State Forestry Agency Perspectives on Carbon Management and Carbon Market Assistance to Family Forest Owners

Miller, Kristell A.; Kilgore, Michael A.

doi:10.5849/jof.14-063

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the last decade, C storage and sequestration has emerged as an important forest ecosystem service (e.g., reviewed in Ontl et al., 2020). Silvicultural practices that integrate multiple goals are of interest to stakeholders in forestry (Miller et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2015), thus developing management options that respond to multiple objectives (e.g.,timber, C, wildlife habitat) is important. Next, we review existing silvicultural approaches and practices that could be considered IFM drawing from examples in literature.…”

Section: Defining Ifmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, project development and verification costs are high (more than $100,000 and $45,000, respectively), pushing market participation out of the reach of many family forest owners in the United States. Only a few states in the United States have programs in place to assist landowners in managing forest C: California, Michigan and Oregon (American Forest Foundation, 2019; Miller et al., 2015). However, only California has a market where landowners can sell forest C offsets (American Forest Foundation, 2019; Hamrick & Gallant, 2017; Miller et al., 2015).…”

Section: Defining Ifmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only a few states in the United States have programs in place to assist landowners in managing forest C: California, Michigan and Oregon (American Forest Foundation, 2019; Miller et al., 2015). However, only California has a market where landowners can sell forest C offsets (American Forest Foundation, 2019; Hamrick & Gallant, 2017; Miller et al., 2015). Supporting market participation and access, and increases in the demand for forest offsets could increase forest offset prices (Marland et al., 2017), and provide new avenues of revenue for family forest owners.…”

Section: Defining Ifmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Silvicultural practices that integrate multiple goals are of interest to stakeholders in forestry (Miller et al, 2014;Miller et al, 2015), thus developing management options that respond to multiple objectives (e.g.,timber, C, wildlife habitat) is important. Next, we review existing silvicultural approaches and practices that could be considered IFM…”

Section: Defining Ifmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Measuring soil C can further add to these costs; to detect meaningful changes in soil C, sampling frequency has to be high (Domke et al, 2017 (Butler et al, 2016). Yet low C prices, long-term contracts and the lack of awareness of C market opportunities persist as barriers for C market participation within this ownership group (Miller et al, 2015;Marland et al, 2017;Ruseva et al, 2017). Existing forestry offset project across the contiguous United States have an average size of 22,240 acres (9000 ha) (Anderson et al, 2017).…”

Section: Bringing Forest Soil Into the Foldmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Improved forest management as a natural climate solution: A review

Kaarakka

Cornett

Domke

et al. 2021

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Natural climate solutions (NCS), a set of land management, conservation and restoration practices aimed at mitigating climate change, have been introduced as cost-effective strategies to increase carbon (C) sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems. Improved forest management (IFM) has been identified as one NCS for working forests with substantial climate change mitigation potential. However, there is a disconnect between the policy and carbon markets context and the scientific evidence for verifiable C benefits. Further, forest soil C-the largest forest C pool-has largely been excluded from current forest management guidelines and has not been included in the IFM discourse.2. Herein, we assess the evidence for the potential of specific IFM practices to sequester C in live forest vegetation and store it in both live and dead organic matter, and forest soil. We review IFM approaches that can enhance forest C storage, and links to best management practices and silvicultural systems to offer guidance for practitioners and researchers in the Great Lakes region of the United States. Finally, we discuss the current challenges and opportunities in including soil C in forest C management guidelines and frameworks. K E Y W O R D Scarbon management, forest carbon, forest management, improved forest management, land use, land management, natural climate solutions, silviculture, soil carbon INTRODUCTIONLand management strongly affects the ability of ecosystems to sequester and store carbon (C). Natural climate solutions (NCS), a set of land management, conservation and restoration practices aimed at mitigating climate change, have been introduced as cost-effective tools that increase C sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems (Fargione et al., 2018;Griscom et al., 2017), while also sustaining biodiversityThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Section: Defining Ifmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Defining Ifmmentioning

confidence: 99%