Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
041122Corr
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2022 CORRESPONDENCE DATE OF DATE ORIGINATING CORRESPONDENCE DOCUMENT RECEIVED PARTY 3/31/2022 3/31/2022 MRSC — Local Government OPMA Legislation Safe Parking I Salaries for Electeds 3/31/2022 3/31/2022 NACo Coronavirus pandemic resources for counties — March 31, 2022 3/31/2022 3/31/2022 John Vezina, WSDOT/Ferries Division WSF Weekly Update Seth Ballhorn 3/31/2022 3/31/2022 Puget Sound External Affairs Coordinator, Duckabush estuary restoration letter of support Restoration Division 3/31/2022 3/31/2022 Wildlife and Recreation Coalition March E-News: Meet Laura Isaza 4/1/2022 4/1/2022 Tom Thiersch Highway System Plan for the next 20 years News Release: High Steel Bridge to close periodically 4/1/2022 4/1/2022 Olympic National Forest for Search and Rescue Training Lynn Sorensen KPTZ listener questions for Monday, April 4, 2022 4/1/2022 4/1/2022 KPTZ Virus Watch Team BOCC Update Washington State Department of WSDOT Travel Advisory: New temporary bridge open 4/1/2022 4/1/2022 Transportation - TRAVEL to US 101 travelers at Indian Creek Application for 2022-2023 Presidential Leadership 4/1/2022 4/1/2022 NACo and Committee Appointments Chamber Community Development Grant 4/1/2022 4/1/2022 The Chamber of Jefferson County applications closing soon -are you on the list 4/1/2022 4/1/2022 Washington Counties I WSAC 4/1/2022 4/1/2022 Eric Johnson, WSAC Executive Director Apply Now for the NACo County Leadership Institute News Release: High Steel Bridge to close periodically 4/1/2022 4/1/2022 Olympic National Forest for Search and Rescue Training 4/1/2022 4/1/2022 Washington State Association of Counties County Virtual Assembly I April 4 Celebrate National County Government Month with 4/1/2022 4/1/2022 Washington Counties I WSAC WSAC! 4/2/2022 4/2/2022 NACo This Week in Photos American Legion shelter incident OlyCAP 4/4/2022 4/4/2022 Concerned Citizen management 4/4/2022 4/4/2022 Washington State Department of Special Legislative Update: Planners' Newsletter Commerce 4/4/2022 4/4/2022 Washington State Department of Grant applications open: Youth Recreational Facilities Commerce Correspondence may be viewed attached to the BoCC Agenda each week on the County Webpage or contact the County Administator's Office by calling, 360 385 9100 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2022 CORRESPONDENCE DATE OF DATE ORIGINATING CORRESPONDENCE DOCUMENT RECEIVED PARTY Sherri Dysart 4/4/2022 4/4/2022 Mason County THANK YOU! for your letter to CPL Franz about the Center for Responsible Forestry Beaver Valley Sorts Timber Sale Board member 4/4/2022 4/4/2022 The Port Townsend Main Street Program Blossom by Blossom the Spring Arrives 4/4/2022 4/4/2022 PLVC Board Meeting Thursday, April 7, Port Ludlow Village Council 2022 4l4/2022 4/4/2022 Chamber Cafe - Jefferson County Library Chamber Cafe - Jefferson County Library 4/4/2022 4/4/2022 Local 20/20 Local 20/20 Weekly Announcements 4/4/2022 4/4/2022 EnjoyPT Discover April in Port Townsend! Coronavirus pandemic resources for counties — April 4/4/2022 4/4/2022 NACo 4, 2022 Port Townsend Yacht Club Opening Day Sail By 4l4/2022 4/4/2022 Alice Tibbals Parade 4/4/2022 4/4/2022 Mary Jean Thanks Your letter to the DNR is excellent! Public Comment for April 4, 2022 BoCC meeting read in Public Comment Period: Letter to Commissioner 4/4/2022 4/4/2022 Mary Jean Ryan Franz & Board of Natural Resources re: request to defer action on the Beaver Valley Sorts Timber Sale Public Comment for April 4, 2022 BoCC meeting read 4/4/2022 4/4/2022 Jessica Randall in Public Comment Period: Letter to DNR re: Beaver Valley Timber Sale Elizabeth M. Dunne, Esq. (she/her) 4/5/2022 4/5/2022 Director of Legal Advocacy, Earth Law thank you re Beaver Valley Sorts Center 4/5/2022 4/5/2022 E Lessing Sokol Stop childhood mandates in Washington Washington State Department of Governor's 2022 Smart Communities Awards 4/5/2022 4/5/2022 Commerce nominations open now through May 6 4l5/2022 4/5/2022 MRSC Training PRA Workshops I Procurement I Workplace Culture 4/5/2022 4/5/2022 NACo County News County News Now — April 5, 2022 Lissy Andros, Executive Director Please join us Wednesday for Clallam Transit and 4/5/2022 4/5/2022 Forks Chamber of Commerce Saturday for Fog & Fern Clothing Co. Ribbon Cutting! Modified Government Jobs Jefferson County 4/6/2022 4/6/2022 Jean Ball Administrator for www.co.jefferson.wa.us Correspondence may be viewed attached to the BoCC Agenda each week on the County Webpage or contact the County Administator's Office by calling, 360 385 9100 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2022 CORRESPONDENCE DATE OF DOCUMENT DATE RECEIVED ORIGINATING PARTY CORRESPONDENCE 4/6/2022 4/6/2022 The Chamber of Jefferson County Help the EDC Help You 4/6/2022 4/6/2022 The Chamber of Jefferson County Currently Playing - are these on your calendar Correspondence may be viewed attached to the BoCC Agenda each week on the County Webpage or contact the County Administator's Office by calling, 360 385 9100 Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 11:13 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: OPMA Legislation I Safe Parking I Salaries for Electeds Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: MRSC — Local Government Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 11:11:01 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: OPMA Legislation I Safe Parking I Salaries for Electeds March 31, 222 i From MRSC Ask MRSC The OPMA Gets an Update from the Legislature The city is receiving By Flannary Collins extensive public records The 2022 legislative session made changes to the Open Public Meetings requests from an individual Act, some of which take effect immediately and others not until requester that has the June. This blog looks at new requirements about physical location, potential to interfere with special meeting notice, and public comment and clarifies the effective city operations. What are dates. More from MRSC Insight some strategies for dealing with such requests? A Primer on Safe Parking Programs for People Does a building have to be Experiencing Homelessness inspected by a licensed By Lisa Pool inspector before the agency Safe parking programs are operated on behalf of people who use a can issue a building vehicle as their residence. They give users a sense of security while also permit? connecting them to critical human and social services. More from MRSC Insight Have a question? Salaries for Elected Officials Officials and employees from eligible government By MRSC Insight agencies can use our free This blog discusses how salaries are set for elected officials, how one-on-one inquiry service, salaries can be changed, and whether an official can request not to be Ask MRSC. paid. More from MRSC Insight Statewide Mask Mandate Lifted Em By Linda Gallagher Governor Inslee has lifted Washington's statewide mask mandate. This blog looks at where masks are still required, what happens next, and how local governments may be impacted. More from MRSC Insight Vacancies in Local Elected Offices City, county, and special purpose district vacancies can raise a lot of questions, so we've created a new webpage explaining resignations, unexcused absences, and other causes of vacancies, as well as the process for filling a vacancy. Upcoming Trainings Registration for each webinar closes at 5 PM the day before the event. All pre -registered attendees will get access to the recorded webinar a day after the broadcast. Public Records Act Basics & More (VirtualWorkshop) Multiple dates/times from April 5 — May 12 Cost: $140 1 Credits: CLE, WAPRO, CML Learn more and register Procurement Series Part 3: Public Works ( ebinar) April 21, 1 PM — 2:30 PM Cost: $40 1 Credits: APWA-CAEC Learn more and register Missed a webinar? On -Demand Webinars are available to view for a fee; credits are available for some. 2 In Focus Bicycle Projects Now Open The Washington State Department of Transportation announced the release of the 2022 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Program and Safe Routes to School call for projects. Informational webinars are scheduled for April 12 and 13. Contact Barb Chamberlain for more information. The Current Battle in the Cyber War Front Needs Immediate Attention Political, socio-economic and catastrophic incidents correlate with a rise in cyber attacks, making cybersecurity crucial for every county right now given the conflict in Eastern Europe. More from NACo The Rise of Tiny Housing Villages in the Fight Against Homelessness More cities are turning to the small -sized structures as an alternative to group shelters. But critics have likened them to "sheds" that fall well short of permanent affordable housing. More from Route Fifty Washington News Burlington to offer sign -on bonuses to attract police officers, paramedics Spokane Valley grapples with 'whack -a -mole' parking problem Lacey city council wrestles with changes to tree removal rules King County pilots film plastic recycling program at 10 Seattle -area grocery stores Grays Harbor cities manage changing demographics Walla Walla to consider moratorium on redevelopment of manufactured home parks Rural Jefferson County is building its own broadband network Lack of easements thwarts recreation trail plan in Winthrop Maps, Equity, Infrastructure Getting all Americans connected is about more than running fiber to every house. Who needs it, who's paying for it and whether everyone has the skills to use it are all critical considerations as broadband networks expand. More from Government Technology Federal Highway Administration Moving Toward Complete Streets FHWA released a report to Congress that takes initial steps toward making complete streets the default model for funding and designing federally controlled roads. More from Planetizen How El Paso is Supporting Small Businesses The infusion of federal relief the city is receiving from its ARPA and CARES Act funding is enabling it to address some of the most pressing challenges its small businesses faced during the pandemic. More from National League of Cities National News What Prescott, AZ learned 'dodging a ransomware bullet' County by county, solar panels face pushback San Francisco girds for blow of office workers never returning Oregon city will wipe nearly $1 million in civil penalty fees off the table Los Angeles sued online vacation rental company, saying it violated city's home -sharing law U.S. cities will lose over 1.4 million street trees to insects by 2050 Rural Virginia county puts land records on blockchain In Southern Oregon, Rogue Valley cities propose joint water rights plan to address supply issues C 4 Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 2:31 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Coronavirus pandemic resources for counties — March 31, 2022 From: NACo Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 2:29:49 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: Coronavirus pandemic resources for counties — March 31, 2022 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Having trouble viewing this email? Click Here "! + M • RESOURCES Oerr FOR COUNTIES 1 THERE IS STILL TIME TO JOIN US IN WAKE COUNTY, N.C. FOR THE NACo HEALTHY COUNTIES FORUM Join us in Wake County/Raleigh, N.C. April 6 — 8 for the 2022 NACo Healthy Counties Forum. This interactive event will focus on strategies for equitably addressing systems that impact the social determinants of health, particularly emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic. We have a packed schedule full of high -impact workshops including: • Innovations in whole -person health care coming out of COVID-19, including the county role in promoting equity in health services • Breakout sessions on addressing housing and homelessness to support health and the county role in supporting employee mental and physical well-being • Moderated meetups on mental health, food insecurity, the built environment and public health for older adults • Guidance on new funding from opioid lawsuit settlements and the American Rescue Plan to support local efforts to combat the opioid epidemic REGISTER TODAY I EXPLORE THE FULL SCHEDULE IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: EXPLORE RECENT NACo RESOURCES Explore NACo's updated analysis of Treasury's Final Rule for the ARPA Fiscal Recovery Fund NACo's updated analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department's Final Rule for the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund examines revenue loss allocations and clarifies eligible and ineligible uses and reporting requirements. DOWNLOAD THE ANALYSIS I ARPA RECOVERY FUND RESOURCE HUB 2 NACo and APHSA introduce new Child Tax Credit outreach toolkit A new toolkit from NACo and the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) helps health and human services agency staff connect eligible families with the temporarily