Forest Management Solutions for Mitigating Climate Change in the United States

Robert W. Malmsheimer, Patrick Heffernan, Steve Brink, Douglas Crandall, Fred Deneke, Christopher Galik, Edmund Gee, John A. Helms, Nathan McClure, Michael Mortimer, Steve Ruddell, Matthew Smith, and John Stewart

About the Authors enjoyed a variety of forestry employment in mass for power generation. He graduated Robert W. Malmsheimer Great Britain and the United States and is from the University of California at Davis Task Force Co-Chair, Associate Professor of For- now part owner and manager of an experi- with a degree in civil engineering. Prior to est Policy and Law, SUNY College of Environ- mental private forest in New Zealand. He joining the California Forestry Association, mental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York has been an SAF member since 1990, served he spent 36 years with the US Forest Service. Malmsheimer has been a professor at as chapter and state chairs in Montana, and SUNY ESF since 1999 and teaches courses is currently on SAF’s National Policy Com- Douglas Crandall in natural resources policy and environmen- mittee. He was involved during the forma- Director of Legislative Affairs, US Forest tal and natural resources law. His research tive years of what has become the National Service, Washington, DC focuses on how laws and the legal system Carbon Offset Coalition, where his interest Crandall is currently director of Legis- in promoting inclusive solutions to forest affect forest and natural resources manage- lative Affairs for the US Forest Service. Pre- carbon sequestration posited an approach ment, including how climate change and viously, for eight years, he was the staff di- for scientific net primary productivity calcu- carbon sequestration policies affect forest rector for the US House of Representatives lations as a sound basis for forestry carbon and natural resources. Prior to becoming a Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, credit markets. professor, Malmsheimer practiced law for with jurisdiction over most legislation and oversight concerning the Forest Service and six years. He has a Ph.D. in forest policy Steve Brink Bureau of Land Management. He also served from SUNY ESF, a J.D. from Albany Law Vice President–Public Resources, California with the Society of American Foresters as School, and a B.L.A. from SUNY ESF. He Forestry Association, Sacramento, California was the 2007 chair of the SAF Committee Brink has been with the California For- policy director, the National Forest Founda- on Forest Policy and served on the commit- estry Association since July 2005. He repre- tion as vice president, and the American Forest tee from 2005 to 2007. He has served on sents most of the remaining solid wood mill and Paper Association as director responsible numerous national and state SAF commit- infrastructure and many of the remaining for national forest issues. Earlier in his career, tees and task forces. biomass powerplants in the state. His focus he spent 10 years managing a lumber com- is on timber and biomass wood supply from pany in Livingston, Montana, and four years Patrick Heffernan the national forests, which manage 50 per- on the Brazilian Amazon, first as a forester and Task Force Co-Chair, President, PAFTI, Inc., cent of the state’s productive forestland. float-plane pilot, then as a plywood mill man- Hungry Horse, Montana Since 2007, Brink has focused on forest car- ager. Doug graduated with a B.S. in forestry Heffernan began his career in forestry bon sequestration, carbon life-cycle model- from Oregon State University. He has been a in 1976 and graduated with a national di- ing, forestry protocols, and the potential of member and officer of numerous forestry, in- ploma in forestry from the Cumbria College renewable energy credits for forest landown- dustry, conservation, and community organi- of Agriculture and Forestry in 1981. He has ers, wood manufacturing facilities, and bio- zations.

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 115 Fred Deneke Gee is the national Woody Biomass Uti- He is a 1983 graduate of the University of Staff Advisor, 25x25 Renewable Energy Alli- lization Team leader for US Forest Service and Georgia with a B.S. in forest resources man- ance, Prescott, Arizona the national partnership coordinator for forest agement. Recent assignments include creat- Deneke is forestry staff advisor to the management. He oversees the Woody Bio- ing additional values from Georgia’s forests 25x25 Renewable Energy Alliance on woody mass Utilization Team in the development of through marketing and new product devel- biomass and biomass energy. He also admin- sustainable woody biomass strategic planning, opment, facilitating the development of a isters a woody biomass cooperative agreement policy, and implementation of the plan as it forest biomass energy industry, and initiating involving the National Association of Conser- relates to climate change. Gee works directly Georgia’s new carbon sequestration registry, as vation Districts, the US Forest Service, and the with the Chief’s Office and the Washington well as working with traditional forest prod- Bureau of Land Management. Deneke retired Staff Directors Woody Biomass Steering Com- ucts industries. from the US Department of Agriculture in mittee to work across all deputy chief areas as 2005 after 32 years of service with the US For- well as with the Departments of Interior, En- Michael Mortimer est Service and USDA Extension Service. Prior ergy, and Defense, the Environmental Protec- Director of Forest Policy, Society of American to his retirement he was assistant director for tion Agency, and other USDA agencies. He re- Foresters, Bethesda, Maryland the Cooperative Forestry Staff of the US Forest ceived his B.S. degree in natural resource man- Mortimer is currently the director of Service in Washington, DC, where he served agement from the University of California at Forest Policy for the Society of American as national lead for woody biomass utilization Berkeley, a Certified Silviculturist from Ore- Foresters. Previously he was on the faculty of for State and Private Forestry on the US Forest gon State University and University of Wash- the Virginia Tech Department of Forestry, Service Woody Biomass Team and the Inter- ington, and an M.B.A. from the University of where he carried out research and teaching agency Woody Biomass Utilization Group Phoenix. He has been a member of SAF since in the areas of public and private land forest (involving the Forest Service, Department of 1983. management and regulation and published Interior, Department of Energy, other federal in the areas of forest and biodiversity con- agencies, and nongovernmental partners). John A. Helms servation. He also served as an assistant at- Prior to his USDA service, Deneke was an as- Professor Emeritus, University of California, torney general for the Montana Department sistant professor at Kansas State University. He Berkeley, California of Natural Resources and Conservation, Helms joined the faculty of the School of where he advised and litigated on behalf of is a graduate of Colorado State University with Forestry, Berkeley, in 1964 and has M.S. and the agency’s forestry programs. Mortimer a B.S. in forestry science. He also has M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of received his Ph.D. in forestry from the Ph.D. degrees in horticulture from Kansas Washington, Seattle. At Berkeley he was pro- University of Montana, his J.D. from the State University. fessor of silviculture and became head of the Pennsylvania State University, and a B.A. department. Much of his research was in tree from Washington and Jefferson College. He Christopher Galik physiology with emphasis on net uptake of car- has been an active member and officer of Research Coordinator for the Climate Change bon dioxide by mature trees in relation to various professional, forestry, and policy-re- Policy Partnership, Duke University, Durham, stresses from water availability, temperature, lated organizations at both national and state North Carolina and air pollution. He served SAF as chair of the levels. Galik currently serves as research coordi- Forest Science and Technology Board for two nator for the Climate Change Policy Part- terms and as president in 2005. He gave testi- Steve Ruddell nership, a collaborative project intended to mony twice before Congress in 2007 on cli- Senior Program Officer, World Wildlife Fund, leverage the resources of Duke University to mate change effects on forests and wildfires. Washington, DC determine practical strategies to respond to cli- He currently serves on the board of the Cali- Ruddell is the senior program officer of mate change. Within this partnership, Galik fornia Forest Products Commission and in the Forest Carbon Project for the World has primary oversight over biological carbon 2007 was appointed a member of the Sustain- Wildlife Fund’s Global Forests Program. He sequestration, biofuel, and energy efficiency able Forestry Initiative’s External Review was previously the director of Forest Invest- research activities. Previously, he spent several Panel. ments and Sustainability for Forecon, Inc., years in Washington, DC, as a policy analyst, a multidisciplinary forest and natural re- specializing in a variety of environmental is- Nathan McClure sources consulting company. At Forecon, sues, including species conservation and fed- Director, Georgia Forestry Commission’s Forest Inc., he consulted with clients on invest- eral forest management and policy. He holds a Products Utilization, Marketing, and Develop- ments in forest conservation and sustainabil- master of environmental management degree ment Program, Macon, Georgia ity initiatives using market-based mecha- from the Nicholas School of the Environment McClure currently leads the Georgia nisms, including carbon asset management at Duke, with a concentration in forest re- Forestry Commission’s Forest Products strategies for trading forest carbon offset source economics and policy. He received his Utilization, Marketing, and Development projects. Ruddell also conducted Chicago B.A. in biology from Vassar College. Galik has program and also serves as the director of Climate Exchange (CCX) forest carbon as- been an SAF member since 2001. Forest Energy for the agency. He has worked set management services in North and South in a variety of positions over the past 24 America, including forest offset project eco- Edmund A. Gee years with the commission. McClure is a nomic analyses, development, quantifica- National Woody Biomass Utilization Team Georgia Registered Forester and a SAF tion, verification, and reporting for access- Leader, US Forest Service, Forest Management, Certified Forester. He received the SAF ing the CCX trading platform. He is a National Forest System, Washington, DC Presidential Field Forester Award in 2005. designated trader for CCX carbon financial

116 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 instruments. He is an officer of SAF’s Work- management organizations and high net John C. Stewart ing Group on Bioenergy, Climate Change, worth individuals. In 2004 Smith began work- Biomass and Forest Health Program Manager, and Carbon; the CCX Forestry Committee; ing in the area of ecosystem services on behalf Department of Interior, Office of the Secre- the CCX Crediting Conservation Forestry of these clients and has conducted forest car- tary’s Office of Wildland Fire Coordination, Projects Committee; and the CCX Verifiers bon modeling and analysis, prepared managed Washington, DC Advisory Committee. Ruddell received his forest carbon offset projects for the CCX mar- Stewart, the Biomass and Forest Health B.S. in forest management from Utah State ket, and written about carbon sequestration Program manager for the Department of In- University, and an M.S. in forestry and an for national audiences. He has served as a con- terior, represents the department on biomass M.B.A. in operations management from sultant to state and local municipalities, forest utilization for renewable energy under the Michigan State University. He has com- owner organizations, carbon registries, profes- National Energy Plan and leads its efforts at pleted three years of work toward a Ph.D. in sional organizations, private landowners, small wood utilization under the National Fire Plan. Stewart also led an interdepart- forest resource economics. CCX, and other groups. He also directs a team mental team in writing a joint woody bio- of ecosystem specialists working on market- Matthew Smith mass policy for the Departments of Interior, based incentives for biodiversity and water re- Director of Ecosystem Services, Forecon EcoM- Energy, and Agriculture. Previously, Stewart arket Solutions LLC., Falconer, New York sources. Smith serves as the chair of the West- was a forester with the Bureau of Land Man- Smith, ACF, CF, EMS-A, is the director ern New York Chapter of SAF and is a agement in Washington, DC. He had 22 of Ecosystem Services for Forecon EcoMarket member of the Forest Carbon Education years of experience with the US Forest Ser- Solutions LLC.(Forecon EMS), an approved Group, the 25x25 Carbon Working Group, vice throughout California before joining aggregator for the Chicago Climate Exchange the Association of Consulting Foresters, and BLM. Stewart received a B.S. degree from (CCX), and director of Land Management for the New York Forest Owners Association. He the University of California at Berkeley and Forecon, Inc., a forestry consulting company holds a B.S. in forest resource management also worked for Dr. Ed Stone doing basic and CCX verifier. Since the mid-1990s he has from the SUNY College of Environmental research in seedling growth response and managed the Land Management Department Science and Forestry and is an auditor and vegetation descriptions. He has been a mem- for Forecon, Inc., working with large land consultant for sustainable forest certification ber of SAF since 1978 and served as the Bay management clients such as timber investment systems. Area Chapter chair in 1990 and 1991.

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 117 Abbreviations

BTU British thermal unit MtC/yr million tonnes of carbon per year

CCAR California Climate Action Registry MtCO2 eq. million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents CCX Chicago Climate Exchange MW megawatt

CDM Clean Development Mechanism N2O nitrous oxide CER certified emission reduction NMVOC nonmethane volatile organic compound; also VOC

CFC chlorofluorocarbon NOx nitrogen oxides CH4 methane OSB oriented-strand board CO carbon monoxide OTC over-the-counter market

CO2 carbon dioxide PFC perchlorofluorocarbon CORRIM Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial ppb parts per billion Materials ppm parts per million ERU emission reduction unit REIT real estate investment trust EU ETS European Union Emissions Trading Scheme RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative FT Fischer-Tropsch (gasification process) SAF Society of American Foresters

GHG greenhouse gas SF6 sulfur hexafluoride Gt gigatonne (1 billion tonnes) t tonne, or metric ton (1,000 kilograms, 2,205 pounds, GWP global warming potential (an estimate of the pound- or 1.10231 short tons) for-pound potential of a gas to trap as much energy as TDR transfer of development rights carbon dioxide) Tg teragram (1,000,000 metric tonnes) HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon TIMO timber investment management organization HFC hydrofluorocarbon ton short ton (2,000 pounds, or 0.907184 metric tonnes) HWP harvested wood product UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Change JI Joint Implementation VER voluntary (or verified) emission reduction Mt million tonnes VOC volatile organic compound

118 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 Executive Summary

orests are shaped by climate. Along ucts from sustainably managed forests can The technologies for converting woody with soils, aspect, inclination, and el- be replenished continually, providing a de- biomass to energy include direct burning, F evation, climate determines what pendable supply of both trees and wood hydrolysis and fermentation, pyrolysis, gas- will grow where and how well. Changes in products while supporting other ecological ification, charcoal, and pellets and bri- temperature and precipitation regimes services, such as clean water, clean air, wild- quettes. Energy uses for wood include ther- therefore have the potential to dramatically life habitat, and recreation. The use of wood mal energy for steam, heating, and cooling; affect forests nationwide. Climate is also products also avoids the emissions from the electrical generation and cogeneration; and shaped by forests. Eleven of the past 12 years substituted products, and the forest carbon transportation fuels. rank among the 12 warmest in the instru- remains in storage. The United States may need to build mental record of global surface temperature Life-cycle inventory analyses reveal that 1,200 new 300-megawatt power plants dur- since 1850. The changes in temperature the lumber, wood panels, and other forest ing the next 25 years to meet projected de- have been associated with increasing con- products used in construction store more mand for electricity, and coal will likely con- centrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide carbon, emit less GHGs, and use less fossil tinue to be a major source of energy for (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) energy than steel, concrete, brick, or vinyl, electricity production. Although some en- in the atmosphere. whose manufacture is energy intensive and ergy needs can be met by solar and wind, Of the many ways to reduce GHG produces substantial emissions. woody biomass presents a viable short- and emissions and atmospheric concentrations, Although wood product substitution mid-term solution: it can be mixed with coal the most familiar are increasing energy effi- does not permanently eliminate carbon or added to oil- and gas-generated electric ciency and conservation and using cleaner, from the atmosphere, it does sequester car- production processes to reduce GHG emis- alternative energy sources. Less familiar yet bon for the life of the product. Landfill man- sions. Federal funds and venture capital are equally essential is using forests to address agement can further delay the conversion of climate change. Unique among all possible beginning to support the production of cel- wood to GHG emissions, or the discarded remedies, forests can both prevent and re- lulosic ethanol. Substituting cellulosic bio- wood can be used for power generation (off- duce GHG emissions while simultaneously mass for fossil fuels greatly reduces GHG setting generation by fossil fuel–fired power providing essential environmental and social emissions: for every BTU of gasoline that is plants) or recycled into other potentially benefits, including clean water, wildlife hab- replaced by cellulosic ethanol, total life-cycle long-lived wood products. Regardless of the itat, recreation, forest products, and other GHG emissions (CO , methane, and ni- particular pathway followed after a prod- 2 values and uses. trous oxide) are reduced by 90.9 percent. uct’s useful life, wood substitution is a viable Climate change will affect forest ecol- The woody biomass is available from several ogy in myriad ways, with consequences for technique to immediately address climate by sources: logging and other residues, treat- the ability of forests, in turn, to mitigate preventing GHG emissions. ments to reduce fuel buildup in fire-prone global warming. This report summarizes Biomass Substitution. The use of wood forests, fuelwood, forest products industry mitigating options involving US forests and to produce energy opens two opportunities wastes, and urban wood residues. Planta- examines policies relating to forests’ role in to reduce GHG emissions. One involves us- tions of short-rotation, rapid-growing spe- climate change. It also recommends mea- ing harvest residue for electrical power gen- cies, such as alder, cottonwood, hybrid pop- sures to guide effective climate change miti- eration, rather than allowing it to accumu- lar, sweetgum, sycamore, willow, and pine, gation through forests and forest manage- late and decay on site or removing it by open are another source. ment, carbon-trading markets, and bio- field burning. The other is the substitution Wildfire Behavior Modification. Re- based renewable energy. of woody biomass for fossil fuels. ducing wildland fires, a major source of The use of biomass fuels and bio-based GHG emissions, prevents the release of Preventing GHG Emissions products can reduce oil and gas imports and carbon stored in the forest. One modest Forests and forest products can prevent improve environmental quality. Biomass wildfire—the July 2007 Angora wildfire in GHG emissions through wood substitution, can offset fossil fuels such as coal, natural South Lake Tahoe, on 3,100 acres of forest- biomass substitution, modification of wild- gas, gasoline, diesel oil, and fuel oil. At the land—released an estimated 141,000 tonnes fire behavior, and avoided land-use change. same time, its use can enhance domestic eco- of carbon dioxide and other GHGs into the Wood Substitution. Substituting wood nomic development by supporting rural atmosphere, and the decay of the trees killed for fossil fuel–intensive products addresses economies and fostering new industries by the fire could bring total emissions to climate change in several ways. Wood prod- making bio-based products. 518,000 tonnes. This is equivalent to the

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 119 GHG emissions generated annually by for forest use at $415 per acre and for urban tend to have higher capacity for carbon up- 105,500 cars. use at $36,216. Landowners generally con- take and storage because of their higher leaf In 2006, wildfires burned nearly 10 vert forestland to residential and commercial area. million acres in the United States, and vir- uses to capture increasing land values, but Enhancement of sequestration capacity tually all climate change models forecast an when forests are damaged by wildfire, in- depends on ensuring full stocking, main- increase in wildfire activity. Under extreme sects, or other disturbances, selling the land taining health, minimizing soil disturbance, fire behavior scenarios, which could be exac- for development rather than investing for and reducing losses due to tree mortality, erbated by climate change, increased accu- long-term reforestation can be attractive. wildfires, insect, and disease. Management mulations of hazardous forest fuels will Since climate change may increase the prev- that controls stand density by prudent tree cause ever-larger wildfires. The proximity of alence of such disturbances, forestland con- removal can provide society with renewable population centers to wildlands significantly version may increase in the future. products, including lumber, engineered increases the risk and consequences of wild- Moreover, conversion of forests to agri- composites, paper, and energy, even as the fire, including the release of GHGs. Wild- cultural lands is likely if energy policies favor stand continues to sequester carbon. Above fires in the United States and in many other corn-based ethanol over cellulose-based eth- all, enhancing the role of forests in reducing parts of the world have been increasing in anol. Tax policies that increase the cost of GHGs requires keeping forests as forests, in- size and severity, and thus future wildfire maintaining forestland also promote con- creasing the forestland base through affores- emissions are likely to exceed current levels. version, as do the short-term financial objec- tation, and restoring degraded lands. Three strategies to reduce wildfires and tives of some new forest landowners. Two active forest management ap- their GHG emissions can address that trend: Because it is unlikely that publicly proaches to addressing climate change are 1) • pretreatment of fuel reduction ar- owned forestland will increase, efforts to mitigation, in which forests and forest prod- eas—that is, removing some biomass before prevent GHG releases from forestland con- ucts are used to sequester carbon, provide using prescribed fire; version must focus on privately owned for- renewable energy through biomass, and • smoke management—that is, adjust- ests. New products, such as cellulosic etha- avoid carbon losses; and 2) adaptation, ing the seasonal and daily timing of burns nol and new engineered wood products, which involves positioning forests to be- and using relative low-severity prescribed may add value to working forests. Sustain- come healthier. Adaptive strategies include fires to reduce fuel consumption; and able utilization of working forests for a com- increasing resistance to insects, diseases, and • harvesting small woody biomass for bination of wood products, including bioen- wildfires; increasing resilience for recovering energy, or removing some larger woody ma- ergy, can improve forest landowners’ returns after a disturbance; and assisting migra- terial (over 10 centimeters, or 4 inches, in on their land, bolster interest in forest man- tion—facilitating the transition to new diameter) for traditional forest products and agement, and prevent conversion to other conditions by introducing better-adapted burning residuals. uses. Credits for forest carbon offset species, expanding genetic diversity, en- Active forest and wildland fire manage- projects, if trading markets develop, may couraging species mixtures, and providing ment strategies can dramatically reduce CO2 provide the additional income to encourage refugia. This last kind of intervention is emissions while also conserving wildlife hab- private landowners to retain forests. highly controversial, however, because ac- itat, preserving recreational, scenic, and tion would be based on projections for wood product values, and reducing the Reducing Atmospheric GHGs which outcomes are highly uncertain. threat of wildfires to communities and crit- Forests can also reduce GHG concen- Traditional silvicultural treatments fo- ical infrastructure. trations by sequestering atmospheric carbon cused on wood, water, wildlife, and aesthetic Avoided Land-Use Change. More car- in biomass and soil, and the carbon can re- values are fully amenable to enhancing car- bon is stored in forests than in agricultural or main stored in any wood products made bon sequestration and reducing emissions developed land. Preventing land-use change from the harvested trees. Because the area of from forest management. Choices regarding from forests to nonforest uses is thus another US forests is so vast—33 percent of the land even-aged and uneven-aged regimes, species way to reduce GHGs. Globally, forestland base—even small increases in carbon se- composition, slash disposal, site prepara- conversions released an estimated 136 bil- questration and storage per acre add up to tion, thinning, fertilization, and rotation lion tonnes of carbon, or 33 percent of the substantial quantities. length can all be modified to increase carbon total emissions, between 1850 and 1998— Sequestration in Forests. The capacity storage and prevent emissions. Because for- more emissions than any other anthropo- of stands to sequester carbon is a function of ests are the most efficient land use for carbon genic activity besides energy production. the productivity of the site and the potential uptake and storage, landowners with plant- Forest conversion and land develop- size of the various pools—soil, litter, down able acres and degraded areas that can be ment liberate carbon from soil stocks. For woody material, standing dead wood, live restored to a productive condition have a example, soil cultivation releases 20 to 30 stems, branches, and foliage. Net rates of significant opportunity to sequester carbon. percent of the carbon stored in soils. Addi- CO2 uptake by broad-leaf trees are com- Storage in Wood Products. Harvest- tional emissions occur from the loss of the monly greater than those of conifers, but be- ing temporarily reduces carbon storage in forest biomass, both above-ground vegeta- cause hardwoods are generally deciduous the forest by removing organic matter and tion and tree roots. while conifers are commonly evergreen, the disturbing the soil, but much of the carbon In the United States, a major threat to overall capacity for carbon sequestration can is stored in forest products. The carbon in forestland is the rise in land values for low- be similar. Forests of all ages and types have lumber and furniture, for example, may not density development. Forestland in the US remarkable capacity to sequester and store be released for decades; paper products have Southeast, for example, has been appraised carbon, but mixed-species, mixed-age stands a shorter life, except when disposed of in a

120 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 landfill. Storage of carbon in harvested wood tiative, a cap-and-trade program, limits eli- occurrence of wildfires and how they are products is gaining recognition in domestic gibility to afforestation. The other, the Cal- managed. climate mitigation programs, though ac- ifornia Climate Action Registry, permits 3. Forest management and use of wood counting for the carbon through a product’s credits for afforestation, managed forests, products add substantially to the capacity life cycle is problematic. and forest conservation. Voluntary markets of forests to mitigate the effects of climate The climate change benefits of wood for forest carbon include emissions trading change. products lie in the combination of long- transactions through the Chicago Climate 4. Greenhouse gas emissions can be re- term carbon storage with substitution for Exchange and over-the-counter transac- duced through the substitution of bio- other materials with higher emissions. Be- tions. mass for fossil fuels to produce heat, elec- cause wood can substitute for fossil fuel-in- All credit programs must ensure that tricity, and transportation fuels. tensive products, the reductions in carbon the net amount of carbon sequestered is 5. Avoiding forest conversion prevents the emissions to the atmosphere are compara- additional to what would have occurred release of GHG emissions, and adding to tively larger than even the benefit of the car- without the project. Methods are still be- the forestland base through afforestation bon stored in wood products. This effect— ing developed to separate the effects of and urban forests sequesters carbon. the displacement of fossil fuel sources— management action on a forest from those 6. Existing knowledge of forest ecology and could make wood products the most of environmental conditions, and deter- sustainable forest management is ade- important carbon pool of all. mining the net change in carbon stocks quate to enable forest landowners to en- must include not only all management ac- Forest Carbon Offset Projects hance carbon sequestration if there are tions, such as harvesting, tree planting, incentives to do so and if carbon and car- The role of forests and forest products and fertilizing, but also the effects of bon management have value that exceeds in preventing and reducing GHGs is be- weather, wildfire, insects, and disease. costs. ginning to gain recognition in market-based A forest project must also demonstrate 7. How global voluntary and mandatory policy instruments for climate change miti- permanence. Ensuring permanence can be markets develop will play a significant gation. Forestry is one category of projects difficult, however, since some sequestered role in establishing the price of carbon that can create carbon dioxide emission re- carbon might be released through natural dioxide and thus creating the incentives duction credits for trading to offset emis- events, such as wildfires and hurricanes. An- to ensure that forests play a significant sions from industrial and other polluters. other issue is leakage—the indirect effects role in climate change mitigation. Depending on the program, several project that a project might have in, for example, types may be eligible: afforestation, refores- altering the supply of forest products and Given those facts, society’s current re- tation, forest management to protect or en- consequently the total area of forestland. luctance to embrace forest conservation and hance carbon stocks, harvested wood products The current forest carbon accounting management as part of the climate change that store carbon, and forest conservation or principles were developed before forest car- solution seems surprising. It is beyond argu- protection. bon offsets were recognized as a way for di- Two types of renewable energy credits ment that forests play a decisive role in sta- rect emitters of CO to meet emission re- are becoming available—for using wood- 2 bilizing the Earth’s climate and that prudent duction targets. As a result, they do not based building materials instead of concrete, management will enhance that role. Forest adequately address all aspects of using forests steel, and other nonrenewable building ma- management can mitigate climate change to prevent and reduce GHG emissions. terials; and for using wood-based biofuels, effects and, in so doing, buy time to re- Emerging standards for participation in car- such as wood waste, instead of fossil fuels to solve the broader question of reducing the generate electric power. bon markets may provide consistent rules nation’s dependence on imported fossil Global carbon markets, however, have that are appropriate for managed forests and fuels. not yet fully embraced the potential of for- promote additional and long-term forest The challenge is clear, the situation is ests and forestry to mitigate climate change. carbon sequestration benefits. urgent, and opportunities for the future are great. History has repeatedly demon- The Kyoto Protocol, for example, intro- Opportunities and Challenges duced the concept of trading GHG emis- strated that the health and welfare of hu- sions by sources for GHG removals by sinks, for Society, Landowners, and man society are fundamentally dependent but it limits the role of forestry to afforesta- Foresters on the health and welfare of a nation’s for- tion and reforestation. Phase I of the Euro- Seven conclusions are apparent from ests. Society at large, the US Congress, pean Union Emissions Trading Scheme al- the analyses presented in this report: state legislators, and policy analysts at in- lows global trading in carbon dioxide ternational, federal, and state levels must emission reductions to help EU countries 1. The world’s forests are critically impor- not only appreciate this fact but also rec- reach their targets, but forestry activities are tant in carbon cycling and balancing the ognize that the sustainable management of not eligible. atmosphere’s carbon dioxide and oxygen forests can, to a substantial degree, miti- Domestic efforts to date include two stocks. gate the dire effects of atmospheric pollu- regulated emissions trading programs. The 2. Forests can be net sinks or net sources of tion and global climate change. The time Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Ini- carbon, depending on age, health, and to act is now.

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 121 Preface

n March 2007, on the advice of the plications for forests and their manage- able energy to contribute to mitigation of Society of American Foresters’ Com- ment; greenhouse gas emissions, and strategies to I mittee on Forest Policy, the SAF • briefly assess and summarize climate minimize the vulnerability and promote ad- Council created the Climate Change and change mitigating options involving forests, aptation of forests to impacts from climate Carbon Sequestration Task Force. Coun- including forests’ potential as a carbon sink change. cil charged the task force with evaluating (with cost comparisons to other methods, if Prior to publication, the manuscript the implications of global climate change information is available), and domestic and of this report was reviewed, in whole or in on forests and forest management, ad- international policies relating to forests’ role part, by more than 20 scientists. Members dressing the role of forestry and forests in in climate change; and of the task force thank all of the reviewers; climate change, offering recommenda- • recommend possible policy measures their efforts increased the report’s accu- tions for SAF policy activities, and the fol- to guide effective climate change mitigation racy and scope. This report and the task lowing tasks: through forests and forest management, ad- force’s other products are the result of • briefly assess and summarize the lit- dressing existing and potential carbon- hundreds of hours by dedicated SAF vol- erature on the global climate change im- trading markets, opportunities for renew- unteers.

124 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 chapter 1

Global Climate Change

lobal temperatures have fluctuated natural forces are causing changes in the compounds (NMVOCs, or simply VOC-

over the past 400,000 years (Figure Earth’s climate. Rather, our analysis focuses s),and particulate matter or aerosols. NOx, G 1-1) (US EPA 2007b). Neverthe- on how climate change may be affecting for- VOCs, and CH4 contribute to the forma- less, Earth is currently warmer than it has ests and how managed forests can decrease tion of another greenhouse gas, ozone been in its recent past. The Intergovernmen- atmospheric GHG emissions and prevent (smog), in the troposphere. Most GHGs are tal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found GHGs from entering the atmosphere. generally well mixed around the globe and that “eleven of the last twelve years (1995– have global warming effects. 2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in Greenhouse Gases and the GHGs have different atmospheric lives. the instrumental record of global surface Greenhouse Effect For example, water vapor generally lasts a temperature (since 1850)” (Solomon et al. The biophysical process altering Earth’s few days, methane lasts approximately 12 2007, 5). The National Research Council natural “greenhouse effect” begins when years, nitrous oxide 114 years, and sulfur concluded “with a high level of confidence greenhouse gases in the “atmosphere allow hexafluoride 3,200 years; carbon dioxide’s that global mean surface temperature was the Sun’s short wavelength radiation to pass atmospheric life varies (Bjørke and Seki higher during the last few decades of the through to the Earth’s surface. . . . Once 2005). 20th century than during any comparable the radiation is absorbed by the Earth and GHGs also have different global cycles. period during the preceding four centuries” re-emitted as longer wavelength radiation, For example, the carbon cycle (Figure 1-2) and, with less confidence, that “tempera- GHGs trap the heat in the atmosphere” includes geologic, biologic, and atmospheric tures at many, but not all, individual loca- (Leggett 2007, 22). carbon pools and the cycling that occurs tions were higher during the past 25 years Greenhouse gases affected by human among them (Harmon 2006). Human ac- than during any period of comparable activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), tivities release carbon as carbon dioxide by length since a.d. 900” (NRC 2006, 3). methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and various methods (described below). These As Figure 1-1 indicates, changes in certain fluorinated compounds—chlo- releases alter carbon pools; the most impor- Earth’s temperature have been associated rofluorocarbons (CFC), hydrochlorofluoro- tant of these alterations is the transfer of car- with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in carbons (HCFC), hydrofluorocarbons bon from its geologic pool to its atmospheric the atmosphere. Research indicates that this (HFC), perchlorofluorocarbons (PFC), and pool. Forests play an important role in the and other important gases have also in- sulfurhexaflouride (SF6). Other GHGs not carbon cycle because of photosynthesis. creased recently (Solomon et al. 2007). For directly affected by human activities include Photosynthesis is the basic process by example, between the preindustrial period water vapor (the most abundant greenhouse which plants capture carbon dioxide from (c. 1750) and 2005, carbon dioxide in- gas), plus carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen the atmosphere and transform it into sugars, creased from about 280 parts per million oxides (NOx), nonmethane volatile organic plant fiber, and other materials. Within a (ppm) to 379 ppm; methane increased from about 715 parts per billion (ppb) to 1,774 ppb; and nitrous oxide increased from about 270 ppb to 319 ppb (Solomon et al. 2007). IPCC, “the preeminent international body charged with periodically assessing technical knowledge of climate change” (Leggett 2007, 3) and the co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, concluded that “the global increases in carbon dioxide are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture,” and that these human activities and their by- products are causing Earth to warm (So- lomon et al. 2007, 2). This report does not evaluate the validity of those conclusions, the certainty of the predictions, or whether Figure 1-1. Changes in temperature and carbon dioxide (Source: US EPA 2008).

