Carbon Sequestration in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest

Revised June 2009© All rights reserved. Full reproduction permitted. This report can be downloaded from www.elpc.org. ELPC requests acknowledgment, in print, on any information or excerpts reproduced in another publication

Front cover: description of pictureBack cover: description of pictures

Protecting the Midwest’s Environment and Natural HeritageELPC.org

ContentsIntroduction

Carbon Concentration and Climate Change in WisconsinEconomic Benefits of Carbon Sequestration and

Sustainable Forest Management

RecommendationsSmart Forest PlanningSustainable Forest Management PracticesCoordinated Efforts

Conclusion

Appendix

133

5556

67

principal authors carolyn stwertka, science policy intern

lois parshley, science policy intern

contributors name name, title title name name, title title

photography name name, title title

1

The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF) is recognized as a special place by Wisconsin residents and visitors alike, and it is highly valued for its natural resources, recreational opportunities, and timber products. A new analysis by the Environmental Law & Policy Center reveals that the 1.5 million acre National Forest also plays a key role in capturing and storing the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. In fact, evidence suggests that on an annual basis the CNNF captures a disproportionately large amount of carbon dioxide for its size. In light of these findings, ELPC’s expert scientists and policy analysts have developed a set of recommendations for maximizing the CNNF’s carbon sequestration potential to create additional environmental and economic benefits.

It is widely recognized that forests have the capacity to capture and store greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Forests that capture more carbon than they emit are called “carbon sinks.”

By reducing overall carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, carbon sinks are important tools for combating global warming. Unchecked deforestation and forest degradation in many parts of the world have not only drastically reduced the effectiveness of carbon sinks, but defor-estation now accounts for between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year (FAO, 2006).

As the world becomes increasingly concerned with global warming, dwindling forest resources will rapidly increase in environmental and economic value.

A new analysis by the Environmental Law & Policy Center shows that though the CNNF amounts to only 0.2% of the nation’s total forests, it is responsible for between 1.1 percent and 1.9 percent of the entire U.S. forests’ sequestration—capturing and storing 4.1 and 7.2 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. This means the CNNF is acting as a much larger carbon sink than its size would suggest. The CNNF’s carbon capture rate is equivalent to taking 820,000 to 1.4 million automobiles off the road annually. (EPA, 2000).

This new data on carbon sequestration in the CNNF leads to a new way of thinking about forests as an economic asset. The United States is quickly moving toward establishing a market for carbon emissions and offsets. Congress is currently debating the comprehensive Waxman-Markey climate bill, which is likely

Introduction

Carbon stored in the forest ecosystem

CNFF acts as a carbon sink, draining the carbon dioxide

from the atmosphere

CO2 capture

Carbon stored in the forest ecosystem

Logging activites and ground disturbances inhibit forests’

ability to capture CO2

CO2 captured at a slower rate causes a

clogged sink

2

to be passed this fall. Among the measures stipu-lated in the bill is a cap-and-trade program that would price carbon emissions and create a market for buying and selling the right to emit carbon. This program is designed to create financial incentives for polluters to reduce their greenhouse gas emis-sions (GHG). Under such a program, the amount of GHG emissions is “capped” at a certain limit and the government gives out or auctions off pollution “allowances.” Polluters with excess allowances can sell those allowances as “credits” to other polluters who cannot meet their emissions cap. Alternatively, polluters who cannot meet their emissions cap have the option of purchasing lower-cost “offsets” from uncapped sectors, such as forestry and agriculture, which provide carbon sequestration services. Off-sets lower the overall cost of the cap and trade sys-tem, and they provide potentially significant eco-nomic gains for farmers and forest managers.

By creating a national market for carbon off-sets, a federal cap and trade program will create

an entirely new economic value for the CNNF and other forests. Smart forest management is necessary to ensure that the CNNF remains a highly effective carbon sink, preserving its future value in a reduced carbon economy.

This white paper outlines key public policy recommendations for maximizing the CNNF’s carbon sequestration potential and economic value. These include: (1) revising and updating existing forest management plans to account for global warming impacts and carbon sequestra-tion goals; (2) coordinating efforts among fed-eral, state, county, and private forest managers to achieve carbon sequestration goals over a larger forested landscape; (3) implementing smart for-est management practices designed to maximize the carbon sequestration potential of suitable forest lands; and (4) seeking certification from an independent, reputable certifying body that has adopted science-based standards for achiev-ing carbon sequestration and biodiversity goals.

