographs, how we
manage our forests in the future.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK.
Mrs. Lummis. Madam Chair, Mr. Polis wanted to answer that
question.
Mr. Polis. May I just address something you said in the
latter part of the question? You put these out as a way of
saving the forest. I just wanted to make a point that in large
parts of my district in Colorado it is no longer a discussion
of saving the forest. Our forest has died off. Nearly every
Lodgepole Pine is dead. It is an issue of dealing with the
mitigation, reducing the forest fire impact.
Several of the questions have dealt or people have been
thinking about how perhaps to do better forest management and
prevent this type of crisis from happening again, but I would
just like to remind the Committee that the sheer magnitude of
where we are today and the urgent need to deal with that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much for that statement.
Now we have Ms. Herseth Sandlin.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to
thank you and Chairman Grijalva for having today's hearing.
Unfortunately, I am very familiar with this problem as well.
Black Hills National Forest in western South Dakota and parts
of Wyoming has about a million and a half acres. 340,000 of
those acres have been infested with Mountain Pine Beetles
contributing to the wildfire risk because much of the Black
Hills National Forest is typical of wildland urban interface.
It is the most heavily roaded forests in the country. Since
2000, the wildfires have burned 180,000 acres of land. In the
Black Hills, going to Mr. McClintock's point and others that
the panelists have addressed, thinning has been a key tool. We
have been able to use it maybe a little bit more effectively in
the Black Hills because of how well our regional advisory board
has worked to reduce some of the litigation that we have seen
previously in the 1990s and the first part of this decade.
It is a key tool, as I think we all agree, to keep the
problems in check, to deal with mitigation, as well as trying
to preserve the forests that can be preserved. As Mr. Inslee
stated, the funding for thinning and for commercial timber
sales hasn't met the demand for the treatments. Now, the
partnership that we have between the timber industry, because
we still have one in South Dakota, and the Forest Service has
been invaluable to address this problem.
We need to do more and find the strategies, which is the
purpose of today's hearing, to address some of the other
problems that have come out of my colleagues' testimony. I do
want to point out, though, and I respect where Mr. Inslee is
coming from, but the line of questioning I felt with Mr.
Rehberg assumes that climate change alone is the only factor
contributing to this problem. There are several other
contributing factors. Mr. Salazar and Mr. Polis both said
different cycles who have experienced drought. Those of us in
the Great Plains have experienced these droughts before.
We just got out of one in South Dakota. I don't think that
we are climate change deniers, but we simply have to look at
the other factors, whether it is the fact that with declining
timber sales with a declining harvest, particularly when you
look at the rate of growth in the forest and what is being
taken out, that is contributing to unhealthy forests. You have
more trees and overgrown stands that are competing for water
resources that are scarce, that are then contributing to the
hazardous fuel situation and making them more susceptible to
the beetle infestation.
So I hope that as we move forward, whether it is the next
week to 10 days or the next many weeks to months as it relates
to an energy policy and a climate policy, that we do come to
some conclusion on the woody biomass issue because I think that
that is a key mitigation issue. Going to Mr. Polis' point, as
well as a key to rural economies that can contribute to the
solution of renewable energy--whether it is electricity and
cogeneration or fuels and cellulosic ethanol--to meet our
energy independence goals, as well as through thinning and
using wood biomass and making our forests--those that can be
saved--better carbon sinks to help address the issue that ag
and forestry lands can be utilized to help reduce the carbon in
the atmosphere while we develop and deploy new technologies to
help sequester carbon more effectively.
So I guess the only question I would have for the panel--
given the relative success I think we have had in South Dakota
with the regional advisory committee--have any of you had
experience with those regional advisory boards? Is that one
way, in addition to some of the others that have been
suggested, that we can work through this issue in a more local
and forest-specific manner to reduce litigation? Mr. Minnick,
you have a response I presume?
Mr. Minnick. From Ms. Sandlin on her side, I think that is
the key, and we are currently doing that in my district. In
fact, I am starting one in North Idaho in the Panhandle
Forrest. We are also doing it in the Clearwater Forrest.
It is the key to bring the interest groups together. We all
have an interest in healthy forests. We all love our forests,
regardless of our party or ideology; and if we can get people
to sit down together and agree on a forest plan, that makes a
lot of sense.
I would add, though, a couple of things to what you
suggested, based on my 20 years in the forest products
industry. It is not just thinning. Beetles attack weak trees,
unhealthy trees. So the key is to have a healthy forest. That
involves not just thinning. But it also involves getting to a
variety of species. Monocultures tend to be weaker and more
susceptible to beetles and other pests.
So if you can get a variety of species, if you can get a
variety of ages, uniform age forests are also weaker and more
susceptible, and then have proper thinning--all of that in
combination, which modern forestry has learned a lot about,
delivered through a collaborative process, with adequate
funding, is the way, I think, we can collectively move forward.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you; your time is expired. With
that, I believe everybody has spoken to the issue. I do ask
unanimous consent that Congressman Gallegly's testimony be
allowed to be entered into the record; and without objection,
so ordered.
I would also ask unanimous consent that the Members who
have testified before us today be allowed to sit on the dias
and participate in the Subcommittee's proceedings today; and
without objection, so ordered. Any of you are welcome to please
sit with us for the rest of the three other panels; thank you
very much.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Napolitano. So we will move on to our second panel;
thank you very much. You are now dismissed, and we appreciate
your being with us for about an hour and 15 minutes.
Mrs. Lummis. Madam Chairman?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. While they are leaving, I would like to
suggest that President Obama has appointed a number of czar-
type positions.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, before you do, can we get the other
panels to start coming up, so we do not lose time then.
Mrs. Lummis. And I would encourage President Obama to make
Representative Minnick the Forest Czar, to address bark beetle
issues.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your comments, Mrs. Lummis.
We now will hear from Barbara Bentz, Research Entomologist
for the Rocky Mountain Research Station and the Bureau of
Forestry in the Department of Agriculture in Ft. Collins,
Colorado; Mr. Rick Cables, Regional Forester for the Rocky
Mountain Region, Bureau of Forestry, Department of Agriculture
from Golden, Colorado; Dr. Herbert Frost, Associate Director
for the National Resources Stewardship and Science from the
National Park Service in the Department of the Interior in
Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Ronald Turley, Special Programs
Manager for the Western Area Power Administration from the
Department of Energy in Montrose, Colorado--welcome panel, and
we will begin with testimony from Dr. Barbara Bentz; yes, Dr.
Bentz?
Mr. Cables. If I may, Madam Chair----
Mrs. Napolitano. Right; both of you have a joint statement,
certainly. You have nine minutes.
Mr. Cables. Thank you; and thank you, Madam Chairwoman and
Chairman Grijalva and Members of the Committee. My name is Rick
Cables. I am the Regional Forester for the Rocky Mountain
Region, which is five states in the Inner Mountain West. We
really appreciate you inviting us here today. I have submitted
our written testimony for the record.
With me is Dr. Barbara Bentz from the Rocky Mountain
Research Station, who is one of the foremost authorities on
bark beetle ecology. She has over 30 years' experience studying
bark beetles; Dr. Bentz?
STATEMENT OF BARBARA BENTZ, RESEARCH ENTOMOLOGIST, ROCKY
MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Bentz. Good morning; as Rick mentioned, I am an
entomologist with the Research Branch of the U.S. Forest
Service, and it is my job to study and help us better
understand the many native bark beetle species that are
severely impacting our western forest ecosystems. Forest Health
Protection estimates that in 2008 alone, eight million acres
have been affected by these native insects.
These native species have historically played very
important roles in our forest ecosystems; but with both
changing climate and forest conditions, we feel that some of
them might be a little bit out of balance.
The mountain pine beetle is the main species affecting the
majority of both low elevation pine, as well as high elevation
pine systems that are very critical for maintaining the health
of high elevation watersheds. They are tiny. They attack trees
in mass, and that way they can overcome the defenses of the
tree.
Temperature is the driving factor behind mountain pine
beetle life cycle survival and timing. They use a very powerful
pheromone communication system to attack trees in the summer.
They stay under the bark the entire year, and come out and exit
the next summer, to go and fly, attack a tree, and kill it.
Trees are not passive, though. Healthy trees have very
vigorous resonance defense systems that allow them to, when
possible, expel beetles that are attacking them.
However, if you can imagine millions of beetles flying
through a forest with all those aggregating pheromones that
they are responding to, even a healthy tree is oftentimes
unable to fend off the beetles.
After the adults attack the tree, the larvae mine
horizontally through the forum around the circumstance of the
bowl; and it is that that cuts off the nutrients and water
flowing up and down that basically kills the tree.
So we believe that the severity, duration, and extent of
these recent outbreaks is heavily influenced by two factors
that have to deal with the food supply and warming temperatures
associated with climate change.
Those extensive landscapes across the West of healthy
lodgepole pine--large healthy pole pine--while stressed trees
provide a jumping board for these outbreaks to start, it is
these large healthy trees that have the really fat, juicy food
that the beetles need to sustain their long-term population
growth.
Second, warming temperatures associated with climate change
is reducing winter mortality; like everybody said. They have
the research to show that. But it is also increasing summer
population growth.
So I would just like to end by saying that the research
branch of the Forest Service is very well poised, and we have
the expertise to really look at these problems. I would be
happy to answer any questions, following the panel.
STATEMENT OF RICK CABLES, REGIONAL FORESTER, ROCKY MOUNTAIN
REGION, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Cables. Thank you, Dr. Bentz; we are really privileged
in the Forest Service to have a world class research
organization within our agency.
The story I am going to tell here, really quickly, tells
the story about how valuable forests are to so many people. I
have been Regional Forester since 2001 in the Rocky Mountain
Region; so basically through the whole duration of this
episode. I will tell you that it is one of the most profound
issues I have ever dealt with in my 30-plus years in the
agency.
If you will cycle through this series of slides, it will
show the growth. Just watch this picture; watch the explosion
of red and blue--red being lodgepole pine and blue being spruce
beetle. This has occurred in the last dozen years. That is how
fast the bark beetle has consumed nearly two and-a-half million
acres in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming.
There are two major public hazards associated with this.
One is wildfire. Wildfire peaks--it is a bimodal situation with
fire hazard--when the needles are still on the trees. The trees
turn red. The needles are the fine fuels which will allow fire
to carry from crowns of the trees, from tree to tree.
Then the needles fall off. The fire hazard is reduced for a
period of time, until the trees start falling over, which is
somewhere between six and twenty years. We are already starting
to see trees fall in the forest right now. When the trees get
on the forest floor, it is a continuous bed of fuel that
carries fire, and particularly potentially high intensity fire.
The picture here shows a sea of black sticks, a sea of dead
trees. Most of the public that I talked to really do not like
what that looks like. They do not appreciate the effect on
wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, forest products,
carbon. And as we get to understand that more, by far the
profound, and in my opinion, the most profound influence
potentially on these forested watersheds in Colorado and
southern Wyoming is on water.
This is a picture of the Hayman fire after it burned in
2002. You can just see the sedimentation and the issues
associated with that; and then the Strontia Springs Reservoir,
which is a reservoir maintained by Denver water, which has over
a million customers, filled up with sediment after the Buffalo
Creek fire in 1997. The water literally ran dark and brown in
people's taps in Denver, and really got people's attention.
National forests in the West, in particular, are the water
towers of the West. These forested headwaters play a huge role
in water; and it is an issue of national significance, because
as I said, in the nine inland western states, 62 percent of the
water comes from these forests.
And the reach, if you wonder whose headwaters we are
talking about, both Chairwoman Napolitano and Chairman
Grijalva--both of your states' watershed are these lands we are
talking about, with that lodgepole.
So there are 13 western states, 177 counties, and 33
million people served by the water that starts in the national
forests of Colorado and southern Wyoming.
The second hazard I want to talk about, in addition to
fire, is falling trees; and this is a real and present danger.
As I said, the trees are already starting to fall.
Can you imagine two and-a-half million acres of flat trees,
and the effects on infrastructure, roads, trails, and so on and
so forth? Just yesterday, we had a near miss on the Holy Cross
Ranger District, where a tree almost landed on a citizen.
If you look at what we are working on, in terms of
clearing, this is 25 years of a trail, and look how labor-
intensive that is to clear one area where the trees have fallen
down. So it is a massive project for us to work on.
The other issue I want to talk about with relations to both
fallen trees and fires is energy security in the form of power
lines. One tree falling on a power line means the power is out;
and in this particular area, we have distribution lines. We
have large corridors with major transmission lines crossing
through this area; over 1,300 miles of power lines that are at
risk to either fallen trees or fire, if we have a catastrophic
burn, which could potentially either burn the poles or melt the
infrastructure associated.
We do have plan. We have an incident management covering
the three forests in this area. Our focus is on community
protection and infrastructure. We are shifting regional funding
toward these areas. We have collaborative groups working
together. We need a stable forest products industry that is
diverse. We need stable markets for this renewable material.
You are going to hear from some folks later on, on the
panel, that are going to talk about that. I am really worried
about our timber industry today. The situation is dire. They
cannot borrow money. They are on the risk of actually going out
of business, which is really going to hurt us.
Last, I would say that restoring this two and-a-half
million acres in our area, or working toward restoration will
take all of us. It will take all of our resources. It will take
multiple states bonding together, because multiple states are
affected.
The situation is urgent. It is going to cost more later
than it will today, and we need to get after it. We are getting
after it; but more help would be appreciated. So thank you very
much, and we look forward to your questions.
[The prepared joint statement of Dr. Bentz and Mr. Cables
follows:]
Statement of Rick Cables, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, and
Dr. Barbara Bentz, Research Entomologist, Rocky Mountain Research
Station, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
come before these subcommittees and to discuss the impacts of mountain
pine beetles on national forests in the West, and strategies for
protecting infrastructure and resources from the hazards resulting from
millions of acres of dead trees. I am the Regional Forester for the
Rocky Mountain Region (Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, and
Kansas) and with me is Dr. Barbara Bentz, Research Entomologist with
the Rocky Mountain Research Station. Thank you for inviting us here
today.
The Big Picture
Outbreaks of bark beetles, which are occurring in numerous forest
ecosystems across western North America, are the biggest in recorded
history. 1 Although western forests have experienced regular
infestations throughout their history, the current outbreaks are
notable for their intensity, extensive range, and simultaneous
occurrence in multiple ecosystems. These beetles are not only attacking
forests where they have traditionally been found, but are thriving in
some places where widespread infestations have not previously been
recorded. 2 The unusual extent of the outbreaks has prompted
concern that this loss of trees may impair ecosystem functioning and
reduce the ability of our forests to provide future wildlife habitat,
to protect watershed quality, to store carbon and to be a source of
timber and recreational opportunities. In the western United States,
beetle-killed trees cover nearly 8 million acres of the Northern
Rockies, the Southwest, and dry forests in the Northwest. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bentz, et. al. (2009)Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
\2\ Bentz, et. al. (2009)Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
\3\ USDA-APHIS. 2008; Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bark Beetle
Mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae), a native insect to
North America, have co-evolved over thousands of years with their host
trees in western North American forest ecosystems and have been a
regular force of change in western North America forest ecosystems.
Native insects, including bark beetles, are among the greatest forces
of natural change in forested ecosystems of North America. Every few
decades, depending on weather and local forest conditions, bark beetle
populations increase and infest large areas of conifer forest. In doing
so, they play an essential role in forest's natural cycle of growth and
regeneration. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Bentz, et. al. (2009)Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a one-year life cycle, bark beetles bore through the bark of
pine trees and chew galleries in the inner bark, where they lay their
eggs. The beetles carry the spores of blue-staining fungi. As the fungi
develop and spread into the tree sapwood, they interrupt the flow of
water to the tree crown--and the hatched larvae feed on the tree
sapwood. The combined effects of the larvae and the fungi kill the
tree. When the larvae grow into adult beetles, they emerge from the
bark to attack more trees. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ USDA Forest and Disease Leaflet 2, Mountain Pine Beetle, 1989,
reprinted 1990
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bark beetle epidemics resulting in acreages of dead trees are
natural, cyclic events. Historically, bark beetles have not destroyed
entire forests, and can serve as positive forces of change that
redistribute nutrients and growing space. 6 Since 2000, the
mountain pine beetle affected millions of acres across the Western
United States. In 2007, aerial surveys detected about 4 million acres
where mountain pine beetles were actively killing trees. (In 2008,
aerial surveys detected 6.42 million acres of forests affected--data is
as yet unpublished, but has been gathered by the Forest Service Health
and Technology Enterprise team) The mountain pine beetle epidemic in
the central Rocky Mountains is larger than any previously recorded in
the area and is expanding rapidly. 7 However, in the absence
of tree ring reconstructions or other spatially detailed information on
historical mountain pine beetle outbreaks in Colorado, we do not know
if similar outbreaks occurred in the same locations or habitats prior
to the past 150 years. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
\7\ Major Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the United States
2007. USDA Forest Service, FS-919. March 2009.
\8\ W.H. Romme, J. Clement, J. Hicke, D. Kulakowski, L.H.
MacDonald, T.L. Schoennagel, and T.T. Veblen, Recent Forest Insect
Outbreaks and Fire Risk in Colorado Forests: A Brief Synthesis of
Relevant Research, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A panel of experts at a recent symposium, ``Bark Beetle Outbreaks
in Western North America: Causes and Consequences,'' suggested that two
major factors appear to be driving the current outbreaks: 1) forest
history and host susceptibility, and 2) changing climatic conditions,
especially elevated temperatures and drought.
A ``Perfect Storm''
At the landscape scale including lodgepole forests, a mosaic of
stand ages and types helps reduce the susceptibility to mountain pine
beetles at one time. 9 Over the past couple of centuries,
fire exclusion and natural and human caused disturbances such as stand-
replacing fires and mining-era timber cutting have contributed to the
existence of large areas of old trees that are very similar in age and
size. 10 Many lodgepole pine forests are greater than 80
years-old and thus are relatively even-aged, and are therefore highly
susceptible to bark beetles and fire. The size of these old trees makes
them an ideal food source for the bark beetles. Increasing winter
temperatures associated with climate change are fostering increased
survival of bark beetle populations. (Sustained cold winter
temperatures are needed to kill bark beetles.) 11 The West's
changing climate--rising temperatures and decreasing precipitation--has
created weather conditions that are ideal for bark beetle outbreaks.
Beetles are extremely sensitive to changes in temperature.
12 Longer, warmer summers have extended reproductive and
growth periods, and fewer cold snaps and higher winter temperatures
have allowed bark beetles to survive in winter spring and fall.
13 The prolonged drought across the West has also weakened
trees and made them more susceptible to bark beetle attacks. Entire
forests full of drought stressed trees, combined with a rapidly
expanding bark beetle population combine to fuel exponential beetle
population growth. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Koch, Peter (1996) Lodgepole Pine in North America. Forest
Products society, volume 1, P 314.
\10\ 2006 Report on the Health of Colorado's Forests, available at
http://csfs.colostate.edu/pdfs/06fhr.pdf
\11\ Bentz BJ, Regniere J, Fettig CJ, Hansen EM, Hayes, JL, Hicke
JA, Kelsey RG, Lundquist J, Negron J, Progar R, Seybold SJ, Vandygriff
JC (2008) Climate Change and Western U.S. Bark Beetles: Rapid Threat
Assessment. Prepared for the Western Wildland Environmental Threat
Assessment Center; http://www.fs.fed.us/wwetac/projects/PDFs/
RTA_Bark_Beetle.pdf
\12\ Bentz, B.J., J.A. Logan, and G.D. Amman. 1991. Temperature
dependent development of the mountain pine beetle (Coleopter:
Scolytidae), and simulation of its phenology. The Canadian Entomologist
123: 1083-1094.
\13\ Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
\14\ Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary difference between previous beetle outbreaks and the
current epidemic is people now live, work and recreate throughout the
lodgepole pine ecosystem. Dozens of communities surrounded by dead
trees are at risk of wildfire. This area includes world-class ski
resorts such as Vail, Breckenridge, and Winter Park. In addition, the
forest products industry infrastructure needed to help address some of
the potential public health and safety impacts is nearly nonexistent
within Colorado. These important differences along with the scale of
infestations, requires approaches to reduce the safety threats to
people while ensuring that the forests that replace these dying forests
are diverse and resilient to change across the landscape.
I'll use the outbreak in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming as
a case study of what the Forest Service is facing with large bark
beetle infestations throughout the West. The beetle infestation has
spread at a rapid rate over the last ten years. Forest Service
entomologists forecast that in the next two to five years, if the
infestation continues at this intensity and rate of spread, as much as
90 percent of the mature lodgepole will die. The results of our forest
health and protection 2008 aerial survey show that we have some level
of infestation in most of the lodgepole in the Rocky Mountain Region,
coupled with heavy mortality. It is clear that we can't stop this
current infestation. Thinning stands has proved ineffective. Spraying
carbaryl, an insecticide, is environmentally safe when properly
applied, and can be effective in small, high-value areas such as
campgrounds, but is far too expensive to use at the forest scale.
Pheromone traps are similarly ineffective in reducing the rate of the
spread of such a large infestation. Verbenone, a repelling pheromone,
failed in the presence of large beetle populations. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Pogar, R.A. (2005) Five-Year Operational Trial of Verbenone to
Deter Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae; Coleoptera:
Scolytidae) Attack of Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta) Environmental
Entomology 34(6):1402-1407. 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When it became apparent that we could not suppress the infestation,
we changed our focus from prevention to reducing risks to public safety
and infrastructure to restoration of the forest to include a mosaic of
tree species and ages classes that may be more resilient to the
stresses of climate change into the future.
Public Hazards
Several critical hazards to public safety are posed by dead trees:
local fire hazards in times of drought, threats to water supplies, and
falling dead trees along utility corridors, roads, trails, and other
infrastructure.
Wildfire Implications
The relationship between bark beetle outbreaks and subsequent fire
at the larger landscape scale is not yet fully understood.
16 Outbreaks in the recent years have provided scientists
with excellent opportunities to conduct studies and gather new
information about the role of bark beetles in western forests, but much
research remains to be done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the stand level, both crown and surface-fire hazards
17 change through time after a bark beetle outbreak in a
stand of living trees. 18 The fire hazard is high in the
period one to two years after pine trees die since the dead needles are
retained in the tree's crown, stocking the canopy with dry, fine fuels
that can ignite quickly during weather conditions conducive to fire.
19 As the trees lose their needles, the fire risk in the
crowns of the trees decreases as fire doesn't spread through standing
dead trees with no needles very quickly. Surface fire hazard increases
again as dead trees begin to fall and create a heavy fuel bed with
young trees growing up through the tangle of down logs. 20
In dry, hot, windy weather conditions, fires burning in heavy surface
fuels can move fast, burn extremely hot, and be very resistant to
control. 21 An additional significant concern is the safety
of our firefighters. Large areas of fallen trees limit escape routes
for crews, severely limiting our ability to deploy firefighters in
these areas. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The term Fire hazard as used here refers specifically to the
state of fuels in a given stand--independent of variables such as
temperature, wind, and precipitation that influence fuel moisture
content and fire occurrence.
\18\ Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
\19\ Page, W.; Jenkins, M. 2007. Mountain pine beetle-induced
changes to selected lodgepole pine fuel complexes within the
intermountain region. Forest Science 53(4):507-518.
Page, W.; Jenkins, M. 2007. Predicted Fire Behavior in Selected
Mountain Pine Beetle-Infested Lodgepole Pine. Forest Science 53(6):662-
674
Hawkes, B. 2008. Effects of the mountain pine beetle on fuels and
fire behaviour. In Mountain Pine Beetle: From Lessons Learned to
Community-based Solutions Conference Proceedings, June 10-11, 2008. BC
Journal of Ecosystems and Management 9(3):77-83. http://www.forrex.org/
publications/jem/ISS49/vol9_no3_MPBconference.pdf
Jenkins, M., Hebertson E., Page, W. and Jorgensen C. 2008 Bark
beetles, fuels, fires and implications for forest management in the
Intermountain West. Forest Ecology and Management 254 (2008) 16-34
\20\ Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
\21\ Barrows, J. 1951. Fire Behavior in the Northern Rocky
Mountains. Station Paper No. 29. USDA Forest Service, Northern Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Missoula MT. 133 pages
\22\ Alexander, M and Stam, J. 2003. Safety Alert for Wildland
Firefighters: Fuel Conditions in Spruce Beetle-Killed Forest of Alaska.
Fire Management Today 63 (2) 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water
The value of water flowing from our public forests is enormous and
is a matter of national significance. Forest Service Hydrologists
estimate that the forests of the Rocky Mountain Region contain the
headwaters for much of the western United States; people in 177
counties in 13 states rely on water from the National Forests of the
Rocky Mountain Region. Thirty-three million people live in these
counties. 23 Forest Service management analysis indicates
that people in Phoenix, Tucson, San Diego and Los Angeles who get their
tap water from the Colorado River get one quart of every gallon from
the National Forests of the Rocky Mountain Region. 24 The
economic value of water flowing from the National Forests of this
region numbers in the billions of dollars. 25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ US Census 2000
\24\
\25\ Brown, T.C.; Hobbins, M.T.; Ramirez, J.A. 2008. Spatial
distribution of water supply in the coterminous United States. Jour.
Amer. Water Resource. Assn. 44(6):1-14. Dec. 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By themselves, insect outbreaks are unlikely to cause erosion or
degrade water quality because they do not disturb the forest soil.
Unpaved roads and high-severity wildfires can cause much greater
effects on runoff, erosion, and water quality. Regardless of whether or
not caused by beetle infestations, massive tree mortality can affect
watershed quality and quantity. 26 Live trees in high-
elevation watersheds provide shade and shelter that help to maintain
the winter snow pack and prevent quick runoff during the spring melt
and summer storms. While beetle-killed trees do not produce the same
level of erosion as a wildfire, large numbers of bark beetle-killed
trees within a watershed increase the risk of rapid snow loss and can
enhance annual stream flow. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
\27\ Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A wildfire burning in the heavy fuels close to the soil that result
from a large-scale infestation can literally bake the soil, sterilizing
the soil and sometimes leaving a water-repellent surface that sheds
rain, leading to severe gully erosion, debris flows into reservoirs and
streams, and flood damage. We experienced these effects after the
Hayman Fire in central Colorado in 2002. After the Buffalo Creek Fire
in 1996, Strontia Springs Reservoir filled with sediment that washed
off burned areas after heavy rains, and the South Platte River was
running brown with mud.
Falling Dead Trees
Falling dead trees are an immediate hazard. In the beetle-infested
area of northern Colorado and southern Wyoming, over 900 miles of
trails and 3500 miles of roads are lined with dead trees that will
fall. More than 21,000 acres of developed recreation sites--such as
campgrounds and picnic areas--have hazard trees.
Powerlines and communication sites are also threatened by hazard
trees. There are more than six thousand acres of right-of way corridors
for authorized transmission and distribution lines in the area affected
by bark beetle infestation in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming.
28 Forest Service resource specialists have estimated this
represents over 1000 miles of transmission lines. Dead trees lining
transmission corridors can fall on lines, starting wildfires and
disrupting power supplies to cities and towns--potentially for days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Figure derived from data in the Forest Service Special-Use
Database System, Region 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategies to Protect the West
The scale of the bark beetle infestation and its threats to public
safety and infrastructure requires a concentrated response. We
established the Bark Beetle Incident Management Team in 2007 to plan
and coordinate mitigation work on the National Forests in Colorado and
Wyoming most affected by the outbreak--the Medicine Bow-Routt, Arapaho-
Roosevelt and White River.
The team produced a five-year strategic plan in 2007, developed in
coordination with collaborative groups such as the Colorado Bark Beetle
Cooperative--a group comprising federal, state, local, and non-profit
members. The plan identifies over 240 projects over the next six
years--over 100 thousand acres of treatments involving timber removal
of dead or beetle-infested trees, stewardship projects to remove low-
value trees, fuel treatments to reduce wildfire hazard, preventive
spraying in high-value developed areas, and removal of hazard trees
that can fall on infrastructure and people. 29 Regional
funding was refocused to enable a sharp ramp-up in work on the national
forests affected by the infestation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 2007 Bark Beetle Incident Implementation Plan (updated in
2009), http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/bark-beetle/index.html .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three forests treated more than 24,000 acres in 2008. Fourteen
thousand of these acres were fuel reduction in the wildland urban
interface. Ten thousand acres included fuels treatment outside the
wildland urban interface, hazard tree removal for public safety and
infrastructure protection, spraying some trees in high-value areas such
as campgrounds to keep some green trees on the landscape, and timber
sales to capture economic value. The forests removed hazard trees from
31 recreation sites, and this year the forests are removing hazard
trees from an additional 40 sites.
On May 18, 2009 I met with regional utility companies to discuss
steps needed to facilitate extensive removal of hazard trees within and
outside of the authorized right-of-way of power line corridors. Current
permits, easements, memorandums of understanding, and other types of
authorizations allow utilities to remove trees that pose an imminent
hazard to the safe operation of power line facilities, and I have
notified the companies in writing that they may immediately remove
them. However, cutting and removal of dead trees in a wider corridor
than the currently authorized right-of-way width to provide long-term
protection of power lines will require environmental analysis under the
National Environmental Policy Act. We have formed an interdisciplinary
team, selected a team leader, and started this analysis. We anticipate
it will be completed by fall.
We're making significant strides in protecting infrastructure,
using the Colorado Good Neighbor Authority, the Wyden Authority, and
the authorities provided by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act to the
extent possible. There is much still to do to restore a forested
landscape after this infestation of beetles runs its course. This work
will encompass engagement with the public to plan for and implement
forest restoration projects that may result in a more diverse mosaic of
tree species and ages.
The Next Forest
Future forests in the Rocky Mountain West will likely look very
different from the vast landscapes of old lodge-pole pine one sees
today. We're thinning some stands and conducting salvage harvest of
dead lodgepole while leaving understory spruce and fir to grow.
(Lodgepole will regenerate naturally--it doesn't have to be planted in
most areas.) We're also conducting aspen regeneration cuts to stimulate
aspen clones to produce new, vigorous growth, and we're removing
conifers from aspen stands to prevent conversion to conifer type.
The effects of climate change are becoming apparent on the forests
and grasslands, 30 and must be factored into our planning.
The changing dynamics of current outbreaks make management decisions
even more difficult. One important aspect of future forest management
will be an evaluation of multiple approaches across a range of spatial
scales and outbreak severity levels. Many areas will regenerate
naturally following a bark beetle outbreak and require no action. In
some areas land managers may want to consider the creation of a diverse
forest through modifications to species and age classes at a regional
scale. Some ecosystems that have highly susceptible forest conditions
may benefit from actions to reduce stand density. This is particularly
true in lodgepole and ponderosa pine stands where research has shown
that thinning can reduce susceptibility. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ CCSP. May 2008. Executive Summary in Synthesis and Assessment
Product 4.3 (SAP 4.3): The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture,
Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States,
p. 3, P. Backlund, A. Janetos, and D. Schimel, lead authors. A report
by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
\31\ Fettig, Christopher J.; Klepzig, Kier D.; Billings, Ronald f.;
Munson, A. Steven; Nebeker, T. Evan; Negron, Jose F.; Nowak, John T.
(2007) The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for
prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous
forests of the western and southern United States. Forest ecology and
management. 238(1-3): 24-53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many areas where we are not removing dead trees due to
the following: steep slopes, the area is congressionally designated
Wilderness, economic feasibility, or for other reasons. In some areas
where we don't undertake active management, spruce and fir are already
present as understory saplings and will be released to grow as
overstory lodgepole pines fall. Where appropriate, fire may play a more
active role on the landscape creating a diverse landscape of openings
and ages. In the longer term, a bark beetle outbreak that kills many of
the conifers may be beneficial to aspen stands, if aspen clones were
present before the beetle outbreak. If aspen is not present, then
composition of the forest will not change and the conifers that
survive--including smaller trees and less susceptible species--will
increase their growth rates and replace the large conifer trees that
were killed by beetles. 32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ W.H. Romme, J. Clement, J. Hicke, D. Kulakowski, L.H.
MacDonald, T.L. Schoennagel, and T.T. Veblen, Recent Forest Insect
Outbreaks and Fire Risk in Colorado Forests: A Brief Synthesis of
Relevant Research, p. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Challenge: Timber Industry in Decline
The forest products industry is a primary partner in accomplishing
work integral to sustaining the health, diversity, and productivity of
the National Forest System, and can help us in our work to mitigate the
risks of the bark beetle infestation and moving beyond it to restore
our forests. The Forest Service recognizes the impact a depressed
market is having on the forest products industry in Colorado and
Wyoming, and much of the West. We are working to modify down payment
and periodic payment requirements, as well as taking other actions to
free up capital for purchasers. We are carefully reviewing timber sale
design criteria to ensure that projects are economically viable. New
forest products businesses are starting up. Two new pellet mills in
northern Colorado are using beetle-killed trees to produce pellets for
wood stoves. Some dead trees are being used for house logs, furniture,
and decorative items. These businesses and others that constitute a
viable and diverse forest industry complete with a skilled workforce
are important in assisting the Forest Service conduct active forest
management in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
That concludes my prepared statement. I'll be happy to take any
questions you may have.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir; and now we will hear from
Dr. Herbert Frost.
