[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.CON.RES. 151
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.CON.RES. 151
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD
MANAGE ITS PUBLIC DOMAIN NATIONAL FORESTS TO MAXIMIZE THE REDUCTION OF
CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE AMONG MANY OTHER OBJECTIVES AND THAT
THE UNITED STATES SHOULD SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE AND AS A WORLD LEADER IN
ACTIVELY MANAGING ITS PUBLIC DOMAIN NATIONAL FORESTS IN A MANNER THAT
SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE ADDED TO THE
ATMOSPHERE
__________
SEPTEMBER 18, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-61
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-036 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Am. Samoa
RICK HILL, Montana ---------- ----------
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado ---------- ----------
Bill Simmons, Staff Director
Anne Heissenbuttel, Legislative Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held September 18, 1997.................................. 1
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statements of witnesses:
Department of the Interior, prepared statement of............ 98
Lyons, James R., Undersecretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, United States Department of Agriculture....... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Oliver, Chadwick D., Professor, University of Washington,
College of Forest Resources................................ 15
Perez-Garcia, John M., Associate Professor, College of Forest
Resources, University of Washington........................ 13
Prepared statement of John M. Perez-Garcia, Associate
Professor, College of Forest Resources, University of
Washington and Chadwick D. Oliver, Professor,
University of Washington, College of Forest Resources.. 46
Ross, Gordon, County Commissioner, Coos County, Oregon....... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Affidavit of Gordon Ross................................. 70
How Much Old Growth Can We Save?......................... 97
Additional material supplied:
Briefing Paper............................................... 27
Evergreen, magazine, question and answer..................... 94
Forest and Wood Products, Role in Carbon Sequestration, R.
Neil Sampson............................................... 34
Text of H.Con.Res. 151....................................... 31
HEARING ON: H.CON.RES. 151, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT
THE UNITED STATES SHOULD MANAGE ITS PUBLIC DOMAIN NATIONAL FORESTS TO
MAXIMIZE THE REDUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE AMONG MANY
OTHER OBJECTIVES AND THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE
AND AS A WORLD LEADER IN ACTIVELY MANAGING ITS PUBLIC DOMAIN NATIONAL
FORESTS IN A MANNER THAT SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF CARBON
DIOXIDE ADDED TO THE ATMOSPHERE.
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1997
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Forests
and Forest Health, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen
Chenoweth (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest
Health will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting today to
hear testimony on H.C.R 151. I would like to welcome our
witnesses today. I am very pleased to be holding this hearing
on H.C.R. 151, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of
the Congress that the United States should manage its public
domain national forest to maximize the reduction of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere among many other objectives and that
the United States should serve as an example and world leader
in actively managing its public domain public forests in the
manner that substantially reduces the amount of carbon dioxide
added to the atmosphere.
[Text of bill H.Con.Res. 151 may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Chairman Young and I introduced this
resolution along with Speaker Gingrich, Mr. Taylor of North
Carolina, Mr. Herger, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Pombo,
Mr. McInnis, Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Smith of Washington, Mr. Riggs,
Mr. Cunningham, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Doolittle, Mr.
Lewis of California, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Schaffer of Colorado, Mr.
Hansen and Mr. Radanovich.
Global warming has been an issue of great debate and
discussion in Congress. Whether or not you believe human
induced global climate change is occurred, this resolution
deserves the support of everyone. Science has proven to us that
carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, can be taken out of
the atmosphere by allowing a young vibrant forest to absorb
carbon through a photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide can also be
kept out of the atmosphere by harvesting the forest before it
begins to decompose or burn, thus storing the carbon in wood
products that are environmentally friendly as well as providing
an economic benefit to society and to communities.
In the words of Gifford Pinchot quoting from his book
Breaking New Ground, he states, ``the purpose of forestry,
then, is to make the forest produce the largest possible amount
of whatever crop or service will be most useful, and keep on
producing it generation after generation.'' I agree with these
sage words and feel that we must manage our forests better. One
of the things that we must begin to do is to improve the
management of the national forests to maximize the benefit to
our environment.
In December of this year, the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate change, which may commit the United
States to mandatory greenhouse gas reductions, is expected to
be signed in Kyoto, Japan. The ramifications of this treaty
could be enormous for people in the United States, our economy
and our way of life.
There are alternatives to mandatory reductions of carbon
emissions. One alternative is to manage our public forests
better in order to extract from the atmosphere and store more
carbon dioxide than we currently do. This means giving and
using the controls on greenhouse gases that mother nature gives
to us rather than controls that government mandates this nation
to follow.
President Teddy Roosevelt said, ``we have a right and a
duty second to none, to protect ourselves and our children
against the wasteful development of our natural resources,
whether that waste is caused by the actual destruction of such
resources or by making them impossible of development
hereafter.'' Our charge then is to strike a proper balance in
the management of our forests to maximize the benefits to the
environment and prevent the wasteful development and
destruction of our natural resources.
The thrust of this resolution is to direct the Federal
Government to take the lead in managing our national forests to
reduce the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By
managing our public domain national forests to minimize
additions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere we will improve
air quality, the health of our Nation's forests and set an
example for other nations as the world prepares for the
negotiations in Kyoto, Japan.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chenoweth follows.:]
Statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho
I would like to welcome our witnesses out today. I am very
pleased to be holding this hearing on H.Con.Res. 151, a
concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that
the United States should manage its public domain National
Forests to maximize the reduction of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere among many other objectives and that the United
States should serve as an example and as a world leader in
actively managing its public domain national forests in a
manner that substantially reduces the amount of carbon dioxide
added to the atmosphere.
Chairman Young and I introduced this resolution along with
Speaker Gingrich, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Herger, and
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Pombo, Mr. McInnis, Mr.
Sessions, Mrs. Smith of Washington, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Cunningham,
Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Lewis of
California, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Schaffer of Colorado, Mr. Hansen,
and Mr. Radanovich.
Global warming has been an issue of great debate and
discussion in Congress. Whether or not you believe human
induced global climate change is occurring, this resolution
deserves the support of everyone. Science has proven to us that
carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas can be taken out of
the atmosphere by allowing a young vibrant forest to absorb
carbon through photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide can also be kept
out of the atmosphere by harvesting the forest before it begins
to decompose or burn, thus storing the carbon in wood products
that are environmentally friendly, as well as providing an
economic benefit to society.
In the words of Gifford Pinchot quoting from his book
Breaking New Ground, he states, ``the purpose of Forestry,
then, is to make the forest produce the largest possible amount
of whatever crop or service will be most useful, and keep on
producing it generation after generation . . .'' I agree with
these sage words, and feel that we must manage our forests
better. One of the things that we must begin to do is to
improve the management of the National Forests to maximize the
benefit to the environment.
In December of this year, the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, which may commit the United
States to mandatory greenhouse gas reductions, is expected to
be signed in Kyoto, Japan. The ramifications of this treaty
could be enormous for people, the economy and our way of life.
There are alternatives to mandatory reductions of carbon
emissions. One alternative is to manage our public forests
better in order to extract from the atmosphere and store more
carbon dioxide than we currently do. This means using the
controls on greenhouse gasses that mother nature gives to us
rather than controls that government mandates us to follow.
President Teddy Roosevelt said, ``we have a right and duty
second to none, to protect ourselves and our children against
the wasteful development of our natural resources, whether that
waste is caused by the actual destruction of such resources or
by making them impossible of development hereafter.'' Our
charge then is to strike a proper balance in the management of
our forests to maximize the benefits to the environment and
prevent the wasteful development of our natural resources.
The thrust of this resolution is to direct the Federal
Government to take the lead in managing our National Forests to
reduce the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By
managing our public domain national forests to minimize
additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere we will improve
air quality, the health of our nation's forests and set an
example for other nation's, as the world prepares for the
negotiations in Kyoto, Japan.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And when the Ranking Minority Member
arrives, I will recognize him for a statement. But now I will
introduce our first panel, Mr. Jim Lyons, Undersecretary of
Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Lyons, good to see you again.
Mr. Lyons. Good to see you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Lyons, would you proceed.
STATEMENT OF JAMES R. LYONS, UNDERSECRETARY FOR NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyons. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to
apologize up front for the delay in getting testimony to you.
We focused on some issues in the Senate the last few days and
therefore, we were not able to focus in on this important
matter, so I do apologize. I am also glad to see that you have
been reading Breaking New Ground, which I gave you just the
other day, so----
Mrs. Chenoweth. That is right. I am enjoying it very much.
Mr. Lyons. Very good. I am glad you are into it. I want to
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Administration's views regarding the active
management of the national forests to maximize reduction in
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We welcome the Congress'
attention to this matter and concern for arresting, or at least
addressing, global climate change, and we look forward to
working with you in that regard. However, we must oppose H.
Con. Res. 151 because of its narrow focus and perhaps its
conflict with existing national forest management policy and
legal direction.
The premise of the concurrent resolution is that young,
fast-growing trees fix carbon dioxide more efficiently than
mature trees, and therefore, the Forest Service should maximize
carbon sequestration by harvesting mature trees, converting the
wood to durable products and replanting sites with seedlings,
which will then take up carbon at a faster rate.
As the Committee is aware, the scientific basis for our
mutual concerns about global climate changes is extremely
complex. Accordingly, our efforts to make substantive policy
changes are equally complex and driven by scientific analysis.
What I would like to do this morning is make three basic points
or address three basic issues. One is the role of recycling in
dealing with this issue; the second is the role of the national
forests in the carbon cycle; and the third is the potential for
carbon sequestration from Federal lands as opposed to private
lands.
The Forest Service Research Program has done some extensive
research quantifying the benefits of recycling wood fiber on
carbon releases into the environment. Through technology
developed by the Federal Government and the private sector and
supported by government incentives to recycle, the U.S. has
made significant contributions to carbon sequestration by
reducing energy costs of production and by reusing wood fibers
several times before it ultimately ends up in landfills or
disposed of in some other way.
