Carbon SequestrationNation's annual carbon emissions of around 1.5 billion tons. 10 The largest part of the stored carbon, some 61 percent, is found in the forest soils. About 29 percent

STAPPA – Carbon Sequestration Draft 1 July 20, 1998 1

Carbon Sequestration

1. Summary and overviewThis chapter covers the opportunities to manage land and water systems to retain or enhance

their value as carbon sinks. Some of the land use changes involved (i.e. afforestation) are definedunder the Kyoto protocol as being eligible for credit against national GHG reduction targets;others are not yet eligible for consideration under Kyoto protocol, but may be substantive enoughfor consideration in state implementation plans.

Many of the ecosystem-based carbon (C) sequestration opportunities are one-time, limitedopportunities to rebuild C supplies in depleted ecosystems back toward a general equilibriumrepresenting the capacity of the site under current soil, climate, vegetation, and managementconditions. Once this level is achieved, further increases become increasingly unstable—moredifficult to achieve in some instances, or more difficult to maintain. Some opportunities, such asencouraging organic soil formation in wetlands, expanding the use of stable wood products, andutilizing biomass to replace fossil fuels as an energy source are more likely to be sustainablebecause they are less bound by ecosystem limits.

Forest ecosystems that are currently overstocked with biomass are ecologically unstable, andmay need active management to remove biomass and dispose of it in a GHG-friendly manner toavoid major wildfire emissions that can not only reduce current terrestrial C stocks, but degradesoils so that future sequestration rates are severely reduced.

2. Inventory of terrestrial sinks1. Agriculture

1. croplandMost of the stable carbon in agricultural systems is held in the soil, since the majority of

agricultural vegetation is short-lived and rapidly consumed or decomposed. Soil organiccarbon is the food and energy source for soil biota, as well as the locus for much of the soil’sstock of mineral nutrients. It is important in stabilizing soil structure, increasing water holdingcapacity, and buffering the soil’s chemical reactions. Increasing soil organic carbon (SOC)content is, therefore, one way to improve soil quality and productivity. Improving agronomicproductivity and reducing or mitigating emissions of greenhouse gas from agricultural soilsoccur simultaneously, so changing farm practices to improve cropland’s capacity as a GHGsink is in the interest of farmers as well as air quality planners.1

In dealing with soil sinks, whether on cropland or other agricultural systems, it is probablynecessary to deal with periodic inventory data rather than the annual activity data that isavailable in other sectors. There is very little data on annual activity levels that would supportany other estimate. Monitoring soil activity through such measures as CO2 respiration arefeasible at the research level, but not at the larger scales. The Natural ResourcesConservation Service conducts its Natural Resource Inventories on a 5-year cycle, whichprovides a periodic, comparable inventory from which estimates of land use change on theNation’s non-federal lands can be developed.2 Estimates of annual tillage practices oncropland are available from the Conservation Tillage Information Center.3

The conversion of native forest and grassland ecosystems to cultivated agriculture causes aloss of SOC that is well documented. The losses are highest in the first few years of


cultivation, then tend to level off. The degree to which SOC has been depleted from itshistoric range tends to establish its capacity as a future sink, since it is generally agreed that,upon improvements in the management system that raise crop yields, return higher levels ofcrop residue to the soil, retard SOC decomposition processes, or reduce the disturbance andaeration associated with cultivation, SOC levels will return to levels at or near their nativecondition.4 An exception to this is in the case of irrigated desert soils, whose very low nativeSOC stocks have been raised by the additional plant material incorporated by cultivation andmaintained by higher moisture and fertility levels.

The total SOC stock in U.S. croplands is estimated at 17 billion tons, or about 51 tons peracre.5 This would mean, for the average upland soil, an organic carbon content of around 2 to4 percent. It is estimated that these soils have lost through cultivation, and therefore couldregain through improved management, an additional one percent SOC, or about 15 tons of Cper acre. This will vary considerably, of course, due to different soil characteristics,agricultural systems, and the current condition of the soil. Localized estimates of croplandSOC conditions, and potentials, can be obtained through the local offices of the NaturalResources Conservation Service.6

SOC levels, and therefore any additional CO2 sinks created by improved croplandmanagement, are subject to loss if the management reverts to prior practices. Programs thatseek to utilize cropland soils as a means of reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases must,therefore:t Recognize that this is a one-time sequestration opportunity, designed to build SOC levels

from a current level to a higher, but ultimately limited, level; and,t Include a plan for maintenance of the new, higher SOC levels once they are achieved.

In addition to the opportunities associated with improved management of the soils thatremain in cropland use, there are major opportunities to rebuild SOC levels by convertingmarginal cropland back to permanent grass, trees, or wetland. Those land uses, and their CO2

sink potential, are discussed below.2. pasture and range

There were an estimated 126 million acres of pastureland and 399 million acres of rangelandin the United States in 1992, according to the 1992 National Resource Inventory. In addition,there were 34 million acres which had been converted to grass from marginal crop and pasturesince 1982 under the Conservation Reserve Program. All together, these grassland systemsconstitute almost 38 percent of the Nation’s non-federal lands in the conterminous 48 states.7 The land use is fairly stable for rangeland, but 21 million acres had been added to pasturebetween 1982 and 1992, while 27 million acres had been converted, mainly to cropland orforest. Estimating the carbon dynamics on these land use changes in any accurate way is notpossible without knowing the soil types, conditions, and management practices involved, but itis safe to say that, on the 12 million acres converted from pasture to cropland in that decade,SOC levels dropped fairly rapidly for the first few years of cultivation. Tree planting on 8million acres may have added some SOC in addition to the tree biomass, but how much isunclear. There is some evidence that, in converting from grassland to forest, the SOC levelsrise rapidly in the organic layer that constitutes forest duff, but may decline in the deepermineral soil layers as the old grass roots rot away and tree roots do not provide replacementSOC.


For the land that remains in pasture and range, the principal use is for grazing, and the SOCbalance is affected by whether the grazing management is causing the vegetation to increaseor decline. In all likelihood, the net change is probably negligible, since for most of theselands, the management has remained reasonably stable for years, and the SOC levels haveadjusted to the physical and management regime.

A. Forests3. Carbon dynamics in America’s forests

The woody materials in forests are about half carbon on a dry weight basis.8 In total theorganic carbon stored in the vegetation; litter, humus, and woody debris; and soils of U.S.forests amounts to 60 billion tons.9 This stored carbon amounts to about 40 times theNation's annual carbon emissions of around 1.5 billion tons.10 The largest part of the storedcarbon, some 61 percent, is found in the forest soils. About 29 percent of the stored carbon isin the trees, and the remaining 10 percent is in the woody litter, debris, and humus on theforest floor as well as the understory vegetation.

There are major differences in the amount of carbon stored in the forested regions of thecountry. Some 25 billion tons, 41 percent of the total, is stored in the forest ecosystems of thePacific Coast, mostly in Alaska. About 25 percent is stored in the forests in the North, 14percent in the Rocky Mountains, and 21 percent in the South.11 These regional differencesreflect differences in climate and in the age and density of the forests. The cool climates of thePacific Coast and North slow the oxidation of carbon in the soils, in dead trees, and in thewoody materials on the forest floor. The Pacific Coast region has big areas of old,undisturbed forests that contain large volumes of carbon.

Carbon storage in forests is constantly changing in response to land clearing; tree plantingon lands that have been used for crops and pastures; timber harvesting; and the naturalregeneration, growth, and death of vegetation. In recent decades, carbon storage has beenrising because timber growth has been higher than the total of harvest removals and mortality,with a consequent increase in timber inventories. Between 1952 and 1992, for example,carbon storage on forest lands in the conterminous United States increased by 12.4 billiontons—about 25 percent.12

Timber growth is substantially above removals in the hardwood forests, and carbon isaccumulating in the major hardwood regions. The largest increase is in the Northeast, butthere are also big increases in storage in the Southeast and on the Pacific Coast. In some areasin the South Central region, removals are above or close to growth, and the carbonaccumulation is quite small.

Mortality increased by 24% between 1986 and 1991 in all regions, on all ownerships, forboth hardwoods and softwoods.13 Obviously, the continued increase of carbon storage inU.S. forests is not assured if increasing mortality rates are experienced in the future.

4. Managing Carbon Balances in Forests


Carbon accumulateswithin a forest over time, asthe forest changes due totree growth and ecologicalsuccession. Over manyyears, the Forest Service hasmeasured the growth ofdifferent tree species andforest types on different soiltypes. These growth andyield models have now beenconverted to carbonaccumulation models.14

Two examples illustratethe use of these tables. In loblolly pine plantations of the South, there are two significantlydifferent growth yield models that can be used. One is the estimate of managed yields — theyields that good managers consistently achieve. The second is the inventory yield — the yieldthat is realized over the average of all ownerships and managers. Figure 1 shows thedifference, which can be as much as 60% over an 80-year rotation. For individual projects ongood sites, where management is assured, the high estimate of carbon sequestration isreasonable. For state or national policy, where general response is sought, the lower estimateis most reasonable.

Another example might be the old growth Douglas-fir stands of the Pacific Northwest. These forests have enormous stores of carbon on site, and while the accumulation is slowbecause of the maturity of the trees, it continues to occur. If our goal is to retain storedcarbon for the next few decades, we protect these forests. Harvesting them, and removing allthe dead wood from the site without using it to offset fossil carbon, would result in a net lossof carbon that would take decades to recover. If our object is to increase carbon storage overtime, however, then harvest and replanting becomes the best option.15

The reason for this somewhat counter-intuitive conclusion is found in the research that hastracked the fate of forest carbon following harvest. This has demonstrated that a significantamount of the carbon remains in terrestrial storage, often as products in use or in material thatis retained in landfills or dumps.16 Another significant percentage is utilized to replace fossilfuels as an energy sources. As long as this comes from forests that are managed sustainably, itrepresents a short-term recycling of carbon in and out of the atmosphere, replacing anemission from the stored fossil sources, so it is a net replacement in terms of carbonemissions.

The effect is that, if we study the effect of long-term forest management schemes on carbonbalances, the managed forest, with products utilized for long-term storage, continues to buildterrestrial carbon storage rotation after rotation, as the amount of products continue to residefor significant periods of time in storage. This can be illustrated by looking at the probableeffects of different management schemes on several different forest types.17

Evaluating the carbon storage and accumulation in U.S. forest ecosystems has been done bycomparing forest inventories over time. These inventories, which have been carried out for


decades, published data in terms of tree species, size classes, and merchantable volume. As aresult, they have focused largely on the lands that were available for timber production(timberlands—defined as lands capable of producing 20 ft3 or more of merchantable wood peryear, and available for timber management). Other forest lands, such as parks and wildernessareas, or large remote regions such as interior Alaska, have received far less inventoryattention, and therefore the estimates of their carbon dynamics are less reliable.

In the first comprehensive effort to establish the carbon dynamics of U.S. forests, RichardBirdsey of the Forest Service estimated carbon storage for 4 separate components (trees, soil,forest floor, and understory vegetation) for each of the forest types identified in the 1987forest inventory data base.18 The annual growth of forests results in an accumulation ofaround 508 million tons of carbon, while the total removal resulting from timber harvest, landclearing, and fuel wood use amounts to 391 million tons of carbon. The difference suggestedthat U.S. forests are sequestering additional carbon at the rate of around 117 million tons peryear.19 In addition, trees dying in the forest due to a variety of causes represent around 83million tons of C per year, but much of that remains in the forest for some time as snags ordown woody debris.