STATEMENT OF HERBERT C. FROST, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATURAL
RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND SCIENCE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Frost. Chairwoman Napolitano and Chairman Grijalva and
Members of the Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today and discuss mountain pine beetles, and
the devastating impacts to our western forests.
I am joined today by representatives of other bureaus
within the Department of the Interior, who share in the
management of public lands affected by the mountain pine
beetle.
The Department of the Interior is extremely concerned about
escalating mountain pine beetle populations, and the associated
disastrous impacts to public and private lands. This testimony
highlights the collaborative efforts of the bureaus within the
department to combat the immediate threat of the mountain pine
beetle, while also promoting the long-term stewardship and
sustainability of healthy and resilient forests, which would be
better able to endure cyclic mountain pine beetle epidemics and
their potential impacts.
Since the Forest Service has already covered many of the
facts related to the biology of the pine beetle, I will focus
on specific impacts to public lands managed by the Department
of the Interior, and the strategies we have undertaken in
response to this threat.
Under typical conditions, bark beetles play an important
role in forest ecosystems, providing the periodic forest
renewal, re-shaping our forest landscapes, and resulting in
healthy forest succession.
When trees are killed by the beetle, the resulting impacts
are significant. Dead trees produce additional fuel for
wildfires that can lead to the destruction of large numbers of
natural and cultural resources, including tribal values on
Indian reservations, archeological sites in park units, view
sheds, and economically valuable timber.
Large scale fires can also destroy high value resources,
such as campgrounds and visitor centers, that can quickly
spread from our public lands to surrounding communities.
Mortality of these tree stands also negatively affects
wildlife. Pine forests offer critical habitat for many wildlife
species, providing vital sources of food, protection, and
breeding sites. For example, white bark pine produced seeds
that are a major source of grisly bears in the late summer and
early fall.
No effective treatment for suppression of large scale pine
beetle outbreaks currently exists. But many bureaus within the
department area approaching this problem in a variety of ways.
Approximately 40 percent of the National Park Service lands
in the West are forested; and a significant percentage of those
lands are occupied by valorous species or by human settlement.
The National Park Service is approaching this problem by
mapping the outbreaks of pine beetles within the park units,
which at this time is now occurring in all western states
except North Dakota. Within these states, 57 national parks
have reported elevated populations of beetle infestations.
The NPS is also responding to escalated pine beetle
epidemics by providing for visitor safety, minimizing fire
danger to visitors in neighboring communities; protecting
dependent wildlife species, habitats, and watersheds; and
providing for long-term sustained healthy forest eco-systems.
In campgrounds, in visitor centers and other high use
areas, a combination of actions are being employed to ensure
these goals and objectives are met with highly susceptible
trees and hazard trees being removed.
Specifically, with respect to the Rocky Mountain National
Park in Colorado, pine beetles are rapidly expanding--with
mortality in lodgepole pine approaching nearly 100 percent.
The park has identified more than 350 locations in the
park, where life and property are at risk. Current projections
indicate the park will need to remove more than one million
hazard trees, costing more than $7 million during the upcoming
years. In areas where heavy tree mortality is occurring
adjacent to towns and communities, fire reduction treatments
are planned.
For all parks, much of the beetle-killed trees will remain
standing in accordance with NPS Organic Act and management
policies, which allow for national recovery of areas, following
disturbances such as fires. Less additional action is needed to
protect cultural historic resources for park development, or to
ensure human safety.
The Bureau of Land Management estimates that up to 800,000
of BLM managed forest land in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and
Idaho, are infested by the pine beetle and, therefore, at risk
of wide spread mortality.
Warm winters, drought, stress, and a prevalence of large
amounts of overstock, even age, single species forest present
an idea condition for such a severe outbreak. The unhealthy
condition of the forest makes it susceptible to a fatal insect
attack.
Harmful impacts to BLM are numerous, including tree
mortality; which leads to increased fire hazards, degraded
conditions for wildlife impact; cultural resources; and
negative effects on wood products and declining tourism.
Approximately 50 percent of the 32 million acres of public
domain, that BLM manages; and the lower 48 states are
vulnerable to over-stock.
Where devastated areas of pine stands occur on reservation
lands, under the Bureau of Indian Affairs--for example large
pulled pine stances have nearly wiped out the Yakima
reservation in Washington.
Tribal, agency, and regional staff at these locations are
concerned that the high beetle populations may significantly
alter the ecosystem by effectively removing lodgepole pine as a
component.
In response to the devastation of Indian lands, BIA and
others assisted Reservations in taking steps to protect the
remaining stands.
There are also severe issues in Fish & Wildlife Service;
and I will conclude my testimony, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frost follows:]
Statement of Herbert C. Frost, Associate Director, Natural Resource
Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior
Chairwoman Napolitano, Chairman Grijalva, and members of the
subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss mountain pine beetles and the devastating impacts to our
western pine forests.
I am Dr. Herbert C. Frost, Associate Director for Science and
Stewardship in the National Park Service. I am joined today by
representatives of other bureaus within the Department of the Interior
who share in the management of public lands affected by the mountain
pine beetle, including the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Department is extremely concerned about escalating mountain
pine beetle populations and the associated disastrous impacts to public
and private lands including the increased risk of wildfires from dead
or dying trees, loss of wildlife habitat, impacts to natural and
cultural resources, and threats to surrounding communities. This
spread, and the related impacts that are currently being experienced,
are at epidemic proportions throughout the west, and appear to be the
result of a number of factors including natural beetle population
cycles, continuous mild winters, and an abundance of uniformly mature
pine forest stands.
This testimony highlights the collaborative efforts of bureaus
within the Department to combat the immediate threat of the mountain
pine beetle while also promoting the long-term stewardship and
sustainability of healthy, resilient forests that will be better able
to endure cyclic mountain pine beetle epidemics and their potential
impacts.
Background
The mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) ranks first in
destructiveness among the tree-killing bark beetles that are native to
the west, although there are many native beetle species affecting a
host of other pine tree species nationally. The mountain pine beetle
affects numerous species of western pine, including ponderosa,
lodgepole, and the five-needle white pine species. In recent years,
outbreaks have increased mortality rates well above ambient levels
within forestlands in the Northern and Central Rockies, in Eastern
Oregon and Washington, and as far north as Canada. A current and very
visible outbreak is affecting virtually all mature lodgepole pine in
Colorado, along with large areas of lodgepole and limber pine in
Wyoming. Affected lodgepole pine trees are as young as sixty years old
and as small as six inches in diameter at breast height. Tree mortality
from this outbreak is estimated to have now occurred on nearly 8
million acres nationwide. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA-APHIS. 2008; Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bark beetles infest pine trees by laying eggs under the bark. When
the eggs hatch, the larvae mine the area beneath the bark and
eventually cut off the tree's supply of nutrients. The beetles also
carry a fungus that causes dehydration and inhibits a tree's natural
defenses against beetle attacks.
Under typical conditions, bark beetles play an important role in
forest ecosystems, providing for periodic forest renewal. Periodic
outbreaks help shape our forested landscapes, resulting in forest
succession. The dead trees also provide critical habitat for birds,
bats, and other cavity-dependent species. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Shrimpton, D.M. 1994. A report for Forest Health. DC Ministry
of Forests, December 1994; Davis and Johnson. 1987. Forest Management
3rd Edition, McGraw Hill; Bentz, et al. (2005) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in
Western North America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium,
Snowbird, Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although mountain pine beetle outbreaks and associated pine tree
die-offs are a natural cyclic phenomenon, the current outbreak is
epidemic due to several variables. 3 One variable is that
the northern part of the beetle's geographic range has expanded to
include high-elevation areas that historically were too cold for the
beetle to survive during the winter months. These high elevation pine
stands, such as the five-needle pines, do not have an historic
evolutionary relationship with the beetles and hence, the beetles act
in similar ways to an invasive species. This range expansion may be the
result of reoccurring drought and climate change, which contribute to
warming trends in mountain ecosystems. 4 Another variable is
that certain species throughout our western forests have been impacted
by years of fire suppression efforts, aimed at protecting critical
infrastructure and developed areas. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ USDA-APHIS. 2008; Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, 2009.
\4\ Logan J.A.; Powell J.A. 2001. Ghost Forests, Global Warming,
and the Mountain Pine Beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidea). American
Entomologist. 160-172; Kurz, W.A. et al. Mountain Pine Beetle and
Forest Carbon Feedback to Climate Change; Campbell, Elizabeth M. 2007.
Climate change, mountain pine beetle, and the decline of whitebark
pine, a keystone species of high-elevation ecosystems in British
Columbia, Canada. Ecological Society of America meeting, August 2007,
San Jose, CA.
\5\ Davis and Johnson. 1987. Forest Management 3rd Edition, McGraw
Hill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When trees are killed by the beetle, the resulting impacts are
significant. Dead trees produce additional fuel for wildfires that can
lead to the destruction of large numbers of natural and cultural
resources including tribal values on Indian reservations, archeological
sites in park units, and economically valuable timber. Large-scale
fires can also destroy high-value resources such as campgrounds and
visitor facilities, and can quickly spread from our public lands to
surrounding communities, causing death and destruction of property.
High severity fires can also result in ground surface heating and
consequential increased erosion in some watersheds.
Mortality of these tree stands also negatively impacts wildlife.
Pine forests offer critical habitat for many wildlife species,
providing vital sources for food, protection, and breeding sites. For
example, white bark pine produce seeds that are a major source of food
for federally listed grizzly bears in the late summer and early fall.
6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Felicetti, L.A., C.C. Schwartz, R.O. Rye, M.A. Haroldson, K.A.
Gunther, D.L. Phillips, and C.T. Robbins. 2003. Use of sulfur and
nitrogen stable isotopes to determine the importance of whitebark pine
nuts to Yellowstone grizzly bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:763-
770; Lanner, R.M., and B.K. Gilbert. 1994. Nutritive value of whitebark
pine seeds, and the questions of their variable dormancy. U.S. Forest
Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-309. pp. 206-211; Mattson,
D.J., B.M. Blanchard, and R.R. Knight. 1992. Yellowstone grizzly bear
mortality, human habituation and whitebark pine seed crops. Journal of
Wildlife Management 56:432-442; Robbins, Charles T.; Schwartz, Charles
C.; Gunther, Kerry A.; Servheen, Chris. 2006. Grizzly Bear Nutrition
and Ecology: Studies in Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone Science,
Volume 14, Number 3, pg. 19-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No effective treatment for suppression of large-scale pine beetle
outbreaks currently exists, but many bureaus within the Department are
approaching this problem in a variety of ways based upon their
individual missions, policies, laws, and management mandates under
which they operate.
National Park Service
Although there are no current estimates of the potential acres
involved, approximately 40% of National Park Service (NPS) lands in the
west are forested and a significant percentage of those lands are
occupied by vulnerable species. The NPS is approaching this problem by
mapping the outbreaks of mountain pine beetles within its park units,
which at this time is now occurring in all western states except North
Dakota; areas of California, the front range of Colorado, the Black
Hills of South Dakota, and the North Cascades are particularly hard
hit. Within these states, 57 national park units have reported elevated
populations of beetle infestations. An additional 21 units are within
the affected area but have not yet reported increased beetle activity.
Outbreaks in the1970's-1980's contributed to the historic
Yellowstone fires of 1988, the largest wildfire in the history of the
park, which destroyed over 793,000 acres. At that time, dense, 90+ year
old stands of lodgepole pine were further stressed by several years of
drought, adding to the vulnerability of these trees and leading to
thousands of acres of beetle-killed lodgepole in the park. These
beetles are now again playing a role in changing ecosystems within the
greater Yellowstone area, including Grand Teton and Yellowstone
National Parks.
NPS is also responding to escalating mountain pine beetles epidemic
by providing for visitor safety, minimizing fire danger to visitors and
neighboring communities, protecting dependent wildlife species and
habitats, and providing for long-term sustained healthy forest
ecosystems. In campgrounds, visitor centers, and other high-use areas,
a combination of actions are being employed to ensure these goals and
objectives are met with highly susceptible trees and problem trees
being removed. These actions are helping to manage existing
infestations and protect vulnerable areas. In some parks, targeted
insecticides are being used to save high-value trees.
Specifically with respect to Rocky Mountain National Park in
Colorado, mountain pine beetles are rapidly expanding with mortality in
lodgepole pine approaching nearly 100%. Beetle outbreaks in the park
represent only a small portion of the Colorado forests that are a part
of this current outbreak. Response to the potential fire and watershed
consequences of this outbreak are being coordinated through an
interagency task group that includes federal, state, and 22 counties.
The goals of the plan at Rocky Mountain National Park are consistent
with the task force recommendations: to remove or protect high-value
resources in or near park facilities, such as campgrounds, housing
areas, and visitor centers. The plan identified more than 350 locations
in the park where life and property are at risk. Current projections
indicate that the park will need to remove more than one million hazard
trees, costing more than $7 million dollars during the upcoming years.
In areas where heavy tree mortality is occurring adjacent to towns and
communities, fire reduction treatments are planned.
Even with the aggressive plan at Rocky Mountain National Park,
approximately 95% of the park lands will not be treated. Unlike other
agencies, commercial timber sales are not authorized on NPS lands.
Consequently, much of beetle-killed trees will remain standing. In
accordance with our the Organic Act and our National Park Service
Management Policies, NPS allows natural recovery of areas following
disturbances, such as fires, unless additional action is needed to
protect cultural and historic resources, protect park developments, or
to ensure human safety.
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) estimates that up to 800,000
acres of BLM-managed forestland in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and
Idaho are infested by the mountain pine beetle. Warm winters, drought
stress, and a prevalence of over-mature, over-stocked, even-aged,
single species forests present ideal conditions for such a severe
outbreak. The unhealthy condition of the forest makes it susceptible to
fatal insect attack.
Harmful impacts to BLM lands are numerous. Increased tree mortality
leads to increased fire hazards, degraded conditions for wildlife,
negative effects on wood products industries, and declining tourism. In
some areas of high tree mortality, fire suppression will be difficult
and dangerous.
BLM is approaching this epidemic by treating, in Fiscal Year 2009,
9,500 acres to mitigate impacts of the mountain pine beetle outbreak.
The treatments are focused on protecting high-value recreation sites
through placement of pheromone traps to prevent tree mortality, and
reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire events by reducing fuels
through salvage of dead and dying trees. Some challenges to conducting
treatments of additional acreage include poor markets for treatment by-
products, limited inventory data, limited numbers of contractors to
perform the work, steep and/or inaccessible site conditions, and time
required to complete the necessary National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) processes.
While this hearing is focused on the mountain pine beetle outbreak,
there are other insects that could create similar impacts in crowded,
drought-stressed forests. Creating resilient landscapes is one possible
long term solution to addressing outbreaks of insect infestation.
Approximately 50% of the 32 million acres of public domain forestland
that BLM manages in the lower 48 States are vulnerable due to
overstocking and are therefore at great risk of increased insect and
disease attacks and catastrophic wildfires. To restore forest health,
projects are planned to achieve the correct density, species
composition, and stand structure for a given site, so that insect and
disease agents will remain at endemic levels as opposed to epidemic
levels now seen in pine beetles.
In Fiscal Year 2009, BLM is also thinning 25,000 acres to improve
forest health via commercial timber sales, service contracts, and
stewardship contracts.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Some of the most devastated areas of pine stands in the west occur
on reservation lands under the management of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). In the Central and Northern Cascades (Northwest Region),
the Warm Springs Reservation in Oregon has experienced mortality in
some of their lodgepole pine stands due to mountain pine beetles--
69,000 acres are infested, of which 40,000 acres are completely dead.
Similarly, the lodgepole pine stands have been nearly wiped out on the
Yakama Reservation in Washington. In many of these areas, the beetle
has run its course, with few healthy lodgepole pines left.
Tribal, agency and regional staff at these locations are concerned
that the high beetle populations may significantly alter the ecosystem
by effectively removing mature lodgepole pine as a component. They are
also concerned that the resulting extremely high fuel hazards will
create a catastrophic wildland fire risk that could not only endanger
the lodgepole pine areas, but the surrounding forest and its multitude
of tribal values as well.
In response to the devastation on Indian lands, BIA has assisted
reservations in taking steps to protect the remaining pine stands. At
the Colville Indian Reservation in Washington, 8,000 acres of lodgepole
pine stands are at high-risk for mountain pine beetle infestation. The
main treatment is a regeneration harvest and conversion to a different
species, mostly western larch. About 10,000 acres have been converted
since the 1970's.
At the Rocky Boys Indian Reservation, the reservation has been
successful in timber harvest salvaging of the mortality, but is still
facing ongoing infestation. Non-commercial stands have been affected as
well. On other reservations, the incompatibility between salvage
operations and reservation uses, and proximity to markets are
restricting large-scale salvage operations.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mountain pine beetles are not a significant issue on lands managed
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), specifically National
Wildlife Refuge System and National Fish Hatchery System lands. Very
few USFWS lands have significant forested habitat and thus the Service
only administers small amounts of acreage of western pine forest, most
of which consists of ponderosa pine, not the mature (and over-mature)
lodgepole pine that has, to date, suffered from the most intensive
beetle infestation.
Leadville National Fish Hatchery (NFH) in Leadville, Colorado, is
an exception. NFH lands total over 3,000 acres of timber, including
2,500 acres of mature lodgepole pine. The hatchery is near the
epicenter of the severe beetle infestation in the Colorado High Country
and beetle infestation is an active management issue at the hatchery.
The majority of this timber is in the Mt. Massive Wilderness Area;
approximately 500 acres of the hatchery's timbered areas lie outside
the wilderness.
The hatchery manager first observed beetle kill on hatchery forests
in 2006 and has tasked staff and volunteers to remove dead/infected
individual trees on an annual basis. Pheromone packets are applied each
year to protect individual pine trees in the hatchery headquarters
area, and in 2008, the Service participated in an interagency effort
with the Bureau of Land Management to thin lodgepole and to encourage
aspen, spruce, and fir regeneration on hatchery lands. Additional pine
thinning partnership projects are planned for 2009 and beyond.
While the USFWS does not anticipate these efforts will completely
prevent beetle-kill of the hatchery's lodgepole forest, the Service is
hopeful the efforts will help reduce fuel loads and stimulate
regeneration of other species. It remains unclear if thinning in
uninfested forest stands will have any mitigating impact on mortality
of mature lodgepole on USFWS or any other infested lands in Colorado.
Department Efforts
In addition to all the actions being taken by specific bureaus, the
Department is coordinating several efforts including integrated pest
management (IPM), creation of an incident commander for beetle control
efforts in Colorado, multi-agency discussions, and blended fuels
treatment plans and zones. The Department is also collaborating with
the Department of Agriculture (through the U.S. Forest Service) who
provides forest health information and support annually to the bureaus.
In the face of rising mountain pine beetle infestations across the
west, the Department will need increasing attention and dedicated
resources to face this challenge. The greatest need will be for
continued mapping and monitoring, fuel treatment around high-value
areas, and for careful assessment of stressors such as sustained
drought, climate change, beetle spread and impacts to the other
integral flora and fauna components that make up a healthy, intact
forest.
Conclusion
Mountain pine beetles will continue to be a part of the western
landscape. It is an episodic pest reoccurring periodically throughout
our western forests. It is currently rapidly expanding to epidemic
levels in parts of the west. Some of this expansion is beyond the
historic parameter for this species, in part assisted by reoccurring
drought, climate change, overly dense mature forests, and changes in
the biology of mountain pine beetle.
The Department is committed to continued monitoring of the mountain
pine beetle as it spreads to new areas and expands its range. We will
continue to coordinate and support our federal, state and local
partners to address this issue. The Department is dedicated to the
interagency fuels and fire suppression efforts to respond to the
inevitable fires and loss of habitat that will occur as a result of
this outbreak. Although stopping the mountain pine beetle is not a
viable option, management strategies to control its damage in priority
areas, and protect resources and communities from catastrophic
wildfires are critical. The continued collaboration and support between
the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture will help us to face
this unprecedented forest health challenge.
This concludes my prepared testimony. I, along with our technical
witnesses from the other bureaus, would be happy to answer any
questions you or the other members of the subcommittees have on this
topic.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you; your testimony is in the
record. So thank you very much for being here as a witness. It
is good to see you, Mr. Turley; you are next.
STATEMENT OF RONALD TURLEY, SPECIAL PROGRAMS MANAGER, WESTERN
AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Turley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman; good morning Madam
Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, my name, of
course, is Ron Turley. I am the Special Programs Manager for
Western Area Power Administration.
I am here today to try and provide the technical support
that this committee needs to investigate this important issue.
I just want to say at the onset though that I cannot speak
toward policy. I am more of a technical type.
For those that do not know, Western is a Federal agency.
Western owns and operates 17,000 miles of transmission in most
of the states west of the Mississippi. In many cases, as in
Colorado, Western is the backbone of the electrical grid.
So today, I am talking about transmission and not
distribution. Transmission is the bulk of the energy grid. That
is what I am speaking to.
Transmission lines, of course, are linear features that
traverse great distances across many vegetation types and, of
course, of one common one is our western forests. We are all
aware that we have unhealthy, unstable forest conditions in
many forest types. Today, we are focusing on the bark beetle
and lodgepole pine. But there are many forest types that have
health and stability issues.
When conditions are right, experience has shown that
multiple, large fire events will occur, and they often continue
for long periods of time.
Western has concern about the potential for an overlap of
multiple, simultaneous fire events on multiple parts of the
grid. This could have significant regional and potentially
national consequences.
Just very briefly, from a technical aspect, there are two
components to vegetation management that utilities face, that
relate to the safety, liability, and secure operations of a
power grid. The first is tall trees. The second is fire.
Now tall trees are pretty easy to understand. It is
traditional. It is well addressed by FERC and NRC mandatory
reliability standards that rolled out of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005.
Fire, however, is new. It is untraditional. It is more
complex. It involves larger areas, and it is not addressed by
any standards or any guidelines. Fire, itself, has two
consequences for utility operations. The first is smoke. Smoke
has short-term impacts to the operation of the power system.
the more significant one, though, is the actual physical damage
to power facilities; and that potentially could take long
periods of time to repair.
Concern for fire has led to a new concept of managing to
enhance fire survivability. This involves different thinking by
all. To utilities, thinking about adjusting maintenance
strategies to manage for fire survivability, it means not only
managing for tall trees, but also managing for fuels on your
right-of-way.
For others, changes in thinking require that the grid be
recognized as critical, wildland-urban interface, requiring
priority protection.
As noted, managing for fire survivability often requires
treating areas larger than narrow rights-of-way. Survivability,
however, does not mean exclusion of fire. It just means
managing the intensity and duration of the heat.
Because this involves areas larger than a right-of-way, it
requires collaborative partnerships, and a coordination with
various stakeholders. It is usually best to integrate these
with other management objectives; and unfortunately, this
requires time and process.
Western feels we have some good examples to point on the
Uncompahgre Plateau project, where we have some power line
projection projects on the ground already. One other comment,
technically I wanted to give is, the power system has its own
communications network. Obviously, there is a lot of
information that goes back and forth on the condition of the
grid, and a lot of information goes back and forth on
controlling the grid.
It is an independent stand-alone system. So when we think
about protecting the transmission grid, we also need to
remember to protect the communication system that goes with
that.
That concludes my opening remarks. I thank you for having
Western here today to help, and I am happy to answer any
questions that the committee may have; thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turley follows:]
Statement of Ron Turley, Special Programs Manager,
Western Area Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy
I am Ron Turley, Special Programs Manager for the Department of
Energy's Western Area Power Administration (Western). This is my
testimony for the June 16 hearing on ``Mountain Pine Beetle: Strategies
for Protecting the West.''
Good morning, Madame Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman, and Subcommittee
members. Western is committed to delivering reliable, cost-based
Federal electrical power. We do this over an integrated 17,000 circuit-
mile, high-voltage transmission system--an electrical Federal highway
system--that spans most of the western half of the United States. Our
role, as transmission owner and provider, is not only critical to the
delivery of Federal power, it is integral to our Nation's
interconnected electrical grid and helps ensure reliable and secure
delivery of our Nation's power supply.
Given the importance of this role, I appreciate the opportunity to
update you on the urgency of real risks to public safety and power
system security and reliability resulting from the bark beetle epidemic
in the Rocky Mountains. This situation in Western's service area is a
great concern. Wildfires in dead and dying timber stands of beetle-
infested forests can seriously interrupt power system operations and
significantly damage transmission lines. This situation could result in
widespread, regional power outages potentially requiring extended
periods of repair time.
Today I will provide technical information on the risks that
beetle-kill forests pose to Western's power system; the substantially
more aggressive vegetation management practices required to reduce
these risks; and how Western is taking an active role to address the
issue.
Beetle-killed, forested landscapes and Western's transmission
infrastructure
Today, the impact to Western's transmission lines and facilities
from the bark beetle is concentrated in Colorado. Much of Western's
transmission system in Colorado is located on heavily forested lands
administered by the United States Forest Service (USFS), as well as on
lands under other ownerships (private, Bureau of Land Management,
tribal and others).
Dead and dying trees are threats to public safety, reliability and grid
security
Our transmission lines cross a variety of vegetation types, but
trees are one of the main vegetation management concerns when it comes
to ensuring public safety, reliable system operations and grid
security.
Today, vegetation management includes more than just cutting danger
trees--trees tall enough to either grow into contact with electrical
conductors or fall into the conductors or structures. It involves
actively managing the plant communities beneath our transmission lines
and within our rights of way as well as addressing fire-related impacts
that affect the overall ability of transmission facilities to withstand
a fire.
Under extreme fire conditions, multiple large, high-intensity
wildfire events can simultaneously impact multiple electrical grid
components resulting in potentially severe regional consequences.
Direct risks to Western's lines
Many segments of Western's grid-critical transmission system pass
through lodgepole pine areas impacted by the mountain pine beetle. The
dead and dying trees present multiple risks to transmission lines,
including physical damage and operational threats to facilities from
falling trees, increased threats to facility operation and physical
damage from wildfire events and the possibility of causing wildfire by
igniting trees that fall on or near high-voltage transmission lines.
Associated power outages could be sudden or extended, or both,
potentially jeopardizing public safety. Accordingly, Western is
concerned about management implications of forest health not only
associated with lodgepole pine but in many other forest types as well.
Indirect risks to Western's lines
In addition, indirect risks in the forested areas--sometimes many
miles from Western's facilities--may put Western's transmission
facilities at risk. The potential for large fires in beetle-killed
timber presents a serious risk to continuous power system operations
and the integrity of transmission lines. Fuels treatments in areas both
adjacent to and, in some cases, distant from the right of way may
mitigate but not completely eliminate the risk presented by wildfires
and enhance the likelihood of the operational security of our
transmission facilities when fire occurs within these fire-adapted
landscapes. As illustrated in the attached photos, managing fuels to
enhance transmission line fire survivability is complex. However,
utilities' rights and authority concerning vegetation management end at
the edge of the transmission line's right of way.
Western's vegetation management program--adapting to new realities
Today, the goal of our vegetation management program is to
establish a more manageable, long term right-of-way condition that
reduces the build up and concentration of fire fuels and reduces the
overall risk of tree-caused outages or fires, increasing public safety
and enhancing power system security and reliability.
Program history
Western has always conducted a robust vegetation management program
to manage and control vegetation on its rights of way. Historically, we
performed maintenance work when vegetation had grown near the point of
becoming a problem. We principally focused on managing tall trees,
consistent with industry standards.
With the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) have established mandatory vegetation management
standards. The electric utility industry is now required to actively
manage vegetation well before it can potentially threaten reliable
power system operations. Consequently, Western must significantly
change its past practices on some forested transmission line rights of
ways ``most of which are on National Forest System lands.
Two-phased approach tackles major workload
To meet these new and more stringent NERC reliability requirements,
Western undertook an intensive, systematic review of the power system
to locate and remove danger trees with the intent to immediately ensure
the safety, security and reliability of the Federal transmission
system.
Western plans to follow with a second phase of more aggressive
treatments to convert heavily forested rights of ways to a more
manageable condition of stable, low-growth and slow-growing native
vegetation. This conversion process involves removing or grinding
previously cut trees and debris, removing standing trees, and actively
selecting for native, lower-growth plant species. This approach
increases species diversity through the establishment and retention of
early-succession plant communities that are appropriate to the ecology
of the area.
This second phase is pending the completion of an environmental
review process co-led by the USFS and Western. Western and the USFS are
in negotiations regarding this environmental review process, and we
anticipate a lengthy review and analysis. In the interim, trees
continue to grow, and Western will continue to annually remove danger
trees on previously treated transmission line sections. This is
required to maintain the integrity of the Federal power system and
remain in compliance with the mandatory reliability standards.
Western's role--solutions to the bark beetle threat
Western provides industry leadership on vegetation management
issues related to power grid safety, security and reliability. Western
is recognized for collaborative approaches to address today's complex
natural resources management issues. As a result, Western sits on the
steering committee for the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative and has
been appointed to Colorado Governor Bill Ritter's Healthy Forest
Advisory Council. We have been appointed to the NERC Standards Drafting
Team tasked with writing international industry reliability standards
for vegetation management.
Expedited environmental review
Western continues to work with the USFS on the environmental review
and other steps required to fully implement our vegetation management
program. To help address the immediate need created by the bark beetle
epidemic, Western is exploring a recent proposal by the USFS to provide
an expedited, programmatic environmental analysis for a one-time,
limited authorization to treat fuels and mitigate wildfire hazards.
Collaborative partnerships show promise
In addition, Western is encouraged by our participation in the
Uncompahgre Plateau Project in Colorado. This project is an example of
a collaborative approach to addressing multiple resource objectives,
including transmission line protection and fire-hazard mitigation
projects, across jurisdictional boundaries using a variety of
authorities and funding sources.
The goal of the Uncompahgre Plateau Project is to develop
collaborative approaches to improve or restore ecosystem health on
various landscapes, using best available science, community and other
stakeholder partnerships and adaptive management practices. Principal
project partners include: the Public Lands Partnership, Bureau of Land
Management, Colorado Division of Wildlife, the USFS, Western and Tri-
State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
Primary components of the Project include: landscape scale project
planning, invasive species management, a native plant program, on-the-
ground treatments, and education and technology transfer. The Project
directs, coordinates and/or facilitates these activities across
jurisdictional boundaries, but does not supersede management authority
on any Federal, state, or private lands.
Through its innovative powerline protection projects, the
Uncompahgre Plateau Project model works well for protecting
transmission resources--critical wildland and urban interface
infrastructure traversing these lands. An environmental decision memo
further describing one of these projects is attached.
Cooperative effort--key to solution
Many questions remain, but the need is urgent. The solution will
involve all stakeholders working cooperatively. Western is committed to
being part of the solution, continuing our role as an industry leader
in enhancing public safety and increasing the security and reliability
of the electric grid.
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman and Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or the Subcommittee members may have.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much for your testimony;
and we will begin the round of questions. Now I can start off
with Mr. Turley. I have been privileged to see the sites that
you presented here on the committee today.
And I know in speaking to some of your personnel, some of
the impediments on the right-of-ways is permission to be able
to go in and do some clearance in some areas. But what are the
biggest impediments pertaining to those transmission lines; and
getting to that, whose responsibility should it be or is it for
clearing the vegetation outside of the right-of-way?
Mr. Turley. Madam Chairwoman, traditional vegetation
management practices for a utility involves managing tall
trees. Today, we need to think not only about tall trees, but
also fuels management; that is a change in management practice
that requires NEPA review.
Mrs. Napolitano. Would you explain fuels management?
Mr. Turley. The best way to explain fuels management is,
there has been an accumulation of biomass. You allow trees to
grow. That is traditionally how right-of-ways are managed. It
was just-in-time maintenance. When a tree got too tall and
became a problem, then you dealt with it.
Fuels management means not only dealing with tall trees,
but also dealing with the rest of the biomass that is on that
right-of-way. Trees that you may have cut down previously were
typically cut, lopped and scattered, and left there.
There has been 50 or 60 years of materials accumulating on
these right-of-ways; and in the western United States, this
material does not rot. It is good sound wood--good sound fuel.
You have re-generation that is coming up through this material.
So you have your fine fuels, as well. That needs to be managed.
Fuels management means cleaning up or addressing that
entire problem, versus the previous approach of just dealing
with tall trees.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Turley. Off the right-of-way is an entirely different
issue. Tall trees, fuels on the right-of-way, you have tall
trees and fuels off the right-of-way, as well. Tall trees off
the right-of-way are pretty easy to understand. But it is a
matter of risk. The farther the tree gets away from the power
line, the more precisely it has got to fall toward the power
line to create a problem.
So how far do you go? How much risk do you want to
mitigate? How much resource do you have? How much can you
really do?
Fuels off the right-of-way is a much bigger problem. We
have seen some of the fire photos today, and these are pretty
catastrophic events. The utility's responsibility ends at the
edge of the right-of-way. That is the cold, hard fact of it. So
the utility really does not have the rights, the authority,
much ability to work off the right-of-way.