expanded Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit during the 2021 tax filing season. LEARN MORE Learn how to connect residents to high-speed internet through the Affordable Connectivity Program Hear from senior leadership at the Federal Communications Commission on how the Affordable Connectivity Program is helping to connect millions of households to high-speed internet and learn how you can expand the program's reach in your county. WATCH RECORDING DEADLINE EXTENDED: APPLY TODAY FOR A NACo ACHIEVEMENT AWARD Applicafion Deadline is April 15 3 Earn national recognition and share your county's innovative programs by applying for a NACo Achievement Award. LEARN MORE I QUESTIONS? EMAIL AWARDS@NACo.org GO FEDERAL POLICY NEWS & RESOURCES White House launches COVID.gov COVID.gov will connect people to vaccines, tests, treatments, masks and the m: latest COVID-19 updates in their area. The site features a new tool identifying locations that offer COVID-19 testing and antiviral pills in one location. LEARN MORE GO TO COVID.GOV 00 �.» FDA authorizes second booster for older adults and the immunocom promised On March 29, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized a FDA second booster dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for older people and certain immunocompromised individuals at least four months after the first booster dose. CDC has also provided an official recommendation for additional boosters in these populations. LEARN MORE 4 STARTING TOMORROW: CELEBRATE NATIONAL COUNTY GOVERNMENT MONTH Held each April, National County Government Month (NCGM) is an annual celebration of county government and an excellent opportunity to showcase your work supporting residents and driving recovery from COVID-19. Join us in highlighting effective county programs and raising public awareness of the critical services your county provides. LEARN MORE FISCAL RECOVERY FUND SPOTLIGHT: BEHAVIORAL HEALTH Counties are investing critical American Rescue Plan Fiscal Recovery Funds in psychiatric care services, substance use disorder support and mental health outreach teams. Learn more below and explore NACo's full issue brief on county investments of Recovery Funds to support key behavioral health priorities. LEARN MORE I FULL ARPA INVESTMENT ANALYSIS SERIES COUNTIES PLAN TO INVEST RECOVERY FUNDS TO: HIRE MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELORS IN K-12 SCHOOLS PR DE SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AND SERVICES -10VIDE MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORTS r ADDMOKAL TELEMEALTH '; EXPAND PSYCHIATRIC CARE IN COUNTY JAILS , me JOIN NACo's UNTOLD STORIES CAMPAIGN AND TELL YOUR COUNTY'S STORY 6 Counties across the country continue to invest in pandemic recovery and plan for the future. Tell the story of your county's efforts. Use the form below to tell your county's story, and visit NACo.org/UntoldStories to learn more and explore resources to share how you are investing ARPA funds in local priorities. Share your county's story County Name State' + Add Share your county's story' What county service, program or idea are you highlighting and how will it impact the lives of residents? Share specific examples of how this service or program has helped residents during the pandernic How has the programs positively impacted the lives of residents? Please share specific examples and stories. If available, share a link to your story or program Does this program use ARPA or CARES Act funding?* Click below to select all that apply. Arnerican Rescue Plan Act CARO ACt Please share any relevant photos or Videos 49 Altoch file 7 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OfCOUNTIES 660 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20001 EAMM Did someone forward you this email? Sign up to stay up-to-date on topics affecting America's counties! Click here to unsubscribe. Julie Shannon From: Kate Dean Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:18 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: WSF Weekly Update From: Vezina, John Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:16:19 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Subject: WSF Weekly Update ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Governor signs Move Ahead Washington funding bill at Mukilteo terminal Gov. Jay Inslee signed two transportation funding packages on Friday, one of them at our Mukilteo terminal. With our newest ferry Suguamish as a backdrop, he put his signature on the Move Ahead Washington bill, which includes $1.5 billion to help stabilize our operations, build four new hybrid -electric ferries, convert up to four existing vessels to hybrid electric and provide electrification to terminals in central Puget Sound. The governor also signed the 2022 Supplemental Transportation Budget, which includes funding for recruiting and retaining qualified personnel and a new dispatch system. Transportation Secretary Roger Millar, Deputy Secretary of Transportation Amy Scarton and 1 thanked Gov. Inslee for his support after the bill signing in Mukilteo. Out in the fleet on our "Triangle" route I was happy to be out in the fleet again last week to meet with and get updates from my colleagues who are constantly interacting with our customers. Chief of Staff Nicole McIntosh and I visited our Fauntleroy/Vashon/Southworth route on Thursday. As always when we're out on our vessels and at our terminals, we learned so much about all that goes into keeping our system running. For many of our riders, our vessel and terminal employees are the face of our ferry system. That's why Nicole and I appreciate our time in the fleet hearing suggestions from our frontline coworkers. Nicole and 1 took a selfie with some Kittitas crewmembers in one of the wheelhouses after meeting with them. We were able to watch the Kittitas crewmembers conduct a fire drill while on board. After talking with Southworth Terminal Supervisor Dennis Duff, 1 handed him a WSF On the Spot coin, which recognizes acts of exceptional service, achievement or special recognition of a job well done. Rep. Dave Paul visits Mukilteo/Clinton route To thank our employees for their dedicated service throughout the pandemic, Rep. Dave Paul, who represents Island, Skagit and Snohomish counties in the state legislature, toured our Mukilteo/Clinton route earlier this STAY CONNECTED: TM 00 • w1 M El .0 Julie Shannon From: Kate Dean Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:46 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Duckabush estuary restoration letter of support Attachments: Duckabush-April 2022 Draft Letter of Support.pdf; 12.8.2021_Letter to Rep Kilmer.pdf From: Ballhorn, Seth A (DFW) Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:44:13 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Subject: Duckabush estuary restoration letter of support ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Thank you for your support for the Duckabush estuary restoration project. We are sending a letter to our Congressional delegation urging their support for Federal funding of Duckabush estuary restoration project, and we'd like to add you as a signatory. As you may have heard, the Washington state legislature recently allocated $25M towards the construction phase of the project, a demonstrable commitment. However, we can only be successful with joint funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to meet our respective cost -share obligations. Please consider signing on to the attached letter that will be sent to all Washington Senate and House offices. We would like to collect signatures and logos by the end of the day Monday, April 0. If you signed on to our previous letter, (also attached), no need to resend your signature and logo, an email is fine. Thank you for your support and consideration of signing on, and please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Seth Ballhorn Puget Sound External Affairs Coordinator, Restoration Division seth.ballhorn@dfw.wa.gov 360-791-4987 ii'az��iavr. Ih�raa+�,�rant rs,# FISH.ndIMLY April 5, 2022 The Honorable XXX Dear Congresswoman/man We are writing to request your continued support of funding for the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Federal Fiscal Year 2022 work plan and ensuring that it receives a construction "new start" designation so that it is eligible to receive construction funding in the work plan. Building on our state's two decades -long partnership with USACE on the PSNERP General Investigation, we are pleased to share that the State of Washington has recently allocated $25M towards PSNERP for the construction phase of the Duckabush Estuary Restoration project. This demonstrable commitment to the future of PSNERP and the Duckabush project is a strong signal that the time is now for large-scale aquatic ecosystem restoration projects in Puget Sound. However, we can only be successful in project implementation if funding is available to USACE to meet their share of the cost obligation for the project. USACE FY22 work plan funding decisions will be made within 60 days of omnibus budget legislation. It is imperative that the Duckabush project receive federal USACE funding in the FFY22 work plan to avoid possibly forgoing the recent state funding. Acting with urgency on this matter will support the collective efforts of USACE and the State of Washington to address the unique and nationally significant habitat features of Washington State's marine shorelines for the benefit of fish, wildlife, and people alike. A healthy Puget Sound ecosystem is important to Washington State residents and to our state economy. However, the Duckabush estuary restoration project cannot advance without federal funding. We strongly support fully funding the federal construction share of the project. Thank you for your ongoing leadership on this important issue and we appreciate your support of PSNERP. Sincerely, December 8, 2021 The Honorable Derek Kilmer United States House of Representatives 1410 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Kilmer, We write in support of the Duckabush estuary restoration project being fully funded in appropriations to the U.S. Corps of Engineers (Corps) within the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. We support restoration of the Duckabush estuary for the multiple benefits the project will have for salmon, Southern Resident Orcas, and reducing flooding impacts. The project will also improve transportation infrastructure for the surrounding small communities as well as create jobs that will support the local economy. The Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP), a collaborative effort among government agencies, universities, tribes, and environmental organizations, has invested over $20 million to study Puget Sound's 2,500 miles of shoreline and identify opportunities for large-scale habitat restoration. PSNERP's findings confirm that nearshore habitat loss and degradation is a problem of national significance and underscores the vital role that the Corps plays in ensuring Puget Sound's recovery. Congress authorized the Corps to invest $294 million in federal dollars for Puget Sound shoreline restoration through the PSNERP in the 2016 Water Infrastructure and Improvements Letter to Washington Congressional Delegation December 8, 2021 Page 2 for the Nation Act. The Duckabush estuary restoration project is the first project to move forward in the PSNERP partnership with the Corps and will exemplify climate resilient infrastructure. The project will reconnect the river to the floodplain and wetlands by modifying local roads and elevating Highway 101 onto an estuary -spanning bridge Restoring the Duckabush estuary will provide vital habitat for several ESA -listed salmon and steelhead and by extension, benefit Southern Resident Orcas. In addition to improving estuary habitat, the project would update aging transportation infrastructure, reduce seasonal flooding, improve water quality, and create approximately 1,300 jobs. These collective benefits will support local communities and make them safer. This multi -benefit infrastructure project is shovel ready, and project sponsors are eager to move to construction as soon as design is completed in 2022. The historic Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides an unprecedented opportunity to invest in climate resilient infrastructure that will help recover salmon and Southern Resident orcas, spur job creation, and ensure the safety of communities. We strongly support fully funding the federal construction share of the Duckabush estuary restoration project. Thank you for your ongoing leadership on this important issue and we appreciate your support of PSNERP. Sincerely, r Kelly Susewind Director Laura Blackmore WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Executive Director Puget Sound Partnership Megan Duffy Kate Dean Director Commissioner, District 1 Washington Recreation and Conservation