Another way of estimating the annual sink of U.S. forests is to compare the inventories overtime. As Figure 2 illustrates, U.S. forests have been steadily gaining in stored carbon since1952. In this calculation, it was estimated that carbon stored on the forest land in theconterminous United States had increased by 11.3 billion metric tons in the 40 years, for anaverage of 281 million metric tons per year.20 These estimates (117-281) probably bracket thebaseline for forest ecosystem carbon sinks in the U.S.5. Ownership and use characteristics

In developing the basic stock estimates for establishing baseline forest carbon levels andtrends, little distinction is made between forests on the basis of ownership or use. Thosefactors will, however, play heavily into the kinds of changes that can be proposed in the nameof air pollution reduction. They also play very heavily into strategic planning at the state andlocal level, because the ratio of public to private forests is very different from place to place,as shown in Tables A-1 and A-2. The distinction between forests and timberland is of littleimportance in considering theexisting forest as a naturally-changing stock of carbon, but it isvery important in addressingpotential changes throughmanagement. Virtually all of themanagement opportunity lies on thetimberland, primarily because that isthe land that is productive enough toattract investment, or that is legallyavailable for management activity.

B. Wetlands/peat bogsThe cultivation of wetlands, peat

bogs, or other highly organic soilsleads to a continuous decline in SOC, since additional organic material is opened up to aerobic


decomposition with continued cultivation. Restoring these soils to a wetland condition andmaintaining them as wetlands converts them into a carbon sink that is, so long as the wetlandcondition holds, sustainable. C. Deserts

Deserts are generally very small contributors to either sinks or stocks of terrestrial carbon,since SOC levels are generally very low, as are standing vegetation stocks. With the addition ofirrigation water, desert soils can become very productive and, in the process, SOC levels canrise, providing a short-term sequestration opportunity. In their native state, however, desertsare unlikely to provide any significant opportunity to address climate issues. Under climatechange conditions that alter temperature or moisture, deserts could become a modest sink orsource, depending on the effect of the change on net primary productivity of the ecosystem.2. Sequestration levels

1. Current1. baseline estimates for change in stock calculations

Historical and baseline estimates for agricultural soils can be obtained from soil surveydata published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. In general, for soils underrainfed agriculture, the estimated pre-cultivation organic matter levels can be obtained fromsoil survey data, and probably represent the highest level that is feasibly obtainable on thesoil through improved management or conversion back to original vegetative cover. Forirrigated soils, particularly those of desert origin, it is possible to achieve elevated levelsthrough incorporation of additional plant material in agricultural operations. If irrigationwere to cease, however, these soils would rapidly lose that additional carbon and return tolevels consistent with the vegetative growth possible under non-irrigated conditions.

Historical and baseline estimates for SOC levels on grassland soils can also be obtainedthrough the NRCS soil survey data base.

Baseline estimates on existing forests need to be measured by standard forest mensurationtechniques. Since most of those methods historically were developed to estimate theamount of merchantable timber, by size class, in a forest stand, the results may need to beadjusted to reflect the total carbon content of the forest. That has been done by forestcomponent (trees, soil, forest floor litter and debris, and understory vegetation) and age offorest stands for most of the common forest types in the United States.21

2. Projected1. business as usual (base case)

Under a continuation of cropland management techniques similar to those of the past,most soils that have been in cultivation for more than 10-15 years will probably remain atroughly their current SOC levels, assuming that soil erosion levels are being controlled. Ifsoil erosion is occurring, the SOC levels may continue to gradually decline, as soilproductivity is diminished.

Under rangeland management that maintains existing vegetation, SOC levels will probablyremain roughly the same, as well. Erosion is not a problem on well-managed rangeland. Ifsoils are being eroded, however, SOC levels may decline as productivity is affected.

Forest growth and biomass accumulation will continue to increase over time on mostforest situations. The growth and yield curves developed by Birdsey can be used to gainrough estimates of the growth into the future. “Business as usual” management may include


many options, from “hands off” preservation to intensive silvicultural efforts to improvegrowth, and these may affect both carbon sequestration or, on the other hand, increase therisk of significant carbon release through wildfire. As a result, baseline estimates forindividual forest situations should be based on a realistic appraisal of what the current owneror manager is planning to do.b. possible confounding factors

(1) CO2/temperature/moisture/nutrient-enhanced growthElevated CO2 levels, increased temperature, and altered moisture or nutrient conditions

can affect ecosystems in ways that are difficult to assess. It has been predicted thatelevated CO2 levels will enhance growth more in some species than in others, but this hasnot been confirmed in ecosystem studies.22 Altered temperature and moisture conditionswill affect forest growth, but until predictive models are more reliable in terms of local orregional impacts, any predictions in the effect on future forest growth rates seemspeculative at this time. The same can be said for nutrient changes, although more isknown about the degree to which airborne deposition of chemical nutrients is currentlytaking place. Data and maps on nutrient deposition can be downloaded for use in stateplanning.23 However, reliable data on the impact these deposits currently have on forestgrowth rates—or are likely to have on future growth rates—are lacking.(2) Temperature enhanced respiration/pest problems

Some researchers postulate that, although changes in environmental conditions mayenhance growth, a rise in temperature may also have the effect of decreasing net forestgrowth, and therefore reduce forest sequestration rates. These effects could happen intwo ways: (a) by enhancing respiration and decomposition rates faster than growth ratesare increased, thereby reducing net primary productivity; or (b) by favoring insect anddisease vectors that would become more effective in attacking forest plants, thusweakening and killing them more effectively. In an example of the latter effect, Alaskanresearchers have noted that recent years, with milder winter weather, result in earlyemergence of the Spruce bark beetle, thus enabling the insect to complete its life cycle inone year rather than two. There is concern that such a trend could tip the balance in favorof the beetle, leading to wider epidemics.24

The major risk to natural ecosystems may be that changing environmental conditionsmay alter species adaptation, causing some species to lose footholds faster than they cangain new ones through migration. Some ecologists have predicted that, as a result ofclimate change, the terrestrial biosphere will probably become a source rather than a sinkfor carbon over the next century.25

3. Options for Increasing Sequestration1. Agriculture

1. Soils1. Cropland

(1) Conservation tillage — this practice, which replaces cultivation as the primary meansof seedbed preparation and weed control with a variety of approaches that retain cropresidues on or near the surface of the soil, is designed primarily as a means ofcontrolling soil erosion from wind and water. Its effects, however, can include a


buildup of SOC on most soils, due to the increased residue input and reduceddecomposition due to less aeration and disturbance of the upper soil layers. Nationally, it is estimated that almost half (49%) of the total potential for improvingCO2 sequestration on croplands could be achieved by the widespread adoption ofconservation tillage and improved crop residue management.26

(2) Improved cropping systems — These are practices such as better soil fertilitymanagement, improved crop rotations, and winter cover crops. Nationally, they areestimated to be able to provide around 25% of the total cropland CO2 sink potential.27

One example of such a practice is greater use of perennial forage crops in the rotation,which adds root mass and additional SOC to the soil, reduces cultivation, and providesprotection from soil erosion.28

(3) Intensification of prime farmland management — Meeting the world’s need for foodand fiber, while protecting environmental values, provides an incentive for intensifyingthe use of the very best land for agricultural production. While the CO2 sequestrationon the prime land itself may be modest (except, perhaps, in the case of irrigated desertand dryland soils, where enhanced productivity is related to increased SOC levels inmany situations), a major benefit lies in the opportunity to convert marginal croplands,organic soils, or wetlands back to native condition or biofuel production where theyare no longer needed to grow food.

(4) Reduced soil erosion — Reducing soil erosion from wind and water is a primary goalof the soil and water conservation program that can have an effect on both airresources and GHG balances in addition to its values for protecting water quality andfarm productivity. Erosion that moves soil from one place to another (including theSOC attached to the soil particles) is usually not counted in C inventories because itdoes not represent a loss of C, just a movement on the landscape. What it represents,however, is a productivity loss in the eroded soil that is often not replaced by increasedproductivity in the sedimentation area. When that occurs, the annual C uptake of thedegraded site is lessened, which results in lower production of biomass, which in turnresults in less biomass returned to the soil and lower SOC levels. On forested sites, itcan mean lower biomass production for many years, if not decades. Thus, programsthat prevent soil erosion have positive impacts on GHG balances.

The other positive impact lies in lowered PM levels from blowing dust, which can bea serious air pollutant during certain times of the year when crop coverage on the landis limited and high wind speeds are common. Practices such as conservation tillagethat leave a protective layer of crop residue or mulch on the soil surface during theseperiods can reduce dust blowing significantly. At the national level, it is estimated thatwind erosion on cultivated cropland was cut almost by half between 1982 and 1992,largely through the widespread adoption of conservation tillage and improved cropresidue management practices.29

2. Pasture and range(1) Improved grazing practices — Managing grazing to maintain healthy, productive

forage stands can maintain SOC levels at or near native conditions on many soils. Where SOC levels have been depleted by overgrazing, improving grazing practicesmay provide a significant sink opportunity for the restoration of the depleted SOC.


Localized soil and range condition surveys are needed to develop quantitativeestimates of this potential.

(2) Wildlife habitat restoration — In some programs such as the Conservation ReserveProgram (CRP), permanent grass cover is restored and then left unharvested andungrazed as a means of protecting against soil erosion and improving wildlife habitat. In addition to its recognized wildlife benefits (some upland bird species such as larkbuntings were estimated to increase 10-fold in population density in CRP versusassociated croplands.30), the estimated rates of SOC accumulation on CRP land were220 to 1,200 pounds per acre per year in a 16-state study encompassing the PacificNorthwest, Great Plains, and western Corn Belt. The highest rates were found in thewestern Corn Belt.31

2. Biomass energy production1. Dedicated energy crops — This approach can include grasses such as switchgrass or

woody species such as hybrid poplar which are grown specifically for conversion toenergy either through direct combustion to produce electricity or chemical conversion toliquid fuels. Because of the need for intensive management, mechanization, and highyields, these crops normally compete for cropland rather than being suited to existingforest or rangelands. The greatest C sequestration benefit is the substitution or offseteffect gained by leaving fossil fuels in the ground. There are, however, also significantSOC and standing biomass increases on these lands compared to the cropland theyreplace.32

Delivered net energy crop yields from good cropland in the U.S. are in the range of 2tons of Carbon per acre, and yields in the 4 tC/ac/yr range are believed to be possible ifproduction expanded and technology continues to progress.33

Where these biomass fuels are used in co-firing with coal, the benefits include reducedSOx and NOx emissions, as well as reduced net CO2 emissions.

2. Sugar, starch, or oilseed crops — These include annual or perennial crops in which onlya portion of the crop is used for energy, usually for liquid fuel production. Examplesinclude sugarcane and corn, which can be converted to alcohol or ethanol fuels, or oilseedcrops such as rapeseed that can be processed into biodiesel that burns in modified dieselengines.

Ethanol produced from corn is the most widespread use of the technology in the U.S.today, with about 1.7 billion gallons of ethanol production capacity in sold operation.34 Two processes (dry milling and wet milling) are used. Each produces about 2.5-2.6gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn, along with animal feed byproducts that contain 21to 60% protein.

The limit to the value of these crops as CO2 sequestration strategies is due to low netenergy efficiencies and fossil fuel inputs required in their production. Producing oneenergy unit of rapeseed biodiesel requires about 0.5-0.6 units of fossil energy, and netefficiencies in the range of 13-20% are reported for other grain and root crops.35 Sugarcane, which provides much of its own processing heat through burning of thebagasse, and palm oil, which has shown considerable promise elsewhere, are notavailable as options in much of the U.S. These efficiencies are, however, beingimproved and costs are coming down, due to continued research and development. The


projected cost of biomass ethanol has come from around $4.63 per gallon in 1980 toabout $1.22 per gallon in a modern plant, largely due to the introduction of superiorenzymes and process designs.36 Further technological developments promise to lowercosts to less than $1 per gallon, and those lower costs represent comparableimprovements in energy efficiency and CO2 mitigation value.