Recognizing the value of storing carbon in wood products
and substituting wood products for more fossil fuel-consuming
products, the President included in his 1993 Climate Change
Action Plan, a proposal to extend paper recycling technology
research. Priorities included research on the use of recycled
wood and fiber in durable structural products suitable for the
housing market. The President requested $2 million in increased
funding for that research, however, unfortunately, only
$200,000 was appropriated.
The President's Forest Plan in the Pacific Northwest was
analyzed specifically for its contribution to carbon
sequestration. It thus offers, I think, a good case study to
evaluate national forest management policies in general. Since
a great deal of time and effort has been placed on the
development of that plan. Contrary to the presumption of the
concurrent resolution, the conservation strategy and the
President's Forest Plan actually increases the amount of carbon
dioxide sequestration by about 7 million metric tons per year
by the year 2000. A careful balance was struck in forest
protection and management in seeking to protect old-growth
forests as described well in a 1990 Science magazine article by
Harmon, Ferrell and Jerry Franklin, one of the key architects
of the plan.
In addition, the President's Forest Plan adopted strict
standards harvesting so as to minimize the environmental
effects of harvesting timber in the so-called matrix lands into
the Forest Plan. And this approach, in fact, is supported by
the work of R. Neil Sampson, who has testified before this
Committee many times. Neil found that harvesting practices,
such as clear cutting, eliminate canopy shade, increase soil
temperatures, accelerate organic decomposition due to soil
disturbance and have other negative impacts on carbon storage
in the forested ecosystem. Since the Forest Plan minimizes
clear cuts and focuses on protecting shade, foliage and canopy
closures and, of course, minimizing ground disturbance because
of the potential effects on water quality, the plan seems
consistent with the recommendations of Mr. Sampson.
Lastly, the President's Forest Plan meets all Federal land
management and environmental laws and your resolution would
create, I believe, a conflict with existing law. While the
resolution suggests that national forests should be managed to
maximize carbon sequestration, current law requires us to
practice, of course, multiple use as requested by the
philosophy of Gifford Pinchot and others. U.S. forest sector
will store about 109 million metric tons of carbon in the year
2000. Of this, the national forests are projected to fix 21
million metric tons of carbon, store over 8 billion tons, as
well as conserve biodiversity and provide for multiple use
according to our legal mandates. And although the annual carbon
storage and private forests is expected to decline over the
next several decades due to the declining net growth in the
Northeast, as trees age and removal of trees in the South
increases, probably at the same rate as growth, annual carbon
accumulation in our national forests is expected to increase.
Finally, what I would like to do, Madam Chairman, is turn
to the issue of maximizing growth of new biomass through forest
management and how we best would capture that to achieve the
goals that I think are part of your concurrent resolution. As
you know, the productivity of forest land varies widely across
the United States. Productivity, that is the rate at which
trees grow or wood is accumulated, biomass is accumulated, is
influenced by soil type and soil depth, growing season, rain
fall, and many other factors. Productivity is commonly measured
according to the number of cubic feet of wood which one acre of
land could grow annually in a year's time. If Congress were
interested in maximizing carbon sequestration through tree
growth, I would suggest that is more logical for us to focus on
investing in those most productive sites which will grow trees
the quicker. Now I know you know this, Madam Chairman, but I
just want to point out that 73 percent of the forest land in
the United States is actually in private ownership, 59 percent,
almost two thirds, is owned by what we refer to as
nonindustrial private forest landowners, 14 percent of that is
owned by the industry. Of the remaining 27 percent of land,
which is in public ownership, the Forest Service administers 17
percent. The Forest Service published a document called Forest
Resources of the United States (1994), which summarizes forest
productivity across all land ownerships using the standard of
85 cubic feet per acre per year as a rate of production. In the
West, for example, the Forest Service notes that 67 percent of
the private industrial lands are capable of pro-
ducing more than 85 cubic feet per year compared to only 15
percent on the national forests. The reason for this is that
national forest lands are typically high elevation lands with
shorter growing seasons, are often on steep slopes and poor
sites. In fact that is why they are in public ownership and
they have been referred to in the past as the lands that no one
wanted. As Americans moved West and homesteaded, they, of
course, homesteaded in those lands that were easier to access,
that were more productive, that could support what then, of
course, was an agrarian economy.
Similarly, in the East, 55 percent of the private
industrial land is capable of producing 85 cubic feet or more a
year compared to only 20 percent of the national forest land.
This trend is the same, though less dramatic, between
nonindustrial private lands and national forest lands in both
East and West. And in fact if you were to look at a breakdown
of land ownership types by productivity, you would find--
industry lands, industrial lands are the most productive by
far. Private nonindustrial lands are second. National forest
system lands are third, and other public lands, lands
administered by the BLM, Department of Defense and others are
last in terms of productivity.
My point is this, if growing trees quickly is our goal or
the goal of the resolution, so as to maximize carbon
sequestration, in my mind, it makes much more sense to focus
our efforts to areas where we will receive the greatest return
on our investment, in our investment in terms of carbon
sequestration. That is on the most productive lands, i.e.,
private lands.
The Forest Service can help make this investment, not
through a change in priorities in our land management of public
lands, but by providing technical and financial assistance to
private landowners to help them increase their productivity.
The state and private forestry programs of the Forest Service,
and your staff and I were most recently out with the State
Forest Meeting in Salt Lake City to discuss these programs, can
deliver exactly this kind of assistance to landowners. In
addition, the National Resources Conservation Service
administers a number of programs which help landowners develop
and implement plans that promote tree planting. The more
efficient and effective place to focus tree planting in
aggressive management really is on private lands. The
President's Climate Change Action Plan includes two actions
that provide technical assistance and cost-sharing assistance
for nonindustrial private landowners to plant trees and improve
forest management.
I would note, however, Madam Chairman, that in the budget
for the Forest Service for fiscal year 1998, which was passed
by the House and is being debated over on the Senate floor, the
investment that is made in programs like stewardship and
stewardship incentive, which are designed to help increase
productivity on private nonindustrial forest lands is one tenth
the investment we are making in producing timber on the
national forests, which as I have just pointed out have a much
lower capability to sequester carbon given their lower
productivity. I would suggest if carbon sequestration were a
goal, then we want to reverse that investment.
The programs that we currently have in place, stewardship
and stewardship incentive, have resulted in tree planting on
about 135,000 acres of land. Many states, as you know, are
seeking to fos-
ter a good stewardship and encourage good land management on
private and industrial lands. The State of Idaho, for example,
the State of Alaska have forest practices acts. These laws
continue the efforts to insure that landowners practice
sustainable forestry. Some states, however, such as Georgia, do
not in fact have forest practices laws. And they depend on
market conditions to encourage tree planting. I would suggest
another policy change that we are not responsible for, but the
states are responsible for, is policies that would insure and
encourage tree planting immediately after harvest. In any case,
the role of the private landowner, however, is influenced by
state or Federal policy and we believe that private landowners
have a much greater opportunity to contribute to the carbon
sequestration goals that this concurrent resolution suggests.
There are many efforts throughout the Forest Service and
the Administration which are targeted specifically to address
the issue of climate change that are beyond the immediate scope
of this resolution and hearing. However, in summary I want to
tell you that the Administration is enthusiastically supportive
of the concerns of the Congress in addressing global climate
change, however, believe that the resolution is too narrowly
focused and, in fact, would be counter to the other legal
mandates we have for management of the national forest.
I think I will stop there, Madam Chairman, and entertain
any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. That is very interesting testimony and I
did not--I was not able to study it ahead of time because, as
you say, we did not receive it until last night. But I am a
little surprised at it and Mr. Lyons, I have to say, you are
one of the brightest men that I have met, but I am not sure
that I understand the logic here at all. So I want to take this
step by step and would ask, even though I know you are running
between here and the Senate, I would ask that you remain for
the second panel because I may want to call you back.
I am not sure given the comments that you just gave us that
there is a way to reasonably and logically convince the
Administration to support this concept, however, I am very,
very surprised at some of the, at some of the statements
because we seem to be abandoning the tradition set forth by
Gifford Pinchot and Teddy Roosevelt, the National Forest
Management Act, and did I, did I understand you to say that you
feel that the focus of the work by the Forest Service in
managing land should be working with private landowners on
their own private land to manage their forests?
Mr. Lyons. Well what I meant to suggest, Madam Chairman, we
in fact do do a great deal of work with, with private
nonindustrial landowners, some with private industrial
landowners, in helping to promote good stewardship of their
land through the state and private programs that are run
through we call a Cooperative Forestry Assistance Authorities.
If we were to focus intently on carbon sequestration as a goal
of land stewardship and forest management, that in fact is
where we would want to focus our efforts because of the
benefits of capitalizing on the higher productivity of those
private lands. So if that were the case and that was our sole
goal, I would suggest that is where we would be making
investments.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let us look at the land mass. I think you
used the figure 73 percent of our forested land is on
nonFederal land. Of that 73 percent, 14 percent of the 73
percent are used for commercial harvest.
Mr. Lyons. Well, they are industrial lands technically.
They are owned by the Weyerhaeusers and the Plum Creeks and the
Boise Cascades.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Right.
Mr. Lyons. Some of the nonindustrial land contributes to
commercial ventures as well and produces wood products. In fact
a sizable portion.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So calibrating that out, that would amount
to about 10.2 percent of our landbase that you are talking
about. And our Federal lands, our timber dominated Federal
lands are 27 percent of our landbase. And so we are abandoning
not only the National Forest Management Act, but twice the
landbase, and the landbase that is primarily concentrated in
the Northwest, a whole sector of our country.