Jefferson County Office .. I---- Heidi Eisenhour Erik Neatherlin Commissioner, District 2 Director Jefferson County Governor's Salmon Recovery Office Letter to Washington Congressional Delegation December 8, 2021 Page 3 Greg Brotherton Commissioner, District 3 Jefferson County Kristen Masteller General Manager Mason County PUD 1 Councilmember Bek Ashby City of Port Orchard Executive Board Chair Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization ww_�u"IA-. ��Dj Mendy Harlow Executive Director Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group Wendy McDermott Puget Sound -Columbia Basin Dir. American River Mindy Roberts Puget Sound Program Director Washington Environmental Council Whitney Neugebauer Director Whale Scout Greg Shimek Executive Director Coastal Cutthroat Coalition President Puget Sound Flyfishing Club Kathleen Gobush, PhD Director, Northwest Program Defenders of Wildlife Deborah A Giles, PhD Science& Research Director Wild Orca Erin Meyer, PhD Director of Conservation Programs and Partnerships Seattle Aquarium Letter to Washington Congressional Delegation December 8, 2021 Page 4 Howard Garrett Board President Orca Network �t I �' �11 � Colleen Weiler Rekos Fellow for Orca Conservation Whale and Dolphin Conservation Cc: Colonel Alexander L. Bullock, Seattle District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Geoffrey Potter, Deputy Director, Office of Federal and Interstate Affairs for Governor Jay Inslee of Washington State From: Christine Mahler <info@wi|d|iferecreation.ong> Sent: Thursday, March 31,20Z21O:U4AK4 To: jeffbocc Subject: March E-News: Meet Laura |saz Follow UpFlag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ALERT: 0ECAUTIOUS This email originated outside theorganization.Dono1openattachnnentsordickon|inksifyouane not expecting them. All the news you can use onWashington's great outdoors View this email in your browser Unifying voices for 1 Meet Laura Isaza, Policy and Outreach Associate We are so excited to welcome the newest member of the team, Laura Isaza, as our Policy and Outreach Associate! Laura started at the Coalition on March 8th and has hit the ground running, meeting Coalition partners and board members and visiting numerous WWRP project sites. Laura is very familiar with Washington outdoors. She grew up in Redmond, and spent winters downhill ski racing in the Cascade mountains and summers hiking. After leaving Washington state for the other Washington (DC) to pursue her undergraduate degree in Culture and Politics at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, she found her passion for environmental policy and social justice while studying abroad in Thailand. We sat down to chat about her background, what she's most excited about in joining the Coalition, favorite spots in Seattle, and fun summer plans. Read more 2. W Mailing Address! As our team continues to work remotely in this brave new world, we're reducing our commuting time and environmental impact by moving our mailbox south. Please update your records and be in touch! Washington Wildlife & Recreation Coalition 6716 East Side Drive NE #1-302 Tacoma, WA 98422 This month's featured project is Colockum Access Improvements on the ancestral land of the Yakama, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and Wenatchi people. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife used this grant to install a boat launch, gravel parking lot, and toilet on the edge of the Colockum Wildlife Area to provide access to the Columbia River. Read more Copyright @2022Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition, All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition 6716 East Side Drive NE #1-302 Tacoma, VVAOO422 Photo credits: Laura Isaza (Policy and Outreach Associate); RCO (12 Months of WWRP) update subscription preferences unsubscribe from this list jeffbocc From: Tom Thiersch <tprosys@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 9:12 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Highway System Plan for the next 20 years Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. The Highway System Plan (HSP) is our 20-year roadmap for preserving, maintaining, improving, and operating interstates, US routes, and state routes in Washington. Planning ahead helps ensure the highway system meets the needs of vanpool and bus riders, freight haulers, travelers in personal vehicles, those who walk, bike and roll, and everyone else using our roads. Our last HSP covers the period of 2007 to 2026 — wrapping up in just a few short years. https•//engage wsdot.wa.clov/hicihway-sstY em-plan/virtual-public-meetings/ Join us for a virtual public meeting to hear from experts about the Highway System Plan. This is an opportunity for you to learn more about the plan, and to tell us what you think is important as we think about the future of the highway system in Washington state. You are welcome to register for the meetings that work best for your schedule, or you can sign up for the meetings that align best with the region where you live, work and play. We hope to see you there! Register for the Olympic region virtual public meeting Time: 6:30 p.m. — 7:30 p.m. PST Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 Counties included: Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, Pierce and Thurston jeffbocc From: Olympic National Forest <corina.rendon@usda.gov> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 11:01 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: News Release: High Steel Bridge to close periodically for Search and Rescue Training ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Olympic National Forest Forest Service News Release Contact: Olympic National Forest Quilcene Office 360-765-2200 fs.usda.aovlolvmoic High Steel Bridge to close periodically for Search and Rescue Training Quilcene, WA, April 1, 2022— High Steel Bridge will close periodically to all traffic on April 7th, 2022, to allow Mason County Fire District #6 to perform search and rescue training. The bridge which crosses over the South Fork Skokomish is located on Forest Service Road 2340 northwest of Shelton, WA. Each year the Mason County Sheriff's Office and regional partners respond to search and rescue operations in the South Fork Skokomish Canyon under and adjacent to the bridge. Forest officials are reminding the public that areas surrounding the High Steel Bridge are closed to the public due to the high -risk environment including the deep canyon, steep cliffs, and fast-moving water. "By only using the High Steel Bridge as a roadway visitors can keep both themselves and our partners at Mason County safe," said Susan Beall, Deputy Forest Supervisor. "This training helps prepare a response to incidents, but we expect that forest users respect the closure order and don't trespass into the area." The training allows for the Mason County Fire District #6 to mimic the rescue scenarios frequently seen at the High Steel Bridge and perform operations safely. For more information about the bridge closure, contact the forest's Quilcene Office at 360-765-2200. For alerts and notices, follow us @olympicforest or visit www.fs.usda.gov/olympic. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender'. Olympic National Forest 1 1835 Black Lk Blvd SW, Olympia, WA 98512 Unsubscribe jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by corina.rendon@usda.gov powered by Constant Contact Try email marketing for free today! jeffbocc From: Lynn Sorensen <passages2007@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 12:30 PM To: Allison Berry; Berry, Allison; Willie Bence; Greg Brotherton; Kate Dean; Heidi Eisenhour; jeffbocc; KPTZ VTeam Subject: KPTZ listener questions for Monday, April 4, 2022 BOCC Update ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. County Commissioners, Dr Allison Berry, and Willie Bence, The KPTZ listener questions were rather sparse this week. Please see them listed below for Monday April 4, 2022 BOCC Update. Thank you, Lynn Sorensen KPTZ Virus Watch Team Questions for Dr Allison Berry: 1. Through the end of March, people could go to the Say Yes Covid Tests website and get free covid tests mailed to them. This was very useful for people who need to test periodically for admission to events. Will there be a similar offering for April? 2. What is the process for people to get the second boosters? Should we make appointments at the local pharmacies or at the hospital? 3. What are the case rates along the 1-5 corridor? In particular; King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties? Is Eastern Washington continuing to have higher case rates, in general, than Western Washington? jeffbocc From: Washington State Department of Transportation <wsdot@service.govdelivery.com> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 1:54 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: WSDOT Travel Advisory: New temporary bridge open to US 101 travelers at Indian Creek ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Washington State Department of Transportation - TRAVEL Olympic Region — P.O. Box 47440 - Olympia, WA 98504-7440 — 360-357-2600 Travel advisory April 1, 2022 Contacts Dan McKernan, project engineer, 360-565-0623 Tina Werner, media relations, 360-704-3270 New temporary bridge open to US 101 travelers at Indian Creek 1 PORT ANGELES — No fooling here. In the early morning on Friday, April 1, crews moved US 101 travel lanes onto a temporary bridge at Indian Creek near Port Angeles. A temporary traffic signal will continue to alternate travelers through the work zone near Herrick Road through late fall 2022. Washington State Department of Transportation's construction partner, Scarsella Bros., Inc., has been working since Feb. 7 on construction of a temporary bypass road. Now that the temporary bridge is built, crews will now focus their efforts on constructing a 180-foot-long concrete girder bridge for improved fish migration in the stream below. Work is expected to wrap up early spring 2023. As a tributary to the Elwha River, Indian Creek is a breeding ground for Chinook, sockeye, coho and steelhead salmon. Once complete, this project will restore up to 11 miles of potential habitat for fish who live and spawn in the area. WSDOT has spent nearly three decades improving fish passage and reconnecting streams to keep waterways healthy. Field biologists estimate Indian Creek is only 30 percent passable. This project builds upon WSDOT's commitment to replace the nearly 100-year-old US 101 Elwha River Bridge further east, which is expected to begin in fall of 2022. Olympic Peninsula travelers are encouraged to sign up for email alerts. Real-time travel information is the WSDOT mobile app and regional WSDOT Twitter newsfeed. Links in this travel advisory: • Indian Creek: www.wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/us-101-indian- creek-remove-fish-barrier • Improving fish passage and reconnecting streams: www.wsdot.wa.gov/construction- planning/protecting-environment/fish-passage • US 101 Elwha River Bridge: • www.wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/us-101-elwha-river-bridge- bridge-replacement • Email updates: https:Hpublic.govdelivery.com/accounts/WADOT/subscriber/new?topic id=WADOT 542 • WSDOT app: www.wsdot.wa.gov/travel/know-before-you-qo/mobile-app • WSDOT Twitter newsfeed: twitter.com/wsdot tacoma 2 Know before you go Check the latest conditions: • Travel Center map • Real-time travel data • WSDOT mobile app WSDOT keeps people, businesses and the economy moving by operating and improving the state's transportation systems. To learn more about what we're doing, go to wsdot.wa.gov/news for pictures, videos, news and blogs. Real time traffic information is available at wsdot.com/traffic or by dialing 511. Accessibility / Title VI STAY CONNECTED oo SUBSCRIBER SERVICES Manage Preferences I Unsubscribe I Help This email was sent to jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: Washington State Department of Transportation 310 Maple Park Ave SE • Olympia, WA 98504 3 Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 6:32 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Application for 2022-2023 Presidential Leadership and Committee Appointments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: NACo Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 6:30:35 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: Application for 2022-2023 Presidential Leadership and Committee Appointments ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Having trouble viewing this email? Click Here TO: NACo Members FROM: Hon. Denise Winfrey, NACo First Vice President DATE: April 1, 2022 RE: Application for 2022-2023 Presidential Leadership and Committee Appointments Thank you for your dedication to your county and counties across America through your membership with the National Association of Counties (NACo). As we emerge from this pandemic, we are revisiting our personal and professional priorities. While