So it really falls to others. When you are dealing with
fuels off the right-of-way, utilities do not know what to do.
We are not fire scientists. We understand tall trees. We have
been doing that a long time. But fuels management is a much
tougher nut to crack; and as I noted in my opening comments,
oftentimes, it needs to be integrated with other management
objectives.
Mrs. Napolitano. How much is your right-of-way; how many
feet?
Mr. Turley. How wide?
Mrs. Napolitano. How wide.
Mr. Turley. It depends on your voltage. Larger voltages
have wider right-of-ways. A 354 KV, 345,000 volt, which would
be typical or the biggest you would find in the Rocky Mountain
Region, would be about a 150,000/175,000 foot right-of-way. A
115,000 volt would be about 75 foot right-of-way. So you are in
that range.
Mrs. Napolitano. Would it make any sense to widen the
right-of-way to prevent venue fires adjacent to that right-of-
way to the grids from endangering the grids?
Mr. Turley. When you are dealing with fire and fuels,
again, the areas are so large, I do not know that it would be
very effective in dealing with that part of the problem.
Perhaps tall trees may be a little better.
Let me note, as well, we are not talking clear cuts. We are
not talking going from Point A to Point B and doing everything.
We need to have a strategic approach. We just do not have the
resources. You need to very strategically get the best bang for
your buck; get the highest priority areas.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you; Mr. Cables, if a tree standing
outside of the right-of-way falls in the line and starts a
fire, who is liable for the damages?
Mr. Cables. I am not completely positive how that would be
legally interpreted. I think Ron made a significant point, in
terms of this is uncharted territory right now for us;
something at this scale, 1,3000 miles all at once.
We had a meeting on May 18th, where we invited all the
utility electrical providers that have these transmission and
distribution lines. Subsequent to that meeting, I wrote a
letter essentially granting permission to immediately remove
hazard trees, whether within or outside the right-of-way that
were an imminent threat to the power line. And we are also
working on a longer term, more robust strategy to consider
fuels treatment or anticipating fire effects beyond the width
of the right-of-way.
We have right-of-ways that are 15 feet wide for some of
these distribution lines, which obviously is not adequate if
the trees are 80 feet tall.
So there are a whole series of things that we are working
on right now, to try to mitigate this problem and to do it as
quickly as we can.
Mrs. Napolitano. There was one of the testimonies in the
witnesses who are yet to come, stating that they had been told
that they are responsible for any damages within or outside the
right-of-way. In the many years the Forest Service has been
managing it, has there not been an attempt to clarify this, not
only for the benefit of the public, but for the benefit of the
grids and others?
Mr. Cables. First of all, I am not familiar with that
particular citation, what the situation was. I think that
historically, clearly, we have tried to hold the utility
companies or whoever responsible for those area within the
authorization.
So they are authorized to cross National Forest System
lands, and they have an authorization and some form of special
use permit--an easement, a memorandum of understanding--that
allows that; and there are responsibilities within that
corridor.
Again, I cannot speak to the citation. But your point
about, have there not been an opportunity to clarify--probably
there have been, or maybe there has actually been clarification
that I am unaware of.
But in this particular instance, again, we are just trying
to catch up with an event of the scale that we are talking
about, and try to do it all together with some consistency
across the different jurisdictions.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, knowing that there are many
thousands of miles of grid lines, I think that is incumbent
upon the Forest Service to sit and determine what needs to be
done and at the table. If it needs us to be able to work with
you, I would be delighted to do that, sir.
Dr. Frost, would you provide a little more detail on the
specific actions the Department of the Interior has taken to
protect isolated tribal lands and communities from the effects
of the beetle epidemic?
Mr. Frost. Yes, I can give a couple of examples, and there
is not a lot I can tell you, and I may have to get back with
you.
But at the Flathead Indian Reservation in Montana, there
are 20,000 acres of dead trees, and only 5,000 acres have been
able to be treated to date. At the Yakima Indian Reservation in
Washington, 14,000 acres are dead, and none have been treated.
In the Colville Indian Reservation in Washington, 8,000
acres of lodgepole pines are at high risk for beetle
infestation; and the main treatment there is a re-generation
harvest and a conversion to different species; mostly western
large. About 10,000 acres have been converted since 1970. I can
submit these to you. I can go on, and I have a list here.
So there are a number of activities that are going on.
Another one is in Montana. They have been working for 12 years
or more at the Rocky Boys Indian Reservation, and they have had
a successful program in timber harvesting in terms of salvaging
the mortality. But they just cannot seem to get ahead of the
infestation.
They have forest health money from the Forest Service. In
the past, they have been pheromone traps. So they have tried to
do all the treatments. But again, for lack of personnel, lack
of expertise, it has been very difficult for them.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you; and thank you all for
submitting your testimony. I am very disappointed, to say the
least, in OMB in the delay; because some of your testimony did
not reach me until this morning. I take great exception to
that, because I like to read it and be able to formulate the
question, based on your testimony, so that I am very much in
tune with what we are discussing.
To me, it is unacceptable that they would not release the
testimony; whether they are backlogged or whatever. There is a
message going to be given to that effect. But thank you for
submitting your testimony to them on time.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman and Mr.
Chairman. I would like to ask that a photograph of the slash
piles in Wyoming be held up, and I have a question, Mr. Cables.
I have seen slash piles like the one that we have here in a
photograph.
And these are slash piles from existing and approved
operations that would be used as woody biomass, under the RFS
or RES wood bi-products that would otherwise go to waste, and
we are getting there.
What I am talking about. They are whopping slash piles that
are going to be burned as soon as the snow flies or something;
and it would be so great if they could be used for creating
fuel.
What is the Forest Service stance on the potential of woody
biomass gathered on public lands, as a renewable fuel source?
Mr. Cables. Well, obviously, it definitely has high
potential. The USDA proposes to use the definitions of biomass
that are in Titles I and III in the 2008 Farm Bill; and have
previously testified or made public comments to that effect.
That would enable products that come from the public lands and
the National Forest Service lands to be considered as part of
the renewable biomass standard.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you; my next question is for Mr. Cables
and Dr. Bentz. I preface this by saying, I would love it if you
or your staff would stick around and hear Mr. Larsen's
testimony on the fourth panel later today; and this is about
the battle on this epidemic. It has not been successful thus
far. I am talking about the pine beetle epidemic.
What specific and immediate steps can the Forest Service
take to step up--and I want to emphasize that word--step up the
reduction of this growing hazardous fuel load in the west?
Mr. Cables. Well, thank you for the question. We have
specific and immediate steps. We have a five-year plan right
now. We have multiple thousands of acres that are NEPA ready,
with full concurrence by a wide spectrum of participants and
interests. We have a collaborative group, the bark beetle
collaborative, and you will hear from members of that group in
subsequent panels, and I will stay around for subsequent
panels.
Mrs. Lummis. Thanks.
Mr. Cables. So we have a lot of work being done, and we
have a lot of work on the shelf; and we are just trying to be
as efficient with the money as we can.
One of the dilemmas that we have--and again, within my
region, I have shifted funds, to the extent I can. But as
Representative Sablan pointed out, the Black Hills are also in
our region, the Rocky Mountain Region, which includes parts of
Wyoming and South Dakota.
And if we overly shift dollars to Colorado and southern
Wyoming for this, away from areas on the Black Hills, then we
are going to just be creating a problem in a different place,
or accelerating a problem in a different place. Because as the
representative pointed out, we have 300,000 acres of bark
beetle mortality in the Black Hills.
So again, it is trying to figure out how to put your finger
in the dike in different places on this problem; and I am just
speaking for our region. There are multiple regions in the
West, and even in the east, that had these insect problems.
I think we have the steps, in terms of the projects, laid
out. It is again trying to allocate the resources necessary to
get the work done.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Cables.
Ms. Bentz. Could I just make a statement regarding the
science part of it? So the mountain pine beetle is undoubtedly
changing the fuel dynamics, in lodgepole pine forests.
The issue is that this has happened on such a large scale,
that we really do not have any research to say what the
intricacies of those changes are. There is a lot of research
that suggests that you can do tree removal and thinning in wild
line urban interfaces, and really have a big impact on saving
infrastructure and homes.
But there is just really hardly any research to say what is
going to happen if you try to take out dead trees across large
expanses, in terms of the ecological consequences or the
changes to the fuel dynamics.
We are talking about things that we really do not know what
is going to happen. So I just wanted to make that comment.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you; Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, Dr. Bentz; thank you for that last
comment. I think it is important for all of us to reflect on
the enormity of the issue that we are dealing with here today.
Simply put, is there a direct correlation between fire and the
beetle attack?
Ms. Bentz. Did fire influence the insect attack, or the
other way around?
Mr. Grijalva. Vice versa.
Ms. Bentz. Vice versa?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
Ms. Bentz. Well, that was the comment I was just making. We
do not have a whole lot of research or really data to pinpoint.
But we have information that we have compiled to suggest that
it is a very dynamic process.
The potential for crown file will be really high, early on,
as all those needles are in the trees; and when those drop and
you have dead standing snags, the potential for crown fire goes
down. As the snags fall over, which has been mentioned several
times in a 10 to 20 year time period, and vegetation grows up,
then you get this increase in potential for a surface fire with
the ladder fuels that could then go into the crown.
It is a very dynamic process, and it is going to vary from
place to place. And I think the overriding factor is the
weather. You have to have extreme fire weather to get these
fires going, irregardless of the fuel dynamics.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you; Mr. Cables, recently, a report was
released indicating that the Forest Service spent only three
percent of its money to reduce fire danger in the wildland-
urban interface. That was overall. How does that compare in
Colorado and other parts of your region?
Mr. Cables. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva; this report was
just released last week. Quite frankly, I was perplexed when I
saw it. We got to looking at our data. In our region, in total,
it is over 63 percent of treatments that have occurred in the
wildland-urban interface; and in the bark beetle area, it is 80
percent, and we are shooting for 90 percent.
So we have very specifically focused our energy--and not
just in hazardous fuels money--but the other programs that
manage vegetation, in the areas that are what we called the
zones of agreements.
Mr. Grijalva. Is that percentage based on location or
overall budget of the region?
Mr. Cables. That percentage is based on location.
Mr. Grijalva. So overall budget, what would that be?
Mr. Cables. I do not have the figures by budget. I just
have the figures by acreage. But we can get you that
information.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, I think one of the issues is a resource
issue; part commentary, part question, Mr. Cables. Right now,
there is not even a sponsor for the Flame Act in the Senate.
I would suggest that particularly in some of these states
in the western states regarding the infestation and fire
prevention and suppression strategies vital, that it would
behoove some of the members of that body to get behind this.
It has already passed the House. I think it is a resource
issue that deals with the percentage I asked you about; that
deals with community planning; and I think it is an attempt to
begin to deal with this issue--not only the infestation issue,
but the fire suppression issue.
But anyway, it is based on the resource question, Mr.
Cables. The resource needs that you have for your region, in
order to carry out some of the strategies that you discussed
is, you redirect funds from your existing budget. You mentioned
that. But if you were to have resource additions, what would
that percentage of that amount look like? Because I think
overall, we are still talking about the need to invest some
resources in this whole issue; and until we do that, I think we
are just going to talk in circles.
Mr. Cables. Well, let me understand, Mr. Chairman. Are you
asking, how would we invest additional resources?
Mr. Grijalva. How much more would you need in order to do
the job that you were talking about?
Mr. Cables. That is really a good question.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cables. I wrote a letter to the Chief of the Forest
Service on June 6th, and requested emergency funding over a
three-year period, in an amount of $213 million for Fiscal
Years 2009, 2010, and 2011, that would allow us to deal with
emergency threats to human life and safety from falling trees;
clear the rights-of-ways and ensure that we do not have trees
falling on power lines and infrastructure and camp ground
maintenance and all those things. So that was just an
immediate, short-term burst of a request to deal with the
problems of the mountain pine beetle.
In the long run, I would say that most regional foresters,
if they were sitting here, would say they would invest the
money, working collaboratively with community people, to try to
do community protection, watershed protection, and try to keep
up with things.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, thank you; Mr. Turley, the Western Power
Administration--at least from your testimony, and correct me--
has now discovered recently the issue of fuel management. That
is a question.
Mr. Turley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I think the whole
industry traditionally has managed tall trees. But you had not
had the fire incident. You had not had the biomass problems
that we are starting to see today.
I think the entire industry is starting to look at the
fuels management and the fire survivability part now, and
saying, ``Hey, we certainly need to be doing something on our
right-of-way.'' That is just like you would ask a private
citizen around their home to be firewise. I think utilities
need to be firewise.
But again, that fire problem is so big, so massive, it
extends way off the right-of-way. So yes, it is kind of a new
concept; not just to Western, but to the entire industry.
Mr. Grijalva. And with that fuels management, also I would
assume the fire issue is now a more prevalent issue with the
Administration than it was, say, previously, as a priority
issue?
Mr. Turley. That is more of a policy-type question, that I
am not sure I can really answer, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you; Mrs. McMorris Rodgers?
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman; I
mentioned in my opening statement that in eastern Washington,
Avista has a biomass facility, 50 megawatts in Kettle Falls,
right next door to the Colville National Forest. And yet, they
have to import from Canada 70 percent of what they burn at that
facility.
I also have a mill, the Vaagen Brothers Mill, in Caldwell,
that re-tooled probably 10 years ago now, to really focus on
small diameter trees. So it is six inches or less, really. Yet,
both of these facilities have trouble getting access to
material, despite the fact that we are right next door to the
Caldwell National Forest.
I might also mention that there has been a tremendous
collaborative effort under way in this region between
environmental groups, the industry, and recreational users,
trying to come up with a way that locally we could actually
move forward.
But instead, we still cannot move forward. The Caldwell
National Forest has, I do not know, how many acres in mountain
pine beetle and trees that are dead from burns or beetle
infestation or other reasons. It needs a lot of attention; and
we live in fear of catastrophic fires every year.
So I just wanted to ask, or to have you just talk a little
bit, Mr. Cables and Dr. Frost, about the problem we face with
the overstocking of our Federal lands; and does it not increase
the risk of higher intensity fires? And do you believe that the
role of the Forest Service is shifting from management of
Forest to simply protecting houses from fires?
Mr. Cables. Let me start, Representative McMorris Rodgers.
Let me first mention that the two mills in our region have re-
tooled to do just as we have asked, to deal with smaller
diameter material.
Both the Diamond Brothers Mill in Wyoming and South Dakota,
and the two mills in Inner Mountain over in Montrose, Colorado,
have been very heavily invested in trying to create an industry
that actually meets the needs; and I really would like to give
them credit for that.
Our issue in our region is not so much access to material.
I do not think that you would hear very much from the woods
products industry folks. But that is really a huge problem.
I think, right now, the problem is more just the situation
with the industry, in terms of the economy, and trying to get
cash and the amount of cash that is tied up in some of our
requirements in our contracting and they are cash poor. The
market is so depressed, and it really started going down in
2004. So I think that is a larger issue.
Has the Forest Service changed priorities? I do not believe
we have at all. I believe, at least in some of these cases, the
size and scale of the events have become overwhelming, to an
extent; and you saw the speed with which this particular issue
in the pine beetle in Colorado and southern Wyoming has
accelerated.
Again, I think it is working to have the social license
from the communities of interest to allow us to move forward
and work together; and there are barriers always with that. But
I feel like we are making a lot of headway in those particular
areas, and that we now do have the social license to practice
on the ground what needs to get done.
That is my sense of it, from our field people and talking
to folks. So I think our priorities are still looking at
maintaining that forest in the way that it is healthy, and that
continue to give the benefits that people want; whether it is
water, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, wood
products for society--you name it; and I do not know how Dr.
Frost would answer.
Mr. Frost. I would agree with a lot of what Mr. Cables has
to say. Availability of wood products may be at different
levels across different regions. What I have been told is that
in areas like in Colorado, there is more than enough wood
products for the mills that are there. So the situation that
you are experiencing may be a low cause phenomenon. I do not
know what the situation is there.
But again, I think the key to managing the forest to be
sustainable over time; and to protect health and human safety
in the circumstances that we are now in.
The policies at the Department of the Interior, we have
different bureaus, so we have different policies. The Park
Service is very different than the Bureau of Land Management.
The BLM manages very similar, and the BIA manages very similar
to the Forest Service. Whereas, the Park Service, we look at
ecosystem function and things like that. So how we manage the
forest maybe is very different.
While we want to protect infrastructure and urban interface
and heath and human safety, the larger issues for the Park
Service is to maintain those healthy systems over time through
the national processes.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Just for my own edification, can you
give me a sense of the infrastructure that exists in Colorado
then, as far as mills or biomass facilities?
Mr. Frost. I cannot. But we can get you that information. I
do not have that right here.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK, that would be great.
Mr. Cables. We currently have one, what I would call medium
to large size saw mill left in Montrose, Colorado; and we have
two pellet plants in northern Colorado, in the bark beetle
area.
We have a mill that was shut down in Saratoga, Wyoming,
which is just north of the Colorado border in Wyoming, that is
the company that owns Inner Mountain Resources, that owns the
mill the mill in Montrose. It has been trying to invest and buy
equipment to start that mill, which would certainly reduce the
haul costs of this material and the fossil fuels associated,
hauling heavy things like wood long distances.
So that is the current state in Colorado and Southern
Wyoming; and of course, there is a mill up in Hewlett, Wyoming,
which is associated with the Black Hills. That is in the
northeast corner of Wyoming.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Well, just for the committee's
information, my region is very concerned about losing what
existing infrastructure we have; and the issue of having access
to timber has been a huge issue. I think we are fearful that we
are going to head down the same path, where we will be in
Washington State, saying we have one mill, two pellet plants,
whatever it may be.
There was one other question I wanted to ask on the
stimulus dollars. Because in the stimulus, I think if I
remember correctly, it is $4 billion for the Forest Service for
fuel management, fuel reduction. And so far, what I have seen
is, the money is going more for roads--either tearing out
roads, rather than really addressing this fuel management, fuel
reduction issue.
In my region, we are very anxious to have access to some of
that fuel right now, because we could use it at the biomass
facility to generate electricity; or Vaagens could use it to
keep their mill running.
Mr. Cables. I only wish it were $4 billion. No, the Forest
Service received--I believe it was a billion and a half
dollars--through the stimulus funding.
And in the Rocky Mountain Region, we have received $26
million to date of approved projects. That was as of June 11th.
I would say 90-plus percent of those projects have to do with
hazardous fuels work and vegetation management; and we have
also just released some wood energy biomass utilization
grants--four that total a million dollars.
The stimulus money that we have received, the AARA funding
that we have received to date has been heavily oriented toward
working on this problem with managing the vegetation to
maintain the conditions we want in the forest.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you; Ms. DeGette?
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Madam Chair; I just want to
emphasize something that Congressman Powell has said, which is
in Colorado, at least, we are really in a crisis situation.
What we are looking at is, how do we do triage with this beetle
kill?
There are a lot of different issues. One of this is, what
do we do with the urban interface? What do we do with our power
lines? What do we do with our watersheds? You heard about
Denver Water, which affects my congressional district directly.
And then the question is, what do we do in the longer
range? For example, if we pass climate change legislation
today, that is not going to help us deal with this crisis
situation; but we hope it will help us in the long run.
When you go beyond that, then you have to ask, what do we
do about the moving of this wood, or what do you do about
stabilizing these forests for the next century? So I want to
ask a few questions about all of those complicated issues.
The first question, I want to ask Mr. Cables; but Dr.
Bentz, you might be able to lend some light to this, as well. I
hear conflicting information about, we all know that climate
change, warm winters and warmer summers cause some of this. And
in addition, we have mature forests that all are roughly the
same age, so that the beetles have really been able to go in.
But what I am wondering is, what we can do in the long run.
Because it seems to me that this crisis that we are in right
now, no matter how we remove this wood, 100 years from now,
these forests are now all going to be the same age again,
because the forest management techniques we were using 100
years ago made all these forests be this age.
So what can we do to avoid the next generation's inheriting
this same problem with our healthy forests; Mr. Cables or Dr.
Bentz?
Ms. Bentz. Thank you; I can start. Again, this is such a
new thing. We are kind of like adaptive management at its best,
I guess.
But thought is, as many have said, yes, the reason that
this is such an explosive problem is because there is a ton of
food and favorable weather conditions. So the thought is that
on a very large landscape scale, the forests need to be
diversified; not only in species, but also in age classes.
Ms. DeGette. Now how do we do that, when the whole forest
is dying at once?
Ms. Bentz. Well, I do not think the whole forest is dying
at once. I mean, there may be places where lodgepole
regenerates naturally on its own. So there may be places where
there could be natural regeneration; and maybe we want to go in
and plant other species. It is going to take some management to
make that diversity.
But I think we also need to realize that climate change is
not just affecting the insect. It is not just affecting fire.
But the tree species that are growing there may not be the ones
that are the best to grow there in another 150 years or 100
years. So we need to factor that into the concept, also, if we
are going to plant, what do we want to plant.
Mr. Cables. It is a great question, and I have thought
about this. If you cycle forward 50 years, and if we do get re-
generation of lodgepole, and you have this green 50-year-old
forest; then we suggest that we need to create a mosaic of age
classes and go into some large chunks and put fire on the
landscape and flow out 1,000 acres or 5,000-acre chunks so we
can get younger age classes--to diversify the age structure.
The public may look at us and say, ``What is wrong with the
situation right now? It is beautiful.''
So I think it is going to be a continuing education
process. But we need a diversity of species, to the extent we
can. So where we have aspen, they are going to flourish right
now, because they are going to be exposed to full sunlight.
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Mr. Cables. And I think we need to either, through a
combination of mechanical treatments or fire, create some
different age classes over this next 50 or 60 years, so that we
do not replicate history in 100 years, and find ourselves
facing the same problem.
Ms. DeGette. Right, OK, I have some other questions. But
maybe we can have a meeting, and I will ask you later.
I want to ask you, for the dead trees that we are removing
from public lands, I am assuming or inferring really from
something you said, Mr. Cables, that is happening under the
NEPA process. Is that correct? And so I would assume that any
further woody biomass that we are removing from these lands,
they would also be doing that under NEPA restrictions, correct?
Mr. Cables. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, and before I move on to Mr.
McClintock, Mr. Turley--before I forget it, it does not stay at
home too much--in your testimony on page four, you indicated
that Western is exploring a recent proposal by the U.S. Forest
Service to provide an expedited programmatic environmental
analysis for a one time limited authorization to treat fields
and mitigate wild fire hazards.
Can you comment on that? Because we have not really touched
upon that. Are there any arrangements for the partnerships that
are happening, to be able to begin mitigating some of the
issues?
Mr. Turley. Thank you, Congresswoman; Western actually has
two environmental processes ongoing. I talked earlier about
changing practices, from managing tall trees to managing tall
trees and fuels on your right-of-way.
Western is involved, as a caudally agency with the Forest
Service on an EIS, an Environmental Impact Statement, to review
and allow for that change in management practices. That is
probably going to be a long-term deal, two to three years out.
Mrs. Napolitano. Right, but I am specifically referring to
this one, the one time.
Mr. Turley. Right, the one-time one is for utilities
treating things off the right of way. That is proposed to be a
more expedited environmental review process that will pave the
way for utilities to function off the right-of-way. Utilities
really do not have the right to be off the right-of-way. It is
kind of a question we need to work through.
Mrs. Napolitano. And as you are working on that specific
pilot, if you will, because it is a one-time, would you be able
then to indicate whether or not that is helpful to be able to
mitigate some of the issues that are affecting the right-of-
way.
Mr. Turley. Well, it is certainly good that there is
urgency and we are trying to address issues. But it wrought
with a lot problems; as to who has the lead, who has the
resources.
Mrs. Napolitano. But how do we get to that? How do we go
past all of that and get down to getting it done?
Mr. Turley. I am not sure if I have the answer, other than
we keep making it a priority and working on it.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I know. But if it continues to go
back and forth--that, no, you do it; no, I do it, you are still
going to go back to the same old argument, which is who is
responsible or whose responsibility it is; who will be in
charge, if you will. Is this coming to a head; or is this again
another delay that is going to not help the process?
Mr. Turley. We really have not had that much time to work
on it. As Mr. Cables pointed out, we met on May 18th. So we are
just 30-some odd days down the road.
Mrs. Napolitano. It is not done yet?
Mr. Turley. No; I am sorry, it is not done.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK, never mind; Mr. McClintock?
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madam Chairman; a lot has been
said about the interaction of temperature and water on the
beetle infestation. A quick technical question for Dr. Bentz,
what has the temperature trend been in that region, over the
past couple of years?
Ms. Bentz. I cannot talk specifics. But again, I know that
it is not getting as cold for as long. I mean, this insect is
able to withstand temperatures. It produces this anti-freeze
compounds; and it is able to withstand temperatures of minus 40
degrees C.
Mr. McClintock. Well, I understand that. But the
temperature trend itself over the past couple of years--you
have testified already that you think a rise in temperature is
a major factor. But you are not prepared to tell us what the
trend has been over the last couple of years.
Ms. Bentz. I can say what the trend has been in places that
I have studied that trend.
Mr. McClintock. No, no, in this region, in the past couple
of years--that is what we are talking about.
Ms. Bentz. Yes, in Idaho, where I have quantitative data I
can send you, it has been an increasing trend of, the minimum
winter temperatures have been increasingly warmer.
Mr. McClintock. In the past couple of years?
Ms. Bentz. That is a trend since the early 1990s.
Mr. McClintock. Well, here is a Fox news report. I mean,
you can Google and find a number of reports of similar kind.
Now there is word that all four major global temperature
tracking outlets release data showing the temperatures have
dropped significantly over the last year.
California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of
cooling ranges from 65 hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75
hundredths of a degree Centigrade. It is reportedly the single
fastest temperature change ever recorded, up or down.
Ms. Bentz. I do not know where those temperatures are from.
But I am measuring floor temperature, where the insects live,
in many, many places throughout the west; and I can send you
graphs that are showing that it is in the environment that is
important to this insect. It is the trends that we have stated.
Mr. McClintock. The most significant testimony we have had
today, in my opinion, was the picture presented by Mr. Salazar,
I think it was number seven in his series, the handprint, that
showed the difference between forests that have been thinned
and those portions that had not been thinned.
Mr. Cables, why are you not thinning those forests? I mean,
that shows a very, very dramatic solution to the problem. If we
thin the forests, they are healthy; if we fail to thin them,
they are ravaged. Why are you not thinning those forests?
Mr. Cables. Two points, Representative McClintock, first of
all, we are so overwhelmed with the dead trees, and trying to
remove the dead trees from the forest, that our program has
shifted from trying to get in front and treat green stands, to
deal with only the salvaging of the material or working on the
material that is already dead and removing the hazards, as I
described. That is point number one.
Point number two, that picture is taken on the Fraser
Experimental Forest. It is a research site. That picture was
depicting different cutting regimes to do research on water
yield; and those are not thinnings. Those actually were where
all the trees were cut.
So you could see in fingers of that hand, you could see the
younger green trees were areas where we completely removed the
trees prior, and left a strip of mature trees, and then cut a
stripe completely clean and then a strip of mature trees, so we
could measure water.
What the research from that study shows is, in the upper
watersheds, we have to remove 25 percent of the tree cover, and
maintain it as open, to get an appreciable gain in water, which
is a rather significant number.
So we are managing the forest, to the extent we can, within
our budgets; and frankly, are overwhelmed with the bark beetle
right now.
Mr. McClintock. If I could just ask you a final question
then. Is there not a great deal of commercial value to trees
through thinning, if they are used for lumber production; and
second, is there not a great deal of commercial value for the
beetle-killed trees, provided that they are salvaged within a
year or so of their being killed?
Mr. Cables. The commercial value of the lodgepole species
we are talking about, the size is not great. This is a species
that has never been a real high value species; but there is
value. We are trying to utilize that value, to the extent we
can access the areas we can get to, as rapidly as we can, with
the industry that we have.
Your point about thinning, the most active force management
we have in the region I am responsible for is on the Black
Hills. And as Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin said, we have
actually still got a viable industry there, and we have been
able to keep up with that system. Now that is Ponderosa pine,
which is a very different ecology than the lodgepole system.
In areas like that, where we have industry and we are able
to stay ahead of the beetles and the fire issues, we have been
able to do that, to some extent. Again, in Colorado and
southern Wyoming right now, we have just got so many acres of
dead trees, that we are trying our best to salvage what we can.
Mr. McClintock. But if we salvage them for lumber, and do
so in a timely fashion, is that not a money maker for the
Federal Government?
Mr. Cables. I do not know if it would be construed as a
money maker, if you consider all costs. However, it does help
defray the costs of treating the acres. So if we can get the
private sector to help us in partnership, then the taxpayer
does not have to pay--just appropriated funds to treat the
acres to remove the wood.
Mrs. Napolitano. I think that is the last of the questions
for this panel. We certainly thank this panel for their
forbearance and for their testimony. It has been enlightening.
And there will be more questions in writing I am sure. We
hereby dismiss the panel and bring on our next panel.
This is panel three, Representative Christine Scanlan, John
Rich, Commissioner of Jackson County, and Sloan Shoemaker,
Executive Director of the Wilderness Workshop of Carbondale,
Colorado, and Eric Wilkinson, General Manager of North Colorado
Water Conservancy District.
Please as we are having the transition, a little quiet,
please, so we can move on to our next panel. We expect votes
shortly, so we may have to recess. We would like to be able to
start the questioning. Thank you very much.
Ms. Christine Scanlan.
STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTINE SCANLAN, COLORADO 56TH
DISTRICT, DILLON, COLORADO
Ms. Scanlan. Thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman and committee. I appreciate the time today. I will
pull some highlights from my testimony that we have submitted.
And I would like to recognize State Senator Dan Gibbs, who is
here with me in the audience.
Senator Gibbs and I have done some dozen bills in Colorado
related specifically to the impacts of the bark beetle
infestation.
My district lies within Congressman Polis's district. I am
about 70 miles west of Denver. My district starts at the
Continental Divide, and runs another 100 miles. We are right in
the center of the pine beetle epidemic.
I also am home to seven different ski resorts. So the
mountain environment is important to my community.
The Rocky Mountain pine beetle epidemic is changing
Colorado and the American West. This transformation is
immediately apparent to anyone spending time in the Rocky
Mountains. Even a cursory glance from a visitor emerging from
the Eisenhower Tunnel heading west on I-70 evokes reaction.
Acre upon acre of orange, red, and brown mingle with green
as far as the eye can see. This striking color stretches out in
all directions, an eerily beautiful reminder of the permanent
change of our landscape, our ecology, and our communities, and
what we are currently undergoing.
I would like to talk a little bit about what we have tried
to do at a state level with regard to this. Community
strategies for living within disturbing ecosystems, such as the
Lodgepole Pine Forest of Northern Colorado, must address the
reliability and long-term protection of our critical assets.
Essentially, in such environments, policy makers are
required to be more flexible and innovative. At the state level
we have undertaken vigorous efforts to mitigate the threat with
a number of unique collaborations between state and local
government and private industry.
Our creativity stems from necessity. Colorado possesses
very limited resources to apply toward mitigating the
infestation. As such, we focus on passing enabling legislation
to empower communities to write comprehensive and integrative
fire-preparedness plans, to improve formation and sharing
between state, Federal, and local agencies, and to create
incentives for private businesses that deforest impact areas
and utilize those resources.
As the scale of the infestation has clarified, policy
makers have been able to thoughtfully target which were once
disparate legislative efforts.
For example, this past legislative session we passed an
aggressive agenda that oriented in a special interim committee.
The integrative legislative package not only emphasized
mitigating the threat, but provided new solutions to assist
local and Federal officials to partner more effectively, and to
encourage private industry to take advantage of potential
economic growth opportunities that may exist.
The capstone of our efforts was a sweeping piece of
legislation making $3 million available for a series of
initiatives to combat the epidemic. Money from the legislation
will assist mountain and front-range communities plan for
forest health management activities by addressing what is known
as the wildland-urban interface, expanding protection for
Colorado's watersheds, local communities and vital
infrastructure, and providing grants for market-based solutions
to reduce what is the overall threat posed by wildfire.
Where we need help is at the Federal level. And we are very
grateful to our delegation which has taken the lead on this
issue over the past three years, and worked so collaboratively
with us.
We hope the FLAME Act passes the Senate in its current or
similar form. And likewise, expanded funding over the past two
fiscal years has improved our ability to prevent fires before
they occur, and suppressed by us when they happen. But far more
is needed.
As Rick Cables noted, we advocated strongly for the $200
million in emergency funding that he requested this past year.
This included money for threats to human life and safety posed
by falling trees, and emergency and non-emergency hazard
mitigation and infrastructure protection.
We know that President Obama has included additional
funding for both suppression and prevention in this year's
budget. It is absolutely essential that these funds remain
within the budget that is eventually passed, and that funds can
be distributed in such a way that they reach the state and
local officials who can properly apply them.
We hope the FLAME Act reaches President Obama's desk with
an extension of the good neighbor policy, which we have used
very effectively and quite extensively in Colorado. It is
essential that we continue this very basic policy of
partnership, granting flexibility to both local officials and
property owners to go where they need to go to mitigate fire
danger.