Mr. Lyons. I want to make sure we get the numbers right so,
so we can start from the same bases. Of the entire United
States, the forest landbase in the United States, 73 percent is
in private ownership.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Right.
Mr. Lyons. OK, so really three quarters of our forest are
in private ownership. Of the remaining forest land in the
United States, which is in public management, 17 percent is
administered by the Forest Service. So we have 17 percent of
the 27 percent that remains. So we have a relatively small
slice of the pie in terms of the total forest landbase that we
administer. The most dominate share, and I wish I had a pie
chart that I had yesterday to show you, is in private
ownership.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I do not think it quite comes out that way
but I will review your testimony.
Mr. Lyons. Well it is not true in Idaho. I will grant you
that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And many of our Northwestern states. But it
is my understanding that President Clinton, as said in his
speech last Tuesday, September 9th, that ``we could reduce
global warming pollution by 20 percent tomorrow with technology
that is already available at no cost, if we would just change
the way we do things.'' Does the Clinton Administration
consider managing our national forests to maximize reductions
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to be a ``technology that
is already available at no cost if we just change the way we do
things.''
Mr. Lyons. Well, I would suggest, Madam Chairman, that we
are seeking to manage the national forests so as to achieve
that as one of many, many goals and objectives. We are managing
those goals to achieve the goals that you cited in the
quotation from Breaking New Ground, to assure the production of
crops as Pinchot referred to them, and other goods and services
that emanate from the national forests on a sustainable basis.
Carbon sequestration is one element of many.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Neil Sampson wrote in Forest and Wood
Products Role in Carbon Sequestration, that ``if our object is
to increase carbon storage over time, however, then harvest and
replanting becomes the best option.'' Do you not agree with
that statement?
Mr. Lyons. I agree totally, but the key there is where do
you make that investment? Where do you harvest? And where do
you seek reforestation? And my point is simply this. With the
productivity of private lands being so much greater than the
productivity of public forest lands, that is where you are
going to make that investment.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And it appears that your plans are then to
pretty well shut down the Northwest.
Mr. Lyons. No, I would not say----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me finish my question.
Mr. Lyons. OK.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Forest Service trust funds are nearly
gone. A GAO study has just come in that the press just reported
on that the Forest Service is near bankrupt in its trust funds.
We are having to lay off employees up in--large numbers of
employees up in the Northwest in various regions. It is a
desperate situation up there. We have the Forest Service now
asking for fees for services that were there for the people. I
mean the argument over the last few years have been these lands
belong to the people and yet we are charging people now to
simply go in and gaze at these lands. And so we are
transferring the ability of the Forest Service to generate
income from the trust funds to now be for access in camp
grounds, on cabins, in just our natural and national forests.
It seems to be a great departure from the National Forest
Management Act.
And while I am personally concerned and I know the Congress
is that the Forest Service does not go bankrupt and does not
break both its management and economically, we have got to be
able to manage the forests not only economically for the best
return, but for the best return in the atmosphere, and that
does not mean just on private ground. It means in a whole
segment in the Northwest. You know, the Forest Service has gone
from harvesting around 12 billion board feet of timber each
year to well below 4 billion board feet. From 12 billion to
below 4 billion. And that--therein lies the problem. That is
the picture. Is this trend beneficial to the forest's ability
to sequester carbon, when we, as Neil Sampson has said in his,
in his paper would--very, very well done--that this idea of
reducing harvesting and replanting with good healthy trees wars
against what we are trying to achieve in the balance of
oxygenation and carbon dioxide sequestration. Do you agree with
Mr. Sampson and that statement?
Mr. Lyons. As, as I said, I agree with Mr. Sampson that one
way to increase carbon sequestration is through harvest
replanting of productive sites. And I would suggest that if you
ask Neil--I will let you ask Neil, I do not know if he is going
to testify today or not--that he would suggest that focusing on
the highly productive sites would be, would be the most
productive way to go.
You mentioned the point of going bankrupt. I would suggest
this, if you look at the unit cost of production of timber on
the national forest as opposed to the unit cost of producing
the same amount of timber from private industrial and
nonindustrial lands, I think you would quickly decide if you
were responsible for the entire forest landscape, you would not
be investing a lot of money in, in Federal lands to produce
timber, because the unit costs are astronomical compared to
that on private lands. We still invest in timber production on
the national forests for various reasons. To support
communities, to achieve wildlife habitat improvement, to
protect watersheds, to achieve other goals.
You mention Neil Sampson's excellent work on this issue of
carbon sequestration. Neil points out, for example, that forest
fires emit enormous amounts of carbon and can cause tremendous
harm over time. The policies we have adopted to reduce fuel
loads, to increase thinning and to restore fire--to fire
adapted ecosystems in the long term will help reduce wildfires
and the emissions of high amounts of carbons. So I think that
is a beneficial outcome from what we do.
Neil also points out in the same paper, though I want to
mention, that the practice of clear cut harvesting attracts
negative public reaction for various reasons, as he suggests.
Then he goes on to talk about the fact that the Forest Service
has declared a new policy minimizing the use of clear cutting
as a harvest method wherever other methods are available. In
fact that policy was adopted during the Bush era, not the
Clinton era. But Neil points out, ``this should be a positive
change in terms of carbon sinks and the effects of forest
harvest upon them.''
My point is simply this, there are a lot of factors that
come, come into play. Changes in management practices can help
improve the role the national forest can play in carbon
sequestration. But if as the Concurrent Resolution suggests, we
should focus solely on as a primary objective, trying to
improve carbon sequestration, we do not want to focus on
increasing timber harvest on the national forest. We want to
focus on increasing land stewardship on 75 percent of the
landbase that is forested and in addition, converting marginal
lands to forested lands where trees can grow and can begin to
accumulate carbon as other forests do.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I am very--I guess I did not believe that
you would say that. I guess that it has taken me a long time to
realize that there has been a paradigm shift of emphasis in the
Forest Service from that of good stewardship management in the
Northwest to, as you say, of being of assistance to the private
landowners. I hope you are not saying that the Forest Service
has become an assistant to big business at the expense of--and
no doubt about it, I mean we have huge companies here in the
East that are, that are doing very, very well and they are
responding to market demand, and their forests are giving off
great amounts of oxygen and they are maximizing the carbon
sequestration because of the way they manage their forests. But
I submit to you, Mr. Secretary, we are, we are abandoning an
entire area in this United States that is quickly growing out
of, out of balance as far as our ability to reduce fuel loads,
to limit the potential of carbon being released into the
atmosphere because of fire, because of unit costs. I do not
think that is a good argument.
I realize you are making me very testy and this is the
first time that this has happened since I have been Chairman,
but I am ut-
terly shocked at what I am hearing. And I hope that you will
review this or, or submit more detail into your testimony so
that we come closer in our thinking as far as, No. 1, your
appearance of abandoning National Forest Management Act, and
the appearance of abandoning an entire area in management in
the Northwest and in California.
Mr. Lyons. If I could, Madam Chairman, I want to, I want to
make clear we are certainly not abandoning our stewardship
role. I infer from your statement though that you equate
stewardship with timber harvesting and harvesting levels. The
fact that harvest levels have declined or offer levels have
declined from 12 billion board feet in some a decade or so ago,
to 4 equates with abandonment of stewardship, that is not the
case. I want to be abundantly clear about that. Stewardship
involves harvesting trees, replanting new trees, restoring
water sheds, dealing with the road maintenance and
deterioration problems that we have on the national forests,
providing high quality recreation, good range land improvement,
et cetera, et cetera. So that is all part of our stewardship
mission as required in the law. And I certainly do not mean to
create friction between the good working relationship we have.
I simply want to point out that I think, I think it is
wrong to manage the national forest for any one purpose. I
think that is consistent with your opening statement. It is
wrong to manage the national forest simply for carbon
sequestration. If we want to manage forests for carbon
sequestration, we would invest elsewhere. We would not invest
in the national forests. We want to manage the national forest
for the wide range of goods and services they can provide on a
sustainable basis to help people. People in Idaho and
Washington and Oregon and California, and in the East as well.
And that is really our stewardship role and that is where we
are headed.
This Concurrent Resolution would change our priorities and
have us focus on carbon sequestration. I think the implication
is that we would harvest more. That is really the wrong way to
approach our stewardship role, and it is really the wrong way
to achieve the carbon sequestration goals that are suggested.
If the Concurrent Resolution suggested that forests nationwide
should be managed to improve carbon sequestration, well then we
might have a focus on which we could discuss. Because as I
suggested private lands offer tremendous opportunity to capture
more carbon through their productive use.
Mrs. Chenoweth. H.C.R. 151 expresses the sense of the
Congress that the U.S. should manage its public domain national
forest to maximize the reduction of carbon among other
objectives and that was made very clear in my opening statement
and in the content of the resolution. The resolution does not
require that carbon sequestration should be given a higher
priority while at the same time meeting all Federal land
management and environmental laws.
My question is could the objectives of this resolution be
achieved while at the same time following all of our other
environmental laws? I think it could. And I totally agree with
you about the fact that we should not manage the forest for one
single purpose, whether it be a theological purpose, whether it
be for carbon sequestration, whether it be simply for
harvesting.
But as I have mentioned before from their chair and in
letters to you, we are in a desperate situation out in the
Northwest. And I think that, that the shock that was registered
by our leadership team who came out and viewed the forest in
the Northwest, is evidence of the fact that we really, really
need some attention paid to our forests in the Northwest for
the sake of forest health.
So let me just finish with one more question. Some of the
groups have advocated no commercial harvest of timber from our
national forest. They seem to be winning the battle today over
the logic whether it is based on a balance in our forest,
whether it is based on fuel reduction, whether it is based on
carbon sequestration, whatever it may be. They seem to be
winning the battle that we should have absolutely no commercial
harvest of timber on our national forest. Now we have a very
minimum amount now and we are not keeping up with the need just
for forest health. Do you support this policy for the
Northwest?