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 125 tremely slowly (when carbon is sequestered in forest products). In addition to being se- questered in vegetation, carbon is also se- questered in forest soils. Soil carbon accu- mulates as dead vegetation is added to the surface or as roots “inject” it into the soil. Soil carbon is slowly released to the atmo- sphere as the vegetation decomposes (Gorte 2007). Since GHGs affect the radiative balance of Earth in similar ways, they can be com- pared using two measures, radiative forcing (externally imposed changes in Earth’s radi- ative balance) or global warming potentials (GWPs); Leggett (2007, 23) calls the latter “an easier but imperfect approximation.” GWPs are based on the properties of the most important GHG, carbon dioxide, which is emitted from human sources in by far the greatest quantities (US EPA 2007b). GWPs estimate the pound-for-pound po- tential of a gas to trap as much energy as carbon dioxide; thus a GWP of 23 indicates Figure 1-2. Carbon cycle, c. 2004. Black numbers indicate how much carbon is stored in that 1 pound of this gas traps as much energy various pools, in billions of tonnes (i.e., gigatonnes, Gt). Purple numbers indicate how much as 23 pounds of carbon dioxide (US EPA carbon moves between pools each year. The diagram does not include the approximately 2007b). The global warming potentials of 70 Gt of carbonate rock and kerogen (oil shale) in sediments (Source: http:// the other principal GHGs are methane, 23; earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.html). nitrous oxide, 296; hydrofluorocarbons, 120 to 12,000; perfluorocarbons, 5,700 to given land area, this process is known as ton ϭ 1,000 kilograms ϭ 2,205 pounds). In 11,900; and sulfur hexafluoride, 22,200 gross primary production. At the same time, the process of photosynthesis, trees and (Gerrard 2007). plant respiration, which is necessary for other plants take CO2 from the air and in plant growth and metabolism, liberates car- the presence of light, water, and nutrients Greenhouse Gas Emissions bon dioxide back into the atmosphere. The manufacture carbohydrates that are used for Both natural processes and human ac- resulting net gain of solid carbon com- metabolism and growth of both above- tivities produce GHGs. Here, drawing on pounds in plant fiber, known as net primary ground and below-ground organs, such as Leggett (2007), we address only the human- production, can be measured using estab- stems, leaves, and roots. Concurrently with related sources of the principal GHGs. • Carbon dioxide: combustion of fossil lished forest mensuration techniques. The taking in CO2, trees utilize some carbohy- overall accumulation of carbon within the drates and oxygen in metabolism and give fuels, solid waste, wood, and wood products; manufacture of cement, steel, aluminum, ecosystem is known as net ecosystem pro- off CO2 in respiration. Vegetation removes etc. duction (Table 1-1) and includes other net a net of 500 million MtCO2 (i.e., net pri- carbon gains, many of which accrue in the mary production) from the atmosphere each • Methane: coal mining, natural gas soil and are difficult to measure accurately. year. When vegetation dies, carbon is re- handling, trash decomposition in landfills, Trees and other vegetation store leased to the atmosphere. This can occur and livestock digestion. 610,000 tonnes (Mt, or 610 gigatonnes, Gt) quickly (in a fire), slowly (as fallen trees, • Nitrous oxide: nitrogen fertilizers, in- of carbon (Figure 1-2) (1 tonne ϭ 1 metric leaves, and other detritus decompose), or ex- dustrial manufacturing, and combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels. Table 1-1. Ecosystem productivity terms. • Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride: commercial, indus- trial, and household products. Term Definition Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent of Net primary production Net uptake of carbon by plants in excess of respiratory loss. the GHGs produced by human-related ac- Heterotrophic respiration Respiratory loss by above- and below-ground heterotrophs (herbivores, decomposers). tivities. In 2000, it constituted approxi- Net ecosystem production Net carbon accumulation within the ecosystem after all gains and losses are accounted mately 72 percent of human-related GHG for, typically measured using ground-based techniques. Net ecosystem exchange Net flux of carbon between the land and the atmosphere, typically measured using emissions. Methane (adjusted for GWP eddy covariance techniques. The term is equivalent to net ecosystem production equivalents) constituted 18 percent, and but the quantities are not always identical because of measurement and scaling (adjusted for GWP equivalents) nitrous ox- issues. ide constituted 9 percent (Leggett 2007). Source: Birdsey, US Forest Service, pers. comm., January 2008. Table 1-2 indicates the human-related activ-

126 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 Table 1-2. Worldwide GHG emissions (CO2,CH4,N2O, PFCs, HFCs, SF6) by economic sector, 2000.

a Sector MtCO2 eq. Percentage

Energy 24,722.3 59.4 Electricity 10,276.9 24.7 Transportation 4,841.9 11.6 Manufacturing 4,317.7 10.4 Other fuel combustion 3,656.5 8.8 Fugitive emissionsb 1,629.3 3.9 Land-use change and deforestation 7,618.6 18.3 Agriculture 5,603.2 13.5 Waste 1,465.7 3.5 Industrial processes 1,406.3 3.4 c International bunker fuels 824.3 2.0 Figure 1-4. US GHG emissions (Source: US Total 41,640.5 100.1 EPA 2007b, ES-4). a Percentages add up to more than 100 due to rounding. b NO2 data not available. Fugitive emissions include the leaking of refrigerants from air-conditioning and refrigeration systems. c Fuels used by aircraft and ships. Source: Data from WRI 2007. ities responsible for the 41,640.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents

(MtCO2 eq.) of worldwide GHG emissions Table 1-3. Ranking of emitters of GHGs (CO2,CH4,N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6), 2000. in 2000 (WRI 2007). Table 1-3 lists the national shares of the Percentage of world’s GHGs. Relatively few countries pro- Country MtCO2 eq. world GHGs duce the most global GHG emissions, in ab- 1. United States 6,928 20.6 solute terms, but the “largest GHG emitters 2. China 4,938 14.7 3. Russia 1,915 5.7 have large economies, large populations, or 4. India 1,884 5.6 both” (Baumert et al. 2005, 11). 5. Japan 1,317 3.9 Developing countries have the highest 6. Germany 1,009 3.0 7. Brazil 851 2.5 emissions growth rates (Figure 1-3). For ex- 8. Canada 680 2.0 ample, Indonesia’s and South Korea’s GHG 9. United Kingdom 654 1.9 emissions increased 97 percent from 1990 to 10. Italy 531 1.6 Top 10 countries 20,707 61.5 2002, Iran’s increased 93 percent, and Saudi Rest of world 12,958 38.5 Arabia’s 91 percent (Baumert et al. 2005). Developed countries 17,355 52 China’s emissions grew by about 50 percent Undeveloped countries 16,310 48 from 1990 to 2002, but estimates indicate Note: The total world MtCO2 equivalent is different from that in Table 1-2 because Table 1-3 excludes land-use change, about 35 percent growth for 2003 and 2004 deforestation, and international bunker fuels (see Baumert et al. 2005, 12). This table presents the latest available GHG emissions information; countries’ current GHG emissions may differ significantly. alone (Baumert et al. 2005). Although de- Source: Adapted from Baumert et al. 2005, 12. veloped countries’ increases are significant in absolute terms, their growth rates are smaller than those of many undeveloped countries. In 2005, US GHG emissions were 7,260.4 million (7,260.4 teragrams, Tg)

MtCO2 equivalents (US EPA 2007b). From 1990 to 2005, US emissions rose 16.3 per- cent as the US gross national domestic prod- uct increased by 55 percent (Figure 1-4) (US EPA 2007b). However, because of the sheer size of US emissions, even this relatively small percentage increase in emissions (com- pared with other countries) contributed considerably to total GHG emissions. For example, US GHG emissions increases from 1990 to 2002 “added roughly the same

amount of CO2 to the atmosphere (863 MtCO2) as the combined 64 percent emis- sions growth from India, Mexico, and Indo-

Figure 1-3. Carbon dioxide emissions growth, 1990–2002. * CO2 plus five other GHGs nesia (832 MtCO2)” (Baumert et al. (Source: Baumert et al. 2005, 15). 2005, 13).

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 127 Future Greenhouse Gas and nomic growth has been so fast that the date from 1.8° to 4.0°C (3.25° to 7.2°F) for the Global Temperature Estimates was moved up to 2009 or 2010. In fact, the 2090–2099 decade (Solomon et al. 2007). Since “emissions projections require es- most recent reports indicated that China Decades after the first generally recog- would surpass the United States’ CO out- nized indications of global warming, the sci- timating factors such as population, eco- 2 put by the end of 2007 and that by 2032, ence of climate change remains contentious. nomic growth, and technological change, “CO emissions . . . from China alone will While some scientists contend that the they are inherently uncertain....Further- 2 be double the CO emissions which will Earth’s atmosphere is warming, polar ice more, past projections have a weak success 2 come from . . . [the United States,] Canada, caps are shrinking, and sea levels are rising record” (Baumert et al. 2005, 18). Never- Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand because of anthropogenic increases in the theless, all trends point to increasing GHG [combined]” (Vidal 2007). concentrations of greenhouse gases, some emissions and global temperatures. For ex- IPCC estimates that emissions will re- say that the presumed causes are wrong, the ample, the US Energy Information Admin- sult in global warming of about 0.2°C reports overstated, and the predictions mis- istration’s “midrange” scenario projects that (about 0.36°F) per decade for the next two taken (e.g., Singer 2008; Bast and Taylor global emissions will rise 57 percent from decades (and even if emissions were held at 2007; McKitrick et al. 2007). What is not at 2000 to 2025 (Baumert et al. 2005). 2000 levels, a warming of 0.1°C (about issue, however, is that forests play a central The increases are not expected to occur 0.18°F) per decade) (Solomon et al. 2007). role in the balance of carbon stocks on Earth, uniformly. For example, China was once ex- Longer-term predictions are much less cer- and the policies now being developed and pected to surpass the United States as the tain, but IPCC scenario projections estimate implemented to address climate change will world’s leading GHG emitter in 2020 (Ger- that global average surface temperature in- be the more effective the more they incorpo- rard 2007). However, the country’s eco- creases (relative to 1980–1999) will range rate forestry.

128 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 chapter 2

Potential Effects of Climate Change on Forests

orests are shaped by climate. Along costs of wildfire are expected to increase dra- under elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide with soils, aspect, inclination, and el- matically. Importantly, the specific implica- concentrations, especially on nutrient-poor F evation, climate determines what tions of climate change for forests will vary sites (Oren et al. 2001; Wittig et al. 2005). will grow where and how well. Changes in greatly from place to place. Apart from effects on individual productivity, temperature and precipitation regimes increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concen- therefore have the potential to dramatically Ecological Effects trations are also expected to alter leaf chemical affect forests nationwide. Global mean surface air temperature is composition, affecting herbivore fitness as a re- Climate is also shaped by forests. Forest expected to increase over the next century, as sult (Saxe et al. 1998). These latter ramifica- stands act as windbreaks, and forest canopies described in Chapter 1. Temperature mini- tions have been shown to vary across species influence the interactions of soil, water, and mums are expected to increase faster than and other environmental variables, such as temperature. Forests can act as a carbon sink, maximums, and the growing season is likely temperature (Lincoln et al. 1993; Bezemer and helping to offset greenhouse gas emissions; in to lengthen, especially in the middle and Jones 1998; Zvereva and Kozlov 2006). 2003, US forests sequestered more than 750 high latitudes (IPCC 2007). Changes in pre- Either in addition to or in concert with million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (US EPA cipitation are likewise expected: tropical and increased concentrations of atmospheric car- 2005). Alternatively, afforestation in certain high-latitude areas may experience increases bon dioxide, climate change–induced shifts in areas may reduce surface reflectivity, or albedo, in precipitation, and the subtropics and temperature and precipitation regimes are ex- such that any reductions in radiative forcing middle latitudes are expected to experience pected to affect individual trees’ fitness and decreases (IPCC 2007). Heat waves will (warming) gained from increases in carbon se- productivity as well (Saxe et al. 1998; Nabuurs questration are offset (Betts 2000). The inter- likely be greater in terms of frequency, inten- et al. 2002; Sacks et al. 2007). Changes in ab- relationship between forests and climate sity, and duration, while precipitation will solute temperatures (e.g., frost, heat stress) as means that dramatic change to one will influ- become more intense but with longer inter- well as changes in the form, timing, and ence the other. In some situations, this feed- vals between events. amount of precipitation (e.g., snow versus back is negative, dampening further iterations. Climate change and an increased concen- rain, drought versus flood) can affect forests In other situations, however, this feedback is tration of atmospheric carbon will affect forests directly. In boreal, temperate, and Mediterra- positive, building upon and exacerbating the on multiple levels. At the individual tree level, nean European forests, temperatures are ex- initial change (e.g., Woodwell et al. 1998; an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide Fleming et al. 2002). concentrations is expected to lead to increased pected to increase along with precipitation, The role of climate as a driver in ecosys- levels of net primary productivity and an in- raising productivity (Nabuurs et al. 2002). tem function is well established (e.g., Stenseth crease in overall biomass accumulation, pri- Other regions may experience increasing tem- et al. 2002). A changing climate will affect for- marily in the form of fine root production but peratures along with a decrease in absolute pre- ests in several ways, ranging from direct effects potentially also through allocation to woody cipitation or a shift in the form of precipita- of temperature, precipitation, and increased biomass (Ainsworth and Long 2005; Calfapi- tion, possibly changing the seasonal atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide etra et al. 2003; Norby et al. 2002, 2004, availability of water in the form of snowpack or on tree growth and water use, to altered fire 2005). The exact response to elevated carbon snowmelt and causing seasonal water shortages regimes and changes in the range and severity dioxide concentrations, however, may vary by (Barnett et al. 2005; Trenberth et al. 2007). A of pest outbreaks. Climate change has the po- species and locale (Norby et al. 2002; Korner water shortage can also counteract any produc- tential to transform entire forest systems, shift- et al. 2005; Handa et al. 2005). In forests tivity benefits from increased atmospheric car- ing forest distribution and composition. Eco- where photosynthesis is limited by CO2 con- bon dioxide concentrations or a longer grow- nomically, climate change is expected to centrations, the degree to which such an in- ing season (Wullschleger et al. 2002). Other benefit the timber products sector (e.g., Irland crease can be sustained over time will be lim- atmospheric constituents can further exacer- et al. 2001). Overall harvests in the United ited by other factors, such as the availability of bate temperature and precipitation stressors. States are expected to increase. In terms of lost nitrogen or water (Kramer 1981; Norby et al. In particular, nitrogen deposition rates and timber value, suppression costs, and loss of rec- 1999; J.G. Hamilton et al. 2002). Active fer- ozone concentrations, which are expected to reation and ecosystem services, however, the tilization may allow for increased productivity rise (IPCC 2007; Nabuurs et al. 2002), can

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 129 magnify the effects of drought (Schlyter et al. may help counter the increased severity, inten- species’ ranges may shift enough to result in 2006; Eatough-Jones et al. 2004). sity, and duration of wildfire, such activities local, regional, or even national extirpation. The effects of climate and atmosphere on may be insufficient to address the full effects of For example, models have indicated that un- individual trees are borne out at the stand and climate change on fire regimes (Westerling et der various scenarios accompanying a dou- forest system levels because individual fitness al. 2006). bling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concen- also influences susceptibility to pests, patho- Under a changing climate, the combined trations, quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), gens, and severe weather events (Schlyter et al. and individual influences of temperature, pre- bigtooth aspen (P. grandidentata), sugar maple 2006). In addition, a warmer climate will cipitation, atmospheric carbon dioxide con- (Acer saccharum), paper birch (Betula papyrif- likely allow herbivores and pests to expand in centration, pests, weather, and fire will have era), and northern white cedar (Thuja occiden- both number and range (Logan et al. 2003). dramatic effects on forest systems. The conse- talis) all face potential extirpation from the For example, milder winters are expected to quences will be seen in the distribution and United States (Iverson and Prasad 2002). decrease winter mortality in white-tailed deer, composition of forests across entire landscapes. Shifts in forest species composition and exacerbating browse and forage damage (Ayers In particular, forest types are expected to mi- range, along with the already-mentioned and Lombardero 2000). Species such as the grate both latitudinally and altitudinally changes in temperature, precipitation, and fire rocky mountain pine beetle and the southern (Walther et al. 2002). In the Rocky Mountain regimes, will likely have tremendous implica- pine beetle are expected to expand their ranges, zone, for example, a 3.5°C (6.3°F) increase in tions for forest biodiversity. Widespread spe- not only latitudinally but altitudinally as well, temperature is expected to shift habitat more cies response to climate change has already possibly exposing jack pine (Pinus banksiana) than 2,000 feet in elevation or 200 miles north been documented (Parmesan and Yohe 2003). and whitebark pine (P. albicaulis) to new or (Ryan 2000). Past episodes of climate change Old-growth forests may suffer increased mor- increased levels of attack (Logan and Powell have witnessed forest migration rates of ap- tality rates (e.g., van Mantgem and Stephen- 2001; Williams and Liebhold 2002). In north- proximately 50 kilometers per century, with son 2007), with possible implications for wild- ern Europe, the spruce bark beetle, in the past some species achieving even greater rates of mi- life habitat. Warming trends may lead to usually limited to a single brood per season, gration (Schwartz 1993; Noss 2001). The cur- mismatches in the timing of once-synchro- will likely produce multiple broods with in- rent rate of climate change may exceed the rate nous events, such as bud burst, moth hatching, creasing frequency (Schlyter et al. 2006). In all, at which forests can respond (Woodwell et al. and peak food demand by nesting birds a warmer climate is expected to encourage pest 1998). To match current rates of warming, (Walther et al. 2002). Range shifts by individ- outbreaks of increasing frequency, duration, northward shifts of 500 kilometers over the ual species may alter system dynamics, result- and intensity (Volney and Fleming 2000; Lo- next century may be necessary—a migration ing in new relationships and associations gan et al. 2003; Gan 2004). rate up to one order of magnitude greater than (Skinner 2007). Species with narrow niches Climate change is also predicted to alter that witnessed in the past (Schwartz 1993). will likely face decline or loss (Kirschbaum the frequency and intensity of severe weather Past, present, and future fragmentation of for- 2000). Changes in the form and amount of events (Opdam and Wascher 2004; IPCC estland may inhibit dispersal and establish- precipitation, along with associated water 2007). Any change in frequency or intensity, ment, significantly reducing potential migra- availability within a forest ecosystem, may di- coupled with a change in individual or stand tion rates (Schwartz et al. 2001; Walther et al. rectly affect bird, amphibian, and reptile com- fitness brought about by changes in tempera- 2002; Opdam and Wascher 2004). As a result, munities by concentrating populations and in- ture, precipitation, or outbreaks of pests or future rates of migration are expected to be at creasing their vulnerability to parasites and pathogens, will affect forests. Species range and least one order of magnitude slower than those pathogens (Pounds et al. 1999). Protected ar- distribution may change as a result (Opdam seen in the past (Schwartz 1993). Still, evi- eas, the boundaries of which are largely static, and Wascher 2004). dence does exist of long-distance migration may cease to protect targeted species, pro- Increases in the amount of downed or over relatively short time frames (Clark 1998), cesses, features, or attributes (Halpin 1997; damaged timber, whether caused by weather, and disturbance may actually facilitate dis- Burns et al. 2003). Some US protected areas pests, or pathogens, combined with the direct persal by opening canopy (Schwartz et al. may lose up to one-fifth of the species currently effects of shifting temperature or precipitation 2001). However, an increasing frequency of found within their boundaries, but expanding patterns will strongly influence fire regimes. large-scale disturbances is likely to facilitate the northern ranges may result in a net increase in The effect may be exacerbated by another spread of invasive species into forest systems as the total number of species these areas contain driver of fire, the increased human presence in well (Iverson and Prasad 2002). (Burns et al. 2003). the wildland-urban interface. In some areas, Adaptation is another mechanism by Appropriate forest management can help such as the Canadian boreal forest, an increase which forests can respond to climate change, reduce the negative effects of climate change in precipitation may actually lead to a decrease but it is likely to occur at rates well below what on forests. A variety of management options in fire activity relative to historical rates is necessary to respond to expected changes and objectives exist, but recent comprehensive (Bergeron et al. 2004). But in the western (Opdam and Wascher 2004). A failure to reviews suggest that no single management United States, climate change is thought to be adapt or migrate could result in species extir- strategy will satisfy all needs in all situations a primary driver of the recent increase in fire pation or extinction, or the conversion of for- (Millar et al. 2007). Apart from the aforemen- frequency and duration (Westerling et al. est to grassland or other systems (Iverson and tioned facilitated dispersal and fuels treatment 2006). In extreme cases, climate change–in- Prasad 2002; Woodwell et al. 1998). This can activities, adjustment of rotation lengths and duced increases in fire severity and frequency be counteracted, at least to some extent if not regional harvesting patterns can likewise miti- may even facilitate the conversion of forestland entirely, by active forest management, includ- gate the negative effects of climate change into grassland (Flannigan et al. 1998). Al- ing facilitated dispersal (Schwartz et al. 2001). (Easterling et al. 2007). Preemptive harvesting though forest management and fuel removal Even with active forest management, however, of vulnerable stands, for example, may help

130 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 contain pest outbreaks (Volney and Fleming accompanied by increasing dryness across the increase in annual average area burned by the 2000), and preventing further forest fragmen- South could result in an opposite outcome, end of this century (Cayan et al. 2005). Larger tation and maintaining gene pools can help however, shifting increased production to the burns would require continued and substantial ensure that forest function and diversity are North (Shugart et al. 2003). Economic effects increases in fire prevention and suppression preserved (Noss 2001). are predicted to be most sensitive to migration costs—in just the past 18 years, fire manage- of southern pine northward, which could lead ment expenses of the US Forest Service have Social and Economic Effects to positive economic outcomes; less optimistic increased from 13 to 45 percent of the agency’s Climate change is expected to affect so- are predictions of no increase in growth or per- budget (USFS 2007)—and mean an even cial and economic aspects of forests as well as haps even a decline in growth for southern heavier burden on both federal and state gov- forest ecology. The implications for non- softwood timber. ernments. One consequence is corresponding wood forest products and services, such as Any economic benefits resulting from reductions in other resource programs. More- biodiversity, recreation, and edible plants, changes in mean temperature or precipitation over, wildfire’s economic effects—on timber are difficult to assess, in part because of the are likely to be outweighed by extreme events value, recreation receipts, ecosystem services high uncertainty regarding the ecological ef- of increasing severity and frequency (Easter- such as water quality and quantity, human fects. ling et al. 2007). Research indicates that the health related to air pollution—all could gen- The effects of climate change on one so- local economic consequences, positive or neg- erate costs and consequences that are many cial aspect of forests, forest-based recreation, ative, of increased extreme weather events can times larger than the fire prevention, prepared- are complex. Some activities will witness a net vary. Those events that limit site access may ness, and suppression costs (Climate Leader- benefit while others will suffer, depending on restrict supply in the short term, but events ship Initiative 2007). Many other substantial the type of activity, the seasonal nature of the resulting in down or damaged timber and economic costs due to wildfire will be felt activity, and the incidence of extreme weather therefore salvage opportunities may increase across much of the nation. One example in- events (Irland et al. 2001). Beach recreation at short-term supply, with different conse- volves watershed effects: burned areas produce mountain lakes might benefit as a result of ex- quences for private landowners and govern- 25 times more sediment than unburned areas, tended seasons, for example, but other uses ment agencies (DeWalle et al. 2003). with profound implications for debris cleanup that are sensitive to average temperatures and Plant damage from pests, such as the (Loomis et al. 2003), including dredging of climatic variability, such as coldwater stream mountain pine beetle in the West and the reservoirs. fishing and snow skiing, could lose (Alig et al. gypsy moth in the East, will continue to be Perhaps the largest economic effect on 2004). Lake-based recreation could be nega- significant should recent warming trends and forests and forest management would come as tively affected if lake levels fall because of in- drought continue. Although quantitative anal- a result of a cap on carbon emissions. Carbon creased evapotranspiration and changing pre- yses and modeling of climate change–related pricing, considered an essential element of cipitation patterns (Irland et al. 2001). pest infestations are somewhat limited, studies Economic effects are likely to vary region- have predicted that annual damage from the emissions mitigation policy (Stern et al. 2006), ally, but uncertainty over specific impacts re- southern pine beetle alone will increase by four could increase the use of fuelwood or forest main. Forest productivity is anticipated to to seven-and-a-half times current levels, or biomass relative to traditional fossil fuels (East- continue to slowly rise as demand for indus- $492 million to $869 million per year (Gan erling et al. 2007). A carbon price in conjunc- trial wood demand also climbs modestly. Glo- 2004). Furthermore, any pest damage will be tion with an established offset market bally, timber production is expected to in- amplified by climate extremes. Past research could likewise encourage significant in- crease (Easterling et al. 2007). The United has attempted to capture the effects of interre- creases in domestic carbon sequestration States may see a net benefit to the timber prod- lated stressors and disturbances (e.g., Fleming through afforestation and changes in for- ucts sector, with sawtimber production in- et al. 2002), but as yet, few models can fully est management practices (US EPA 2005). creasing relative to pulpwood (Irland et al. simulate these interactions (Easterling et al. Forest management can play a critical 2001). Future prices for solid wood and pulp 2007). role in minimizing the negative effects of have been examined in at least seven model More rain and less snow will mean greatly climate change on forests while maximiz- simulations of climate change (Easterling et al. reduced spring snowpacks; California may see ing positive ones (Shugart et al. 2003; 2007), and it is expected that supply will meet up to a 90 percent reduction in spring snow- Easterling et al. 2007). Specialized equip- demand. Most models predict price declines pack by the end of this century. Smaller snow- ment (e.g., harvesters and trucks that for both solid wood and pulp, which means packs will lead to longer, drier summers and achieve high fuel efficiency and minimize consumers and mill owners would experience greatly increase the risk of wildfire and pests. soil displacement) can help offset the neg- net benefits while landowners and producers The interactions between pest infestations and atives (DeWalle et al. 2003). Other miti- would experience net losses (Irland et al. wildfire can enhance one another. A recent cli- gation or adaptive actions involve changes 2001). Harvests are expected to increase across mate modeling study for the West shows that in gene management, forest protection, large portions of the United States, especially for Washington State, average annual area forest regeneration, silvicultural treat- in the South, where existing infrastructure and burned could expand two to five times by the ment, forest operations, maintenance of lower costs are favorable (Joyce et al. 1995). end of this century (Casola et al. 2006). Mod- nontimber resources, and park manage- Dramatic northern migration of forests eling in California indicates up to a 55 percent ment (Spittlehouse and Stewart 2003).

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 131 chapter 3

Preventing GHG Emissions through Wood Substitution

ood substitution addresses cli- Life-Cycle Assessments use of nonwood substitutes is often detri- mate change in several ways. Public interest in the environmental mental to the environment. W Wood products from sustain- impacts of forest management has created What exactly are the environmental ably managed forests can be replenished demand for strategies and policies to im- benefits of substituting wood for steel and continually, providing a plentiful and de- prove environmental performance, some of concrete? The Consortium for Research on pendable supply of both trees and wood which can have unintended consequences. Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM) products while supporting other ecological Harvest reductions, for example, alter the was created as a not-for-profit consortium services, such as clean water, clean air, wild- availability of wood, and in turn, the price of by 15 research institutions to update and ex- life habitat, and recreation (USFS 2005). building materials. This increases wood im- pand a 1976 report by the National Acad- Substituting wood for fossil fuel–intensive ports from other countries or causes con- emy of Sciences on the effects of producing products also avoids the emissions from the sumers to use nonwood substitutes. The en- and using renewable materials (Lippke et al. substituted products, and what was forest vironmental consequences of these changes 2004). CORRIM developed a complete life- carbon remains stored in the wood products. in material flow and uses are difficult to cycle inventory of all environmental inputs

Trees remove carbon dioxide (CO2) quantify because of the complexity of track- and outputs, from forest regeneration from the atmosphere and store it in their ing materials through market transactions through product manufacturing, building roots, stems, trunks, and leaves through the (USFS 2005), but contrary to intuition, the construction, use, maintenance, and dis- process of photosynthesis. In addition, for- ested ecosystems store carbon in soil, forest floor, and down dead wood. As forests and their trees mature, their growth slows; how- ever, some studies indicate that as tree growth slows, ecosystem storage of carbon may actually increase as a result of increases in other carbon pools (Zhou et al. 2006; Schulze et al. 2000). Although more defini- tive research is needed, it appears that both short-rotation management and long-rota- tion or old-growth management can lead to greater overall carbon sequestration. Inten- sively managed commercial forests, using short rotations, can sequester significant car- bon if the wood products are long-lived (Perez-Garcia et al. 2005). Long rotations and old-growth management mean little or no carbon is stored in wood products but more carbon is stored in the ecosystem. If the only forest management goal is to se- quester carbon, both short-rotation inten- sive management and old-growth manage- ment are appropriate; however, if the goal is also to produce wood products, then short- rotation management that leads to long- Figure 3-1. Life-cycle assessment from regeneration of trees to disposal of wood materials lived products would be the approach of (Source: CORRIM Presentations, www.corrim.org/ppt/2005/fps_june2005/lippke/index. choice. asp).

132 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 Table 3-1. Environmental performance indices for residential construction.