you serve your county in vast ways, I ask you to strongly consider submitting your name for a leadership position at NACo. Together, we can achieve results for our counties and the people we serve each and every day. These appointments are for: • Policy Steering Committee chairs and vice chairs and subcommittee chairs and vice chairs • Large Urban County Caucus and Rural Action Caucus chairs, vice chairs and members • Standing Committee chairs, vice chairs and members • Ad Hoc Committee, Task Force and Advisory Board chairs, vice chairs and members At -Large NACo Board Directors Below is more information for each committee and its specific appointment terms. Committee leaders and members must cover their own travel and conference expenses. IMPORTANT: Steering committee membership is not a part of this application process. State associations of counties are responsible for nominating general policy steering committee members. The online nomination form for policy steering committee membership can be found here. To become a member of a steering committee you must fill out the nomination form and submit it to your state association. They will submit the nomination to NACo. To be considered for a presidential appointment to any of the following committees or as an at - large director for the II Board of Directors, you MUST complete the application online by 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 31, 2022. The 10 policy steering committees will each have a leadership team consisting of a chair, an appropriate number of vice chairs and subcommittee chairs and vice chairs. Those applicants who have been active members of the steering committee will be given preference in consideration for these appointments. The applicant should be willing to help coordinate leadership conference calls, develop meeting agendas and participate in outreach with federal officials, if necessary. These appointments are for one year (July —July). The Rural Action Caucus and the Large Urban County Caucus will each have a chair and an appropriate number of vice chairs and members. Applicants who have been active members of these caucuses will be given preference in consideration for these appointments. These appointments are for one year. Each president appoints 10 at -large directors to the NACo Board of Directors for a one-year term. These appointments are to add balance to the board with respect to any inequities between urban and rural, gender, geography and minority representation. As with our communities, our strength is in our diversity. These appointments are for one year. The Standing Committees provide important feedback and facts for NACo's Board of Directors and Executive Committee. • Information Technology. Advises on information technology issues and provides oversight on NACo information technology projects. (Appoints the chair, vice chairs and members for a one-year term.) • Programs and Services. Advises the development and evaluation of programs and services for NACo members. (Appoints the chair, vice chairs and members for a one-year term.) • Membership. Actively recruits and retains member counties, parishes and boroughs to advance NACo's number one performance priority of county official engagement. (Appoints the chair, vice chairs and members for a one-year term The Ad Hoc committees are as follows: Arts and Culture Commission. Demonstrates how the arts can be used by county officials to promote economic development and provide solutions to many of the challenges that they face, through workshop sessions, field trips, special publications and its annual Arts & Culture awards, which recognize counties working to foster an environment where arts & culture can thrive to create more livable communities. (Appoints the chair, vice -chair and members for a one-year term.) • Geospatial Information Systems Subcommittee. Provides a framework for gathering, managing and analyzing data to inform county decisions. (Appoints the chair, vice -chair and members for a one-year term.) • Resilient Counties Advisory Board. Provides information, guidance and support to the NACo Resilient Counties Initiative. (Appoints the chair, vice -chairs and members for a one-year term.) • Healthy Counties Advisory Board. Provides information, guidance and support to the NACo Healthy Counties Initiative. (Appoints the chair, vice -chairs and members for a one-year term.) • Immigration Reform Task Force. Educates Congress, the administration and NACo members on the impact of immigration on counties and helps advocate for NACo's priorities. (Appoints chair, vice chairs and members for a one-year term.) • International Economic Development Task Force. Provides information, guidance and support for international economic development activities, including tools for county officials. (Appoints the chair, vice -chairs and members for a one-year term.) • Veterans and Military Services Committee. Engages NACo and its members to develop and highlight county best practices and policies to promote innovative programs, services and benefits for military service members, veterans and their families. (Appoints the chair, vice chairs and members for a one-year term.) The Presidential Appointments Application Form must be completed by anyone who would like to be considered for a leadership or committee appointment on a steering, standing or ad hoc committee for the 2022-2023 presidential year. The online application form is available here. The deadline for submitting your application is 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 31, 2022. Thank you, in advance, for your interest in serving, and I look forward to receiving your application. Please direct any questions to committee@naco.org. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OfCOUNTIES 660 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20001 ri"VIM Did someone forward you this email? Sign up to stay up-to-date on topics affecting America's counties! Click here to unsubscribe. 5 Julie Shannon From: Sent: To: Kate Dean Friday, April 1, 2022 8:47 AM Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Chamber Community Development Grant applications closing soon -are you on the list From: The Chamber of Jefferson County Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 8:45:15 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kate Dean Subject: Chamber Community Development Grant applications closing soon -are you on the list ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. The Chamber OF JEFFERSON COUNTY building business, building community www.jeffcountychamber.org 360.385.7869 director@jeffcountychamber.org Grow Your Own Opportunity Grant Funds for this grant come from the Chamber's Community Development Fund program which is funded through a percentage of each membership investment at the Chamber. This is the second in a series of grants from the Community Development Fund. Thank you to all our members for your contribution to our community and its future. We are investing in your business and our community. The purpose of this grant is to facilitate small business revitalization, expansion, market expansion and other expansion geared toward long-term sustainability and stimulation of the local economy. Applications close on Friday, April 8th, noon. QUESTIONS? Contact admin@jeffcountychamber.org To apply click link below Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce 1 2409 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Unsubscribe kdean@co.jefferson.wa.us Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by director@jeffcountychamber.org powered by ON Constant Contact Try email marketing for free today! Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 10:03 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Friday 51 NCGM I OPMA I Steven's County I Wildfires From: Washington Counties I WSAC Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 10:00:09 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: Friday 5 1 NCGM I OPMA ( Steven's County I Wildfires ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. ril 1, 2022 nv) ZNMENT ' MONTH! new things, find great places ?� Let's WAnder Counties! r t 1 It's National County Government Month! Every April counties around the country are celebrating National County Government Month (NCGM)! Here at WSAC, we want to celebrate you, our counties, and the wonderful work you all do around our beautiful state! As a part of this year's NCGM, we want to encourage you and your constituents to get out and WAnder! Explore new areas, learn new things, find great places with even greater people! Let's WAnder Counties! As you're out exploring our beautiful state, be sure to snap pictures, take video, and then share them on your social media accounts using #WAnderCounties and tag WSAC on our channels below! We'll be sure to share them and maybe even give out some prizes for our favorite shares! Visit WSAC's NCGM website for more information and look out for the full announcement email going out later today! Learn More --f facebook -AJ twitter instagram in linkedin - ---- -- ---- The OPMA Gets an Update from the Legislature 2 The 2022 legislative session made changes to the Open Public Meetings Act, some of which take effect immediately and others not until June. This blog looks at new requirements about physical location, special meeting notice, and public comment and clarifies the effective dates. Learn More Now Enrolling: NACo High Performance Leadership Academy The NACo High Performance Leadership Academy is an innovative, completely online 12- week program created to equip frontline county government professionals with practical leadership skills to deliver results for counties and communities. With a robust curriculum developed by the Professional Development Academy in partnership with Fortune 1000 executives, public sector leaders, world-renowned academics and thought leaders, including General Colin Powell and Dr. Marshall Goldsmith, HPLA was designed specifically for the unique challenges and opportunities of serving in county government. 3 The next program begins April 25. Other 2022 dates, and program and cost information, including recent results, can be found at the link below. Learn More Stevens County ex rel. Rasmussen v. Travelers Surety On March 21, 2019, Stevens County Prosecutor Rasmussen filed suit against the Stevens County commissioners alleging they had made unconstitutional gift of public funds for expenditures of homelessness funds. Two years later, Division 3 of the Court of Appeals held in favor of the commissioners, calling Prosecutor Rasmussen's approach of suing the commissioners individually a "novel" one. Per the court, "The alleged unconstitutional gifting was not something the Stevens County commissioners did in their individual capacities. It was NJ 71 TWO M- 07 1111 17roug-71 I W, collecting or receiving public funds, they could not be held individually liable on their bonds without some sort of culpable misconduct." The case was remanded to the superior court tit vacate the judgment against the commissioners and enter summary judgment in their favor. For more information, the court decision can be found at the link below. Learn More 4 WAS HINGTON 9-1. .�SO-T.ON 11COUNTIES GET IT ON YOUR CALENDAR 1111-,�Ir�,[�, 111111 11�1, �: IIII11illilill -- j! k A I A new film on wildfire preparedness in Washington State, called Living With Wildfire has been released. The film is a 45-minute documentary that is hosted by Dr. Paul Hessburg and features interviews with WA Lands Commissioner Hillary Franz, Dr. Mark Finney of the Missoula Fire Sciences Lab, and many others. The film was funded by a generous grant from the WA Department of Commerce and is available for free to watch and utilize at conferences, community gatherings, trainings, in classrooms, and on websites & social media. APRIL 5 - May 12 April 21 R FOLLOW US facebook W twitter instagram in linkedin wsac.org View this email in your_browser; This email was sent to hei59 9.95 Wtly-didlgetjbiS? . - Want to change how you receive these emails? op ,c qteyo(Lr.p , Le :acmes I Unsubscribe frothis list �[tffq -— Copyright (0 2022 Washington State Association of Counties, All rights reserved. 