Mr. Lyons. Well, Madam Chairman, the Administration does
not support the elimination of commercial timber harvesting on
the national forests.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What implication would this policy have on
our national forest's ability to sequester carbon if we, if we
simply did not harvest anything?
Mr. Lyons. Well obviously it would have some impact in
those areas where productivity would, would be lost. And would
also hamper our ability to make forest improvements for--
purposes or to reduce fuel loads and therefore, reduce the risk
of wildfire, et cetera. And that is one of the reasons we
continue to invest in commercial and noncommercial vegetative
management on the national forests.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Secretary, I am going to let you off
the hook for right now. I do want to personally study your
testimony and I will be submitting questions to you personally.
I would like for you to stay, if you could. We only have three
more witnesses.
I do want to say that I very, very much appreciate the book
about Gifford Pinchot that you sent and I dove right into it. I
also want to say that I have most of the Presidential papers of
Teddy Roosevelt in my office, and I am going to copy some of
them and send them to you. He gets into addressing the issue
about deforestation in China and how the natural resources were
abused because there was massive clear cutting and it created a
difference in the entire climate because of the lack of
aspiration and because it changed the entire complexion of the
soils because of great erosion. We have heard for a long time
of decertification. It is not entirely fictional. It is not
going to happen in the Northwest. But we are getting close to a
point where there is a massive area that is not responding well
and healthily in the Northwest and I am greatly concerned about
this. And I think Teddy Roosevelt really hit the nail on the
head. I think he had great, great wisdom and great vision. So
if you do not mind, I would like to share that with you and
would be very interested in your personal opinion on that.
Mr. Lyons. I greatly appreciate that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Lyons. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And I appreciate your time.
The Chair now recognizes the second panel. Dr. John Perez-
Garcia, Associate Professor at University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington. Dr. Chad Oliver, Professor at University
of Washington, College of Forestry Resources in Seattle,
Washington, and Gordon Ross, County Commissioner Coos County,
Coquille, Oregon.
Gentlemen, I am very pleased to welcome you to the hearing
and very pleased to have your addition to the hearing record,
which will be very valuable to us in the future. And before we
get started with the testimony, I wonder if you could please
rise and take the oath.
[Witnesses sworn]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I have just been advised that we do have a
vote and it is at the second bell it looks like, so I am going
to have run and vote. And I think it is a procedural vote, is
it not, Kathy? Procedural vote. And so I will cast that vote
and I will be right back. So we will just temporarily adjourn.
[Recess]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The hearing on H.C.R. 151 will resume. We
look forward to the testimony from Dr. Garcia. Doctor.
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. PEREZ-GARCIA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, COLLEGE
OF FOREST RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Dr. Perez-Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chairman. What I would
like to do today is summarize the findings of our July 7th,
paper presented to the Committee on how forests can help reduce
carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. There are four
points that I would like to make today; three of them relate to
carbon dioxide, and one, the last point I would like to make,
relates to tradeoffs, which I think is something that should be
discussed here.
Carbon dioxide is reduced by forest growth. I think
everyone understands this statement and accepts it. There are
two points that you need to realize with this statement though.
One, there is a limit to the amount of carbon that a forest can
capture, remove from the atmosphere and save as biomass.
Second, these forests are subject to disturbance so they can
quickly return that carbon to the atmosphere.
The importance of the limit to the amount of carbon that
forests can sequester is a technological one. Carbon storage
can further be increased by transferring that carbon out of the
forest into products. And I think there is general agreement in
this statement also. The point to recognize here though is that
there is a limit to the amount of carbon that can be
transferred from forest to products. Depending on the type of
management, the type of forest and the product that is
associated with them, this increase in the capacity of forest
to sequester carbon can range from 10 to 66 percent according
to several studies.
The way forest management increases carbon sequestration is
to concentrate growth in timber that is utilizable. What forest
management is doing is concentrating the growth, the carbon,
into something that we can take out of the forest and preserve
as product pools.
The forest type affects carbon storage through its
different growth rates, different regions and different species
composition. Forests across the U.S. grow differently and
therefore, sequester carbon at different rates.
Wood products affect carbon storage since they hold carbon
captured by the forest in terrestrial form and delay its return
to the atmosphere. Short-lived wood products return carbon
faster than long-lived wood products. So things like paper
would return carbon faster to the atmosphere than the solid
wood products like lumber. Wood products also save terrestrial
carbon when they displace fossil fuel energy through either
direct substitution by use of biofuels or indirect substitution
through manufacturing process energy.
And this is the third point that I would like to bring out:
Forest products saves fossil fuel carbon. And that is perhaps
one of the more important things I would like to leave with you
today. Wood products used in construction, furniture and other
wood product uses extend the storage capacity of forests by
physically transferring the biomass carbon to a product carbon
pool. But there is also a savings in fossil fuel carbon
associated with the use of products. The savings occur because
wood products use less manufacturing energy derived from fossil
fuels than it's competing non-wood products.
The effect on atmospheric carbon of fossil fuels displaced
by wood products may be large. Studies that I and others have
conducted estimate the effect of less wood products used
through national harvest reductions to be around 19 million
metric tons. This effect alone is larger than the estimated
U.S. average annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions from
1990 to 1995, which is about 14 million metric tons. The 14
million number is important because that is really a target set
by the President's Climate Change Plan. This also is important
because it says something different than what the Secretary was
stating with regard to the impact national forests have on
atmospheric carbon.
The last point I would like to make is about tradeoffs. By
far the most effective way to keep carbon out of the atmosphere
is to use wood products and save fossil fuel energy. I would
like to reiterate that point. Planting and growing more forests
can take carbon out of the atmosphere and can be effective as
long as these plantations do not substitute more productive
plantations for carbon sequestration. Large scale planting
programs have a limit to their potential to capture atmospheric
carbon and may even reduce long term carbon storage of forest
if the use of wood is not increasing at the same rate as these
plantings.
As an example of tradeoffs, take the reduction of harvest
from Federal forest which has led to greater carbon admissions
nationally and internationally. Other forest areas within and
outside of the U.S. increased their harvest to replace a
portion of the lost Federal timber harvest. These areas are
less productive than those they replaced, contributing to
greater amounts of carbon emission through less product
recovery and greater acreage required to substitute the lost
harvest. The amount of harvest reduction not made up by other
producers has led to greater use of non-wood substitute
products. This indirect substitution effect through the use of
more fossil fuel-based manufacturing energy has further
increased car-
bon emissions associated with Federal timber harvest. The
Federal policy to preserve habitat illustrates unintended
consequences of single issue policies such as carbon emissions.
In summary, there are three points that I would like for
the Committee to remember. One, forest sequestered carbon;
second, wood products act as a reservoir of forest carbon
extending the forest's capacity to move carbon out of the
atmosphere; and thirdly, by far the most effective way to keep
carbon out of the atmosphere is to use wood products and save
fossil fuels. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Perez-Garcia may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Dr. Garcia. That was very
interesting, very technical, but very good and very
interesting.
Dr. Oliver, welcome, it is good to see you again. Dr. Chad
Oliver, Professor at University of Washington, College of
Forest Resources.
STATEMENT OF CHADWICK D. OLIVER, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON, COLLEGE OF FOREST RESOURCES
Dr. Oliver. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I would
like to build on what Dr. Perez-Garcia said and maybe I can
clarify some of the apparent confusion with what Mr. Lyons had
said. Mr. Lyons was basing the idea of sequestering carbon by
growing the forest or keeping the wood in the forest and not
harvesting it on the paper of Harmon, et al, of 1990. That
paper shows that forests basically, if you keep the forests and
do not harvest it, you will store a lot of carbon. A paper of
1993 by Kershaw, et al, in the Journal of Sustainable Forestry,
showed that that is only true if by not using the wood you do
not use more polluting substitute products, such as steel,
aluminum, brick and concrete. If, however, you do use--do not
harvest the forest but instead use these--utilize these
substitute products, you add far more carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere than if you used--if you had harvested the forest
and used those wood products. The interesting thing there is
then that actual harvest of the forest and utilizing of it
actually reduces the total carbon dioxide addition to the
atmosphere by saving on the use of fossil fuels, because you do
not use substitute products.
The second point there was a bit confusing is that actually
you could use more of the wood to substitute for these more
polluting products if you grow the forests on--for high quality
timber as opposed to short rotation type of wood, timber
management, thinning the forest, grow into high quality wood
which would substitute for other beams. Therefore, rather than
saying the contrast is between preservation on the one hand and
short rotation on the other. Actually you are better,
apparently, you are better savings of carbon dioxide would be
longer rotation, high quality. Which, incidentally, would also
provide many of the habitat values from the forest before it is
harvested.
Now planting and growing more forests on presently marginal
agricultural lands will temporarily reduce your carbon dioxide
as the forest is growing. Once it is ready to harvest, as Dr.
Perez-Garcia pointed out, unless you have an expanding use of
wood, that wood will just substitute for wood from another
place and you will, actually calculations will show you will
not get an increase--a re-
duction in carbon dioxide but may actually be adding more
carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The net results--the net
point here is that wood use and expanded wood use where it
substitutes for products that need more fossil fuel is the best
way to keep carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere by keeping the
fossil fuels in the ground. That is something that the Harmon,
et al, paper that Mr. Lyons referred to did not consider, but
subsequent papers have considered.
Now I want to--this brings, brings up the whole issue of
tradeoffs. On the one hand, some people want reserves such as
national forests, and on the other hand, other people want to
conserve carbon dioxide, which is best done, by far the best
way is by utilizing wood to substitute for alternative
products. Now the problem is of single issue advocacy. If we
simply get into we must have absolute carbon sequestration, we
must have absolute reserves, then you end up with a polarized
position. What really needs to be done as a resolution is
decide how much of each of these values we value, and is there
a way to provide both of these to certain extents.