Minneapolis home Wood frame Steel frame Difference Percentage change

Embodied energy (gigajoules) 651 764 113 17 Global warming potential (kg CO2) 37,047 46,826 9,779 26 Air emissions index (index scale) 8,566 9,729 1,163 14 Water emissions index (index scale) 17 70 53 312 Solid waste (total kg) 13,766 13,641 Ϫ125 Ϫ0.9

Atlanta home Wood frame Concrete frame Difference Percentage change

Embodied energy (gigajoules) 398 461 63 16 Global warming potential (kg CO2) 21,367 28,004 6,637 31 Air emissions index (index scale) 4,893 6,007 1,114 23 Water emissions index (index scale) 7 7 0 — Solid waste (total kg) 7,442 11,269 3,827 51

Source: Lippke et al. 2004, 13. posal. It constructed virtual houses (of ap- tions must be assessed on a net basis. A low- walls and floors producing several times proximately 2,250 square feet, an average emissions system may be relatively ineffi- more emissions than wood-dominant as- size) and used a life-cycle assessment to de- cient at processing carbon volume and thus a semblies (Lippke and Edmonds 2006). Fig- termine the associated energy use, air and poor choice under climate change scenarios ure 3-2 shows the GWP differences for four water pollution, global warming potential, (Brinker et al. 2002). However, the energy floor designs, not including any insulation and solid waste production (Lippke et al. requirements for harvesting and transporta- or floor covering. The concrete floor pro- 2004). The virtual houses, using framing tion are substantially lower than for product duces more than four times the GHG emis- materials of wood, steel, and concrete, were manufacture, where the energy required for sions of a dimensional lumber or wood I- “built” in two very different locations: Min- drying is a major factor but can largely be joist floor. The steel design is much worse, neapolis (wood versus steel) and Atlanta provided by biofuels with negligible net releasing 731 percent more GWP than (wood versus concrete). greenhouse gas emissions (Puettmann and wood I-joist floors, largely because the hori- Figure 3-1 depicts the life-cycle assess- Wilson 2005). zontal application of steel in a floor requires ment for a wood-frame house. It includes Life-cycle inventory analysis reveals a high gauge to reduce bending and bounce. transportation for each stage from forest that the wood products used in construction Figure 3-3 shows similar comparisons management (regeneration) to harvesting, store more carbon and use less fossil energy for an Atlanta wall, including insulation and product manufacturing, building construc- than steel, concrete, brick, or vinyl. Con- cladding. The increase in GWP for the con- tion, use and maintenance, and recycling or versely, the manufacture of nonwood prod- crete wall over a kiln-dried lumber wall is disposal. Each stage of processing had differ- ucts is energy intensive and produces sub- similar to the floor comparison. The calcifi- ent effects, providing insight into where op- stantial emissions, including global warming cation process used to produce concrete in- portunities for improvement could have the potential (GWP) emissions (K. Skog, US creases the GWP for the concrete design’s greatest overall benefit. Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, block, stucco, and lumber frame 427 per- Forest resource management can posi- pers. comm., November 2007). cent compared with the kiln-dried lumber tively affect climate change. However, im- Table 3-1 presents the summary envi- design’s plywood, vinyl, and lumber (Lippke plementation of any kind of management ronmental performance indices for typical and Edmonds 2006). treatment requires forest operations, such as Atlanta and Minneapolis houses built to Wood use can substantially alter envi- harvesting, processing or conversion, and code. With two exceptions (solid waste in ronmental performance and reduce emis- transportation of biomass. These operations the Minneapolis house and water pollution sions, especially when wood is substituted affect the GHG profile of forestry activities in the Atlanta house), the index measures for for fossil fuel–intensive products and en- through the direct emissions of the equip- the wood-frame designs are considerably ergy. For example, for a Minneapolis steel- ment and the relative efficiency of handling lower than for the nonwood frame designs. stud wall, the steel and its required insula- biomass volume (Brinker et al. 2002). Op- Notice that for global warming potential, tion have 44 percent higher GWP than the erators employ a wide range of equipment steel has 26 percent higher CO2 equivalent kiln-dried wood wall; both walls’ cladding and operational methods, from loggers with than wood, and concrete, 31 percent higher and gypsum contribute almost as much to chainsaws to highly mechanized mass-pro- CO2. The difference is particularly signifi- emissions as the framing elements (Figure duction logging systems, to reduce environ- cant considering that the framing accounts 3-4, columns 2 and 3). However, substitut- mental impacts and create economic effi- for only about 6 percent of the mass of the ing wood siding for vinyl siding, wood pan- ciencies. Power technologies for forest house; the rest of the house’s materials are eling for gypsum, cellulose for fiberglass, and equipment are changing with federally man- unchanged. increasing biofuel use for drying reduces dated transitions to different fuel types and Life-cycle assessment of building sys- emissions by 75 percent (Figure 3-4, col- cleaner diesel engines, and alternative-fuel tems, like walls and floors, shows that carbon umn 1). equipment, including hybrids and biofueled emissions are very sensitive to design and Figure 3-5 illustrates the integrated ef- machines, is being tested. Emission reduc- product selection, with steel and concrete fect of all carbon pools present in a forest as

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 133 it matures, along with the carbon removed by product pools based on the life-cycle as- sessment. It shows a modest increase of car- bon in the combined forest and product pools over time (lower red line), unlike the steady state that exists in a forest (green line; i.e., when wood products are not removed). More importantly, as wood products are substituted for fossil fuel–intensive building materials like concrete and steel framing (upper red line), emissions are avoided. The combined pools of carbon stored in the for- est, forest products (net of processing, in- cluding the bioenergy from bark, or hog fuel, from mill waste), and avoided fossil fu- el–intensive substitutes increase over time— Figure 3-2. Global warming potential of alternative floor materials (Source: Lippke and with important consequences for carbon Edmonds 2006, 63). policy (USFS 2005). CORRIM has also conducted life-cycle assessments for different kinds of wood products. Plywood sheathing has a 3 percent lower environmental impact in a completed house than oriented-strand board (OSB) (al- though OSB has fewer water-related envi- ronmental consequences, probably because at the time of the research, some OSB mills were in compliance with new, stricter water quality standards) (Lippke et al. 2004). Conversely, substituting wood dimension joists for engineered I-joists results in little difference in the environmental perfor- mance indices because the greater material efficiency of the I-joists is offset by the in- creased use of resins and energy (Lippke et al. 2004). However, material use efficiency is by itself very important, since only half as Figure 3-3. Global warming potential of alternative wall-framing materials, Atlanta. Ma- much fiber is used for engineered I-joists as terials below the dotted line are common to both wall designs (Source: Lippke and Edmonds 2006, 61). for the equivalent dimension lumber joints. Forest Rotations and Conversion The sooner wood products can be pro- duced from forests, the sooner they can dis- place the emissions from fossil fuel–inten- sive products. Thus, intensive, short-term commercial rotations, while storing less overall carbon in the forest, result in lower carbon emissions when life-cycle assess- ments include forest and product carbon storage as well as the emissions from substi- tute products. Some estimates indicate that a forest managed for wood production will provide a net sequestration at least double that of an unmanaged forest in the Pacific Northwest (B. Lippke, University of Wash- ington, pers. comm., August 2007). If, how- ever, the goal is to sequester carbon in the forest, management for long rotation and Figure 3-4. Global warming potential of alternative wall-framing materials, Minneapolis old-growth will lead to significant ecosystem (Source: Lippke and Edmonds 2006, 61). carbon storage (Harmon et al. 1990).

134 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 vember 2007). Developing carbon credit markets that motivate true reductions in car- bon emissions must address all carbon pools and their GHG emissions. Such markets will not be successful if they focus only on carbon stored in forests or a single stage of processing. Measuring the life-cycle inventory of environmental impacts and assessing their effects across all stages of processing are crit- ical to evaluating the consequences of differ- ent processes, product uses and designs, and forest management. The values (costs) of these impacts must be accurately reflected in the market if we want to motivate the changes in consumption and investments that will reduce carbon emissions. As an ex- ample, the Swedish parliament has recog- Figure 3-5. Carbon in forest, product, fuel displacement, and fossil fuel–intensive product nized an opportunity to reduce GHG emis- substitution pools (Source: Perez-Garia et al. 2005). sions by reducing the use of concrete in buildings and has instituted policies, educa- Carbon stocks are affected by changes and fuels can be as much as five times larger tional campaigns, regulations, and building in land use. When forestland is converted to than the carbon stored in Inland West for- codes to promote the use of wood (Sathre nonforest use, the carbon stored both on ests in 100 years (Oneil 2007). 2007). that land and in its wood products is lost, Although wood product substitution along with those products’ potential to be Wood Substitution Climate does not permanently eliminate carbon substituted for fossil fuel–intensive prod- Change Policy from the atmosphere, it does sequester car- ucts. Policies intended to slow global warm- bon for long durations and can offset the use Unnaturally high fuel loads in many ing can easily have unintended conse- of more GHG-intensive products. When forests provide wood substitution opportu- quences. A policy that lowers the cost of wood is harvested and used to make lumber, nities. Thinning heavily stocked stands and wood, for example, would motivate builders furniture, plywood, or other wood products, using the wood in long-lived products or and consumers to select wood framing and carbon is sequestered for the life of the given converting it into biofuel would avoid the floors in residential construction. As the de- wood product. Once the wood product has carbon emissions associated with fossil fuels and fossil fuel–intensive products. These mand for wood rises, relative to fossil fuel– served its useful life, landfill management same areas would thus contribute to reduced intensive materials, more investment in techniques can further delay the conversion GHG emissions and increased carbon stor- growing wood for this market would occur, of wood to GHG emissions, or the wood can age in wood products, without the risks of resulting in further reductions in emissions. be used for power generation (offsetting GHG releases that overstocking can create if However, if a carbon credit is given only to generation by fossil fuel–fired power plants) the forest burns (Chapter 5 addresses how growing trees in forests, it would likely or recycled into other potentially long-lived GHG emissions can be prevented through lengthen rotations, reduce the production of wood products. Regardless of the particular wildfire behavior modification). Simula- wood products, and possibly increase the use pathway followed after a product’s useful tions have shown the reduction in emissions of fossil fuel–intensive products, thereby in- life, wood substitution is a viable and impor- from carbon stored in products and dis- creasing GHG emissions (B. Lippke, Uni- tant technique to immediately address cli- placement of fossil fuel–intensive products versity of Washington, pers. comm., No- mate by preventing GHG emissions.

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 135 chapter 4

Preventing GHG Emissions through Biomass Substitution

HG emissions can be reduced form and concentration to be converted to atures produce more gas. Another process, through the substitution of bio- energy, these wastes could produce 9.2 bil- “flash pyrolysis,” produces liquid bio-oil. In G mass for fossil fuels that emit more lion to 10.4 billion gallons of ethanol or 67 flash pyrolysis, biomass is heated rapidly to GHG per functional unit. The production billion to 80 billion kilowatt-hours of elec- 400° to 600°C in the absence of air, with 70 and use of biomass fuels and bio-based prod- tricity (Perlack et al. 2005) (See Table 4-1). to 75 percent of the feedstock converted into ucts is one way to reduce oil and gas imports bio-oil. The oil is somewhat corrosive, but it and improve environmental quality. Bio- Bioenergy Basics can be used as boiler fuel or, with subsequent mass can be used as an offset for fossil fuels Technologies for Converting Wood to treatment, diesel fuel. like coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel oil, and Energy. The technologies for converting Gasification. Gasification uses oxygen fuel oil. At the same time, such uses can en- woody biomass to energy include direct and heat to produce a synthetic gas (“syn- hance domestic economic development by burning, hydrolysis and fermentation, py- gas”) from biomass. This process was used supporting rural economies and fostering rolysis, gasification, charcoal, and pellets and during World War II and earlier, when new industries making a variety of renew- briquettes (Bergman and Zerbe 2004; Zerbe crude oil supplies were limited. Gasification able fuels, chemicals, and other bio-based 1983, 2006). can be used to power internal combustion products (California Biomass Collaborative Direct burning. The most effective way engines or gas turbines to drive electrical 2005; English et al. 2006; J. R. Smith et al. to use woody biomass for energy is to burn it generators. Energy efficiencies from gasifica- 2007). in a combustion system, such as a boiler, tion for generating electricity range from 22 Biomass is the largest domestic source fitted with emissions controls. Net boiler ef- to 37 percent, compared with 15 to 18 per- of renewable energy, providing 3.227 qua- ficiencies range from 60 percent for green- cent for steam produced from combustion. drillion BTUs (quads) or approximately 48 wood at 60 percent moisture content to 80 Charcoal. The production of charcoal is percent of the nation’s renewable energy percent for oven-dried wood. Wood can also a pyrolytic process. Charcoal is made by (EIA 2006). Of the 3.227 quads of biomass be cofired with coal or natural gas. heating wood in airtight ovens or retorts, or Hydrolysis and fermentation. In the pulp energy used in 2005, 2.114 quads (65 per- in kilns supplied with limited amounts of and paper industry, the hemicellulosic ma- cent) came from wood. Of a total of 1.875 air. The heat breaks down the wood into terials from wood can be extracted at the quads of industrial biomass energy in 2005, gases, a tar mixture (lignosulfonic acid), and beginning of the process via hydrolysis and charcoal. The potential fuel yield is only 1.460 quads, almost 88 percent, was used by then fermented using enzymes to produce about half of the original energy content of forest industries, such as sawmills, oriented- ethanol and other products. The remaining the wood. strand board mills, and pulp and paper mills cellulosic materials are still available for pro- Pellets and briquettes. Wood pellets and (EIA 2006). Most of the renewable energy ducing pulp and paper. briquettes are more fully processed and re- used by forest industries comes either from Pyrolysis. The heating of wood with lim- fined than chips, sawdust, chunkwood, and their own industrial plant residuals or from ited or no oxygen to prevent combustion, other forms of solid wood and are more uni- wood residues purchased from other wood- called pyrolysis, produces liquid fuel, char, form in size and physical properties, such as using industries. Zerbe (2006) estimates and gas. Lower temperatures produce higher ash content. Wood pellets are easily com- that up to 10 percent of our nation’s energy portions of liquid and char; higher temper- busted using sophisticated stoves or burners requirement could eventually be produced from wood, compared with the 3 percent we currently produce. Table 4-1. Biomass conversion factors. Studies of conversion technologies show that 1 dry ton of forest waste can be 1 green ton of chips ϭ 2,000 lbs. (not adjusted for moisture) ϭ converted to 75 to 85 gallons of ethanol fuel 1 Bone Dry Ton (BDT) of chips 2 green tons (assuming 50% moisture content) 10,000 lbs. of steam ϭ 1 megawatt hour (MWH) of electricity or 550 to 650 kilowatt-hours of electricity. If 1 Megawatt (MW) ϭ 1,000 horsepower only 30 percent of the estimated 368 million 1MW ϭ power for approximately 750–1,000 homes dry tons of forest waste available in the Note: A 50 MW biomass powerplant will use 1,200 BDT/day; 100 chip vans/day United States each year were in a suitable Source: Adapted from TSS Consultants 2006.

136 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 with automatically controlled feeder sys- wood than for the production of electricity in pulp mills. Gasification would be used to tems. Premium wood pellets burn at an effi- alone. Wood also has the potential to be produce a syngas (H2 and CO) that could ciency of 83 percent, which offsets the extra used for fuel cells; the wood is converted to then be reformed by a catalytic process into energy used in making them (Bergman hydrogen, methanol, or ethanol to power various chemicals and transportation fuels 2004). fuel cells. (ethanol, methanol, dimethyl ether, and FT Energy Uses for Wood. Energy uses for Transportation fuels. Ethanol and other diesel). wood include thermal energy for steam, transportation fuels can be produced from The latter technology is still being re- heating, and cooling; electrical generation almost any source of woody biomass. Meth- fined and perfected. A recent report showed and cogeneration; and transportation fuels. anol, another liquid fuel, can be made from the potential to displace 2.2 billion barrels of Thermal energy. Installations for con- wood as an alternative to gasoline or diesel. oil annually, with an additional benefit of verting wood into thermal energy for space Even gasoline can be made from wood, but cutting approximately 91 million tonnes of heating and cooling generally involve four this requires gasification of wood and its carbon emissions annually, if the total forest size units. conversion to syngas. The most direct way of biorefinery concept were adopted by the na- • Micro scale: Up to 1 megawatt (MW) making gasoline and diesel from woody bio- tion’s kraft pulp and paper industry. A fully for residences or schools. This can involve mass or other organic feedstocks is through developed pulp mill biorefinery industry firewood furnaces or gasification units and what is known as the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) could double or more the liquid fuel produc- the use of a boiler to produce warm air or hot gasification process. tion of the current corn-based ethanol in- water for pipe heating systems. Total Forest Biorefinery Concept. dustry in the United States (Larson et al. • Small scale: 1 to 5 MW to produce Currently, the Department of Energy and 2006). high-pressure steam for heating or to ener- the forest products industry are looking at gize an air-conditioning system. the potential for pulp mills to become a “to- Biomass Energy Production and • Medium scale: 5 to 15 MW for larger tal forest biorefinery” (Larson et al. 2006) Greenhouse Gas Emissions institutions, such as community colleges or (Figure 4-1). Some of the hemicelluloses The use of wood to produce energy hospitals, involving various types of com- from wood chips would be extracted prior to opens two opportunities to reduce GHG bustors and boilers. pulping and converted (by hydrolysis) into emissions. One involves using forest bio- • Large scale: More than 15 MW. These wood sugars, which can be fermented into mass for electrical power generation, rather systems are common in the forest products ethanol and produce xylitol and acetic acid. than allowing it to accumulate and decay on industry, most commonly in dry kilns. The process would divert hemicelluloses and site or removing it by open field burning. Electrical generation and cogeneration. acetic acid from direct combustion into The other is the substitution of woody bio- Wood can be used to generate electrical valuable byproducts without significantly mass as an energy source in place of fossil power from steam-driven turbine generators reducing the yield of cellulose pulp. or gas turbines. Most wood-powered plants Preliminary studies indicate that the fuels. in the United States are in the 10 to 20 MW process may be economically feasible and Wood Burning and Greenhouse Gas range, but some are larger than 70 MW. The could add to the output of ethanol as a trans- Emissions. Biomass for power generation average biomass-to-electricity efficiency of portation fuel while enhancing economic re- results in a 98.4 percent reduction in emis- the industry is 20 percent. The nearest-term turns for pulp mills. Another component of sions compared with open field burning low-cost option for using biomass in power the total forest biorefinery concept is the gas- (Table 4-2) (Darley 1979). These ranged generation is cofiring with coal (Bain and ification of spent pulping “black liquor,” from an 84.8 percent reduction for nitrogen Overend 2002). Cogeneration or combined which is conventionally burned via direct oxides to a 100 percent elimination of hy- heat and power are a more efficient use of combustion in a Tomlinson recovery boiler drocarbons. Hasse (2007) compared emissions from biomass boilers with emissions from pile burning, prescribed burning, and forest fires (Table 4-3). He found a 99 percent reduc- tion in carbon monoxide emissions, 30 per- cent for nitrous oxides, 96 percent for vola- tile organic compounds, and 89 percent reduction for PM10 particulates. Emissions from open burning also include methane

(CH4), which has a global warming poten- tial of 23 (i.e., 1 pound of CH4 emissions is equivalent to 23 pounds of CO2). It is estimated that the United States needs to build 1,200 new 300-megawatt power plants during the next 25 years just to keep pace with projected increases in de- mand for electricity (Hasse 2007). Coal, the Figure 4-1. Total biorefinery concept applied to pulp and paper industry (Source: Pacheco most abundant energy source available in 2005). the United States, will likely continue to be a

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 137 Table 4-2. Open field burning versus biomass boiler emissions. and other feedstocks to meet the 35-billion- gallon renewable fuel standard. The gap Open field burning Biomass boiler Percentage reduction could be filled by cellulosic ethanol made Pollutant (lbs./ton) (lbs./ton) for biomass boiler from wood. Given that 1 dry ton of forest waste can be converted to 75 to 85 gallons of Sulfur oxides 1.7 0.04 97.6 Nitrogen oxides 4.6 0.70 84.8 ethanol fuel, 30 percent of the estimated 368 Carbon monoxide 70.3 0.40 99.4 million dry tons of available forest residues Particulates 4.4 0.26 94.1 could produce 9.2 billion to 10.4 billion gal- Hydrocarbons 6.3 0.00 100.0 lons of ethanol (Perlack et al. 2005). If 60 Total 87.3 1.4 98.4 percent of the residues were available to Source: Darley 1979. make cellulosic ethanol, potential produc- tion would be in the range of 18 billion to 20 billion gallons, making the President’s man- Table 4-3. Pile burning, prescribed burning, and forest fire versus biomass boiler datory renewable fuel standard of 35 billion emissions. gallons of renewable fuels achievable. At present, increasing amounts of fed- Pounds of emissions per green ton eral funding and venture capital are being

Disposal method PM10 NOx VOC CO channeled into the production of cellulosic ethanol. This is being driven by national se- a Pile burning 19 to 30 3.5 8 to 21 54 to 312 curity concerns about the increasing US re- Prescribed burningb 24 4.0 13 224 Forest fireb 15 4.0 21 140 liance on foreign crude oil, concerns over Biomass boilerc 2.1 2.8 0.6 1.7 greenhouse gas emissions and global warm- Average reduction (%) 89 30 96 99 ing, the realization that corn-based ethanol a Werner (2000), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/see/memo_ag_emission_factors.pdf. production will likely peak at 15 billion to b Environment Australia, Emissions Estimation Technique Manual for Aggregated Emissions from Prescribed Burning and Wild- 20 billion gallons by 2030, and associated fires, Version 1.0, September 1999. c Based on Chiptec gasifier; other systems are similar. economic development opportunities. Source: Hasse 2007. One major challenge in making cellulo- sic-based fuels is the development of im- proved technologies to reduce production major source of energy for electricity pro- 56 billion gallons. Each year the nation uses costs. Another involves supply and demand: duction. Electricity-generating plants are al- 6.5 billion barrels of oil but produces only the production of renewable transportation ready the largest stationary source of GHG 2.5 billion barrels of oil from domestic fuels from cellulosic feedstocks could affect emissions from fossil fuels. How can the na- sources. That means that 4.0 billion barrels domestic supplies and costs for existing feed tion meet its energy needs without exacer- of oil has to come from foreign sources— and fiber uses. bating air pollution and GHG emissions? and often from volatile parts of the The production of cellulosic ethanol Although some energy needs can be world—to meet annual needs (Hasse 2007). has been a subject of studies related to energy met by renewable sources such as solar and In February 2006, President Bush an- conversion efficiency. For the most part, wind, biomass must play a crucial role. nounced the Advanced Energy Initiative, studies show positive energy input-output Woody biomass, used as a feedstock to be designed to make cellulosic ethanol cost ratios ranging from 4.40 to 6.61 (Tyson et burned or mixed with coal, presents a viable competitive with corn by 2012. The initia- al. 1993; Lynd and Wang 2004; Sheehan et short- and mid-term solution to low-cost tive has two goals: al. 2004). The only exception has been a and large-scale alternative energy feedstocks. • “20 in 10”: replace 20 percent of to- study by Pimentel and Patzek (2005), who Cofiring wood with high-sulfur coal reduces day’s gasoline usage in 2010 with biofuels. report a negative energy ratio of 0.69. The sulfur air emissions and problems with mer- • “30 in 30”: replace 30 percent of to- difference stems from the assumption by Pi- cury and other heavy metals. Cofiring day’s gasoline usage in 2030 with biofuels. mentel and Patzek that industrial process woody biomass with coal ona5to10per- In his 2007 State of the Union address, energy is generated by fossil fuel combustion cent energy basis and using biomass with President Bush called for a mandatory 35- and electricity rather than lignin combus- coal to produce liquid fuels are two possible billion-gallon renewable fuel standard by tion (Hammerschlag 2006). In most mod- clean energy solutions. Cofiring woody bio- 2017. A June 2007 Government Account- els, cellulosic production generates indus- mass with coal could provide a major in- ability Office report calculated 2006 ethanol trial energy with lignin combustion rather crease in the demand for woody biomass for and biodiesel production at 4.9 billion gal- than fossil fuels and electricity, and thus fos- energy production. Woody biomass can also lons a year, or 3 percent of the current US sil energy inputs are consistently far less than be added to oil- and gas-generated electric demand. It also estimated that the maxi- the energy value of ethanol and surplus elec- production processes to reduce GHG emis- mum annual production from corn ethanol tricity delivered. Hammerschlag (2006) also sions (Morris 2007). would be 15 billion to 16 billion gallons, notes that cellulosic fuel is a developing in- Wood-Based Liquid Fuels and and from biodiesel, 2 billion gallons (Hasse dustry, and more mature processes with con- Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Annual US 2007). This leaves an annual gap of 17 bil- siderably greater ratios of energy outputs to gasoline consumption today is 140 billion lion to 18 billion gallons of transportation inputs are possible. gallons, and US diesel fuel consumption is fuels that will have to come from cellulosic The National Renewable Energy Labo-

138 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 onstrate that substituting cellulosic biomass for fossil fuels greatly reduces GHG emis- sions. But is sufficient woody biomass avail- able to address US energy needs? Woody biomass essentially is any tree or part thereof and any associated woody plant materials. It includes wood from the bole (trunk) of the tree, limbs, tops, roots, and even the foliage. It includes trees that have been killed or damaged by fire, insects, diseases, drought, or wind or ice storms. It can also include trees that have been grown specifically for the production of energy wood—dedicated short-rotation tree or woody crops—and trees removed for fuel re- duction, restoration, or other cultural treat- ments. In its broadest sense, woody biomass also includes raw materials as well as postcon- sumer recycled paper and wood products. Nonmerchantable forest wastes and low-value trees can serve as a source for bioenergy feedstock, but there are infra- Figure 4-2. Energy required to produce fuels (Source: NREL 2006). structure and sustainability challenges asso- ciated with the collection of these feed- ratory has compared the energy required to ethanol, total life-cycle GHG emissions stocks. Collection and transportation costs produce gasoline, corn ethanol, and cellulo- would be reduced by 90.9 percent. These of woody biomass can be significant and sic ethanol, based on data by Wang et al. emissions account not only for CO2 but also vary greatly from region to region. Although (2005) (Figure 4-2), and Roj (2005) has for methane and nitrous oxide. The cellulo- larger trees are generally more cost-effective compared the energy efficiencies and green- sic ethanol estimate represents an average to harvest and use, such trees usually have a house gas emissions from fossil and renew- mix of feedstock sources (including hybrid higher value for traditional forest products, able fuels (Figure 4-3). poplar, switchgrass, and corn stover) to pro- such as sawtimber, pulpwood, and manufac- In 2007, the Environmental Protection duce ethanol through two production pro- tured panels. Agency’s Office of Transportation and Air cesses (a fermentation process, and etha- Perlack et al. (2005) estimated that the Quality estimated the percentage change in nol produced from forest waste via United States can produce 1.3 billion dry life-cycle GHG emissions, relative to the pe- gasification). tons of biomass annually on a sustainable troleum fuel that is displaced, by a range of basis. The Department of Energy’s National alternative and renewable fuels (Figure 4-4). Woody Biomass Feedstocks and Renewable Energy Laboratory and the US The fuels are compared on an energy equiv- Their Availability Forest Service estimate that 1.3 billion dry alent or BTU basis. For instance, for every The research illustrated in Tables 4-1 tons would roughly yield an energy heating BTU of gasoline that is replaced by cellulosic and 4-2 and Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 dem- value of 3.5 billion barrels of oil—equiva- lent to the US domestic oil production in 1970, the peak year of domestic oil produc- tion (Figure 4-5). The woody biomass com- ponent of these 1.3 billion dry tons is esti- mated to be 368 million dry tons. Perlack et al. (2005) note that this annual sustainable biomass estimate is conservative. The calcu- lations exclude all protected wilderness and roadless areas, steep slopes, environmentally sensitive areas, and areas where regeneration would be difficult. Wood considered mer- chantable for other products was not counted, and the figure also accounts for physical limitations of on-site recovery and leaving sufficient woody debris on site to al- leviate potential adverse effects on soil and water quality. Figure 4-3. “Well to Wheels” analysis of energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions The estimated 368 million dry tons of (Source: Roj 2005). annual sustainable woody biomass available

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 139 The last category, forest growth, war- rants further discussion. The Fifth Re- sources Planning Act Timber Assessment of the US Forest Service projects the continued expansion of standing forest inventory de- spite an estimated conversion of about 23 million acres of forestland to other uses (Haynes 2003). The size of the standing for- est inventory will increase because annual forest growth will continue to exceed annual harvests and other removals from the inven- tory. At the same time, the forest products industry will continue to become more effi- cient in the way it harvests and processes wood products. The demand for forest products is also projected to increase more slowly than in the past because of a general declining trend in the use of paper and pa- perboard products relative to GNP and the relatively stable forecast of housing starts (Perlack et al. 2005). The Department of Energy and USDA Figure 4-4. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions for renewable fuels compared with tradi- analyses did not include wood that is cur- tional gasoline (Source: US EPA 2007a). rently merchantable at the lower size and quality specifications for conventional prod- ucts, such as pulpwood and small sawlogs. Depending on local market conditions (e.g., low-price wood and/or high-price oil mar- kets), this wood could be an additional re- source for bioenergy and bio-based prod- ucts. For example, the US South has vast forests that are being commercially thinned to improve stand quality. It is projected that approximately 8 million dry tons could be available annually from these treatments (Perlack et al. 2005). The reduction in pulp utilization in the United States resulting from the globalization of pulp production may make even more such thinnings avail- able for energy in the future. One forest management option for in- creasing the production of woody biomass is short-rotation energy crops using rapid- growing species such as alder, cottonwood, Figure 4-5. Heating value equivalent of biomass compared with oil production and con- hybrid poplar, sweetgum, sycamore, willow, sumption (Source: Pacheco 2005). and pine. Perlack et al. (2005) did not count short-rotation tree energy crop production potential or account for possible production increases achievable through genetics or in the United States comes from several • fuelwood (35 million); more intensive silvicultural practices. A yield sources: • forest products industry wastes (106 figure of 8 dry tons per acre would add ap- • logging and other residues (41 million million); proximately 10 million dry tons annually to dry tons); • urban wood residues (37 million); and the estimated 368 billion dry tons of US • fuel treatments (60 million); • forest growth (89 million). woody biomass production.

140 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 chapter 5

Preventing GHG Emissions through Wildfire Behavior Modification

ildland fires are a major contrib- alent to the annual emissions from half of • smoke management—that is, adjust- utor to national and interna- California’s 14 million cars. In 2006, wild- ing the seasonal and daily timing of burns W tional greenhouse gas emis- fires burned nearly 10 million acres in the and using relative low-severity prescribed sions, adding as much as 126.4 million United States. fires to reduce fuel consumption; and tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in the The Intergovernmental Panel on Cli- • harvesting small woody biomass for United States during 2005 (US EPA mate Change describes the global impacts of energy, or removing larger woody material 2007b). Active forest and wildland fire man- smoke: (over 4 inches in diameter) for traditional agement strategies can dramatically reduce forest products and burning residuals. Destruction of forest biomass by burning CO2 emissions while also conserving wild- Removing materials for bioenergy ap- releases large quantities of CO2 and is esti- life habitat, preserving recreational, scenic, mated to create 10 percent of annual global plications (described in Chapter 4) can re- and wood product values, and reducing the methane emissions as well as 10–20 percent duce the threat of catastrophic wildfires and threat of wildfires to communities and crit- of global NO2 emissions. Thus, fire can the net smoke and GHG emissions. In ad- have a significant effect on atmospheric ical infrastructure. chemistry (IPCC, 1992). The process is dition, active management of forest land- well known in terms of general effects, but scapes has the potential to decrease the area Wildfire GHG Emissions it has many uncertain parameters in rela- burned in catastrophic wildfires by 50 to 60 Smoke from wildfires emits particu- tion to specific fire events because fire ef- percent (Finney 2000). This reduces soil fects are related to fuel amounts, arrange- lates, CO2, and other GHGs such as meth- ments, and conditions as well as weather erosion and related watershed problems. ane. The Environmental Protection Agency conditions at the time of combustion—all Prescribed fire managers follow strin- estimates that forest wildfire emissions in the of which can be highly variable or unpre- gent air quality and burn plan requirements. lower 48 states and Alaska released an aver- dictable (Goldammer, 1990; Dixon and In addition to detailed weather and fuel Krankina, 1993; Price et al., 1998; Neuen- age of 105.5 million tonnes (range, 65.3 to schwander et al., 2000). (Sampson and modeling, prescribed burn emissions must 152.8) of carbon dioxide into the air each Scholes 2000, 271) comply with federal and state air quality re- year from 2000 to 2005 (US EPA 2007b). quirements. These requirements include The effect of particulates on climate Another study indicates that annual wildfire maximum allowable concentrations of the change is uncertain (Kaufman et al. 2005). CO2 emissions from 2002 to 2006 may ac- nine pollutants regulated by National Am- tually average as high as 293 million tonnes Some scientists contend that smoke reflects bient Air Quality Standards (The Nature per year, a major portion of which comes sunlight and reduces surface temperatures Conservancy n.d.; see also US EPA 2007c). from forests (Wiedinmyer and Neff 2007). (Pearce 2005); others consider this phenom- To qualify for emission reduction cred- To take one example, the July 2007 An- enon only temporary or transitory and say its for prescribed burns, managers must gora wildfire in South Lake Tahoe affected that long-term warming can result (Cess et comply with federal and state emission and only 3,100 acres of forestland, yet it released al. 1985); still others believe that smoke may smoke reduction standards. The Clean Air an estimated 141,000 tonnes of carbon di- provide cooling in lower latitudes but warm- Act requires that emission reductions be oxide and other GHGs into the atmosphere, ing in higher latitudes (R. Neilson, US For- real, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, and and the decay of the trees killed by the fire est Service, pers. comm., October 2, 2007). enforceable. Some states (e.g., California, could bring total emissions to 518,000 Wildfires in the United States and in Florida, and Montana) have developed their tonnes (Bonnicksen 2008). This is equiva- many other parts of the world have been in- own guidelines; however, the Environmen- lent to the GHG emissions generated annu- creasing in size and severity, and thus future tal Protection Agency has published only in- ally by 105,500 cars. In another example, wildfire emissions are likely to exceed cur- terim federal rules. Bonnicksen (2008) found that four Califor- rent levels. Three strategies to reduce wild- nia wildfires emitted an average 65 tonnes of fires and their GHG emissions can address Wildfire and Climate Trends greenhouse gases per acre and that with the this trend: Catastrophic wildland fires in the release of CO2 from decay over the next 100 • pretreatment of fuel reduction ar- United States during the past decade have years, the 144,825 burned acres will emit 35 eas—that is, removing some biomass before added tens of millions of tonnes of carbon million tonnes of greenhouse gases—equiv- using prescribed fire; dioxide and greenhouse gases to the atmo-