Areas where expanded partnerships may flourish also exist.
State and local officials must have a proper authority to
venture into private land. Likewise, private landowners must be
empowered to protect their land when it abuts state or Federal
property.
And finally, the epidemic poses a serious challenge to
Colorado, but it also poses a unique economic development
opportunity. The blue-tinged wood from beetle-killed timber
creates a desirable aesthetic. If it is harvested early enough,
it may be used for a variety of products, including furniture.
The timber may also be ground into pellets that can provide
cheap, efficient, and green sources of energy, and biomass can
be used for both large-scale and small-scale power production.
We have done a lot to incentivize and foster this industry,
but there is more to do. And we hope that we can work with you
all in partnership.
Thank you for your time today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Scanlan follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Colorado State Senator Dan Gibbs
and Colorado State Representative Christine Scanlan
Senator Gibbs' district encompasses lands affected by the Rocky
Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic and is a Type II Wildland Firefighter
with experience fighting fires in Colorado and California.
Representative Scanlan is a long-time resident of the high country
and has worked hard to help lands and communities affected by the
Beetle infestation.
Together, the two Colorado legislators have passed more than a
dozen laws relating to the Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic.
TESTIMONY
The Rocky Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic is changing Colorado and
the American west. This transformation is immediately apparent to
anyone spending time in the Rocky Mountains. Even a cursory glance from
a visitor emerging from the Eisenhower Tunnel heading west on I-70
evinces reaction, acre upon acre of orange, red and brown stretch as
far as the eye can see, a striking reminder of the permanent change our
landscape, our ecology, and our communities are undergoing.
Of the 2.2 million acres of lodgepole pine forest that extend from
Wyoming to New Mexico, the Mountain Pine Beetle has already killed 1.5
million, and current estimates indicate that every lodgepole pine
forest in the state will be dead within a decade. The sweeping beetle-
kill and the specter of fire threatens Colorado's local communities,
the region's drinking water, wildlife, landscape and recreation
economies, and the country's food supply.
In response, local, state and federal agencies as well as private
businesses have joined together to address the growing devastated areas
and the threats that they present. The State of Colorado has adopted a
number of innovative strategies, including the creation of public-
private partnerships and cross-jurisdictional forest management
techniques. But the cost of forest treatment is high, and the
difficulty of disposing resulting woody material represents a major
challenge.
The beetle infestation requires immediate action, and more careful
land management in the future. In the short term, the top priorities
are to reduce the threat through prevention, and ensuring sufficient
fire suppression resources are available when a fire does occur. Our
long-term response will emphasize managing the next forest for greater
diversity and resilience.
In spite of the state's best efforts, resources are limited, and it
is incumbent upon the federal government to act more aggressively to
suppress and prevent fires, and to take advantage of a unique economic
development opportunity by fostering the growing market for beetle-
killed timber.
Specifically, we are asking for the following:
Increased funding for local, state and federal officials
to apply toward fire prevention and suppression.
Passage of the FLAME Act to decouple fire prevention and
suppression funding, and to continue the ``good neighbor'' policy that
has been so effective.
Follow Colorado's lead to introduce legislation that
removes barriers to cross-jurisdictional cooperation and that
encourages public-private collaboration.
Foster the creation of new markets for beetle-impacted
blue wood products and wood pellets for woody biomass.
THE THREATS
Unfortunately, many dead tree stands pose grave threats to
Colorado's growing mountain communities and vital assets. In 2008,
within the five-county epicenter of the infestation:
12 incorporated municipalities were within impacted
forest, and another 11 adjacent to forest lands.
28 incorporated municipalities that derive most of their
drinking water from sources that flow through dead and dying forests.
2,000 miles of roadways, including many sole evacuation
routes, jeopardized by dead trees.
1,500 miles of hiking and biking trails spanning three
national forests that are in danger of closure this year.
52 emergency communications sites at risk.
The Colorado River, which supplies seven western states
and major metropolitan areas including Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix and
Southern California with fresh drinking water.
633 miles of electrical transmission lines and 1,300
miles of electrical distribution lines--including major lines that feed
power to the entire western United States--at-risk from falling trees
and fire.
Tens of millions of people across the west depend on the
electricity that travels across impacted lands, and most everyone in
the country depends on the water that flows downstream from Colorado,
and the food that that water is used to grow. Let us make no mistake:
the bark beetle epidemic poses an immediate threat to the United
States' national security.
The impact of a regional power and communications network failure
resulting from fire would be catastrophic to the entire western United
States. According to the Tri State Generation and Transmission
Association, if just one dead lodgepole collapses on the wrong
transformer or power line, it could cause a fire that initiates an
uncontrolled cascading power outage in Colorado and neighboring states.
According to Colorado State Forester Jeff Jahnke, the bark beetle
affects more than 100 miles of WAPA, Tristate, Platte River Power
Authority and Xcel transmission lines and an uncalculated number of
smaller distribution lines. Electricity generation in western Colorado
must cross many high-elevation areas to serve Front Range energy
demands, and high-voltage transmission lines can be forced out of
service by smoke or damaged from the extreme heat of wildfires.
Shutting down transmission lines can threaten power in Denver and other
Front Range communities, areas throughout Colorado, and neighboring
states. More than 500 miles of high voltage transmission corridors--
WAPA has a over 350 in USFS Region 2 being addressed in the joint EIS
Xcel and Tristate have at least another 150--in both Colorado and
southern Wyoming can be affected. And the number of miles of lower
voltage distribution lines serving Colorado mountain communities is
even greater. A cascading power outage would, at the very least, cost
billions of dollars to correct.
The threat to our water is equally significant. The Colorado
River's headwaters are located in Colorado, and an estimated 75 percent
of the Colorado River's total flow originates in the state. The river's
tributaries and transmountain diversions--which cut through thousands
of bark beetle-infested areas--serve nearly two million people in
Colorado, and tens of millions across the west. Access to the river,
which provides millions of acre feet of fresh water annually for
agriculture, recreation and drinking in 13 western states, could be
crippled by a severe wildfire stemming from Colorado's tinder-dry
lodgepoles. If the Colorado River became overburdened with refuse from
a fire, the cost to the upper and lower basin states' recreation
economies, and the country's agricultural system, is incalculable.
A fire originating from beetle-killed forests would likely burn
incredibly hot, increasing the potential for scorched earth. In turn,
forest regeneration would take longer due to the destruction of organic
matter, increased erosion and flood, and debris flows into our fresh
water supplies--including the Colorado River--would greatly expand.
This type of devastation is not unknown: the Hayman Fire, which burned
more than 138,000 acres along the Front Range in 2002 caused millions
of dollars in damage to Denver's water supply in particular, and
Colorado's more generally. Indeed, cleanup efforts from the Hayman Fire
requiring ``substantial expenditures'' continue to this day, according
to the utility Denver Water.
Moreover, the specter of danger posed to the west's fresh water
supplies is far greater today than in 2002 when the Hayman Fire
occurred due to the rise in dry and dead forestlands (2.2 million
acres).
Additionally, with expanded urbanization comes an unprecedented
risk to people living in both rural and urban settings. Today more than
one million people live within Colorado's Wildland Urban Interface
(WUI). Local communities also face significant economic concerns, as
the loss of Colorado's scenic landscapes and injury to the state's
world-class ski resorts could eventually cause a decrease in all-
important tourism dollars.
Put plainly, the bark beetle epidemic poses a very real threat to
Colorado's local communities and economies, but also national food and
water supplies, as well as our national security.
LOCAL SOLUTIONS
Community strategies for living within disturbance-driven
ecosystems such as the lodgepole pine forests of northern Colorado must
address the reliability and long-term protection of assets critical to
our way of life. Essentially, in such environments policy makers are
required to become more flexible and innovative. At the state level, we
have undertaken vigorous efforts to mitigate the threat with a number
of unique collaborations between state and local government and private
industry.
Our creativity stems from necessity; Colorado possesses very
limited resources to apply toward mitigating the infestation. As such,
we have focused on passing enabling legislation to empower communities
to write comprehensive and integrated fire preparedness plans; to
improve information sharing between state, federal and local agencies;
and to create incentives for private businesses that deforest impacted
areas and utilize those resources.
As the scale of the infestation has clarified, policymakers have
been able to strategically target what were once disparate legislative
efforts. For example, this past legislative session, we passed an
aggressive agenda that originated in a special interim committee. The
integrated legislative package not only emphasized mitigating the
threat, but provided new solutions to assist local and federal
officials partner more effectively, and to encourage private industry
to take advantage of economic growth opportunities that may exist.
The capstone of the General Assembly's legislative efforts was a
sweeping piece of legislation making $3 million available for a series
of initiatives to combat the epidemic. Moneys from the legislation will
assist mountain and Front Range communities plan for forest health
management activities by: addressing the population centers along the
wildland-urban interface; expanding protection for Colorado's
watersheds, local communities and vital infrastructure; and providing
grants for market-based solutions to reduce the overall threat posed by
wildfire.
This new funding is critical, as we have demonstrated that even
small state investments pay large dividends. Each state dollar receives
a matching fund, so with just $1 million in state funding, we've been
able to treat $5 - $6 million in forest land.
Additional efforts included the following:
We provided a 5-year exemption from business personal
property taxes for qualified businesses that remove trees killed by
bark beetles when they assist with forest restoration efforts on the
affected land after the beetle-killed timber is removed. Also creates a
fund to provide start-up money for new Colorado businesses that process
and sell beetle-killed timber and products.
We expanded the ability of counties to raise money to
fight fires. Specifically, the bill removes the limit on property taxes
that a county can collect--with voter approval--for forest fire
fighting.
We required the state forester to establish guidelines
for Community Wildfire Protection Plans with input from state, local
and federal government officials, and other interested parties.
We streamlined and clarified the roles of state and local
emergency personnel when fires occur, specifically allowing sheriffs to
develop and update wildfire preparedness plans, and to specify what
information should be included in a plan to be effective.
FEDERAL COLLABORATION:
Colorado lawmakers are committed to fighting the fire threat and
restoring our forests. However, the need has simply outpaced our
financial resources.
We are grateful to our Congressional delegation for taking the lead
on this issue to develop new and exciting federal level solutions. For
example, we are thrilled that the FLAME Act has already passed the
House; recognizing the need to disentangle fire prevention from fire
suppression is a huge step forward. We hope the FLAME Act passes the
Senate in its current or similar form.
Likewise, expanded funding over the past two fiscal years has
improved our ability to prevent fires before they occur, and suppress
fires when they happen. But far more is needed to fulfill our
priorities.
Last year, Rick Cables and the Regional Forester's Office estimated
the cost of mitigating the bark beetle impact effectively at more than
$200 million over three years. That includes money for threats to human
life and safety posed by falling trees, and emergency and non-emergency
hazard mitigation and infrastructure protection.
We know that President Obama has included additional funding for
both suppression and prevention in this year's budget. It is absolutely
essential that these funds remain within the budget that is eventually
passed by Congress, and that funds can be distributed in such a way
that they reach the state and local officials who can properly apply
them where they are most critically needed.
By disentangling suppression and prevention, and expanding funding
overall, we will be able to address our varied needs more effectively.
For example, two-thirds of Colorado's fire protection districts are
comprised of volunteer firefighters, and many lack adequate wildfire
training. Likewise, despite our best efforts to create incentives and
provide grants for drafting community wildfire prevention plans, many
still have not written these very basic documents. Each activity
requires a separate funding source.
There are 22.6 million acres of forestland in Colorado. Of this
acreage, nearly 70 percent is federally owned, including 49 percent
managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Private landowners oversee an
additional 28 percent. Fire knows no boundaries. So fire management
actions must cross-jurisdictional to be effective.
We hope the FLAME Act reaches President Obama's desk with an
extension of the ``good neighbor'' policy. It is essential that we
continue this basic policy of partnership, granting flexibility to both
local officials and property owners to go where they need to go to
mitigate fire danger.
Areas where expanded partnerships may flourish also exist, but
state and local officials must have the appropriate authority to
venture onto private land when necessary to squelch wild fires.
Likewise, and within reason, private landowners must be empowered to
protect their private land when it abuts state or federal property.
Finally, while the epidemic poses a serious challenge to Colorado,
it also poses a unique economic development opportunity. The blue-
tinged wood from beetle-killed timber creates a desirable aesthetic
effect. If harvested early enough, wood from beetle-killed trees may be
used for a variety of wood products, including furniture. The timber
can also be ground into pellets that can provide a cheap, efficient,
and green source of energy. Biomass can be used for both large-scale
and small-scale power production.
Colorado has passed various laws creating incentives to help foster
this industry. However, we believe that local timber harvesting
contractors and wood processing businesses could still better help with
management solutions if they had a long term guarantee of a viable
market for their products. Additionally, these huge swaths of timber
will only be viable for a discrete period of time, as nature and rot
eventually take their toll on the integrity of the wood.
We would encourage Congress to create a permanent and viable market
by continuing and expanding federal incentives for woody biomass, and
creating a new incentive for other beetle-killed wood products.
CONCLUSION:
While we have undertaken vigorous efforts to mitigate the threat
with limited resources through a number of unique collaborations
between state and local government and private industry, we are not
able to address the infestation adequately without further help.
It is now incumbent upon the federal government to act.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. Mr. Rich,
Commissioner of Jackson County.
STATEMENT OF JOHN RICH, COMMISSIONER, JACKSON COUNTY, NORTHWEST
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, WALDEN, COLORADO
Mr. Rich. Well, thank you for allowing me to come here. I
feel that I am really out of my league, from the little county
that I live in of one person per square mile.
I don't speak as eloquent as I would like to, and I wish
you to kind of bear with me with that. But don't ever question
the passion that burns in my heart for the land that I live on
and the United States of America.
We live in a small community. There is kind of a mission
statement that some of the oldtimers have. They hope for the
best, they expect the worst, and they prepare for the
impossible. That is what my grandfather taught me.
We can't stop the beetles, but we can get an economic use
out of the timber. We can cut some fire control so the
catastrophic fire will not kill us, and we can prepare for the
future forests.
The threats to my community--it can bankrupt Jackson
County. A catastrophic fire can bankrupt it. And you have heard
what it will do to the water, the power lines, the air quality.
There is a little local saying that the four-letter word with S
rolls downhill.
I live on the Continental Divide, and everything is down.
So below me took up when we started having problems, and we do
have problems in Jackson County.
The one failure that we have is a failure to move. History
shows that the little guy in Rome fiddled while it burned. I
don't want to hear the sound of music; I want to hear the sound
of chainsaws. We need to get moving on it.
Solutions? You can look at Jackson County for some
solutions. Most of our private people who have timber have went
on there, and cut it and thinned it, and done what they needed
to do.
We have most of our area covered with CWPPs, which is
community-wide protection plans. They are trying to make their
place firewise. We have a pellet mill that came in without
government help. Unbelievable. And then we have a small
sawmill.
But we need some more help. We need a biomass. A biomass
making electricity in Jackson County would be a godsend. It
would solve a lot of problems. It would get rid of the beetle-
killed timber.
When that timber falls like jackstraws, the squirrel can go
under, the crow can go over the top, but the rest of us are
going to have a hard time moving that. Then when it burns, it
will sterilize the soil.
We need a biomass generating electricity right in Jackson
County, or right near the timber. They tell me that we need
energy. We have grids running through there. Local jobs. We
just need a little more help. And we need to prove that we can
have a reliable source; the businesses that invest $10 million
or $12 million can be assured that they can pay their mortgages
off. So a lot of our people are private for our pellet mill.
That is what he worries about, he is buying timber off of
private, and private has supplied it. But he worries about a
reliable source.
And just that this is a horrendous problem, it seems to me.
And we just need to ask that God would bless us a little bit in
our endeavors, too.
And thank you again for listening to an old dog from the
mountains.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rich follows:]
Statement of Judge John Rich, Commissioner, Jackson County, Colorado
Chairman Grijalva and Chairwoman Napolitano and members of the
House Sub-Committees on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands and
Water and Power, thank you for inviting me to present testimony to you
today.
My name is John Rich and I live in unincorporated Jackson County,
Colorado. Thank you for inviting me to come to Washington, D.C. to tell
you about the impacts facing my family, my neighbors, and my community
resulting from the bark beetle epidemic on the Routt National Forest.
But, I did not come to talk only about impacts, but to also offer
common sense federal actions that can positively address the deplorable
situation.
I am here today wearing many hats. First of all, I am a husband,
father, and grandfather, working and caring for the same cattle ranch
as my Grandfather who came into the valley in 1883. I am a Jackson
County Commissioner in my second term of office. I also own a small
propane delivery business and drive a school bus when needed. I am an
emergency medical technician and serve as the director of the local
hospital district. And, I am the municipal judge for Walden, Colorado,
the only incorporated municipality in Jackson County. I am here today
also representing the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments as a
member of the executive board and the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative
as its county government representative.
In order to give you a glimpse of where I come from, please allow
me to tell you a little about the high mountain valley that I call
home. Jackson County comprises a large mountain valley in northern
Colorado called North Park. In Colorado, mountain valleys are known as
parks. North Park is surrounded by high mountain ranges with the Park
Range to the west, the Rabbit Ears and the Never Summer Mountains to
the south and the Medicine Bow Range to the east. The Colorado-Wyoming
state line is the northern boundary of Jackson County. The elevation
ranges from 7,800 to 12,953 feet above sea level. North Park is the
headwaters of the North Platte River which flows northward into Wyoming
making Jackson County the only county in Colorado on the North Slope of
the state. The largest land owners in Jackson County are the people of
the United States with their lands managed by several federal agencies;
the USDA Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Three Congressionally designated Wilderness
Areas are located in Jackson County. North Park has a population of
1,476 people spread over 1,621 square miles. Jackson County is the
third least populated county in Colorado, but its people are hard
working rural folks who live there because they want to, not because
they have to.
Although the mountain pine bark beetle is always present in the
Lodgepole pine forests of North Park, the current outbreak that has
infected over two million acres of mostly federal forests in northern
Colorado began in earnest in 2000. Some areas of the Routt National
Forest in Jackson County are experiencing 95% mortality of mature
Lodgepole pine. I am not here today to point a finger of blame, but
only to say that a combination of federal and state policies, changing
social values, economics, and nature itself have all contributed to the
dire situation we currently face. Lodgepole pine is a fire dependent,
stand replacement species, which simply means that a forest of
Lodgepole pine tends to seed, grow, mature and die at relatively the
same time. In Colorado, Lodgepole pine matures around 100 years of age
and the health of the forest begins to decline around 120 years of age,
they are pretty well dead by 140 years of age, and the cycle begins
anew. This is precisely the current situation of the Lodgepole pine
forests in northern Colorado. Insects, disease and fire are nature's
way of renewing a Lodgepole pine forest, while prescriptive thinning,
logging, and prescribed fire are the human ways of doing what nature
does. Through a combination of decades of aggressive fire prevention
and control, disallowing timbering activities in much of the national
forests, and the resulting economic collapse of the wood products
industry in much of Colorado, we are now reaping what we have sown.
If this were a totally natural cycle with no human presence on the
land, then I would not be here today to talk about this because it
would not be a problem. But the fact is that humans, beginning with my
grandfather and his contemporaries made permanent settlements in North
Park. Today, human communities and all of the appurtenances that
provide the standard of living that we Americans have come to depend
upon are located adjacent to and within the forests that are dying. On
a regional basis, in the area covered by Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments, here are some of the facts:
1. Nearly 2,000,000 acres of Colorado's high elevation Lodgepole
pine forests have been infected by the Mountain Pine Beetle.
2. Over seventy percent of those forests are owned by the federal
government and are managed by the USDA Forest Service, the Bureau of
Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park
Service.
3. Twelve incorporated municipalities are located within the dead
and dying forest and eleven more are adjacent to the forest.
4. Twenty-eight incorporated municipalities derive their primary
source of drinking water from creeks flowing through the dead and dying
forests.
5. Seven thousand acres in Summit County and Grand County need
treatment to protect Denver Water's supply system.
6. Two thousand miles of roadways, many that would be utilized in
evacuation scenarios are in jeopardy due to dead standing trees in the
right of way.
7. One thousand five hundred miles of recreational trails on
three national forests are in jeopardy of closure due to trees being
toppled by the wind in the dead Lodgepole pine forests in which they
are located.
8. Twenty-one thousand four hundred fifty-five acres of national
forest developed recreation sites, not including ski areas are in
jeopardy of closure due to falling tree hazards.
9. More than two thousand miles of national forest grazing
fences, which are the responsibility of the rancher permittee, are in
jeopardy of damage due to falling trees.
10. Fifty-two emergency communications sites are in jeopardy.
11. Six hundred thirty-three miles of electrical transmission
lines are in jeopardy of falling trees and are not survivable in a
wildfire.
12. One thousand three hundred fourteen miles of electrical
distribution lines are in jeopardy of falling trees and are not
survivable in a wildfire.
13. Water is supplied to the major Western metropolitan areas of
the Denver Front Range, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Southern California
from the Colorado River which rises and flows through the dead and
dying forest.
14. Major electrical transmission lines feeding the Western Grid,
serving the entire West run directly through the heart of these same
dying and dead forests.
15. These water supply systems and electrical transmission lines
are also keys to maintaining the security of millions of Americans in
the homeland.
In light of the reality of the statistics, the Colorado Bark Beetle
Cooperative, a place based, multi-stakeholder collaborative group in
its fourth year of operation has listed its top objectives as:
Protection of human life.
Protection of public infrastructure.
Protection of critical water supplies.
Development of communities that are resilient and
adaptable to disturbance driven ecosystems.
Former Colorado Senator and now Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar
has termed the bark beetle outbreak the ``Katrina of the West'' due to
the gravity of the situation and of its potential to severely disrupt
the social and economic systems of the West.
Although the magnitude of the bark beetle outbreak can be viewed as
overwhelming, especially in light of the serious economic situation
facing the nation, I retain a sense of optimism seen through these old
cowboy's eyes. It seems to me and many of my Colorado colleagues that
there are some common sense actions that can be taken to positively
address the situation. Please allow me to share some of them with you.
1. The intent of the National Environmental Policy Act is to make
certain that sufficient analysis and public consideration is given to
proposed actions on federal lands before decisions are made. As a
locally elected official I am painfully aware of the bane of unintended
consequences of making decisions without adequate data or public
review, but I am also aware of the harm that can occur through inaction
of decision makers whose hands may be tied for lack of funding or
expertise. Two things need to be applied in this situation: 1) Federal
agencies responsible for the application of NEPA need adequate funding
and qualified personnel to do the required analysis, and 2) Provisions
in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act requiring the analysis of only
the proposed action alternative and the no action alternative in
qualified projects needs to be aggressively utilized.
2. The Colorado Good Neighbor Program, re-authorized in the 2005
Interior Appropriations Act, has been successful in creating
``boundary-less management'' along national forest and private lands
boundaries. Since the pine bark beetle does not respect property
boundaries, we need to extend and expand the use of this valuable
management tool that allows for seamless actions between the U.S.
Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Colorado State
Forest Service in order to leverage scarce resources. The Good Neighbor
Program is scheduled to expire in September of this year.
3. The Federal Land Assistance Management and Enhancement Act,
better known as the FLAME Act (H.R. 1404) needs to become law. Thank
you for passing the FLAME Act in the House of Representatives last
March and I urge you to work for its passage in the Senate. The FLAME
Act is absolutely necessary to protect the budgets of crucial non-fire
suppression programs in the U.S. Forest Service. One of the Forest
Service programs that is in jeopardy of losing funding due to the
increasing costs of fire suppression is State and Private Cooperative
Forestry that is responsible for funding significant portions of state
forestry agencies, including the Colorado State Forest Service. The
efforts of the Colorado State Forest Service are essential in
addressing the bark beetle outbreak on private lands adjacent to
federal lands.
4. As the American Climate and Energy Security Act (H.R. 2454) is
currently drafted, woody biomass from federal lands is disqualified
from incentives designed to increase renewable energy production.
Utilizing woody biomass in the form of billions of beetle-killed
Lodgepole pine on national forests accomplishes three things:
a. It provides a valuable source of renewable energy.
b. It reduces hazardous fuel loadings on federal lands.
c. It creates jobs.
I personally worked with the Rocky Mountain Pellet Company,
Inc. to locate a wood pellet mill in North Park. The company
produces bagged wood pellets for retail home stove consumption
as an alternative fuel source to natural gas, electricity,
propane, and fuel oil. The pellet mill is currently utilizing
dead Lodgepole pine harvested from private lands, but will need
to expand to federal beetle-killed pine to meet growing
national and international demand for the high quality
affordable wood pellet fuel. The mill generated forty-six badly
needed jobs in North Park, making them a primary employer in
our small rural community. The success of this sustainable mill
is crucial to our local economy and the incentives provided in
H.R. 2454 if extended to dead federal timber would go a long
ways in securing its future. The best way to support a
sustainable wood products industry in Colorado is for the
federal land management agencies to be able to provide a long-
term, reliable supply of timber so small business owners can
develop realistic business plans.
5. Currently, the operation of Colorado's last large modern
sawmill is in jeopardy due to severe restrictions on cash flow. The
company purchased federal timber sales before the economic recession
and had to secure them with cash. The U.S. Forest Service is currently
holding more than $2,000,000 of the company's cash, creating a severe
cash flow shortage to the company in light of the down-turn in housing
construction. Allowing the company to secure those timber sales with
bonds, freeing up the cash seems to make sense in light of our nation's
current growing unemployment situation. We could perhaps learn from
those who went before us. During the first part of the Twentieth
Century farmers were paid for their costs in producing grain even
though markets would not support excess grain. Not only did the federal
government pay the farmers to keep producing the grain, they also built
government storage facilities to store it until the market could
utilize it. It seems to me that a similar program to pay the loggers
and saw mills the costs of producing wood products, even though the
current market cannot utilize the surplus makes sense. We know that one
day the housing markets will recover and there will be a demand for
lumber. If we do not assist the wood products industry now, the beetle-
killed Lodgepole pines will become useless as lumber and we may well
lose our last large sawmill in Colorado.
6. Federal contracting is a very complicated process that often
dissuades smaller companies from competing in the system, and the terms
of the contracts are not long enough for a small business to take the
contract to the bank to borrow funds to purchase necessary equipment.
There is a type of contract that makes sense and it is called a
Stewardship Contract that is multi-year in duration and will exchange
goods for services. However, the requirements placed on the U.S. Forest
Service to reserve a ``cancellation ceiling'' to cover contract costs
in case of government default is hampering the agency from moving
forward with increasing number of Stewardships Contracts due to the
fact that the agency does not have excess budget to place cash in a
reserve account. By relaxing the requirements for the cancellation
ceiling, more Stewardship Contracts could be awarded to small companies
to do work on the national forests while preserving and creating jobs.
7. My part of Colorado is known as the Mother of Rivers. The high
Rocky Mountains of Colorado give birth to major rivers including the
Colorado, the North and South Platte, the Arkansas, the Rio Grande, the
San Juan and the Yampa. The birthplaces of these river systems that
nourish so much of the American West are in the beetle-killed Lodgepole
pine forests. When a watershed burns, the ability of the soil to hold
rainfall and snowmelt is severely diminished resulting in floods and
mud and the silting up of water reservoirs and clogging water treatment
facilities. It is impossible to fire proof watersheds, but if we are
diligent and wise we can take actions to control the sedimentation of
our built water facilities. I encourage you to:
a. Approve the use of Federal Emergency Management Agency
pre-disaster mitigation funds to pay for the environmental
assessment, NEPA analysis, and pre-engineering of appropriate
sediment control structures at strategic locations above water
impoundment, transmission and treatment structures. The
structures would not be built unless a fire burned the
watershed. Then, if the watershed is burned, the structures
could be immediately built while the ground was still warm to
control the sediment that will eventually flow.
8. Finally, the electrical transmission and distribution system is
currently at great risk as the lines run though the heart of the dead
and dying forests of Colorado. The U.S. Forest Service has committed
$400,000 to expediting the NEPA analysis in northern Colorado required
before work can be done reducing hazardous fuels and falling tree
hazards, but time is of the essence as trees have already begun to fall
and the wild fire season approaches. The electrical providers have
funds available to do the work, but need the NEPA approvals to
commence. This would also be a source of needed employment for persons
willing to do the hard work.
Once again I want to thank you for inviting me to come to
Washington, D.C. to talk with you. I know that federal rules and
regulations are very complicated things based on the consideration of
many factors, but one thing is certain--the beetles do not care about
our human rules and regulations. As they continue to do what nature
designed them to so efficiently do, the inevitable looms on the horizon
like a gathering storm. Shame on us if we do not heed the storm clouds
and fail to take the actions necessary to adequately prepare.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. You are very welcome. And I found your
testimony very entertaining, and very helpful. You are welcome,
sir.
Mr. Sloan Shoemaker, Executive Director in the Wilderness
Workshop.
STATEMENT OF SLOAN SHOEMAKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WILDERNESS
WORKSHOP, CARBONDALE, COLORADO
Mr. Shoemaker. Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify, Chairwoman Napolitano, Chairman Grijalva.
I represent the Wildlife, I am the director of a small
conservation organization located in the White River National
Forest, which is part of the epicenter of the bark beetle
outbreak. And I represent the conservation community on the
Colorado Bark Beetle Collaborative.
Colorado is pretty unique, I think, in terms of getting
diverse stakeholder groups together to hammer through, at the
local level, some consensus on what do we do about this, this
issue.
Well, at least the conservation community defines the
problem. It is not an ecological problem. If this outbreak
would have occurred 150 years ago, we would be looking at the
regenerated forest. It would have inconvenienced the Indians,
but life would have moved on.
But now the problem is we live there, we occupy these
forests. And it is clearly a very dire socioeconomic problem.
And we are as anxious as Commissioner Rich to hear chainsaws
singing in the forest. It is just a matter of where exactly,
and for what reasons. And it is a matter of getting, using
those very limited resources that everyone has remarked on in a
very strategic manner to treat the right acres for the right
reasons, to have the right outcomes.
And so that is why we are at the table collaborating with
all the different stakeholders. And the Bark Beetle Cooperative
or the Collaborative has identified some priorities to
protecting life, property, and critical community
infrastructure.
Protecting life is like making sure that firefighters
aren't put in harm's way to have to do the impossible.
Protecting property is clear. There is a large scientific body
of literature that tells us how to do that; that the factors
that affect how structures burn occur within the 40 meters
immediately adjacent to the structure itself. So we know how to
do that.
Critical community infrastructure, water supplies,
communication sites, roadways, all those things, those are
protected at, again, within those 40 meters immediately
adjacent to that piece of, that infrastructure that has been
identified.
And these are the priorities of the collaborative, which
includes the BLM, Forest Service, State Forest Service, local
governments, councils of governments, conservation interests,
recreation interests, certainly with WAPA. We support the
notion of a very strategic application of our limited resources
to ensure that our power lines, our delivery system, our
transition system is protected.
And an analysis needs to be done to identify exactly what
those threatening fuels are. They are not uniform across the
landscape. There are places where it crosses over sage, so it
doesn't do any good to do a uniform clearcut across an entire
swath.
But there are places where you can identify very
threatening fuels, and we must do that. But it takes resources
to do that.
I would argue that, that expedited process is
collaboration. That sometimes we have to go slow to go fast.
And that is what we are doing in the Bark Beetle Collaborative,
is that we are bringing stakeholders together, we are coming to
consensus, we are identifying priorities. And once we have that
buy-in, that social license that Rick referred to, then
projects flow out the back side of that process.
And that is what is happening in some account. They are
treating thousands of acres at that wildland-urban interface to
protect those communities, to protect those water supplies,
protect that infrastructure. That has been our experience. And
we have had a pretty positive experience with that in Colorado.
I would suggest that we don't forget that bark beetles are
part of the forest dynamic in Colorado. The community of
Glenwood Springs has had two devastating fires blow through
there, with loss of life and homes. There wasn't a bark beetle
or a lodgepole pine tree in sight. In fact, it was burning
mostly through the shrubland community of Gambel Oak and
Mountain Serviceberry. And there is not an ounce of commercial
value in any of those things, but they are very threatening
types of vegetation clearly, from our experience.
So what can the feds do? We need resources on the ground.
We would like to see those resources applied to where we have
created this sort of agreement at the local level, where we
have come to consensus on what those priority needs and those
resources are.
And encourage you to please, if one size does not fit all,
different ecosystems have different requirements, different
communities have different requirements. Just tie those funds
to local consensus-building. Because we think the most durable
solutions are the ones we can agree to.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shoemaker follows:]
Statement of Sloan Shoemaker, Executive Director, Wilderness Workshop
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to bring the on-the-ground
perspective to DC.
My name is Sloan Shoemaker and I am the executive director of the
Wilderness Workshop, a grassroots, place based conservation
organization founded in 1964. Wilderness Workshop self-describes as the
conservation watchdog of the White River National Forest.
The White River National Forest is the nation's most visited
national forest and one of the crown jewels of the National Forest
System. The White River's 2.3 million acres contain a dizzying
diversity of ecosystems and attractions, from world class ski resorts
like Aspen and Vail to a dozen or so of Colorado's 14,000 ft peaks to
the highest concentrations of caves in Colorado to what's reputedly the
nation's largest elk herd affording world class hunting opportunities.