An area of CNNF with clear cutting & a road....

3

Carbon Concentration and Climate Change in Wisconsin

Over 80 percent of global above-ground car-bon is contained in the world’s forests. In 2005, the net annual carbon sequestration in U.S. forests was estimated at 371 mega tons of carbon dioxide annually (Woodbury et al 2007). The CNNF se-questers between 4.1 and 7.2 million tons of car-bon dioxide annually. Given the CNNF’s role as a major carbon sink, it is important to manage this forest ecosystem in a way that minimizes distur-bances and maximizes carbon storage potential.

Even relatively minor disturbances to forest eco-systems and their fragile carbon storage systems can significantly impact atmospheric and sequestered carbon concentrations (Bradford, 2009 in press). Forest management practices that disrupt the CN-NF’s current carbon sequestration rate could lead to disastrous environmental and economic results. Loss of carbon sequestering forests will increase the effects of climate change, including milder winters, increased severity of storms and droughts, earlier spring run off and hotter summers. In Michigan, this will cause decreased agricultural productivity, espe-cially in prized agricultural sectors such as the cherry industry. Climate change in Michigan will also se-verely damage tourism, infrastructure, biodiversity, air quality, and increase burdens on municipal bud-gets (Michigan Delegation Letter, 2009).

Economic Benefits of Carbon Se-questration and Sustainable Forest Management

Forest ecosystems in the CNNF currently ab-sorb millions of tons of carbon dioxide per year, while improving air and water quality and provid-ing fuel and fiber for human consumption. Forest products such as timber and paper are currently the most significant sources of revenue for forest managers; however, once a market is created for other ecosystem services, such as carbon seques-tration, trees may become more valuable the lon-ger they are left standing.

The Forest Service currently generates rev-enue by granting timber companies the right to harvest timber from federally-owned lands. How-ever, evidence suggests that the market for Wis-consin timber may be dwindling. According to U.S. Forest Products Annual Market Review and Prospects, sawn softwood, hardwood, plywood, strandboard, and particle board production pros-pects all decreased from 2005 to 2007. Since 2002, total timber wages have decreased 16 per-cent, and paper mills have declined (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2006). Carbon offsets offer a unique opportunity to supplement or replace flagging timber revenues. In a cap and trade system, offsets from forestry or agriculture provide a low-cost mitigation option for pollut-

Logs in CNNF

4A road through CNNF

ers who could not otherwise afford to implement comprehensive emission reductions. Once a cap and trade system is in place, farmers and forest managers will be able to “sell” carbon se-questration services to the U.S. industrial and energy sectors. In this way, the development of a carbon market offers forest managers new business opportunities. The price of carbon is only likely to increase with the progression of the Waxman Markey climate bill, making these opportunities more viable as replacements for logging revenue.

Some examples of carbon offsets in the forest context include forest management practices that increase or avoid losses in the amount of carbon stored in biomass (e.g., trees and soil), practices that increase the amount of carbon stored in soils, extending the maxi-

mum rotation age for certain types of trees, and, potentially, taking more land out of active production. These practices have the added benefit of being good for the environment by protecting wildlife habitat, clean water, and a healthy forest ecosystem.

Economists project that, if carbon dioxide emissions are priced at 15 dollars per ton (EPA 2007 Global Climate Change Report), the mar-ket would support carbon sequestration proj-ects equaling an additional 356 megatons of carbon (IPCC Third Annual Report). At the CNNF’s estimated rate of carbon sequestra-tion, this translates to a potential increase of 50 times the size of the Chequamegon-Nicolet in forested land. The carbon sequestration poten-tial of this increase is equivalent to removing 71.2 million cars from the road per year.

5

Smart Forest PlanningThe Forest Service should begin the

process of revising and updating the 2004 Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Man-agement Plan to account for climate change impacts and mitigation opportunities. The Forest Service should solicit meaningful ad-vice and input from climate experts in the aca-demic community and other relevant fields to implement peer-reviewed standards.