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 141 Table 5-1. Largest fires in state history since 1960 ing to the dead fuel component. This often increases fire intensity and the GHG emis- Year Fire Location Size (acres) sions released. Large-scale insect infestations can affect fire suppression tactics and fire- 2004 Taylor Complex Alaska 1,305,592 fighter safety because fuel loads have 2006 East Amarillo Complex Texas 907,245 2005 Southern Nevada Complex Nevada 508,751 changed, increasing spotting potential and 2002 Biscuit Oregon 499,570 altering fire behavior and fireline intensity. 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Arizona 468,638 Climate and weather influences will further a 2007 Murphy Complex Idaho 464,702 complicate suppression challenges. 2007 Georgia Bay Complexb Georgia 441,705 2007 Milford Flat Utah 363,052 Virtually all climate change models 2000 Valley Complex (Bitterroot) Montana 292,070 forecast an increase in wildfire activity, al- 2003 Cedar California 279,246 though IPCC cautions that “fire, insects and 2000 24 Command Washington 162,500 2002 Hayman Colorado 137,760 extreme events are not well modeled” (East- 2000 Kate’s Basin Wyoming 137,600 erling et al. 2007, 290). IPCC notes an in- crease in North American wildfires attribut- a The Murphy Complex burned a total of 653,100 acres in Idaho and Nevada. b The Georgia Bay Complex burned a total of 564,450 acres in Georgia and Florida. able, with “high confidence,” to climate Source: Compiled from National Interagency Fire Center 2007. change: “the forested area burned in the western U.S. from 1987 to 2003 is 6.7 times sphere each year. Climate change, rural sonal weather patterns—primarily warmer, the area burned from 1970 to 1986” (Field housing development, and human en- drier air masses—have influenced wildfire et al. 2007, 623, citing Westerling et al. croachment into wildlands will only exacer- behavior. For example, the 2006 fire season 2006). bate the problem (Field et al. 2007). Wild- started in January—an unusual time of year Even with a stable climate, the area fires in the new millennium have even for catastrophic wildfires—when more than burned and threats to humans may continue prompted new terms to categorize wildfires a million acres burned in Texas and Okla- to increase with fuel buildup and human that are far beyond the scale of conflagra- homa, and extended drought and hot, dry presence in wildlands. Encroachment and tions in recent human history. “Megafire,” weather in Georgia and Florida caused development, the proximity of population for example, refers to one very large fire or a record fires from mid-April until July 2007. centers to wildlands, and more human- group of fires that burn into a single fire; Figure 5-1 shows the effectiveness of caused fires (both arson and accidental) all “fire complex” refers to a series of fires in a prevention, presuppression, and other ef- significantly increase the risk and conse- short period of time within a specific area forts in reducing the number of fires since quences of wildfire, including the release of that are managed as one large fire. the mid-1980s. However, it also illustrates GHGs. It will take many years to reduce the Since 2000, at least 12 states have expe- how increased fuel loads, climate change, tremendous fuel buildup in dry forest sys- rienced the largest wildfires in their modern and other factors have increased the total tems (such as ponderosa pine) whose his- history (Table 5-1). Six of the worst fire sea- area burned, which indicates an increase in toric fire regimes, characterized by frequent sons (including 2007) in the past 47 years, megafires. Drought and climate change may low-intensity fires, were interrupted by more based on area burned, have occurred since increase the risk of insect and disease epi- than a century of wildfire suppression, graz- 2000. Reduced rainfall and changes in sea- demics, killing or weakening trees and add- ing, logging, and a cooler and moister cli- mate in the middle 1900s. Community wildfire protection planning, as authorized in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108–148) and described by the Society of American Foresters (2004), can address this problem. However, under ex- treme fire behavior scenarios, which could be exacerbated by climate change, increased accumulations of hazardous fuels will cause ever-larger wildfires. Not all climate models paint a bleak fu- ture for forests. Research by the US Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station indicates that the increase in precipitation associated with climate change may moder- ate fire behavior, even as the fire season lengthens and temperatures rise. Using the Mapped Atmosphere-Plant-Soil System (MAPSS) computer model, the Forest Ser- vice forecasts an increase in western woody Figure 5-1. Ten-year averages of acres burned and number of fires (Source: Compiled from and grass fuels (carbon capture) for the 21st National Interagency Fire Center 2007). century (USFS 2004). The pinion-juniper

142 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 if fires escape initial efforts to contain them, large areas often burn. Climate change con- tributes to this challenge, as do administra- tive factors like reduced fire staffing, fewer elite crews trained to attack high-intensity wildfires, and inadequate resources for air attacks and logistical support. The Govern- ment Accountability Office has recognized the funding challenge: “as wildland fires be- come more frequent and severe as the cli- mate changes, the costs of firefighting and Figure 5-2. Comparison of the percent of biomass burned worldwide from 1951–2000 rehabilitating land [increase]” (GAO compared with projections for 2051–2100 (Source: Neilson 2007). 2007, 31). Mason et al. (2006) see substantial net benefits from fuel removals despite the pos- forest type has already expanded its range in consume 15 million to 20 million hectares sibility of very high treatment costs, justify- the West. MAPSS models predict a dramatic (37 million to 49 million acres) per year dur- ing public investments in reducing the risk shift to coniferous forests (mostly dry forest ing the next decade, and that the areas af- of fire. Although hazardous fuel treatments types, such as ponderosa pine) over the com- fected by wildfires in the Russian Federation can be costly because the small-diameter ma- ing century. The forecasted changes for the “will increase by at least 50 percent or dou- terial is expensive to remove and has little East, however, under the MAPSS “moder- ble over the next three decades” (Global Fire merchantable value, the future costs of wild- ate” climate scenario—a rise in surface tem- Monitoring Center 2003, 11). fire have been shown to be greater than the perature of 4.2°C (7.5°F) and an 18 percent cost of treatments if one accounts for the increase in precipitation—reach a “tipping Fuel Treatments many costs and benefits—not just the sav- point” in carbon balance. Under the In 2000, in response to catastrophic ings in firefighting but also the avoided fa- MAPSS “considerable warming” scenario— wildfires, President Clinton convened a talities, property losses, timber and wildlife 5°C (9°F) and a 22 percent increase in pre- team of experts to craft a plan to focus fed- habitat losses, postfire regeneration and re- cipitation—a dramatic decrease in vegeta- eral efforts in preparing for and responding habilitation costs, loss in community values, tion density is predicted to result in a net to wildfires. To protect communities and hydrological damage, and carbon emissions. carbon loss for the United States. However, valued resources, the National Fire Plan rec- Forest thinning and fuel reduction climate projections differ; for example, the ommended the reduction of hazardous fu- treatments often create similar posttreat- most recent IPCC scenarios project increas- els, which contribute to extreme fire behav- ment stand structures. Forest thinning re- ing drought in the US Southwest (IPCC ior (SAF 2002). Federal agencies have duces competition for soil moisture and nu- 2007). emphasized fuel treatments under the plan, trients, helping trees resist attacks from Wildfire is not unique to North Amer- treating nearly 20 million acres from 2000 insects and disease and withstand drought ica, of course. For example, in summer to 2006; more than half of these treatments and weather anomalies. Thinning also re- 2007, international attention was focused were in the wildland-urban interface (USDI moves dead trees and increases average tree on Greece when wildfire killed 64 people, and USFS 2007). Treatments are principally diameter, providing landowners with in- burned more than 450,000 acres, and intended to protect communities from cata- creased revenue. The principal objective of shrouded ancient ruins, such as the site of strophic wildfire losses, but also serve to re- fuel reduction treatments is to reduce “lad- the original Olympics, in smoke. Though tain forest habitats across broader land- der fuels” that increase the potential for a they received more media attention, these scapes, thus ensuring the watershed, wildfire to reach into the crown. Additional

fires added much less CO2 to the atmo- recreational, and economic benefits of for- objectives are to reduce crown bulk density sphere than the estimated 28.9 million acres ests for future generations. and to open up the canopy so that fuels are (11.7 million hectares) of wildfires that Recently, federal agencies have shifted no longer continuous. These actions reduce burned in the Russian Federation that same funds from land management programs, the potential for wind-driven fires to carry year. Figure 5-2 illustrates how climate such as timber, wildlife, and recreation man- from tree to tree (Peterson et al. 2005). Both change may increase the amount of biomass agement, to wildfire suppression and haz- treatments typically reduce stand densities burned by wildfires (Neilson 2007). A 2002 ardous fuel reduction. Federal agencies, es- from unnatural, overdense conditions of international assessment estimated the 1998 pecially the US Forest Service, “are many hundreds of trees per acre to a fraction wildfires in Siberia “released close to 180 compelled to transfer an ever-increasing of that level (typically 25 to 60 trees per acre, million ton[ne]s of carbon to the atmo- amount of funds to fire suppression at the depending on age and site conditions). A sphere which contributed to the formation expense of other programs. In the past 18 “thinning from below,” or “low” thinning, of 520 million t[onnes] of carbon dioxide, years, the wildfire management portion of can accomplish both fuel reduction and 50 million t[onnes] of carbon monoxide and the agency’s budget has gone from 13 per- growth-and-yield objectives by removing other radiatively active trace gases and aero- cent to 45 percent” (McMahon 2007, 2). the smaller trees in the stand. These types of sol particles” (Global Fire Monitoring Cen- Despite large fire budget increases, ini- thinnings are ideal for biomass and small- ter 2003, 8). The Global Fire Monitoring tial fire suppression success has remained rel- wood markets because they use materials Center predicts that wildfires in Russia may atively stable at around 98 percent; however, that might be consumed by wildfires (and

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 143 produce GHG emissions) and generate en- ally recommended to complete the con- challenges and opportunities for carbon ergy with biomass (rather than fossil fuels). sumption of fine fuels and residual slash. management: Studies have shown that woody biomass di- Prescribed fire has numerous ecological verted for use in a bioenergy plant can re- benefits, including restoring native plant Where fuel removal is carried out, wildfire ignitions are less likely to result—and when duce carbon emissions by 90 to 99 percent communities, stimulating the opening of se- they happen, they will often burn at low- compared to open burning (Western Gover- rotinous cones, providing bare soil for seed- ered severities, with reduced fuel consump- ling establishment, and reducing invasive tion, heat production, and GHG emis- nors’ Association 2006). sions. Because fire management is an Fire is an essential ecological process in species and competition for water and nutri- integral part of forest management, it must most forest landscapes, often serving as the ents. However, significant reduction in soil be viewed in connection with other man- agement practices, including harvest and primary recycling mechanism. Used appro- carbon retention and potential carbon cap- ture (regrowth) can occur when wildfires or wood utilization, to evaluate its full carbon priately, prescribed fire can be an effective flux effect. (Sampson and Scholes 2000, prescribed burns occur in dry soil condi- hazardous fuel reduction strategy and an 271) tions. In most cases, removing some of the ecologically sound process. However, as fuels through mechanical means prior to Mechanical fuel reduction treatments noted by the US Forest Service and The Na- prescribed fire can meet the ecological objec- can provide an opportunity to produce val- ture Conservancy, “short of rekindling pri- tives while also reducing emissions. Other ued-added forest products (engineered lum- mordial fires, the best way now to reduce the benefits of combining mechanical and pre- ber, pulp and paper, furniture), bioenergy, density of our forest stands that currently scribed fire treatments include reducing the and other bio-based products. These forest support many more trees per acre than in threat of escaped fire, allowing for better products (discussed in more detail in Chap- historical times is through mechanical thin- protection of desired habitat components ters 3 and 4) are byproducts of effective fuel ning” (Kaufmann et al. 2005, 10). Even (such as snags and downed logs), and ensur- treatment strategies to protect communities when mechanical methods of removal are ing a more precise vegetative structure and from wildfires, yet also provide stable, living employed, a follow-up prescribed fire is usu- treatment result. IPCC summarized the wage jobs in rural communities.

144 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 chapter 6

Preventing GHG Emissions through Avoided Land-Use Change

and-use change from forests to non- tural land is decreasing, and forestland and EPA 2007b). Forests sequestered the vast forest uses releases forest-stored developed land are increasing. Developed majority of those emissions (Table 6-1). L GHGs into the atmosphere. Glo- and urban lands expanded from 73 million More carbon is stored in forests than in bally, forestland conversions released an es- acres to 108 million acres from 1982 agricultural or developed land. Each year in timated 136 billion tonnes of carbon, or 33 through 2003, while nonfederal forestlands the United States, forestlands sequester an percent of the total emissions between 1850 grew slightly, from 402 million acres to 406 additional 190 million tonnes of carbon in and 1998—more emissions than any other million acres (NRCS 2007). Although the vegetation and soils (84 percent of all carbon anthropogenic activity besides energy pro- afforestation of agricultural lands offset the sequestered by land use), whereas developed duction (Watson et al. 2000). Currently, losses from development of forestlands, fu- land sequesters only 12 percent (US EPA tropical deforestation releases an estimated ture afforestation opportunities will likely 2007b). Harvested biomass from forests also 2.6 billion tonnes of carbon annually (Malhi decrease. provides other offsets to GHG emissions and Grace 2000). when used for energy (see Chapter 4). Activ- Recent land-use change trends in the US Forests as GHG Sinks ities on developed lands consume more fossil United States differ from the global trends Land uses offset approximately 14 per- fuels and produce more associated emissions (Figure 6-1). In the United States, agricul- cent of US GHG emissions in 2005 (US than activities on forestland. Future in- creases in forest-based carbon sequestration (based on forest growth) depend on the availability of forestland. Loss of forestland to other uses also limits the potential positive net sequestration effects of technological ad- vances in tree growth and silvicultural prac- tices. Forest conversion and land develop- ment liberate carbon from soil stocks. For example, soil cultivation releases 20 to 30 percent of the carbon stored in soils. Malhi and Grace (2000) estimate that nearly 3 bil- lion tonnes of carbon is sequestered in the US Northeast’s 117 million acres, 62 per- cent of which is forestland; if all those forests were developed, 400 million to 600 million Figure 6-1. CO2 from land-use change, total and per capita, 2000 (Source: Baumert et al. tonnes of sequestered carbon would be re- 2005, 15). leased into the atmosphere from the soil

Table 6-1. Net GHG emissions from land uses (MtCO2 eq.).

Land-use category 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Forestland (598.5) (717.5) (638.7) (645.7) (688.1) (687.0) (697.3) (698.7) Cropland (28.1) (37.4) (36.5) (38) (37.8) (38.3) (39.4) (39.4) Grassland 0.1 16.4 16.3 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.1 16.1 Settlements (urban trees) (57.5) (67.8) (78.2) (80.2) (82.3) (84.4) (86.4) (88.5) Other (land-filled yard trimmings, food scraps) (22.8) (13.3) (10.5) (10.6) (10.8) (9.3) (8.7) (8.8)

Parentheses indicate net sequestration of GHGs (i.e., carbon sinks). Source: US EPA 2007b.

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 145 alone (Sampson and Kamp 2007). Addi- cooling of surface temperatures in some re- Soils contain up to 60 percent of the carbon tional emissions would occur from the loss gions but also results in increased radiation stored in temperate forests (Lal 2005). of the forest biomass, since a third of a tree’s in the atmosphere, similar to the effect of When tillage occurs on recently converted biomass is located in its root system (Malhi heat trapping from GHGs (Betts 2001). forestland, 24 to 43 percent of the soil or- and Grace 2000). The net loss of these car- ganic carbon is emitted. In the Southeast, bon stocks would depend on the carbon Threats to Retaining Forestland first-year soil-based carbon losses of 9 tonnes emissions and sequestration characteristics Increases in Land Value. Land values per acre are common but have been mea- of the new land use. associated with low-density development in sured as high as 15 tonnes per acre. Soil- Conversion of forestland to cropland is much of the United States have increased based carbon losses decrease in subsequent a case in point. Though not associated with substantially in the past two decades while years (Franzluebbers 2005). forest biomass, nitrous oxide, which has a the value of land for timber production has Effects of Taxation. Property taxes and global warming potential (GWP) of 296, is remained stable or declined. For example, other tax policies may increase the cost of produced naturally and emitted from soils forestland in the US Southeast has been ap- maintaining forestland and contribute to by microbial processes. The application of praised for forest use at $415 per acre and for decisions that lead to forestland loss. The nitrogen-based fertilizer to agricultural lands urban use at $36,216 (Alig and Plantinga annual property tax on forestland is fre- increases the concentration of nitrous oxide 2004). Similarly, there is a significant dis- quently the largest annual management ex- in the soil. Since 2000, the release of nitrous parity in the Pacific Northwest between the pense in a forestry investment and results in oxide from agricultural soil management has values of land for timber production poor financial returns followed by shifts averaged 255 million tonnes of carbon ($1,000 per acre) and low-density residen- away from forest investments (Gayer et al. equivalent. Within the same period, forest tial development ($20,000 per acre) (Par- 1987). Landowners are sometimes forced to soils released nitrous oxide averaging tridge and MacGregor 2007). The forest- sell their lands to pay the federal estate tax 300,000 tonnes of carbon equivalent (US land conversion rate to urban and developed imposed after inheritance of forestland. For EPA 2006). Conversion of forestlands to ag- uses exceeded 1 million acres per year be- example, one study determined that 16 per- ricultural lands, which is likely if energy pol- tween 1992 and 1997, and another 23 mil- cent of Mississippi forestland owners who icies favor corn-based ethanol over cellulose- lion acres of forestland nationwide is ex- owed estate taxes sold land and/or timber to based ethanol, would increase the release of pected to be lost by 2050 (Alig et al. 2003). comply with the requirements (Cushing et nitrous oxide. This conversion would cause significant net al. 1998). Forest soils can be a sink for methane, releases of GHGs currently stored in these Changes in Ownership. Ownership which has a GWP of 23. Worldwide, soils forests, as well as preclude future forest- structure affects forestland retention. Nearly sequester 20 million to 60 million tonnes of based sequestration opportunities. two-thirds of the 620 million acres of forest- atmospheric methane per year, equivalent to Landowners generally convert forest- land in the United States is privately owned, 400 million to 1,300 million tonnes of car- land to residential and commercial uses to with 4 of every 10 forested acres being bon (Reay et al. 2001). Soil microbes cap- capture increasing land values; however, owned by “family” forest owners. In 2004, ture atmospheric methane in a process damaging agents can also trigger conversion. the average age of family forest owners was known as methane oxidation. Research has When forests in the wildland-urban inter- 60 years (Butler and Leatherberry 2004). In- shown that forest soils are more effective face are damaged by wildfire, insects, or heritance patterns and laws will likely in- than other land uses in storing methane, par- other disturbances, the decision to sell land crease the number of owners controlling ticularly in the well-aerated soils of temper- for development rather than invest for long- smaller and smaller tracts. There is little ev- ate forests, and that the conversion of forest term reforestation can be attractive to land- idence that the new generation of landown- to other uses reduces methane oxidation. owners. Since climate change may increase ers will pursue commercial forest manage- Experiments suggest that increased nitrogen the prevalence of these disturbances, forest- ment as a primary objective. Furthermore, inhibits the ability of the soil bacteria to ox- land conversion may increase in the future. the logistics of implementing forest manage- idize methane. Methane oxidization also di- Land values associated with agricultural ment practices become more difficult as for- minishes with increased soil moisture, such crop production can reverse the recent crop- est tract size decreases. Even where refores- as in wetlands and peatlands, which tend to land-to-forestland trend. For example, a tation vendors and timber harvesting be methane sources (Bradford et al. 2001; 1999 study of Alabama Conservation Re- companies have the ability to operate on Reay et al. 2001). serve Program participation found that 89 small tracts, the high costs of these opera- Forest vegetation also plays a vital role percent of acreage enrolled in tree planting tions are often prohibitive and further en- in affecting surface temperatures through its was likely to remain in forests and the re- courage the abandonment of forestland surface albedo. Forests tend to have a lower mainder would return to agricultural use management (Cubbage et al. 1989). Never- albedo than other land uses and thus reflect (Onianwa and Wheelock 1999). Recent in- theless, some future owners of small tracts less shortwave radiation into the atmo- creases in agricultural crop production, es- may pursue forest management to support sphere. Although this effect can increase pecially corn and soybeans, and the develop- other goals, such as wildlife habitat improve- temperatures at the surface, particularly in ment of new energy crops, such as ment. Encouragement and assistance to help tropical regions, atmospheric temperatures switchgrass, may increase reversion rates to these small landowners pursue forestry on are reduced by the absorption of shortwave cropland. Although agricultural land is gen- their lands can help maintain sequestration radiation. Converting forestland to other erally viewed as more environmentally desir- and storage of carbon and other GHGs. uses increases surface albedo and reflection able than developed land use, cultivation re- The structure of corporate forestland of shortwave radiation. This produces a net leases organic carbon into the atmosphere. ownership is also changing. Most vertically

146 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 integrated forest products companies within who consider timber production very im- Value of Ecological Services. Forests the United States have sold large portions of portant or important. This number in- provide an array of ecological services, such their forestland holdings within the past 15 creases to 41 percent in the South, where the as purifying air and water, protecting soil, years. Within the South alone, more than majority of forestland is privately owned and providing habitat for wildlife. These ser- 18.4 million acres of industrial forestland (Butler and Leatherberry 2004). Maintain- vices have long been recognized and have was sold between 1996 and 2005 (Clutter et ing or increasing the income potential from been both regulated and subsidized by fed- al. 2005). The majority of this industrial for- forest products provides incentives for for- eral, state, and local governments. However, estland has been sold to timber investment estland retention by these owners. Recent only recently have projects been developed management organizations (TIMOs) and globalization and wood product substitu- to capture the real value of these services for real estate investment trusts (REITs), which tion trends have reduced the income poten- private landowners. For example, an Envi- usually pursue forest uses under a 10- to 15- tial from traditional US forest-grown prod- ronmental Protection Agency program al- year planning horizon. The financial objec- ucts (Haynes et al. 2007). However, recent lows commercial and residential developers tives of some financial organizations could advancements in developing new products, who destroy wetlands to pay forestland own- increase pressures for land-use change to de- such as cellulosic ethanol and engineered ers to create and maintain wetland forests velopment (Clutter et al. 2005). wood products, may add value to working and forest riparian areas (US EPA 1990). forests. Bioenergy-related products can be As Chapter 8 details, some markets for Tools for Forest Retention produced from portions of trees that have forest carbon offset projects provide land- Forestland retention can occur in vari- been traditionally considered nonmerchant- owners the ability to “capture” the ecological ous ways—through public ownership of for- able, as well as from the merchantable por- value that their lands provide by sequester- ests, higher values of forest products grown tions of trees. Sustainable utilization of ing GHGs. These markets may provide the in private forests, land-use planning and re- working forests for a combination of wood additional income that encourage private lated regulations on private forestlands, products, including bioenergy, can improve landowners to retain forests. monetary incentives to capture the values of forest landowners’ returns on their land, bol- Conservation Easements. Conserva- ecological services, and conservation ease- ster continued interest in forest manage- tion easements prevent the future develop- ments, whether alone or as a part of other ment, thwart conversion to other uses, and ment of private lands by imposing limita- value programs. prevent potential carbon emissions. tions on land uses and development rights Public Forest Ownership. Publicly Land-Use Policy and Planning. (Sauer 2002). Land under conservation owned forestland in the National Forest Sys- Land-use planning and associated regula- easements in the United States more than tem and other federal and state ownerships is tions have been used on large and small doubled, from 2.6 million acres to 6.2 mil- the least likely to be converted to other uses. Existing public forests sequester an esti- scales to restrict development and prevent lion acres between 2000 and 2005 (Alvarez mated 40 million tonnes of carbon each year the conversion of forestlands. Oregon’s 2007). Conservation easements provide (Smith and Heath 2004). Efforts by states to land-use planning program uses a regulatory landowners tax benefits and allow landown- purchase private forests continue in some ar- approach to retain forest and agricultural ers and easement holders to tailor develop- eas, such as Washington State. However, lands. Cathcart et al. (2007) estimated that ment restrictions to meet the needs of each concerns have been raised about the loss of Oregon’s program will prevent the conver- situation. The easements are typically estab- the economic development values of forest sion of 204,688 acres of forestland between lished in perpetuity and are not easily production areas, diminished private owner- 2004 and 2024. However, land-use regula- changed after initiated. Working-forest con- ship tax base values, and the need for gov- tion can restrict forest landowners’ manage- servation easements and the accompanying ernment funding in other areas. This means ment options and may increase forestland management plans generally allow for the efforts to prevent GHG releases from forest- conversion (Mortimer et al. 2006; Prisley et management of forests for a variety of uses land conversion must focus primarily on re- al. 2006). (timber, recreation, wildlife habitat) while taining privately owned forestlands. Local governments have developed preventing commercial and residential uses Income from Forest Products. The transfer of development right (TDR) sys- (Mortimer et al. 2007). Other conservation objectives of the private individuals and or- tems to protect forestland and farmland near easements are designed to allow the ecosys- ganizations that own forests range from tim- the wildland-urban interface (Daniels and tem to change naturally over time with little ber production to recreational uses. Finan- Lapping 2005). TDRs are usually imple- or no vegetation management. Although cial returns associated with forestland mented through land-use planning and al- conservation easements are voluntary legal ownership are important to the forest indus- low higher-than-usual-density development mechanisms, they may be required as a con- try and to TIMOs and REITs (Clutter et al. in certain areas in exchange for the develop- dition of participation in other conservation 2005). A National Woodland Owners sur- er’s purchasing development rights from programs, such as the trading of develop- vey indicates that approximately 30 percent owners of nearby forests and farms (Daniels ment rights and environmental mitigation of US family forestlands are owned by those 1991). programs.

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 147 chapter 7

Reducing Atmospheric GHGs through Sequestration

revious chapters have evaluated the 302.3 Mha (33 percent) of the land base. store 700 MtC with an annual sequestration roles of forests and forest products in These forests contain 71,000 MtC, with rate of 22.8 MtC/yr. The potential for ex- P preventing GHG emissions through about 35 percent in living biomass, 51 per- panding the cover and extent of urban for- wood substitution, biomass substitution, cent in the soil, and 13 percent in dead ma- ests for both direct and indirect benefits on modification of wildfire behavior, and terial including the forest floor (Heath, mitigating climate change makes them in- avoided land-use change. This chapter con- Smith et al. 2003). The average rate of se- creasingly important and potentially cost-ef- siders the role of forests and forest products questration from 1953 to 1997, not includ- fective in sequestering and storing carbon in reducing GHG emissions. Among all pos- ing wood products, is estimated at 155 (McHale et al. 2007). sible options for reducing or mitigating MtC/yr (Heath, Smith et al. 2003). A simi- Typically, forest soils contain a high GHG emissions, forests are unique in that lar estimate from direct measures in 28 east- proportion of carbon, and management they contribute to both goals while simulta- ern forests during the late 1980s to early practices are consequently very important in neously providing essential environmental 1990s indicated a net uptake of 170 MtC/yr their potential effects on carbon storage. and social benefits, including clean water, above ground (Holland et al. 1999). Within forest biomes as a whole, 68 percent wildlife habitat, recreation, forest products, Productive, nonreserved forestland of the carbon is in the soil, but the propor- and other values and uses. (timberland) in the United States consti- tion is 50 percent in tropical forests, 63 per- tutes 204 Mha and is commonly considered cent in temperate forests, and 84 percent in Forest Carbon Pools the forest base potentially available for man- boreal forests (Kimble et al. 2003). In south- As the most efficient natural land-based agement. The average rate of carbon uptake ern Appalachia, Bolstad and Vose (2005) es- carbon sink, forests play an important role in on timberland is approximately 0.53 tC/ha/ timated the average allocation of carbon in global carbon cycling. The world’s forests yr, with a potential uptake capacity (esti- above-ground biomass at 37 percent, min- cover 4,100 million hectares (Mha) and con- mated by IPCC 2000) of 108.1 tC/ha eral soil 44 percent, coarse roots 10 percent, tain 80 percent of all above-ground carbon (Kimble et al. 2003). surface litter 8 percent, and fine roots 1 per- (Dixon et al. 1994). The greatest threat to Because the area of US forests is so vast, cent; percentages varied depending upon the forests is land-use change and deforestation even small increases in carbon sequestration forest system. The potential net carbon se- in the tropics, which contribute about 18 and storage per hectare add up to substantial questration in forest soils is 48.9 to 185.8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions quantities. Private forestland holds 63 per- MtC/yr, with an average of 105.9 MtC/yr (Stern et al. 2006). Consequently, forests are cent of total forest carbon, indicating the (Heath, Kimble et al. 2003). Immediately critical to stabilizing carbon dioxide and ox- importance of private lands in policies or in- after harvesting, carbon in soils increases, ygen in Earth’s atmosphere. centives aimed at sequestering carbon. In then declines below initial values for about a Globally, forest vegetation and soils western forests, most carbon per unit area is decade, and ultimately increases (Heath and contain about 1,146,000 million tonnes in the hemlock–Sitka spruce type, which has Smith 2000). Given the high proportion of (Mt) of carbon, with approximately 37 per- 353.6 tC/ha; chaparral has 105.6 tC/ha. In carbon in forest soils, management of forest cent of this carbon in low-latitude forests, 14 eastern forests, aspen-birch has 309 tC/ha, ecosystems should limit exposure and po- percent in mid latitudes, and 49 percent at and loblolly-shortleaf pine carries 163 tC/ha tential for increased soil temperature, which high latitudes (Dixon et al. 1994). The (Heath, Smith et al. 2003). increases rates of decomposition, soil respi- greatest changes in forest sequestration and Urban forests are increasingly being ration, and erosion (Birdsey et al. 2006). storage over time have been due to changes recognized as important carbon sinks; they Forest CO2 Uptake and Sequestra- in land use and land cover, particularly from cover about 28 Mha, with tree cover averag- tion. In the process of photosynthesis, trees forest to agriculture (Caspersen et al. 2000; ing 27 percent (Birdsey and Lewis 2003; take up CO2 from the air and, in the pres- Bolstad and Vose 2005). More recently, Kimble et al. 2003). This tree cover qualifies ence of light, water, and nutrients, manufac- changes are due to conversion from forest to them as “forestland,” which is often defined ture carbohydrates that are used for metab- urban development, dams, highways, and as cover exceeding 10 percent. Nowak and olism and growth of both above- and below- other infrastructure. Crane (2002) estimate that urban trees, ground organs. Concurrently with taking up

Forestland in the United States covers which cover 3.5 percent of the US land base, CO2, trees utilize some carbohydrates in

148 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 metabolism and give off CO2 in respiration. because of increases in stand respiration, Consequently, in evaluating the capacity of mortality, and decay (Figure 7-1b). Indeed, trees and forests to sequester and store car- the first State of the Carbon Cycle Report bon, the important metric is net carbon up- acknowledges that carbon absorption by take and storage. vegetation, primarily in the form of forest Because the chemical reactions of respi- growth, is expected to decline over time be- ration are temperature driven, increases in cause maturing forests grow more slowly, air temperature critically affect net uptake take up less carbon dioxide from the atmo- and storage of carbon. Studies on Douglas- sphere, and might become carbon neutral fir and pine trees in Washington and Cali- (King et al. 2007). The report suggests that fornia have shown that net CO2 uptake is older forests could become a net carbon markedly lower in midday under conditions source because of emissions from wildfires. of summer stress, when temperatures are Figure 7-1b also shows the effect of two high and water content in both air and soil is thinnings on carbon accumulation. In par- low (Helms 1965). With climate change– ticular, after thinning, between stand ages induced higher temperatures, environmen- 45 and 90 years for loblolly pine, the rate of tal stress is likely to increase. This will lower carbon accumulation reverts to the level for the capacity of plants to have positive net stand ages 20 to 45 years. These general re- gains in carbon uptake, which could con- lationships are similar to those governing the tribute to changes in forest type boundaries. familiar relationships between periodic and The trend is offset to some extent by a gen- mean annual wood increment. eral rise in worldwide forest productivity Figure 7-1. (a) Carbon sequestration rates. Carbon Release from Forests. Forests (b) Carbon accumulation rates for loblolly due to CO2 fertilization and nitrogen depo- also release carbon and can become net sition—both, ironically, products of an- pine (Source: Richards et al. 1993). sources of carbon to the atmosphere, partic- thropogenic atmospheric pollution. For ex- ularly after a disturbance or in newly regen- ample, conifer plantations in northern which culminate earlier but do not grow as erated stands when soils are exposed during Britain are reportedly growing 20 to 40 per- much wood, overall, as shade-tolerant spe- harvesting and site preparation. After distur- cent faster than in the 1930s because of in- cies. bance, heterotrophic soil respiration is great- creased nitrogen deposition, atmospheric The rate of CO2 uptake by trees and est in young forests and declines as forests CO2, and temperature (Cannell et al. 1998). stands is primarily a function of species, site age. Pregitzer and Euskirchen (2004) re- Net rates of CO2 uptake by broad-leaf quality, temperature, and availability of wa- ported that mean temperate net ecosystem trees are commonly greater than those of ter and nutrients. Young trees and young productivity in forests aged 0–10, 11–30, conifers, but because hardwoods are gener- stands have higher rates of carbon sequestra- 31–70, 71–120, and 121–200 years was ally deciduous while conifers are commonly tion but lower levels of total amount stored; Ϫ1.9, 4.5, 2.4, 1.9, and 1.7 MgC/ha/yr, re- evergreen, the overall capacity for carbon se- older trees and older stands have lower rates spectively. As forests become older, the questration can be similar. Mixed-species, of net uptake because, as trees age, mortality amount of carbon released through respira- mixed-age stands tend to have higher capac- and respiration are higher. However, older tion and decay can exceed that taken up in ity for carbon uptake and storage because of stands have higher carbon storage, providing photosynthesis, and the total accumulated their higher leaf area. carbon is not lost to insect depredations or carbon levels off. This situation becomes The capacity of stands to sequester car- wildfire. more likely as stands grow overly dense and bon is a function of the productivity of the Figure 7-1 illustrates two important lose vigor, and it will become more probable site and the potential size of the various principles. First, young trees, and fully in areas where climate change causes higher pools, including soil, litter, down woody stocked stands of young trees, have high temperatures. However, as maturing forests material, standing dead wood, live stems, rates of net carbon uptake that culminate become less productive, they may continue branches, and foliage. In part, this is related earlier for rapidly growing shade-intolerant to accumulate carbon in coarse woody de- to the capacity of stands to grow leaf area: pines than for less rapidly growing, more bris, the forest floor, and the soil. the more leaves, the greater the stand capac- shade-tolerant trees, which are initially Wildfires are the greatest cause of car- ity for photosynthesis and biomass produc- slower growing but culminate growth later bon release. In 2006, 96,385 wildfires tion, but also the greater loss of CO2 in res- and sequester more carbon overall (Figure burned 3,997,467 ha in the United States. piration. Other stand dynamics that can 7-1a). Thus management practices using Although 83 percent were human-caused, influence sequestration capacity include age very short rotations of trees such as poplars aggressive fire suppression policies over past class distribution and shade tolerance. In the and eucalypts are appropriate for intensive decades and other factors have resulted in long run, stands of shade-tolerant species biomass production. Second is a general re- greatly increased fire hazard conditions that growing on high-quality sites typically have lationship involving long rotations starting tend to make wildfires catastrophic and more leaf area, grow more wood, and seques- from bare ground: the total amount of car- stand-replacing. From 1997 to 2006, ter more carbon than stands of shade-intol- bon accumulated in a given stand increases 24,122,967 ha burned (National Inter- erant species. On similar sites, stands of in- over time and reaches a plateau, after which agency Fire Center 2007). The amount of tolerant species initially have higher rates of net carbon accumulation remains relatively carbon released by wildfires is difficult to es- wood production and carbon sequestration, constant as net CO2 uptake tends to zero timate because of the great variability in fire