3. Crop residues and byproducts — There are opportunities to utilize crop residues forenergy production, either in direct combustion or chemical process, but they are highlyvariable from crop to crop and place to place. There are limits imposed by the feasibilityof collecting and transporting wastes, as well as to the extent to which crop residues canbe removed from the land without adversely affecting SOC levels. In general, it isestimated that only 50% of the residues can be removed without adversely affecting SOC,and only about 25% should be considered recoverable for energy purposes.37

2. Forests1. Extensively managed

In the following discussion, extensively managed forests are defined as those which aremanaged across large landscapes for a variety of purposes which may, but often does not,include timber production. Extensively managed forests are generally wild ecosystems,depending on natural regeneration for forest recovery following a disturbance such aswindstorm, wildfire, or timber harvest. Many of them are public forests, and some are inparks, wilderness areas, or other protected areas that preclude timber production. Wheretimber harvests are allowed and conducted, they are normally some type of partial cut ratherthan clearcut, to allow the remaining stand to re-seed and regenerate the forest. (Forestswhere practices such as thinning, pruning, fertilization, or replanting are done are consideredto be intensively managed.)

Forests often hold enormous stores of carbon (up to 100 tons per acre or more in the oldgrowth Douglas-fir forests of the Pacific Northwest). These standing stocks, while they seemstable to the eye, and often remain intact across several human generations, are subject torapid change, either through natural disturbances such as windstorms or fire, or throughhuman impacts such as timber harvest or land clearing. These events can quickly turn a forestfrom a carbon sink into a significant carbon source, so management goals in relation to climatechange may involve either (or both) enhancement of existing sinks and prevention ofunwanted sources.

The carbon impact of different disturbances may depend primarily on how the wood isutilized following the disturbance. A windstorm may, for example, blow down a fairly largepatch of old growth forest along the Pacific coast, repeating a disturbance process that hasbeen historically common. If the trees are left on the ground, they will gradually rot, with thecarbon recycled to the atmosphere. If the stand was made up of large, mature trees, the pileof decomposing wood may be several feet deep and cover the ground almost entirely. Newtrees may eventually poke up through it, but a fully regenerated stand will be decades, if notcenturies, in emerging in some places. The area will remain a carbon source for many years,in all likelihood.

If the downed trees catch fire, which is highly likely due to the flammability of the deadbranches and foliage, most of the small fuels will burn, but often the big logs will just char. Where large wood, close to the soil surface, burns or smolders for days, high temperatures


may destroy soil carbon and, if extreme enough, cause permanent soil damage to the areaaffected. An immediate carbon emission will result from the burning of the vegetation and thesoil organic matter, followed by subsequent emissions as the remaining organic materialdecomposes. This may be somewhat accelerated by the increased heat caused by blacksurfaces and the increased moisture due to the lack of big trees to take up soil water. Charcoal formation during the fire will lock some carbon up in a stable form, thus providing asmall permanent sink. Forest regeneration may be more rapid due to the exposure of moremineral soil due to the burning of the forest floor material and the mineralization of nutrientsfrom the burned foliage.

If the downed trees are salvaged and converted to lumber and paper use, much of thecarbon will either be stored in long-term products or burned to produce energy, offsetting theneed for fossil fuels. In general, the larger the trees, the more likely that the wood will go intolarge beams, construction materials, or other products with a longer life span in use. If thesalvage is done with care, protecting soils from damage and leaving ample dead wood on thesite to provide a carbon legacy for the regenerating forest, the new forest may regeneratemuch more rapidly than in either of the former two cases, and the carbon impact of the eventwill be minimized, both by the wood usage and the more rapid recovery.

If, however, the salvage is done with destructive methods that remove all woody debris,disturb soils, and otherwise maximize carbon losses on the site, the net carbon impact will befar more damaging. How the land is treated becomes a primary consideration in assessing thecarbon impact.

A similar analysis can be made in the event of a wildfire that kills the large trees, but theprocess is reversed. The standing dead trees will eventually fall. The area may regenerate, re-burn, or remain unforested for some time. Salvage of the dead trees may or may not be a wisemove in terms of forest regeneration or reducing carbon emissions. The real effect can onlybe assessed when an actual situation can be evaluated and management options compared. Ingeneral (contrary to popular myth), few forest management options in such a situation can begeneralized to be “good” or “bad.” It depends on the situation, and how the managementactivity is carried out.

1. managementExtensive forest management focuses on maintaining the integrity and productivity of

intact forest ecosystems. Practices may include the regulation of large ungulate (deer, elk,etc.) populations or domestic grazers (cattle, sheep, goats) to maintain vegetative diversity,protection of soils and streams from erosion and sediment damage through effective roadplacement and management or riparian area protection, mimicking of natural disturbanceregimes through prescribed fire, or designing timber harvests to mimic natural wind or firedisturbance patterns.

Much of this management will protect the integrity of the ecosystem, and thereforeprevent major emissions, but the effect on sequestration rates is likely to be minor. Projectsthat claim to improve carbon balances on existing, extensively managed forests are oftenbased on the claim that, without such management, the forest will be destroyed. In areaswhere forest clearing for other uses such as agriculture, pasture, or urban use is common,that may be the case. Such areas are rare in the U.S., however, particularly in the areaswhere extensively-managed forests are found. Claims for major carbon benefits from


changed management should be examined closely to assure that the base case (the without-project simulation) is realistic. 2. protection

Protecting extensively-managed forests from destruction and major carbon emissions islargely a matter of protecting them from wildfire and/or land clearing. As noted earlier, landclearing is more of a problem in the developing world than in the U.S., but there areinstances where it may be a possibility. In general, however, there will be little gained fromattempts to address this issue through air quality programs. Most land clearing is associatedwith urban growth areas, so working through local land use planning and controls is themost logical approach to addressing the issue.

Wildfire is a definite risk in extensively-managed forests, particularly in the forest typeswhere fire return intervals have historically been fairly short.38 A Century of increasingly-effective fire suppression has left many areas so loaded with flammable fuels that a severewildfire is virtually assured unless major efforts are made to reduce fuels and restore fire-tolerant conditions.

It has been estimated that the current decade (1995-2005) could see between 15 and 30million acres of wildfire in the 11 Western States, and that most of the larger events will bewell beyond the current capacity of fire management agencies to control or suppress.39

To the extent that Western wildfires continue to be characterized by large, intense eventsthat kill a high proportion of the older trees within the fire perimeter, they will setecosystems back several hundred years, particularly in the ponderosa pine forests that are soextensive throughout the region. To the extent that they contain significant areas of high-severity soil impact, they will affect watersheds for decades, if not longer, and in the mostseverely damaged areas, affect ecosystem recovery and successional pathways. Thus, inaddition to imposing enormous economic costs due to suppression activities, propertydestruction, and economic resources lost, there will be significant environmental damage asa result.

The situation in the Western states suggests that forest protection efforts in many areas,well-meaning though they might be, will be of little avail, given the current condition of theecosystems involved.40 Forests may need to be intentionally altered, in terms of thevegetative structures, fuel amounts and arrangements, and canopy density before they willbe in condition to withstand the periodic fires that tend to occur in the region. Where forestprotection disallows this intentional vegetative manipulation, the protection effort is, in alllikelihood, doomed to fail. The main question is not whether such forests burn, but when.

One of the opportunities for increasing carbon sequestration on extensively-managedforests that is tightly linked to the control of other criteria pollutants is prescribed fire. Theappropriate use of fire may not only reduce emissions through the conversion of large,stand-replacing wildfires into less intense, more natural wildfires, but it may also protectlarge trees from lethal damage, thus keeping the forest healthy, growing, and sequesteringcarbon. This situation creates a dilemma for air quality managers, because the Clean Air Actexplicitly requires regulations that protect human health and visibility from damage due to“impairment from man-made pollution.”41

The dilemma in many Western states is that, if prescribed fire and its effects are limited tootightly by the regulations, the untreated forests may be far more susceptible to


uncontrollable wildfires which release many times more pollution, and do so in fairly shorttime periods, leading to high, and sometimes locally hazardous, concentrations.42

2. Intensively managed1. afforestation

An estimated 116 million acres of land that was biologically suited to growing trees wasbeing used as marginal crop and pasture land in 1982.43 About half was in cropland and halfin pasture at the time, and it was equally nearly divided in terms of its suitability forsoftwood and hardwood forests. The total opportunity it offered was between 1.5 and 5.2billion cubic feet of wood a year, which would have been somewhere in the range of 36 and131 million tons of carbon added to the forest inventory. Some of that opportunity—4 to 5million acres—has been captured by tree planting under the Conservation Reserve Programsince 1985, but there are over 100 million acres still available for trees if the appropriateincentive to landowners can be created.

Afforestation projects are reasonably simple to evaluate, in terms of the potential increasein the carbon sink. Growth models exist for most soil and forest combinations, and a plancan be developed to achieve a high probability of success in reaching the planned growthrates. For many states, tree planting projects that enlarge the forest base and create new,rapidly-growing forests are a prime opportunity to enhance forest sinks.44 Average annualsequestration rates in the range of 1 to 3 tons of carbon per acre are commonly achieved.

2. new varietiesIndustrial forest companies work to achieve faster tree growth and higher-quality timber

through tree selection programs that test and select the most desirable individuals from ahighly diverse genetic population. Tree selection takes many years, because most trees donot reach sexual maturity quickly, but the programs have been in effect for 40-50 years inmany places, and improved strains are being planted in most commercial forest operations. While there have been objections to the use of genetically-improved stock on the basis ofsimplifying the gene pool, forest geneticists argue that what has changed are the dominantcharacteristics, not the range of the gene pool itself. Those criticisms are certain to beheard, however, as genetic engineering replaces selection as the featured means ofdeveloping improved varieties.

Where individual trees utilize sunlight, water and nutrients more effectively, or resistinsects and diseases better, their additional growth rates translate directly into enhancedcarbon sequestration. If they produce a higher-quality wood product, a higher proportion ofthe harvested wood is likely to end up in long-lived products such as building materials orfurniture, so that has a positive sequestration effect, as well. Programs to encourage the useof better-adapted, more productive trees in intensively-managed forests should producepositive results for state climate change plans, while doing little or nothing to adverselyaffect criteria pollutant emissions.

3. longer rotationsEncouraging longer rotations between harvest cycles can result in both a higher average

annual level of carbon storage on the forest site, and the production of higher-quality wood


products as the result of larger logs. For many commercial forests, the main incentive isfinancial, so any programs that produce improved net revenues through higher prices forbetter material, tax incentives, or other financial instruments will encourage the use oflonger forest rotations.

4. improved harvest techniquesA related opportunity exists through changing timber harvest methods. Timber harvest is,

except for intense wildfire, the most disruptive event in the forest life cycle. Attention to theeffects of forest harvest methods on carbon sinks will lead to methods that:* Leave enough canopy cover to shade the soil and keep soil temperatures reduced;* Leave foliage and small branches on-site to minimize nutrient export;* Burn slash carefully, and leave adequate snags and large woody debris as a carbon legacy

for the ecosystem; and,* Minimize soil disturbance and movement, through mechanical activities or erosion, to

prevent export of soil carbon or accelerated organic decomposition due to aeration.45

The practice of clearcut harvesting attracted negative public reaction to its appearance andeffect on the forest, and foresters failed to convince the public that it is a necessary anduseful practice. In 1992, the Forest Service declared a new policy to minimize the use ofclearcutting as a harvest method wherever other methods are available. The SustainableForestry Initiative encourages industrial foresters to voluntarily limit the size of clear-cut(some states also have enacted size limits). Reports by participating members of the Amer-ican Forest and Paper Association indicate that the average size of industry clear-cut was 57acres in 1997, down from 66 acres in 1995.46

This should be a positive change in terms of carbon sinks and the effects of forest harvestupon them. Particularly in its most extreme forms, where the slash, stumps, and debris werepiled and burned, the volatilization of carbon, both in the debris and the soil, wasmaximized. Although little evidence of site deterioration has been found, it seemsinconceivable that interrupting the normal cycles in such an aggressive fashion would gowithout impact.5. more efficient utilization

Waste from forest harvests, whether in the woods or in the manufacturing process,represents carbon that is lost back to the atmosphere, either through decomposition orburning. Reducing waste losses in manufacturing has been minimized in recent years by airand water pollution controls, so that today most manufacturing waste is immediatelyrecycled or burned for energy production within the facility.