The White River is considered the Cradle of Wilderness because it was
here that the young landscape architect Arthur Carhart, sent to the
survey Trappers Lake area for vacation cabins, first articulated the
notion that some landscapes are too valuable in their wild state to
develop. From this seed grew the 750,000 acres of congressionally
designated wilderness now on the forest, wilderness containing such
renowned features as the Mount of the Holy Cross and the twin peaks of
the Maroon Bells.
These superlatives are not without their costs. The WRNF
exemplifies the New West as amenity refugees relocate from their former
lives to the resorts and communities surrounding the Forest, attracted
to the extraordinary recreational opportunities and quality of life
made possible by the Forest. This New West demographic, coupled with
the easy interstate access to the Denver metropolitan area's 3 million
people and the high volume airports servicing the resort communities,
recreation management on the WRNF poses a huge challenge.
In addition, the WRNF provides summer grazing allotments for dozens
of ranches inhabiting the lowlands around the forest, ranches that
contain the critical winter range for the vast herds of mule deer and
elk that summer on the Forest and provide unparalleled hunting
opportunities in the fall. The WRNF also overlies the eastern edge of
the Piceance Basin, a natural gas sweet spot that's seen unprecedented
rates of drilling in the last 8 years. Gas leasing and development is a
complex resource management issue in its own right, but made even more
difficult by the fact that much of the WRNF's gas potential lies in
roadless areas, grazing allotments, or trophy hunting range. Further
complicating White River forest management is the fact that it is the
partial epicenter of the mountain pine beetle outbreak in northern
Colorado, which brings us all together today.
I cite this inventory of forest management challenges to give you
some background on the breadth and complexity of resource management
issues my organization has been deeply involved with for the last 45
years.
Coming to Terms with the Beetle
The mountain pine beetle outbreak is not an ecological problem, but
it is a socio-economic one. One hundred and fifty years ago, the
mountain pine beetle outbreak would have run its course as it has for
millennia without furrowing a brow. But over the ensuing 100 years,
humans have taken up residence in these mountains and now there are
densely populated communities embedded in these disturbance dependent
ecosystems. Consequently, the pine beetle epidemic has put many socio-
economic values at stake.
Interestingly, the beetle outbreak has created a teachable moment.
Whereas before, residents old and new had taken the picture-window view
for granted, assuming it'd never change, communities are now learning
that, not only are forest ecosystems not static, they are subject to
rather dramatic and rapid change that we have no control over. That
lesson hasn't come easily or painlessly.
As the beetle epidemic has expanded from community to community, I
have observed a consistent pattern that closely resembles the classic
stages of grieving. At first, people simply deny that it could happen
to them. Then, when the evidence is too great to further ignore, they
get angry because they love the forest the way it was and don't want it
to change. Next comes bargaining when people rather heroically but
desperately devise strategies to stop the beetle, saying we're not
going to let what happened to the community next door happen to us. In
the end, though, comes resignation and acceptance that there are forces
at work larger than us and all we are left with is to narrow our focus
on identifying what little we can actually do.
Working Together
What's become crystal clear is that none of us can afford to act
alone, but that together we can get a whole lot done. This too has
presented us with a teachable moment as diverse stakeholders, normally
inclined to operate from our own narrow interests, have learned how to
sit together at the collaborative table working towards mutually
beneficial goals.
I am the Colorado conservation community's representative to the
Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative (CBBC). CBBC started as an
intergovernmental group for sharing information on how individual
member organizations were approaching the bark beetle issue. Over time
it became apparent that a more coordinated response was needed and that
the tent must be enlarged to bring in the spectrum of stakeholders that
would have to be dealt with eventually anyway. It took us awhile to
learn to share the sandbox and trust each other. Perhaps our biggest
lesson was that sometimes you have to go slow to go fast and, at times,
it had to be learned the hard way. In everyone's understandable rush to
get chainsaws running, little misunderstandings or oversights
inevitably grow into broad disagreements and things grind to a halt. On
the other hand, taking the time to carefully build trust and consensus
pays off, greasing the skids for projects in those zones of agreement
to hit the ground running. Collaboration and consensus building
provides the social license to move forward expeditiously--it's the
ultimate process streamlining.
Another important benefit derived from the hard work of hammering
out the zone of agreement is that it creates a very safe and attractive
place for decision makers and politicians to focus their attention and
resources. It's hard to argue when the enviros and the timber industry,
the Forest Service and local government, sportsmen, recreationists, and
trade associations all agree on what's to be done. As a result, the
CBBC has been extremely successful in capturing the attention of the
Colorado delegation who is unified in its legislative efforts to direct
relief to the bark beetle affected region.
Prioritizing
As you've heard today, the scale of this outbreak is huge.
Conversely though, the resources available to mitigate its effects are
quite limited and must be applied very judiciously and strategically
where we get the biggest bang for the buck. We simply can't afford to
waste precious resources for narrow, marginal or dubious gain. The
CBBC's collaborative setting is the ideal venue for diverse
stakeholders to come to consensus on priorities, a process that pretty
quickly cuts through the rhetoric and grandstanding. CBBC's priorities
are the protection of life, property and critical community
infrastructure--priorities that transcend this particular disturbance
event and strike right at the heart of what it means to sustain
mountain communities in the face of disturbance dependent forest
ecosystems. Ultimately, our goal is to ensure that, as forest
disturbances come and go (fire, bug epidemics, floods, blowdowns, etc),
mountain communities remain resilient, insulated from their destructive
and disruptive effects. We all recognize that we can't, nor should we,
control forest ecosystems. But what we can control is how badly our
communities are impacted by them. What does this mean in practice?
Protecting lives means things like:
Removing hazard trees that could fall directly on people
Clearing hazard trees from transportation corridors so
emergency access and egress isn't impaired
Protecting homeowners and fire fighters by creating
defensible space around homes because no fire fighters life is worth
risking to protect an indefensible home
Protecting property means:
Conducting public education to help homeowners
participate in their own rescue by implementing appropriate measures to
keep their homes from burning, like:
Structures must be constructed of ignition resistant
materials...shake roofs guarantee home ignition and loss
Reduce fuels creating defensible space within the 40
meters immediately surrounding the structure
Scrutinize residences for and eliminate ember traps like
needle filled gutters, unscreened roof vents, wood piles under
overhanging porches
Ensure safe access and emergency egress so that
firefighters can get in and get out in a hurry if they need to
Protecting critical community infrastructure means:
Clear hazard trees from electrical transmission and
distribution rights of way
Trees can fall on electrical lines causing fires or arcing
and blackouts
Assess wildfire risks along and adjacent to electrical
transmission and distribution ROWs and conduct strategic fuels
treatments to eliminate the threat of dense smoke caused arcing or heat
damage to lines and towers
Protect water supplies by;
removing fuels within the immediate vicinity of water
supply delivery system to prevent direct damage from hazard tree fall
or direct heat damage from fire
conducting watershed risks assessments that identify where
mass land wasting events are most likely to occur post-fire
pre-engineering and pre-permitting strategically placed
erosion catchment structures as informed by the watershed risk
assessment--the next fire's location can't be predicted (nor are there
enough resources to construct catchments everywhere) but these
catchments are intended to be shelf-ready for immediate implementation
the day after the fire passes through
strategically fell and leave trees on the contour across
slopes where sensitive, erosive soils have been identified to reduce
fire severity and to pre-position surface water decelerators
Protect economic infrastructure
Remove hazard trees from public land campgrounds, trails,
and roads
Mitigate beetle kill impacts to ski areas by removing
hazard trees and initiating early establishment of critical forest
cover between ski runs by replanting trees
Remove hazard trees from recreation sites to protect lives
as well as to keep them open and generating tourist traffic
Reduce hazard tree, fuel, and erosion threats to
agricultural irrigation systems; many ranches have irrigation ditches
that originate in or travel through beetle affected forests
Protect transportation system
Remove trees within a tree height of community road
networks; even light winds will blow down beetle-killed lodgepole,
quickly cutting off emergency access or egress
Reduce fuel loads adjacent to roadways to reduce threat
that fire will shut off access/egress or will directly injure traveling
public or emergency services personnel.
The abundance of so many red and dead trees also makes apparent the
ever-present of risk of wildfire. I emphasize ever-present because
lodgepole pine is a fire dependent species. It co-evolved with fire
which is necessary sustain its presence across the landscape. This
ecological reality is often lost upon newcomers to these mountains who
misunderstand fire as an alien invader that must be eliminated. Green
forests arguably pose a risk of fire equal to and, at times, even
greater than that posed by the beetle-killed forest. If there is one
lesson painfully clear from the last century, it's that fire
suppression and attempts to exclude fire from forest ecosystems
backfires, simply putting off the problem until it returns with larger,
more severe and more damaging fires than would otherwise have been
experienced. Protecting communities from wildfire begins out the back
door, not in the back country. The most, if not only, effective
measures are those prescribed by USFS Fire Scientist Dr. Jack Cohen
(see http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/titles/videos/wildfire.html
and http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/titles/videos/
protecting.html). Dr. Cohen's groundbreaking research has proven that
the factors influencing survivability of homes and structures are
within the 40 meters immediately surrounding that structure. Because
burning embers or firebrands can launch as much as 2 miles from an
active flame front, showering communities and homes with a hail of
burning material, it's generally ember triggered fires that cause home
loss. If homes are Firewise, meaning built of ignition resistant
materials and surrounded by defensible space with discontinuous fuels,
they have the highest likelihood of survival.
Resources
As communities grapple with where to start, it's becoming
immediately apparent that the there is way more work to do than
resources to get it done. As we speak, trees are blowing down across
county roads in Jackson, Routt, and Grand Counties faster than limited
crews can keep up with. Throwing money at the problem would certainly
help get equipment and manpower on the ground. But, even if we could
get experienced sawyers and enough saws on site, we couldn't do
anything with the trees due to a lack of timber haulers. If a flood of
haulers magically appeared, there's no place to take the wood.
Colorado's wood products industry is bare bones and, alternatively,
there simply aren't enough piling yards available to accommodate the
volume of material. And with high fuel prices, the hauling distance to
existing mills is simply uneconomic in many instances.
For the first time in decades, Coloradoans are interested in
bringing back the timber industry to help us deal with all the wood
coming out of beetle-killed forests. The trouble is, there will be a
large pulse of wood flowing off the forests over the next 5-10 years as
communities implement their priority projects but wood volume will
taper off fairly steeply on the back side of that. The concern is that
a reinvigorated timber industry be appropriately scaled and flexible to
deal with the near term pulse of wood yet not need to maintain the same
level of supply over the long term. Simply put, Coloradoans want a
tactical timber industry that can scale up for the near term and scale
down as supply wanes.
We all agree that a reinvigorated wood product industry is an
important part of the solution. However, there's a persistent and
vexing barrier to the wood product industry's reestablishment. No one
knows what the long term, guaranteed wood supply is nor where precisely
it's located. Given 2 million acres of beetle kill, it may seem a
trivial point to get high centered on. However, not all those acres are
available or appropriate for harvest. Some are statutorily off limits
like congressionally designated wilderness and inventoried roadless
areas. There are environmental constraints like steep slopes and
wetlands. Finally there are less tangible but equally important
constraints imposed by what the public is willing to tolerate.
Responsible investors want to know how big is their social license to
work in the woods because business plans can quickly run aground when
they exceed their social license. Yet, no one has performed the type of
comprehensive, state wide assessment of long term wood supply that
investors can take to the bank as collateral for loans. And without it,
banks are loath to invest in uncertain ventures based on speculative
and unsubstantiated assertions of long term wood supply.
We'd all like to see this nut cracked as soon as possible so we can
get on with the important business of mitigating the bark beetles
effects. Colorado's conservation community is as anxious as the next
guy to hear chainsaws in the woods--we just want to make sure that
they're treating the right acres. Because durable solutions are rooted
in consensus, we are prepared to continue collaborating with all
stakeholders to collectively identify what those right acres are. After
all, I live, work, play and am raising a family in the midst of this
too.
Future Forests
I have appended to my testimony an abridged version the state of
the art, consensus science statement on our current understanding of
mountain pine beetle ecology and fire behavior. It's a remarkable and
ambitious document in the scope of the issues it attempts and diversity
of scientific voices it represents. The full report is worth the read
and can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/bark-beetle/mbp6092008.pdf.
Here's my synopsis:
1. The scale and intensity of the ongoing mountain pine beetle
epidemic is unlike any outbreak that has been observed before, but that
does not mean the end of lodgepole pine in the Rockies.
2. These forests have undergone dramatic change in the past, and
they are resilient to mountain pine beetle and other disturbances.
3. Even in the existing forest, variability in age, density, and
species composition ensures that there will be different responses to
the beetle outbreak.
4. Once an outbreak gets going, there are no known treatments that
can influence its spread.
5. Infrequent, large fires are the norm in lodgepole pine forests,
as they are likely to be in the future--with or without beetles. There
is general agreement that as the dead needles fall from the trees, the
probability of crown fire will diminish, but the probability of surface
fire may increase.
6. Because mountain pine beetle outbreaks do not disturb the soil,
they are not likely to cause increased erosion, though they may
increase water yield.
7. Changes such as we are observing in the current mountain pine
beetle outbreak are not unlike the changes we should expect from
climate change in the decades ahead.
The take-home message is that the bark beetle epidemic is not the
ecological Armageddon it's often portrayed as. The future forest is
already establishing itself in the understory. And because of the
legacy of other tree species in the lodgepole pine forest understory,
the new forest will be markedly more diverse than the forest it's
replacing. We'll see Engelmann spruce, sub-alpine fir, Douglas fir and
aspen trees filling in where previously existed a homogenous sea of
lodgepole pine. Contrary to the more hyperbolic rhetoric about the end
of lodgepole pine forests in northern Colorado, lodgepole will return,
though not exactly in the same density and distribution we are used to.
People often ask what we ought to be doing to accelerate
establishment of the new forest. Perhaps a more fundamental question is
should we, and if so, where? The first step should be to do a
comprehensive assessment of what sort of natural regeneration is
already occurring. From a distance, the 2 million acres of beetle kill
seem devoid of a green stick. However, if you walk around in the
beetle-killed forest, it's apparent that the overstory of red or grey
trees disguises the extent of young, vigorous new trees now taking
advantage of the reduced competition for water and nutrients. A
comprehensive assessment would tell us if the type and location of
regeneration matches our desired future conditions and whether
intervention is warranted or not. But, because this isn't getting done,
time and energy is wasted handwringing about the disappearance of the
forest and its calamitous implications for our tourist dependent
economies.
(Abridged by Wilderness Workshop due to space limitations)
The Status of Our Scientific Understanding of Lodgepole Pine and
Mountain Pine Beetles--A Focus on Forest Ecology and Fire
Behavior
A synthesis of our current knowledge about the effects of the
mountain pine beetle epidemic on lodgepole pine forests and fire
behavior, with a geographic focus on Colorado and southern Wyoming.
Merrill R. Kaufmann1, Gregory H. Aplet, Mike Babler, William L.
Baker, Barbara Bentz, Michael Harrington, Brad C. Hawkes, Laurie Stroh
Huckaby, Michael J. Jenkins, Daniel M. Kashian, Robert E. Keane,
Dominik Kulakowski, Charles McHugh, Jose Negron, John Popp, William H.
Romme, Tania Schoennagel, Wayne Shepperd, Frederick W. Smith, Elaine
Kennedy Sutherland, Daniel Tinker, and Thomas T. Veblen (complete
version available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/bark-beetle/
mbp6092008.pdf)
Introduction
Major lodgepole pine forest changes and how they affect us.
Mountain pine beetle populations have reached outbreak levels in
lodgepole pine forests throughout North America. The geographic focus
of this report centers on the southern Rocky Mountains of Colorado and
southern Wyoming. The epidemic extends much more widely, however, from
the southern Rocky Mountains in Colorado in the United States to the
northern Rocky Mountains in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada.
Worries about large-scale tree mortality in lodgepole pine forests
have created public concerns across the West. The appearance of red
trees during the last decade, a clear sign of recent beetle attack, has
been followed by bare dead tree skeletons throughout this large area.
Unquestionably, millions of dead trees foretell large forest changes in
the near future, and more might be anticipated in areas where the
mountain pine beetle has not yet reached epidemic levels.
People are concerned for many reasons. At a minimum, the loss of
mature lodgepole pine trees will significantly change the present and
future appearance of affected forests for half a century or more.
Extensive areas of dead trees and snags are not as aesthetically
appealing as live forests. Perhaps more seriously, dying and dead trees
raise fears of increased fire danger. Some people worry that the dead
needles and wood generated by the mountain pine beetle epidemic will
lead, perhaps quickly, to severe wildfires that threaten lives,
property, wildlife, and watersheds. Many are concerned that trees not
yet attacked will succumb to the epidemic. Some people worry that the
forest in and around our communities and recreation areas will become
sparse or disappear forever, and that these forest changes will affect
timber commodities, game habitat, and recreation resources.
Some contend that the current epidemic with synchronous outbreaks
at many locations is unprecedented and a clear warning of global
climate change impacts on ecosystems around the world. Scientists and
others point to other changes occurring in our region--Ips beetle-
caused mortality of pinon pine in the Southern Rocky Mountains, aspen
decline, and large fires in Front Range ponderosa pine forests and
elsewhere. It is difficult to prove cause and effect, but all of these
changes began during the last 10-15 years, coinciding with recent warm
climatic conditions, increasing numbers of large trees, and advancing
age of many forests. Whether or not the current epidemic is
unprecedented is a question to which there is currently no clear answer
because of the lack of precise information on extent and severity of
beetle outbreaks prior to the early 1900s. Nevertheless, many in the
scientific community believe the probability of a similar event
historically over at least the past few 100 years is low.
There are many insights and opinions about lodgepole pine being
discussed by stakeholders of all kinds--forest managers, agency
administrators, researchers, policy-makers, politicians, the news
media, industries, and the general public. Some concerns and fears are
supported by scientific evidence. Others are probably justified given
the current status of our scientific knowledge, but lack clear
scientific support. Still others are myths with little or no basis in
science. A further complication is that some of the information
emerging from the science community has appeared on the surface to be
somewhat contradictory.
The reason for this report. This document is written to report our
current scientific understanding of the ecology and fire behavior of
lodgepole pine, with a focus on the direct and indirect effects of the
current mountain pine beetle epidemic that is so dominant in our minds.
We recognize that important socioeconomic implications stemming from
the mountain pine beetle epidemic exist, and we hope that examining the
status of science will aid in addressing these issues. While this
document focuses on lodgepole pine and mountain pine beetles, there are
also many other forest types and non-forested systems subject to
extreme or at least unexpected impacts of climate, other insect and
pathogen species, and other disturbances including fire and wind.
This report results from a meeting in January 2008 convened in
Colorado by The Nature Conservancy, bringing together expertise of
scientists who study lodgepole pine throughout its geographic range. We
hope to provide as much scientific help to stakeholders as possible by
sorting out what is known with a high degree of certainty, what we are
confident about but with less certainty, and what is truly not
understood and in need of more research. While our primary geographic
focus during the workshop was Colorado and southern Wyoming, some of
the findings may be appropriate for lodgepole pine throughout much of
its natural range of distribution. We urge caution, however, in
applying our findings beyond our initial area of focus or to other
forest types in the region.
During the workshop and through subsequent email dialogue, the
lodgepole pine team reached consensus on nine key points. As always,
science is a work in progress, and uncertainties surfaced during
discussion of some key points. For some points we provide what is known
with adequate confidence rather than waiting for more definitive
information, when this information is useful to interested
stakeholders. This report provides the nine key points along with
explanatory material intended to help the reader understand the degree
of confidence we have from scientific study for these key points. To
help the reader, we provide a list of suggested reading at the end of
this report for more detailed information on many of the topics
discussed. We begin with the obvious.
A. Lodgepole pine forests are being heavily impacted by the ongoing
mountain pine beetle epidemic.
From British Columbia to Colorado, forests are experiencing high
mortality of lodgepole pine trees from attack by mountain pine beetles.
An insect epidemic with multiple outbreaks at this scale has not been
observed during the last century of scientific study, though small
outbreaks have occurred. This mortality is changing forest structure
and composition, and modifying fuels in ways that will affect fire
behavior for decades.
B. Not all lodgepole pine forests are the same.
Some forests are composed of nearly pure lodgepole pine established
following large fires decades or centuries ago. Others are mixtures of
lodgepole pine with subalpine species such as Engelmann spruce,
subalpine fir, and aspen at higher elevations, or with mixed conifer
species such as ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and aspen at lower
elevations. Each type of forest has unique features of ecology and fire
behavior. And lodgepole pine trees in all three types are vulnerable to
attack by mountain pine beetles.
C. Forests are living systems subject to constant change.
It is normal and expected that many natural agents, including
mountain pine beetles, fire, and wind, change forests over time. Some
changes are so gradual that we barely notice them, while others are
relatively sudden and extensive.
The forests that are presently losing many trees to insect attack
will not look the same in our lifetimes, but healthy and vigorous
forests will eventually return in most locations.
D. Lodgepole pine will not disappear from the southern Rocky
Mountains.
The make-up of our forests is already changing where mountain pine
beetles cause high mortality of lodgepole pine. However, this event
will not cause the extinction or disappearance of lodgepole pine, and
forests dominated by or including lodgepole pine will persist in the
southern Rockies, though they may look different from those of the past
due to changing climate. Future forests will continue to provide
valuable ecological services and aesthetic and recreational benefits.
E. Active vegetation management is unlikely to stop the spread of the
current mountain pine beetle outbreak.
Mountain pine beetles are so numerous and spreading so rapidly into
new areas that they will simply overwhelm any of our efforts where
trees have not yet been attacked, and no management can mitigate the
mortality already occurring. However, judicious vegetation management
between outbreak cycles may help mitigate future bark beetle-caused
tree mortality in local areas.
F. Large intense fires with extreme fire behavior are characteristic
of lodgepole pine forests, though they are infrequent.
Very dry and windy conditions can lead to large intense fires in
lodgepole pine forests. Such fires are a natural way for lodgepole pine
to be renewed and are largely responsible for extensive pure lodgepole
pine forests.
G. In forests killed by mountain pine beetles, future fires could be
more likely than fires before the outbreak. Large intense fires
with extreme fire behavior are again possible.
There is considerable uncertainty about fire behavior following a
mountain pine beetle epidemic on this scale. In pure lodgepole pine
forests, crown fires are possible both before an epidemic and after
while needles are still on trees. Intense surface fires are possible
after most dead trees have fallen to the ground. The probabilities of
such fires are uncertain, and more research is needed to learn in what
ways and how long the fuels and fire environment are altered by the
beetles. Nevertheless, protection of communities and other values at
risk continues to be imperative.
H. Mountain pine beetle outbreaks are not likely to cause increased
erosion.
Soils are not disturbed and protective ground cover is not reduced
when mountain pine beetles kill lodgepole pine trees. If anything,
understory plants may grow more vigorously in the increased light and
with the higher available soil moisture and nutrients. Where tree
mortality is high, annual streamflow may increase and the timing of
water delivery may be changed, because of reduced canopy interception
of precipitation and reduced water uptake by the trees.
I. Climate changes will most likely contribute to substantial forest
changes in the decades ahead.
Given the climate changes in the last several decades and projected
changes for coming decades, large fires and other natural disturbances
and shifts in vegetation composition and distribution are anticipated
in many ecosystems of Colorado and southern Wyoming. These large
disturbances and other changes in growing conditions will likely
contribute to restructuring many forest landscapes.
J. Summary
The current mountain pine beetle epidemic affecting lodgepole pine
forests is an important ecological event with significant socio-
economic implications. What will be the consequences for the affected
ecosystems? How do we protect our communities and other human values at
risk in ways that are socially and economically (as well as
ecologically) feasible? These are difficult questions. This report has
focused specifically on the ecology and fire behavior issues associated
with lodgepole pine and the mountain pine beetle epidemic. We recognize
that the socio-economic aspects are as important as the ecological
issues, but they are beyond the scope of this report.
Ecologically, much is known about lodgepole pine and mountain pine
beetles. Even though the scale of the current epidemic is unprecedented
over the past approximately 100 years of reliable observations, beetle-
caused tree mortality at some scale has long been part of the dynamics
of the lodgepole pine ecosystems. Similarly, fire behavior and its role
in ecological processes and fuel management practices are relatively
well understood. While we are confident about our general
understanding, we have identified at least some scientific
uncertainties about lodgepole pine, mountain pine beetle effects, and
fire behavior that should be acknowledged and further researched.
We are most concerned about several wildcard issues that create
some uncertainty in applying what we know from science. The scale of
this epidemic is larger than any mountain pine beetle epidemic studied
thus far. We do not fully understand if or how the magnitude of this
ecological event will affect future forests in terms of regeneration of
the present species or transitions to different vegetation types.
Furthermore, there is the question--both tantalizing and troubling--
about possible climate change (including its rate, direction and
magnitude) and the degree to which scientific findings need to be
qualified as they are applied.
If humans were not a part of the equation, forests would simply
mature, die, and regenerate or be replaced by other vegetation types,
following ecological trajectories over time driven by climate,
environment, and species capabilities.
Because humans cause changes in forests by choosing to live there
and deriving economic services from them, our communities are impacted
by forest changes, whether they are natural or not. Thus both the scale
of the mountain pine beetle epidemic and the uncertainties about future
forests leave us with questions that are important to us but may not be
answerable with the knowledge we have now.
Knowledge from scientific research about lodgepole pine and
mountain pine beetles is valuable in two ways. It offers answers to
some of the questions we have about forest ecology and provides
valuable insight for management of these forests for ecological and
community protection purposes. It also clarifies what we do not know.
This is valuable not just to direct new research, but also to inform
stakeholders of the degree of confidence they should have as land and
natural resource management practices are considered.
As noted in the introduction, science is a work in progress. Many
of the scientific uncertainties discussed in this report already are
receiving attention in the research community. Even as research
continues, however, the scientific knowledge already available is
usable by a wide variety of stakeholders and in the collaborative and
adaptive management process. Adaptive management is perhaps best
described as managing while learning on the fly. In this report, the
scientific community provides information to managers and other
stakeholders, but the scientific community also will help advance the
knowledge base through lessons learned as management practices are
planned, implemented, monitored, and evaluated. We humans must decide
how to manage forests based upon their intrinsic value and natural
processes as well as some desired future condition contingent on human
wants and needs. We must be realistic about the degree to which we as
observers, managers and stewards of the forest can affect what is
happening now and what will happen in the future. Whatever we do from
here should be done together.
Authors and their affiliations
Merrill R. Kaufmann (science team leader), U.S. Forest
Service Rocky Mountain Research Station (emeritus) and The Nature
Conservancy
Gregory H. Aplet, The Wilderness Society
Mike Babler (science team co-leader), The Nature
Conservancy
William L. Baker, University of Wyoming
Barbara Bentz, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Research Station
Michael Harrington, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Research Station
Brad C. Hawkes, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest
Service Pacific Forestry Centre
Laurie Stroh Huckaby, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Research Station
Michael J. Jenkins, Utah State University
Daniel M. Kashian, Wayne State University
Robert E. Keane, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Research Station
Dominik Kulakowski, Clark University
Ward McCaughey, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Research Station
Charles McHugh, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Research Station
Jose Negron, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research
Station
John Popp, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research
Station
William H. Romme, Colorado State University
Tania Schoennagel, University of Colorado
Wayne Shepperd, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Research Station (retired)
Frederick W. Smith, Colorado State University
Elaine Kennedy Sutherland, U.S. Forest Service Rocky
Mountain Research Station
Daniel Tinker, University of Wyoming
Thomas T. Veblen, University of Colorado
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so much for your testimony, sir.
I also thank you for the reference to the full report, the
state-of-the-art consensus service statement, and that document
apparently is available for the general public. And hopefully
we will be able to get it. And your key points were very much
appreciated.
Mr. Wilkinson, General Manager of the North Colorado Water
Conservancy District.
STATEMENT OF ERIC WILKINSON, GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN COLORADO
WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, BERTHOUD, COLORADO
Mr. Wilkinson. Thank you, Madame Chairman, Members of the
Committee. I am the General Manager of the Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District, and its municipal subdistrict.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the
combined Subcommittees on the real threat posed to watersheds
and water supplies by the pine beetle.
Northern Water was created in 1937. It is the first water
conservancy district in the State of Colorado, as can be seen
on Attachment 1 of my written testimony. Northern Water is
located in northeastern Colorado, and includes approximately
640,000 acres of irrigated farmland, and a constituency
population of about 800,000 people.
In 1938, Northern Water entered into a contract with the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to become the local sponsor and
contract beneficiary of the Colorado Big Thompson project.
The CBT project annually yields an average of 220,000 acre
feet of high quality supplemental water from the project's 466-
square-mile watershed in the headwaters of the Colorado River.
The project then conveys that water under the Continental
Divide to the Water Shore South Platte Basin. This water supply
is essential to northeastern Colorado.
The municipal subdistrict developed, operates, and
maintains the Windy Gap project, designed to annually capture
48,000 acre feet of water, primarily relying on the 313-square-
mile watershed of the Fraser River, a tributary to the Colorado
River. The Windy Gap project utilizes the excess capacity in
the CBT project to convey that water to the eastern slope.
Both the watersheds of the CBT project and the Windy Gap
project are heavily infested by the pine beetle, with
infestation beginning in the early 1990s. I direct your
attention to Attachment 4 of my written testimony, a map
showing the extent of the pine beetle infestation in those
watersheds. This map depicts the extent of the current pine
beetle infestation in the watershed's tributary to both of
these projects.
Experts estimate that eventually well over 90 percent of
the lodgepole pine, the dominant species in this area, will be
killed by the pine beetle.
Pine beetle infestation poses a significant immediate and
continuing threat to forest watersheds that produce water
supplies, and the associated water supply facilities by
dramatically increasing the possibility and potential severity
of wildfires and the resulting watershed erosion and sediment
deposition. It also causes secondary water quality effects.
In my written testimony I cite the Colorado examples of the
Buffalo Creek fire in 1996, and the Hayman fire in 2002, to
demonstrate the devastating and costly impact to infrastructure
and water supplies caused by wildfire.
Because of the pine beetle infestation in 2006, Northern
Water contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey to perform a
pre-wildfire study to determine the potential post-wildfire
grade flows within the CBT project watershed. The study results
were alarming.
In July 2007, the Pinchot Institute for Conservation
released a report entitled ``Protecting Front-Range Forest
Watersheds from High-Severity Wildfires.'' As a result of that
study, the Colorado State Forest Service, the United States
Forest Service, and water users began a collaborative effort to
define and address problems caused by pine beetle infestation.
Over the next two years, this group developed methodologies
to evaluate the vulnerability of, and consequences to,
watersheds posed by wildfire, based on the watershed physical
characteristics. These evaluations are used to prioritize those
watersheds most threatened by wildfires, and most needing
remedial action to reduce the risk. These cooperative efforts
to address wildfire risks must continue.
Further, my written testimony contains a number of
recommendations needed to deal with the threat to watersheds
and water supplies posed by the pine beetle epidemic.
Addressing the threat of wildfires, as well as other water
quality and water supply challenges caused by the pine beetle
epidemic, is a daunting task, in light of the millions of acres
of lands affected, and the cost of implementing adequate and
effective measures.
However, the cost of dealing with the aftermath of a
wildfire can be magnitudes greater than the cost of proactive
preventive measures. We must learn from our experiences, and
initiate long-term forest management practices that will lessen
the probability of future pine beetle infestation, and will
reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fires in the next
generation of forest scrub that will follow this pine beetle
epidemic.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkinson follows:]
Statement of Eric W. Wilkinson, General Manager,
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
INTRODUCTION
The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water)
was created by decree of the Weld County District Court in September
1937 as the first water conservancy district in the State of Colorado.
Northern Water is located along the northern front range of Colorado,
extending from the City and County of Broomfield and Fort Lupton on the
south, to north of Fort Collins and Greeley on the north, then
extending northeastward along the South Platte River to the Colorado/
Nebraska state line (see Attachment 1). Northern Water encompasses
parts of eight counties and includes approximately 1.6 million acres
within its boundaries, including about 640,000 acres of irrigated
farmland. The constituency population of Northern Water is
approximately 800,000 people.
The impetus for the creation of Northern Water was to serve as the
sponsoring agency to contract with the United States, through the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), for the design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT
Project). The 220,000 acre-feet of high quality, supplemental water
supplies that are diverted on average each year by the C-BT Project
from the headwaters of the Colorado River into the South Platte Basin
for use by the constituents of Northern Water, are as important today
to the health, economy, and sustainability of northeastern Colorado as
they have ever been during the history of the C-BT Project.
An explanation of the background and history related to the
development and operation of the C-BT Project and Northern Water is
contained in Attachment 2 to this testimony entitled ``Background and
History of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the
Colorado-Big Thompson Project.''