Sustainable Forest Management Practices

A shift to managing forest for carbon se-questration values will require taking a fresh look at timber harvesting and adopting better forest management practices that are grounded in good science. According to the Internation-al Panel on Climate Change, intelligent forest management has the potential to increase the net annual carbon sequestration in U.S. forests three-fold (IPCC, Woodbury, 2009). Some of these practices should include:

Waiting longer between harvests. » De-layed harvest maximizes soil carbon stor-age and allows trees to reach biological maturity (Tang, 2009; MacFarlane, 2009). Longer harvest rotations also will contrib-ute to increased biodiversity and reduced fragmentation. Allowing trees to reach biological maturity has the added benefit of increasing the merchantable volume of wood once trees are cut.

Minimizing soil disturbance. » 60% of the carbon in a forest is stored below ground. Eco-systems will lose soil carbon when old-growth forests are harvested and when mature forests are converted to young forests. As a result, peripheral disturbances from logging should be limited as much as possible. The Forest Service should minimize use of even-aged management practices, such as clear cutting or shelterwood harvest, which significantly disturb forest soils, in favor of uneven-aged management practices or partial cutting. As much as possible, logging should be limited to frozen-ground conditions or, in moist soil conditions, using minimal-impact equipment. Road construction should be minimized. In addition, as ecosystem services gain econom-ic value, logging practices that overly disturb soil ecosystems should be curbed through im-position of economic penalties.

RecommendationsAccording to current literature, the three main sources of carbon emissions in the Chequamegon-Nicolet

National Forest are deforestation activities (W hite et al. 2005), young deciduous trees (Luyssaert, 2009), and non-forested bare ground (Zheng , 2005). Non-forested bare ground is increasing at the rate of 0.2% per year (Zheng , 2005) due in part to the increase in edge effects from deforestation and land conversion. These emissions can be reduced and the CNNF sequestration potential increased through appropriate for-est management and harvesting strategies.

New growth in CNNF maybe this caption will be two lines long

To commit to these management practices, the Forest Service should seek certification for forest management on the CNNF from an independent and reputable certifying body that has adopted standards for sustainable forest management with climate change goals in mind. Three organiza-tions currently certify sustainable forest practices, although only the Forest Stewardship Council is in the process of revising its standards to include climate change standards. Certification standards should include considerations of soil loss, erosion, water quality, fragmentation and other landscape effects, harvest methods that minimize and miti-gate climate change, and mandatory climate change mitigation and adaptation plans. Moreover, the For-est Service should seek certification from a certify-

ing body that requires extended contract periods of twenty years or more, to ensure that standards are in place for an adequate period of time to achieve climate change goals.

Coordinated Efforts Increasing the CNNF’s sequestration potential

outside of the forest’s boundaries will require coordi-nated efforts among federal, state, and county forest managers, as well as the cooperation of private and in-dustrial forest managers. This is especially important because the Wisconsin forest landscape is becoming increasingly fragmented and is managed by several different parties. Coordinated efforts across the larger Great Lakes region will also be beneficial in preserving the CNNF’s ability to act as a carbon sink.

6

Climate change impacts and carbon sequestration goals must be part of smart, comprehensive forest management in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest moving forward. The CNNF plays a vital role not only in Wisconsin’s natural history, but also in the world’s low-carbon future. It must be managed in a way that balances its multiple uses and protects the valuable ecosystem services it provides, including wildlife habitat, clean water, and carbon sequestration.

Conclusion

Aerial view of a river in CNNF

7

MethodsThe rate at which carbon is stored in the

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF) was calculated in three steps. The first involved breaking the CNNF into forest type, age, and area using United States Forest Service inven-tory data. The second step involved compiling the current ecosystem productivity data by for-est type and age using the most recent published peer-reviewed papers from 2005-2009. The third step involved combining the forest inventory data with the net ecosystem productivity (i.e. car-bon sequestration rate) of each forest type by age group and area within the CNNF. The calcula-tions were added for the total current rate of car-bon sequestration in the CNNF. In the following calculations, a positive rate means a net carbon sink and a negative rate means a net source.