Waste in the timber harvesting process comes from broken or damaged pieces, impropercutting, or damage to standing timber in the felling and skidding processes. Most of thatcan be avoided by properly trained and equipped workers and, since the economic incentivesfavor the minimization of waste in most cases, this can be avoided. Where professional helphas been retained to design and oversee a timber harvest project, or where the loggers aretrained and given incentives to reduce waste, wood utilization rates are about as high as canreasonably be expected. Exceptions are most likely to occur on small private holdings thatdo not utilize professional assistance, or on public lands where low-bid contracting providesincentives for hasty work and wasteful practices.


6. increased use of wood in place of more energy-intensive substitutesIn the main market for wood products — building materials — the competition comes

largely from the steel and masonry industries. The steel industry has developed framingmaterials that compete well in price and performance for use in homes and other buildingapplications, and that out-compete wood when timber prices rise. Its claim to being a“green” product lies in its high degree of recycling. Concrete and brick make much of theirlocal abundance in many areas, and long life in use. Wood counters with its claim ofrenewability.

The question of total environmental effect is a complex one, and several parameters needto be considered. One of the measures relevant to the climate policy debate is total energyexpended in the life cycle of the product. This estimates the relative amount of energyinvolved in extracting the basic material, processing or manufacturing the product,fabricating the building, occupying it, and disposing or recycling the material at the end ofits useful life.

On this measure, wood competes well. An interior wall constructed with steel studs is 3times more energy intensive than its wood counterpart, meaning that the CO2 emissions arealso 3 times as great.47 If the analysis is extended to an exterior, load-bearing wall, thewood advantage increases to something on a 1:4 energy and CO2 ratio with steel, evenwhere 50% recycled steel is assumed, because of the thicker steel needed for structuralstrength. On another environmental parameter — water consumption — steel assemblyrequires some 25 times more water than its wood counterpart. This increases the pollutingeffluents associated with industrial water use, so if either water shortages or pollutioncontrol costs are a locally-important environmental issue, this is a factor to consider.

While the relative environmental advantages of wood over steel seem significant, the totalannual climate impacts are modest by comparison with many of the other forestry-relatedopportunities to affect CO2 emissions. The life-cycle model results reported by Meilindicate that, for an interior wall, wood construction results in about 0.35 tons of CO2

emissions per 1,000 ft2 of wall while steel results in about 1.07 tons. Comparable estimatesfor exterior walls are 0.44 tons CO2 per 1,000 ft2 for wood and 1.76 tons for steel. In 1995,U.S. housing starts were around 972,000, with the average house utilizing around 4,260board feet of framing lumber to construct an average of around 1,600 ft2 of interior wallsand 2,170 ft2 of exterior walls.48 These estimates can be used to test the potential CO2

effect of the steel industry’s goal of achieving 25% of the U.S. market for framing materialsin housing construction. Table 1 indicates the impact of options for using wood and steel.The difference between all-wood and all-steel—about 1 million tons C per year in terms ofCO2 emissions— is only a partial measure of the climate impact of the two competitors,because it does not account for the wood wall’s value in storing C for many years, whichwould increase the wood’s advantage.

Table 1.—Estimated emissions from alternative building materials used to frame newresidential construction in the U.S., based on 1995 construction estimates.

Framing Option CO2

EmissionsC Emis-sions


(Million tons)

All-wood framing 1,488,534 405,964

95% wood; 5% steel 1,686,759 460,025

75% wood; 25% steel 2,479,661 676,271

All-steel framing 5,453,042 1,487,193

There would appear to be a significant opportunity to increase carbon storage, as well asachieve other environmental goals, by using wood more effectively. This would includesubstituting wood for more environmentally-damaging products, recycling wood and paperproducts extensively, and improving the efficiency of wood use in buildings and otherproducts. Research by the USDA Forest Service indicates that the average annual impact ofincreased recycling of paper and wood products could result in from 8 to 44 million tons ofadditional carbon stored in forests each year.49

7. urban and community forestsIn urban situations, properly placed urban trees can have a significant impact on

atmospheric carbon buildup through energy conservation. Studies in the U.S. indicate thatthe daily electrical usage for air-conditioning could be reduced by 10-50% by properlylocated trees and shrubs.50 Savings of 1,351-1,665 kWh per year for a 1500 ft2 house havebeen recorded.51 On the other side of the calendar for energy conservation, properly placedtrees can also reduce winter heating costs by 4 to 22 percent.52

Sampson et al. have proposed a goal for a 10-year program aimed at increasing the canopycover by 10% on residential lands, and 5-20% on other urban lands in the U.S. They estimatethat the effect of such an improvement program on U.S. urban forests could result insequestration of 3 to 9 million tons of C per year in trees and soils, and an added 7 to 29million ton reduction in C emissions due to energy conservation from improved shading,increased evapo-transpiration, and reduction of the urban heat island, along with wintertimeheat savings.53

Confounding the urban tree question are complex questions around the subject of trees andsmog formation. Adding trees to urban areas can, if properly done, reduce the urban heatisland effect that is common to most urban areas. By so doing, it can help reduce smogformation, since the incidence of smog events has been shown to increase by 10 percent foreach 5oF rise in temperature.54 So urban trees that reduce temperatures can be part of asmog-reduction strategy, as well as a GHG source-reduction strategy. The added carbonthey sequester as part of tree growth and wood accumulation may be only a small proportionof the total beneficial GHG and pollution control benefit.

But trees, like all vegetation, also produce volatile hydrocarbons (VOC’s) that are a smogprecursor. Combined with NOx, in the presence of sunlight, VOC’s from trees can become amajor contributor to a local smog problem. In areas like Atlanta, trees produce so muchVOC that early studies indicated that air quality regulations focusing on reducinganthropogenic VOC emissions (from autos, factories, or landfills, for example) were likely to


be less effective than those focused on reducing NOx. The reason, it was argued, was thatnatural VOC’s would be sufficiently present to support smog formation under any regulationof anthropogenic sources.55 A similar study in 1991 in California was picked up by the newsmedia with headlines like “L.A.’s Trees Rival Cars as Pollution-Creators.”56 The result was,predictably, a furor over whether the tree planting programs being conducted in the name ofenvironmental improvement were good or bad.

Table 2. Tree species ranked by relative hydrocarbon emissions for Southern Californiaspecies.

Species Index

Crepe Myrtle 0Camphor 1Aleppo Pine 5Deodar Cedar 10Italian Stone Pine 14Monterey Pine 30Brazilian Pepper 43Canary Island Pine 57Gingko 100California Pepper 123Liquidambar 1,223Carrotwood 1,633

In addressing those questions, the most likely response is that the benefits of trees inreducing urban heat islands and energy usage far outweighs the risk that the addition of newtrees will significantly affect local VOC levels. There are options, however, that may beworth considering when large tree planting programs are considered, because tree speciesvary widely in their relative hydrocarbon emissions. Table 2 shows some of the relativeemission factors for Southern California species, and indicates that, where VOC levels are aregulatory concern, several species should be avoided where possible.57

3. Wetlands/bogs1. Protection

Wetland protection, for environmental reasons other than GHG reductions, is an importantpart of modern U.S. environmental policy. But wetland protection can be an important partof a GHG program, as well. Because of their high rates of net primary productivity, and thelow rates of decomposition due to anaerobic conditions, wetlands and bogs produce highrates of organic carbon accumulation, with many coastal marsh soils under constantly-wetconditions containing 10 times as much soil carbon as their more well-drained counterparts.58

If these soils are drained and cultivated, several feet of peat that took centuries toaccumulate can be lost as CO2 emissions in a matter of decades. If protected, those samesoils may sequester from 100 to nearly 1,000 pounds of carbon per acre per year.59 This


sequestration can continue, perhaps indefinitely, so long as the wetland conditions aremaintained.

2. RestorationFor the reasons listed above, restoring wetland conditions to previously-drained areas is an

opportunity to both slow carbon emissions and restore sequestration. This will only work,however, if the original marsh vegetation and wetland processes can be restored so that muckand peat formation resumes. While this is not always easy, there are successful wetlandrestoration and mitigation banking programs available to consult as to the local opportunityfor enlarging the existing effort.

4. Deserts1. Productivity enhancement

Areas adjacent to the largely uninhabitable and unproductive deserts of the world aredrylands where productivity could be enhanced through the use of improved grazingtechniques, water management, or irrigation with fresh or saline waters. These areas supportmost of today’s irrigated croplands, and much of the rest is used for grazing or drylandfarming. A major environmental problem is the continued degradation of the soils, oftenresulting in desertification. Management to retard or prevent desertification will rely, in largepart, on improving SOC through such practices as improved grazing management, betterdryland farming methods that conserve water and incorporate crop residues into the soil, andbetter management of limited rainfall.60

2. halophyte production/storageDeserts typically don’t grow much biomass, but if they are irrigated, can become very high-

producing lands due to the warm, sunny climate. Because they are so dry, biologicaldecomposition rates are slow, as well. This has led to two suggestions for using desert landsas a source of CO2 sequestration or mitigation. One option might be to grow halophytes(salt-tolerant crops) on saline soils, using brackish or sea water for irrigation. Yields of 7-15tons of dry biomass per acre have been recorded in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona,representing a net carbon uptake of some 2-4 tons per acre per year.61 The plant materialcould then be burned for electricity production, or co-fired with coal. Because of the veryslow decomposition rates associated with desert environments, another proposal might be tosimply store the plant material there for extended periods, or incorporate it into the topsoilfor increasing SOC levels that are normally very low under native conditions.

4. Strategies for implementation1. Objectives

1. Reducing loss of existing sinks1. Support programs that protect existing wetlands, bogs, etc.2. Support programs for sustainable management of forests, including reduced-impact

harvesting, rapid regeneration of harvested forests, and soil erosion prevention.3. Support programs for recycling construction wood, brick and stone.

2. Expanded storage1. Enlarging the forest base


(1) Support tree planting programs that convert marginal crop and pasture land, ordamaged forest sites that have not recovered naturally.

2. Long term sequestration(1) Support programs for longer forest rotation cycles.(2) Support research and regulations on improved wood coverings and preservatives to

retard decomposition and lengthen useful life of products.3. Enhanced sequestration rates

1. Improving forest growth rates(1) Support research on improved tree selection(2) Avoid regulations that may “freeze” species or site selection, since future climate

change may require managers to change species in response to conditions.4. Alter wildfire dynamics to prevent major source emissions and protect site productivity

through programs that improve the fire-tolerance of forest ecosystems and reduce total GHGand pollution emissions.In the western United States, a large area of forests that were historically disturbed by

frequent, low-intensity wildfire have been without fire’s effect for a century or more.62 Theresult, as biomass levels have built up, are forests that are so heavily laden with flammable fuelsthat today’s wildfires are larger and hotter than those of the past. Table 3 illustrates theaverage annual wildfire experienced in the 11 western United States in recent decades. Theannual averages shown are the average of the 10 years in each decade, which helps reduce thevariability experienced from year to year because of annual weather conditions.

Table 3. Average annual wildfire, 11 Western United States, by decade.