C-BT PROJECT WEST SLOPE COLLECTION SYSTEM
The 220,000 acre-feet of average annual yield provided by the C-BT
Project is captured from the 466 square-mile watershed located within
the headwaters of the Colorado River. Over the past 15 years, this
watershed has been severely infested by the Pine Beetle. The integrity
and functionality of the collection system facilities are threatened by
the potential consequences of the beetle infestation. Such consequences
include the higher risk of catastrophic wildfires and resulting
watershed erosion and sediment deposition. The water quality of this
valuable supply is already being adversely impacted as a result of the
infestation.
A diagram of the C-BT Project's integrated collection system is
shown on Attachment 3. The collection system consists of: Shadow
Mountain and Lake Granby reservoirs and Grand Lake all within the
Colorado River Basin; and Willow Creek Reservoir within the Willow
Creek drainage, which is a tributary to the Colorado River. The
collection system utilizes two large pumping plants to move water
between facilities. The Willow Creek Pumping Plant pumps water stored
and released from Willow Creek Reservoir into Lake Granby Reservoir.
The Farr Pumping Plant pumps water stored in Lake Granby Reservoir into
Shadow Mountain Reservoir so it can then flow by gravity through Shadow
Mountain Reservoir, into and through Grand Lake, to the intake of the
Adams Tunnel. Water then flows by gravity from Grand Lake through the
13.1-mile long Adams Tunnel beneath the Continental Divide to the
eastern slope, where water continues to be conveyed through C-BT
Project facilities, ultimately being delivered to C-BT Project
allottees and beneficiaries within the boundaries of Northern Water for
beneficial use.
MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT AND THE WINDY GAP PROJECT
In 1970, the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District (Municipal Subdistrict) was formed by a decree of
the Weld County District Court and included six municipal water
purveyors within northeastern Colorado. The purpose of the Municipal
Subdistrict is the development and operation of the Windy Gap Project.
The Windy Gap Project was constructed on the Colorado River
approximately 1 mile west of the Town of Granby from 1981 to 1985
(location noted on Attachment 1).
The Windy Gap Project consists of a 415 acre-foot reservoir and a
pumping plant that pumps water captured by the reservoir into Lake
Granby Reservoir. Excess capacity in the C-BT Project, when available,
is then used to convey the Windy Gap Project water to Windy Gap Project
participants on the eastern slope. The average annual yield of the
Windy Gap Project is approximately 48,000 acre feet.
Water yielded by the Windy Gap Project is from the 313 square mile
drainage area of the Fraser River Basin. This watershed has also been
severely infested by the Pine Beetle.
FORESTED WATERSHEDS
The drainage areas tributary to both the C-BT Project and the Windy
Gap Project are heavily forested by predominately uniform-age, high-
density, lodgepole pine. Nearly the entire drainage area tributary to
the C-BT Project is federally owned and under the jurisdiction of the
United States Forest Service or the National Park Service. Lands
controlled by the National Park Service are limited to Rocky Mountain
National Park. In 2009, Congress passed legislation designating most
all of Rocky Mountain National Park as Wilderness. The drainage area
tributary to the Windy Gap Project has a higher percentage of private
ownership with the federally-owned lands being under the jurisdiction
of the United States Forest Service.
PINE BEETLE INFESTATION IN THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
In the early 1990's, initial evidence of Pine Beetle infestation
was noted in the Upper Colorado River Basin, including the drainage
areas tributary to the both the C-BT and Windy Gap projects. Over the
next several years, the infestation would reach epidemic proportions,
encompassing a majority of the forested areas in the Upper Colorado
River Basin. Attachment 4 is a map indicating the extent of the Pine
Beetle infestation in the drainage areas tributary to these two
projects. It is important to note that to-date over 50% of the
respective drainage area tributary to either the C-BT Project or the
Windy Gap Project are infected by the Pine Beetle. The area infected
continues to grow with many experts estimating that eventually over 90%
of the lodgepole pine within the respective drainage basins will be
infected by the Pine Beetle. Attachment 5 is an aerial photograph of
the Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain, Lake Granby area showing the reddish-
colored areas infected by the Pine Beetle.
Pine Beetle infestation poses significant, immediate, and
continuing threats to the forest and the water supply originating as
run-off from the affected forested areas. Trees killed by Pine Beetles
are initially identified by their reddish color. The red needles
provide a dry, highly combustible fuel load, dramatically increasing
both the possibility and severity of wildfires. Although fire is needed
to regenerate forest growth in lodgepole pine forests, uncontrolled
wildfires in old, dense, uniform-age forests are not only highly
destructive to the forest and its environment, but are also devastating
to the water supplies that originate on those forests.
Addressing the threat of wildfire, as well as other water quality
and water supply challenges caused by the Pine Beetle epidemic, is a
daunting task in light of the millions of acres of land affected and
the high cost of implementing adequate and effective measures. However,
the cost of dealing with the aftermath of a wildfire may be magnitudes
greater than the cost of proactive preventive measures.
The Buffalo Creek Fire in 1996 and the Hayman Fire in 2002 within
the upper South Platte River Basin, although not occurring on Pine
Beetle infested forests, are outstanding examples of the devastation
that wildfires can cause to water supplies and water supply
infrastructure. The Buffalo Creek Fire, a relatively small fire, cost
the Denver Water Department (Denver Water) approximately $20 million to
protect and restore water supply facilities, including the dredging of
a reservoir to remove debris and sediment deposited from the erosion of
the watershed following the fire. Significant expenditures were also
required to address issues associated with the substantial
deterioration in water quality caused by the fire. The adverse effects
of that fire on Denver Water's supplies are still being felt. The
Hayman Fire burned over 138,000 acres and resulted in costs of over
$6.5 million just to protect Denver Water's Cheesman Reservoir in the
two years immediately following that fire. The monies expended on
Cheesman Reservoir are only a fraction of the total costs incurred by
Denver Water because of this fire. Denver Water continues today to deal
with the adverse effects of the Hayman Fire.
The debris, sediment, and nutrient loading that are captured by
water facilities following a wildfire have the potential to reduce,
significantly impact, or even destroy the functionality of those
facilities. The resulting adverse effects on water quality are very
detrimental and, depending on the characteristics of the watershed, can
last for years or even decades. Remediation of the effects of wildfire
for facilities associated with the C-BT Project or the Windy Gap
Project could easily cost several million dollars for each facility.
If the reddish and dead Pine Beetle-infected trees are not the
victim of wildfires, those trees will eventually lose their needles,
with a commensurate decrease in the risk of wildfire. In some cases,
the decrease in the forest canopy area will result in an increase in
run-off from the affected areas, resulting in a benefit for water
users. The increase duff on the forest floor resulting from the falling
needles and the associated vegetative decaying process may result in
higher nutrient loading in the run-off from the previously forested
area. This increase in nutrient loading can cause several issues for
water supplies including, but not limited to, causing increased growth
of algae in the water supply, significantly decreased overall water
quality, and greater challenges in treating the water without
introducing threats to public health, such as disinfection by-products.
Treatment of affected water supplies to drinking water standards may,
in some cases, require costly modifications to water treatment
facilities.
As these trees continue to deteriorate, they will eventually fall,
posing threats to the safety of those in the affected areas. Over time,
with increasing deadfall on the forest floor, the threat of wildfire
and the associated problems again increases.
NORTHERN WATER AND MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT EXPERIENCES
Over 700,000 people in northeastern Colorado depend on C-BT Project
and Windy Gap Project water as a source of their drinking water supply.
The effects of a wildfire resulting from the Pine Beetle infestation
within the two projects' watersheds would be devastating to the
quality, quantity, and reliability of this water supply.
As the drainage areas tributary to the C-BT Project became more
heavily infected by the Pine Beetle, Northern Water became increasingly
concerned about the possibility and the consequences of a wildfire. In
2006, Northern Water contracted with the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) to perform a pre-wildfire study to determine the
potential for post-wildfire debris flows within the C-BT Project
watershed. The purpose of the study was to estimate the probability of
post-wildfire debris flows and to estimate the volume of debris flows
that might occur. The results were alarming as the study showed
significant adverse consequences to the C-BT Project and its water
supplies as the result of a wildfire.
In July 2007 the Pinchot Institute for Conservation released a
report entitled, ``Protecting Front Range Forest Watersheds from High-
Severity Wildfires.'' In an outreach effort, the Colorado State Forest
Service and the U.S. Forest Service hosted a meeting with water
providers to discuss potential methods to protect Front Range
watersheds and their associated produced water supplies from the
devastation of wildfires.
Over the next two years, this group would develop methodologies
that would be used to evaluate the vulnerability of a watershed to
wildfires and the consequences that might result based on the
watershed's physical characteristics. Characteristics evaluated include
wildfire hazard ratings, watershed steepness or ruggedness, soil
erodibility, and water use ranking. These evaluations could then be
used to prioritize those watersheds most threatened by wildfire and
most needing remedial action to reduce the wildfire risk and the
consequences of a wildfire. Preliminary results from the study of
Colorado Front Range watersheds have recently been made available.
Those study results show: more than 2 million acres are classified as
high hazard for wildfire; all major water collection, storage, and
conveyance structures are threatened; the current measures being
pursued to address the wildfire threat are inadequate; and adequate
corrective actions in the form of forest treatments will require
considerable increases in funding.
Based on the methodology developed for the evaluation of wildfire
risk and prioritization of watershed protection, Denver Water, Northern
Water, the Municipal Subdistrict, and other water providers engaged a
consultant to evaluate the watersheds in the Upper Colorado River
Basin. Watersheds evaluated included those tributary to the C-BT
Project, the Windy Gap Project, and facilities owned and operated by
Denver Water in the Colorado River, Fraser River, and Williams Fork
River basins. Those preliminary results have very recently been
released, pointing to the need for remedial measures to protect several
vulnerable watersheds.
FUTURE ACTIONS TO ADDRESS PINE BEETLE-CAUSED THREATS TO WATERSHEDS
The Pine Beetle epidemic in Colorado has affected critical
watersheds throughout Colorado, raising the risk of wildfires and the
risk of the resulting devastating impact to watershed health and to the
quality of the water supplies produced. It is important to note that on
most infected watersheds where fires have thankfully not occurred and
the infected trees have lost their needles, the wildfire threat has, as
a result, been significantly reduced. However, the decaying needles on
the forest floor are causing, and will continue to cause, adverse water
quality effects. The cooperative efforts in Colorado to address the
wildfire risks, led by the Colorado State Forest Service and the U.S.
Forest Service, must continue with the timely and focused
implementation of corrective or remedial measures necessary to address
this real threat to water supplies. Scientifically based procedures
have been developed to evaluate the threats posed to watersheds and
prioritize those watersheds needing immediate remedial action to
address the wildfire threat. The following steps are recommended:
Prioritize watersheds based on risk for wildfire and
consequences that may be caused by wildfire. This prioritization can
then be used to allocate resources needed to address the wildfire risk
in a region.
Implement appropriate forest management practices to
reduce the potential for wildfires. This would include such things as
forest thinning, timber harvesting, fuel breaks to prevent the
uncontrolled spread of wildfire, prescribed and controlled burning, and
the natural use of fire.
Develop and implement a plan to mitigate the adverse
effects of post-wildfire impacts. This could include such things as
construction of debris control dams upstream of reservoirs to limit
debris flow into the reservoir or emergency action plans to limit
erosion within the affected watershed.
Develop the equivalent of Community Wildfire Protection
Programs for the protection and restoration of critical water supply
facilities within affected watersheds.
Develop pre-event permitting processes for emergency
corrective measures that would be necessary to implement a Community
Wildfire Protection Program or an emergency action plan during and
following a wildfire. This would allow the implementation of emergency
mitigation measures in a timely, effective, and efficient manner.
Develop federal funding mechanisms necessary to address
and mitigate the threat posed by catastrophic wildfires resulting from
the Pine Beetle infestation. Federal agencies should establish an
emergency fund that could be utilized to pay for remediation of
watersheds, water supplies, and water supply infrastructure during and
following a wildfire. These funds would be available for protecting
water quality and restoring the functionality of water supply
facilities.
CONCLUSION
Addressing the threat of wildfire, as well as other water quality
and water supply challenges caused by the Pine Beetle epidemic, is a
daunting task in light of the millions of acres of land affected and
the cost of implementing adequate and effective measures. However, the
cost of dealing with the aftermath of a wildfire may be magnitudes
greater than the cost of proactive preventive measures.
We must learn from our experiences and initiate long-term forest
management practices that will lessen the future probability of Pine
Beetle infestation and that will reduce the likelihood of catastrophic
wildfire in the next generation of forest growth that will follow this
Pine Beetle epidemic. Testimony Presented by Eric Wilkinson
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS TO WRITTEN TESTIMONY
ATTACHMENT 1 Map of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District and Colorado-Big Thompson Project
ATTACHMENT 2 Background and History of the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District and the Colorado-Big Thompson Project
ATTACHMENT 3 Schematic Diagram of the West Slope Collection System
of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project
ATTACHMENT 4 Colorado-Big Thompson Project and Windy Gap Project -
Drainage Basins Affected by Beetle Infestation
ATTACHMENT 5 Aerial Photograph of Colorado-Big Thompson Project
Drainage Basin
[NOTE: The aerial photograph (Attachment 5) has been retained in
the Committee's official files.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0438.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0438.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0438.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0438.004
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Wilkinson. And your last
comment in regard to the cost, in reading some of the
testimony, it is stated that it is prohibitive to be able to do
chemical spray over the trees. Prohibitive is the word.
Yet, when you quantify the loss of everything else--the
industry, the watershed, the cost of the water districts to be
able to clean up the silt, removal of the silt, all of that--we
have not quantified that.
And we are saying it is prohibitive. What do we measure it
against?
Mr. Wilkinson. The costs that we have heard in initial
conversations back in 2007 on the cost of addressing the
wildfire examples are in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The effectiveness of spraying, as I understand it--and I am not
an expert on infestation prevention--is likewise prohibitive
from the standpoint of each tree has to be individually
sprayed, because of the way that the insects attack the tree.
It is easy for any individual water supply facility, such
as the Strontia Springs Dam that you saw a picture of earlier
in the presentation, it is easy to incur a cost of $20 million
on remedial measures to dredge out those reservoirs.
Reservoirs associated with the Colorado Big Thompson
project, for example, if there is a wildfire above them, would
become sediment collection facilities that would obviously
require dredging to take care of that, as well.
Costs are indeed prohibitive. If there were, I believe,
substantial corrective measures that could be taken, such as
spraying, that were economically viable and effective, I think
the water users and the community would probably endorse that.
But it is my understanding that those really aren't practical
or implementable, from either an economic standpoint or from a
physical standpoint.
Mrs. Napolitano. But I have yet to hear, sir, of anybody
indicating that the research and development has identified a
way to cope with it. Or at least to not totally eradicate it,
because that probably is impossible, but to be able to deal
with the quick production of itself. In other words, it just
keeps spreading, and there is really no talk of any other
predators that we can look at to address this epidemic.
It has been around for 39 years.
Mr. Wilkinson. Exactly. Your representation is my
understanding, Madame Chairwoman.
Mrs. Napolitano. Does anybody know of any research,
anything being done on the actual beetle itself, and how to
address its demise? And I guess maybe I would go back to a few
years ago, when I sat on City Council. The local RECTA control
was trying to do away with the mosquitoes that were spreading
the--they didn't call it the Nile virus back at that time. We
are talking about the 1980's.
And what they did is they were able to get females, and put
them through a process. And don't ask me, I am not the
researcher that did it. But they would sterilize the females.
And that helped the propagation of the mosquitoes.
So I am not sure who is doing any kind of research on the
actual beetle itself to be more specific about what other
measures can be done. Because we are looking at everything
else, or at least talking about it. And we are not quite sure
if anybody knows anything about that.
Yes, ma'am, Ms. Scanlan.
Ms. Scanlan. Thank you, Madame Chair. In my community, we
first focused on prevention, because we saw this happening in a
county near ours and didn't want the effects to be the same.
Graham County, Colorado, is the epicenter of the beetle
epidemic, and they have tried everything. There is a lot of
research going on in terms of pheromone packs that you can put
out into trees that will maybe send them elsewhere.
Nothing works with any certainty on a landscape scale. So
what we focus on are what we call high-value trees. I know the
ski resorts will be here to testify about that later on how you
can protect those. Even that is quite expensive to do on
private property.
Anything dealing with the National Forest, there is a lot
of talk about what you can do. But this is one of the largest
infestations of insects ever seen in North America. We don't
have any tools that are effective in stopping or mitigating
their travel. What we have heard is they will continue at this
pace until they run out of habitat, and that is, in fact, what
we are seeing.
So when Congressman Polis said we are focused now on
triage, that is all we can do. We spent a few years trying to
get ahead of it; we are now years behind.
Mrs. Napolitano. What barriers do you see exist on cross-
jurisdictional cooperation?
Ms. Scanlan. Thank you, Madame Chair. We have been really
trying to use the good neighbor policy, which allows us access
to Federal lands in a way that I am not sure other states need,
or need to have as a priority on.
We had to add additional staffing on our State Forest
Service Office to do that, though, because it is a fairly
bureaucratic process to engage in. And we wanted to support our
local citizens and private landowners on how to get that kind
of access.
Because if you are in the wildland-urban interface,
everything abuts. Ninety-nine percent of my entire district
where I live, my county where I live, is in that same
interface, so it is surrounded by public lands.
So we have to be cooperative in how we can get easier
access.
Mrs. Napolitano. How do you achieve mitigation?
Ms. Scanlan. Pardon?
Mrs. Napolitano. How do you achieve----
Ms. Scanlan. I think that enhancing the good neighbor
policy, making sure that we still have the good neighbor policy
is a first priority that we would like to ask of this body.
But second, enhancing that, maybe taking down some of the
bureaucracy associated with it, so that we can have easier
access back and forth. That would be a tremendous tool.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Excuse me. Mr. Shoemaker, you
have advocated for some timber harvesting to mitigate the
damage inflicted by the beetle. Do you believe in expediting
NEPA? And if not, why not?
Mr. Shoemaker. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. We do advocate
for chainsaws in the woods to protect those priorities that we
have identified collaboratively. And we do not advocate for
some streamlining of NEPA. In fact, the bottleneck for getting
projects on the ground is not NEPA. There are tens, if not
hundreds of thousands of acres of NEPA-ready projects that just
need to be pulled off the shelf and hit the ground. And what is
holding that up is the resources to get people into the woods.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Just to follow up on that point. You say
there are plenty of NEPA-ready projects, and yet we have a
number of NEPA-ready projects in my district in northeastern
California with 33 million board feet already under contract;
31.5 million board feet are tied up in litigation.
We have had testimony with respect to forest fire-killed
trees, that these lawsuits are being filed simply to delay the
harvesting beyond the point where they are commercially
salvageable.
What is your comment on that?
Mr. Shoemaker. Well, I restrict my comments to Colorado,
where I function and where I study. And the same dynamic is not
playing out in Colorado.
We have a fairly healthy collaborative atmosphere in
Colorado, where we have regular meetings with my good buddy,
Rick Cable, sitting behind me, and others, like local
governments like Commissioner Rich. And we come to agreement.
We recognize that when there are very limited resources and
there is a lot of high-value community infrastructure and lives
at risk, that we need to make priority decisions. Where those
priorities are is where we all agree, and that is where the
projects are hitting the ground.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Rich, you testified that you thought
NEPA could be better implemented. What would you recommend?
Mr. Rich. I feel that NEPA has a purpose, but it has been
used to slow down--like you said--lawsuits and things like that
have slowed down the process to where there is no action, and
an alternative speeds it up quite a bit.
As a lawmaker, I need to hear both sides of it, but I hate
to be stalled by someone who is using a law to, just for that
purpose. And that does happen. There are some environmental
people out there who feel that preservation means do not cut a
tree. I do not share that concept with them.
Mr. McClintock. What would you recommend? What changes
ought we to make to NEPA to keep this from happening?
Mr. Rich. I think if we understand that we need to move
ahead. They had talked about maybe backing off of some
lawsuits, but just don't use it to slow things down. Use it for
what it was designed to kind of check out.
I think if the motive is just to stop the process, that is
not a good use of the law. Use it as it is appropriate and
maybe they won't use it. Maybe they won't sue, but it sure has
slowed things down.
Mr. McClintock. Let me ask each of the panelists just for
the single most cost-effective recommendation you could make to
deal with the infestation.
Ms. Scanlan. Thank you. That is a tough question, because
this is a multi-faceted, complex problem. It is, as someone
mentioned, a near-term and a long-term issue for us.
Mr. McClintock. I also don't want to get bogged down in
analysis paralysis, either. We have, I think, established that
this is a very serious problem. What would be the single most
cost-effective solution that you could offer us today?
Ms. Scanlan. I think that we need funding on the ground. We
have a list of priority projects in Colorado that are critical
to both the public safety and infrastructure that we would like
to have----
Mr. McClintock. Funding on the ground for what?
Ms. Scanlan. To do wildfire mitigation.
Mr. McClintock. Specifically, removing overgrowth?
Ms. Scanlan. It is largely removing the fuel-loaded trees
out in the forest, yes.
Mr. McClintock. All right. Mr. Rich, you talked about
litigation. That would be it? The single most cost-effective
way to----
Mr. Rich. The most cost-effective would get some money on
the ground to Jackson County. To have to place an economic
value on the product--whether it is timber or biomass for
electricity--we need a little help to get it going. Then it
will start rolling on its own.
Mr. McClintock. Again, if we sell the timber for lumber
production, that actually makes us money.
Mr. Rich. Some of the value of the timber is not worth--
yes, the good saw logs, you bet. I mean, there is a lot of
solutions. We in the cattle industry used to use a sale market,
where we would take our cattle, and then they would sell them.
Why not have a lumber, where you take your logs, the 35-acre
people take their logs? And then you have got saw logs, timber,
all different kinds of logs that you can pick right out of
there. And that would be an effective way, an economic way to
make it roll. It has got to pay.
Mr. McClintock. I will leave Mr. Shoemaker and Mr.
Wilkinson to argue with the Chairwoman over time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, we have one more panel. We will be
going to the votes pretty soon, so we need to really move on. I
would appreciate it if you would maybe answer in writing.
Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Madame
Representative, could you please tell us a little bit in your
testimony about the incentives created to foster the kind of
partnership between a state and private industry?
And specifically, how do you pick a company? And who is in
charge of distributing the funding?
Ms. Scanlan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are working with
our State Forest Service Office in distributing those funds.
And they do help identify the private folks who might want to
come forward and utilize those.
What we have done is a series of tax credits, tax
exemptions, anything that we can do at a state level to bolster
what is a fledgling industry, particularly in terms of the
niche market for bark beetle trees.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Shoemaker, you referred to
tactical timber industry. If you could expand on what that
would look like, and are there any areas that you know in the
country where that has been successful.
Mr. Shoemaker. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva. I referred to
tactical timber industry, and that is just a term that I came
up with.
But the notion is that we have got, we need--industry is
part of the solution in Colorado, and we don't have enough of
the right industry in the right place to help us move this,
this wood from these right acres that we have identified
through collaborative process.
And the trouble is that there is a tremendous volume of
beetle-kill wood available now, and will be in the short, in
the near term. But after that its value is going to fall off
pretty quickly, in terms of commercial value.
And so we need a timber industry that is nimble enough to
ramp up a way to process this large volume of woods coming off
of these thousands of acres of priority protection for
communities. And then on the back side, can scale down in a way
as the supply of wood scales down, so that it is sustainable in
the future.
And really what we are talking about is trying to create a
situation where our communities can remain sustainable in the
face of the disturbances that keep moving through these forests
and so that the timber industry can respond in a way that
addresses supply as it ebbs and flows.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And as I mentioned in my opening
statement, I think the essential part of the response to the
outbreak is going to be the kind of extensive coordination and
community support that we bring to bear on this issue.
And just for, in looking ahead, what are some of the
pitfalls, some of the non-starters, in your experience with the
cooperative?
Mr. Shoemaker. With the cooperative? The pitfalls as we go
forward, we can avoid. Gosh, do it sooner. It took a while for
the Colorado bark beetle, it started as a cooperative, then
moved into a collaborative. And it took a while to recognize
that there are multi-stakeholders that have, that need to be
involved at the table, because we all have a stake in the
national forest, because that is our livelihoods there.
It took a couple of years of inter-agency or inter-
government discussion before they finally realized that our
tent is not big enough. So I encourage the opening of the tent
earlier in the process.
But there is one pitfall that is kind of outside the
spectrum of your question that I would like to address. That
is, when the industry goes to the bank to get a loan, they need
to demonstrate a guaranteed reliable supply of timber over X
period of years until the loan is paid off. Right now, while
there is this plethora of wood in the forest, it seems like a
minor issue.
However, what has never been done is a statewide
comprehensive analysis or assessment of how much supply there
is. It has to be done where you remove wilderness, wetlands,
the two steepest slopes, and the other areas that are just
prohibitive to get into. Then you identify where the local
collaboratives, like I sit at the table with, have identified
priorities where there is that zone of agreement, where there
is that social license, and how much supply is in that area.
Then the industry can make carefully calculated investment
decisions based on that quantification of supply. Right now,
people are kind of shooting in the dark. The guys who get there
early have a more compelling argument because there is more
wood.
But as we need more industry to ramp up to help us process
the wood out of these interface areas, that question is going
to be coming increasingly as the bottleneck, I believe, in
developing the infrastructure to deal with it.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mrs. Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Madame Chairman, in the interest of time I am
going to submit my questions for this panel to you in writing.
I have just a couple of editorial comments, though.
Eight months ago Wyoming had three large operating sawmills
in our state. Since then, two of them have closed. Roughly 400
employees and contractors were put out of work when those mills
shut their doors, further exasperating Wyoming's inability to
thin the forests or protect rights-of-way for transmission
lines in a way that will address immediate needs on the ground.
If we don't protect these forest industries, to a certain
extent we are fueling our own problems.
I also want to stress that it is so good to hear from
county commissioners back here, because we need to be
coordinating with counties. Not making them cooperate with the
Federal government. And it is a coordination effort. The people
on the ground are the ones with the expertise to understand how
to address issues in their area.
So I want to applaud Commissioner Rich for joining us
today. I will submit my questions to you in writing. But thank
you very much, all of you, for attending today.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mrs. Lummis. We expect the
votes within the next 10, 15 minutes, so I would like to--Ms.
DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Madame Chair. I really
also want to thank our elected officials for coming today,
Representatives Scanlan and Gibbs, and also Commissioner Rich,
for sharing your local perspective. It really helps.
I mean, those of us from Colorado, you saw the delegation,
we understand the devastation of this problem. We are trying to
work with everybody.
It is beyond comprehension unless you see it, and it is
beyond avoiding. So now we are trying to deal with it.
Representative Scanlan, I want to ask you, you referenced
that the Federal government could help with these
collaboratives and break down some barriers. I am wondering if
you could tell me specifically what we can do to the Federal
agencies to try to put these inter-agency and inter-
governmental collaboratives together in a better way.
Ms. Scanlan. Thank you, Congresswoman DeGette. I do want to
acknowledge what Sloan Shoemaker was saying. I do think we have
a very healthy collaborative environment in Colorado. Because
of the urgency of the situation, it has brought people to the
table who are very intent on finding solutions.
I think there are good models in that that could be
translated into the Federal level, on how we need to work
across agencies in particular. We tend to do shuttle diplomacy,
if you will, a bit, as well as when we are tied or hamstrung by
levels of bureaucracy from a state perspective. If we could get
help in streamlining those processes, that would be terrific.
Ms. DeGette. If you could, if you or some of your staff
could help us put together some specific recommendations for
the Federal agencies. We will work with Secretary Salazar and
Secretary Vilsack and others to make sure we can do that.
Commissioner Rich, one thing that you mentioned really
struck me. That is, that it would be helpful to get some of
this dead wood out--if we could get some economic incentives to
people to come in and take it out.
I am wondering if you or your Northern Colorado
Collaborative have looked at some of the economic incentives
for woody biomass. If you have any opinions, if there is
anything we can do at a Federal level to encourage development
of that.
Mr. Rich. I would feel that woody biomass is an economic
value. But we have to save our loggers.
One thing that, kind of out of the idea, but during the
Depression, farmers were in real trouble, and the U.S.
Government stored commodities. Why don't they store two-by-
fours, or cants, or something like that until it gets back?
But yes, economics run itself--if we can make it pay.
Ms. DeGette. Super, thank you. Mr. Shoemaker, I wanted to
ask you a couple of questions. The first one is, I am wondering
what the wilderness workshop and some of the environmental
groups do on economic incentives for woody biomass are, and if
you could talk about that for a moment.
Mr. Shoemaker. I tread here very carefully, because I
don't----
Ms. DeGette. So do I.
Mr. Shoemaker. I don't have a tremendous amount of
background in this, though having talked to some in that
industry, my understanding is that the best, the most efficient
use of the woody biomass is for direct heat generation--not for
electrical generation.
I think fundamentally that is a sound use of the material.
For us, it is more a matter of where it comes from, and an
industry that is scaled properly, so that we don't end up with
more industrial capacity than we have supply for on the tail
end, which is going to create problems, economic disruption and
job loss.
Ms. DeGette. Well, just to let you know that any removal of
the woody biomass would still need to comply with the NEPA
rules, just like it is right now, and several witnesses
referenced it.
It seems to us as we do this climate change bill, which
ultimately can help with the bark beetles, that we might be
able to get incentives for folks to remove some of the downed
trees, the woody biomass.
I want to ask you one last question, which is a follow-up
on the question I had asked to Mr. Cables earlier. I wonder if
you can give your brief opinion about how we can find a balance
in the future between protecting healthy trees, while allowing
the thinning of the dead trees.
I am particularly worried, as I mentioned to Mr. Cables,
about what will happen once all of this--Madame Chair, I ask
unanimous consent just to finish this question, please.
Mrs. Napolitano. We do have another panel coming up.
Ms. DeGette. What we can do to make sure the forests in 50
or 100 years are healthy, that we don't have the same problem
now, because all the forests are the same age.
Mr. Shoemaker. Thank you, Ms. DeGette. I kind of get hung
up on the question and how you define health. Arguably, the
next forest is already started. It is in the understory of the
dead forest now. One of the goals for diverting this potential
in the future is a more diverse forest.
If you get out and walk around the understory of that dead
forest, you see spruce, you see fir, you see douglas fir, you
see aspen establishing. In some place there might not be any
forest; other places there is going to be some lodgepole, thin
or thick, depending on the cones.
So before we make assumptions about what exactly is going
to happen in the future, I think that we need to make sure we
understand what exactly is happening now, and what we are
getting set up for.
The future is somewhat unknown because of climate change.
We are operating in a world that we do not have experience in.
Therefore, the conservation community's perspective generally
is that we try to give ecosystems the opportunity to respond in
ways that they have the wisdom that we don't.
I think we have tried managing and imposing our human will
in forests in the past, and that has led to things like the
fire special policy that led to overstocked forests, and
therefore ultimately more severe fires.
I would argue that we need to figure out ways that we can
restore forests that are degraded because of human settlement,
and then have a more observant approach to how those ecosystems
are going to respond in the future.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madame Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. You are welcome. Panelists, thank you very
much for your testimony. You have been very patient, and your
testimony has been very helpful. Again, we thank you for being
here. You are now dismissed.
We would like to call up the fourth panel.
Mr. Mathis. I would like to give you a pencil made out of
beetle-killed wood made in Colorado that I would like to
present you as a token from Jackson County.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I need to know the amount, the
dollar amount of the gift.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Napolitano. I receive it into the record for the
Subcommittees' use, either one.
I would like to call up Mr. Mark Mathis, President and CEO
of Confluence Energy in Kremmling, Colorado; Mr. Charles
Larsen, General Manager, Carbon Power and Light, Inc.,
Saratoga, Wyoming; Brendan McGuire, Manager of Government
Relations, Vail Resorts in Broomfield, Colorado; and Dr. Peter
Kolb, Society of American Foresters, Missoula, Montana.
Welcome. Thank you so very much. I would like to now begin
to ask Mr. Mark Mathis to begin his testimony. If you will,
please.
STATEMENT OF MARK MATHIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CONFLUENCE ENERGY,
KREMMLING, COLORADO
Mr. Mathis. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman and distinguished
Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come
here and speak to you about our current bark beetle epidemic.
We believe we have some opportunity to help alleviate this
problem and to be a part of the solution.
First, a little bit about Confluence Energy. We are one of
the pellet plants, the pellet plants you have heard several
people talk about. We produce approximately 100,000 tons of
finished products a year. It is enough fuel to heat 30,000 to
40,000 homes. It displaces about 12 million gallons of heating
oil with clean-burning renewable energy, reduces carbon
emissions by 264,000 pounds by creating a carbon-neutral
energy.
We purchase approximately 150,000 tons of green feed stock
a year, a fair amount off of Federal land, as well as private
lands. We have approximately 30 jobs; we just added six more
this week. We create about $10 million in circulating funds
within the economy.
Part of the process that we have that I just want to touch
base with so that everybody is familiar with what our process
is, is that we are the first pellet plant to my knowledge to
completely utilize dead and dying pine beetle trees as 100
percent of their feed stock. Most of the pellet plants utilize
waste stream from sawmills that are currently, in this
environment, hurting.