Net Ecosystem Productivity (NEP) Calculations

NEP is a synonymous with the rate of car-bon sequestration. NEP is equal to the Gross Ecosystem Productivity (GEP) minus the Eco-system Respiration (ER). Some journal articles calculate the NEP, but others do not. For Desai (2008) and Noormets (2007) GEP and ER were given and the calculation NEP = GEP – ER was used to calculate the rate of carbon storage.

Upland Openings CalculationTo calculate the rate at which upland open-

ings emit carbon, the soil carbon emission rate for non forested bare ground (NFBG) was used as reported in Zheng et al. (2005). Zheng et al. (2005) reported that the carbon emission increased by 5.4 million grams of carbon per hectare (1x106 g c h-1, or Mg C h-1) giving a car-bon emission rate of -0.19 Mg C h-1 y-1. Using the soil emission rate measured in 2001 of -8.1 MgC h-1, in 2009, the carbon emission rate is -8.1 (2001 value) + -0.19*8 = -9.6 Mg C h-1.

Total Biological Calculations To calculate the total current carbon stor-

age rate of the CNNF, the smallest sequestra-tion rate for a given forest type and the largest sequestration rate for the same forest type was used. This way current literature values were combined for the most accurate total value. The smallest rate was multiplied by the total area of that specific forest type to get the to-tal annual carbon sequestration value, and the largest rate was similarly calculated. Then all individual values of how much carbon was stored or emitted per forest type were added to get total annual carbon storage value. This is flux data, meaning this is the amount of car-bon stored per year, not the amount of total stored carbon in the CNNF.

Total Industrial CalculationsWhite et al. (2005) calculated the total

industrial carbon sequestration by calculating and adding flux measurements from the har-vest processes, primary and secondary mill-ing operations, product use and carbon stor-age, and product disposal. Their value of 0.06 MgC/ha/year was used to calculate the data for the CNNF, and multiplied by the area of the CNNF (608000 hectares) to obtain a se-questration rate of 36,420 MgC/year.

Total Carbon Sequestration Value (See Table 2)

To determine the total carbon sequestra-tion value, the total biological sequestration rate as added to the total industrial sequestra-tion rate. Then to convert C to CO2 the fol-lowing conversion equation was used.

Appendix

MgCyr

tonnes1000000 g

44gCO212gC

MtCO2year=* *

8

Desai (2008)

Noormets (2007)

Zheng(2005)

Curtis (2002)

Magnani (2007)

Total values

Net Ecosystem Productivity (NEP)Area Min Max Min Max Avg. Avg. Avg. Max Min Max

Deciduous Broadleaf hectares MgC per hectare per year Mg C per yearYoung Hardwoods (YWH) 23000 -0.58 -0.48 -1.4 -1.2 -32200 -11040Intermediate Hardwoods (IWH) 65000 1.72 1.88 111800 122200Mature Hardwoods (MWH) 77000 5.92 6.14 6.53 6.67 455840 513590Willow Creek (WCR) 87000 5.75 5.83 1.06 92220 507210University of MI Biological Station (UMB) 20000 4.2 4.3 0.73 14600 86000

Evergreen Needleleaf Young Jack Pine (YJP) 20000 1.62 1.72 0.4 1.8 8000 34400Young Red Pine (YRP) 47000 2.47 2.49 3.13 3.27 116090 153690Intermediate Red Pine (IRP) 30000 4.03 4.27 120900 128100Mature Red Pine (MRP) 20000 4.32 4.38 6.32 6.46 86400 129200Balsam Fir 13000

0.2 2600 2600

Mixed forest Sylvania Old Growth (SYL) 36000

1.66 1.86 59760 360000

Upland openings (Non-forested bare ground) 12000

-9.6 -115200 -115200

Lowland Pine Barrens 100000

0.62 1.72 1.94 2.12 62000 212000

Wetland Lost Creek (LCR) 50000

1.97 1.99 98500 99500

Total Biological Carbon Sequestration 608000 1081310 1862250

Table 1Total Biological Carbon Sequestration

9

Total Biological Carbon Sequestrationa Minimum MaximumMg C per year 1.08x106 1.86 x106

Industrial Carbon Sequestrationb

Mg C per year 3.64 x104 3.64 x104

Total Carbon Sequestration Valuec

Mg C per year 1.12x106 1.90 x106

Mt C per year 1.12 1.9Mt CO2 per year 4.1 7.2

Mg C per year is 1 million grams of carbon per yearMt C per year is 1 million tonnes of carbon per yearaCalculated in this reportbWhite et al. (2005)cTotal Biological Carbon Sequestration + Industrial Carbon Sequestration = Total Carbon Value

Coupled industrial and biological forest carbon sequestration values for the CNNF

Ecosystem–atmosphere carbon and water cycling in the upper Great Lakes Region, Agriculture and For-est Meteorology 148 (2008) 155-157.