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 149 intensity and fuel loads. It is estimated that ingly, the area harvested annually in 1907 and damage to watersheds, and where the every dry ton of forest biomass burned re- was 3.8 Mha (Birdsey and Lewis 2003). byproducts of such activities are used to off- leases roughly 1.3 to 1.5 tonnes of CO2, In general, forests may be either carbon set fossil fuel burning. Incompatible compe- 0.05 to 0.18 tonnes of carbon monoxide, sinks or sources, depending on their age and tition could occur, for example, on some and 0.003 to 0.01 tonnes of methane health. Unmanaged, older forests can be- parts of national forests, where the objectives (Sampson 2004). Average emissions might come net carbon sources, especially if prob- of sequestering high levels of carbon may be 29 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per hectare able losses due to wildfires are included conflict with adaptation needs that require (Sampson 2004). Therefore, the amount of (Oneil et al. 2007). Because of the variable reducing carbon stocks. greenhouse gases emitted in 2006 through conditions of US forests, particularly over- Adaptation. As described in Chapter 2, wildfires could be 128 MtCO2. stocking on federal lands, forest manage- climate change will likely create stress on for- Climate change–induced increases in ment has substantial opportunities to both est systems, changing competitive relation- wildfire occurrence and intensity will in- enhance sequestration and reduce carbon ships among species and altering the tenden- crease the tendency for forests to become a emissions, particularly by reducing carbon cies for species to be more or less successful source rather than a sink for carbon (Dale et lost because of wildfires, insect and diseases, in a given locality. In general, species are ex- al. 2001; Nitschke and Innes 2006; Wester- and avoided conversion of forests to other pected to move northward in latitude and ling et al. 2006). Changes in the fire regime land uses. upward in elevation, although there will could even overshadow the direct effects of likely be opportunistic expansions and con- climate change on species distribution and Enhancing Storage and tractions of species and communities as hab- migration (Dale et al. 2001; Nitschke and Reducing Emissions itat suitability changes. Scientists suggest Innes 2006). Limiting the extent of wildfires Forests of all ages and types have re- that existing biological communities will change as individual species move in re- through forest management would therefore markable capacity to sequester and store car- sponse to changing climatic conditions and contribute greatly to mitigating climate bon. Enhancement of this capacity depends chance events. Thus, existing communities change. For example, Lippke et al. (2006) on ensuring full stocking, maintaining are likely to disassemble, species by species, estimated that, primarily as a result of re- health, and reducing losses due to tree mor- and then reassemble, perhaps into commu- duced forest fire emissions and increased tality, wildfires, insect, and disease. Address- nities or “novel ecosystems” that have no an- long-lived forest production, 56 percent ing each of these issues requires management alog today (Hobbs et al. 2006). This makes more carbon could be stored over a 50-year that controls stand density by prudent tree predicting future plant associations exceed- period in a managed than in an unmanaged removal; this provides society with renew- ingly difficult. forest in eastern Washington. able products, including lumber, engineered An important question is whether man- Historically, insects and disease have composites, paper, and energy, even as the agement can help forest systems adapt to caused mortality on approximately 1.6 stand continues to sequester carbon. Above new environmental conditions. Can man- Mha/yr in the United States (Birdsey and all, enhancing the role of forests in reducing agement protect, enhance, modify, or adapt Lewis 2003). Recent years have seen a num- GHGs requires keeping forests as forests, to changing ecosystem values? Because past ber of large outbreaks of pine beetles and avoiding conversion to other land uses, in- experience may no longer be a valid basis for other insects that appear to be directly re- creasing the forestland base through affores- management planning (Perschel et al. 2007; lated to a warming climate. In 2006, the tation, restoring degraded lands, and in- Millar et al. 2007), the first task is anticipat- mountain pine beetle epidemic in British creasing tree density on understocked areas. ing what kinds of changes can be used as a Columbia destroyed 9.2 Mha of lodgepole The Western Forestry Leadership Coa- basis for informed decisionmaking. In par- pine forests, for a cumulative effect of 14 lition (2007) suggests that two active forest ticular, Breshears et al. (2005) ask, can we Mha (Carrol et al. 2004; BC Ministry of management approaches should be consid- identify what triggers ecosystem change and Forests and Range 2007). In 2003, 1.5 Mha ered to enable forests to provide ecological, how well can we judge the extent of change? of pinyon pine forests in eight states of the social, and economic benefits to society in It is perhaps especially important to identify Southwest was affected, with mortality the face of the environmental stress associ- the potential response of overstory, or “key- reaching 90 percent. Tree mortality caused ated with climate change. The first approach stone,” species—those that will rapidly alter by insects and disease in recent years thus is adaptation, which involves positioning ecosystem type if they lose vigor or die (Bre- equals or exceeds that caused by wildfires. forests to become more healthy, resistant, shears et al. 2005). By the end of the century, Other important forest disturbances in- and resilient. The second is mitigation, in the climate of 55 percent of western US clude hurricanes, ice storms, droughts, and which forests and forest products are used to landscapes may be incompatible with to- floods. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina affected sequester carbon, provide renewable energy day’s vegetation (Rehfeldt et al. 2006). 2 Mha of forest in Mississippi, Louisiana, through biomass, and avoid carbon losses Therefore, predicting the composition and and Alabama, killing or severely damaging due to fire, mortality, and conversion. On distribution of future plant communities approximately 320 million large trees and any given area of forestland, adaptation and from contemporary climate profiles in large, releasing, over time, approximately 105 mil- mitigation objectives at the same time could heterogeneous physiographic regions may lion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmo- be either complementary or incompatible. A be impossibly complex (Rehfeldt et al. sphere—roughly the net annual sink in US complementary situation would occur 2006). forest trees (Chambers et al. 2007). Harvest- where activities to maintain healthy, resil- Already, past protracted droughts and ing occurs on approximately 4 Mha/yr, with ient forests also reduced the risk of unchar- water stress have triggered large-scale dieoffs

62 percent being partial harvests. Interest- acteristically severe wildfire, CO2 emissions, and landscape changes. In the Southwest,

150 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 massive outbreaks of bark beetle infestations which activates evolutionary processes. turbance could be sufficiently large to over- have occurred in ponderosa pine and pinyon Modeling efforts are becoming increasingly come the capacity of the forest to resist its pine. Not only are these accompanied by sophisticated, and rapid advances are being effects, with negative consequences for the possible shifts in forest ecotones, but there made in predictive capacity. To better guide forested ecosystem. are other ramifications as well, including po- understanding and response to change, in- Increase resilience. Resilience is the ca- tential runoff and erosion, effects on associ- creased capability is needed in analysis at the pacity of an ecosystem to regain functioning ated wildlife, changed competitive relations landscape rather than the regional level (Reh- and development after disturbance. Man- of understory species, and altered dynamics feldt et al. 2006). A good example is the ef- agement actions would aim at retaining de- of carbon sequestration and storage. Simi- fective use of models for the Greater Yellow- sired species even if sites become less opti- larly, changed climate, particularly warmer stone Ecosystem, where temperature and mal. Possible treatments include 1) winters, appears to be responsible for trig- temperature-related variables have been promoting diversity in species and age gering the current epidemic outbreaks of used to describe the distribution of white- classes when replanting or conducting other mountain pine beetle in the lodgepole for- bark pine in relation to tree line (Schrag et al. treatments after a disturbance event; 2) ests of British Columbia and Colorado. 2007). Insights into the adaptation of plants broadening genetic variability of seedlings Consideration of how management to changing conditions can also be obtained when reforesting after harvesting, fires, or might address changed climate–ecosystem by reexamining the relative performance of other disturbances; 3) supporting existing relations focuses attention on modeling. species and varieties planted in seed orchards forest communities while allowing transi- However, land managers should use model and progeny test sites, and consulting stud- tions to new forest types; 4) identifying and results and generalizations regarding climate ies of range-wide comparisons. enhancing possible refugia prior to distur- change with great caution. Model projec- So, how might management adapt to bance; and 5) enhancing landscape connec- tions at global and regional scales may indi- possible climate changes? A prudent ap- tivity so that ecological movement can take cate climate trends with confidence, but it is proach is that the greater the uncertainty and place unimpeded across the landscape, in- much more difficult to assess trends at the risk, the greater the flexibility in setting both cluding prevention of further forest frag- local scales important to land managers. short-term and longer-term goals and deci- mentation and restoration of ecosystem pro- This is particularly important in topograph- sions (Perschel et al. 2007; Millar et al. cesses, such as watershed function and ically complex mountainous areas, where 2007). No single solution is likely to fit all hydrologic processes. high-quality, daily meteorological data at future challenges, and it is best to mix strat- Likely benefits are that management fine spatial scales are needed (Daly et al. egies (Millar et al. 2007). Three adaptive can identify and plan actions in advance of a 2007). It is even more difficult to assess strategies based on understanding ecological disturbance and then implement postdistur- trends in biotic responses to anticipated cli- processes rather than structure and function bance treatments. Planning postdisturbance mate change and, with confidence, judge the are currently being discussed (Perschel et al. actions focuses attention on which system likelihood of shifts in species and communi- 2007; Millar et al. 2007): increasing resis- components are most likely to be altered ties of forest biota at spatial scales consistent tance, increasing resilience, and assisting mi- when changes might come about. Potential with local management and ownerships. gration. drawbacks are that actions may be taken to Management is further complicated by the Increase resistance. Resistance is the ca- restore or enhance ecosystems based on past need to understand interactions among pacity of an ecosystem to avoid or withstand climate and experience, whereas climate landscape fragmentation and population disturbance, such as anticipated increased change may be driving the area toward new mobility and dynamics (Halpin 1997). Re- insect and disease epidemics and wildfires. assemblages of species. Managers should sponding may incur greater risk than doing Management actions would aim at forestall- identify the appropriate vegetation commu- nothing (Spittlehouse and Stewart 2003). ing damage and protecting valued resources, nities needed for restoration forestry in con- Nevertheless, models can provide very such as water, endangered species, wildland- ditions of change. useful guides. An example is the work of Reh- urban interface areas, and special forest Assist migration. What might be needed feldt et al. (2006), who modeled 35 expres- stands. Treatments to be considered include to enable an ecosystem to adapt to changed sions of temperature, precipitation, and thinning of overstocked stands, prescribed conditions? Management actions would their interactions in the context of plant-cli- burning, removal of invasive species, and seek to facilitate the transition of an ecosys- mate relations for the western United States. restoration of native species. Since it may tem from current to new conditions. Con- They showed that global warming should not be feasible to conduct treatments at the sideration would be given to introducing increase the abundance of montane forests landscape scale because of fragmented own- different, better-adapted species, expanding and grasslands at the expense of subalpine, erships and jurisdictions, implementation of genetic diversity, encouraging species mix- alpine, tundra, and arid woodlands. Impor- this strategy could include identifying which tures, and providing refugia. This approach tant factors were the ratio of summer to an- populations are most at risk and which areas is highly controversial—it involves taking nual precipitation and the summer-winter in the landscape are more likely to be buff- action based on modeling and other projec- temperature differential, together with com- ered against the effects of changes in climate tions for which outcomes or expectations are plex interactions. Rehfeldt et al. suggest that (and thus act as refugia). highly uncertain—and is in a youthful stage although future vegetation may retain the The likely benefit of this approach is of development (McLachlan et al. 2007). general characteristics of deserts, grasslands, that it is proactive (planned and imple- However, modeling at the global, re- and forests, it is commonly likely to support mented before a disturbance event) and has a gional, and landscape levels can be com- quite different plant associations. As climate high probability of being successful. A po- bined with current species climate distribu- changes, plant fitness may deteriorate, tential drawback is that the scale of the dis- tion maps to suggest where tree species

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 151 populations may migrate over the next cen- mented that reduced CO2 emissions to the minum, and plastic, all of which are based tury in response to various climate change atmosphere could be attained through four on nonrenewable resources that require scenarios. Models can possibly be used in a mechanisms: storage of carbon in the bio- much more energy in manufacture; 4) man- decision support context informing man- sphere, storage of carbon in forest products, aged forests have lower greenhouse gas emis- agement on how to consider the potential use of biofuels to replace fossil fuel use, and sions resulting from wildfires, insect depre- risks and benefits of assisting migration. the use of wood products that displace other dations, and land conversion; and 5) offset Assisted mitigation might be consid- products requiring more fossil fuel for pro- markets are more attractive for managed for- ered in several circumstances: 1) where, after duction. These authors found, over the long ests (Skog and Nicholson 1998; Lippke a fire or insect or disease outbreak, planting run, that the amount of carbon stored in the 2007; Krankina and Harmon 2006; OFRI of the original species is predicted to fail; 2) biosphere and in forest products reached a 2006). Unmanaged forests can store more on the edge of an ecotone where new species steady state, and continuing mitigation of carbon over their lifespan above and below are known to be migrating into the area in a carbon emissions depended on the extent to ground per unit area, but as they become manner that validates the climate change which fossil fuel was displaced by bioenergy mature, carbon accumulation reaches a models for the region; 3) for rare, threat- and wood products. They concluded that steady state. Also, given fire return intervals ened, or endangered species that are en- the net carbon balance at the end of 100 that range from 10 to more than 100 years, demic to a small area and not expected to be years was very similar, whether trees were there is high probability that in time, un- successful in migrating without assistance; harvested and used for energy and tradi- managed, dense forests face a higher risk of 4) new species could be added to the mix of tional forest products, or the area was refor- stand-replacing fires or insect infestations trees being planted if these are not expected ested and forest protection strategies imple- than managed forests. to have negative ecological consequences; mented. Marland and Schlamadinger The modeling of stand dynamics en- and 5) where refugia have been identified as (1999) concluded that storing carbon on site ables a comparison of managed and unman- places to plant and “store” endangered spe- in the forest and harvesting forests for a sus- aged stands in terms of carbon sequestration cies. tained flow of forest products are not neces- and storage. For simplicity, researchers de- Assisting migration would require the sarily conflicting options: mitigating net veloped Figures 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4 for even- development of policies and guidelines ad- emissions of carbon depends on site-specific aged stands commencing with bare ground, dressing the precise conditions under which factors, such as forest productivity and the but comparable diagrams could be prepared species should be moved into new areas and efficiency with which harvested material is illustrating the growth of uneven-aged lay out protocols for the detailed monitoring used. stands. Figure 7-2 shows the accumulation required (McLachlan et al. 2007). Because The issues are complex and defy easy of carbon over two 40-year rotations of of its controversial nature and the risk of un- generalizations. For some forest conditions, southern loblolly pine and illustrates the dis- anticipated consequences—for example, the it is possible that early harvesting and use of tribution of harvested carbon into diverse planted species might become an invasive in wood products, while economically viable, products and the decline in forest carbon its new range, or climate change might not could result in a lower rate of carbon accu- stocks during the reforestation phase (Bird- occur in the expected manner—this level of mulation compared with letting the forest sey and Lewis 2002). Figure 7-3 illustrates experimentation within forested ecosystems grow to an older age before harvesting. Al- the results of modeling the accumulation may not win public or scientific support. ternatively, focus on managing for carbon and distribution of carbon over four Changes in climate already appear to be accumulation could lead to earlier harvest clearcutting rotations in western Washing- occurring. It seems prudent, therefore, that for some forest growth conditions. The de- ton (Oneil et al. 2007). Here, carbon in the adaptive approaches to management be con- gree to which forest management would forest has a stable trend line, and the carbon sidered. The considerable risk and uncer- change carbon sequestration and storage in product pools—net of energy used in har- tainty notwithstanding, the diverse values of would also be influenced by whether wood vesting, processing, and construction— forest ecosystems are too high to simply do use is long- or short-lived, whether the sub- steadily increases over time. The area in gray nothing. The hallmarks of future forest stitution offset is high or low, and whether shows the substantial carbon savings associ- management should be flexibility in both there is high or low energy conversion effi- ated with substitution of renewable and car- short-term and long-term planning, in- ciency. bon-neutral wood products for alternative, creased use of modeling, increased monitor- In several cases, managed forests have fossil fuel–intensive building products ing to detect the occurrence and direction of been shown to sequester more carbon and (Oneil et al. 2007). change, and adaptive management. have fewer emissions than unmanaged for- The top diagram of Figure 7-4 illus- Mitigation. Whether, in the long run, ests (Birdsey et al. 2000; Krankina and Har- trates the results of modeling the growth on managed forests can positively affect the mon 2006; Lippke 2007; Hoover and Stout national forests in eastern Washington and global carbon balance compared with leav- 2007). There are five prime reasons for this: shows the forest carbon pools assuming no ing forests unmanaged depends on several 1) managed forests consist of younger trees management, fire disturbance, or insect or assumptions, such as the level of forest pro- that have higher rates of net carbon uptake; disease damage (Oneil et al. 2007). The bot- ductivity, likelihood of tree mortality, uses 2) managed forests are a source of wood tom diagram is a preliminary analysis incor- of wood products, and extent of product products that continue to store carbon (in porating the occurrence of wildfires, which substitution. Heath and Birdsey (1993), for use or in landfills) for varying periods, de- because of climate change were estimated to example, projected that a no-harvest pending on the product; 3) the use of wood burn 1.7 percent of the area every decade. scenario sequestered more carbon. products substitutes for use of alternative This approximation does not include regen- Schlamadinger and Marland (1996) com- materials, such as steel, brick, concrete, alu- eration delays and success rates, but the

152 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 such as a rotation. By providing continuous canopy cover, uneven-aged management is likely to provide continuous carbon uptake, depending on the periodicity and intensity of partial harvest entries. In comparison, the carbon uptake under even-aged manage- ment is strongly influenced by rotation length and the length of regeneration peri- ods when the stand has little canopy cover. Management for carbon uptake does under- score the importance of choosing the appro- priate regime for each stand. Adaptive ap- proaches to matching the appropriate silviculture with each site as a mosaic across the forest enhance overall forest productivity and carbon uptake. Choice of species. Initially, fast-growing, shade-intolerant species have higher rates of carbon sequestration at a younger age than Figure 7-2. Accumulation of carbon over two 40-year rotations of loblolly pine (Source: more shade-tolerant, slow-growing species. Birdsey and Lewis 2002). However, over time, shade-tolerant species are likely to have higher stand densities and leaf area and therefore higher accumulation of carbon stocks. Mixed-species and mixed- age stands are likely to accumulate more car- bon than single-species stands. Genetic selection, tree improvement, and biotech- nology can enhance the rate of carbon up- take and storage by providing trees with higher net carbon uptake capacity. These trees are likely to have special application in growing short-rotation tree crops for bioen- ergy or cellulosic ethanol. Slash disposal. Tops, needles, and branches that are residues from harvesting can be evaluated for the extent to which var- ious treatments affect the carbon balance. Allowing this material to decay and return nutrients to the soil is a carbon-neutral pro- cess that takes several years, during which time the slash may increase the risk of wild- Figure 7-3. Carbon accounting over four rotations of even-aged management in Douglas-fir in western Washington (Source: Oneil et al. 2007). fire. Burning the slash, although also a car- bon-neutral process, immediately releases carbon, volatilized nitrogen, other green- model outcome suggests that unmanaged the output of one value will diminish the house gases, and particulates into the atmo- national forests in Eastern Washington outputs of others. sphere. Incorporating wood residues into would likely become a carbon source rather Choice of management regime. One of the soil rather than burning it or leaving it to than a carbon sink (Oneil et al. 2007). the primary silvicultural choices foresters decay can increase or prolong carbon storage Silvicultural Treatments That Affect face is the management regime. Currently, in the soil (Birdsey et al. 2006). Alterna- Carbon. Traditional silvicultural treatments management regimes are chosen in consid- tively, depending on costs, this material focused on wood, water, wildlife, and aes- eration of the economic, site, and silvical could be used for bioenergy or the produc- thetic values are fully amenable to being ap- characteristics of forest stands, along with tion of cellulosic ethanol. Removal of slash, plied to enhancing carbon sequestration and other factors. The choice of an even- or un- however, may not be appropriate for sites reducing emissions from forest management even-aged management regime for a forest is with low productivity. (Helms 1996). When considering the appli- likely to have little effect on above-ground Site preparation. Site preparation is in- cation of alternative kinds and levels of stand carbon storage over long periods of time tended to give the desired vegetation greater or landscape treatments in the context of (multiple rotations). These two broad re- access to limited resources, such as soil or multiple goals and values, managers should gimes do, however, have variable carbon up- water. In the context of carbon sequestra- consider it likely that attempts to enhance take characteristics over short time horizons, tion, a major consideration is limiting loss of

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 153 carbon storage in wood products and substi- tution of wood for fossil-intensive products. Longer rotations and management cycles may also involve thinnings or partial cuts to maintain forest health. Expansion of forestland (afforestation). One of the most widely recognized forestry practices for the mitigation of climate change is the afforestation of nonforested ar- eas to increase sequestration and storage. Be- cause forest is the most efficient land use for carbon uptake and storage, landowners with plantable acres and degraded areas that can be restored to a productive condition have a significant opportunity to sequester carbon. Whether the land was degraded by unsus- tainable practices or natural events, such op- portunities may provide economic incen- tives to turn these areas back into productive forests. Managing for Carbon. Forest man- agement is often categorized as even- versus uneven-aged approaches. Either approach may still be appropriate at the stand level; Figure 7-4. Carbon sequestration potential on national forests in eastern Washington. No however, at the landscape level, both ap- disturbance compared with fire and no salvage harvest (Source: Oneil et al. 2007). proaches can be used in mosaics depending on ownership objectives and stand condi- soil carbon that follows exposure during used in even- and uneven-aged manage- tions. Incorporating carbon sequestration such treatments, which may increase oxida- ment, respectively, to control stocking levels into the suite of management objectives fo- tion of soil carbon, temperature (which in- and stand density. The operations may be cuses attention on developing and maintain- creases respiration of soil organisms), distur- either precommercial (i.e., the thinned ma- ing high levels of leaf area because the more bance, and in particular soil erosion. Site terial is not merchantable) or commercial leaves, the more potential for photosynthesis preparation that incorporates wood residues and are designed to improve the growth of and carbon dioxide uptake. More leaf area into the soil can increase or prolong carbon preferred trees. The basic concept is to allo- also increases the potential for higher respi- storage in the soil (Birdsey et al. 2006). cate growth and leaf area among either a ration rates, and consequently attention Regeneration. Whether by natural seed- greater number of small-diameter trees or a must be given to net carbon uptake under ing, direct seeding, planting, or some mix- fewer number of large-diameter trees. Both the particular growing conditions. ture of treatments, regeneration should be treatments make openings in the canopy, If the goal is to immediately sequester done promptly to minimize the time soil is and in the context of carbon storage, it is the most carbon in the near term, shade- exposed and the canopy is open. Prompt tree preferable to conduct light, frequent thin- intolerant species with high initial growth regeneration also reduces the risk that the nings rather than heavy, infrequent thin- rates, grown at the highest stocking density site becomes occupied by brush, which has nings. The latter create larger openings in the site will support and harvested at the cul- lower leaf area and less CO2-sequestering ca- the canopy that require a longer time to re- mination of mean annual increment, will se- pacity than trees. Early brush control has gain leaf area and capacity for carbon stor- quester the most carbon in the shortest been shown to have important leverage in age. amount of time. This short rotation, even- improving wood-growing capacity and stor- Rotation length. Rotation length in aged forest management regime, repeated in ing carbon in both the forest and stored even-aged management influences carbon perpetuity with succeeding rotations of products (CFR 2007). accumulation because longer rotations and shade-intolerant trees, is often said to se- Fertilizer. Sometimes applied in larger trees increase on-site storage. (In un- quester the most carbon. However, to deter- planted forests and in short-rotation planta- even-aged management, decisions on the mine the net amount of carbon sequestered, tions, fertilizers increase rates of growth and maximum-sized tree follow the same logic.) one must factor in 1) losses of soil and detri- leaf area production and therefore the rate of Longer rotations in even-aged management tus carbon during disturbance for harvest- carbon uptake and sequestration. In carbon favor carbon accumulation because less time ing, site preparation, and other management accounting, however, the source of materials is taken up in reforestation and rebuilding activities; and 2) the carbon emissions asso- used as fertilizers and the source and cost of the canopy. However, longer rotations can ciated with these harvesting and manage- energy used in manufacture, transportation, incur larger management costs as the value ment activities. and application must be factored in. growth rates of timber fall below the ex- If the goal is to sequester the maximum Thinning and partial harvesting. Thin- pected cost of money, and delay in harvest- amount of carbon over a longer time frame, ning and partial harvesting are techniques ing reduces value from other uses, including the best approach is to grow shade-tolerant

154 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 species at the maximum stand density the the technical knowledge needed to enhance ever, much of this is offset by the carbon that site will support and implement a similar sequestration and storage is available or can is stored in forest products for varying even-aged management regime, harvesting be adapted from traditional practices. lengths of time. The carbon in those forest and replanting the whole stand at the culmi- Knowledge gaps include the effects of man- products, for example, may not be released nation of mean annual increment. Shade- agement on carbon pools and the extent to for decades. Along with the benefits of con- tolerant species can be grown at a higher which enhancing carbon reduces the out- sistently high sequestration levels, it is this stand density than shade-intolerant species puts of other forest values and uses. There is aspect of sustainably managed forest carbon but have lower initial growth rates that cul- thus a need for increased monitoring and projects that provides the maximum benefits minate later; however, the overall amount of adaptive approaches to management. for climate change mitigation when com- carbon sequestered per unit of forest area Under current economic conditions, pared with unmanaged forests, which can will be greater. Moreover, harvesting and however, carbon sequestration is not likely suddenly release huge amounts of carbon if site preparation activities will be less fre- to be a primary management objective for they burn. Forest management that includes quent and thus the associated carbon emis- most forest owners (Birdsey et al. 2006). As harvesting provides increased climate sions will be lower. with any type of management, goals, costs, change mitigation benefits over time be- For continuous and overall maximum incentives, regulations, policy, and values cause wood-decay CO2 emissions from sequestration, mixtures of shade-intolerant will drive decisions. Carbon sequestration wood products is delayed (Ruddell et al. and shade-tolerant species would utilize all through forest management may, however, 2007). Accounting for this carbon pool is the photosynthetic niches in the forest can- provide forest owners who meet requisite critical to accurately representing forest car- opy and forest understory while maintaining protocols with an additional income stream bon uptake and storage on a project level. A overall growth rates at a thrifty level. Un- from the sale of offset credits. If realized, this forestry project that fails to consider it may even-aged management would use a combi- additional economic return could change significantly overestimate emissions from nation of individual tree selection, crown, the economic viability of some management the project over time (US DOE 2007). and understory thinning, group selection, practices, alter the intensity with which for- Until recently, carbon stored in har- irregular shelterwood, and other intermedi- ests are managed, and influence other man- vested wood products (HWPs) had received ate cuttings to maintain a kaleidoscope of agement decisions. The degree to which car- little recognition in international GHG mit- different age classes of thrifty intolerant and bon sequestration opportunities influence igation programs. In fact, the 1996 United tolerant trees. Again, emissions would have forest management will depend heavily on Nations Framework Convention on Cli- to be calculated for the frequent manage- such factors as the value of carbon financial mate Change guidelines for carbon account- ment entries, as would the combined mean ing for countries participating under the instruments, the costs of program or market annual increment for all the different species Kyoto Protocol considered the inputs (addi- participation, regulatory requirements for and age classes of trees, which must be dis- tions) and outputs (emissions) at the na- emission controls, market-wide recognition counted to an annual basis. tional level for the HWP carbon pool to be of offset credits from forestry projects, and The important carbon sequestration equal (IPCC 2006). This position was revis- opportunity costs. metric for all three of the above approaches ited in 2006 in the revised IPCC guidelines, Debate continues regarding the relative is the area under the mean annual increment in which HWP accounting rules for Kyoto- benefits of young, managed forests com- curve, which will reveal the total amount of compliant countries were presented in pared with older, unmanaged forests in carbon sequestered during the management greater detail (IPCC 2006). The new rules terms of efficacy of forest carbon sequestra- cycle. This metric can then be discounted facilitated a more thorough recognition of over the time period of the management cy- tion. But all forests, under varying levels of this important carbon pool, offering partic- cle to calculate the average annual carbon management or no management, can pro- ipating countries the option to account for sequestration rate for any management sce- vide carbon sequestration benefits, depend- carbon accumulation in this area. nario. Below-ground carbon sequestration ing on their particular condition or situa- In their early stages, many US climate in root fiber, soil, macro- and microorgan- tion. It is important to take into account the change mitigation programs considered the isms, down woody material, and other pools different objectives for managing forests of harvesting of wood an immediate release of must also be calculated. varying age and the associated benefits that carbon. The carbon storage potential of If the landowner’s goal is to enhance the can accrue from older, mixed age and HWPs has since become more widely ac- capacity of the forest to sequester and store mixed-species forests. Indeed, there are sites knowledged. To date, storage of HWP car- carbon and to reduce its likelihood of be- of low productivity where production of bon has been recognized by some but not all coming a source of carbon and other GHGs timber may be so slow or uncertain that domestic climate mitigation programs and in the long run, the forest should be man- managing for forest health and fire protec- registries. Although their accounting meth- aged. This is because, in the long run, 1) tion could be a superior carbon sequestra- ods vary, the US Department of Energy management enables the maintenance of tion strategy. 1605b guidelines, the Chicago Climate Ex- forest health, which reduces the likelihood change, the California Climate Action Reg- and severity of emissions from wildfires and Carbon Storage in Wood istry, and the Georgia Carbon Sequestration insect or disease mortality; and 2) it provides Products Registry are examples of programs that now products that have both short- and long- Harvesting reduces carbon storage in recognize this important carbon pool, term storage capacity and can substitute for the forest both by removing organic matter though the California registry does not con- fossil fuel–based materials and sources for and by increasing heterotrophic soil respira- sider it a tradable pool at this time. energy, building, and other uses. Much of tion (Pregitzer and Euskirchen 2004). How- The HWP pool consists of two parts:

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 155 Table 7-1. Half-life for products by end use.