206 10th Ave SE - Olympia, WA 98501-1311 - USA I Contact Us 6 Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 10:48 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Apply Now for the NACo County Leadership Institute From: Eric Johnson, WSAC Executive Director Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 10:46:07 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: Apply Now for the NACo County Leadership Institute ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. COUNTY NSTITUTE "nONu ASSOMION 91'COUNTESN ` o �� W �lNSMidI •ICOUNTMS I r 11 Institute! The County Leadership Institute (CLI) is a rigorous program comprised of four days of in -person instruction and virtual meetings offered by NACo to enhance the capability of county officials to identify and implement innovative solutions to complex challenges facing county government. Attendees will learn how to effectively address the demands of personal leadership in a new era of government. This era is characterized as a "permanent crisis" by CLI Program Developer and Cambridge Leadership co-founder Marty Linsky. Up to 30 local elected officials from across the country will be chosen to participate in this opportunity, held in Washington, D.C., on June 12 — 16, 2022. Candidates must be elected county officials from NACo member counties, and preference will be given to those serving at least one term and no more than eight years in office. WSAC policy provides preference to nominating a WSAC member that meets the following criteria: 1. Have served at least one term and have been reelected to office. 2. Currently be an active participant in a leadership capacity within WSAC (Board of Directors, Legislative Steering Committee, Committee Member, NACo Committee Member, serve on Statewide Board or Commission, etc.). 3. Be willing to continue serving in a leadership position. 4. Report back to the WSAC membership following completion of the program. WSAC will cover four nights lodging and the event registration fee of $7,800 — which includes receptions and most meals. Selected participants are responsible for travel costs to and from Washington D.C, some meals, ground transportation to/from the airport, and incidentals. WSAC may be able to assist in offsetting travel costs. Applications are due by close of business on April 6, 2022 2 The WSAC Executive Committee will select and forward nominee(s) to NACo. NACo will announce the finalists in May. Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 11:02 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: News Release: High Steel Bridge to close periodically for Search and Rescue Training From: Olympic National Forest Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 11:00:52 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: News Release: High Steel Bridge to close periodically for Search and Rescue Training ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Olympic National Forest Forest Service News Release Contact: Olympic National Forest Quilcene Office 360-765-2200 .fs.usda�ovinlm is P_olympicforest High Steel Bridge to close periodically for Search and Rescue Training Quilcene, WA, April 1, 2022— High Steel Bridge will close periodically to all traffic on April 7th, 2022, to allow Mason County Fire District #6 to perform search and rescue training. The bridge which crosses over the South Fork Skokomish is located on Forest Service Road 2340 northwest of Shelton, WA. Each year the Mason County Sheriff's Office and regional partners respond to search and rescue operations in the South Fork Skokomish Canyon under and adjacent to the bridge. Forest officials are reminding the public that areas surrounding theHigh Steel Bridge are closed to the public due to the high -risk environment including the deep canyon, steep cliffs, and fast-moving water. "By only using the High Steel Bridge as a roadway visitors can keep both themselves and our partners at Mason County safe," said Susan Beall, Deputy Forest Supervisor. "This training helps prepare a response to incidents, but we expect that forest users respect the closure order and don't trespass into the area." The training allows for the Mason County Fire District #6 to mimic the rescue scenarios frequently seen at the High Steel Bridge and perform operations safely. For more information about the bridge closure, contact the forest's Quilcene Office at 360-765-2200. For alerts and notices, follow us @olympicforest or visit www.fs.usda.goyLol mic. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. Olympic National Forest 1 1835 Black Lk Blvd SW, Olympia, WA 98512 Unsubscribe heisenhourCcbco.jefferson.wa.us Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by corina.rendon@usda.gov powered by Constant Contact Try email marketing for free today! Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 2:01 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: County Virtual Assembly I April 4 From: Washington State Association of Counties Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 1:59:18 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: County Virtual Assembly I April 4 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency Update Join WSAC and your county peers for an update from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA). Discussion will include cybersecurity on the Russian/Ukraine tensions, the Shields Up campaign, and the available resources to counties. Speaker: i • Ron Watters, Regional Cybersecurity Advisor (Private Industry Partners) Please Update Your Calendar! The County Virtual Assembly meetings will be continuing throughout the duration of 2022. Be sure to edit the invite in your calendar application to reflect the change. If the invitation no longer appears on your calendar, you can click the "Register Now" button below. Once you have completed the registration page, you will be able to add the new meetings to your calendar application by clicking the "Add to Calendar" button under the list of meeting times (registration for this meeting will go through the end of 2022). ;;View paAssemblies,r Register in advance for these meetings After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. z Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 3:32 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Celebrate National County Government Month with WSAC! From: Washington Counties I WSAC Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 3:29:16 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: Celebrate National County Government Month with WSAC! ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. am] L Washington beautifulf • ofcountiesfl it's time to explore the people and places that make them so great! Every April counties around the country are celebrating National County Government Month (NCGM)! Here at WSAC, we want to celebrate you, our counties, and the wonderful work you all do around our beautiful state! As a part of this year's NCGM, we want to encourage you and your community to get out and wander! Explore new areas, learn new things, find great places with even greater people! Let's WAnder Counties! As you're out exploring our beautiful state, be sure to snap pictures, take videos, inspire us with an amazing nature shot, transport us to a memorable site in your county, or show off Wt"wtKs, accounts using #WAnderCounties and tag @WAcounties! Have some extra fun by tagging your colleagues and friends and challenging them to share too! We'll be sure to share all your great content and maybe even give out some prizes for our favorite shares! NCGM Resources 32=0 IN11007M. 200 great content showing us thM Please WAnder responsibly. 2 111hat Can'Tou Do? Share what makes your coun great! Photos highlighting the beauty of your county, county I services, a fun facts, or recognizing your incredible staff are just some of the ways you can celebrate. Don't forget to tag us and use #WAnderCounfies and my�• =� Social Media Post Ideas Looking for ideas on what to post on social is for CGM? JfApril is National #CountyGovernmentMonth, and this year's theme is #WAnderCounties. [SHOW US A GREAT PLACE TO WANDER YOUR COUNTY] #NCGM Acounties M��� I WAndered county and found this [PICTURE OR VIDEO OF A GREAT PLACI IN YOUR COLINTY]! To learn more, visit wsac.org/ncgm #WAnderCounties #NCGM h.. " _V We're celebrating #CountyGovernmentMonth by WAndering our county and learning new 3 things about our home! [SHARE SOMETHING GREAT ABOUT YOUR COUNTY] #WAnderCounties #NCGM #WAcounties wsac.org/ncgm Facebook j 11,0 Twitter Instagram Linkedln WSAC.org 0=00154MERMI• Copyright @ 2022 Washington State Association of Counties, All tights reserved. You are receiving this email because you are involved with county government. EEZ=11=� Washington State Association of Counties 206 1 Oth Ave SE Olympia, WA 98501-1311 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. 4 Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2022 5:08 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: This Week in Photos From: NACo Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2022 5:06:05 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: This Week in Photos ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. THIS WEEK IN Having trouble viewing this email? Click Here 1! iii:iiii����ill��ilill�l�����l��ills-3j'� 1 11 NACo @NACoTweets ; Johnson County, Iowa @JohnsonCountylA 1 NACo Chief Government Affairs Officer Mark Ritacco provides an overview of American Rescue Plan aid for counties at the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners Fund Strategy Summit. Larry Johnson @Reach4Wellness In his home county, DeKalb County, Ga., NACo President Larry Johnson honors local elementary school art contest winners. The Johnson County, Iowa Board of Supervisors proclaims April National County Government Month. Explore our toolkit for resources and ideas to celebrate county government. Adam J. Bello @CountyExecBello Monroe County, N.Y. Executive Adam Bello (third from right) collects donated toys for children at a pediatric hospital. Macomb BoC @MacombBoC WColorado Counties @COcounties Macomb County, Mich. commissioners host community leaders for a discussion on small business development, manufacturing, affordable housing and other topics. New Mexico Counties @NMCounties33 Bernalillo County, N.M. officials discuss county priorities with New Mexico state legislators Lake County, Colo. Commissioner Sarah Mudge (right) joins a panel discussion on digital equity with Colorado Broadband Office Director Brandy Reitter. Dauphin County @DauphinCounty Dauphin County, Pa. Commissioner Mike Pries tries on nearly 100 pounds of firefighter gear. Williamson County @wilcogov WCharies County Govt @CharlesCoMD Williamson County, Texas Judge Bill Gravell welcomes third graders on a tour of the county courthouse. Kathryn Barger @KathrynBarger Los Angeles County, Calif. Supervisor Kathryn Barger (center) joins community and faith leaders to celebrate the upcoming Armenian American Museum. Charles County, Md. commissioners and the Dept. of Recreation, Parks and Tourism open a new boardwalk. NACo @NACoTweets El Paso County, Texas hosts a community meeting to solicit resident input on American Rescue Plan investment priorities. NACo @NACoTweets VNACo @NACoTweets 4 NOW - SHOT Earn national recognition and share your county's innovative programs by applying for a NACo Achievement Award. The application deadline has been extended to April 15. Click here to learn more and apply today. NACo is hosting our annual art competition for school grades 1-12 in honor of National County Government Month. Click here to access the application and resources to promote the competition to students in your county. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION S 660 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20001 rl"© 9 Did someone forward you this email? Sign up to stay up-to-date on topics affecting America's counties l Click here to unsubscribe. jeffbocc From: concernedcitizenpt <concernedcitizenpt@protonmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 9:05 AM Subject: American Legion shelter incident OlyCAP management Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Good morning, I have a concern that needs to be addressed. Over the weekend, the American Legion shelter had positive cases of COVID-19, which was reported to the Jefferson County Public Health department. The Winter Welcoming Center, which directly serves some of the population from the Legion shelter, was not informed by the OlyCAP shelter manager in any way directly to staff of the WWC. Please address this matter however necessary with the shelter manager, as it should be viewed as a breach of ethical conduct. People who serve people at the shelter directly, volunteers who serve, and any patrons who may have been exposed, have the right to know about any possible exposure to COVID-19. They were not informed by OlyCAP in any way. Please address this accordingly. There should be consequences for this avoidable lack of action! Thank you. Concerned Citizen jeffbocc From: Washington State Department of Commerce <WAStateCommerce@public.govdelivery.com> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 9:31 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Special Legislative Update: Planners' Newsletter ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Having trouble viewing this email? View it online Special edition: End of legislative session wrap-up. Gov. Jay Inslee finished signing the budget and bills listed below on March 31. Many of these bills will take effect in the new fiscal year. We'll work with counties, cities and staff across the state as these changes become law and new funds are available