As a manufacturer, we take that pole tree, grind it up, as
well as the flash and the other material, and do chips. We take
all the combustibles and produce a bullet-size piece of
renewable energy we tend to refer to as a solar battery, as one
of my colleagues said.
The pellet itself is very uniform in size, and therefore
very easy to handle, transport, convey, and to burn. The
utilization in this picture that I have, if you look up at
these woods now--and people have much better pictures than I
do--this is virtually 90 percent dead. This is taken right
outside my house about three years ago.
Currently, the utilization for the material in our area has
been non-existent. We put our plants in a little bit over a
year ago, and we have been putting value to that material.
Currently off of the U.S. Forest Service projects that we do,
we pay 25 percent higher price than we do for our product off
private land. That is by our own doing just to try to help the
U.S. Forest Service, Rick's team and whatnot, spend their
dollars a little wisely and help it go a little bit further.
The value, unfortunately, when we talk about the
utilization for the higher-value material, only about 15
percent to 20 percent of this material coming off the woods is
viable saw material, or has a higher-value use than grinding it
into a pellet.
One of the largest impediments that we face, or the largest
impediment that we face, is access to the woods. I won't beat
that horse, because it seems like it has been beaten pretty
well today already. We would like to see some longer term, and
right now the best tool that the Forest Service has to do that
is long-term stewardship contracts. We would like to see that
extended a little, for about another 10 years up to that 20-
year level.
It does help us to get access to capital markets when we
can show those feed stocks. That feed stock is going to be
available now and in the future.
The shelf life on the material is something that you have
heard today that is relative. Any action that is going to be
taken needs to be taken now. Every day we go by, it is less
opportunity, and the feed stock degrades in value.
People think that the material, I get comments from friends
and peers all the time, that they must just be paying you to
take this material out of there. It is not the case, and
availability is an issue. We actually ran out of material last
week. We were shut down for three days for having lack of
material, and not being able to get material in.
One of the other pieces, and I am not sure how familiar
everybody is with the actual uses for these pellets, here are
just some samples of some pellet-stove commercial boilers
central heating systems. They are very clean-burning, and they
are used by about a million homes and businesses throughout the
United States. A third of the consumption of energy in this
country is for meeting thermal demands.
Your Honor, just if we could skip to a couple slides
forward. I just want to put this slide up there, the existing
plants. I thank you for your testimony, and we will move this
along because I know you are in a hurry.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mathis follows:]
Statement of Mark Mathis, President, Confluence Energy
Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished subcommittee
members, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the epidemic of the
Mountain Pine Beetle and what we can do to help alleviate the problem.
This joint hearing is timely as more of our forests are being ravaged
by these beetles.
Confluence Energy is helping the State of Colorado with the removal
of the effected timber and is putting it to beneficial use. Confluence
Energy, LLC was formed in June 2007 and operates a wood pellet
manufacturing facility in Kremmling, Colorado, which is 70 miles
northwest of Denver.
Our plant is taking advantage of the regional pine beetle
infestation to access dead and dying timber for use in its
pelletization process. Lodge pole pine is delivered to the Colorado
plant where these trees are chipped and then dried using heat from a
sawdust-powered furnace. The wood chips are then ground into a course
sawdust and sent to the pellet mills. The pellet mills press the wood
particles through a die using intense pressure, forming the pellets
without using any binding agents. The result is a pure wood product.
The pellets are then either bagged in 40 pound bags, or stored in silos
for bulk deliveries. The fuel created by the plant is both high in
energy value and carbon neutral.
The biomass industry is in need of better access to this type of
feedstock. The dead, dying, downed and diseased wood in our forests
could be put to beneficial use. The pellet industry, along with other
biomass industries, could utilize this feedstock in a sustainable
manner, while also helping with forest fire mitigation and suppression.
Pellet fuel is a renewable, clean-burning and cost stable home
heating alternative currently used throughout North America. It is a
biomass product made of renewable substances, such as Mountain Pine
Beetle infested trees. There are approximately 1,000,000 homes in the
U.S. using wood pellets for heat, in freestanding stoves, fireplace
inserts and even furnaces. Pellet fuel for heating can also be found in
such large-scale environments as schools and prisons. North American
pellets are produced in manufacturing facilities in Canada and the
United States, and are available for purchase at fireplace dealers,
nurseries, Home Depot and other building supply stores, feed and garden
supply stores and some discount merchandisers. In short, pellet fuel is
a way to divert millions of tons of waste and turn it into energy.
As a wood pellet manufacturer, we take ground wood, waste wood,
paper, bark and other combustibles and turn them into bullet-sized
pellets that are uniform in size, shape, moisture, density and energy
content. Their uniform shape and size allows for a smaller and simpler
conveying system that reduces costs. Because of pellets' high density
and uniform shape, they can be stored in standard silos, transported in
rail cars and delivered in truck containers. Of course, in transport as
well as end use, pellets pose none of the risk of explosion that fossil
fuels do.
About Confluence Energy:
100,000 tons of fuel production per year--largest wood
pellet facility in Western U.S.
35,000 homes and businesses that can be heated with our
fuel
12 million gallons of heating oil displaced by our clean,
renewable pellet fuel
264 million annual pounds of CO2 displaced by
our carbon-neutral fuel if heating oil is replaced, thus helping to
address global warming and climate change
160,000 tons per year of annual wood purchases--
approximately 100% beetle kill material, providing valuable market for
USFS and private land owners in Colorado
$10 million annual payroll, wood and materials purchases,
circulating in local economy
Approximately 30 full-time employees and indirect job
creation in wood supply, pellet distribution, retail sales
25 trucks per day--all through local contract hauling--
making wood and packaging supply deliveries, and shipping pellets
throughout the region
We are a developer, owner and operator of renewable energy
production facilities. Our goal is to generate cleaner, more reliable,
cost-effective and sustainable energy by combining a cellulosic ethanol
generation facility with a wood pellet production facility. From a
single feedstock of timber by-product or woodland waste, we will both
power our combined facilities and generate two distinct energy
products, ethanol and wood pellets.
Currently, there are a number of opportunities that our business
model may be able to benefit from:
Utilizing dead and dying trees for use of renewable
energy product
Create utilization park that would use 100% of the forest
material and create some of the following products:
Wood pellets
Second generation bio-fuels (ethanol)
Electricity generation
High value lumber products
Landscape products
Animal bedding
Provide local communities with renewable energy
Create energy independence for our local communities
Most experts have estimated that fossil fuel cost will
increase in price over the next five years and most industry experts
agree that the cost will continue to move higher over longer periods of
time. We believe this will drive consumers and business owners to look
for viable alternatives to fossil fuels.
The utilization of the material from U.S. forests and parks will
put value to the material which is currently considered a substantial
liability to the U.S. taxpayers. Confluence Energy has viewed documents
created by United States Forest Service (USFS) personnel that suggest
that the cost to treat the some of the existing area in USFS Region 2
would exceed $220 million over the next three years. Confluence Energy
suggests that by lowering some of the existing hurdles in accessing the
dead and dying trees, private industry can put value to the material
and dramatically reduce the cost to the tax payers. Confluence Energy
would estimate the saving to be in the range of $75 million over the
course of five years.
There is no current access to large volume long-term USFS or Bureau
of Land Management Lands (BLM) lands. There is no current legislation
that allows the USFS to allow for 20 year stewardship or other
agreements to access national forests. Confluence Energy will suggest
allowing private industry the access to large volumes of the dead and
dying trees over extended periods of time (long term stewardship
agreements). The long term access to feed stock supplies will allow
private industry accessibility to equity and debt markets that require
long term views. Accelerated access to beetle infested material could
also be done trough abbreviating the current National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process for these infested areas.
There are a few pieces of pending legislation that would restrict
access to dead and dying material. As problem grows the liability to
the tax payers increases. There is pending legislation (e.g., H.R.
1190) that would allow access to the dead and dying materials that
could be used to create jobs and produce renewable energy, building
materials, and economic development in rural areas.
The dead and dying trees have a limited shelf life. It is estimated
that once the trees die and turn red they have eight to 15 years before
they blow over. Once the trees blow over, they will create a jack straw
effect which will make it nearly impossible to be harvested affordably.
When trees blow over, they rot dramatically faster and remove any value
in the wood. Every minute we talk and do not act, not only are we are
losing value, but we are reducing the time private industry has to get
a return on their money to justify investing in these types of
projects.
Confluence Energy's wood utilization facility can use the material
long after there is no value for the high value user (e.g., house logs
and architectural beams). Most forestry experts will agree once the
beetles kill epidemic moves through a lodge pole pine forest, that the
forest will regenerate into what is referred to as a dog hair stand
(3,000 to 4,000 trees per acre). A healthy lodge pole forest has
approximately 300 to 400 trees per acre. A pre-commercial thinning will
be required to accomplish any future commercial value in future
generations. Removing 60 to 80% of the small diameter trees in 20 to 25
years will allow the trees to grow in healthy stands for future
generations. To summarize, the small wood utilization facility is a
good forest management tool, now and for generations to come.
The sizes of the facilities are critical to the success of the
forests now and in the future. We suggest that several of these
facilities could and should be built in the beetle infested areas. Care
should be taken not to make the facilities too large. Over-sized
facilities could potentially place incremental demand on the forest
that is not sustainable, creating a boom and bust cycle for the local
economies. In many of the areas that are predominately lodge pole
forests, there is a limited 10 to 15 year window for the higher grade
material. This is due to the fact that after the initial beetle kill
material is utilized, blown down, or consumed by fire, the pre-
commercial thinning projects in the future would not yield large enough
trees to yield a high value.
There is currently some USDA programming that is almost available
to fund this sort of project. Confluence Energy would require $10
million in grant funding and an additional $20 million in USDA backed
loans. The loans and grants would allow Confluence Energy to:
Build an 8 to 10 million gallon ethanol plant (Confluence
Energy has partnership with large U.S. fossil fuel company that is
interested in the joint venture project)
Build a five megawatt power generation system to provide
clean renewable energy to meet all the facilities needs. Excess power
would meet entire energy needs of the town of Kremmling. Any excess
power can be sold back to grid. Excess heat from electrical generation
will be used in both the pellet plant and ethanol plant.
Retrofit and remodel the 50,000 sq. ft. existing facility
to manufacture high value wood products
Renovate existing rail loading facility to transport all
finished products to market
Expand current pellet facility to maximize potential
output
The current USDA programs require the participation of a
conventional lender. The current credit market makes it very difficult
to fund these types of projects. The current USDA programs only cover
75% of such a project. The lenders risk on the remaining 25% is enough
to scare away most lenders. The limitations on the grants that we
qualify for are $500,000.
The implementation of a wood utilization facility would allow
companies like Confluence Energy to place the highest possible value to
the existing dead and dying trees. Each and every tree would be sorted
in effort to have the tree go to its highest value use. The facility
will be designed to utilize 100% of the unwanted biomass material.
Confluence Energy can create a system that will not require incremental
federal money once the facility is up and running. Confluence Energy
would pay a high enough value for the material that the USFS and other
agencies would not be required to subsidize the removal of the trees.
It is estimated that the suggested facility would utilize
approximately 400,000 tons of material. The estimated feed stock cost
is $14 million a year. Confluence Energy estimates that USFS and other
federal agencies would realize greater than $10 million in annual
savings.
The utilization facility would create over 100 good-paying full
time jobs in rural areas. The jobs would include chemical engineers,
mill rights, carpenters, managers and operators. Confluence Energy
currently employs over 30 people and pays wages that are 25% higher
than the average wage in the area.
The biomass industry is virtually not recognized by federal
government as part of the solution to help this county realize our
energy independence. We would like to see biomass treated on an equal
playing field with the other renewable energy industries. The industry
would expect to see production tax credits similar to what others
receive. In fact, the Pellet Fuels Institute, a trade association
representing biomass pellet manufacturers and equipment suppliers, is
currently working to make this tax credit a reality. Creating thermal
energy using biomass is given no federal support of any kind, which is
inexplicable, given that thermal energy accounts for 32% of this
country's energy needs.
We believe that conditions are ripe for expanding our business and
co-locating wood pellet, cellulosic ethanol, power generation and high
value building products utilization facilities. Our combined facilities
could take advantage of all of the opportunities noted above. The
implementation of combined facilities would allow us to expand what we
can use as raw feedstock and to then allocate our raw feedstock costs
across several business streams. The wood pellet plant alone--or a
combined facility--is an effective forest management tool. The plants
can utilize low or no value material from forests and turn it into high
value renewable energy sources. The ethanol processing residue would
also be used to provide the process heat requirement for both plants.
This results in a processing facility with lower emissions and two fuel
streams (ethanol and wood pellets) that are cleaner and more
environmentally friendly than their fossil fuel counterparts. High
grade logs would be separated on site and utilized to make several
building products including flooring, paneling, house logs,
architectural beams, round wood products and etc. It is estimated that
only 10% to 15% of the standing dead trees would qualify for the high
value use.
Our experience suggests that we have solid demand for our existing
wood pellet manufacturing capability in both residential and commercial
applications. Residential applications have existed for more than 20
years and sales of residential stoves are forecast to increase in
popularity. To date, we have had success in securing distribution
contracts with hundreds of retail stores. We have packaging
capabilities and are readily able to serve the residential market.
Moreover, as pellets can be produced, delivered and fired for 50% less
than propane, fuel oil or electric heat, this fuel savings is creating
fast-growing interest in using wood pellets in commercial applications.
With expanded capacity, we intend to focus on the commercial market.
The pellet industry is part of the solution to the Mountain Pine
Beetle infestation. These infested trees are a detriment to the health
of the forest and can lead to massive wildfire hazards. The pellet
industry can use this un-merchantable wood and put it to a beneficial
use. This form of renewable energy is a win-win proposition to address
this problem. Thanks again for allowing me to testify regarding this
Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic and what we can do to help alleviate the
problem.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. We do have your
slides in the testimony for the record, and appreciate your
testimony, your verbal testimony, because that adds a little
more of the understanding to how you view the issue.
I would like to then move on to our next panelist, Mr.
Larsen.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. LARSEN, GENERAL MANAGER, CARBON POWER
AND LIGHT INC., SARATOGA, WYOMING
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Madame Chairman. They tell you when
you write testimony that you should really hit them off hard
right when you get up front with the testimony. But you have
all witnessed the pictures that have been up here today, and
there is nothing I can say to you today that would give you a
better image of the grave issue that we are facing in the West.
These are visions that I get to look at every day.
As it says in my testimony, I am the General Manager of
Carbon Power and Light. We are a rural electric cooperative in
south central Wyoming. We are a small co-op. We have a large
service territory of 3.3 customers per mile, 6,100 meters, and
we serve in portions of the Medicine Bow Mountain, the Sierra
Madre and the Medicine Bow Range.
In 2006 and 2007 we watched from the valley as it had been
moving into the area, but it really seemed to explode, the bark
beetle issue really came on strong. As the General Manager of a
rural electric cooperative with distribution power lines
serving cabin communities, a reservoir providing water to the
City of Cheyenne, communication sites, and Forest Service
facilities, we became quite concerned of what the impact would
be as these trees died along our power line right-of-ways.
Typically our right-of-ways are 10 to 15 feet either side
of center line, or 20 to 30 feet in width. That doesn't seem
like it is very much. But with a healthy forest, they have been
working quite well for years.
As you can see from these pictures, we have a lot of trees
that are dying along those right-of-ways, and we became quite
concerned.
At that time, in early 2007, or October 2007, I called a
meeting with the Forest Service folks in our area because we
were concerned. Two of my staff members and myself met with
nine Forest Service officials and expressed our concern, and
were asking questions as to what was going to happen.
Much to my surprise, I was informed that there was no
budget on the Forest Service side to handle any clearing
outside of our existing right-of-ways, and that they would be
our responsibility.
In subsequent meetings I was also informed that if one of
those trees fell from outside that area, my cooperative would
be held liable. This was an extreme concern to us. Our legal
counsel approached the Forest Service people in our area and
said, where does it say that in our special permits, that we
could be held liable.
He asked for a legal opinion; was never given one. Was told
that the Forest Service legal counsel could not talk to him on
this, and that we would remain liable.
Having been faced with that, we had no decision to make but
to move on. We worked with the Forest Service. Our local Forest
Service people had been very good about trying to help us get
going. They have come up with a streamline approach from the
NEPA program; it is called an environmental assessment. But you
have to put streamlined in context here.
We started on this process in early 2008. We have not had a
complete EA approved at this time. We have not been able to cut
a tree, and we are going to more than likely not cut a tree in
2009.
For clarification, our special use permits say that we are
responsible for clearing the trees in that permit area. They
also go on to say that any tree that is a danger that is
leaning in toward the power line, we must contact Forest
Service to get permission to cut that tree. If it is an
immediate danger we can cut it, but we have 48 hours to notify
them that we have done so.
That led us to believe that all those trees outside our
permit area were not our responsibility, but now they are.
While we go through the EA process and all the rules and
regulations, and all the study associated with this project,
the clock is ticking, and the liability is still hanging over
my head.
At the beginning of this process, I guess one of the
biggest problems we had is we were the first guys, to my
knowledge, we were the first ones that moved ahead with a
distribution power line clearing project. I guess one of the
problems with being first is all the rules get created as you
go along. That is one of the biggest things that has hindered
us in moving forward with this.
I would like to just close, and I thank you for your time.
Again, the clock is ticking for us. I still have the liability
issue as a cooperative. Many cooperatives in the state, in the
states represented here today, have that hanging over their
heads right now. We need your help.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larsen follows:]
Statement of Charles A. Larsen, General Manager,
Carbon Power and Light Inc., Saratoga, Wyoming
Honorable Committee Chairmen and Committee Members, my name is
Charles A. Larsen and I am the General Manager of Carbon Power and
Light Inc.(Carbon), a Rural Electric Cooperative providing distribution
electric service to Member-Owners (consumers) of the Cooperative in
south central Wyoming. The purpose of my testimony today is to provide
you with information specific to Carbon's experiences associated with
the impact of the Mountain Pine Beetle (Pine Beetle) infestation and
the impact that infestation is having on the Cooperative.
As stated Carbon is a Rural Electric Cooperative and like many
Electric Cooperatives our service areas are large and our numbers of
consumers are low. Carbon's consumer density is 3.3 consumers per mile
of line for a total of 6,100 meters. The geological makeup of Carbon's
service territory ranges from grassland, to foothills and portions of
the Medicine Bow and Sierra Madre mountain ranges. For the purpose of
this hearing, we will be focusing on Carbon's distribution electric
system serving within the aforementioned mountainous areas.
In 2006 and 2007 those of us living in south central Wyoming,
watched as the Pine Beetle infestation, which was devastating
Colorado's northern forests, rapidly spread into our forested areas.
Because Carbon has several ``Special Use Permits'' within the National
Forests, which provide right-of-way access and allows us to provide
distribution electrical service to numerous cabin communities,
communication sites, a reservoir providing water to the City of
Cheyenne and Forest Service Facilities we understandably became quite
concerned with the inevitable impact that these dying trees would have
on our overhead power lines within these permit areas. At the start of
this process, it was anticipated that within a 5 year period the
mortality rate of the lodge pole pine species in our forested areas
will be 90 to 95%--this estimation is proving to be correct.
For clarification, each time Carbon extends its electrical
distribution lines within the National Forest, we are required to apply
for and receive approval from the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service),
under their permitting process, prior to constructing our facilities.
Historically, the Forest Service has granted us right-of-way widths of
20 and 30 feet (10 to 15 feet either side of centerline). Carbon is
then required to maintain that permit area, based on a set of
guidelines provided for in the ``Special Use Permit''. As you probably
have already noted--20 to 30 feet is not very wide, however under a
healthy forest situation, these widths have been adequate for many
years. The permits for these right-of-ways are also very clear as to
how Carbon must address trees leaning into the right-of way from
outside the cleared permit area. Carbon must either notify the Forest
Service that a tree is a problem and get permission to remove it or if
it is an immediate hazard it can be removed, provided we notify the
Forest Service within 48 hours after doing so.
In October of 2007, recognizing the pending impact this tree
mortality would have on our power lines; I requested a meeting with the
Forest Service to discuss the situation. That meeting was held on
October 9th and included myself, two Carbon employees and nine Forest
Service employees. After expressing our concerns I was very surprised
to learn that--all of those trees--dead and dying--outside our permit
area, were now Carbon's future responsibility and expense to deal with.
At this meeting and in subsequent meetings we were also informed that
Carbon would be liable, if in fact one of those trees fell from outside
the permit area, contacted our power line and started a forest fire.
This was the beginning of Carbon's quest to address the Pine Beetle
impact--a process that to date has failed to facilitate the large scale
removal of any hazard trees adjacent to our permit areas.
Early in this process, it seemed that the existing Forest Service
Rules and Regulations were clear as to how to manage a healthy forest
and the transition in dealing with a dead forest was something they had
not planned for. For my part, I wrote numerous letters and met with
Forest Service Officials, Wyoming's Congressional delegates, the Rural
Utilities Service, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
and neighboring Electric Cooperatives expressing my concerns and to
attempt to seek some cohesive common ground in addressing the problem.
Unfortunately--it was clearly apparent that no one knew just what to
do. At this point, I must admit it felt pretty lonely out here in
Wyoming.
Since that time, after numerous meetings (12 total), countless
phone calls and emails, the Forest Service has worked with Carbon to
commence with the process of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA)
which will be required prior to achieving our goal of widening the
existing right-of-ways to 150 feet. That process started in November of
2008 and is yet to be completed. There is currently discussion
regarding the requirement of an additional ``Goshawk Study'' under the
biological component of the EA. It is now extremely unlikely that
Carbon will be allowed to move ahead with any right-of-way widening in
the current year.
Carbon currently has 34 miles of distribution power line that must
be addressed. To address our potential liability Carbon has increased
its general liability insurance amount from $4 million to $10 million.
It is estimated that before this project is completed, the general
expenses associated with the project, the EA and the actual clearing,
Carbon will expend an amount in excess of $1.3 million. In the scope of
things currently taking place nationally--that may seem like a small
amount, but for Carbon and other Cooperatives facing this similar
issue, it is funding that we must borrow and which will be paid back
through the electric rates of our current and future Member-Owners.
In closing, there are those who say this is a natural occurrence,
those that say it is caused by climate change and there are those who
say that it is due to mismanagement of our forests. At this point
however, laying blame accomplishes very little. The Forest Service,
Environmental Community, General Public, Utilities and our
Congressional Representatives must come together to address this issue.
For Carbon--and other Electric Cooperatives serving in Pine Beetle
impacted forests we need your help--the clock is ticking--and time is
running out.
I would like to thank the Committees for your time and your
consideration in this matter.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
Mr. McGuire, we will finish your testimony. We already have
a vote on the Floor, so we will have to leave. There will be no
questions directed at you. The committee will submit them to
you. If you will respond as promptly as you could.
And your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF BRENDAN McGUIRE, MANAGER OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
VAIL RESORTS, BROOMFIELD, COLORADO
Mr. McGuire. Excellent, thank you. Good afternoon. Thank
you for the opportunity to be here and present the views of
Vail Resort on the bark beetle and potential strategies for
protecting the West.
Just to dive right in, we really have three main
recommendations. This committee should be commended for its
work on the FLAME Act, disentangling the fire suppression
account from the Forest Service budget, and allowing for
increased resources to flow to forest health and recreation
operations is a major step forward. It is probably the most
important action that Congress can take.
Number two, I think, as you have heard today, this outbreak
is beyond the capabilities of any single stakeholder in the
forests to deal with on their own. We need to increase the
partnerships that we have with all the stakeholders. For the
ski resorts, that means increasing the partnership with the
Forest Service in terms of increased funding to work on that
vegetation management on the ski resorts, which are also
basically part of the wildland-urban interface.
Third, other opportunities to respond to the bark beetle
include supporting the forest product infrastructure,
opportunities in biomass energy, renewable energy standard;
providing the Forest Service with increased flexibility to
respond to this epidemic; and reforestation where it is
appropriate.
A little bit of information about Vail Resorts. We operate
five of the most visited of the 10 most visited ski resorts in
the United States. In Colorado those operations are Vail
Mountain, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, and Keystone, all located
on the White River National Forest. Our fifth resort is
Heavenly Mountain Resort in Lake Tahoe, and that is a
management unit.
We accounted for 5.9 million skier visits last season. That
is the majority of visits in Colorado, about 10 percent of the
United States skier visits.
I see that, because I want to emphasize how important
recreation is on the forest, and especially to Colorado, it is
not only the economic base for our forest communities, but it
is one of the economic bases for the State of Colorado. We have
the most visitors to our national forests out of any state in
the country, just a little bit above California.
Tourism is our second-largest industry, and employs over
143,000 people in our state. There is about $15 billion in
annual travel spending.
We do operate our resorts on the national forests under
special use permits from the Forest Service. We really do value
our partnership with the Forest Service, on the district,
forest, regional, and national level. Without this partnership,
our critical day-to-day operations really would be negatively
impacted. We look forward to continuing to work closely with
the men and women of the Forest Service.
Our resorts are fortunate. We do have a diversity of trees.
We are not totally dependent on the lodgepole pine. We have
aspen and spruce and firs. But the beetle is in our trees. We
have seen it before, but the extent this time around is much
greater than we have seen before.
It is going to necessitate a continued increased level of
forest health work on our part. We need to do this in
conjunction with the Forest Service, and we are committed to
doing this really for two reasons: the safety of our guests and
infrastructure, and to be responsible stewards of the public
lands.
The safety of our guests and the infrastructure is our
number-one primary driver. To that end, we have to identify and
remove hazard trees, much like the transmission folks do.
Hazard trees are trees that get too close to the buildings or
within our defensible space for wildfire purposes, and also
trees that have the danger of dead falling or blowing down onto
our lift lines or infrastructure, or onto the trails that our
guests use.
Since the outbreak began, we have seen a dramatic increase
in the number of hazard trees that we need to take out of the
forest. We work closely with the Forest Service to do this. We
really appreciate the Forest Service's prompt responses to us.
It is just very important that we get those trees down as
quickly as possible once they are identified.
With this widespread infestation we have to do more than
just sort of look at individual hazard trees. We really need to
look at the landscape, the mountain as a whole; looking at the
entire stand of trees, and prioritizing treatment options.
We are working closely with the Forest Service. We are
consolidating this work into updated vegetative management
plans for our mountains. These are in various stages of
environmental review and implementation.
So I am just going to sort of skip to the end. Those two
recommendations I have--funding, funding, funding; resources,
resources, resources--really is the crux of all the issues--in
terms of what we can do, whether it is collaboratively, state,
local, private lands. It is especially important for the
Federal partnership that we have with the Forest Service.
We would like to do more--leverage our dollars with the
Forest Service, leverage the Forest Service dollars to do more
work on these recreation areas, where millions upon millions of
people visit their national forests every day and really get
that good impression.
So with that, I will conclude. Thank you very much for your
time. It is an important issue. We look forward to working with
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGuire follows:]
Statement of Brendan McGuire, Manager of Government Relations,
Vail Resorts
Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to present Vail
Resorts' views on the mountain pine beetle (MPB) and strategies for
protecting our natural resources.
My name is Brendan McGuire and I am the Manager of Government
Relations at Vail Resorts. I also serve on Colorado Governor Bill
Ritter's Forest Health Advisory Council.
This hearing is of critical interest to Vail Resorts and the
following testimony will focus on these recommendations:
Disentangling fire suppression costs from the Forest
Service budget and increasing funding for forest health and recreation
operations is the most important action Congress can take.
The MPB outbreak has created forest health challenges
beyond the capabilities of any single stakeholder and increased
partnerships are essential to achieve the desired outcomes.
Other opportunities to responding to the MPB include
supporting forest products infrastructure, biomass energy, providing
the Forest Service with increased flexibility to respond to the MPB,
and reforestation.
Background
Vail Resorts is the premier mountain resort company in the world
operating five of the 10 most visited ski resorts in the United States:
Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, and Keystone located
entirely or partially on the White River National Forest in Colorado;
and
Heavenly Mountain Resort in the Lake Tahoe Basin
Management Unit in California & Nevada.
During the recent 2008/2009 season our resorts drew 5.9 million
skier visits (approximately 10% of United States skier visits). In
addition to the ski season, thousands of people visit the communities
in which we operate to enjoy the beautiful summer weather and multitude
of activities including recreating in the woods. These tourism/
recreation based activities are the economic base for not only
Colorado's forest communities but for Colorado's economy as whole.
Tourism is Colorado's 2nd largest industry with over 143,000 employees
and $15 billion in annual travel spending.
Vail Resorts operates its resorts on National Forests under special
use permits from the United States Forest Service (USFS). Our resorts
value the partnership we have with the USFS on the district, forest,
regional and national level. This partnership is critical to the day-
to-day operations of our resorts and we look forward to continuing to
work closely with the dedicated men and women of the USFS.
Vail Resorts Forest Health & Response to Mountain Pine Beetle
This testimony is based on our operations in Colorado where the MPB
is currently active. However, at the end of the testimony I will
briefly comment on forest health at Heavenly Mountain Resort in Lake
Tahoe.
The USFS are the forestry experts in the room so I will defer to
them to elaborate on the state of forest health in the west and the
MPB. However, for some context in my testimony, the Colorado State
Forest Service's 2008 forest health report (to which the USFS
contributed) estimates that the MPB has infested a total of 1.9 million
acres 1996 when the outbreak was first noted. The MPB are primarily
infesting lodgepole pines older than 30-40 years with a mortality rate
of 90% and higher.
While our resorts are fortunate to be home to diverse species of
trees (including aspen, spruce, and fir), the extent of the MPB
activity in aging lodgepole pines at our resorts necessitates an
increased level of forest health efforts. In carrying out these
efforts, in conjunction with the USFS, Vail Resorts is committed to the
safety of our guests and the responsible stewardship of the
environment.
The safety of our guests and the resort infrastructure that serves
them is our primary concern. To that end the identification and removal
of hazard trees is an on-going initiative. Examples of hazard trees
include:
Trees within the wildfire defensible space of resort
structures.
Trees with the potential to dead-fall or blow-down onto
lift lines, buildings, or trails.
Since the MPB outbreak began we have seen a dramatic increase in
the number of hazard trees that need to be removed each year.
In addition to hazard tree removal, other forest health efforts are
aimed at promoting increased species and age diversity through
selective tree thinning, small patch cuts, and forest restoration work
where the MPB has had or will have the greatest impact. Vail Resorts
has also successfully utilized spraying to protect certain high value
trees from MPB.
In the past our forest management was focused on identifying and
removing individual trees that had succumbed to insects before the next
generation of insects emerged. Now, with a widespread infestation
beyond anything we have experienced before, we are shifting our focus
to more of a landscape level, looking at entire stands of trees
(including what younger vegetation is present), evaluating treatment
options for those stands, and prioritizing treatments. Working closely
with the USFS, we have consolidated this work into updated vegetation
management plans that are in various stages of environmental review and
implementation.
This landscape focus is leading to larger projects that accomplish
the dual goals of protecting infrastructure as well as promoting
reforestation. An example of that work is a project on Vail Mountain
carried out in the fall of 2008. Over the course of three to four
weeks, 16 acres of infested lodgepoles were treated along the Eagle
Bahn Gondola line. Other species and small lodgepoles were retained.
This pro-active treatment removed hazard and potential hazard trees as
well as encourages accelerated reforestation by creating space for
younger trees to thrive.
As the visual impact of the MPB killed trees grew, it was important
for us to inform our guests that the changing forest landscape was the
result of a naturally occurring MPB. We deliver this message on our
trail maps, websites, local resort television, and through the ``Ski
with a Ranger'' program in partnership with the USFS.
Through our charitable giving, employee engagement, and
environmental stewardship program, Vail Resorts 360, we have also
engaged our guests to actively support restoration work on the forest
through a partnership with the National Forest Foundation Ski
Conservation Fund. Our guests have the opportunity to support the fund
with $1 when they purchase lift tickets, ski passes, or stay in our
lodges. The National Forest Foundation uses these contributions for on-
the-ground conservation work in the National Forests.
Recommendations for Protecting the West
Forest Service Budget Flexibility & Funding
First and foremost, the Natural Resources Committee is to be
commended for re-introducing and passing the FLAME Act out of
the full House. Beginning to untangle the fire suppression
budget from the rest of the USFS budget is a critical step to
let USFS focus resources on forest health and recreation.
The need for sustained funding increases to address forest
health challenges related to MPB is well documented. The USFS
has responded with some additional funds, however the need for
additional funding grows every year.
Congress should consider additional funding for the USFS to
specifically address critical forest health issues related to
MPB in our region.
Partnerships
Congress has long recognized the importance of partnering with
local stakeholders and prioritizing finite resources for forest
health projects that provide the most ``bang for the buck.'' In
that spirit, the USFS should be commended for its existing
partnerships in Colorado including its close work with ski
resorts.