End use or product Half-life (years)

New residential construction Single-family homes 100 Multifamily homes 70 Mobile homes 12 Residential upkeep and improvement 30 New nonresidential construction All except railroads 67 Railroad ties 12 Railcar repair 12 Manufacturing Household furniture 30 Commercial furniture 30 Other products 12 Shipping Wooden containers 6 Pallets 6 Dunnage 6 Figure 7-5. Harvested wood products pool (Source: Heath et al. 1996). Other uses for lumber and panels 12 Solid wood exports 12 Paper 2.6 wood in use, and wood discarded in landfills emissions from the HWP pool. If there is a (Source: US DOE 2006). or recycled (US DOE 2006). Their interre- positive difference between a specific year lationships are illustrated in Figure 7-5. The and the previous year’s HWP levels, a posi- cade or two. In accounting for carbon delay in the release of carbon from HWPs tive sequestration result is realized. If the re- storage in landfills, the current US registries depends on the manner in which the har- sult is negative, then the HWP pool has ex- are even more variable. Although account- vested wood is used. For example, carbon perienced net emissions and that amount ing rules for this aspect of carbon storage may be stored for decades in sawn lumber would be deducted from total reported se- currently exist, this part of the pool is less used in housing construction, but wood har- questration for that year. The benefits of this uniformly recognized by domestic carbon vested for the production of paper may store approach are largely in maximizing positive programs than carbon stored in wood prod- carbon for only one to five years. Accounting results over shorter project lifespans and in ucts in use. One reason involves concerns approaches of the current US carbon pro- more project-specific accounting. There are over ownership of the carbon stored in land- grams vary somewhat, but most consider six also potential drawbacks to this approach. fills, and thus who can claim credit for the basic categories of harvested wood in use: Over longer time frames, emissions from the carbon sequestered. waste wood, wood used to produce energy, HWP pool could exceed total additions, re- The climate change benefits of wood solid wood (lumber), composite wood prod- sulting in carbon deficits. Also, this account- products are twofold: the true value lies in ucts, paper products, and nonstructural pan- ing system is somewhat complex. the combination of long-term carbon stor- els. Each wood category has its own specific The second HWP accounting method age with substitution for other materials rate of decay or release to the atmosphere. uses established depreciation tables to calculate with higher emissions. Although some car- One example of depreciation or half-life val- the quantity of carbon remaining in harvested bon accounting systems are beginning to ues for various end uses of wood products is wood (also by product class) after 100 years. recognize the importance of the carbon provided in Table 7-1, which illustrates the Based on standard decay equations, this 100- stored in wood products, fewer incorporate variable decay rates specified in the US De- year rule allows project owners to annually re- the system boundaries that recognize the im- partment of Energy 1605b rules. tain the net carbon credits represented by the portance of the way wood is used. Because The accounting methods for HWPs in carbon estimate for their harvested wood prod- wood can substitute for other, more fossil use fall into two main techniques. The first ucts. The approach is much simpler and does fuel–intensive products, the reductions in approach is to track, over time, the decay of not create net negative flows of carbon over the carbon emissions to the atmosphere are materials stored in wood products and ac- project lifespan. Drawbacks include fewer comparatively larger than even the benefit of count for the specific emissions in the year in project-specific calculations and potentially the carbon stored in wood products. Re- which they occur. Under this method, each very conservative estimates of carbon storage in search both in the United States and inter- harvest year is depreciated individually over the HWP pool. nationally (Borjesson and Gustavsson 1999; a project’s lifespan in accordance with the If the wood product is transferred to a Buchanan and Levine 1999; Lippke et al. proportion of wood product types generated landfill, the time frame for the ultimate re- 2004; Lippke and Edmonds 2006; Perez- from the harvests. In addition to the contri- lease of its carbon into the atmosphere may Garcia et al. 2005; Sathre 2007; Valsta et al. butions made annually to the HWP pool be even longer. To illustrate, carbon may be 2008) has suggested that this effect—the through harvests, annual emissions for the stored in a paper product five years after har- displacement of fossil fuel sources—could pool are also calculated. These calculations vest, then in a landfill for 10 years, and de- make wood products the most important produce the annual net contribution to or composed as emissions after yet another de- carbon pool of all.

156 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 chapter 8

Markets for Forest Carbon Offset Projects

istorically, command-and-control polluter’s best interest to do so (Stavins ment, the polluter will reduce emissions to regulation has been the approach 2001). the point where its marginal abatement pol- H to regulating emissions and dis- lution costs are equal to the carbon tax, and charges of pollution into the environment in Market-Based Policy thus different firms control emissions at dif- the United States. The Clean Air Act of Instruments ferent levels. Those with high marginal 1970 and the Clean Water Amendments of Emissions Trading versus Carbon abatement costs (high-cost polluters) will re- 1972 effectively equalized pollution levels Taxes. In practice, the selection of a market- duce pollution less than those with low mar- across all polluters. While effective in achiev- based climate change policy instrument is a ginal abatement costs (low-cost polluters). ing absolute reductions in pollution, these political decision. This decision is based on One drawback of carbon taxes is that the acts prescribe technology-based and perfor- the extent to which the instrument 1) is eco- environmental outcome—the total reduc- mance-based standards to pollution abate- nomically effective; 2) is cost-efficient; 3) tion in emissions—cannot be guaranteed be- ment in ways that stifle innovation and dis- provides social equity and fairness within cause the regulator cannot know the mar- courage the development of better, lower- and across generations; and 4) is flexible ginal pollution abatement costs for each cost technologies (Stavins 2001). Since it is enough to adapt to changing social, politi- firm. Determining the appropriate tax rate not possible for regulatory oversight agen- cal, and environmental conditions (Hanley therefore becomes a major challenge for cies to know the pollution abatement cost et al. 1997). policymakers. In theory, to achieve an eco- function of each polluter, uniform standards Tradable permits are utilized within nomically efficient level of pollution, the tax force some firms to incur a larger cost bur- regulated emissions trading programs, also will be applied on each unit of production at den per unit of production for controlling known as cap-and-trade programs. Rules for a rate that equals the social costs of pollution pollution. cap-and-trade programs can be highly vari- (Perman et al. 1996). Market-based instruments encourage able. In general terms, under an emissions Emission Allowances versus Emission the desired behavior through market signals trading program, the allowable level of pol- Reduction Credits. The design of any emis- rather than through explicit directives for lution (cap) within a sector is determined sions trading program includes two primary pollution levels or control methods (Stavins through a political process that allocates or transactions: emission allowances and emis- 2001). Two such climate change policy in- auctions emission allowances among the sion reduction credits. Emission allowances struments include emissions trading and polluting entities. In theory, the polluters (also called allowance-based carbon transac- carbon taxes. When well designed and im- will choose the least-cost means to comply tions) are created by a regulatory cap-and- plemented, these instruments create incen- with the cap. Those that keep emission levels trade body and are initially allocated or auc- tives that alter the producer’s pollution con- below the cap can sell their surplus emission tioned to the user. Emission allowance trol strategy in ways that benefit the allowances. Those that emit more than the transactions are based on the entity’s direct producer while meeting pollution reduction cap must either buy surplus emission allow- emissions. Entities must reconcile their policy goals. Compared with command- ances from others or, if permitted, offset emissions account at the end of each com- and-control approaches, market-based cli- their excess pollution (over the cap) by pur- pliance period through direct and verified mate change policy instruments accomplish chasing emission reduction credits from off- measurements to ensure compliance with a cost-effective allocation of pollution con- set providers. Although emissions trading is their allocated or auctioned emission allow- trol burden by equalizing the marginal costs a cost-effective policy instrument, it can also ances. (the incremental amount spent to reduce create uncertainty in the total cost of com- Emission reduction credits (also called pollution) across all entities even though the pliance for the polluter. Emissions trading project-based carbon transactions) are issued regulator does not know their individual programs are, however, very flexible instru- to projects that can credibly demonstrate re- pollution abatement cost functions. Market- ments and can easily adjust to changes in the ductions in GHG emissions compared with based climate change policy instruments cost of emitting pollutants. what would have happened without the provide economic incentives that promote Carbon taxes are charges or penalties project. Forestry is one category of projects innovation in the development of pollution levied on the amount of carbon dioxide that that can provide carbon dioxide emission re- abatement technologies because it is in the a firm generates. Under this policy instru- duction credits (capturing landfill methane,

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 157 conservation tillage practices, and alterna- in the United States, registries, voluntary fied by 191 countries, including the United tive energy are others), and several project emissions trading programs, and voluntary States (UNFCCC 2007c). The objective of types are eligible (Sampson et al. 2007). carbon offset markets have developed to sat- the convention was to stabilize greenhouse • Afforestation: planting trees on land isfy demand primarily created by direct gas emissions “at a level that would prevent that has been in a nonforest land use for a emitters wanting to reduce their GHG emis- dangerous anthropogenic interference with number of years (the Kyoto Protocol re- sions. Mandatory emissions trading pro- the climate system” (UNFCCC 2007b, quires 50 years; other registries and pro- grams have become well established through Art. 2). grams require 10 or 20 years). the Kyoto Protocol. A global carbon market has emerged as • Reforestation: planting trees on land The Kyoto Protocol, an international a result of the Kyoto Protocol of the UNF- that had previously been forested but has treaty of the United Nations Framework CCC. Article 3 of the protocol introduced lost forest cover and is not recovering natu- Convention on Climate Change (UNF- concepts of GHG emissions by sources and rally. Severely burned forests may qualify CCC), set GHG emissions limitations on its GHG removals by sinks, but it limited the under this definition if they show no recov- signatory countries and established mecha- role of forestry to afforestation, reforesta- ery after a time period. nisms for reducing overall GHGs by at least tion, and reducing emissions during defor- • Forest management: managing a forest 5 percent below 1990 levels by the end of estation activities conducted since 1990. In to protect and/or enhance carbon stocks. 2012. The protocol, which took effect in November 2001, the Marrakesh Accord The entire forest estate under management February 2005, has been ratified by all in- provided definitions for these forestry activ- should be included to prevent the possibility dustrialized countries except the United ities and considered forest management that the owner will report only on areas of States. Until it ratifies Kyoto or passes fed- (UNFCCC 2002). To date, only afforesta- growing forest and avoid including the areas eral laws governing carbon emissions, the tion and reforestation methodologies have where the forest may be in a declining con- United States will remain a voluntary mar- been approved for creating emission reduc- dition. ket for trading emission allowances and re- tion credits for Kyoto compliance purposes. • Harvested wood products: providing duction credits. Reducing emissions from deforestation and credit for harvested wood is usually con- Another policy option is a renewable degradation in developing countries, as part nected to forest management that includes energy credit. One type of renewable energy of the sustainable management of forests, periodic harvests. credit is associated with the substitution of was acknowledged during a December 2007 wood-based building materials for nonre- meeting in Bali, where the 13th Conference • Forest conservation or protection: pre- venting a land-use change that would de- newable building materials, such as steel, of the Parties established processes to dem- plastic, concrete, and aluminum. Research onstrate how such reductions could be con- stroy or degrade an existing forest, such as by Lippke et al. (2004), Winistorfer et al. sidered climate mitigation measures and be conversion to agricultural or development (2005), and Perez-Garcia et al. (2005) dem- included in the second compliance period of uses. This type of offset project is also known onstrates, through life-cycle carbon dioxide the Kyoto Protocol, beginning in 2013. as avoided deforestation. modeling, that wood-based building materi- To combat climate change, the Kyoto Emission reduction credits should be is- als have significantly lower carbon dioxide Protocol uses a market-based approach— sued only after their reductions have been emissions per unit of production compared emissions trading and tradable emission re- verified; they can then be used to offset di- with nonrenewable building materials. If duction credits for offset projects (UNF- rect carbon dioxide emissions above a firm’s these credits are recognized in US energy CCC 2007b)—involving two mechanisms, allocated or auctioned emission allowances. legislation, markets may emerge that recog- the Clean Development Mechanism The purchase or sale of contracts for emis- nize the role that this substitution plays in (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI). sion reduction credits typically carries preventing GHG emissions. Both were designed to lower the overall costs higher transaction costs and risk than emis- The second type of renewable energy of participating countries in meeting their sion allowances. Once emission reduction credit involves the substitution of wood- domestic emission reduction targets while credits are issued and used to offset direct based biofuels, such as wood waste, for fossil helping developing countries and countries emissions, they provide the same mitigation fuels to generate electric power for direct in transition achieve their sustainable devel- benefit in reducing or preventing GHG emitters. Evolving carbon markets (such as opment goals (IETA 2007). emissions as emission allowances (Ruddell et the Chicago Climate Exchange) provide The CDM allows Annex 1 (industrial- al. 2006). credits to firms with direct emissions that ized) countries with mandated Kyoto Proto- substitute wood-based biofuels for fossil fu- col GHG reduction targets to invest in emis- Programs and Markets for els. Forest biomass is one fuel type that is sion reduction projects in developing Forest Carbon being recognized as eligible for such credits (“host”) countries. In theory, these projects Project-based emission reduction cred- under developing US Senate bills in the reduce global GHGs at a lower cost than its, such as those developed through forest 110th Congress (Point Carbon News 2007). would be possible in the Annex 1 country carbon offset projects, are used to reduce Mandatory (Regulated) Emissions itself. For an afforestation or reforestation rather than prevent GHG emissions. To op- Trading Programs project, once a project is registered (ap- erate efficiently and provide the market sig- Kyoto Protocol. Anthropogenic changes proved), implemented, and certified, the nals required for polluters to implement the in Earth’s climate have been the focus of cli- CDM executive board issues certified emis- lowest-cost pollution strategy, an emissions mate change policy since the signing of the sion reduction (CER) credits based on the trading program must have active trading in UNFCCC at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in verified difference between the baseline and credits. In the absence of federal regulation Rio. To date, this convention has been rati- the actual emission reductions that can be

158 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 Table 8-1 Traded volumes and values of carbon credits.

EU Emissions Trading Scheme Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) Over-the-counter (OTC) markets Volume Value Volume Value Volume Value Year (MtCO2 eq.) (US$ millions) (MtCO2 eq.) (US$ millions) (MtCO2 eq.) (US$ millions)

2004 — — 2.25 2.6 — — 2005 322 8,220 1.47 2.8 — — 2006 1,101 24,353 10.34 38.2 14.3 58.5 2007 1,600 43,879 22.90 68.7 42.1 258.4

ϭ MtCO2 eq. Million tonnes (metric tons) of carbon dioxide equivalent. Sources: for European Union, Capoor and Ambrosi 2007; for CCX, J. O’Hara, Chicago Climate Exchange, pers. comm., November 9, 2007; for OTC, K. Hamilton et al. 2008. used toward compliance targets (UNFCCC by 2019. Emission reduction targets are lim- to reduce GHG emissions where not other- 2007a). ited to large power plants—those with en- wise required by Kyoto, RGGI, CCAR, or JI is designed to help Annex 1 countries ergy production capacity greater than 25 other regulations. The global voluntary car- meet their mandated Kyoto Protocol GHG megawatts—that burn fossil fuels to gener- bon market includes over-the-counter trans- reduction targets through investments in ate more than half of their electricity. The actions and emissions trading transactions emission reduction projects in another An- RGGI rules allow for the use of emission through the Chicago Climate Exchange (K. nex 1 country. Verified emission reductions reduction credits from offset projects based Hamilton et al. 2007). generate emission reduction unit (ERU) on market prices for those credits. The lower Chicago Climate Exchange. The Chi- credits that can be used toward compliance the price of CO2, the fewer the emission re- cago Climate Exchange (CCX) is the world’s targets. duction credits that can be applied against a first and North America’s only legally bind- The Kyoto Protocol covers only affor- plant’s emission reduction targets. Seques- ing rules-based GHG emission allowance estation and reforestation projects, and for- tration of CO2 from forestry projects is lim- trading system. CCX is also the only global estry CDM projects represent only 1 percent ited to participating in afforestation system for emissions trading of all six green- of the 2006 volume of traded emission re- projects. However, RGGI has contracted house gases. Members make a voluntary but duction credits (Capoor and Ambrosi with the Maine Forest Service to learn how legally binding commitment to meet annual 2007). As of October 2007, of the approxi- other forest carbon offset project types reduction targets of 6 percent below baseline mately 810 registered CDM projects, only might be included. To date, no forest offset emissions by 2010. Members that reduce be- 12 afforestation projects had been approved, projects have been registered with the RGGI low the targets have surplus allowances to and only one had been certified through the program. sell or bank. Those that emit above the an- CDM Executive Board. California Climate Action Registry. In nual targets comply by purchasing emission European Union Emissions Trading 2001, California Senate Bills SB1771 and reduction credit contracts, called carbon fi- Scheme. An event that dramatically increased SB527 created the California Climate Ac- nancial instruments. Table 8-1 provides global carbon dioxide trading volume was tion Registry (CCAR), the nation’s first traded volumes and values on CCX. the emergence of Phase I of the European statewide GHG inventory registry. Like Emission allowances are issued in ac- Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU other registries, CCAR develops rules for the cordance with a member’s emissions base- ETS), which went into effect in January issuance, qualification, quantification, veri- line and the CCX emission reduction sched- 2005. The EU ETS, the largest multina- fication, and registration of emission allow- ule. Integrated commercial forest entities tional, multisector GHG trading scheme in ances and emission reduction credits for that own mills and comply with a sustain- the world, was created to assist the 25 EU forest carbon offset projects. The Global able forest management standard with third- countries in meeting Kyoto Protocol–man- Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) party verification have the option of claim- dated emission reduction targets (European mandates that the state reduce its GHG ing their forest operations as carbon stable or Commission 2005). Forestry activities are emissions to 1990 levels by 2012 across all using an approved forest growth-and-yield not eligible for either CERs or ERUs, how- sectors of the economy and assigns responsi- model to account for the annual net change ever, effectively eliminating all international bility to the California Air Resources Board in forest carbon stocks as a part of an entity- investment in forest carbon offset projects to implement the cap, which will likely re- wide accounting of GHG emission allow- through the CDM or JI mechanisms. Table quire emissions trading. Credits for affores- ances. 8-1 compares traded volumes and values in tation, managed forests, and forest conserva- Nonmembers can also use the CCX the EU ETS and two other carbon markets, tion (avoided deforestation) are allowed, trading platform. The forest carbon offset discussed below. and offset project rules are defined by projects that are eligible to be registered and Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The CCAR’s Forest Sector Protocol (CCAR traded by approved aggregators or offset Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 2007). To date, credits from one forest car- providers on CCX include afforestation, re- (RGGI), a 10-state program in the US bon offset project have been registered and forestation, sustainably managed forests, Northeast for reducing GHG emissions, will sold. and forest conservation (avoided deforesta- be the nation’s first cap-and-trade carbon Voluntary Markets for Forest Car- tion). The CCX forest carbon offset rules program when it goes into effect in 2009. Its bon. Voluntary carbon markets are develop- also allow for the counting of long-lived har- goal is to reduce CO2 emissions 10 percent ing globally to address the increased demand vested wood products in use. Annual verifi-

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 159 cation of net changes in carbon stocks by an • Voluntary Carbon Standard, a global based on these environmental, social, or eco- approved verification body is required be- benchmark standard for project-based vol- nomic benefits. The demand for and the fore emission reduction credits can be regis- untary emission reductions; price of CO2 are driven by the quality char- tered and traded. • Gold Standard, a voluntary standard acteristics of the project’s design and the so- Over-the-counter markets. Society’s height- designed to improve the quality of CDM cial and conservation benefits it produces. ened awareness of global warming has led and JI and voluntary offset projects; Therefore, “a ton is not a ton” on OTC mar- many organizations and individuals to look • Green-e, a voluntary certification pro- kets, as it is with the fungible CO2 commod- for ways to mitigate their own greenhouse gram that sets consumer protection and en- ity traded on CCX. gas emissions. Terms such as “carbon foot- vironmental integrity standards for GHG Those two primary differences are re- print” and “carbon neutral” have entered the reductions sold in the voluntary market; and flected in the current prices paid for OTC vernacular. Many environmentally con- • Harnessing Farms and Forests, a tech- and CCX forest carbon offset credits. In a scious organizations and individuals have nical guide on the implementation of offset recent survey of more than 70 suppliers to sought to mitigate their personal contribu- projects developed by scientists at Duke the voluntary carbon market, K. Hamilton tions by participating in the above registries University, Environmental Defense, and et al. (2007) found that social values, addi- and markets, and also through other volun- elsewhere. tionality, environmental quality, and certifi- tary direct sales, frequently referred to as These standards define rules that can be cation were more influential purchasing cri- over-the-counter (OTC) transactions. OTC adopted by suppliers or prescribed by buyers teria than price, advertising, or convenience. transactions provide a wide range of global to create transparency, primarily in the qual- Because buyers of carbon credits may be in- opportunities. Large organizations can in- ity of clean technology project development. terested in an array of conservation and eco- vest directly in specific mitigation projects However, the standards may not be wholly nomic values provided by forest projects, that meet their environmental, cost, and/or appropriate for sequestration offset projects registries and providers that offer offset cred- GHG mitigation objectives. Individuals can like forestry. Table 8-1 provides traded vol- its of high quality are frequently able to gen- mitigate on a smaller, more retail scale. umes and values on the OTC market. erate higher prices. Suppliers of carbon offset projects CCX and OTC CO2 demand curves and within the OTC have generally been classi- prices. Since the OTC market is voluntary Economic Factors of Forest fied as offset project providers, developers, and not driven by compliance requirements, Carbon Offset Projects aggregators, wholesalers, and offset credit re- demand for OTC offset project VERs and Perhaps the most significant decision tailers (K. Hamilton et al. 2007; Clean Air– the prices paid for CO are not publicly 2 that influences economic factors in the vol- Cool Planet 2006). OTC suppliers are a available. Two primary differences distin- untary carbon market is the choice of market highly fragmented group of for-profit and guish these voluntary forest carbon markets. a forest project owner participates in—CCX not-for-profit conservation and private sec- One is their CO2 demand curves. Off- tor organizations that allow polluters to off- set credits in CCX are registered as a fungi- or OTC. Compared with emissions reduc- set their direct emissions, and retailers can ble commodity—that is, they are not distin- tions from clean technology, forest carbon sell credits to consumers who want to offset guishable from other carbon offset project offset projects have unique characteristics the GHG emissions of their personal activi- credits, such as conservation tillage, alterna- that mean higher transaction costs. Each of ties, such as travel. Suppliers include well- tive energy, or landfill methane projects. On the multiple registries and programs in the known organizations such as the Climate the CCX trading platform, “a ton is a ton.” United States has its own rules for partici- Fund, Conservation Fund, Pacific Forest Because demand is derived from compliance pating—the setting of carbon baselines, the Trust, New Forests, Terrapass, and The Na- with CCX emission reduction commit- eligibility of managed forest versus afforesta- ture Conservancy. Credits issued in OTC ments, the quality of an offset project is de- tion and reforestation, monitoring methods, markets are referred to as voluntary (or ver- termined by the CCX rules, which provide verification rules, the pools of carbon that ified) emission reduction (VER) credits to consistency across the varying forest project can be registered (i.e., above ground, below distinguish them from CER credits issued types. In contrast, within OTC transactions, ground, harvested wood products)—all of under a certified UNFCCC CDM project. offset credits are not a fungible commodity; which can raise transaction costs for organi- Private corporations are the single largest the rules behind them are important pur- zations that manage forestlands in multiple buyers of emission reduction credits in OTC chasing criteria that distinguish offset regions of the nation (Ruddell et al. 2006). markets. projects and enable buyers to discriminate For many forest owners, participation Currently, there are no uniform stan- among them. in new environmental markets will require dards under which voluntary offset projects The other difference is the way the price new investments. Most registries and pro- are developed and sold. The various stan- of CO2 is determined. In the OTC market, grams require an initial investment and on- dards that do exist typically define approved project design and benefits are important going participation costs throughout a baseline methodologies and test for addi- criteria that determine the value of credits project’s life. Common examples of startup tionality, permanence, and leakage (dis- from forest carbon offset projects. For exam- costs include conducting a forest inventory cussed below). Offset projects for the OTC ple, forest projects typically include design to program specifications, securing third- market apply a variety of design elements elements that provide for social and conser- party certification to a recognized sustain- defined by either the supplier or the buyer of vation cobenefits, such as improved water able forest management standard (such as the credits, but this is changing. The lack of quality and promoting biodiversity goals. the Forest Stewardship Council, standards standards for OTC market transactions has For suppliers selling credits into OTC mar- endorsed by the Program for the Endorse- led to several standards development efforts: kets, buyers discriminate among projects ment of Forest Certification, the Sustainable

160 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 Forestry Initiative, and the American Forest tion has been restricted to afforestation. To tainty, and under the current rules, if the Foundations Standards of Sustainability), date, only 12 afforestation projects have BAU baseline cannot be precisely defined, and developing new accounting mecha- been approved under Kyoto, and one has the project cannot be quantified, verified, or nisms to track the annual net change in car- been certified through UNFCCC’s CDM registered. bon stocks. Participation involves registra- executive board. The main reason for the In the base-year approach to establish- tion and trading fees, aggregation or broker paucity of sequestration projects is that they ing a baseline, an inventory is taken at the fees, costs of verification, monitoring and re- present unique accounting issues. Cathcart beginning of the project period, and a sec- measurement costs, annual reporting ex- and Delany (2006) and Ingerson (2007) de- ond inventory is conducted some years later, penses, and possible costs of additional in- scribe and discuss carbon accounting issues using the same inventory design. The net surance policies. in detail; here, we briefly discuss additional- change in carbon stocks (of all allowable car- One influential factor for forest owners ity, baseline setting, permanence, and leak- bon pools within the forest offset project) is the opportunity cost associated with forest age as they apply to forestry. represents the carbon sequestration in the carbon offset projects. Opportunity costs Additionality and Baseline Setting. forest for that period of time. In a sustain- can be difficult to quantify because they dif- Since benefits to the environment are the ably managed forest, this net change in car- fer from one project or program to another. goal of any emission reduction credits pro- bon stocks will include all forest manage- A potentially significant opportunity gram, the net amount of carbon sequestered ment actions, such as harvesting, tree cost that needs to be considered by project must be additional to what would have oc- planting, and fertilizing. It will also reflect owners involves permanence. Many of the curred without the offset project. For forest the effects on carbon stocks of natural events current registries and programs require that projects, additionality can be difficult to like weather, wildfire, and insects and dis- forest projects remain as forests for a certain demonstrate. A carbon baseline must be es- ease. This carbon accounting systems thus length of time to ensure the permanence of tablished against which the net change in accounts for (and verifies) the total net any credits sold. Two mechanisms typically carbon stocks is measured so that emission change (positive or negative) in carbon used to accomplish permanence are deed re- reduction credits can be quantified, verified, stocks associated with both natural events strictions on land use and long-term or per- and registered. Typically, baseline carbon and human management. manent conservation easements. Both can values are determined through standard for- Permanence. When forest carbon increase the opportunity cost of investing in estry biometric methods that include direct credits are used to permanently offset indus- or maintaining ownership of forests for cli- and statistically designed and modeled mea- trial emissions, the forest project must dem- mate change mitigation. surement techniques. onstrate permanence. Ensuring that a forest Two types of baselines used in US reg- project is permanent can be difficult if not This issue is problematic for sustainably istries and programs are the business-as- impossible, however, since some of the car- managed forests because investors, policy- usual (BAU) and base-year approaches. The bon sequestered might be released through makers, and buyers of carbon offset projects BAU scenario is based on the proposition natural events, such as wildfires and hurri- may not fully understand how opportunity that emission reductions that would (or canes, or through management activities, costs apply in forestry. Forest carbon offset might) have happened in any event should such as harvesting. Some registries and pro- projects must absorb the opportunity costs not be allowed to offset industrial emissions. grams require that any released carbon be associated with keeping the forest intact, for- This scenario works well for clean technol- included in the net change calculations so going potential profits from development or ogy but not for land-based sequestration that credits previously issued can be paid conversion to other land uses. In the case of practices, where natural ecosystem dynamics back; no additional credits can then be is- permanent conservation easements, the op- and unpredictable future human actions sued until the net change in carbon stocks is portunity cost of forgoing land development make any projection highly uncertain. again positive. (forever) may be enormous—a reality not Changing forest management objec- The mechanisms typically used to ac- currently reflected in compensation mecha- tives, markets for alternative land uses, tim- complish permanence—deed restrictions on nisms (Ruddell et al. 2006). ber prices, and ecosystem service prices (e.g., land use and long-term or permanent con- Accounting for Forest Offset the price of sequestered carbon) all contrib- servation easements—can provide protec- ute to a high level of inherent uncertainty tion against land-use change but have no Projects when defining a baseline under the BAU sce- force against catastrophic disturbances that The standards discussed above are at- nario. No credible methods currently exist may destroy the forest carbon stocks. If con- tempts to provide consistent rules under to separate the effects of management action servation easements mandate prescriptive which all offset projects can participate on a forest from those of environmental con- forest management practices based on cur- (Ruddell et al. 2007; Sampson et al. 2007). ditions over time. Given the current trend of rent technology or requirements like man- Since a major purchasing criterion for offset converting sustainably managed forestland datory reforestation, they may create future buyers is project quality, standards create and high-value forest ecosystems to other barriers for meeting additionality require- value for buyers and suppliers, as well as fi- uses, such as housing, it is clear that BAU ments. nancial institutions and investors, but the cannot be applied to forestry unless it is re- An alternative approach is to enter into current standards were developed primarily defined. Unlike the baseline emissions of a short-term contracts with project owners to with clean technology projects in mind, not direct emitter of CO2 (a coal-fired power sequester and maintain forest carbon stocks. sequestration projects like forestry. plant, for example), which are precisely mea- These contracts protect the buyer or market Through mandatory markets driven by sured and operationally controlled, forest of carbon credits from loss during the con- the Kyoto Protocol, forest project participa- BAU baselines cannot be defined with cer- tract period. If the forest carbon stocks are

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 161 lost, the buyer or market must be reim- Murray et al. (2004) suggested establishing typically derived from statistical sampling bursed. At the end of the contract, the ulti- leakage (discount) rates that would require a (direct measurement), reference tables, or mate buyer (the polluter) is still liable for leakage factor to be applied at the regional models, however, and therefore the mea- those emissions and must either cover the level for specific activities; all projects within surements will be less accurate than those for obligations by repurchasing forest credits that region should then factor that discount clean technology projects, whose emissions that are still valid or find other sources of into their calculations. However, the deci- are measured with a high level of precision, offsets. sion to adopt this or any other methodology using meters. Most forest project propo- Leakage. Leakage is the indirect or sec- will be a political decision, since the validity nents have encouraged project developers to ondary effect that a project might have out- of leakage discounts will be based on the as- make carbon stock measurements, calcula- side the boundaries of the project itself. sumptions made in the analyses for a specific tions, and projections intentionally conser- Large projects, for example, may shift activ- forestry activity. vative by using discounting methods. Be- ities in unintended ways, as when an affor- Although most leakage discussions con- cause significant discounting can be a estation project in one location displaces an sider how a project might cause other own- disincentive for offset project development, afforestation project in another area. Or a ers to increase emissions or reduce sequestra- particularly at low CO2 prices, the main project may alter the supply and demand tion, some efforts seek to prevent the challenge is establishing a policy that bal- forces of forest product markets and conse- internal leakage that could occur if an owner ances discounts and other related transac- quently the total area of forestland. Several counted carbon on rapidly growing areas tion costs with statistical precision and mea- kinds of leakage are possible. while not inventorying areas that were in de- surement accuracy. One idea is to discount • Internal leakage: when the project cline for any reason. Registries and programs the growth portion of forest credits to pro- causes activities to shift within a forest oper- tend to cover this through two approaches. vide conservative estimates for CO and ation. For example, the carbon sequestration The first is to require forest-wide reporting, 2 thereby strengthen the additionality and created in one portion of the ownership such that all forestlands in the ownership are permanence of a project. Insurance instru- prompts the owner to carry out carbon- included in any reporting. The second is to ments or reserve pools can also be effectively emitting activities elsewhere. require that the project demonstrate that it is used to accomplish similar results. • External leakage: when one forest certified as meeting the requirements of an Policymakers’ Task. The Kyoto Pro- owner’s action causes other owners to internationally recognized sustainable forest tocol and subsequent Conference of the Par- change their behavior. For example, where management standard. Certification of for- the rules for developing forest carbon est carbon offset project lands provides three ties meetings have identified forest project projects require sustainable forest manage- distinctive advantages: 1) buyers are assured accounting issues that are handled differ- ment certification, one forest owner’s ac- that the quality of the carbon credits is high; ently by the US registries and programs and tions may increase the area of certified for- 2) in well-functioning forest product mar- thus affect eligibility and transaction costs estry in the region. Or a forest project that kets, where sustainable forest management is for potential participants. The current defi- halts land clearing for agriculture in one practiced across the entire forest ownership, nitions for forest carbon accounting princi- place causes farmers needing land to move leakage will not be an issue; and 3) certifica- ples were developed several years before for- and clear another forest. Or project rules re- tion standards may provide the foundation est carbon offsets were recognized by quire a large forest owner not to harvest, re- for carbon accounting systems. UNFCCC as a way for direct emitters of ducing supplies of lumber and prompting Current accounting systems may not CO2 to meet emission reduction targets. As producers elsewhere to respond by harvest- adequately cover all aspects of leakage at the a result, these definitions do not fully reflect ing more timber. project level and for product use. Many the important role of sustainably managed Whether positive or negative, leakage greenhouse gas mitigation programs have forests as carbon sinks for climate change can be very difficult if not impossible to yet to fully acknowledge leakage across all mitigation. The forestry community needs measure for forest offset projects. Past efforts forest carbon pools. to rethink the accounting principles. The to quantify leakage have been generally the- Equivalence. Since forest carbon offset goal should be to ensure that offset rules are oretical and remain hard to apply to a spe- projects compete against clean technology appropriate for all offset project types, in- cific situation. There are currently very few projects in voluntary markets, forestry cred- cluding managed forests, and promote addi- empirical data that reliably establish leakage its must be equivalent as climate mitigation tional and long-term forest carbon seques- for all forest carbon offset project types. measures. Forest carbon stock changes are tration benefits.