Curtis et al. Biometric and eddy-covariance based es-timates of annual carbon storage in five eastern North American deciduous forest, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 113 (2002) 3-19.

Desai et al. Influence of vegetation and seasonal forc-ing on carbon dioxide fluxes across the Upper Midwest, USA: Implications for regional scaling, Agriculture and Forest Meteorology 148 (2008) 288 – 308.

FAO. Deforestation causes global warming. 2006.

Kurz Risk of natural disturbances makes future con-tribution of Canada’s forests to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain, Proceedings of the National Acad-emy of Sciences (2008) 1553.

Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy So-lutions Harnessing Farms and Forests in a low-carbon economy: How to create, measure, and verify green-house gas offsets, Willey et al. 2007.

Luyssaert et al. Old growth forests as global carbon sinks Nature (2008).

Noormets et al. Moisture sensitivity of ecosystem respiration: Comparison of 14 forest ecosystems in the Upper Great Lakes Region, USA, Agriculture and Forest Meteorology 148 (2008) 216 – 230.

Noormets et al. Age-Dependent Changes in Ecosys-tem Carbon Fluxes in Managed Forests in Northern Wisconsin, USA. Ecosystems (2007) 187-203.

Phillips et al. Drought Sensitivity of the Amazon Rainforest, Science (2009).

United States Forest Service, Final Environmental Impact Statement (2004)

United States Forest Service Forest Plan (2004).

United States Forest Service 2006 Fiscal Year Report

United States Forest Products Annual Market Review and Prospects. 2004-2008.

White et al. Life cycle inventories of roundwood pro-duction in northern Wisconsin: Inputs into an indus-trial forest carbon budge, Forest Ecology and Man-agement 219 (2005) 13-28

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2007.

Woodbury et al. Carbon sequestration in the U.S. forest sector from 1990 to 2010, Forest Ecology and Management 241 (2007) 14-27.

Zheng et al. Influences of land-use change and edges on soil respiration in a managed forest landscape, WI, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 215 (2005) 169 – 182.

Table 2

Literature Sources

The Environmental Law & Policy Center is the Midwest’s leading public interest environmental legal advocacy and eco-business innovation organization. We develop and lead successful strategic advocacy campaigns to protect our natural resources and improve environmental quality. We are public interest environmental entrepreneurs who engage in creative business dealmaking with diverse interests to put into practice our belief that environmental progress and economic development can be achieved together. ELPC’s multidisciplinary staff of talented and experienced public interest attorneys, environmental business specialists, public policy advocates, and communications specialists brings a strong and effective combination of skills to solve environmental problems.

ELPC’s vision embraces both smart, persuasive advocacy and sustainable development principles to win the most important environmental cases and create positive solutions to protect the environment. ELPC’s teamwork approach uses legal, economic and public policy analysis, and communications advocacy tools to produce successes. ELPC’s strategic advocacy and business dealmaking involves proposing solutions when we oppose threats to the Midwest environment. We say “yes” to better solutions; we don’t just say “no.”

ELPC was founded in 1993 after a year-long strategic planning process sponsored by seven major foundations. We have achieved a strong track record of successes on national and regional clean energy development and pollution reduction, transportation and land use reform, and natural resources protection issues. ELPC’s creative public advocacy effectively links environmental progress and economic development and improves the quality of life in our Midwestern communities.

Environmental Law & Policy Center

headquarters35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60601Tel: 312-673-6500 Fax: 312-795-3730

Web: ELPC.org Email: elpc@elpc.org

satellite officesDes Moines, Iowa Jamestown, North DakotaColumbus, Ohio Sioux Falls, South DakotaMadison, Wisconson Minneapolis, Minnesota

Printed on recycled paper with soy-based inks