Given the unprecedented scale of the management challenges
facing the USFS and ski resorts, encouraging increased
partnerships through greater funding to achieve successful
forest management outcomes is warranted. Increased funding to
USFS for the development, approval, and implementation of
vegetation management plans for special use permit areas will
greatly assist the USFS and its partners in managing MPB areas.
Safety
Vail Resorts would like to thank the USFS for working closely
with our mountain crews to facilitate the timely removal of
hazard trees presenting safety issues to our guests and
infrastructure. The importance of this work cannot be
overstated.
Timber/Biomass Markets
A major challenge facing all stakeholders is what to do with
the relatively low value timber coming off the forest.
To help create and ensure a viable forest products
infrastructure in the West, Congress should continue to look
for opportunities to promote the use of forest biomass in
renewable energy efforts, such as a national renewable energy
standard and the Biomass Commercial Utilization Grant Program
in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
Increased Flexibility for the USFS
The USFS, operating within the relevant laws and regulations,
has demonstrated a great willingness to work with stakeholders
in a collaborative and flexible manner to facilitate the
response to MPB related forest health challenges.
However, with the extreme challenge presented by the current
MPB outbreak it may be appropriate to consider allotting more
flexibility to the USFS to address forest health challenges.
This flexibility does not need to call the NEPA process into
question. Rather, Congress should work with the USFS and other
stakeholders to determine if there are very specific areas
(such as stumpage fees for MPB killed trees) where the USFS
response to MPB would benefit from increased flexibility.
Reforestation
Ecologically speaking, many western forests have evolved to
naturally regenerate after disturbances such as fire, insects,
or logging. However, in some cases it is appropriate to aid
reforestation through replanting of native species. On national
forests, this reforestation must be done with specifically
approved species that are ecologically appropriate. The USFS
provides these stocks of trees (grown from cones and seeds
collected from the local area) from its system of nurseries.
Congress should provide the USFS with the resources needed for
the collection of cones and seeds and the development of a
stock of seedlings for reforestation efforts to help accelerate
the natural reforestation.
Lake Tahoe
I would like to briefly comment on forest conditions at Heavenly
Mountain Resort in Lake Tahoe.
Currently, forest insect hot spots are developing in Lake Tahoe
where a mix of conditions is creating what could be an ideal
environment for an insect outbreak. The Lake Tahoe region is
experiencing reduced precipitation levels and large swaths of the
forest are over-stocked with aged trees in the 80 to 120-year age
class. Recognizing these conditions has led stakeholders in the region
to look towards increased active management to stay ahead of potential
insect outbreaks.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of Vail Resorts.
I am happy to take any questions that the Committee may have and we
look forward working closely with the Committee, Members of Congress,
and the USFS on this and other issues.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thanks for your testimony, and appreciate
your being so patient. We will be submitting some questions for
some answers.
Dr. Kolb.
STATEMENT OF DR. PETER KOLB, SOCIETY OF
AMERICAN FORESTERS, MISSOULA, MONTANA
Mr. Kolb. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the Society of American Foresters, an organization
with over 15,000 professional foresters as members.
I am the Montana State Extension Forestry Specialist. I am
also a forest ecologist and management professor at the
University of Montana. So I work with practitioners, industry,
private landowners. I also do research on larger ecological
cycles in the forests of the northern Rocky Mountain
ecosystems.
I have a lot of slides. I won't put them up. I encourage
you to look at them when you have the opportunity, and I would
be delighted to provide a narrative for them. But I will put up
this last slide, and I will get to that in a second.
But listening to the testimony today, a few observations
and a few comments to make on this.
First off, it is my overall impression that you are trying
to deal with a symptom, and not the root cause here. There are
multiple pests that are working on forests. In Montana,
unprecedented spruce budworm, douglas fir beetle. We also have
mountain pine beetle. We have introduced species that are
working on there.
These are all symptoms of a changing climate. Whether it is
human-caused or non-human-caused, from my perspective it is
irrelevant.
There is a plethora of research. Climates have always
fluctuated. The current trend and the current predictions under
the best scenarios, if it is anthropogenically caused, is that
things will get warmer and drier. This will be a benefit to all
these pests, and a stressor to our forests.
The problem with our forests is, as you have heard, and I
concur with all of the testimony before, is we have large
landscapes with similar-aged similar species. What we need to
do is bring back the mosaic to these landscapes. This involves
proactive management. Again, there are many slides that show
that, and I will highlight what the Rocky Boy Reservation,
Chippewa Cree Nations are doing, and the Salish and Kootenai
Tribes. They have gone through an extensive planning process.
They are extensively using harvests to recreate a natural
historical mosaic. It is just like investing in a bank
portfolio: you diversify, particularly under uncertain times,
which is what we are seeing.
Younger trees are less susceptible. We need to have all age
classes represented on these landscapes, and all natural
species that occur on those landscapes, which we currently do
not have.
The long-term implications of these massive scales of
mortality is that we have hundred-hour and thousand-hour fuels
that end up on the surface. We have new tree species
regenerating in those.
In a drier, warmer climate, these hundred-hour and
thousand-hour fuels will ignite and will burn, which adds a
magnitude of energy release that is phenomenal. It is the
difference between a firecracker and a bunker-buster bomb going
off.
Those kill the regeneration. We lose our genetic resource
off these sites. That is the long-term consequence that is
going on there.
So what do we need to do? I have grown up here, I have had
the opportunity in the last six months, as a Fulbright Scholar
in Germany, to look at their forest ecosystems. The reason for
this is Germany and Montana have similar forest land base
sizes.
Montana's annual harvest on average is 750 million board
feet. Germany's, off of the same land base, is 12 billion board
feet, off a country with 83 million inhabitants. They export
wood to the United States.
This map is the state of Bavaria in Germany. Those are all
the wood product facilities, in a state the size of
Massachusetts. The black dots are wood biomass energy plants,
cogent plants. They have a diversified forest parts industry.
Lumber and waste products go into bioenergy. That is what keeps
their industry robust, keeps it functioning, even during
periods of economic downturn.
The other most important factor is their forests are
managed for diversity, but overall sustainability, and a
predictable wood supply. Investing in a mill requires hundreds
of millions of dollars. Investing in modern logging technology
requires millions of dollars.
We have loggers in Montana that right now do not have work,
and they have a million dollars' worth of ecologically
sensitive equipment sitting on their front lawn. This is a very
skilled, experienced workforce that we are about to lose, and
we won't get back, because there are no schools that teach
these skills.
So as you work through these solutions, and I would suggest
long-term planning processes across landscapes, a 10-year
planning cycle does not work in an ecosystem that cycles in 100
to 500 years.
I would suggest long-term stewardship contracts, 20 to 50
years, where you do the NEPA on an entire watershed. Once you
are through that rigorous and painful process, a mill can bid
on that, and now they have 20 to 50 years of sustainable
management activities that they can conduct, which allows them
to invest and pay off their equipment.
These are some real solutions. Collaborative meetings are
great if the collaborators must come to an agreement, and
people can't come out of left field and suddenly appeal. One of
the best forest practitioners in Montana also has his own
logging operation, has been now to count 554 collaborative
meetings, with no results. He is currently clearing brush under
power lines in Kansas instead of working in the forest.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kolb follows:]
Statement of Dr. Peter Kolb, Montana State University
My name is Peter Kolb, and I am the Montana State University
Extension Forestry Specialist and an Associate Professor of Forest
Ecology and Management at the University of Montana College of Forestry
and Conservation. I'm here today speaking on behalf of the Society of
American Foresters (SAF), an organization of over 15,000 forest
managers, researchers, and educators. I've been a SAF member for 27
years.
I am here today to offer you my testimony with regard to the bark
beetle situation across western forests with specific reference to the
conditions across the Montana with which I am most familiar. My
perspective is not that of an entomologist, but that of a forest
ecologist and management specialist whose main work objective is to
help implement the results and conclusion of scientific research into
practical working applications. I work in both academic circles as an
applied researcher and educator, and in the forest practitioners'
realm, which gives me the opportunity not only to conduct relevant
research, but to examine the effects of forestry applications. Just
three days ago I returned from a week of working with family landowners
and the Cree and Chippewa tribes of central Montana where we examined
the forest conditions there and the effectiveness of various forest
practices in combating a mountain pine beetle outbreak in the Bearpaw
Mountains.
Bark Beetles
The bark beetle outbreak we are experiencing across the entire
western portion of North America is the result of multiple ecological
factors converging at the same time. Its occurrence is not a surprise
for foresters across western forests as the current expansiveness of
bark beetle activity has been building for many years. Bark beetles
such as mountain pine beetles, one of the main culprits in the current
outbreaks, have been extensively studied since the mid 1970s. Its life
cycle and ecology are very well understood. It has been a natural part
of western forests for millennia and its population cycles are fairly
predictable. Under what we would characterize the average forest and
climatic conditions of the past century it exists as a chronic
population within pine forests, colonizing and killing trees that are
unable or incapable of defending themselves due to a variety of
physiological, genetic or environmental factors. It may be considered
analogous to wolves circling a herd of caribou, culling out the weak,
unfit and injured. As with any species, bark beetles have numerous
pests and predators themselves including a variety of predatory
beetles, wasps, nematodes, mites, fungal diseases, and larger predators
such as bark gleaning birds and woodpeckers. Depending on the
populations of these predators and pests, chronic bark beetle
populations might be kept in check.
Perhaps one of the most important factors affecting bark beetle
populations is climate. Typically higher elevation and northern
latitude forests experience extreme cold periods where air temperatures
hover at minus 30-40+F for several or more weeks in winter. Under such
temperatures overwintering beetles or larvae experience significant
mortality. Similarly, cool moist summers can inhibit beetle activity
and larval development and increase the effects of fungal pathogens.
When climatic conditions cycle into warmer and drier trends, beetle
populations are favored with less winter mortality and faster and
better reproductive cycles. Across higher elevation lodgepole pine
forests in Montana for example, mountain pine beetles rarely have been
able to expand into larger populations in the past 100 years because of
extremely cold winter temperatures. Also, short summers have only
allowed the beetles to typically have one reproductive cycle. When
warmer winters, earlier springs and resulting longer summers prevail,
bark beetle populations gain an advantage. Under longer summer
scenarios, such as we experienced across Montana for the past decade,
mountain pine beetles may start to achieve two regeneration cycles. Two
bark beetles produce an average of 80 offspring on one reproductive
cycle. With a second cycle the first generation then can produce 3,200
offspring by the end of summer. Milder winters then allow most
overwintering beetles to survive, which means in the second summer the
overwintering beetles can produce 128,000 offspring in the first
reproductive cycle and 5,120,000 offspring in the second cycle.
An equally important factor that influences bark beetle populations
is the availability of suitable host trees. Each bark beetle species
has adaptations that allow it to attack and reproduce best in specific
tree species, and when those trees are in a certain size and age range.
The greater the suitable host tree number, the greater the potential
food source and thus the larger the population of bark beetles that can
develop. Likewise, the greater the percentage of host trees that are
similar in age and size, the greater the probability of bark beetles
successfully attacking and colonizing them at the same time.
A landscape such as Yellowstone National Park, that had a large
acreage burn catastrophically in 1988, will develop an even aged forest
of fire adapted lodgepole pine that are all similar in size equivalent
in expansiveness as the area of disturbance. When these trees reach 90-
100 years of age, they will mostly become suitable host trees at the
same time that under the right climatic conditions can allow an
epidemic of bark beetles to develop once again. The epidemic will then
persist as long as there are host trees within flying distance of
beetles and the climate remains favorable. The same is true, for
example, of Colorado and Wyoming's lodgepole pine forests. By and
large, these forests are mature, even age forests of lodgepole pine
stressed by drought and high densities of trees combined with warmer
temperatures that foster mountain pine beetle population explosion.
Since native tree species and their pests have coevolved, trees
have natural defense mechanisms against herbivore attacks. Most
conifers, the prevalent category of trees in the western United States,
produce pitch, which is a viscous liquid and toxic defensive compound
(not to be confused with sap, which is the water and nutrient
conducting liquid within a tree) and if present in adequate amounts can
be used to kill bark intruders such as bark beetles as well as seal off
tree wounds. Likewise secondary metabolite products such as terpene and
phenolic compounds can be produced as toxic countermeasures to insect
or disease attack. The forest products industry processes these very
materials out of harvested wood to produce a variety of chemicals we
use in our everyday lives as disinfectants, preservatives and even
products such as arabinogalactan that is thought to enhance human
immune systems. The production of these defense mechanisms, however,
only occurs in adequate quantities when a tree has the resources needed
to grow well, such as enough sunlight, water and nutrients. Stress
brought on by drought periods, mechanical injury, or excessive
competition with neighboring trees results in a weakened tree defense
capability (Hermes and Matson 1992). The energy allocation within a
tree is thought to be prioritized first on maintenance respiration
(keeping its cell structure alive), next in adding new growth, and only
then in producing defense mechanisms. Thus weakened trees become the
natural targets for pests such as bark beetles.
Mature forests with dense canopies have the additive effects of
transpiring more water than forests of younger trees with less needle
area, and intercepting rainfall and snowfall in their dense canopies
that evaporates back into the atmosphere before having a chance to
enter the soil where trees can absorb it. The additive impacts of
greater water and energy production requirements, less soil water
recharge, and limited space for photosynthetic (needle) area leads to
significantly weakened trees. At this point the trees in this condition
represent a large food source without any defenses, the perfect target
for bark beetles and a host of other tree pests and pathogens.
When mild winters, early springs and longer summers, perfect
conditions for bark beetle survival and reproduction, are combined with
a landscape covered with a disproportionately large population of
mature preferred host trees, that are suffering from the stress of
overcrowding coupled with drought brought on by the warmer winters and
longer summers, the conditions for a perfect bark beetle storm arise.
If the climatic conditions that favor bark beetles persist, this storm
will last as long as there are host trees available to eat. When
epidemic populations develop, trees that originally exhibited
resistance to pest attack can succumb to the sheer number of successive
attacks. It is not uncommon to find trees that have resisted and
survived the first year of a bark beetle attack only to be successfully
colonized in the second or third year of an outbreak. This may be a
significantly undesirable impact of a forest pest epidemic as the trees
exhibiting superior survival abilities and possibly genetically
desirable characteristics as the potential seed sources of the future
forest are also lost. Local seed sources have their limits, especially
when trying to restore ecosystems across broad geographic scales.
Diverse seed sources are relevant to restoring vegetation that is
resilient, ecologically competent and possesses the evolutionary
potential required to meet changing and challenging environments
(Broadhurst et al 2008). This can reduce the overall genetic diversity
within a population, weaken the robustness and health of a species, and
reduce the ability of the species to adapt to new environmental
conditions such as may be the case with global climate change. Genetic
variation within populations of tree species is a substantial component
of biodiversity and appears to be a significant prerequisite for the
survival and persistence of forest ecosystems, particularly under
heterogeneous and changing environmental conditions. Inbreeding results
in weaker individual trees with less stress resistance (Muller-Stark et
al 2005).
As long as forests have been a primary provider of resources for
human populations, tree damaging agents have been considered unwelcome.
Scientific understanding of how forest ecosystems function has
progressed to the point in the recent half century to where we
understand and appreciate that most organisms perform an important
function in keeping forests healthy and in a sense, push species to
continue to evolve. Bark beetles are no different and not only continue
to help select for genetically strong individuals, but also create
habitat and provide food sources or multiple other organisms. As such
it would be unwise to eradicate bark beetles and other natural
organisms that interfere with our immediate needs from the forest. At
some point, however, an organism may reach a tipping point where it
gains an unfair advantage against another organism. The result is that
the disadvantaged species goes extinct or is pushed onto a small
fraction of its former distribution.
German Forests
Across central Europe forests have been harvested intensively and
continually for over 2000 years. Many countries there, notably Sweden,
Germany, Austria, France and Switzerland have developed forest
management practices that maintain forest productivity, biodiversity,
scenic and recreational beauty, and that have greatly limited
catastrophic disturbances including bark beetle outbreaks.
As an example, the country of Germany has roughly the equivalent
land area and forested area as Montana. A greater oceanic effect
provides for a slightly milder climate and more evenly distributed
annual precipitation. Tree growth rates can be twice as high there as
in Montana. Whereas Montana has approximately 950,000 permanent
residents, Germany has 83 million residents. Hiking and nature
appreciation is a national pastime, and a large proportion of German
forests have a primary nature reserve or biodiversity protection
designation. Important to note is that forest management including tree
harvesting is not viewed as a barrier to such objectives, but rather a
tool to help achieve desired conditions for rare and endangered species
and recreational quality. Wood has also been identified as a primary
mechanism of reducing atmospheric carbon emissions and global warming
as it sequesters large amounts of carbon in living trees, wood
products, and offsets fossil fuel consumption when used as a primary
building material and source of energy. It is a highly valued product
in the European carbon cap and trade system. According to the European
Forestry Institute, ``When wood products are used instead of non
renewable materials such as steel or plastics, the carbon is
sequestered longer before it is released back into the atmosphere.
On an annual basis Germany harvests 12.6 billion board-feet
equivalent of wood, Montana over the past decade has annually harvested
an average of 750 million board-feet, most of which has come from
private lands, not federal lands even though the later accounts for 67%
of the Montana forest land base. To put this in perspective, the height
of the timber harvest from national forests was roughly 12 billion
board-feet in the 1980s. Now the entire harvest off of national forests
is roughly two billion board-feet. For Montana, as many other western
states, the repercussions have been devastating to the wood products
industry, forestry and logging professions.
Bark beetles are a common problem in all forests in Germany for the
most prevalent tree species, yet in the past decades bark beetle
epidemics have not occurred, mainly because they have been prevented.
The one exception is in the Bavarian National Park, were forest
management was excluded as the purpose of the park was for nature to
run its course without human interference, and for the dominating
native pure spruce forest to grow into ancient old growth character. In
the late 1990's a spruce bark beetle population started to build in
this forest. In the past decade it has killed 80% of the trees across
60% of the park and is expected to decimate the rest in the next five
years. This past year, the Bavarian government agreed to allow
foresters to start implementing measures to attempt to control the
epidemic as it is now spilling out of the park onto private forested
lands. The measures being used, which are successfully used to prevent
outbreaks across the rest of the nation are: 1) remove beetle infested
trees before the brood hatches out of it, 2) bait and trap beetles, 3)
manage surrounding spruce forests with thinning applications to enhance
tree vigor and natural resistance, 4) increase non-host tree species
diversity in forests around the park to limit beetle food sources, 5)
divert planned harvests of green trees to harvesting of beetle infected
or killed trees instead, 6) pursue research into other methods for
controlling bark beetle outbreaks, 7) manage for tree species that are
calculated to be adapted for future (warmer) climate scenarios.
Management Solutions for the US?
Can these management tactics also work for forest across the
western United States? Our understanding of tree and beetle biology for
our afflicted areas and species, as well as experiential knowledge
certainly matches what German foresters have to work with. Multiple
studies have shown that thinning forest stands to alleviate the impacts
of light and water competition on tree vigor while leaving what appear
to be the best trees results in less successful bark beetle attacks
(Schmid et al. 2007). It has also been postulated that the greater
heating from sunlight increases stress on bark beetles as they seek out
trees. Increasing the diversity of tree species in forests that are
primarily monocultures, such as the situation we see in Wyoming and
Colorado with lodgepole pine, thus reducing contiguous host tree
availability also makes for a more difficult environment for bark
beetles, and reduces the ability of epidemics to develop. Similarly,
decreasing the size of similar tree age and size patches of host trees
will have the same effect as increasing species diversity, as younger
age trees are not suitable host trees for most of the most prevalent
tree killing bark beetle species. Finally, using harvest trees to trap
beetles into, and then processing those trees thereby destroying the
brood, combined with the use of synthesized aggregation and anti-
aggregation pheromones (attractants and repellents) to manipulate and
control populations of beetles. All of these tactics have been used
with documented success in western forests. They do require the skill
and expertise of forest managers and forest entomologists, as well as a
skilled and modern logging workforce. They also require a funding
mechanism as the extensiveness of bark beetle mortality and risk is
enormous (Figure 1). As a side note, we are quickly losing our skilled
logging workforce in Montana (and across the West). Without this
workforce and infrastructure to take these materials, we'll lose our
ability manage forests.
Another issue is what to do with the significant volume of already
dead trees. In Germany much of the beetle infested or killed wood is
harvested. Fifty percent of the more than four billion board-feet
equivalent annual harvest in the German state of Bavaria, a forested
land base of slightly more than 6 million acres, is salvage and
sanitation harvest of dead and dying trees. This is all accomplished in
a taxable profit generating free market system. What is suitable goes
to sawmills and much of the rest is utilized for electricity, steam and
home heating (Figure 2) with one third of all households heating with
wood. Wood is rated as a renewable biomass source and replaces an
equivalent of 396 million gallons of heating oil per year in Bavaria
alone. Across the western United States, such utilization also occurs
at a small scale in the form of rural home heating and cogeneration
``hog-fuel'' of some wood products industries. For Montana the
calculated home heating oil replacement for national forest private
firewood cutting permits is 3.1 million gallons. Several small wood
burning school heating systems have been installed in recent years, and
several of the few remaining sawmills are considering investing in wood
generated power plants as the heat by-product of a wood-to-energy plant
can be used heat the dry kilns of the sawmills, thereby increasing the
efficiency and output of such a facility. One of the major barriers for
such investments remains the availability of wood raw materials where
67 percent of the forested land base, bark beetles and all, is under
federal management.
Forests suffering from large scale bark beetle outbreaks accumulate
significant amounts of dead wood. Mountain pine beetle-killed trees of
ponderosa and lodgepole pine typically topple over within 2-10 years,
creating large fuel loading for wildfires. Such heavy fuel
accumulations represent challenging wildfire control scenarios, and if
the larger diameter stem material dries out sufficiently, as has
occurred frequently in the past decade, wildfire severity and intensity
is greatly increased, which can result in mortality of beetle surviving
trees and their seed source. Such scenarios can further decrease the
genetic diversity of forests, particularly during a time when such
diversity may be needed to help forests adapt to projected climatic
change. Fuel management addresses directly the root of the wildfire
problem and when properly designed and implemented increases the
effective weather threshold for effective fire control, which is even
more relevant in a climate change scenario (Rigolot et al. 2009).
Conserving tree species across their historical range with
densities fitting the definition of ``forest'' both in the short term
(next 50 years) and long term (next 50-200 years), that are capable of
naturally regenerating and conserving their gene pool will be
challenging if the predictions of climate change are realized. In
addition, the characteristics and values associated with those forests
have a greater probability of being conserved with active forest
management than if left to what are deemed ``natural'' processes and
consequences. ``Active management'' is defined here as the process
where forests are inventoried within a reasonable scale for their
biological and physical properties, that this knowledge is used to plan
and implement landscape activities that provide for greater tree
survival and natural regeneration when exposed to significant changes
in temperature, precipitation and associated disturbances (wildfires,
insects and diseases), and that all management options ranging from
benign neglect to commercial tree harvesting are utilized. A thus
managed forested landscape would consist of a mosaic of ``wilderness''
and ``old-growth'' patches as well as areas with harvests designed to
promote tree vigor (thinning) and species and age class diversity (seed
tree, shelterwood, patch cutting). In Montana, most Native American
tribes have already adopted this management style on their reservation
lands. Both the confederated Salish and Kootenai tribes (Flathead
reservation) and Chippewa and Cree tribes (Rocky Boy reservation) are
using active forest management as well as rapid salvage and sanitation
harvesting to stem bark beetle epidemics and reduce the probability of
catastrophic wildfire effects in their forests.
Forest ecosystems are an important part of the global carbon cycle
since they are estimated to sequester and store approximately 80% of
the aboveground terrestrial carbon (Waring and Running 1998) which
equates to estimates from 380 to 458 Pg of total global stored
biologically based carbon (1 petagram = 1 gram x 1015 or about
1,100,000,000 tons). These estimates have put forests and their
management into the forefront of anthropogenic caused global climate
change debates as they may be one of the most efficient and effective
mechanisms for offsetting the most common human caused source of
atmospheric carbon dioxide: fossil fuel consumption that emits an
estimated global rate of 5.5 Pg of carbon per year (Waring and Running
1998). The European Community has instigated policy that offers
financial support for afforestation of agricultural lands and
silvicultural actions that may increase carbon sequestration (FAO
2009).
Larger disturbance such as a wildfire can kill many trees, thereby
releasing the stored carbon quickly through wood combustion or slowly
by killing the tree and thus releasing carbon through the slower
decomposition process. Wildfires release an instant pulse of carbon and
then changes the albedo of the land surface that allows for a much
greater absorption of solar energy that may last decades in boreal
forests (Running 2008). A young forest that may develop in the burned
area over the next 100-300 years recaptures the carbon again leading to
the concept that forests are actually ``carbon neutral'' in the long
term. However, if forest's natural cycles are altered, their overall
contribution to atmospheric carbon-dioxide also changes. Enhanced
growing conditions resulting from factors such as increased
precipitation, milder or shorter winters, fewer pests and pathogens,
faster growing or longer lived species to name a few all can lead to
greater carbon sequestration and carbon storage. Alternatively,
conditions such as less precipitation, greater drought periods,
uncharacteristic summer and winter temperatures, unusual wind events,
and increased pest, pathogen and wildfire occurrence can result in
lower rates of tree carbon sequestration, and the loss of total
forested area and the release of large amounts of wood sequestered
carbon into the atmosphere. The global carbon cycle can be converted
into atmospheric carbon dioxide, a primary greenhouse gas when trees
burn or decay, or atmospheric carbon can be sequestered when trees grow
and produce wood. As part of the IPCCs 4th assessment, seven general
circulation model simulations unanimously project an increase in June
through August temperatures of 2 to 5+C by 2040 to 2069. Wildfire burn
areas in Canada and the western United States are expected to increase
by 74 to 118%. Wildfires add an estimated 3.5 x 10 15 g atmospheric
carbon each year equivalent to 40% of annual fossil fuel emissions
(Running 2006). Forests thus represent both a potential source of
atmospheric carbon dioxide if they are degraded, or the most efficient
land based sink with a large capacity to absorb atmospheric carbon
dioxide when trees are rapidly growing.
Opinions vary and range from those that advocate active forest
management to enhance forest's resilience to bark beetle epidemics,
wildfires and ability to adapt as well as increase atmospheric carbon
dioxide sequestration rates and fixed carbon storage capacity to those
that feel active management of forests causes a net carbon storage loss
as well as less carbon sequestration capacity and overall harm to
forest function and integrity. As with all complex natural resource
issues, there are valid arguments based on site specific and single
species research that can be made to support both sides of the issue.
As a forest practitioner with now 29 years of applied experience caring
for trees and managing forests as well as extensive academic and
scientific training and work on the ecology of Northern Rockies forest
ecosystems, it is my opinion that active forest management and the use
of wood-based renewable bioenergy applied in appropriate locations
using both the academic and practical knowledge and experience
currently available, will most likely result in greater forest
resilience to large landscape level disturbances that are both within
and outside of the historic range of variability. This will also
maintain or increase most forest ecosystems ability to store and
sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0438.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0438.006
Bibliography
Alvarez, M. 2007. The State of America's Forests. Bethesda, MD: Society
of American Foresters. 68 pgs.
Broadhurst L.M., Lowe, A., Coates, D.J., Cunningham, S.A., McDonald,
M., Vesk, P.A., and C. Yates. 2008. Seed supply for broadcast
restoring: maximizing evolutionary potential. Evolutionary
applications CSIRO ISSN 1752-4571. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 1,
587-597.
European Forest Institute. 2009. Climate change and other a(biotic)
disturbances. www.efi.int/research/themes/
climate_change_and_other_a_biotic_disturbances.htm
FAO. 2009. Climate change and the forest sector. www.fao.org/docrep/
007/y5647e/y5647e05.htm
Gannon A., and S. Sontag. Compilers 2008 MONTANA Forest Insect and
Disease Conditions and Program Highlights--2004. Report 08-1
USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, State and Private
Forestry, Forest Health Protection. 80 pgs.
Herms, D.A. and W. J. Mattson. 1992. The Dilemma of Plants: To Grow or
Defend Author(s): Source: The Quarterly Review of Biology, (67)
3, pp. 283-335
Immler, T. 2004. Waldbauliche Pflegestandards zu den
Fortbildungsveranstaltungen. Landesanstalt fur Wald und Forst.
Freising Bayern. 19 pgs.
Janisch J.E. and M.E. Harmon. 2002 Successional changes in live and
dead wood carbon stores: implications for net ecosystem
productivity. Tree Physiology 22, 77-89.
J. Jouzel C. Lorius J. R. Petit C. Genthon N. I. Barkov V. M. Kotlyakov
& V. M. Petrov. 1987. Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope
temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,000 years)
Nature 329, 403-408
Keane, Robert E.; Agee, James K.; Fule, Peter; Keeley, Jon E.; Key,
Carl; Kitchen, Stanley G.; Miller, Richard; Schulte, Lisa A.
2008. Ecological effects of large fires on U.S. landscapes:
benefit or catastrophe?. International Journal of Wildland
Fire. 17: 696-712.
Kolb, P. 2002. Forest stewardship field guide for alternative forest
management practices and forest wildfire hazard reduction. MSU
Extension Forestry misc. publications, Missoula, MT. 140 pgs.
Meyer, L. Compiler 2005. MONTANA Forest Insect and Disease Conditions
and Program Highlights--2004. Report 05-1 USDA Forest Service,
Northern Region, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health
Protection. 50 pgs.
Muller-Stark, G. M. Ziehe, and R. Schubert. 2005. Genetic diversity
parameters associated with viability selection, reproductive
efficiency, and growth in forest tree species. Springer-Verlag
Berlin. Ecological Studies, Vol 176, 87-108.
Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N.I.,Barnola J.M., Basile I.,
Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M.,
Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pepin L.,
Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. (1999), Nature, 399: 429-
436.
Rigolot, E., Fernandes, P., and F. Rego. 2009. Managing wildfire risk:
prevention, suppression. European Forest Institute, Discussion
Paper 15. In: Living with Wildfires: What science can tell us,
Yves Birot (ed.) 49-52.
Running, S. 2008. Ecosystem Disturbance, Carbon, and Climate. Science
11, 652-653.
Running, S. 2006. Is global warming causing more larger wildfires?
Science 313, 927-928.
Schmid, J.M, S.A. Mata, R.R. Kessler, and J.B. Popp. 2007. The
influence of partial cutting on mountain pine beetle-caused
tree mortality in Black Hills ponderosa pine stands. USDA
Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, RMRS-RP-68. 19
pgs.
Waring R. and S. Running.1998. Forest Ecosystems Analysis at multiple
scales. Academic Press, San Diego CA. 370 pgs.
Wegener, G., and B. Zimmer. 2000. Wald und holz als kohlenstoffspeicher
und energietrager. Chancen und wege fur die forst und
holzwirtschaft. In: Schulte A. et al (ed) Weltforstwirtschaft
nach Kyoto: Wald und holz als kohlenstoffspeicher und
regenerativer energietrager: Aachen Shaker V1g. ISBN 3-8265-
8641-7, 113-122.
Westerling, A.L., Hidalgo, H.G., Cayan, D.R., and T.W. Swetnam. 2006.
Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest
wildfire activity. Science 313, 940-943
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Dr. Kolb, for your testimony. I
apologize for the rush, but we have about one minute to get to
the Floor.
We thank the panel for your forbearance, and your testimony
has been very, very enlightening. We hope to pursue this to a
greater extent.
I want to add a special thanks to the Forest Service people
who are dedicated to our forests.
With that, this concludes the Subcommittees' oversight
hearing on the mountain pine beetle, strategies for protecting
the West. Thanks to all of you for appearing before the
Subcommittees. Your testimonies and expertise have, of course,
been very enlightening and helpful.
Under Subcommittee Rule 4[h], additional material for the
record should be submitted within 10 business days after the
hearing. Your cooperation in replying promptly to any questions
submitted to you in writing will be very much and greatly
appreciated.
With this, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 1:38 p.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A statement submitted for the record by Mr. Smith of
Nebraska follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nebraska
Good morning and thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Chairman
Grijalva, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers and Ranking Member Bishop for
holding this important oversight hearing today on the Mountain Pine
Beetle.
As a member of this Committee and the House Agriculture Committee,
today's discussion must give attention to the need for better forest
management. The overgrowth of trees coupled with stringent fire
suppression policies has increased the stress on the West's water
supply. This scarcity of water not only makes trees susceptible to
disease and insect infestation, such as the Mountain Pine Beetle, but
also can significantly reduce water flows. The West's Platte River,
which feeds into my district in Nebraska, is undergoing far-reaching
new ecosystem management in order to restore the wildlife habitat lost
from years of declining water flows.
All that said, I question why the U.S. Forest Service and the
National Park Service stopped managing the overgrowth of trees over the
past few decades. Besides the massive damage from the mountain pine
beetle, there are many other consequences from inaction.
Thank you again. I appreciate both Subcommittees for holding this
joint hearing today on recommendations for improving our nation's land
management. I look forward to hearing testimony from the U.S. Forest
Service, the National Park Service, Department of Energy, and all of
our witnesses. I hope they will be able to shed light on these
important issues.