As a tradeoff, for example, we might not want to ever
harvest the Olympic National Park. But just accept that that is
a tradeoff that we are going to give up a certain amount of
possible sequestration, but then how much other area do you
also set aside recognizing that the tradeoff is more carbon
added to the atmosphere and the resolution that you put forward
here points out this carbon dioxide reduction among many other
values gets to that tradeoff consideration. Now, on the other
hand, you can decide there is certain areas you are willing to
give up the carbon sequestration by setting aside as national
parks. There are ways of supplementing those with other areas
where you could manage by doing such things as thinning or
selection cutting to create some of that habitat to a large
extent, but at the same time, harvesting it providing the high
quality wood that would also lead to your carbon sequestration.
So that you could look at a mixture of these, but it is a
matter of tradeoffs among the different issues.
Basically we need to look at it from the point of view of
forest management is not necessarily managing all forests for a
single way or a single value. The decision is how much forests
in each region of the world do we manage and in which way in
order to provide the greatest balance of values recognizing if
we set aside more forests or do not manage them, or do not
harvest them in one area, we are increasing the CO2
by the use of substitute products as well as by harvesting
forests elsewhere. I hope that is helpful.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Oliver may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. It is Dr. Oliver. Do you have anything else
you would like to add in your testimony?
Dr. Oliver. I believe everything else is in here. I will be
glad to respond to questions.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And Dr. Perez-Garcia, do you have anything
else you would like to add in testimony?
Dr. Perez-Garcia. No, I believe I have said everything that
I wanted to say and I will also be happy to answer any
questions that you might have.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, and I do have some. Mr. Gordon
Ross, I have been looking forward to your testimony. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF GORDON ROSS, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, COOS COUNTY,
OREGON
Mr. Ross. Madam Chairman, if you will forgive me, I would
like to also quote from the greatest because I remember a quote
from Gifford Pinchot after spending three years on the Olympic
Peninsula said that he had not seen a single Douglas fir
seedling under the canopy nor an opening that was not filled
with them, and my remarks have to be confined to the Douglas
fir region because that is the only region I am familiar with.
I am a local historian as well as county commissioner in Coos
County. I have been giving discussions on local history and the
development of transportation, how it effects the way we live,
for about 30 years now and the matter of, of carbon going into
the atmosphere always becomes a part of that if we look at the
different energy sources as we use up our energy savings
account.
In 1976, I thought this was going to resolve itself when
the first gas crunch came and the gentleman, Bill Bradbury, and
myself, Bill became President of the Senate years later, in
Oregon Senate, we put on a little half hour television program
called, ``We're Going Back to Horses Because We're Running Out
of Dinosaurs.'' But my predictions are not any better than my
authority. As you notice, maybe I have no credentials and my
predictions do not come true either.
In 1991, I gave testimony before the Endangered Species
Committee in Portland, Oregon, and I put this in the record all
22 pages of it. No pride in authorship here at all. But it
makes good evening reading. Judge Harvey Switzer took it home
and read it and came back for a second day of testimony, taking
it a paragraph at a time, and finally it was all admitted into
the record over the objections Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.
But I would just turn to page four where we deal with four
myths. A myth in Oregon about forestry is something that is
believed inside of Portland or some parts of Eugene. Myth
fourth was that setting aside old growth timber will provide
future generations with clean air. And the response is the
amount of oxygen a forest releases into the atmosphere, the
amount of carbon dioxide a forest takes into its--takes in, is
in direct proportion to the amount of wood fiber produced. When
a forest is mature it has no net gain of wood fiber. There is
no longer a net benefit to the atmosphere. It is oxidizing as
fast as it is growing.
In Oregon we can grow 50,000 board feet per acre per year--
excuse me, 50,000 board feet in 60 years. And this is what we
are doing on our Coos County forest. I have to qualify that.
And in the past few years, that was `89 to `91, the average old
growth sale on our Federal lands produced 42,000 board feet per
acre. A net loss.
I have also given you two pages from technical bulletin No.
201, U.S. Department of Agriculture showing the growth rates of
Douglas fir and the mean advantage or the mean average volume
increase. On Table 16 is described below and about a 90 year, a
90-year harvesting cycle would maximize growth and therefore,
maximize both timber production and the carbon sequestration.
I have given you a color graph and I want to call your
attention to the graph at the bottom of this color page, it
shows the U.S. growth and removals in billions cubic feet per
year. Notice in 1920 our lands were only producing about 6
billion cubic feet per year while our harvest was a challenge
harvest of over twice that amount. By harvesting and replanting
each year, we see that the growth increase. Until now we are
harvesting less than is growing, and of course, in the
Northwest now on the approximately 25 million acres in the
Douglas fir region, that has been reduced substantially.
If half of the Douglas fir region, under Federal ownership
were in mature status, then it would be breathing with just one
lung, you might say. This half of it would be, would be not
giving any net benefit to oxygen released in the atmosphere or
to carbon storage. Under the present record of decision, only
about 10 percent is going to continue in harvest management.
Eventually 90 percent will be in old growth. Some call this
good forest health. But if it is only breathing with 10 percent
of its lung capacity, I think a doctor would call it acute
emphysema.
I want to conclude by saying that I have also given you a
copy of something that I authored here called How Much Old
Growth Can We Save. In the Northwest, all of our stands of
Douglas fir timber are either the result of catastrophic fire,
or timber harvest. And if we should listen to history, we
should certainly listen to it now. We cannot save those stands
from ultimate harvest. Either if we do not harvest them, nature
will. And nature will put all of the carbon dioxide, all of the
carbon back into the atmosphere through the initial burning and
through the subsequent deterioration afterwards, and she will
not distribute the receipts very well either. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ross and attachments thereto
may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, very much. I do have some
questions here for Dr. Perez-Garcia. I have questions for all
of you, but Dr. Perez-Garcia, what is the impact to the
atmosphere to moving to a less active timber program?
Dr. Perez-Garcia. In terms of carbon dioxide?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Dr. Perez-Garcia. It probably would increase the emissions
of carbon to the atmosphere.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And the overall greenhouse gasses effect.
Dr. Perez-Garcia. Well carbon dioxide is one of the
greenhouse gasses, so if you increase that gas, it would
probably increase greenhouse gasses. But I am less confident in
that statement than knowing that it will increase carbon
emissions to the atmosphere.
Mrs. Chenoweth. For the record, would you please tell us
what are the effects of catastrophic wildfires on air quality
and on carbon sequestration.
Dr. Perez-Garcia. Like I said in my statement, forest are
subject to disturbances, and one of these disturbances would be
wildfires. As a matter of fact those wildfires release carbon
from its terrestrial form into carbon in its atmospheric form,
which is carbon dioxide. So it would increase carbon dioxide
emissions.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Can you tell us what has been the effect of
stopping the harvest of wood from our national forests on
global additions of greenhouse gases?
Dr. Perez-Garcia. There have been two effects to this and
this is documented in a study conducted under EPA sponsorship.
One effect is a national effect and one is an international
effect. Nationally, the effect of reduced harvest, Federal
harvest, has been to increase carbon dioxide emissions and to
decrease the absorption of carbon. The way that occurs is
through substitution of regions which produced the timber that
is not produced by the Federal timber, i.e., the South will
produce more, but it is not as productive in sequestering
carbon as the Pacific Northwest. The international effect is
similar and it also increased carbon emissions internationally.
And the reason there was that some of the timber replacement
for the Federal timber comes from countries like Chile, New
Zealand, the former Soviet Union, which are less productive in
sequestering carbon than the Pacific Northwest.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That is interesting. We have gone from a
harvest of around 12 billion board feet to below 4 billion
board feet of timber. What effect has this had on the global
greenhouse gases?
Dr. Perez-Garcia. It has been to increase carbon emissions.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Perez-Garcia, I will have other
questions for you that I will submit in writing. Is that all
right with you?
Dr. Perez-Garcia. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And we would like to be able to complete
the circle of getting the questions to you and the answers
within three weeks.
Dr. Perez-Garcia. That will be fine.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Oliver, can old growth be made a part
of a forestry management scheme that means to maximize
reduction of the greenhouse gases?
Dr. Oliver. Well, as I mentioned earlier, it is a question
of tradeoffs on if you set aside an area of old growth and
leave it and do not harvest it, then you force either wood to
be harvested in other areas or what is happening more and more
is you force the use of substitute products, such as steel
studs in homes, which increase the amount of carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere. On the other hand, it is a question of
tradeoffs. How much of this old growth are you willing to set
up in exchange for having a little bit more carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere for these other uses. There are other ways of
possibly managing by managing on long rotation, selective cut,
and creating old growth-like conditions, and at some time
harvesting the trees, or as the area blows down, salvaging the
trees so that they can be used in another area be used in this
old growth condition. I want to point out just as a caveat,
that if you are concerned about biodiversity, you would not
want all of your forest in this old growth condition, because
not all species can live there. But it is a question of
tradeoffs in that leaving the forest there and not doing
anything with it but using substitute products, as we are
increasingly doing, is basically adding more carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere.
Mrs. Chenoweth. From your testimony, you point out that
greater utilization of higher grade wood is one of the best
ways to maximize reduction of greenhouse gases. I would like
you to elaborate on this if you would for us.
Dr. Oliver. Some of the high grade timbers have both some
of the more valuable properties for structural uses and because
they are strong, knot-free, et cetera, they can be used in
lesser weights and therefore, lesser amounts in things such as
high quality construction. These can then be substituted for
such things as steel reinforced concrete, et cetera. And if
that is done, then you save you from having to produce the
concrete and steel, and therefore, you keep fossil fuels from
being used, and you keep the carbon in the ground instead of
the atmosphere. So high quality wood seems to have a very
important effect in keeping the carbon in the ground.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And another thing, too, is these
alternative materials are all nonrenewable, are they not?