Years 1940-49 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-96

Average acresburned per year

825,348 476,920 463,871 765,948 1,553,142 1,872,353

Source: USDA Forest Service (1940-1990); National Interagency Fire Center (1990-96)

These wildfires are increasingly costly, both in terms of suppression costs and resourcedamage. In the ten years 1985-1994, the Forest Service reported expenditures of over $4billion in fire suppression costs, not including the costs incurred by other federal, state andlocal agencies, nor the amount spent on post-fire watershed or forest restoration. Much ofthe suppression money was spent protecting homes and other structures adjacent to wildlandareas. In 1994, $250-300 million was spent in urban-wildland areas.63

Wildfires emit enormous amounts of C, but estimates are difficult to derive because fuelconsumption estimates for wildfires are seldom available. In one assessment of two large(120,000 acres) 1994 wildfires in the Boise National Forest, Neuenschwander and Sampsonestimated that the average fuel consumption was 47.2 tons per acre, equivalent to 21.4 tonsof carbon per acre.64 These fires, which burned at mixed intensities in ponderosa pineforests, consumed more fuel than average for western wildfires, many of which burn in grassand brush fuels. Average wildfire emissions are on the order of 10 tons C per acre burned.65 That puts the average emission impact in the range of 15-20 million tons C per year from thewestern wildfires.


The challenge for forest managers is to reduce available fuels in the most dangeroussituations, and introduce managed fire under cooler conditions that restore ecosystemconditions without destructive effects.66 That is a formidable task, due to the large areasinvolved and the lack of markets for the smaller material that needs to be removed from manysites. Research in an Arizona ponderosa pine forest found, for example, that 37 tons ofthinning slash and 21 tons of surface duff per acre needed to be removed prior to arestoration burn.67 A biomass market for this material, so that it could be burned cleanly forenergy production, would be welcomed by forest managers, but is currently not competitivewith natural gas generation.68

Between the estimated 47 tons of biomass burned per acre in the recent Boise NationalForest fires (above) and the 58 tons of excess that Covington found, it appears that thesurplus biomass in overcrowded ponderosa pine forests, were it to be made available forenergy production, could be in the range of 50 tons per acre over 20 million acres. (Thereare around 29 million acres of ponderosa pine forests in the west; most are in densestructures that need thinning).69 That’s roughly 1 billion tons of biomass, and while it took100 years or so to accumulate on these sites, there is no assurance that it will remain in itscurrent unstable condition for much longer without burning in an unwanted wildfire. Oneestimate suggests that only 10-15 years remain before most of it burns.70 Removing thisbiomass through planned thinnings, and burning it for energy within the next decade, wouldrequire the burning of 100 million tons of biomass a year from the ponderosa pine forestsalone, resulting in an average offset in the range of 50 million tons C emissions per year.

5. Replacing more energy-intensive substitutes1. Support programs and local regulations that promote energy-conserving building

products and methods.6. Reducing energy demand through landscaping

1. Support urban tree planting programs2. Support demand-reducing landscaping programs sponsored by local utilities3. Support local regulations that encourage citizens and volunteer groups to undertake

much of the work involved in improving urban landscapes4. Support local urban forestry and tree care programs. The energy-saving value of trees is

directly proportional to the degree of canopy cover in an urban area, and canopy cover, formost species, is directly associated with the age, size, and health of the tree. Good treecare programs at the local level can double tree life, which is often only 10-30 years understressful urban conditions. Doubling tree life spans returns excellent economic andenvironmental benefits, but the local budgets for such activities are often the first to feel thecuts of a belt-tightening period.71

2. Tools1. Regulatory mechanisms

1. Developed nations(1) Forest management acts


In 1992, 38 states had at least one program to regulate forestry practices on private lands. It wasestimated then that 22 percent of the private timberland was under a state regulatory program ofsome sort, and new legislation being considered could raise that figure to nearly 40 percent.72 Most of the existing regulations are tied to concerns for protecting air and water quality andrapidly regenerating forests after harvest, and few have been developed with any direct connectionto enhancing or protecting forests as carbon sinks.

(1) Best management practicesAlmost every state has some form of water quality protection program that includes a

list of EPA-approved “Best management practices” or “BMP’s.” These relate primarilyto forestry activities that directly affect water quality, such as road and culvertconstruction, operations near stream or lake banks, and streamside management zones. While in many states compliance with BMP’s is a voluntary program, efforts such as theAmerican Forest & Paper Association’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), whichrequires industry managers to comply with all approved BMP’s, mean that compliancelevels are reasonably high in most places.

Additional elements to existing state BMP lists may be possible on grounds ofenhancing sequestration capability of forests, but resistance on the part of landowners toadditionalregulations may bedifficult toovercome.

(2) mandatedreforestation

Several of the stateforest practice actshave mandatoryreforestationrequirements, as doesthe SFI. For mostintensively managedforests, reforestation isa standard part of themanagement activity. State programswishing to assureimproved reforestationmay find opportunity in improved efforts on federal lands, where budgets often fall short ofneeds, and on small private holdings, where landowners lack the capital or desire to investin long-term forest improvements.(3) restrictions on urban/agricultural development

State or local land use regulations designed to restrict the conversion of forests to urban


or agricultural use exist in some places, but their effectiveness has, in general, been limited. At times, their impact can become counter-productive. Regulations requiring large-lotzoning, for example, may seek to prevent the development of subdivisions on forest landbut may, instead, accelerate the fragmentation of large forest plots into small ones thatcan’t be managed sustainably. Oregon’s law, for example, requires 20-acre housing lots insome places, and the result is productive forest land cut up into 20-acre homesites thatmake sustainable management difficult.73

(4) wetland protectionsWetland protection, including wetland mitigation programs, are commonly part of local

water quality or environmental regulations. Supporting additional efforts on the basis ofcarbon sequestration may be possible. If an international program involving fixed carbonemission targets and emissions trading becomes available, wetland projects could becomeone way for companies or organizations to finance mitigation efforts.

2. Developing nations(1) creation of protected areas

Some states and localities may wish to investigate the opportunity to sponsor a carbonsequestration project abroad, either as a cooperative effort such as sister-cities, or as partof the United States program on Activities Implemented Jointly.74 Several existing efforts,largely undertaken by international environmental organizations, are testing the feasibilityof enhancing carbon sequestration (or preventing unwanted carbon emissions) throughimproved protection of parks or other forest regions in developing countries.

2. Non-regulatory mechanisms1. Developed nations

(1) Non-Market measures(1) Education

Education and technical assistance have been the mainstay of the forestry and soilconservation programs within the U.S. Department of Agriculture for over a Century. Ingeneral, these approaches work very well when they attempt to get landowners to dothings that result in improved economic returns. When they try to get people to do thingsthat are uneconomic, or that fly in the face of local cultural norms, they are lesseffective.75

If carbon sequestration rights become a marketable item, it can be anticipated thatUSDA programs will be most valuable in helping landowners develop the plans andagreements necessary to increase sinks, document carbon amounts, and meet whateverrequirements for documentation are needed. To the extent that carbon credits remain asan intangible value, education and technical assistance won’t be able to accomplish asmuch because landowners will see no reason to carry out sequestration projects. Stateprograms could consider creating carbon incentive programs as part of the state’s effort,or seek ways to attract private carbon investment programs into the state. If these efforts(or the international negotiations) create financial incentives for landowners, existingUSDA programs can be an important part of the successful implementation of futureprojects.

(2) Sustainable Forestry Initiative


The SFI has been adopted by the forest products industry as a standard with which themembers of the American Forest & Paper Association (the industry’s largest tradeorganization) must comply. It has been in operation for three years, and produces anannual progress report that documents some of the measurable accomplishments of itsparticipants. An Independent Expert Review Panel representing 18 non-affiliatedconservation, environment, professional, and academic organizations provides a degreeof oversight. The major challenges in demonstrating sustainable forest practices at thispoint are those of knowing exactly what to measure at the field level in order to getreliable indicators as to how the forest is responding. Measuring conditions that areunsustainable, such as soil erosion, are possible, but demonstrating a lack of soil erosiondoes not assure that the forest is sustainable. Work is underway to identify a means ofmeasuring carbon sequestration and conservation as one performance measure, but thedetails are not yet developed. As these practical challenges are addressed by the SFI,however, approaches and solutions tested on industry lands will become available to non-industrial private owners and public agencies, so the SFI may have significant influenceover forest practices that extend well beyond the 55 million acres currently enrolled in theprogram.76

(2) Market measures(1) Labeling (Certification)

There is a major international effort, coordinated by the Forest Stewardship Council(FSC), to create market incentives for forest products that are certified as having beenproduced in a sustainable manner on the land, and processed in companies that adhere tothe environmental and social standards adopted within the FSC. The FSC was created byseveral major international environmental, business, and human rights organizations, withits initial concern aimed primarily at the goal of reducing the unsustainable harvest oftropical forests through market incentives. At the current time, the FSC is working withseveral state agencies to gain certification of state forest lands, and attempting to set upregional councils in the United States to adapt the international standards to regionalconditions.

Reluctance to become involved in FSC certification programs has generally been basedon the cost of certification, which includes not only meeting the standards fordevelopment of plans and policies, but also involvement of third-party certification teams. This has been a deterrent to small companies and individual owners that FSC is workingto overcome through more efficient and streamlined methods such as certifying aprofessional manager, who could then manage certified forests for a group of clients. Another difficult issue for many American companies has been the “chain of custody”issue, which requires tracking the wood from forest to consumer to assure that it is notmixed with “non-certified” wood or processed in facilities that disregard environmentalstandards. This can become enormously difficult and expensive if the business is basedon a multi-source stream of either primary or waste products, such as logs from dozensof small private sources, or wood chips for paper production. As a result of issues suchas this, FSC certification is significantly more attractive to some companies than toothers, based mainly on the manner in which their business operates. Whether theobstacles will be overcome, and certification become a more significant factor in forest


management, may rest on whether or not the public indicates a willingness to pay morefor a certified product. So far, that has yet to be documented in the United States.

Other routes toward certification of forest products may emerge from landownerassociations or the forest products industry itself if consumer support emerges. (2) Demand reduction

1) Recycling of paper products is commonly cited as an opportunity to reduce forestharvest and conserve carbon. In 1997, it was estimated that 45 million tons of paperand paperboard — 45.2 percent of all paper used — were recovered.77 There are nodoubt further improvements that could be made, but future increases in recycling aregoing to come at higher costs and reduced benefits as the material gets morescattered and difficult to collect and recycle.

2) Recycling of construction wood, brick and stone is not commonly done, asconstruction economics place more emphasis on conserving time and labor than onconserving materials. Opportunities exist, however, to greatly increase recyclingprograms that would offer not only environmental benefits and new jobs, but couldalso become a source of some high-quality materials such as old-growth wood thatare no longer available as virgin material.

(3) Use of wood to replace alternativesRegulations limiting the use of substitute materials, or favoring the use of wood in

construction could result in enhanced carbon sequestration.(4) tradeable CO2 sequestration credits

International negotiations stemming from the Rio Environmental Summit in 1992 arecontinuing to develop the idea of tradeable permits or credits. Moving at the slow paceof international politics and diplomacy, the creation of some form of tradeable credits,including those acquired through land use and management changes that enhance carbonsequestration, seem likely to emerge some time in the next decade. Whether there areopportunities here for state and local climate change programs depends almost entirely onthe ultimate outcome of these ongoing developments, so the most effective way toevaluate the situation is to stay attuned to the process until some resolution is reached.