for this critical work. The Washington State Legislature made a series of historic investments in our communities this year. A $10 million investment in funding for Growth Management Act (GMA) periodic updates, including the implementation of HB 1220 (2021), will be distributed annually throughout the full periodic update cycle. The Legislature also invested $7.5 million for cities in the Puget Sound region to expand housing choices and allow middle housing types in their development regulations. We are working out the final details of these grant packages, including grant amounts, and will provide details on contract procedures later this spring. Eligible counties and cities may start incurring costs under the grants beginning July 1, 2022. HB 1241 changes the comprehensive plan periodic update cycle from an eight - year cycle to a 10-year cycle. For jurisdictions with a due date in 2024, it changes the due date from June 30 to Dec. 30, 2024. It also requires larger counties and cities with a population over 6,000 to prepare an implementation progress report due five years after the periodic update. Counties required to produce an implementation progress report include King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Whatcom, Thurston, Clark, Benton, Franklin and Spokane. The first implementation progress reports are due in 2029. Commerce is responsible for developing guidance and indicators to assist cities and counties with the implementation progress reports. This bill creates a framework for tribal participation in the growth management planning process. Tribes and local governments enter into a memorandum of agreement for collaboration and participation in the county or regional planning process. The bill also creates a role for Commerce to facilitate the resolution of any disputes between Tribes and local governments over planning issues. Upon request, Commerce will provide a Tribe with notices of proposed comprehensive plans or amendments to comprehensive plans provided by a city or county to Commerce. This bill provides a framework for counties to adjust an urban growth area (UGA) boundary. By removing an area from the UGA, a county may add a new area of the same size without needing a land capacity analysis. To make such an adjustment, the following criteria must be met: • There can be no change in the overall size of the UGA. • The areas added cannot be designated or formerly designated as resource lands. • The area added may not include more than 15% critical areas. • The area added must be suitable for urban growth. • The new area must show adequate public facilities for capital facilities and transportation elements are provided. • The UGA may not be larger than needed to accommodate needed growth over the 20-year planning period. • The area removed must not contain urban densities. • The area added must be contiguous to the existing UGA. «714,141 • Rr P 1, This bill limits the effective date of certain comprehensive plan amendments. If a county expands the urban growth boundary, changes resource lands designations or expands the outer boundary of a limited area of more intense rural development, the effective date of the change must occur no sooner than 60 days after the date of publication. If the action is appealed, the effective date may not occur before the Growth Management Hearings Board issues its final decision. Enhancinco opportuniltv in limited_areas of more intense rural development: SB 5275 This bill allows more flexibility and options for redevelopment inside the logical outer boundary of a limited area of more intense rural development. It allows areas greater flexibility to evolve over time while maintaining essentially the same footprint of the original development. New uses are allowed if existing public facilities have sufficient capacity. The bill contains some limits on the size of new retail and food service uses. This bill makes several key changes to SEPA: • Amends (RCW 36.70A.600) to encourage cities to take specific actions expanding housing supply. Previously, city adoption of these measures were precluded from appeal under SEPA, provided the city took action by April 2023. This bill makes this "safe harbor' incentive permanent by removing the sunset date. • Amends the GMA housing element (RCW 36.70A.070) and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C.495) to preclude SEPA appeals on the adoption of development regulations and other non -project actions that increase housing capacity, increase housing affordability and mitigate displacement. • Amends SEPA (RCW 43.21 C.501) to preclude appeals of residential development projects based on either aesthetics or light and glare, if the project is subject to design review. "Design review" is a formally adopted process by which cities review projects for compliance with design standards. • Requires Ecology to update SEPA categorical exemption rules to increase the upper limits of optional flexible thresholds for housing developments, including increasing the upper limit for multifamily homes from 60 units to 200 units. Ecology is directed to add a procedural requirement to ensure impacts to the environment and the state transportation network are addressed when exemption thresholds are raised. • Creates a new section in SEPA to clarify that an applicant whose project qualifies as categorically exempt does not need to file a SEPA checklist if other information is available to establish that a project qualifies for an exemption. What bills and concepts didn't make Climate change The Legislature continued efforts to include climate change requirements in the Growth Management Act in HB 1099. Despite broad support, a last-minute detour into conference committee slowed the bill down and the legislative session clock ran out before a final House vote. This delay proved fatal to the bill when debates over the transportation budget took up valuable hours in the final days of session. •. Housing affordability and housing production were major topics again this year. Gov. Inslee included a middle housing bill (HB 17) as part of his legislative agenda. A broad coalition championed this bill, including the building industry, housing advocates and environmentalists. Despite the efforts of this diverse coalition, middle housing legislation didn't pass this session. Permit timelines A number of bills were to change the Local Proiect Review Act. Proposals included expanded reporting of permit timeline performance, further limitations on the ability to request new information, a reduction in permit timelines for interior improvements, studies of permit timeline performance, and an incentive package to expand the use of permit tracking software. Salmon Several bills attempted to stop the continued decline of Washington salmon runs and improve the quality of salmon habitat. FIB 1117 returned from last year with support from local governments, but failed to pass. Gov. Inslee championed another salmon recovery bill, named the Loraine Loomis Act, in honor of one of Washington's most ardent champions of Tribal treaty rights and salmon. This bill faced stiff opposition and didn't pass. Although the bills mentioned above did not pass, the budget includes increased funding for existing salmon habitat programs and funding for efforts to improve implementation of existing habitat protection authority. The Governor's Office will convene a broad group of stakeholders to attempt to reach agreement on a salmon recovery bill with enough support to pass the Legislature and successfully recover healthy salmon runs. VAN Collaborative Roadmap The Collaborative Roadmap Phase III project, which is studying and recommending reforms to the statutes that make up Washington's growth policy framework, has an exciting 2022 in store. The «--- Phase III Task Force met . three times in 2021 and « considered five different issues, eventually making formal recommendations on four of them. The Legislature reintroduced and considered several growth policy -related bills from the 2021 session that didn't pass, some of which implemented recommendations or considerations of the Task Force. In the coming weeks, the Collaborative Roadmap team will begin engaging Tribes, cities, counties, special districts, businesses and industries, state agencies, and traditionally underrepresented voices in decision making to manage growth across Washington. The Task Force will examine major issues, including annexation incentives, right -sizing GMA requirements, missing middle housing, and integrating growth planning across cities, counties, and other local and regional service providers. The Task Force will meet up to 10 times between May and November 2022 to study and make recommendations with input from various working groups and organizations. For more information, visit the Department of Commerce's Growth Management website. Do you have new staff or know of someone who would like to learn more about planning news in Washington? Please share these easy steps to subscribe to Commerce's Growth Management mailing list and receive our monthly Planners' Update newsletter: 1. Visit .commerce.wa.gov. 2. Scroll all the way down to the "Subscribe" section in the page footer. 3. Enter your email and select 'subnnd"bJchoose subscriptions you would like to receive. (You can unaubochbefnJnn any list sdany Unne] 4. Under the "Public Infrastructure" category. select "Growth Management" to receive this newsletter and other GIVIS updates. Commerce works with local governments, businesses, community -based organizations and tribes to strengthen communities. The department's diverse portfolio ofmore than 100 programs and effective public and private partnerships promote sustainable community and economic development to help all Washingtonians thrive. For more information, visit . For information onlocating orexpanding abusiness inWashington, visit choosewas h i ngton state. cc m. Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page.You will need Vouse your email address 0olog in. |fyou have questions orproblems with the subscription service, please visit . This service isprovided 0nyou atnocharge by Washington Department of Commerce. Subscribe I Manage Preferences I Unsubscribe All I Help I Contact us This email was sent to jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: Washington State Department of Commerce - 1m1Plum Street SE, p�.Box 4oson-Olympia, wwnonu4- gOVDELI go jeffbocc From: Washington State Department of Commerce <WAStateCommerce@public.govdelivery.com> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 11:32 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Grant applications open: Youth Recreational Facilities ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Having trouble viewing this email? View it online Commerce has opened a biennial reimbursement -style funding round for Youth Recreational Facilities. These grants fund 25% of eligible capital costs up to $1.2 million for non-residential facilities that provide youth (K-12) with recreation opportunities integrated with social and/or educational services. Ranking criteria for applications include: • the ability to complete the project expediently • the organizational capacity to run the facility effectively • community need • availability of other funding sources The ZoomGrants application and supporting materials are available on the program webpage. • Applications due: 5 p.m. Thursday, May 26 1 i ual ors it 28 Join Commerce staff for a free application workshop on Zoom to answer any questions. The workshop is not mandatory. If you are unable to attend, please contact Commerce directly with questions. • 9-11 a.m. Thursday, April 28 • Regis • For existing ZoomGrants accounts, log in and follow the instructions. • New users should complete the required information for a new account to create a profile. • Please do not use "The" as the first word in the agency name. • Once an agency profile is created, select the YRF Grant and the "Apply" button to start your proposal. • Answers are automatically saved after each response. • Hardcopies of applications will not be accepted. iQ . S? Email ca ro rams commerce.wa. ov or call 360-725-3075. About Commerce Commerce works with local governments, businesses, community -based organizations and tribes to strengthen communities. The department's diverse portfolio of more than 100 programs and effective public and private partnerships promote sustainable community and economic development to help 2 all Washingtonians thrive. For more information, visit For information on locating or expanding a business in Washington, visit ch oo sewa sh ingto n state. com. Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page.You will need Vouse your email address tolog in. Ifyou have questions orproblems with the subscription service, please visit . This service is provided to you at no charge by Washington Department of Commerce. Subscribe I Manage Preferences I Unsubscribe All I Help I Contact us This email was sent to jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us using GovDelivery Communications Cloud onbehalf of: Washington atateoopnmmomof Commerce -1o11Plum Street SE, Po. Box 42ozo-Olympia, wmV0004- uoz: ieffbocc From: Sherri Dysart <sherridysart@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:50 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: THANK YOU! for your letter to CPL Franz about the Beaver Valley Sorts Timber Sale ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Commissioners Dean, Eisenhour and Brotherton, I greatly appreciate your letter to CPL Franz about the importance of saving legacy forests, and the absurdity of destroying this forest as we are facing a climate and biodiversity loss crisis. This sentence was especially important and succinct: Simply put, funding schools, libraries, emergency services and other essential services with industrial forest practices is outdated and needs to be reconsidered. Thank you for your leadership. Respectfully, Sherri Dysart Mason County Center for Responsible Forestry Board member 1 jeffbocc From: The Port Townsend Main Street Program <director@ptmainstreet.org> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:56 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Blossom by Blossom the Spring Arrives ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. opened on April lstl This round of funding is competitive and will go quickly. Make your B&O taxes work for you! CLICK HERE to learn more. ee outdoor music at Tyl ?brate spring! Coordinai and Main Street Promo" onsored in part by The will be Jack Dwyer on A "laza. 2 3 'n A w � d 011 ARM I u I I, w �r3 d �ii r%sr Did you know that our 501 c3 nonprofit works in four volunteer committees -- Organization, Design, Economics, and Promotion? With partners, we support the historic districts related to COVID-19 impacts. We care for the hanging flower baskets, downtown gardens and Adams Street Park. We coordinate Creative District efforts, work on design projects, promote our local economy, coordinate events, and help light up Port Townsend for the holidays. We offer low -interest loan funds to propertyowners for commercial building renovations and microloans to business owners to offset the financial` impacts of emergencies. The work of the Port Townsend Main Street Program enhances the quality of life for residents and visitors. Become a member today! (Pictured; Nathan Barnett, PT Main Street board member, being interviewed by KING` TV Evening program about the Hidden Histories signage project.) 10 11 Julie Shannon From: Greg Brotherton Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:03 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: PLVC Board Meeting Thursday, April 7, 2022 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Port Ludlow Village Council Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:01:36 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Greg Brotherton Subject: PLVC Board Meeting Thursday, April 7, 2022 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. : IGLU C�' u c, TO 'PROTECT, PRESERVE, PROMOTE, AND UNIFY 1 You are invited to participate in the upcoming April PLVC Board Meeting scheduled for April 7th, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. This will be an in -person meeting — location as follows: South Bay Community Association (SBCA) The Bay Club — Auditorium 120 Spinnaker Place Port Ludlow, WA 98365 360-437-2208 Following is the April meeting agenda. We will make any modifications to the agenda at the start of the meeting if necessary. And we are pleased to announce that JeffCo WA SheriffJoe No% will be our guest speaker. The Bay Club is following all recommendations that JeffCo Department of Public Health for COVID-19 mitigation currently has in place. In this fluid world that we are living in right now, those recommendations could turn into mandates. Always be prepared for the unexpected and let's all be respectful for those masked or who are at higher risk around us. Meeting Agenda 1. Call the April 7, 2022, PLVC Board meeting to order, Declaration of a QUOrum, Protocol Roberts Rules for Small Boards, this meeting is being recorded — Changes to the agenda 11. Stakeholder updates: (3 — 5 minutes per update) a. Port Ludlow Associates — Diana Smeland — President b. Jefferson County Greg Brotherton — JeffCo Commissioner — District 3 111. Guest Speaker; Jefferson County Sheriff Joe Nole IV. Homeowners Association Updates: (3 — 5 minutes per update) a. LMC — Allan Kiesler. PLVC Board Member and President, LMC b. SBCA — Gil Skinner. PLVC Beard Member and President, SBCA V. Citizen Comments two (2) minutes each VI. Board BusineWReportsjActions/Dis ssions/C4d - New Business a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes, March 3, 2022 b. Prior Month Financial Report and Summary VU. Closing remarks — Evaluation - Adjournment Next PLVC Board 'Workshop, 04.19.22 at 3,00 pm, at The Bay Club Conference Room Next PLVC Board Meeting, 05.05.22 at 3.00 pm, the Beach Club — Baymew Room View or download the meeting agenda HERE. 0 Visit the Village Council Web Site Your Village Council is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose purpose is to be a unifying force and information conduit for the benefit of all Port Ludlow residents Port Ludlow Village Council l Post Office Box 65012, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Unsubscribe gbrotherton@co.iefferson.wa.us Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by portludlowvillagecouncileblast@gmail.com 3 Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 8:17 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Chamber Cafe - Jefferson County Library From: Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 8:15:27 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: Chamber Cafe - Jefferson County Library ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. www.jeffcountychamber.org 360.386.7869 director@jeffcountychamber.org Chamber Cafe with Dr. Tamara Meredith, Director Jefferson County Library Friday, April 8th 10am - 11am on Zoom Event Description: Dr. Tamara Meredith wIR be joining us to discuss the many new and continuing programs and opportunities with the Jefferson County Library, If you haven't visited their website or been able to engage with them during COVID-you have been missing a great deaf! Feeding Minds, Fueling Dreams - and Learn More! Join us for this Chamber Cafe-atways fun and educational! Your Ad could be reaching this large audience at no cost to youl Just ask usl The Chamber is investing in our Community & YOUR business. The Chamber of Jefferson County Chamber of Jefferson County 1 2409 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Unsubscribe heisenhour0co.iefferson.wa.us Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by director@jeffcountychamber.org powered by Cr 'ON Constant Contact Try email marketing for free today! Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 9:02 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Local 20/20 Weekly Announcements From: Local 20/20 Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 9:00:42 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: Local 20/20 Weekly Announcements Local 20/20 Weekly Announcements April 4, 2022 edited by Karen Richards 1 Delicate Blossom by Ellen Falconer *Editor's Note for regular readers: It's easy to keep up-to-date with our long newsletter by looking for items marked *New* or *Updated*. These are items that have been added or updated this week. Everything else has appeared in prior newsletters, and may be skipped if you have already read about it. This Week Climate on Tap — "What is the carbon footprint of recycling?" - - Wed, Apr 6th Create a Climate for Change! Climate on Tap • Concerned about human impacts on our GimateJ • Wishing you knew what you can do to make a difference? • There's plenty you can do that will help change the patteml How green are we when we recycle? Why is Jefferson County different than most in Washington? Changes are afoot! Bring ideas, answers, and suggestions to ponder this issue and look at all those R's: rethink, refuse, repair, reuse, refill, repurpose, rot (compost!) and finally recycle. Ideas will be posted on the Local 20/20 website! FinnRiver Cidery is providing their Pavilion space with open-air, socially -distanced tables. Masks are encouraged, but not required. Optional overhead heaters make it cozy! Time: 7-8:301m I Location: Finnriver Cidery Public Presentation on Cohousing: Living Sustainably in Community - Sat, Apr 9th ,.F Cohousing Community Forming 3 Miles Outside of Port Townsend Newt Crossing, a forming cohousing community, is bringing Charles Durrett back to Port Townsend for a free presentation at the Quimper Grange. Durrett, together with Kathryn McCammant, is the coauthor of Creating Cohousing, Buildin Sustainable Communities, and has designed over fifty cohousing communities in the U.S. and Canada, including Port Townsend's own Quimper Village. Whether you are curious about cohousing, or wanting to live in a village -like setting where neighbors are close by and connected, this pandemic has taught us how important community is. Durrett will share his 30 years of expertise designing socially vibrant and environmentally sustainable communities and assist in bringing Newt Crossing Cohousing to the next stage. A walk -the -land will follow on April io, at iiam. For more information, visit www.newtcrossing.org. Time: 3-5Pm I Location: Quimper Grange at 1219 Corona Street Upcoming Events 2 Jefferson County Recycling changes presentations - Mon, Apr iith *New* June 1, 2022, bottles and jugs will be the only type of plastics accepted for recycling. Bottles and jugs have the highest value resins and are recyclable domestically rather than sending the other plastic to a foreign country where they pull out the good stuff and throw the rest in an unregulated landfill or is burned. Both options pollute our environment significantly. Learn more about these changes and why Jefferson County has been ahead of the curve with recycling for 30 years! Lots of time to answer your questions too! • Presentation #1: Monday, April ii; FinnRiver Cidery; 124 Center Road, Chimacum; 6-7PM • Presentation #2: Tuesday, April 19; online via Zoom; io-m&M • Presentation #3: Saturday, April 23; online via Zoom; io-uAM Check the web page for Zoom links closer to the presentation dates. Community Healthcare Access Monthly Meeting - Wed, Apr 13th *Online* 20/20's Community Healthcare Access Group is a long running forum of people from the community concerned about healthcare access in Jefferson County. Discussion topics include Charity Care issues at the hospital, Legislative actions supporting local healthcare, public health issues, dental care, mental health and more. There is no membership needed, the public is welcome. Contact albergsteinPgmail.com for the Zoom link to the meeting if interested, along with historical background on the group. Time: Noon-1:30pm I Location: Online Climate Working Group - Thurs, Apr 14th *Online* IUIEEMmmwmJhk.dIIWe are restructuring the Local 20/20 climate meetings for the new year. This meeting will include both climate mitigation (reducing greenhouse gases) and climate adaptation (preparing for climate impacts) aspects. The first hour will be a discussion of current and proposed projects - gather feedback on existing projects, share successes, and brainstorm on possible future projects. The second hour will be a general discussion of current climate topics - what's been in 3 the news, learning opportunities, etc. Feel free to join for either half. Meeting schedule for the year will be discussed and defined. For the online meeting information, contact cag@12o20.org. Time: 3 — 5pm I Location: Zoom Asian Giant Hornets: What you need to know - Tues, Apr 14th *Online* JEPPERSON COUNTY MASTEROW FOUNDATION Join the Jefferson County Master Gardener Foundation to hear Outreach and Education Specialist Cassie Cichorz from the Washington State Department of Agriculture as she shares valuable information we need to know about the Asian Giant Hornet: its biology, the threats it brings to our state and how to manage this invasive species. For more information go to J fferson.wsu.edu or jcmgf.org and click on Asian Giant Hornets. Time: 3pm I Location: Zoom Local 20/20 Council Meeting - Wed, Apr loth *New* *Online* monthly Local 20/20 Steering Council meeting is open to all and welcomes those interested in active involvement in Local 20/20 leadership. Newcomers are always welcome. For a virtual orientation, or online meeting information, please us contact us at infoP12020.org. Time: 4 — 6pm I Location: Online Earth Day Invasive Plant Removal - Sat, Apr 23rd *New* FORT FLAGLER Scotch Broom Removal Help restore the natural beauty at Fort Flagler State Park by removing invasive plant species. Friends of Fort Flagler is organizing a park clean up on April 23rd between gam