Dr. Oliver. Yes, they are nonrenewable. Actually, there is
another point. The higher quality wood often means more
sequestration in the forest before the time they are harvested.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Forest Service has gone from harvesting
about 12 billion board feet down to about 4 billion board feet.
Is this trend beneficial to the forest's ability to sequester
the carbon?
Dr. Oliver. Actually, I would like to, if you do not mind
looking at page eight of the testimony, figure five, it gets to
this issue. And I would like for Garcia to explain it in
detail. Do you have this figure before you? I think it is an
important figure.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Please proceed.
Dr. Oliver. Excuse me. Do you have it--OK. Basically what
it is is the MMTCE is million metrictons of carbon equivalent
per year. Just shows the total amount of carbon. Just think of
that as carbon dioxide. And then John will proceed with showing
the effects both of the target reduction in carbon dioxide and
the calculated effects of stopping the harvesting in the
national forest. Looked at it, calculating at different levels.
John could you proceed? Dr. Perez-Garcia.
Dr. Perez-Garcia. Sure, the first bar at the top of the
graph where it says fossil fuel consumption has the number 14.
I always like to put things into perspective and so you must
think of the 14 as the perspective that you want to look at.
The 14 comes from the annual average increase in carbon dioxide
emissions from 1990 to 1995, i.e., it is a target that some
have proposed to reach in terms of reducing carbon emission. So
that the 14 is really a baseline number, OK?
When we look at the second bar below that, we had fossil
fuel consumption carbon emission plus the habitat preservation
in the Pacific Northwest. These activities have increased
carbon dioxide by 20 million metric tons of carbon equivalent.
OK, so 14 of those is from the fossil fuel target, plus six
from the habitat preservation program. So now our target really
is not 14, it is 20. OK?
Now if we add in substitution of non-wood products, i.e.,
the fossil fuel used to produced non-wood products that we lost
with the reduced Federal harvest, we add another 19 million
metric tons to that bar. So now our target is really 39 rather
than 14. And then there are two levels of wildfires. There is
an estimated low level and an estimated high level of fires and
these activities increase the carbon emissions from 50 million
metric tons of carbon equivalent, to I forget what the big
number is, close to 80 million metric tons of carbon
equivalent. And that number you might think of as our target
that we need to reach.
The whole idea here was to show how some of the previous
single-issue policies that were implemented affect carbon
dioxide emissions, and that these effects can be very large.
Dr. Oliver. So instead of the initial target of trying to
reduce carbon dioxide emission by 14 million metric tons, we
have actually increased it so that to get to the base level, we
would have to reduce it between 54 and 75 million metric tons,
cause we have added that much more carbon by these policies,
both not harvesting and the fire problem that we have.
Mrs. Chenoweth. This is very interesting. Can you tell me
what effect salvage logging would have on CO2, Dr.
Oliver or Dr. Perez-Garcia?
Dr. Perez-Garcia. I would expect it to transfer the carbon
that is on the ground into products. If those products are
long-lived products, i.e., they are lumber, then that carbon
remains in lumber for a period longer than it would have been
on the ground.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I see.
Dr. Perez-Garcia. And there is also the substitution effect
with the fossil fuels. So the salvage logging would reduce the
amount of carbon entering the atmosphere. If you leave it on
the ground, it will decompose and go into the atmosphere.
Dr. Oliver. If you would have the effects of if you did not
salvage log, then instead of using the wood products, there is
a high change you would use substitute products, which would
add more carbon to the atmosphere. If you had fires or if the
salvage was after fires, if you had reburns, and you would add
more carbon to the atmosphere. If you had salvaged it and you
had thinned it, then you may even be growing higher quality
products on the remaining trees, which can further reduce the
carbon dioxide on the atmosphere.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Very interesting. I am pleased to recognize
Mr. Schaffer from Colorado has joined us. I would like to
proceed with questions for Mr. Ross right now.
Mr. Ross, I want to let you know that I think Coos County
is just about the most beautiful part of the world there is. My
sister lived in Coos Bay and I always enjoyed visiting your
corner of the world. I understand that that specific coast area
there is the most highly productive--has the most highly
productive capability for growing and harvesting trees than any
place else in the world. Is that true?
Mr. Ross. Madam Chairman, I was actually called to task for
making that statement before Harvey Switzer, Federal
Magistrate, because I had not been everywhere in the world. I
thank you for your compliments about Coos County. We had a
person come there a few years ago to set about to stop
harvesting timber in the County and he said that he was from
California, and we had the most beautiful place in the world
and he was here to save it. And I said, Dr. Miller, you are
late. It burned off in 1868, we have logged it twice since
then.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You are right. Do you believe the harvest
of timber should be the primary use of the national forests?
Mr. Ross. Madam Chair, if I may, I certainly believe it
should be one of the primary uses. When it is dealt as one of
the primary uses, using best management practices, of course,
and latest technology, we can preserve all the other amenities.
Furthermore, we get all the other amenities free. You alluded
to this earlier today. In Coos County, I have constituents now
that are having to pay $3 to go look at the Pacific Ocean
because the Forest Service is out with their tin cup trying to
stay alive with no harvest and no means of support. I certainly
think that when you maximize timber harvest, you maximize the
ability for, or the benefit to the atmosphere, plus you get
jobs, you get county revenues for public health and safety, and
you get materials for people to build houses with for Americans
to live in. And it is tragic to what is happening to the
Douglas fir region. Knowing what I know, what I know is in
inevitable. My forebears saw the Siuslaw National Forest when
it was ashes. And that is one of the reasons, and Mr. Lyons is
absolutely correct, the reason people did not take much of that
land is because it was not what they wanted. It was not because
it was not productive. It was because they were agrarian in
nature, they needed a place to grow food. This was just going
to grow little trees and it did not have timber on it then.
That forest is probably one of the most productive forests
in the world, and I will have to couch that probably now
because of what I have been told in the past about saying
things I cannot substantiate. But today under the record of
decision, there is almost no place on that forest we can hold a
timber sale because of the intermittent stream buffers, the
overlap. Sometimes they triplicate in areas. And so the
productivity of that forest is--it is beautiful. It is 130-
year-old timber on about two thirds of it, one third of it has
been harvested and is growing. The roads are in. The roads are
managed and we have mills in the area being dissembled because
there is nothing there for them to harvest. They cannot harvest
it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I understand the big mill downtown is no
longer operating.
Mr. Ross. That is right. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What is in there now?
Mr. Ross. A casino.
Mrs. Chenoweth. A casino?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Good grief.
Mr. Ross. And the Coquille Indian tribe has a casino in
there. It is the only mill in town that is working three shifts
a day.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The casino.
Mr. Ross. It is called the Mill Casino as a matter of fact.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I am going to ask you one more question and
then I am going to yield to Mr. Schaffer. How will increasing
the harvest of timber to increase carbon storage affect our
salmon runs?
Mr. Ross. Madam Chair, we have harvested more timber than
any county in Oregon. Principally because we started earlier.
We started in 1855. We had the only deep water port on the
Oregon coast. And we supplied timber to build San Francisco and
to re-
build it after the fire in 1906. We continue to and for most of
my lifetime and for decades before my lifetime, we are the
largest timber shipping port, wood products shipping port in
the world. And yet we have the highest rate of salmon returns
on the Oregon coast. We have more Coho salmon return to the
streams every year in Coos County than all of the rest of the
coastal counties in Oregon put together. Now this was our
experience. I had no scientific background for it until this
year.
Oregon State University is completing a 10-year study on
the coastal productivity enhancement program understanding how
managing our riparian areas effect salmon runs. And it is been
determined that these are disturbance based ecosystems. The
large woody debris and the spawning gravel are essential for
our salmon runs, are a result of disturbances. In the past
forest fires and flood, but today logging and flood. And this
work has been done by the same people that drew the lines on
the FEMAT report and they are telling me that this needs to be
revisited, that they did not understand this at the time they
drew the lines. And when they drew the lines, they did not
consider them to be permanent. Only until watershed assessments
could be done and you could determine where the timber needed
to be left on the head walls that might fail. Not so they would
not fail, but when they did fail, large woody debris would come
into the proper places in the watershed. And they are telling
me maybe 10 percent of the watershed could be saved in that
area and the rest harvested. And we would be doing something
really meaningful for our aquatic resources.
So it is--besides the other tragedies of the Northwest
forest plan, it is exactly wrongheaded when it comes to
anadromous fisheries. We all thought that these beautiful
little brooks and shaded areas must be the place that fish
like. But fish like what comes from disturbances. The large
woody debris that creates the sheltering areas that salmon need
to overwinter and oversummer, and the spawning gravel that they
need. So Madam Chair, I appreciate you asking that question and
giving me an opportunity to respond to it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, sir. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Commissioner, I
saw one of your bumper stickers. It said, housing----
Mr. Ross. I made this available. Sometimes I try to make a
point----
Mr. Schaffer. Oh, here it is, ``Affordable Housing Begins
in the Woods.'' What is the story on this?
Mr. Ross. If I may, is Mr. Lyons still here? I apologize to
him because I did not send him one. I sent one to Mike Dombeck
when I read in the Oregonian that he and Mike Dombeck had been
before a subcommittee in Congress, and I do not hold everybody
accountable for what I read in the Oregonian either, my
apologies if this is reported wrong, but they had said that it
was not the Administration's policy to not harvest timber on
public lands. They were only reflecting the wishes of the
people of the United States. So I wrote to Mike, knowing him,
and I said, Mike, I have always followed whenever I see your
name, I read it and this is what I wrote, ask the people of the
United States the right question. And do not ask them while
they are watching Bambi on television. Ask them when they are
arranging financing for a new home or when they are at the
lumber yard, or when the mortgage payment is due or when the
landlord is collecting the rent. And then ask them the
question, how much more are you willing to pay for shelter, for
housing, to not harvest timber on public lands. And that was
the reason I sent that. And I made it available for your
Committee also.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you. I would also like you to discuss,
if you would a little bit, just the role of controlled burns
and fire with respect to forest management form your
perspective as a county commissioner.