(3) Fiscal measures(1) Tax incentives

1) for tree planting — There is a federal reforestation tax credit that allowslandowners to qualify for a tax credit of up to $10,000 a year if they carry outreforestation within the requirements of the law. There is considerable evidence,however, that the program is complex enough that only a small percentage of thetaxpayers who are eligible take advantage of it.78

2) discourage development — As noted earlier, channeling development pressureswithout incurring unintended consequences has been enormouslychallenging to local and state governments. If attempts todiscourage subdividing of forest land, for example, lead to morewidely scattered rural housing, fragmentation of forest landscapes,etc., the net effect on many environmental parameters, includingenergy use, carbon sequestration and pollution control, may verywell end up being negative.


3) preserve large parcels — Management for a variety of purposes is usually easier onlarge parcels, but maintaining large parcels in a world where rural land is basicallyfixed in size, but populations continue to escalate, may be a challenge that is beyondthe scope of most state and local programs.

2. Developing nations(1) Non-fiscal measures

(1) joint implementation — As noted earlier, state and local entities may findcooperation in an international project to be a popular way to help mitigate some oftheir local CO2 emissions.

(2) education — Some states and communities are involved with “sister” entities indeveloping countries, and support for educational activities may be an excellent wayto include GHG and pollution controls in that effort.

(2) Fiscal measures(1) trading — As noted above, this may become an option, depending on international

agreements and institutional developments.

5. Conclusions, recommendations and potential emission reductionsState and local air quality programs have both opportunities and challenges as they administer

programs in connection with the emerging concerns over climate change. A few are listed below.1. Agriculture

1. Promote expansion of conservation tillage on cultivated lands — While done largely as asoil conservation/water quality practice, it increases carbon sequestration in agricultural soilswhile reducing windblown dust.

2. Promote new energy crops and renewable fuel technologies — If dependence on fossilfuels and fuel switching strategies are to become more effective, renewables will need to playa part. It takes time for the agricultural system to incorporate a new crop, so research anddevelopment needs to be encouraged. These crops will increase carbon sequestration in soilsas well as offset fossil sources.

2. Forestry1. Work with forestry agencies to understand and meet forest ecosystem requirements for

prescribed burning as a means of preventing uncontrollable wildfire. This can be extremelydifficult in places where the amount of prescribed fire needed to return ecosystems to a morestable condition is in excess of the pollution limits allowed under current regulations. It isconceivable that the regulations are, in some areas, inconsistent with the ecosystems thatsurround the area, since they were established for the benefit of the human population, notthe stability of the natural system. If that is the case, other avenues must be sought, and theforestry agencies will need technical assistance and public support to meet the need. Thestakes are high, however, since failure to restore sustainable forest and woodland ecosystemscould mean much higher pollution episodes, as well as enormous economic andenvironmental losses to the region.

Efforts to establish hazard-risk models so that treatment plans can be the most cost-effective in reducing criteria pollutants and protecting forest carbon-sequestering capabilityare under way. Participation in those local and statewide efforts may become an excellent


vehicle for a planning agency wishing to help develop the best available strategy for meetingthe wildfire challenge. (Early models indicate that a strategic treatment plan can, while itallows more prescribed fire than currently being done, reduce total PM and criteria pollutantswhile also lowering CO2 emissions and retaining forest sinks in healthy growth.

2. Incorporate support for afforestation projects on rural lands within the state’s plan. Financial support may come from private or federal sources, and state participation may bewarranted. These projects reduce air and water pollution while increasing carbon sinks,particularly where marginal crop and pasture lands are returned to forest. Significant effectson criteria pollutants will not be realized in all likelihood, but any effects are likely to bepositive.

3. Support urban forestry and tree planting programs aimed at reducing urban heat islands. These plantings help reduce ozone formation through heat island reduction, save energythrough reduced air conditioning needs, remove criteria pollutants from the air by the tree“scrubbing” process, and temper stormwater peak flows by helping intercept rain water anddelay its travel into stormwater facilities. Urban tree care programs lengthen tree lifetimes,greatly extending and expanding the benefits by retaining large trees longer. In areas whereVOC emissions are a major ozone concern, work with local agencies to encourage theplanting of species that are low VOC-emitters. Involvement in such programs as CoolCommunities, a cooperative program administered by American Forests and the Departmentof Energy as part of the President’s Climate Change Action Plan, is a good way forcommunities to gain access to technical assistance and support.79

3. Wetlands1. Support local wetland protection, restoration, and mitigation programs. These efforts will

protect or restore carbon sequestration values while also being important for water qualityand local environmental values.


6. Appendix—Forest Data80

Table A-1a. Forest land area in the United States by ownership, RPA region, and State, 1992, Western States

Acreage grouped by ownership type

All Total Total Forest Other Other Forest Other

State Owners Public Private Service Federal* Public Industry Private

(Thousand Acres)

Arizona 19,595 11,674 7,921 8,873 1,854 947 12 7,909

Colorado 21,338 15,289 6,049 10,028 4,606 655 0 6,049

Idaho 21,621 18,231 3,390 16,100 989 1,142 1,284 2,106

Montana 22,512 16,246 6,266 13,833 1,664 749 1,618 4,648

Nevada 8,938 8,408 530 2,395 6,010 3 0 530

New Mexico 15,296 9,253 6,043 7,178 1,184 891 0 6,043

Utah 16,234 13,236 2,998 5,146 7,472 618 0 2,998

Wyoming 9,966 7,989 1,977 4,838 2,873 278 37 1,940

INTERMOUNTAIN 135,500 100,326 35,174 68,391 26,652 5,283 2,951 32,223

ALASKA 129131 99327 29804 11250 66152 21925 0 29804

Oregon 27,997 17,153 10,844 12,661 3,399 1,093 5,208 5,636

Washington 21,432 11,624 9,808 7,586 543 3,495 4,304 5,504

PACIFIC NW 49,429 28,777 20,652 20,247 3,942 4,588 9,512 11,140

California 37,263 20,229 17,034 15,588 3,642 999 3,280 13,754

Hawaii 1,748 593 1,155 0 52 541 0 1,155

PACIFIC SW 39,011 20,822 18,189 15,588 3,694 1,540 3,280 14,909

TOTAL WEST 353,071 249,252 103,819 115,476 100,440 33,336 15,743 88,076

TOTAL U.S. 737,633 313,878 423,755 139,944 109,187 64,747 71,209 352,546

*Includes Bureau of Land Management, Park Service, Department of Defense, and all other federal ownerships.

Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Statistics of the Uniited States, 1992


Table A-1b. Forest land area in the United States by ownership, RPA region, and State, 1992, Eastern States

Acreage grouped by ownership type

All Total Total Forest Other Other Forest Other

State Owners Public Private Service Federal* Public Industry Private

(Thousand Acres)

Connecticut 1,819 239 1,580 0 14 225 4 1,576

Deleware 389 16 373 0 2 14 31 342

Maine 17,533 823 16,710 52 47 724 8,123 8,587

Maryland 2,700 394 2,306 0 50 344 131 2,175

Massachusetts 3,203 559 2,644 0 17 542 66 2,578

New Hampshire 4,981 923 4,058 718 18 187 659 3,399

New Jersey 2,007 557 1,450 0 28 529 0 1,450

New York 18,713 3,724 14,989 6 91 3,627 1,052 13,937

Pennsylvania 16,969 4,308 12,661 466 102 3,740 626 12,035

Rhode Island 401 63 338 0 0 63 4 334

Vermont 4,538 570 3,968 321 0 249 410 3,558

West Virginia 12,128 1,359 10,769 1,011 174 174 891 9,878

NORTHEAST 85,381 13,535 71,846 2,574 543 10,418 11,997 59,849

Illinois 4,266 618 3,648 247 68 303 13 3,635

Indiana 4,439 667 3,772 178 179 310 18 3,754

Iowa 2,050 244 1,806 0 74 170 0 1,806

Michigan 18,253 6,820 11,433 2,459 181 4,180 2,006 9,427

Minnesota 16,718 9,401 7,317 2,625 329 6,447 761 6,556

Missouri 14,007 2,382 11,625 1,443 347 592 222 11,403

Ohio 7,863 778 7,085 188 0 590 175 6,910

Wisconsin 15,513 4,615 10,898 1,392 239 2,984 1,197 9,701

NORTH CENTRAL 83,109 25,525 57,584 8,532 1,417 15,576 4,392 53,192

Kansas 1,359 68 1,291 0 50 18 3 1,288

Nebraska 722 96 626 37 5 54 0 626

North Dakota 462 51 411 0 22 29 0 411

South Dakota 1,690 1,080 610 973 14 93 21 589

GREAT PLAINS 4,233 1,295 2,938 1,010 91 194 24 2,914

Florida 16,549 3,437 13,112 1,063 1,306 1,068 4,796 8,316

Georgia 24,137 2,151 21,986 855 865 431 4,990 16,996

North Carolina 19,278 2,503 16,775 1,212 771 520 2,252 14,523

South Carolina 12,257 1,251 11,006 598 358 295 2,626 8,380

Virginia 15,858 2,503 13,355 1,585 566 352 1,614 11,741

SOUTHEAST 88,079 11,845 76,234 5,313 3,866 2,666 16,278 59,956

Alabama 21,974 1,205 20,769 648 250 307 4,795 15,974

Arkansas 17,864 3,354 14,510 2,488 461 405 4,386 10,124

Kentucky 12,714 1,286 11,428 670 409 207 205 11,223

Louisiana 13,864 1,320 12,544 577 234 509 3,937 8,607

Mississippi 17,000 1,873 15,127 1,149 352 372 3,267 11,860

Oklahoma 7,539 613 6,926 244 224 145 1,077 5,849

Tennessee 13,612 1,850 11,762 627 712 511 1,122 10,640

Texas 19,193 925 18,268 636 188 101 3,986 14,282

SOUTH CENTRAL 123,760 12,426 111,334 7,039 2,830 2,557 22,775 88,559

TOTAL EAST 384,562 64,626 319,936 24,468 8,747 31,411 55,466 264,470

TOTAL U.S. 737,633 313,878 423,755 139,944 109,187 64,747 71,209 352,546

* Includes Bureau of Land Management, Park Service, Department of Defense and all other federal ownerships.

Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Statistics of the United States, 1992.


Table A-2a. Forest and timberland area in the United States by ownership, population, RPA region, and State, 1992, Western States.