162 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 conclusion

Opportunities and Challenges for Society, Landowners, and Foresters

even conclusions are apparent from time to resolve the broader question of re- Market Considerations the analyses presented in this report: ducing the nation’s dependence on im- Private forest owners and managers S ported fossil fuels. must monitor the developing forest carbon Opportunities, incentives, and recom- sequestration markets and become familiar 1. The world’s forests are critically impor- mendations for including carbon storage as with the concepts of carbon pools, carbon tant in carbon cycling and balancing the part of the forestry solution vary markedly baselines, additionality, permanence, and atmosphere’s carbon dioxide and oxygen depending on ownership and market and leakage. As the markets for forestry offsets stocks. nonmarket considerations. It is essential that develop, the standards associated with these 2. Forests can be net sinks or net sources of natural resource professionals provide lead- concepts will become better established. carbon, depending on age, health, and ership in recognizing these opportunities Specific forest tracts within specific owner- occurrence of wildfires and how they are and in encouraging the development of in- ships and operating with set objectives will managed. centives that enhance forest conservation have varying degrees of opportunity to mar- 3. Forest management and use of wood and management. ket carbon offsets, based on how these stan- products add substantially to the capacity dards develop. For example, a forest man- of forests to mitigate the effects of climate Ownership Considerations aged on a sawtimber rotation primarily to change. US forests are owned by a diverse array produce wood building products might have 4. Greenhouse gas emissions can be re- of federal, state, industrial, nonindustrial little opportunity to market carbon credits duced through the substitution of bio- corporate, nonindustrial family, and tribal unless wood-frame structures are accepted as mass for fossil fuels to produce heat, elec- entities. The forests themselves differ mark- a pool for carbon storage. tricity, and transportation fuels. edly in species, composition, stocking, and It is impossible to accurately predict 5. Avoiding forest conversion prevents the productivity. Each ownership manages its how a future carbon market will develop and release of GHG emissions, and adding to forests, either intensively or extensively, un- how that market will affect forest owners. At the forestland base through afforestation recent traded values of CO equivalents, in- der different policies and regulations, and 2 and urban forests sequesters carbon. come from carbon offset projects would not each has different goals, objectives, and in- 6. Existing knowledge of forest ecology and be high enough to preempt forest manage- centives that determine how the land is sustainable forest management is ade- ment practices employed to produce tradi- managed. Specific opportunities to incorpo- quate to enable forest landowners to en- tional forest products. However, this poten- rate carbon storage as part of management hance carbon sequestration if there are tial income would likely provide incentive to will be highly dependent upon the particular incentives to do so and if carbon and car- alter management practices to produce some bon management have value that exceeds forest and forest owner. Overarching poli- level of traditional value combined with in- costs. cies, programs, and incentives to enhance creased carbon sequestration. Market com- 7. How global voluntary and mandatory carbon sequestration must recognize this di- pensation for all ecological services, includ- markets develop will play a significant verse ownership pattern and encourage part- ing GHG reductions, may help balance role in establishing the price of carbon nerships and collaboration. This will require landowner income streams, thereby reduc- dioxide and thus creating the incentives substantial effort in technology transfer, ed- ing the pressure to convert forests to other to ensure that forests play a significant ucation, and information outreach. uses. role in climate change mitigation. Private forest owners and public land Emerging biopower and biofuels mar- managers should investigate developing op- kets will likely enhance values for small-di- Given those facts, society’s current re- portunities for incorporating carbon storage ameter materials and increase competition luctance to embrace forest conservation and and addressing the challenges of climate for traditional forest products. Although this management as part of the climate change change into management objectives for their increased revenue should benefit forest land- solution seems surprising. Time is of the es- respective forest ownership type, whether owners, the traditional forest products in- sence. Forest management can mitigate cli- the opportunities are market or nonmarket dustry may lose suppliers or see lower profit mate change effects and, in so doing, buy based. margins because of the new markets. Like-

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 163 wise, carbon trading and emission reduction forest may change. Possibilities for carbon tribute to mitigation of the adverse effects of credits associated with biomass power pro- management must also include consider- global climate change. duction could also benefit industries and ation of spatial and temporal issues— There is now agreement among many forest owners investing in the new bioenergy whether one is managing stands, forests, or that the world is facing global climate industry. landscapes, and what time frames are in- change. It is beyond argument that forests volved. Justification for increased carbon play a decisive role in stabilizing the Nonmarket Considerations storage will be influenced by such factors as Earth’s climate and that prudent manage- Management of forests is complex. It carbon prices, policy incentives, and regula- ment will enhance that role. For example, includes consideration of diverse compo- tions. the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate nents—soil, vegetation, wildlife habitat, wa- Change (Nabuurs et al. 2007, 543), the ter, recreation, aesthetics—as well as diverse The Profession preeminent international body charged products and values. Management involves The profession of forestry is a broad with periodically assessing technical determining what balance of revenues and field covering biological, physical, quantita- knowledge or climate change, has stated, outputs is desired and what costs and inputs tive, managerial, and social components. “Forestry can make a very significant con- are needed to sustain those outputs. Non- The values, needs, and uses of forests are tribution to a low-cost mitigation portfo- market forest resources, such as species di- similarly broad. Carbon storage is a new lio that provides synergies with adaptation versity, clean water, enhanced fish and wild- “ecosystem service” that is being added to and sustainable development. However life habitat, fire-resilient ecosystems, and the management opportunities that tradi- this opportunity is being lost in the cur- scenic values, are also likely to be affected by tionally included wood, water, wildlife, and rent institutional context and lack of po- carbon management strategies. Typically, recreation. Forest managers are already be- litical will and has resulted in only a small efforts to increase the output of one forest ginning to consider carbon sequestration product or value will likely decrease the out- and storage and the fate of carbon following portion of this potential being realized at puts of others. disturbance and management treatments. In present (high agreement, much evi- Carbon sequestration and storage are addition, foresters must consider the threats dence).” likely enhanced by increasing the rate of leaf that climate change poses for forests and de- The challenge is clear, the situation is area production and maintaining canopy velop strategies to mitigate potential in- urgent, and opportunities for the future are cover. This could be accompanied by, for creases in pests, drought, severe weather great. History has repeatedly demonstrated example, a decrease in wildlife diversity or events, and wildfires. that the health and welfare of human society water yields. Commercial timber produc- America’s foresters must become in- are fundamentally dependent on the health tion is commonly driven by value growth formed and actively consider opportunities and welfare of a nation’s forests. Society at rate rather than volume growth rate, and and effects associated with climate change so large, the US Congress, state legislators, and thus stocking levels for timber production that forests and forest management can con- policy analysts at international, federal, and may be lower than if the goal were to maxi- tinue to both serve and enhance the welfare state levels must not only appreciate this fact mize biomass production. Conversely, op- of society. The profession must be proactive but also recognize that the sustainable man- portunities for pulpwood production and in communicating to society the importance agement of forests can, to a substantial de- biomass energy will encourage higher stock- of growing and managing the nation’s for- gree, mitigate the dire effects of atmospheric ing levels. If wood products are accepted as ests both for the sustainable supply of diverse pollution and global climate change. The carbon pools, the mix of products from the values and uses and for their capacity to con- time to act is now.

164 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 Literature Cited

AINSWORTH, E.A., AND S.P. LONG. 2005. What State and Private Forestry Technology Mar- forest land-use perspectives. Energy Policy 28:

have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 keting Unit, Madison, WI. 575–588. enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review BETTS, R. 2000. Offset of the potential carbon BRADFORD, M.A., P. INESON, P.A. WOOKEY, AND

of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy sink from boreal forestation by decreases in H.M. LAPPIN-SCOTT. 2001. Role of CH4 oxi- properties and plan production to rising CO2. surface albedo. Nature 408(6809):187–190. dation, production and transport in forest soil

New Phytologist 165:351–372. BETTS, R. 2001. Biogeophysical impacts of land CH4 flux. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33(12– ALIG, R.J., AND A. PLANTINGA. 2004. Future for- use on present-day climate: near-surface tem- 13):1625–1631. estland impacts from population growth and perature change and radiative forcing. Atmo- BRESHEARS, D.B., N.S. COBB, P.M. RICH, K.P. other factors that affect land values. Journal of spheric Science Letters 1(4):39–51. PRICE, C.D. ALLEN, R.G. BALICE, W.H. Forestry 102(8):19–24. BEZEMER, T.M., AND T.H. JONES. 1998. Plant- ROMME, J.H. KASTENS, M.L. FLOYD,J.BEL- ALIG, R.J., D. ADAMS,L.JOYCE, AND B. SOHN- insect herbivore interactions in elevated atmo- NAP, J.J. ANDERSON, O.B. MYERS, AND C.W. GEN. 2004. Climate change impacts and adap- spheric CO2: Quantitative analyses and guild MEYER. 2005. Regional vegetation die-off in tation in forestry: Responses by trees and mar- effects. Oikos 82(2):212–222. response to global-change type drought. Pro- kets. Choices 19(3):1–7. BIRDSEY, R.A., AND G.M. LEWIS. 2002. Carbon in ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ALIG, R.J., A. PLANTINGA,S.AHN, AND J. KLINE. United States forests and wood products, 1987– of the United States 102:15144–15148. Avail- 2003. Land use change involving forestry in the 1997: State-by-state estimates. Presented at the able online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/ U.S.: 1952–1997 with projections to 2050. 5th State and Local Climate Change Partners’ 102/42/15144?maxtoshowϭ&HITSϭ10& PNW-GTR-587. USDA Forest Service. Conference, Annapolis, MD. November 22, hitsϭ10&RESULTFORMATϭ&fulltextϭ ALVAREZ,M.(ED.). 2007. The state of America’s 2002. Available online at www.fs.fed.us/ne/ breshears&searchidϭ1&FIRSTINDEXϭ0& forests. Society of American Foresters, Be- global/pubs/books/epa/index.html; accessed resourcetypeϭHWCIT; accessed February 6, thesda, MD. November 19, 2007. 2008. AYERS, M.P., AND M.J. LOMBARDERO. 2000. As- BIRDSEY, R.A., AND G.M. LEWIS. 2003. Current BRINKER, R.W., J. KINARD,B.RUMMER, AND B. sessing the consequences of global change for and historical trends in use, management, and LANFORD. 2002. Machine rates for selected forest forest disturbance from herbivores and patho- disturbance of U.S. forestlands. P. 15–34 in harvesting machines. Circular 296 (revised). gens. The Science of the Total Environment 262: The potential of U.S. forest soils to sequester car- Auburn University, Auburn, AL. 263–286. bon and mitigate the greenhouse effect, Kimble, BUCHANAN, A., AND S.B. LEVINE.1999. Wood- BAIN, R.L., AND R.P. OVEREND. 2002. Biomass J.M., L.S. Heath, R.A. Birdsey and R. Lal based building materials and atmospheric car- for heat and power. Forest Products Journal (eds.). CRC Press, Baton Rouge, FL. bon emissions. Environmental Science and Pol- 52(2):12–19. BIRDSEY, R.A., R. ALIG, AND D. ADAMS. 2000. icy 2:427–437. BARNETT, T.P., J.C. ADAM, AND D.P. LETTEN- Mitigation activities in the forest sector to re- BURNS, C.E., K.M. JOHNSTON, AND O.J. MAIER. 2005. Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-domi- duce emissions and enhance sinks of green- SCHMITZ. 2003. Global climate change and nated regions. Nature 438:303–309. house gases. In The impact of climate change on mammalian species diversity in U.S. National America’s forests, Joyce, L.A., and R. Birdsey Parks. Proceedings of the National Academy BAST, J., AND J.M. TAYLOR. 2007. Scientific con- sensus on global warming: Results of an interna- (eds.). RMRS GTR-59. USDA Forest Service, of Sciences of the United States of America tional survey of climate scientists. 2nd ed. (re- Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Col- 100(20):11474–11477. vised). The Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL. lins, CO. BUTLER, B.J., AND E.C. LEATHERBERRY. 2004. IRDSEY REGITZER AND UCIER BAUMERT, K.A., T. HERZOG, AND J. PERSHING. B , R.A., K. P , A. L . America’s family forest owners. Journal of For- 2005. Navigating the numbers: Greenhouse gas 2006. Forest carbon management in the estry 102(7):4–14. data and international climate policy. World United States 1600–2100. The Journal of En- CALFAPIETRA, C., B. GIELEN, A.N.J. GALEMMA, Resources Institute, Washington, DC. vironmental Quality 35:1461–1469. M. LUKAC, P.D. ANGELIS, M.C. MOSCATELLI, BC MINISTRY OF FORESTS AND RANGE. 2007. BJØRKE, S.Å., AND M. SEKI (EDS.). 2005. Vital R. CEULEMANS, AND G. SCARASCIA-MUG- Mountain pine beetle, frequently asked questions. climate change graphics. United Nations Envi- NOZZA. 2003. Free-air CO2 enrichment Available online at www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/ ronmental Programme. (FACE) enhances biomass production in a mountain_pine_beetle/faq.htm; accessed No- BOLSTAD, P.V., AND J.M. VOSE. 2005. Forest and short-rotation poplar plantation. Tree Physiol- vember 19, 2007. pasture forest pools and soil respiration in the ogy 23:805–814. BERGERON, Y., M. FLANNIGAN,S.GAUTHIER,A. Southern Appalachian Mountains. Forest Sci- CALIFORNIA BIOMASS COLLABORATIVE. 2005. Bio- LEDUC, AND P. LEFORT. 2004. Past, current, ence 51(4):372–383. mass in California: Challenges, opportunities, and future fire frequency in the Canadian bo- BONNICKSEN, T.M. 2008. Greenhouse gas emis- and potentials for sustainable management and real forest: Implications for sustainable forest sions from four California wildfires: Opportu- development. CEC #500–01-016. management. Ambio 33(6):356–360. nities to prevent and reverse environmental CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY (CCAR). BERGMAN, R.D. 2004. Biomass for heat and power. and climate impacts. FCEM Report 2. The 2007. Forest Sector Protocol. Version 2.1. Avail- WOE-2. USDA Forest Service, Forest Prod- Forest Foundation, Auburn, CA. able online at www.climateregistry.org/docs/ ucts Laboratory, Madison, WI. BORJESSON, P., AND L. GUSTAVSSON. 1999. PROTOCOLS/Forestry/Forest_Sector_Protocol_ BERGMAN, R.D., AND J. ZERBE. 2004. Primer on Greenhouse gas balances in building construc- Version_2.1_Sept2007.pdf; accessed October 12, wood biomass for energy. USDA Forest Service, tion: Wood vs. concrete from life-cycle and 2007.

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 165 CANNELL, M.G.R., J.H.M. THORNLEY, D.C. CLUTTER, M., B. MENDELL,D.NEWMAN,D. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, MOBBS, AND A.D. FRIEND. 1998. UK conifer WEAR, AND J. GREIS. 2005. Strategic factors and C.E. Hanson (eds.). Cambridge Univer- forests may be growing faster in response to driving timberland ownership changes in the sity Press, Cambridge, UK.

increased N deposition, atmospheric CO2 and South. USDA Forest Service, Southern Re- EATOUGH-JONES, M., T.D. PAINE, M.E. FENN, temperature. Forestry 71(4):277–296. search Station, Research Triangle Park, NC. AND M.A. POTH. 2004. Influence of ozone and CAPOOR, K., AND P. AMBROSI. 2007. State and COLLEGE OF FOREST RESOURCES (CFR). 2007. nitrogen deposition on bark beetle activity un- trends of the carbon market 2006. World Bank, Study 1: Timber supply and forest structure in the der drought conditions. Forest Ecology and Washington, DC. 45 p. future of Washington’s forests and forestry indus- Management 200:67–76. CARROL, A., S. TAYLOR,J.REGINIERE, AND L. SA- tries. Final report by the College of Forest Re- ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (EIA). FRANYIK. 2004. Effects of climate change on sources, University of Washington, Seattle. 2006. Renewable energy consumption and range expansion by the mountain pine beetle CUBBAGE, F., D. GREENE, AND J. LYON. 1989. electricity preliminary statistics. Available on- in British Colombia. In Mountain pine beetle Tree size and species, stand volume and tract line at www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renew- symposium: Challenges and solutions, October size: Effects on southern harvesting costs. ables/page/prelim_trends/rea_prereport.html; 30–31, 2003, Kelwona, BC, Shore, T., J. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 13(3):145– accessed October 14, 2007. Brooks and J. Stone (eds.). Information Re- 152. ENGLISH, B.C., D.G. DE LA TORRE UGARTE,K. port BC-X-399. BC Natural Resources Can- CUSHING, T., S. BULLARD,J.GREENE, AND T. JENSEN,C.HELLWINCKEL,J.MENARD,B.WI- ada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry BEAUVIAS. 1998. The effects of the federal es- SON,R.ROBERTS, AND M. WALSH. 2006. 25% Centre. tate tax on nonindustrial private landowners. renewable energy for the United States by 2025: CASOLA, J.H., J.E. KAY, A.K. SNOVER, R.A. NOR- Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters Agricultural and economic impacts. University HEIM, AND L.C.W. BINDER. 2006. Climate im- 1998 National Convention, Traverse City, of Tennessee, Knoxville. pacts on Washington’s hydropower, water supply, Michigan, September 19–23, 1998. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2005. EU action against forests, fish and agriculture. Center for Science DALE, V.H., L.A. JOYCE,S.MCNULTY, R.P. climate change: EU emissions trading—An open in the Earth System Joint Institute for the NEILSON, M.P. AYRES, M.D. FLANNIGAN, P.J. scheme promoting innovations. Brussels, Bel- Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, Univer- HANSON, L.C. IRLAND, A.E. LUGO, C.J. gium. sity of Washington. PETERSON,D.SIMBERLOFF, F.J. SWANSON, B.J. FIELD, C.B., L.D. MORTSCH,M.BRKLACICH, CASPERSEN, J.P., S.W. PACALA, J.C. JENKINS, STOCKS, AND M. WOTTON. 2001. Climate D.L. FORBES,P.KOVACS, J.A. PATZ, S.W. G.C. HURTT, AND P.R. MOORCRAFT. 2000. change and forest disturbances. BioScience RUNNING, AND M.J. SCOTT. 2007. North Contributions of land-use history to carbon 51(9):723–734. America. In Climate change 2007: Impacts, ad- accumulation in U.S. forests. Science 290 DALY, C., J.W. SMITH, J.I. SMITH, AND R.B. MC- aptation and vulnerability. Contribution (5494):1148–1151. KANE. 2007. High-resolution spatial scale of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment CATHCART, J., AND M. DELANY. 2006. Carbon modeling of daily weather elements for a Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli- accounting: Determining carbon offsets from catchment in the Oregon Cascade mountains, mate Change, Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. projects. P. 157–174 in Forests, carbon and cli- United States. Journal of Applied Meteorology Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Han- mate change: A synthesis of science findings. Or- and Climatology 47:1565–1586. son (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cam- egon Forest Resources Institute, Portland, DANIELS, T. 1991. The purchase of development bridge, UK. OR. rights: Preserving agricultural land and open FINNEY, M.A. 2000. Design of regular landscape CATHCART, J., J.D. KLINE,M.DELANEY, AND M. space. Journal of the American Planning Associ- fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire TILTON. 2007. Carbon storage and Oregon’s ation 57(4):421–431. growth and behavior. Forest Science Journal land-use planning program. Journal of Forestry DANIELS, T., AND M. LAPPING. 2005. Land pres- 47(2):219–228. 105(5):167–172. ervation: An essential ingredient in smart FLANNIGAN, M.D., Y. BERGERON,O.EN- CAYAN, D., A.L. LUERS,M.HANEMANN,G. growth. Journal of Planning Literature 19(3): GELMARK, AND B.M. WOTTON. 1998. Future FRANCO, AND B. CROES. 2005. Possible scenar- 316–329. wildfire in circumboreal forests in relation to ios of climate change in California and recom- DARLEY, E.E. 1979. Emission factors from hydro- global warming. Journal of Vegetation Science mendations. CEC-500-2005-186-SD. Califor- carbon characterization of agricultural waste 9(4):469–476. nia Climate Change Center. burning. CAL/ARB Project A7–068-30. Uni- FLEMING, R.A., J.N. CANDAU, AND R.S. MCAL- CESS, R.D., G.L. POTTER, S.J. GHAN, AND W.L. versity of California, Riverside. PINE. 2002. Landscape-scale analysis of inter- GATES. 1985. The climatic effects of large in- DEWALLE, D.R., A.R. BUDA, AND A. FISHER. actions between insect defoliation and forest jections of atmospheric smoke and dust: A 2003. Extreme weather and forest manage- fire in central Canada. Climatic Change study of climate feedback mechanisms with ment in the mid-Atlantic region of the United 55:251–272. one- and three-dimensional climate models. States. National Journal of Applied Forestry FRANZLUEBBERS, A.J. 2005. Soil organic carbon Journal of Geophysical Research 90:12937– 20(2):61–70. sequestration and agricultural greenhouse gas 12950. DIXON, R.K., AND O.N. KRANKINA. 1993. Forest emissions in the southeastern USA. Soil and CHAMBERS, J.Q., J.I. FISHER,H.ZENG, E.L. fires in Russia: Carbon dioxide emissions to Tillage Research 83:120–147. CHAPMAN, D.B. BAKER, AND G.C. HURTT. the atmosphere. Canadian Journal of Forest Re- GAN, J. 2004. Risk and damage of pine beetle 2007. Hurricane Katrina’s carbon footprint on search 23:700–705. outbreaks under global climate change. Forest U.S. Gulf Coast forests. Science 16:1107. DIXON, R.K., A.M. SOLOMON,S.BROWN, R.A. Ecology and Management 191:61–71. CLARK, J.S. 1998. Why trees migrate so fast: Con- HOUGHTON, M.C. TREXIER, AND J. GAYER, P.D., H.L. HANEY JR., AND C.A. HICK- fronting theory with dispersal biology and the WISNIEWSKI. 1994. Carbon pools and flux of MAN. 1987. Effect of current-use valuation on paleorecord. The American Naturalist 152(2): global forest ecosystems. Science 263(5144): forestry investment returns in selected Virginia 204–224. 185–190. counties. Res. Note SO-332. USDA Forest Ser- CLEAN AIR–COOL PLANET. 2006. A consumer’s EASTERLING, W.E., P.K. AGGARWAL,P.BATIMA, vice, Southern Forest Experiment Station, guide to retail carbon offset providers. Available K.M. BRANDER,L.ERDA, S.M. HOWDEN,A. New Orleans. online at www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/Con- KIRILENKO,J.MORTON, J.-F. SOUSSANA,J. GERRARD, M. 2007. Global climate change and sumersGuidetoCarbonOffsets.pdf; accessed SCHMIDHUBER, AND F.N. TUBIELLO. 2007. U.S. law. American Bar Association, Washing- October 12, 2007. Food, fibre and forest products. In Climate ton, DC. CLIMATE LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE. 2007. Economic change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnera- GLOBAL FIRE MONITORING CENTER (GFMC). impacts of climate change on forest resources in bility. Contribution of Working Group II to the 2003. Russian Federation Fire 2002 Special, Oregon. Institute for a Sustainable Environ- Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmen- the wildland fire season 2002 in the Russian ment, University of Oregon. tal Panel on Climate Change, Parry, M.L., O.F. Federation—An assessment by the Global Fire

166 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 Monitoring Center. International Fire News coterminous United States. Water, Air, and Assessment, Houghton, J.T. (ed.). Cambridge 28 (January–June 2003). Available online at Soil Pollution 70:279–293. University Press, New York. www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/country/rus/ HEATH, L.S., AND J.E. SMITH. 2000. Soil carbon INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE IFFN%20Russia%202002%20Fire%20 accounting and assumptions for forestry and CHANGE (IPCC). 2006. Guidelines for na- Report.pdf; accessed October 16, 2007. forestry-related land use change. In The impact tional greenhouse gas inventories, Chapter 12, GOLDAMMER, J.G. (ED.). 1990. Fire in the tropical of climate change on America’s forests, Joyce, Harvested wood products. Available online at biota: Ecosystem processes and global challenges. L.A., and R.A. Birdsey (eds.). RMRS GTR-59. www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ Ecological Studies 84, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Re- index.htm; accessed November 13, 2007. GORTE, R.W. 2007. Carbon sequestration in for- search Station, Fort Collins, CO. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE ests. CRS Report for Congress RL31432. Con- HEATH, L.S., R.A. BIRDSEY,C.ROW, AND A.J. CHANGE (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007: gressional Research Service. PLANTINGA. 1996. Carbon pools and flux in The physical science basis. Contribution of Work- GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO). U.S. forest products. In Forest ecosystems, forest ing Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of 2007. Climate change: Agencies should develop management, and the global carbon cycle, Apps, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate guidance for addressing the effects and federal M.J., and D.T. Price (eds.). NATO ASI Series Change, Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, land and water resources. GAO-07-863. Wash- I: Global Environmental Changes, Volume Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. ington, DC. 40, Springer-Verlag. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge HALPIN, P.N. 1997. Global climate change and HEATH, L.S., J.M. KIMBLE, R.A. BIRDSEY, AND R. University Press, Cambridge, UK. natural-area protection: Management re- LAL. 2003. The potential of U.S. forest soils to INTERNATIONAL EMISSIONS TRADING ASSOCIA- sponses and research directions. Ecological Ap- sequester carbon. In The potential of U.S. forest TION (IETA). 2007. IETA’s guidance note plications 7(3):828–843. soils to sequester carbon and mitigate the green- through the CDM project approval process, v. HAMILTON, J.G., E.H. DELUCIA,K.GEORGE, house effect, Kimble, J.M., L.S. Heath, R.A. 3.0. Available online at www.ieta.org/ieta/ S.L. NAIDU, A.C. FINZI, AND W.H. Birdsey, and R. Lal (eds.). CRC Press, Baton www/pages/getfile.php?docIDϭ2370; ac- SCHLESINGER. 2002. Forest carbon balance un- Rouge, FL. cessed October 15, 2007. der elevated CO2. Oecologia 131:250–260. HEATH, L.S., J.A. SMITH, AND R.A. BIRDSEY. HAMILTON, K., R. BAYON,G.TURNER, AND D. 2003. Carbon trends in U.S. forestlands: A IRLAND, L.C., D. ADAMS,R.ALIG, C.J. BETZ, HIGGINS. 2007. State of the voluntary carbon context for the role of forest soils in forest car- C.-C. CHEN,M.HUTCHINS, B.A. MCCARL,K. market 2007—Picking up steam. Ecosystem bon sequestration. In The potential of U.S. for- SKOG, AND B.L. SOHNGEN. 2001. Assessing so- Marketplace, Washington, DC. est soils to sequester carbon and mitigate the cioeconomic impacts of climate change on HAMILTON, K., M. SJARDIN,T.MARCELLO, AND greenhouse effect, Kimble, J.M., L.S. Heath, U.S. forests, wood-product markets, and forest G. XU. 2008. Forging a frontier: State of the R.A. Birdsey, and R. Lal (eds.), CRC Press, recreation. BioScience 51(9):753–764. voluntary carbon market 2008. Ecosystem Mar- Baton Rouge, FL. IVERSON, L.R., AND A.M. PRASAD. 2002. Poten- ketplace and New Carbon Finance, Washing- HELMS, J.A. 1965. Diurnal and seasonal patterns tial redistribution of tree species habitat under ton, DC. of net assimilation in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga five climate change scenarios in the eastern HAMMERSCHLAG, R. 2006. Ethanol’s energy re- menziesii) as influenced by environment. Ecol- U.S. Forest Ecology and Management 155:205– turn on investment: A survey of the literature ogy 46(5):698–708. 222. 1990–present. Environmental Science and HELMS, J.A. 1996. Management strategies for se- JOYCE, L.A., J.R. MILLS, L.S. HEATH, A.D. Technology 40(6):1744–1750. questering and storing carbon in natural, man- MCGUIRE, R.W. HAYNES, AND R.A. BIRDSEY. HANDA, I.T., C. KORNER, AND S. HATTEN- aged, and highly disturbed coniferous ecosys- 1995. Forest sector impacts from changes in SCHWILER. 2005. A test of the treeline carbon tems. Proceedings of Conference on Forests forest productivity under climate change. Jour- limitation hypothesis by in situ CO2 enrich- and Global Change, Washington, DC, June nal of Biogeography 22(4/5):703–713. ment and defoliation. Ecology 86(5):1288– 11–12. In Forests and global change. Vol. 2. For- KAUFMAN, Y.J., I. KOREN, L.A. REMER,D. 1300. est management opportunities for mitigating car- ROSENFELD, AND Y. RUDICH. 2005. The effect HANLEY, N., J.F. SHOGREN, AND B. WHITE. 1997. bon emissions, Sampson, R.N., and D. Hair of smoke, dust, and pollution aerosol on shal- Environmental economics in theory and practice. (eds.). American Forests, Washington, DC. low cloud development over the Atlantic Oxford University Press, New York. HOBBS, R.J., S. ARICO,J.ARONSON, J.S. BARON, Ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of HARMON. M.E. 2006. Atmospheric Carbon Di- P. BRIDGEWATER, A.A. CRAMER, P.R. EPSTEIN, Sciences of the United States of America 102(32): oxide. In Forests, carbon and climate change: A J.J. EWEL, C.A. KLINK, A.E. LUGO,D.NOR- 11207–11212. synthesis of science findings. Oregon Resources TON,D.OJIMA, D.M. RICHARDSON, E.W. KAUFMANN, M.R., A. SHLISKY, AND P. MARCH- Institute, Portland, OR. SANDERSON,R.VALLADARES,M.VILA,R. AND. 2005. Good fire, bad fire: How to think HARMON, M.E., W.K. FERRELL, AND J.F. FRANK- ZAMORA, AND M. ZOBEL. 2006. Novel ecosys- about forest land management and ecological LIN. 1990. Effects on carbon storage of conver- tems: Theoretical and management aspects of processes. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Moun- sion of old-growth forests to young forests. Sci- the new ecological world order. Global Ecology tain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. ence 247(4943): 699–702. and Biogeography 15(1):1–7. KIMBLE, J.M., R.A. BIRDSEY,R.LAL, AND L.S. HASSE, S. 2007. Wood to energy. Presentation to HOLLAND, E.A., S. BROWN, C.S. POTTER, S.A. HEATH. 2003. Introduction and general de- Southwest Sustainable Forest Partnership KLOOSTER,S.FAN,M.GLOOR,J.MAHLMAN,S. scription of U.S. forests. In The potential of Small Wood Entrepreneurial Conference, Ru- PACALA,J.SARMIENTO,T.TAKAHASHI, AND P. U.S. forest soils to sequester carbon and mitigate idoso, NM, November. TANS. 1999. North American carbon sink. Sci- HAYNES, R.W. 2003. An analysis of the timber sit- ence 283(5409):1815a. the greenhouse effect, Kimble, J.M., L.S. Heath, uation in the United States: 1952 to 2050. HOOVER, C., AND S. STOUT. 2007. The carbon R.A. Birdsey, and R. Lal (eds.). CRC Press, PNW-GTR-560. USDA Forest Service, Pa- consequences of thinning techniques: Stand Baton Rouge, FL. cific Northwest Research Station, Portland, structure makes a difference. Journal of Forestry KING, A.W., L. DILLING, G.P. ZIMMERMAN, OR. 105(5):266–270. D.M. FAIRMAN, R.A. HOUGHTON,G.MAR- HAYNES, R.W., D.M. ADAMS, R.J. ALIG, INGERSON, A. 2007. U.S. forest carbon and climate LAND, A.Z. ROSE, AND T.J. WILBANKS (EDS.). P.J. INCE, J.R. MILLS, AND X. ZHOU. 2007. The change: Controversies and win-win policy ap- 2007. North American carbon budget and im- 2005 RPA timber assessment update. PNW- proaches. Wilderness Society, Washington, plications for the global carbon budget. US Cli- GTR-699. USDA Forest Service, Pacific DC. mate Change Science Program. Synthesis and Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE Assessment Product 2.2. National Oceanic HEATH, L.S., AND R.A. BIRDSEY. 1993. Carbon CHANGE (IPCC). 1992. Climate change 1992: and Atmospheric Administration, National trends of productive temperate forests of the The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC.