Mr. Ross. Thank you. For many years we managed our timber
in Coos County by harvesting, burning, and then replanting. And
it is certainly an aid in allowing the young seedlings to get a
jump on the brush that grows so fast on the coast. But fire in
a natural role in a Douglas fir region is not an option. It is
very different in the pine area. But in the Douglas fir region,
things grow so fast, you are not going to reduce the fire
loading long term by little, frequent, nonintensive burns. The
Douglas fir region is famous for only the catastrophic events
that take place after timber reaches maturity. And that
certainly is not an option, we need to harvest to prevent that
from happening.
The real danger in Western Oregon is at the same time we
are not harvesting, the same time the fuel is building up, we
are also losing the biggest fire department ever assembled in
the world. At every foreclosure, at every bankruptcy, at every
sale held to sell out the equipment that the timber companies
have had and the logging companies have had, we lose that fire
department, which is made of the loggers and their water wagons
and Caterpillars and Lowboys to move the Caterpillars to the
sites, and fire fighting equipment, and manpower and just plain
know-how. And we are losing that fire department at the same
time it is going to be needed the most. Certainly public safety
is paramount in the thinking of this County Commissioner.
Mr. Schaffer. When you say fire department, you are
referring to just the whole community, not----
Mr. Ross. I am referring to the many, many, many contract
loggers that have gone out of business. They were the first
response. Now they were not the certified fire fighters, but
they believe in putting fires out. They did not understand how
to monitor fires and how to take these 27 objectives and
determine whether you are going to let it burn or not. They
knew if you did not put it out, it was going to burn up the
whole country, and it was going to do it quick, and the quicker
you can get on it, and that was our first response
capabilities.
The Coos Force Protective Association, which is an
association of all of the private and public landowners in
Southwestern Oregon is reluctant to do a complete closure even
when humidity gets high. They would rather do a hoot owl where
you start early in the morning and you go home by noon and, and
so that they know where these people are. If you do a complete
closure, the Cat operator, the Lowboy driver, he goes home, he
throws the fishing equipment in the car, he takes the wife and
the kids and heads for a lake in the Cascades, and you do not
know where he is at. So they recognize the need for these--for
this as their first response capability on these fires.
Mr. Schaffer. I have one more question as well, the debate
on status of the purchaser road credits. The debate continues
on the purchaser road credits, it is cut in half here on House
side. I think that is taking place, I think, this week over in
the Senate, to some degree, that is true. With respect to your
community, can you speak to that issue and the effect it has on
your----
Mr. Ross. There is two issues here and I faxed information
to both Senator Wydon and Senator Patty Murray on this issue
day before yesterday. Because those road funds are needed so
that we can maintain the roads and keep the sediment from going
in and impacting our anadromous streams. What the well-
maintained road system is what is important to parts of forest
health as it applies to the aquatic resources.
The other part of that was to take away the purchasers
credits. This is a program that has worked so well. Under the
old program, you sold a timber sale knowing that a road was
going to have to be put in and the amount that they paid for
that timber sale reflected the fact that they were going to
have to build the road, build it according to the standards
which were predetermined. With the purchaser credits, people
bid on forest service sales as though the road is there. So
they pay top price and then they build the road and when
something else needs to be done, if you need a culvert that
will allow fish passages as opposed to what has been described,
change orders could be made so, so easily. This is not any kind
of a subsidy to business. This is a matter of just building the
road and using credits rather than selling at a lower price and
allowing them to build the road predetermined. And it is one of
our best tools in forest management and forest health when we
can design those roads and make change orders as it goes along
rather than the more difficult way of changing something once
it has already been in the contract.
Mr. Schaffer. What is going to be the results----
Mr. Ross. Well the result was last night 51 people in the
Senate had better sense. It failed 51 to 49.
Mr. Schaffer. Assuming though that if those who oppose
purchaser road credit program prevail, if that were to occur,
with respect to forest management, this whole issue of
atmospheric impact, and so on, what would be your guess on what
your county would look like without road purchaser credit
program?
Mr. Ross. It would adversely impact the sale program. It
would be one more thing taking away from the managers that has
been a tool for the good environment. And they have been losing
those tools rapidly.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Oliver, I have some more questions that
if you do not mind that I would like to ask you. What about
wood as an energy source. What effect would utilizing woody
biomass as a replacement for fossil fuels have on the levels of
carbon in the atmosphere?
Dr. Oliver. Well, I will ask John Perez-Garcia to add to
this as well, but wood can be harvested and used as an energy
source and thereby keeping fossil fuels in the ground. However,
in terms of the efficiency of using wood in that way versus
using wood as a direct product that would substitute for
something like concrete or steel or aluminum or brick, you save
a lot more energy and keep a lot more carbon dioxide out of the
atmosphere than using wood as a substitute product. The way it
would probably be most effective would be to use as much of the
wood as possible as a substitute product, and use the
residuals, the chips, the shavings, the sawdust to then be
burned as energy to save for fossil fuels. Dr. Perez-Garcia, is
that basically correct?
Dr. Perez-Garcia. Yes, I would agree with what Dr. Oliver
has stated. Basically, one of the bottom lines that I said in
my presentation this morning was that the way to reduce
atmospheric carbon is to save fossil fuels. Wood products do
that. And there are two ways that wood products do that. One is
directly substituting fossil fuels for biofuels, and the second
way is indirectly substituting the manufactured energy that is
based on fossil fuels through wood product production.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Very interesting. Well, gentlemen, I do
have other questions that I would like to submit to you. But
for right now I am going to ask Mr. Schaffer if he has anything
to add. I do want to say that I very, very much appreciate your
coming across the country to join us in this hearing. Your
testimony has been invaluable, and I appreciate it very much.
The members of the Committee may also have additional questions
for the witnesses and we will ask that you respond to these in
writing. The hearing will be held open for those responses for
three weeks.
If there is no further business, the Chair again wants to
thank Mr. Schaffer for joining us. We have three Subcommittee
hearings going on out of this main Committee today, and so a
lot of the members who wanted to be here simply could not be
here. But as of now this Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
BRIEFING PAPER
H.Con.Res. 151, Concurrent Resolution Regarding Managing Public Domain
National Forest to Maximize Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Among Other
Objectives
Summary
The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health will meet on
Thursday, September 18, 1997, to hold a legislative hearing on
H.Con.Res. 151, a concurrent resolution Expressing the sense of
the Congress that the United States should manage its public
domain National Forests to maximize the reduction of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere among many other objectives and that
the Unites States should serve as an example and as a world
leader in actively managing its public domain national forests
in a manner that substantially reduces the amount of carbon
dioxide added to the atmosphere.
Background
Chairman Don Young (R-AK) introduced H.Con.Res. 151 along
with Speaker Gingrich, Mrs. Chenoweth, chairman of the House
Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Mr. Taylor
of North Carolina, Mr. Herger, and Mr. Peterson of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Pombo, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Smith
of Washington, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Cunningham, Mrs. Cubin, Mr.
Nethercutt, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Skeen,
Mr. Schaffer of Colorado, Mr. Hansen, and Mr. Radanovich
expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should
manage its public domain national forests to maximize the
reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Global warming has been an issue of great debate and
discussion in Congress. This is due to the fact that in
December of this year, the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change meets in Kyoto, Japan. The Clinton-Gore
Administration has stated publicly that they intend to commit
the United States to mandatory greenhouse gas reductions at the
convention in Kyoto, Japan.
Science has proven to us that carbon dioxide, the leading
greenhouse gas can be taken out of the atmosphere by allowing a
young vibrant forest to absorb carbon through photosynthesis.
It is stored as wood. Carbon dioxide can also be kept out of
the atmosphere by harvesting the forest before it begins to
decompose or burn, thus storing the carbon in wood products
that are environmentally friendly, as well as providing an
economic benefit to society.
The most extensive scientific work on this subject has been
conducted by Dr. John Perez-Garcia, Associate Professor,
University of Washington, Dr. Chadwick Oliver, Professor,
University of Washington, Bruce Lippke, Professor and Director
of the Center for International Trade in Forest Products and R.
Neil Sampson. A copy of their studies can be obtained from the
Subcommittee.
Staff Contact: Bill Simmons, Staff Director, Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health at X5-0691.
------
Statement of James R. Lyons, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, United States Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the views of the Administration regarding the active
management of the National Forests to maximize the reduction of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The Administration welcomes
and supports efforts to address climate change, but strongly
opposes House Concurrent Resolution 151 because it is misguided
and undermines current national forest management laws.
The premise of the concurrent resolution is that young,
fast-growing trees fix carbon dioxide more efficiently than
mature trees. Therefore, the Forest Service should maximize
carbon sequestration by harvesting mature trees, converting the
wood to durable products, and replanting sites with seedlings.
As the committee is aware, the scientific basis for our
mutually shared concerns about global climate change is very
complex. Accordingly, our efforts to make substantive policy
changes are equally complex and driven by scientific analysis.
I want to make three basic points today: (1) the role of
recycling, (2) the role of national forests in the carbon
cycle, and (3) the potential for carbon sequestration from
Federal lands compared with private lands.
The Forest Service research program has done some extensive
research quantifying the benefits of recycling wood fiber on
carbon releases into the environment. Through technology
developed by the Federal Government and private industry, and
supported by government incentives to recycle, the United
States has made a significant contribution to carbon
sequestration by reducing energy costs of production and
reusing wood fiber several times before sending it to a
landfill.