Forest Land Timberland Population and Forests Recreation and Timber

All Total Total All Total Total Total Forest Timber Pub Forest Private Timber

State Owners Public Private Owners Public Private (1,000's) Acres per 100 people Acres per 100 people

(thousand acres) (thousand acres)

Arizona 19,595 11,674 7,921 3,968 2,706 1,262 4,072 481 97 287 31

Colorado 21,338 15,289 6,049 11,740 8,464 3,276 3,710 575 316 412 88

Idaho 21,621 18,231 3,390 14,474 11,230 3,245 1,156 1,870 1,252 1,577 281

Montana 22,512 16,246 6,266 15,863 9,905 5,957 862 2,612 1,840 1,885 691

Nevada 8,938 8,408 530 224 111 112 1,477 605 15 569 8

New Mexico 15,296 9,253 6,043 5,420 3,462 1,958 1,676 913 323 552 117

Utah 16,234 13,236 2,998 3,078 2,481 597 1,944 835 158 681 31

Wyoming 9,966 7,989 1,977 4,332 2,888 1,444 487 2,046 890 1,640 297

INTERMOUNTAIN 135,500 100,326 35,174 59,099 41,247 17,851 15,384 881 384 652 116

ALASKA 129,131 99,327 29,804 15,068 8,883 6,185 634 20,368 2,377 15,667 976

Oregon 27,997 17,153 10,844 21,614 13,004 8,609 3,141 891 688 546 274

Washington 21,432 11,624 9,808 16,238 7,286 8,952 5,497 390 295 211 163

PACIFIC NW 49,429 28,777 20,652 37,852 20,290 17,561 8,638 572 438 333 203

California 37,263 20,229 17,034 16,200 8,786 7,414 32,398 115 50 62 23

Hawaii 1,748 593 1,155 700 338 362 1,221 143 57 49 30

PACIFIC SW 39,011 20,822 18,189 16,900 9,124 7,776 33,619 116 50 62 23

TOTAL WEST 353,071 249,252 103,819 128,919 79,544 49,373 58,275 606 221 428 85

TOTAL U.S. 737,633 313,878 423,755 489,555 131,495 358,061 262,896 281 186 119 136


Table A-2b. Forest and timber land area. and population in the United States by ownership, RPA region, and State, 1992, Eastern States

Forestland Timberland Population and Forests Recreation & Timber

All Total Total All Total Total Total Forest Timber Public Forest Private Timber



Connecticut 1,819 239 1,580 1,768 216 1,553 3,274 56 54 7 47

Deleware 389 16 373 376 13 363 718 54 52 2 51

Maine 17,533 823 16,710 16,987 527 16,460 1,236 1,419 1,374 67 1,332

Maryland 2,700 394 2,306 2,424 246 2,178 5,078 53 48 8 43

Massachusetts 3,203 559 2,644 2,960 430 2,529 5,976 54 50 9 42

New Hampshire 4,981 923 4,058 4,760 713 4,047 1,132 440 420 82 358

New Jersey 2,007 557 1,450 1,864 464 1,400 7,931 25 24 7 18

New York 18,713 3,724 14,989 15,744 993 14,752 18,178 103 87 20 81

Pennsylvania 16,969 4,308 12,661 15,850 3,390 12,459 12,134 140 131 36 103

Rhode Island 401 63 338 371 45 326 1,001 40 37 6 33

Vermont 4,538 570 3,968 4,429 470 3,959 597 760 742 95 663

West Virginia 12,128 1,359 10,769 11,916 1,170 10,746 1,824 665 653 75 589

NORTHEAST 85,381 13,535 71,846 79,449 8,677 70,772 59,079 145 134 23 120

Illinois 4,266 618 3,648 4,030 389 3,641 11,853 36 34 5 31

Indiana 4,439 667 3,772 4,296 535 3,761 5,820 76 74 11 65

Iowa 2,050 244 1,806 1,944 156 1,788 2,861 72 68 9 62

Michigan 18,253 6,820 11,433 17,442 6,196 11,245 9,575 191 182 71 117

Minnesota 16,718 9,401 7,317 14,773 7,602 7,171 4,619 362 320 204 155

Missouri 14,007 2,382 11,625 13,377 2,019 11,359 5,286 265 253 45 215

Ohio 7,863 778 7,085 7,567 519 7,049 11,203 70 68 7 63

Wisconsin 15,513 4,615 10,898 14,921 4,215 10,706 5,159 301 289 89 208

NORTH CENTRAL 83,109 25,525 57,584 78,350 21,631 56,720 56,376 147 139 45 101

Kansas 1,359 68 1,291 1,208 46 1,162 2,601 52 46 3 45

Nebraska 722 96 626 536 55 481 1,644 44 33 6 29

North Dakota 462 51 411 338 35 304 637 73 53 8 48

South Dakota 1,690 1,080 610 1,447 1,005 442 735 230 197 147 60

GREAT PLAINS 4,233 1,295 2,938 3,529 1,141 2,389 5,617 75 63 23 43

Table A-2b (Con’t). Forest and timber land area. and population in the United States by ownership, RPA region, and State, 1992, Eastern States

Forestland Timberland Population and Forests Recreation & Timber

All Total Total All Total Total Total Forest Timber Public Forest Private Timber




Florida 16,549 3,437 13,112 14,983 2,434 12,549 14,210 116 105 24 88

Georgia 24,137 2,151 21,986 23,631 1,645 21,986 7,102 340 333 30 310

North Carolina 19,278 2,503 16,775 18,710 1,950 16,760 7,150 270 262 35 234

South Carolina 12,257 1,251 11,006 12,179 1,173 11,006 3,732 328 326 34 295

Virginia 15,858 2,503 13,355 15,292 1,953 13,338 6,646 239 230 38 201

SOUTHEAST 88,079 11,845 76,234 84,795 9,155 75,639 38,840 227 218 30 195

Alabama 21,974 1,205 20,769 21,941 1,172 20,770 4,274 514 513 28 486

Arkansas 17,864 3,354 14,510 17,423 3,132 14,291 2,468 724 706 136 579

Kentucky 12,714 1,286 11,428 12,360 960 11,400 3,851 330 321 33 296

Louisiana 13,864 1,320 12,544 13,855 1,311 12,544 4,359 318 318 30 288

Mississippi 17,000 1,873 15,127 16,991 1,865 15,126 2,666 638 637 70 567

Oklahoma 7,539 613 6,926 6,122 590 5,532 3,271 230 187 19 169

Tennessee 13,612 1,850 11,762 13,275 1,518 11,756 5,228 260 254 35 225

Texas 19,193 925 18,268 12,546 799 11,749 18,592 103 67 5 63

SOUTH CENTRAL 123,760 12,426 111,334 114,513 11,347 103,168 44,709 277 256 28 231

TOTAL EAST 384,562 64,626 319,936 360,636 51,951 308,688 204,621 188 176 32 151

TOTAL U.S. 737,633 313,878 423,755 489,555 131,495 358,061 262,896 281 186 119 136


7. Endnotes

1. Lal, R., J. Kimble R. Follett and C.V. Cole. 1998. Potential of U.S. Cropland for CarbonSequestration and Greenhouse Effect Mitigation. Chelsea, MI: Sleeping Bear Press.(Forthcoming)

2. Much of the information produced by the Natural Resource Inventories (NRI) is available from<http://www.nrcs.usda.com>. Published national reports are available from the NRCSWashington Office, and most states have published state summaries that can be obtained from theNRCS State Office.

3. <http://www.ctic.purdue.edu>

4. Paustian, Keith, Olof Andren, Henry H. Janzen, Rattan Lal, Pete Smith, Guanglong Tian, HolmTiessen, Meine van Noordwijk and Paul L. Woomer. (In review) Agricultural soils as a sink tomitigate CO2 emissions. Soil Use and Management

5. Lal et al., op cit., p. 2

6. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation Service)is the agency within the Department of Agriculture charged, among other things, with conductingand publishing a standard soil survey of the non-federal lands of the United States. Soil surveysare normally published at the county level, and contain soil maps and physical descriptions of eachsoil type. Increasingly, these data are available in electronic form, either from the national soilsdata base or as state and local files. Inquiries about data availability should be directed to localNRCS offices or to the soil survey staff located at the NRCS state office. A listing of state officelocations and national data sets can be found at <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov>.

7. USDA-NRCS. 1994. Summary Report: 1992 National Resources Inventory, Table 7. Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

8. Birdsey, Richard A. 1996. Carbon Storage for Major Forest Types and Regions in theConterminous United States. In Sampson, R. Neil and Dwight Hair (eds), Forests and GlobalChange, Volume 2: Forest Management Opportunities for Mitigating Carbon Emissions. Washington, DC: American Forests. 1-26.

9. Birdsey, Richard A. and Linda S. Heath. 1995. Productivity of America's forests and climatechange. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-271 Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forestand Range Experiment Station. 56-70.

10. Marland, G., R.J. Andres, and T.A. Boden. 1994. Global, regional, and national CO2

emissions. pp. 505-584 in T.A. Boden, D.P. Kaiser, R.J. Sepanski, and F.W. Stoss (eds.), Trends‘93: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. ORNL/CDIAC-65. Carbon Dioxide InformationCenter, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

11. Hair, Dwight, R. Neil Sampson and Thomas E. Hamilton. 1996. Summary: ForestManagement Opportunities for Increasing Carbon Storage. In Sampson, R. Neil and Dwight Hair(eds), Forests and Global Change, Volume 2: Forest Management Opportunities for Mitigating


Carbon Emissions. Washington, DC: American Forests. 237-254.

12. Birdsey and Heath, Productivity of America's forests and climate change

13. Powell, Douglas S., Joanne L. Faulkner, David R. Darr, Zhiliang Zhu, and Douglas W. Mac-Cleery. 1993. Forest Resources of the United States, 1992. General Technical Report RM-234.Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,132 p. + map.

14. Birdsey, Richard A. 1996. Regional Estimates of Timber Volume and Forest Carbon(Appendices 2,3, and 4) In Sampson, R. Neil and Dwight Hair (eds), Forests and Global Change,Volume 2: Forest Management Opportunities for Mitigating Carbon Emissions. Washington,DC: American Forests. 261-371.

15. Row, Clark. 1996. Effects of Selected Forest Management Options on Carbon Storage. InSampson, R. Neil and Dwight Hair (eds), Forests and Global Change, Volume 2: ForestManagement Opportunities for Mitigating Carbon Emissions. Washington, DC: AmericanForests. 59-90.

16. Row, Clark, and Robert B. Phelps. 1996. Wood Carbon Flows and Storage after TimberHarvest. In Sampson, R. Neil and Dwight Hair (eds), Forests and Global Change, Volume 2:Forest Management Opportunities for Mitigating Carbon Emissions. Washington, DC: AmericanForests. 27-58.

17. Row, Effects of Selected Forest Management Options on Carbon Storage,

18. Birdsey, Richard A. 1992. Carbon Storage and Accumulation in United States ForestEcosystems (Gen Tech Rep WO-59). Washington: USDA Forest Service. 51 pp.

19.Birdsey. Carbon Storage and Accumulation, p. 6.

20. Birdsey, Richard A. and Linda S. Heath. 1994. Carbon Changes in U.S. Forests Table 2.

21. Birdsey, Richard A. 1996. Carbon storage for major forest types and regions in theconterminous United States, in Sampson, R. Neil and Dwight Hair (eds), Forests and GlobalChange, Volume 2: Forest Management Opportunities for Mitigating Carbon Emissions. Washington: American Forests, pp. 1-25.

22. Walker, Brian and Will Steffen. 1997. An overview of the implications of global change fornatural and managed terrestrial ecosystems. Conservation Ecology [online] 1(2):2. Available fromthe Internet at <http://www.consecol.org/vol1/art2>.

23. Data and maps are available from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP-3)/National Trends Network, through the NADP/NTN Coordination Office, Illinois State WaterSupply, Champaign, IL, or from <http://nadp.nrel.colostate.edu/NADP/>.

24. Sampson, R. Neil and Lester A. DeCoster (1998). Forest Health in the United States.Washington, DC: American Forests, p. 45.


25. Walker and Steffen, Overview of the implications of global change, p. 1.

26. Lal et al., op cit.

27. ibid.

28. Cole, C.V., C. Cerri, K. Minami, J. Mosier, N. Rosenberg, D. Sauerbeck, J. Dumanski, J.Duxbury, J. Freney, R. Gupta, O. Heinemeyer, T. Kolchugina, J. Lee, K. Paustian, D. Powlson, N.Sampson, H. Tiessen, M. van Noordwijk, and Q. Zhao (Lead authors). 1996. Agricultural optionsfor mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. In Watson, R.T., M.C. Zinyowera, and R.H. Moss(eds). Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses (Chapter 23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 745-771.

29. NRCS. 1996. America’s Private Land: A Geography of Hope. Washington, DC: USDANatural Resources Conservation Service. 80 pp. The publication can also be downloaded from<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov>.

30. WMI. 1994. Conservation Reserve Program: A Wildlife Conservation Legacy. Washington,DC: Wildlife Management Institute. 16 pp.

31. Paustian, Keith, Edward T. Elliott, George Bluhm and Tim Kautza (undated). C Sequestrationwith Agricultural Conservation Practices. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, NaturalResource Ecology Laboratory. 4 pp.