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 167 KIRSCHBAUM, M.U.F. 2000. Forest growth and tential of biomass-based products to displace ZHANG. 2007. Ch. 9. Forestry. In Climate species distribution in a changing climate. Tree fossil fuels. Journal of Industrial Ecology 7(3– change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Physiology 20:309–322. 4):17–32. Working Group lll to the Fourth Assessment Re- KORNER, C., R. ASSHOFF,O.BIGNUCOLO,S. MALHI, Y., AND J. GRACE. 2000. Tropical forests port of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate HATTENSCHWILER, S.G. KEEL,S.PELAEZ- and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Trends in Change, Metz, B., O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, RIEDL,S.PEPIN, R.T.W. SIEGWOLF, AND G. Ecology and Evolution 15(8):332–337. R. Dave and L.A. Meyer (eds.). Cambridge ZOTZ. 2005. Carbon flux and growth in ma- MARLAND, G., AND B. SCHLAMADINGER. 1999. University Press, Cambridge, UK. ture deciduous forest trees exposed to elevated Forests for carbon sequestration or fossil fuel NABUURS, G.J., A. PUSSINEN,T.KARJALAINEN,M. CO2. Science 309:1360–1362. substitution? A sensitivity analysis. Biomass ERHARD, AND K. KRAMER. 2002. Stemwood KRAMER, P.J. 1981. Carbon dioxide concentra- and Bioenergy 13(6):389–397. volume increment changes in European forests tion, photosynthesis, and dry matter produc- MASON, L., B. LIPPKE,K.ZOBRIST,T.BLOXTON, due to climate change—A simulation study tion. BioScience 31(1):29–33. K. CEDER,J.COMNICK,J.MCCARTER, AND H. with the EFISCEN model. Global Change Bi- KRANKINA, O.M., AND M. HARMON. 2006. For- ROGERS. 2006. Investment in fuel removals to ology 8:304–316. est management strategies for carbon storage. avoid fires result in substantial benefits. Journal NATIONAL INTERAGENCY FIRE CENTER (NIFC). In Forests, carbon and climate change: A synthesis of Forestry 104(1):27–31. 2007. Wildland fire statistics. Available online of science findings. Oregon Forest Resources In- MCHALE, M.R., E.G. MCPHERSON, AND I.C. at www.nifc.gov/fire_info/fire_stats.htm; ac- stitute, Portland, OR. BURKE. 2007. The potential of urban tree cessed November 9, 2007 LAL, L. 2005. Forest soils and carbon sequestra- plantings to be cost effective in carbon credit NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY tion. Forest Ecology and Management 220:242– markets. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening (NREL). 2006. From biomass to biofuels: 258. 6(1):49–60. NREL leads the way. NREL/BR-510-39436. LARSON, E.D., S. CONSONNI, R.E. KATOFSKY,K. MCKITRICK, R., J. D’ALEO,M.KHANDEKAR,W. Available online at www.nrel.gov/biomass/ ´ LISA, AND J.W.J. FREDERICK. 2006. A cost-ben- KININMONTH,C.ESSEX,W.KARLEN,O. pdfs/39436.pdf; accessed February 6, 2008 A¨ RNER LARK URTY AND efit assessment of gasification-based biorefining in K ,I.C ,T.M , J.J. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC). 2006. the kraft pulp and paper industry. Volume 1. O’BRIEN. 2007. Independent summary for Surface temperature reconstructions for the last Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Re- 2,000 years. National Academies Press, Wash- LEGGETT, J.A. 2007. Climate change: Science and port. Fraser Institute, Vancouver, BC. ington, DC. policy implications. Congressional Research MCLACHLAN, J.S., J.J. HELLMANN, AND M.W. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Service, Washington, DC. SCHWARTZ. 2007. A framework for debate of (NRCS). 2001. Natural resources inventory. LINCOLN, D.E., E.D. FAJER, AND R.H. JOHNSON. assisted migration in an era of climate change. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, 1993. Plant-insect herbivore interactions in el- Conservation Biology 21(2):297–302. DC. evated CO environments. TREE 8(2): MCMAHON, J.P. 2007. Testimony by John P. Mc- 2 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 64–68. Mahon, President, Society of American Foresters, (NRCS). 2007. Natural resources inventory. LIPPKE, B. 2007. Climate change, carbon and the House Committee on Appropriations, Sub- 2003 Annual NRI—Land use. US Department forest sector. Presentation to American Forest committee on Interior and Related Agencies, of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Resource Council Annual Meeting, Skamania, concerning Fiscal Year 2008 Interior, Envi- NEILSON, R.P. 2007. Climate change, uncertainty WA, April 11. Available online at www.corrim. ronment and Related Agencies Budget. April and forecasts of global to landscape ecosystem dy- org/ppt/2007/lippke_afrc/index.htm; ac- 19. namics (percent change in biomass burned). Pre- cessed November 13, 2007. MILLAR, C.I., N.L. STEPHENSON, AND S.L. STE- sentation to Wildland Fire Leadership Coun- LIPPKE, B., AND L. EDMONDS. 2006. Environ- PHENS. 2007. Climate change and forests of the mental performance improvements in residen- future: Managing in the face of uncertainty. cil, Red Lodge, Montana, June 20. tial construction: The impact of products, bio- Ecological Applications 17(8):2145–2151. NEUENSCHWANDER, L.F., J.P. MENAKIS,M. fuels, and processes. Forest Products Journal Available online at www.fs.fed.us/psw/publi- MILLER, R.N. SAMPSON,C.HARDY,B.AVER- 56(10):58–63. cations/millar/psw_2007_millar029.pdf; ac- ILL, AND R. MASK. 2000. Indexing Colorado watersheds to risk of wildfire. Journal of Sus- LIPPKE, B., J. COMNICK, AND C.L. MASON. 2006. cessed February 7, 2008. Alternative landscape fuel removal scenarios: MORRIS, G. 2007. Greenhouse gas white paper— tainable Forestry 11(1–2):35–55. Impacts of thinning treatment intensity and Preliminary results. Green Power Institute, NITSCHKE, C.R., AND J.L. INNES. 2006. Interac- implementation schedules on fire hazard re- Berkeley, CA. tions between fire, climate change and forest duction effectiveness, carbon storage, and eco- MORTIMER, M.J., J.J. RICHARDSON JR., J.S. HUFF, biodiversity. Perspectives in Agriculture, Veteri- nomics. RTI/CORRIM Joint Working Paper AND H.L. HANEY JR. 2007. A survey of forest- nary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources No. 6. Seattle. land conservation easements in the United 1(60):9. LIPPKE, B., J. WILSON,J.PEREZ-GARCIA,J.BOW- States: Implications for the management and NORBY, R.J., E.H. DELUCIA,B.GIELEN,C.CAL- YER, AND J. MEIL. 2004. CORRIM: Life-cycle stewardship of working private forests. Small- FAPIETRA, C.P. GIARDINA, J.S. KING,J.LED- environmental performance of renewable Scale Forest Economics, Management, and Policy FORD, H.R. MCCARTHY, D.J.P. MOORE,R. building materials. Forest Products Journal 6(1):35–47. CEULEMANS, P.D. ANGELIS, A.C. FINZI, D.F. 54(6):8–19. MORTIMER, M.J., L. STULL, S.P. PRISLEY, AND D. KARNOSKY, M.E. KUBISKE,M.LUKAC, K.S. LOGAN, J.A., AND J.A. POWELL. 2001. Ghost for- SLACK. 2006. Forest-related ordinances in Vir- PREGITZER, G.E. SCARASCIA-MUGNOZZA, W.S. ests, global warming, and the mountain pine ginia: A case study in regulatory de-evolution. SCHLESINGER, AND R. OREN. 2005. Forest re- beetle. American Entomologist 47(3):160–173. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 30(4): sponse to elevated CO2 is conserved across a LOGAN, J.A., J. RE´GNIE`RE, AND J.A. POWELL. 196–205. broad range of productivity. Proceedings of the 2003. Assessing the impacts of global warming MURRAY, B.C., B.A. MCCARL, AND H.C. LEE. National Academy of Sciences 102(50):18052– on forest pest dynamics. Frontiers in Ecology 2004. Estimating leakage for forest carbon se- 18056. and Environment 1(3):130–137. questration programs. Land Economics 80(1): NORBY, R.J., P.J. HANSON, E.G. O’NEILL, T.J. LOOMIS, J., P. WOHLGEMUTH,A.GONZALEZ-CA- 109–124. TSCHAPLINSKI, J.F. WELTZIN, R.A. HANSEN, BAN, AND D. ENGLISH. 2003. Economic bene- NABUURS, G.J., O. MASERA,K.ANDRASKO,P.BE- W. CHENG, S.D. WULLSCHLEGER, C.A. GUN- fits of reducing fire-related sediment in south- NITEZ-PONCE,R.BOER,M.DUTSCHKE,E.EL- DERSON, N.T. EDWARDS, AND D.W. JOHNSON. western fire prone ecosystems. Water Resources SIDDIG,J.FORD-ROBERTSON,P.FRUMHOFF,T. 2002. Net primary productivity of a CO2-en- Research 39(9):1260. KARJALAINEN,O.KRANKINA, W.A. KURZ,M. riched deciduous forest and the implications LYND, L.R., AND M. WANG. 2004. A product- MATSUMOTO,W.OYHANTCABAL, N.H. for carbon storage. Ecological Applications nonspecific framework for evaluating the po- RAVINDRANATH, M.J.S. SANCHEZ, AND X. 12(5):1261–1266.

168 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 NORBY, R.J., J. LEDFORD, C.D. REILLY, N.E. entist.com/article/dn7607.html; accessed Oc- Plant Sciences 167(6):1123–1150. Available MILLER, E.G. O’NEILL, AND W.H. tober 11, 2007. online at www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/ SCHLESINGER. 2004. Fine-root production PEREZ-GARCIA, J., B. LIPPKE,J.COMNICK, AND C. rmrs_2006_rehfeldt_g001.pdf; accessed Feb- dominates response of a deciduous forest to MANRIQUEZ. 2005. An assessment of carbon ruary 6, 2008.

atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Proceedings of pools, storage, and wood products market sub- RICHARDS, K.R., R. MOULTON, AND R.A. BIRD- the National Academy of Sciences 101(26): stitution using life-cycle analysis results. Wood SEY. 1993. Costs of creating carbon sinks in the 9689–9693. and Fiber Science 37:140–148. U.S. Energy Conservation and Management NORBY, R.J., S.D. WULLSCHLEGER, C.A. GUN- PERLACK, R.D., L.L. WRIGHT, A.F. TURHOLLOW, 34(9-11):905–912. DERSON, D.W. JOHNSON, AND R. CEULEMANS. R.L. GRAHAM, B.J. STOKES, AND D.C. ERBACH. ROJ, A. 2005. Automotive fuels from biomass:

1999. Tree responses to rising CO2 in field 2005. Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and What is the best road forward. Presentation to experiments: Implications for the future forest. bioproducts industry: The technical feasibility of First International Biorefinery Workshop, Plant, Cell and Environment 22:683–714. a billion-ton annual supply. US Department of Washington, DC, July. NOSS, R.F. 2001. Beyond Kyoto: Forest manage- Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak RUDDELL, S., R.N. SAMPSON,M.SMITH, R.A. ment in a time of rapid climate change. Con- Ridge, TN. GIFFEN,J.CATHCART, J.M. HAGAN, D.L. SO- servation Biology 15(3):578–590. PERMAN, R., Y. MA, AND J. MCGILVARY. 1996. SLAND,J.HEISSENBUTTEL, J.F. GODBEE, S.M. NOWAK, D.J., AND D.E. CRANE. 2002. Carbon Natural resource and environmental economics. LOVETT, J.A. HELMS, W.C. PRICE, AND R.S. storage and sequestration by urban trees in the Longman Publishing, New York. SIMPSON. 2007. The role for sustainably man- USA. Environmental Pollution 116:381–389. PERSCHEL, R.T., A.M. EVANS, AND M.J. SUM- aged forests in climate change mitigation. Jour- ONEIL, E. 2007. Changes in landscape level car- MERS. 2007. Climate change, carbon, and the nal of Forestry 105(6):314–319. bon pools over time: Appendix 2. Final report forests of the Northeast. Forest Guild. Santa Fe, RUDDELL, S., M.J. WALSH, AND M. KANAKASABAI. review draft. In CORRIM: Phase II final report NM. Available online at www.forestguild.org/ 2006. Forest carbon trading and marketing in module A: Forest resources Inland West, John- publications/2007/ForestGuild_climate_ the United States. Report to the North Caro- son, L., B. Lippke, and E. Oneil (eds.). Con- carbon_forests.pdf; accessed February 6, 2008 lina Division of the Society of American For- sortium for Research on Renewable Industrial PETERSON, D.L., M.C. JOHNSON, J.K. AGEE, T.B. esters. Available online at www.foreconeco- Materials, Seattle. JAIN,D.MCKENZIE, AND E.D. REINHARDT. marketsolutionsllc.com. 2005. Forest structure and fire hazard in dry for- RYAN, K.C. 2000. Global change and wildland ONEIL, E., B. LIPPKE, AND L. MASON. 2007. East- side climate change, forest health, fire, and car- ests of the western United States. PNW-GTR- fire. In Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire bon accounting. Discussion paper 8. In The 628. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest on flora, Brown, J.K., and J.K. Smith (eds.). future of Washington’s forests and forestry indus- Research Station. GTR-42, vol. 2. USDA Forest Service, Rocky tries. Final report. Prepared by University of PIMENTEL, D., AND T. PATZEK. 2005. Ethanol Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. production using corn switchgrass, and wood; SACKS, W.J., D.S. SCIMEL, AND R.K. MONSON. Washington College of Forest Resources for Biodiesel production using soybean and sun- 2007. Coupling between carbon cycling and Washington State Department of Natural Re- flower. Natural Resources Research 14(1):65– climate in a high-elevation subalpine forest: A sources. 76. model-data fusion analysis. Oecologia 151:54– ONIANWA, O., AND G. WHEELOCK. 1999. Assess- POINT CARBON NEWS. 2007. Carbon market 68. ing the retention potential of Conservation North America. Washington, DC, 2(22):7. SAMPSON, R.N., AND R.J. SCHOLES. 2000. Addi- Reserve Program practices in Alabama. South- POUNDS, J.A., M.P.L. FOGDEN, AND J.H. CAMP- tional human-induced activities—Article 3.4. ern Journal of Applied Forestry 23(2):83–87. BELL. 1999. Biological response to climate In Land use, land use change and forestry, OPDAM, P., AND D. WASCHER. 2004. Climate change on a tropical mountain. Nature 398: Watson, R.T., I.R. Noble, B. Bolin, N.H. change meets habitat fragmentation linking 611–615. Ravindranath, D.J. Verardo, and D.J. Dokken landscape and biogeographical scale levels in PREGITZER, K.S., AND E.S. EUSKIRCHEN. 2004. (eds.). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate research and conservation. Biological Conserva- Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: Change special report. Available online at ww- tion 117:285–297. Biome patterns related to forest age. Global w.grida.no/climate/ipcc/land_use; accessed OREGON FOREST RESOURCES INSTITUTE (OFRI). Change Biology 10:2052–2077. November 17, 2007. 2006. Forests, carbon and climate change: A syn- PRICE, T.D., M.J. APPS, AND W.A. KURZ. 1998. SAMPSON, R.N. 2004. Experience with fire and fire thesis of science findings. Available online at Past and possible future carbon dynamics of management in U.S. forests and the potential to http://www.oregonforests.org/media/pdf/ Canada’s boreal forest ecosystems. In Carbon increase carbon stocks on forest land by changing CarbonRptFinal.pdf; accessed February 3, dioxide in forestry and wood industry, Kohl- practices. Available online at www.sampson- 2008 maier, G.K., M. Weber, and R.A. Houghton group.com/Papers/Fire%20Management,% OREN, R., D.S. ELLSWORTH, K.H. JOHNSEN,N. (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 20Biomass,%20and%20Carbon.pdf; accessed PHILLIPSK, B.E. EWERS,C.MAIER, K.V.R. PRISLEY, S.P., D.R. DAVERSA, AND M.J. MOR- October 16, 2007. SCHAEFER,H.MCCARTHY,G.HENDREY, S.G. TIMER. 2006. Estimation of forest area affected SAMPSON, R.N., AND M.H. KAMP. 2007. Terres- MCNULTY, AND G.G. KATUL. 2001. Soil fertil- by local ordinances: A Virginia case study. trial carbon sequestration in the Northeast: ity limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosys- Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 30(4): Quantities and costs. Part 2—Recent trends in tems in a CO2-enriched atmosphere. Nature 188–195. sinks and sources of carbon. Available online at 411:469–472. PUETTMANN, M., AND J. WILSON. 2005. Life-cy- conserveonline.org/workspaces/necarbonproject/ PACHECO, M. 2005. DOE-NREL presentation to cle analysis of wood products: Cradle to gate The%20Report/Part%202%20–%20Recent% 25x’25 Renewable Energy Forestry Work LCI of residential wood building materials. 20Trends.pdf/view; accessed November 29, Group, Tucson, AZ, January. Wood and Fiber Science 37:18–29. 2007. PARMESAN, C., AND G. YOHE. 2003. A globally REAY, D.S., S. RADAJEWSKI, J.C. MURRELL,N. SAMPSON, R.N., S. RUDDELL, AND M. SMITH coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts MCNAMARA, AND D.B. NEDWELL. 2001. Ef- (EDS.). 2007. Managed forests in climate change across natural systems. Nature 421(6918):37– fects of land-use on the activity and diversity of policy: Program design elements. Available on- 42. methane oxidizing bacteria in forest soils. Soil line at www.safnet.org/policyandpress/docu- PARTRIDGE, C., AND B. MACGREGOR. 2007. The Biology and Biochemistry 33(12–13): ments/managedforests_12–14-07.pdf; ac- future of Washington’s forests. Washington State 1613–1623. cessed February 11, 2008. Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. REHFELDT, G.E., N.L. CROOKSTON, M.V. WAR- SATHRE, R. 2007. Life-cycle energy and carbon im- PEARCE, F. 2005. Clearing smoke may trigger WELL, AND J.S. EVANS. 2006. Empirical analy- plications of wood-based products and construc- global warming rise. New Scientist Environ- ses of plant-climate relationships for the west- tion. Mid-Sweden University doctoral thesis ment. Available online at environment.newsci- ern United States. International Journal of 34. Ostersund, Sweden.

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 169 SAUER, A. 2002. The value of conservation ease- United States, 1952–2040. Environmental M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. ments: The importance of protecting nature and Management 33(4):433–442. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, open space. Discussion paper, April 9. World SMITH, J.R., W. RICHARDS, AND E.C. SHEA. 2007. Cambridge, UK. Resources Institute, Washington, DC. 25x’25 Action plan: Charting America’s energy TSS CONSULTANTS. 2006. Biomass conversion fac- SAXE, H., D.S. ELLSWORTH, AND J. HEATH. 1998. future. Environmental Action Coalition, tors and glossary. Bioenergy and Wood Prod- Tree and forest functioning in an enriched Washington, DC. ucts Conference, Denver, March 14–16.

CO2 atmosphere. New Phytologist 139(3): SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS (SAF). 2002. Available online at www.nationalbiomasscon- 395–436. Wildfire management: A position of the Society of ference.org/presentations/BioenergyConv- SCHLAMADINGER, B., AND G. MARLAND. 1996. American Foresters. Available online at ww- Glossary.pdf; accessed February 6, 2008. The role of forest and bioenergy strategies in w.safnet.org/policyandpress/psst/ TYSON, K.S., C.J. RILEY, AND K.K. HUMPHREYS. the global carbon cycle. Biomass and Bioenergy fire0902.cfm; accessed October 11, 2007. 1993. Fuel cycle evaluations of biomass-ethanol 10(5–6):275–300. SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS (SAF). 2004. and reformulated gasoline. Technical report SCHLYTER, P., I. STJERNQUIST,L.BA¨RRING, A.M. Preparing a community wildfire protection plan: 463-4950. National Renewable Energy Labo- JO¨ NSSON, AND C. NILSSON. 2006. Assessment A handbook for wildland-urban interface com- ratory, Golden, CO. of the impacts of climate change and weather munities. Available online at www.safnet.org/ US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE). 2006. extremes on boreal forests in northern Europe, policyandpress/cwpp.cfm; accessed October Guidelines for voluntary greenhouse gas report- focusing on Norway spruce. Climate Research 15, 2007. ing, final rule. Technical guidelines: Voluntary 31:75–84. SOCOLOW, R.H., AND S.W. PACALA. 2006. A plan reporting for greenhouse gases (1605(b)) pro- SCHRAG, A.M., A.G. BUNN, AND L.J. GRAUM- to keep carbon in check. Scientific American gram, Part I: Appendix D. US Department of LICH. 2007. Influence of bioclimatic variables 295(3):50–57. Energy, Office of Policy and International Af- on tree line conifer distribution in the Greater SOLOMON, A., R. BIRDSEY,L.JOYCE, AND J. fairs, Washington, DC. Yellowstone Ecosystem: Implications for spe- HAYES. 2008. Global change research strategy US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE). 2007. cies of conservation concern. Journal of Bioge- 2009–2019. Available online at www.fs. Technical guidelines for voluntary reporting of ography. Online early articles doi: 10.1111/j. fed.us/psw/topics/climate_change/pdf/gc_re- greenhouse gases program (1605b), Chapter 1, 1365-2699.2007.01815.x. Available online at search_strat.pdf; accessed March 20, 2008. Part I, Forestry emissions. Available online at www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ SOLOMON, S., D. QIN,M.MANNING,Z.CHEN, www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/ j.1365-2699.2007.01815.x; accessed February M. MARQUIS, K.B. AVERYT,M.TIGNOR, AND documents/January2007_1605bTechnical 6, 2008. H.L. MILLER (EDS.). 2007. Summary for policy- Guidelines.pdf; accessed November 13, 2007. makers. Climate change 2007: The physical sci- SCHULZE, E., C. WIRTH, AND M. HEIMANN. US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (USDI) AND ence basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 2000. Managing forests after Kyoto. Science US FOREST SERVICE (USFS). 2007. Healthy the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovern- 289(5487):2058–2059. forests report: FY 2006 final accomplishments. mental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge SCHWARTZ, M.W. 1993. Modeling effects of Available online at www.forestsandrange- University Press, Cambridge, UK. habitat fragmentation on the ability of trees to lands.gov/reports/documents/healthyforests/ SPITTLEHOUSE, D.L., AND R.B. STEWART. 2003. respond to climatic warming. Biodiversity and 2006/2006_year_end_report.pdf; accessed Adaptation to climate change in forest man- Conservation 2:51–61. November 18, 2007. agement. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Man- SCHWARTZ, M.W., L.R. IVERSON, AND A.M. US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY agement 4(1):1–11. PRASAD. 2001. Predicting the potential future (EPA). 1990. The determination of mitigation STAVINS, R.N. 2001. Experience with market- distribution of four tree species in Ohio using based environmental policy instruments. Discus- under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) current habitat availability and climatic forc- sion paper 01–58. Resources for the Future, guidelines. Memorandum of agreement be- ing. Ecosystems 4(6):568–581. Washington, DC. tween the Department of Army and the Envi- SHEEHAN, J., A. ADEN,K.PAUSTAIN,K.KILLIAN, ronmental Protection Agency. Available on- STENSETH, N.C., A. MYSTERUD,G.OTTERSEN, J. BRENNER,M.WALSH, AND R. NELSON. line at www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/ J.W. HURRELL, K.-S. CHAN, AND M. LIMA. 2004. Energy and environmental aspects of us- 2002. Ecological effects of climate fluctua- mitigate.html; accessed November 27, 2007. ing corn stover for fuel ethanol. Journal of In- tions. Science 297:1292–1296. US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY dustrial Ecology 7(3–4):17–32. STERN, N., S. PETERS,V.BAKHSHI,A.BOWEN,C. (EPA). 2005. Greenhouse gas mitigation poten- SHUGART, H., R. SEDJO, AND B. SOHNGEN. 2003. CAMERON,S.CATOVSKY,D.CRANE,S. tial in U.S. forestry and agriculture. EPA 430- Forests and global climate change: Potential im- CRUICKSHANK,S.DIETZ,N.EDMONDSON, R-05-006. Office of Atmospheric Programs, pacts on U.S. forest resources. Pew Center on S.-L. GARBETT,L.HAMID,G.HOFFMAN,D. Washington, DC. Global Climate Change, Washington, DC. INGRAM,B.JONES,N.PATMORE,H.RAD- US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SINGER, S.F. (ED.). 2008. Nature, not human ac- CLIFFE,R.SATHIYARAJAH,M.STOCK,C.TAY- (EPA). 2006. Nitrous oxide. Available online at tivity, rules the climate: Summary for policymak- LOR,T.VERNON,H.WANJIE, AND D. ZENG- www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html; ac- ers of the Report of the Nongovernmental Inter- HELIS (EDS.). 2006. Stern review on the cessed December 10, 2007. national Panel on Climate Change. Heartland economics of climate change. Cambridge Uni- US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Institute, Chicago. versity Press, Cambridge, UK. (EPA). 2007a. Greenhouse gas impacts of ex- SKINNER, C.N. 2007. Silviculture and forest THE NATURE CONSERVANCY. n.d. Air quality reg- panded renewable and alternative fuels use. EPA management under a rapidly changing cli- ulations and smoke management. Available on- 420-F-07-035. Office of Transportation and mate. In Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems: Pro- line at www.tncfire.org/documents/FMR/air- Air Quality, Washington, DC. ceedings of the 2005 national silviculture work- quality.pdf; accessed November 17, 2007. US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY shop, Powers, R.F. (ed.). PSW-GTR-20. TRENBERTH, K.E., P.D. JONES,P.AMBENJE,R. (EPA). 2007b. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Re- BOJARIU,D.EASTERLING, A.K. TANK,D. emissions and sinks: 1990–2005. EPA 430-R- search Station, Albany, CA. PARKER,F.RAHIMZADEH, J.A. RENWICK,M. 07-002. Washington, DC. SKOG, K.E., AND G.A. NICHOLSON. 1998. Car- RUSTICUCCI,B.SODEN, AND P. ZHAI. 2007. US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY bon cycling through wood products: The role Observations: Surface and atmospheric cli- (EPA). 2007c. Plain English guide to the Clean of wood and paper products in carbon seques- mate change. In Climate change 2007: The Air Act: Understanding the Clean Air Act. Avail- tration. Forest Products Journal 48(7/8):75– physical science basis. Contribution of Working able online at www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/un- 83. Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the derstand.html; accessed November 17, 2007. SMITH, J., AND L. HEATH. 2004. Carbon stocks Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and projections on public forestlands in the Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, (EPA). 2008. Past climate change. Available on-

170 Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 line at www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/ of tree mortality rates in a temperate forest. WILLIAMS, D.W., AND A.M. LIEBHOLD. 2002. pastcc.html; accessed January 4, 2008. Ecology Letters 10:909–916. Climate change and the outbreak ranges of two US FOREST SERVICE (USFS). 2004. Pacific North- VIDAL, J. 2007. China could overtake U.S. as big- North American bark beetles. Agricultural and west Research Station science update, Issue 6, gest emissions culprit by November. The Forest Entomology 4:87–99. January, Neilson, R., J. Lenihan, R. Drapek, Guardian, April 25. WINISTORFER, P., Z. CHEN,B.LIPPKE, AND N. and D. Bachelet (ed.). Available online at www. VOLNEY, W.J.A., AND R.A. FLEMING. 2000. Cli- STEVENS. 2005. Energy consumption and fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/science-update-6.pdf; ac- mate change and impacts of boreal forest in- greenhouse gas emissions related to the use, cessed December 10, 2007. sects. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment maintenance, and disposal of a residential US FOREST SERVICE (USFS). 2005. CORRIM re- 82:283–294. structure. Wood and Fiber Science port on environmental performance measures for WALTHER, G.-R., E. POST,P.CONVEY,A.MEN- 37:128–139. renewable building materials. FS 20050601-1. ZEL,C.PARMESAN, T.J.C. BEEBEE, J.-M. FRO- WITTIG, V.E., C.J. BERNACCHI, X.-G. ZHU,C. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Labora- MENTIN,O.HOEGH-GULDBERG, AND F. BAIR- CALFAPIETRA,R.CEULEMANS,P.DEANGELIS,B. tory, Madison, WI. LEIN. 2002. Ecological responses to recent GIELEN,F.MIGLIETTA, P.B. MORGAN, AND US FOREST SERVICE (USFS). 2007. U.S. Forest climate change. Nature 416:389–395. S.P. LONG. 2005. Gross primary production is Service fiscal year 2008 President’s budget over- WANG, M., Y. WU, AND A. ELGOWAINY. 2005. view. US Department of Agriculture. Operation manual: GREET Version 1.7, ANL/ stimulated for three Populus species grown un- UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON ESD/05–03. Center for Transportation Re- der free-air CO2 enrichment from planting CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC). 2002. Report search, Argonne National Laboratory, Ar- through canopy closure. Global Change Biology of the Conference of the Parties on the Seventh gonne, IL. November. 11:644–656. Session, held at Marrakesh, October, 29 to No- WATSON, R.T., I.R. NOBLE,B.BOLIN, N.H. WOODWELL, G.M., F.T. MACKENZIE, R.A. vember 10, 2001. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1. RAVINDRANATH, D.J. VERARDO, AND D.J. HOUGHTON,M.APPS,E.GORHAM, AND E. United Nations Framework Convention on DOKKEN. 2000. Land use, land use change and DAVIDSON. 1998. Biotic feedbacks in the Climate Change. forestry. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate warming of the Earth. Climatic Change UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON Changespecialreport.Availableonlineatwww. 40:495–518. CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC). 2007a. Guide grida.no/climate/ipcc/land_use; November WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE (WRI). 2007. Cli- to do a CDM project activity—Afforestation and 17, 2007. mate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) version reforestation CDM project activities. Available WERNER, B. 2000. California Air Resources Board 4.0. Available online at cait.wri.org; accessed online at cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/pac/pac_ar. memorandum to D. Shimp. August 17. Avail- October 10, 2007. html; accessed October 12, 2007. able online at www.arb.ca.gov/ei/see/me- WULLSCHLEGER, S.D., T.J. TSCHAPLINSKI, AND UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON mo_ag_emission_factors.pdf; accessed Janu- R.J. NORBY. 2002. Plant water relations at el- CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC). 2007b. The ary 28, 2008. evated CO2—Implications for water-limited mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol: The Clean WESTERLING, A.L., H.G. HIDALGO, D.R. CAYAN, environments. Plant, Cell and Environment Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation AND T.W. SWETNAM. 2006. Warming and ear- 25:319–331. and emissions trading. Available online at lier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire ZERBE, J.I. 1983. Energy properties of wood. unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/items/ activity. Science 313:940–943. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Labora- 1673.php; accessed October 12, 2007. WESTERN FORESTRY LEADERSHIP COALITION. tory, Madison, WI. UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON 2007. Climate change and western forests: Policy ZERBE, J.I. 2006. Thermal energy, electricity, and CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC). 2007c. Status statement. Available online at www.wflccenter. of ratification of the UNFCCC. Available online org/news_pdf/275_pdf.pdf; accessed February transportation fuels from wood. Forest Prod- at unfccc.int/essential_background/conven- 3, 2008. ucts Journal 56(1):6–14. HOU IU I HANG ANG tion/items/2627.php; October 12, 2007. WESTERN GOVERNORS’ASSOCIATION. 2006. Z , G., S. L ,Z.L,D.Z ,X.T ,C. VALSTA, L., B. LIPPKE,J.PEREZ-GARCIA,K. Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative, Biomass ZHOU,J.YAN, AND J. MO. 2006. Old-growth PINGOUD,J.POHJOLA, AND B. SOLBERG. 2008. Task Force report. Available online at www. forests can accumulate carbon in soils. Science Use of forests and wood products to mitigate westgov.org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/Biomass-full. 314(5804):1417. climate change. In Managing forest ecosystems: pdf; accessed October 15, 2007. ZVEREVA, E.L., AND M.V. KOZLOV. 2006. Con- The challenge of climate change, Bravo, F. (ed.). WIEDINMYER, C., AND J. NEFF. 2007. Estimates sequences of simultaneous elevation of carbon

Springer, New York. of CO2 from fires in the United States: Impli- dioxide and temperature for plant–herbivore VAN MANTGEM, P.J., AND N.L. STEPHENSON. cations for carbon management. Carbon Bal- interactions: A metaanalysis. Global Change 2007. Apparent climatically induced increase ance and Management 2(10). Biology 12:27–41.

Journal of Forestry • April/May 2008 171