Recognizing the value of storing carbon in wood products
and substituting wood products for more fossil fuel-consuming
products, the President included in the 1993 Climate Change
Action Plan a proposal to expand paper recycling technology
research. Priorities included research on the use of recycled
wood and fiber in durable structural products suitable for
housing markets. The President requested a $2 million increase
in research funding. Congress has appropriated $200,000.
The President's Forest Plan was analyzed specifically for
its contribution to carbon sequestration, and thus offers a
good case study to evaluate national forest management policies
in general. Contrary to the presumption of the concurrent
resolution, the conservation strategy in the President's Forest
Plan actually increases the amount of carbon dioxide
sequestrated by about 7 million metric tons by the year 2000.
The careful balance of forest protection and management and the
role of old-growth forests is described well in a 1990 Science
magazine article by Harmon, Ferrell and Franklin. In addition,
the President's Forest Plan has strict standards about
harvesting which are supported by scientific work by Mr. R.
Neil Sampson. Sampson (1997) found that harvesting practices
such as clear cutting eliminate canopy shade, increase soil
temperatures, accelerate organic decomposition due to soil
disturbance, and have other negative impacts on carbon storage
in a forested ecosystem. The Forest Plan minimizes clearcuts,
protects shade, foliage and canopy closures, minimizes ground
disturbance, and avoids whole sale burning of slash, stumps and
debris. Last, the President's Forest Plan meets all Federal
land management and environmental laws, and your resolution
would create a conflict with existing law. While your
resolution suggests that national forests should be managed to
maximize carbon sequestration, current law requires us to
practice multiple use which does not allow one use or
management goal to dominate other uses. The U.S. forest sector
will store lO9 million metric tons of carbon in 2000. Of this,
our National Forests are projected to fix 21 million metric
tons of carbon in 2000, store over 8 billion of tons of carbon,
conserve biodiversity (and thus flexibility for private land
management), and provide for multiple use according to our
legal mandates. And although the annual carbon storage in
private forests is expected to decline over the next several
decades due to declining net growth in Northeastern forests as
the trees age and removal of trees in the South at the same
rate of their growth, annual carbon accumulation in our
National Forests is expected to continue increasing.
Finally, I want to turn to the issue of maximizing growth
of new biomass through forest management. The productivity of
forestland in the United States varies widely across the
country. Productivity is influenced by soil type, soil depth,
growing season, rainfall, and other physical factors.
Productivity is commonly measured according to the number of
cubic feet of wood which one acre of land can grow in one
year's time. If Congress was interested in maximizing carbon
sequestration through tree growth, it is logical to look for
the most productive sites which will grow the most cubic feet
per year.
The Forest Service published a document called the Forest
Resources of the United States (1994) which summarizes forest
productivity across different landownerships using a standard
of 85 cubic feet/acre/year. In the West, 67 percent of the
private industrial lands are capable of producing more than 85
cubic feet per year compared to only 15 percent of the national
forest lands in the West. The reason for this is that national
forestlands are typically high elevation forests with shorter
growing seasons and poorer soils. Similarly in the East, 55
percent of the private industrial land is capable of producing
85 cubic feet or more, and only 20 percent of the national
forest land in the East have this level of productivity. The
trend is the same, though less dramatic, between nonindustrial
private lands and national forest lands in both the East and
the West.
Thus, if growing trees quickly is the goal of this
resolution, it makes much more sense to focus our efforts in
areas where we will receive the greatest return on our
investment--the most productive lands--the private lands. The
Forest Service can help make this investment not through a
change in priorities for public land management, but by
providing technical and financial assistance to private
landowners to help them increase productivity. The state and
private forestry programs of the Forest Service are designed to
deliver exactly this kind of assistance to landowners. In
addition, the Natural Resource Conservation Service administers
a number of programs which help landowners develop and
implement plans that promote tree planting. The more efficient
and effective place to focus tree planting and aggressive
management is on private lands. The President's Climate Change
Action Plan in-
cludes two actions that provide technical assistance and cost-
sharing for nonindustrial private landowners to plant trees and
improve forest management. These programs have resulted in tree
planting on 135,000 acres of land.
I want to highlight for a minute your state, Mr. Chairman.
The State of Alaska, as well as your neighbors Washington and
Oregon, have replanting laws which help continue the benefits
of carbon sequestration on private lands in those states. Most
states have forest practice laws which contribute to efforts to
ensure that landowners practice sustainable forestry. Some
states, such as Alabama and Georgia, do not have state forest
practices laws, but rely instead on market conditions to
encourage tree planting. In these cases, we depend on high
lumber prices to promote replanting. In any case, the role of
the private landowner, however it is influenced by state or
Federal policy, has the opportunity to make a much more
significant--and more profitable--contribution to carbon
sequestration through active management of productive lands.
There are many other efforts throughout the Forest Service
and throughout the Administration which are targeted
specifically to address the issue of climate change that are
beyond the immediate scope of this resolution and this hearing.
In summary, the Administration is enthusiastic about continuing
this dialog with Congress about the importance of addressing
carbon sequestration and climate change--and the role of the
forest sector, but is compelled to strongly oppose the
concurrent resolution. I am happy to answer questions that the
Committee might have.
------
Statement of Gordon Ross, Commissioner, Coos County, Oregon
The amount of CO2 used in photosynthesis per
acre of forest land; the amount of oxygen released into the
atmosphere; the amount of carbon stored in the forest is in
direct proportion to the amount of wood fiber produced.
This is high school biology. I am not an expert witness.
This information does not require an expert witness. This
knowledge is part of the public domain.
I would like to bring two aspects of forest management to
your attention that aid in reducing greenhouse gasses on the
globe, both of which compliment each other in addition to
having many other societal benefits.
First: Maximizing Forest Growth.
For every soil classification and for each climatic
condition there is a growth potential depending on stalking and
non-utilizable competition.
I happen to live in the most productive area of North
America, the Pacific Northwest or more specifically, the
Douglas Fir region. The federally managed portion of this area
amounts to just under 25 million acres of which approximately
1/2 is in mature status. According to Roger A. Sedjo in
``Forests, a Tool to Moderate Global Warming,'' approximately
one-half of the CO2 emissions on earth annually are
taken up in natural processes present today. Of the 5.8 billion
tons of carbon thus emitted, 2.9 billion need to be dealt with
if the atmosphere were to remain carbon natural. If the 12.5
million acres of federally managed Douglas Fir forests in the
Northwest that are presently mature, could over the next 50
years be harvested and converted to growing forest averaging
sequestration of 2 tons of carbon per acre per year, the
Northwest's contribution on these lands alone would be 2 5
million tons of carbon or about .8 percent of the needed
additional carbon fixation on earth. This would constitute a
major commitment on the part of the United States to the Global
Community and would have societal benefits including jobs,
revenue to local governments and affordable housing nationwide.
On the converse side, if those timber lands are not
actively so managed, the contribution of carbon to the global
community could be equally as great when history repeats
itself. Every acre of Douglas Fir timber prior to planned
harvest was a result of a natural regeneration event, mostly
fire. If ever we needed to heed the lessons of history, it is
now. If we do not harvest, nature will and without any of the
societal benefits and at a great threat to public safety.
The second aspect of forest management I wish to give a few
minutes to is fire. Wildfire has been touted in recent years as
the forester panacea, the answer to all our forest health
problems; but fire of catastrophic proportions is the most
rapid form of oxidation in the forest. Beyond that point, the
timber that is dead continues to rot, a slower form of
oxidation. Finally, when the oxidation is complete, the tree
has turned to soil and the carbon has united with oxygen and is
in the atmosphere. When a forest reaches the point where there
is no net increase in wood fiber (when it is oxidizing as
rapidly as it is growing there is then no net benefit to the
atmosphere). In maximizing wood fiber production we not only
maximize the benefit to our atmosphere but we also produce
societal benefits such as homes, jobs and government services.
Further, in Western Oregon our managed forests are also pro-
ducing better aquatic resources. Coos County annually harvests
more timber than any county on the Pacific Coast and it has
more Coho Salmon than any county on the Pacific Coast. In fact,
it has more Coho than all the rest of the Oregon counties put
together.
When my forebears came to Western Oregon in the early
1850's they found even aged stands of Douglas Fir in varying
ages of growth depending on how long it had been since the last
fire. What is now the Siuslaw National Forest was ashes. They
saw the fire of 1868 jump the South Fork of Coos River and burn
over 1/3 of Coos County. This was a function of nature, a
recycling of carbon but at a time before we began using fossil
fuels. Today, when the average American uses 7 gallons of
petroleum per day to transport themselves, their supplies and
services, there is no dispute but that there is adequate carbon
in the atmosphere for our crops and forests to meet their
maximum growth potential. The forest effected by the N.W.
Forest Plan have the potential of growing 5 billion board feet
of timber per year.
If we only harvest 10 percent of that potential as under
the Northwest Forest Plan, eventually the forests will only be
growing at that rate. However, speaking historically, we can
say with assured certainty, if we do not harvest at a rate
closely approaching growth potential, nature will, through
catastrophic fire.
In the Northwest, as we see our mills and logging
operations shutting down, as we see timber being imported,
further tilting our balance of trade; as we witness the loss of
jobs, loss of county revenue for public health and safety we
are also witnessing the loss of the largest fire department
ever assembled in the history of the world. The loggers and
their bulldozers and lowboys and water wagons and fire fighting
equipment and manpower and just plain know how. As fuel buildup
continues, our ability to deal with it decreases.
Because Coos County is in the general proximity of the best
tree growing area in North America, and because we maximize
that growth by optimizing our harvest cycle, it is encouraging
to know that Coos County has done more to enhance the
atmosphere in the past century than probably any other county
of its size in America.
We, from Coos County, Oregon, would like to challenge the
rest of America, through legislative commitment to do as well.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6036.084