32. Wright, L.L. and E.E. Hughes. 1993. U.S. carbon offset potential using biomass energysystems. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 70: 483-498.

33.Sampson, R.N., L.L. Wright, J.K. Winjum, J.D. Kinsman, J. Benneman, E. Kürsten and J.M.O.Scurlock. 1993. Biomass management and energy. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 70): 139-159.

34. Durante, Douglas. 1998. 1998 Fuel Ethanol Fact Book: For the Record. Washington, DC:Clean Fuels Development Coalition. 32 pp.

35. Cole et al., op cit., p. 756.

36.Mielenz, J.R., D. Koepping and F. Parson. 1996. Commercialization of biomass ethanoltechnology. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 57/58: 667-676.

37. Sampson et al., op cit.

38. To get an idea how fire shaped America’s forests, see Agee, J. K. (1993). Fire Ecology ofPacific Northwest Forests. Washington, DC: Island Press; Clark, L.R. and R.N. Sampson. 1995.Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West: A Science and Policy Reader, Washington, DC:American Forests, 37 pp.; Covington, W.W. and Moore, M.M. 1994. Postsettlement changes innatural fire regimes and forest structure: Ecological restoration of old-growth ponderosa pineforests, Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 2(1&2): 153-182; Cronin William. 1983. Changes in theLand: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang. 241. p.;and Pyne, Stephen J. 1982. Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire.


Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 654 p.

39. Sampson, R. Neil. 1997. Forest Management, Wildfire and Climate Change Policy Issues inthe 11 Western States. Washington, DC: American Forests. 44 pp.

40. Cromack, K. Jr., J.D. Landsberg, R.L. Everett, R. Zeleny, C. Giardina, T.D. Anderson, B.Averill, and R. Smyrski (in press). Assessing the impacts of severe fire on forest ecosystemrecovery. Journal of Sustainable Forestry (forthcoming).

41. Quoted from Section 169A of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments.

42. Rigg, Helen Getz, Roger Stocker, Coleen Campbell, Bruce Polkowsky, Tracy Woodruff andPete Lahm. (in press). A screening method for identifying potential air quality risks fromcatastrophic wildfires, Journal of Sustainable Forestry (forthcoming).

43. Parks, Peter J., Susan R. Brame, and James E. Mitchell. 1992. Opportunities to Increase ForestArea and Timber Growth on Marginal Crop and Pasture Land, in: Sampson, R. Neil and DwightHair (eds), Forests and Global Change, Volume 1: Opportunities for Increasing Forest Cover,Washington DC: American Forests, pp. 97-122.

44. There is a large and growing literature on the subject of tree planting for carbon sequestration. In addition to Parks, et al. (above), see, for example, Dixon, R.K., K.J. Andrasko, F.G. Sussman,M.A. Lavinson, M.C. Trexler and T.S. Vinson. 1993. Forest sector carbon offset projects: Near-term opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 70(1-4):561-578; Sampson, R.N. 1992. Forestry opportunities in the United States to mitigate theeffects of global warming. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 64(1-2):157-180; and Parks, Peter J.,David O. Hall, Bengt Kriström, Omar R. Masera, Robert J. Moulton, Andrew J. Plantinga, Joel N.Swisher, and Jack K. Winjum. 1997. An economic approach to planting trees for carbon storage,Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 27/Special Issue: S9-S22.

45. Sampson, R.N. 1995. The Role of Forest Management in Affecting Soil Carbon: PolicyConsiderations, in Lal, R., John Kimble, Elissa Levine, and B.A. Stewart (eds.) Soil Managementand Greenhouse Effect. Boa Raton, FL: CRC Lewis Publishers. 339-350.

46. AF&PA. 1998. Sustainable Forestry for Tomorrow’s World: 1998 Progress Report of theAmerican Forest & Paper Association’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Program.Washington, DC: AF&PA. 24 pp.

47. The factors in this section, unless otherwise cited, are from Meil, J. K. 1994. Environmentalmeasures as substitution criteria for wood and nonwood building products. Proceedings: Supply,Processes, Products, and Markets—A Conference sponsored by the Forest Products Society andthe Oregon Forest Resources Institute, November 1-2, 1993, Portland, OR (Forest ProductsSociety Proc. #7319).

48. NAHB Research Center, Inc. 1996. Wood Used in New Residential Construction: 1995. Upper, Marlboro, MD: NAHB Research Center, Inc.

49.Skog, Kenneth E., Thomas C. Marcin, and Linda S. Heath. 1996. Opportunities to Reduce


Carbon Emissions and Increase Storage by Wood Substitution, Recycling and ImprovedUtilization, in Sampson, R. Neil and Dwight Hair (eds), Forests and Global Change, Volume 2:Forest Management Opportunities for Mitigating Carbon Emissions. Washington, DC: AmericanForests. 209-216.

50. US EPA. 1992. Cooling our Communities: A Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-ColoredSurfacing, 22P-2001. Pittsburgh, PA: Superintendent of Documents. 217 pp.

51. McPherson, E. Gregory and Gary C. Woodward. 1990. Cooling the urban heat island withwater- and energy-efficient landscapes. Arizona Review Spring 1990: 1–8.

52. DeWalle, D. R. 1978. Manipulating urban vegetation for residential energy conservation. In:Proceedings of the 1st national urban forestry conference; November 13–16, 1978; Washington,DC. USDA Forest Service: 267-283.

53. Sampson, R. Neil, Gary A. Moll, and J. James Kielbaso. 1992. Opportunities to IncreaseUrban Forests and the Potential Impacts on Carbon Storage and Conservation, in: Sampson, R.Neil and Dwight Hair (eds), Forests and Global Change, Volume 1: Opportunities for IncreasingForest Cover, Washington DC: American Forests, pp. 51-72.

54. Akbari, H., S. Davis, S. Dorsano, J. Huang and S. Winnett (eds.) 1992. Cooling OurCommunities: A Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-Colored Surfaces. Washington: USEPA, p. xix.

55. Chameides, W.L., R.W. Lindsay, J. Richardson, and C.S. Kiang. 1988. The role of biogenichydrocarbons in urban photochemical smog: Atlanta case study. Science 241:1473-1475.

56. For a brief review of the furor over “killer trees” and a response by the University ofCalifornia-Riverside research team that conducted the study “Effects of planting a significantnumber of urban trees on the atmosphere,” see California ReLeaf Remarks, Vol. 3, no. 1, Winter1992, San Francisco: Trust for Public Land, from which the material in this section was taken.

57. The source of the index was the Statewide Air Pollution Research Center at the University ofCalifornia-Riverside, but the units were not listed, so it is assumed that the numbers represent arelative index.

58. Rabenhorst, Martin C. 1995. Carbon storage in tidal marsh soils, in Lal, R., J. Kimble, E.Levine, and B.A. Stewart, (eds), Soils and Global Change. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, p.97.

59. Rabenhorst, Carbon storage in tidal marsh soils, p. 102, lists rates of 0.05 to 0.5 kg m-2 yr-1.

60. Glenn, Edward, Victor Squires, Mary Olsen and Robert Frye. 1993. Potential for carbonsequestration in the drylands. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 70: 341-355.

61. ibid.

62. Covington, W.W., Everett, R.L., Steele, R., Irwin, L.L., Daer, T.A. and Auclair, A.N.D.


1994. Historical and anticipated changes in forest ecosystems of the Inland West of the UnitedStates, Journal of Sustainable Forestry, Vol. 2, Nos. ½, pp. 13-64.

63. USDI/USDA. 1995. Federal Wildland Fire Management: Policy & Program Review.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior & USDA Forest Service. 45 pp.

64. Neuenschwander, Leon N. and R. Neil Sampson (in press). A wildfire and emissions policymodel for the Boise National Forest, Journal of Sustainable Forestry.

65. Sampson, Forest Management, Wildfire and Climate Change Policy Issues in the 11 WesternStates, p.

66. The federal policy challenges are discussed in USDI/USDA, Federal Wildland FireManagement: Policy & Program Review, and the technical challenges on one forest type —ponderosa pine — are revealed in Covington, W. Wallace, Peter Z. Fulé, Margaret M. Moore,Stephen C. Hart, Thomas E. Kolb, Joy N. Mast, Stephen S. Sackett, and Michael R. Wagner.1997. Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the Southwest. Journal of Forestry95(4):23-29.

67. Covington, et al., ibid.

68. Sampson, Forest Management, Wildfire and Climate Change Policy Issues in the 11 WesternStates, p.

69. Oliver, Chad, David Adams, Thomas Bonnicksen, Jim Bowyer, Fred Cubbage, Neil Sampson,Scott Schlarbaum, Ross Whaley, Harry Wiant, and John Sebelius. 1997. Report on Forest Heal-th of the United States by the Forest Health Panel. Reprinted by CINTRAFOR, RE43A. Seattle:University of Washington.

70. Covington, et al., Historical and anticipated changes in forest ecosystems of the Inland Westof the United States,

71. A good source of essays about urban forests, their values and care, can be found in Moll, Garyand Sara Ebenreck (eds), 1989. Shading Our Cities: A Resource Guide for Urban andCommunity Forests. Washington, DC: Island Press. 333 pp.

72. Ellefson, Paul V., Antony S. Cheng, and Robert J. Moulton. 1996. State forest practiceregulatory programs: Current status and future prospects. In. Baughman, Melvin J., ed.,Proceedings: Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospectsfor the Future, Washington, DC, Feb. 18-20, 1996. St. Paul: Minnesota Extension Service, pp.82-94.

73. Personal observation of the author, gained while working with small-lot homeowners insouthwestern Oregon and reviewing subdivision plats. Just how extensive a problem this is couldnot be evaluated from those anecdotal situations, but the national data trends indicate that 20acres is about the average size of plot over significant areas of America’s forested landscape. SeeSampson and DeCoster, Public Programs for Private Forestry, for that evaluation.


74. The USIJI program is housed in the Department of Energy’s Washington headquarters, whereit works to encourage U.S. companies and organizations to support projects which have beenplanned and approved in cooperation with other countries, under the umbrella of evolvinginternational policies and treaties. Because these programs are in a state of flux, states orlocalities interested in participating should contact the USIJI staff directly to get up-to-dateinformation and guidance.

75. For a brief review of these programs, including the history of their development, the currentstatus of programs, and some indications of relative effectiveness, see Sampson and DeCoster,Public Programs for Private Forestry.

76. Up to date information on the SFI can be obtained from the Internet through<www.afandpa.org>. The activities of the Expert Review Panel, and some of the material itproduces, can be found at <www.sampsongroup.com>

77. AF&PA, 1998 Progress Report of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, p. 16.

78. Lester DeCoster points out that, if you want a policy to be effective in motivating people, youneed to make it appear to them as a clear, quick, easy, important, familiar, simple, attractiveoption. In his view, federal tax policies fail on one or all of these counts most of the time. Healso proposes, however, that effectiveness can be achieved if programs are correctly designed andadministered. See “Green IRA’s to improve forest care,” in Baughman, Symposium onNonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, p. 301.

79. Information and materials on Cool Communities and other urban forestry programopportunities can be obtained from American Forests at <www.amfor.org> or from state and cityforestry agencies.

80. The data tables A-1 and A-2 have been constructed from data developed by the USDA ForestService. The presentation has been altered slightly to provide additional relevance to forest healthand pollution control considerations. The forest land area (Tables A-1a and A-1b) was derivedfrom Forest Statistics of the United States, 1992, and indicates a total forest land area 1 millionacres larger than is contained in Table 2 of the 1992 RPA publication, Forest Resources of theUnited States, 1992 (Powell et al. 1993). This corrects a 1 million acre omission of reservedforest lands in Washington State that was discovered after the publication of Powell et al., andwill be corrected in future RPA publications, according to Forest Service staff.