and ipm. They're looking for volunteers to sign up for two-hour shifts (9-11 or 11-1). The Park will be giving free day passes to any volunteer who does not have state park passes. Volunteers will bring their own tools, water, masks, and gloves and be directed to a specific site. Register. Time: gam-ipm I Location: Fort Flagler State Park Earth Day Beach Cleanup - Sun, Apr 24th *New* FORT FLAGLER Protecting Puget Sound from trash and winter debris begins we each of us! As waste continually pollutes our parks, waterways, and beaches, Friends of Fort Flagler provides the opportunity for you to help protect and restore the environment we all call home. Friends of Fort Flagler is organizing a park clean up on April 24th between gam and ipm. They're looking for volunteers to sign up for two-hour shifts (9-11 or 11-1). The Park will be giving free day passes to any volunteer who does not have state park passes. Register. Time: 9am-1pm I Location: Fort Flagler State Park, Lower Camp area Recurring Events COVID-ig Update - Mondays *Online* n Public Healt Join the weekly 9:oo am meeting of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), including the 9:45 am COVID-ig update with Public Health Officer, Dr. Allison Berry. You can also listen live to Dr. Berry on KPTZ. Additional COVID-19 information is on the County website here. Styrofoam Recycling - 2nd Mondays & 4th Saturdays*Updated* The Port Townsend StyroCyclers can only accept pieces that are white, rigid, clean, and dry, with all tape, labels, paper, and cardboard removed. They also accept clean and dry packing peanuts of all colors and types (separated from the styrofoam), as well as white styrofoam food trays that are clean and free of stains and writing. Your materials will be inspected at your vehicle, and disqualified materials will be returned to you. 5 Thanks to the Fort Worden PDA, the styrofoam is packed and stored at the Fort Worden Battery Putnam, then delivered to Kent once per month thanks to OlyCap and Northwest Harvest food bank trucks. At the Kent facility, a densifer machine uses heat and pressure to convert the styrofoam into a toothpaste -like consistency that cools into heavy, glassy blocks, which are then sold to manufacturers of products such as picture frames, construction details, and surfboard blanks. The densified product is in high demand because it is less expensive than virgin plastic. You can check the schedule and/or message them at any time at PTSt ooCyclersftgmail.com or through their Facebook page. Time: io:oo-noon I Location: Fort Worden's Battery Putnam, which is near Alexander's Castle (229 Alexander's Loop). Park your vehicle in the middle of the street in front of the battery. Cooperative Cafe - 2nd Mondays *Online* _1A economics for peace institute An online incubator talking space for emergent cooperatives. Offering supportive mentored environment for new housing linked to grower and work spaces (studios, workshops, etc). Beyond Leasing: Co -develop new right -sized sustainable independent housing and land ownership through producer cooperatives. Opening new investor pools for coop financing in the region. Video Call Link - Free and Open Event: econ4peace.org/econ4peace-video-call/ Questions? Write directly to: salishsea(@econ4peace.org Time: 6pm I Location: Online Climate on Tap - First Wednesdays Create a Climate for Change! Climate on Tap is back — in person in FinnRiver's cozy Pavilion! limate ® Each Climate on Tap is held on the first Wednesday of the month from 7-8:30 pm. Co -sponsored on Tap by Local 20/20 Climate Action, Jefferson County Public Health, and FinnRiver Ciderv. This is • Concerned about human impacts not a lecture series, but a discussion format. For further information email Laura Tucker or call on our climate? • wishing you knew what you can 360-379-4491• do to make a difference? • There's plenty you can do that will help change the patteml The Groundwork Project - Wednesdays starting April 6th *Updated* k JiFF=7\1 pt-1. mics for peace institute The Groundwork Project - The Institute supports local people in establishing meaningful, place - based indicators of community well-being and ecosystem stewardship. Two -Year, 3 County Pilot Study - Kitsap, Clallam and Jefferson - to establish baseline indicators of community well-being and ecosystem stewardship. Drop in event. Stop by when you can. Limit of 20. Or, choose one circle for ongoing involvement. - Lunch circle : iiam to ipm (drop in for min of 45 minutes) - Supper circle: 4pm to 6pm (drop in for min of 45 minutes) - Debrief/Analysis: 1:30pm to 3:3opm. (optional) 6 Questions? econapeace.org/the-groundwork-project. Online options with preregistration. Write salishsea(aeconapeace.org for link and password. Research will culminate Earth Day week with evenings online and two sessions of in person time at the Chimacum Grange on Saturday, April 23. You are welcome to join in at any time. Times: see above I Location: Chimacum Grange Birding in the Park - 2nd and 4th Fridays Beverly McNeil, Admiralty Audubon trip leader and photographer, is conducting bird walks at Fort Flagler. Birding and nature tours are on the 2nd and 4th Fridays of each month. Wear sturdy footwear and dress for changeable weather. Bring binoculars and your own water. Forest Bathing Walks at Fort Worden - Sundays oqi, - From Olympic Peninsula Mindfulness. Walk — Sit — Walk: As you enter the `cathedral' of the park's spaces you can walk comfortably and safely far apart without masks, or as you S�. §7 choose. Their walk follows paths linking the woods and meadows in the park. Several times they will pause, listen to a nature poem, and sit in silence at the Memory Vault; or possibly with a bit of guided meditation led by Ellen Falconer, mindfulness teacher. Please wear clothing which will keep you warm and dry, as we may be sitting or standing about in wet, chilly, invigorating weather. For more information call 360-316-6544 or visit their website. Walks are on Sunday mornings. Time: 9:30 — ii AM Location: Fort Worden State Park, meet in front of the Nora Porter Commons Building, 210 Battery Way Community Notices Editor announcement: Historically, we have not accepted "sales -related" submissions to this newsletter. We are reevaluating this position, and will now accept submissions related to vending and sales that are related to our mission on a trial basis for addition to this Community Notices section. Please refer to the bottom of this newsletter for how to submit an announcement. EDC Community Goal Survey - Input Needed! *New* r1w AL This is an invitation to participate in the Community Goal Survey, which seeks to understand the .SAMgoals and priorities of Jefferson County residents related to community economic development lson and planning. Your unique feedback will ensure a broad range of perspectives are represented. The survey will take 10-20 minutes to complete. Here is the link: https://bit.ly/ASAPJefferson. The survey will be live until the 3rd week of April. Jefferson County, WA is taking part in the Area Sector Analysis Process (ASAP), a community -driven tool that informs sustainable community economic development decisions. ASAP uses national and local data to identify compatible and desirable business sectors unique to each community. This link described the process (https://www.usu.edu/wrdc/asap). The EDC will be evolving our economic development strategy and work plan based on the interpretation of the data in this study. Thank you! Car Free Day Event — Wed, Jun ist — Save the Date and Recruiting Volunteers! variety of organizations across Jefferson County are partnering together to organize a Car Free ay on June 1, 2022, where students, employees and others will leave their car at home, or drive ss, and use alternative ways to get to school, work or run errands, and can win prizes by doing so! Learn more at 12020.org/carfreeda. If you are interested in being part of the planning team, or donating to this event, please contact us at carfreedgyP1202o.org. Mark your calendar for June ist, and start thinking about how you can leave your car at home (or drive less) that day!" Volunteer Opportunity - Local 20/20 Kul Kah Han Native Garden (KKH) — A Call for Volunteers & Educational Opportunities! *New* Kul Kah Han Native Plant 1)emon5tration Garden Chimacum, WA a- Their mission is to inspire and guide our regional community toward the appreciation, cultivation and use of native plants in home landscaping. They hold Volunteer Working Days at HJ Carroll Park every Wednesday from 10:3oam to 2:30pm (March -October). KKH is seeking new volunteers to join their passionate team. If you are interested, please contact their Volunteer Coordinator, Alan Potter alan.potter250gmail.com, to arrange an introduction and orientation of the garden. They also sponsor educational presentations on related subjects such as wildlife habitat, beneficial mycorrhizae, wise water use, propagation, ethnobotany, sustainable landscaping and more! Please contact their Outreach Coordinator, Christina Ballew ballewsinghoemail.com, if you are interested in these educational 8 opportunities. Gardening requires lots of water — most of it in the form of perspiration! They look forward to seeing you at the Garden! WSU Seed Library on JC Library Bookmobile An SEED LIBRARY WASH i NCADN S1`ME UNlV .RS1'lY EXT E N S I ON Jefferson County Master Gardener Program The JCL Bookmobile is partnering with WSU Master Gardeners to bring seeds directly to you! Borrow a variety of seeds from the Seed Library and grow beautiful, healthy plants to eat and for seed saving. At the end of the season, return a portion of your seeds to the Seed Library for the next year's borrowers. The Seed Library will visit all bookmobile stops (except Paradise Bay) during the last week of each month, March through October. This year they will be offering only seeds grown within Jefferson County —the best seeds grown by your neighbors, friends, and local seed growers. Learn more and get the schedule Summer Job Opportunities with CedarRoot Folk School Master Gardener Project Grant Requests due May 1, 2022 ca JEFFERSONCOUNTY I FOUNDATION The Jefferson County Master Gardener Foundation is accepting grant requests for not -for - profit horticulture and environment stewardship projects. Typically up to $750 is reimbursed for projects that are completed within a year of approval (early June.) Please download the application form from JCMGF.orf; under the "resources" menu or contact nwesteroolympus.net. Applications are due by May 1, 2022. Jefferson Transit's Kingston Express 9 Jefferson Transit is launching a pilot that connects with the Kingston Fast Ferry to Seattle! And you can ride free all the way to Seattle from Feb 22 - March 31, 2022, with a free ride transfer for the ferry! There will be a morning run and an afternoon run Monday - Saturday (note the fast ferry only runs M - F currently.) The Jefferson County stops are Haines P&R, Four Corners P&R, and the Gateway Visitors Center. Find out more at htips://ieffersontransit.com/14kin stg onexpress/. You can show your support for this pilot by getting on board, literally! Jefferson County Farmers Market Vendor Applications still open ° EST. 199E JEFFERSON COUNTY *,e ' FARMERS MARKETS PORT TOWNSEND . CHIMACUM The BIPOC Start -Up Business Fund and Chimacum Farmers Market applications are still open. The Chimacum Farmers Market application deadline is April 1. The Black Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) Start -Up Business Fund, now in its second year, accepts applications on an ongoing basis. We are excited to welcome more BIPOC vendors to market with small grants of $50041,500. Community Resources Biochar for Farms & Gardens e Olympic Carbon Fund is continuing its mission to increase carbon sequestration in the soils -s, of our region by continuing to give away Biochar for food -growing soils. Farms, market gardens and large shared gardens are eligible for a full cubic yard, while home food gardeners may m artake of the 'Bucket Share". Other soil regeneration projects may also be eligible for free iochar, if community resilience is enhanced by the project. New Public Health Dept E-Newsletter 10 Jenersen coum Pone Neon NEWSLETTE t Get on the list to receive our first e-newsletterl sign up here: https:njeRessancwnrypublicheblth.ag/Nstaspx d3- gMppYh Sign up at https://ieffersoncountypublichealth.org/list.aspx, and allow your mail tool to receive a -mails from listservo civicplus. com. Free art posters promoting peace and a healthy Earth HELP promote ideas of healthy change NOW! With WAR activities in Europe (risking Nuclear contamination) and the CLIMATE CRISIS growing, these changes are URGENT. Let's stop 4" destructive practices that are destroying our Earth, while protecting our communities and cultures. Art Posters are now available to download (more will come soon) on a new website www.thegentlerevolution.com. Please download these FREE posters to digitally post or print to 41 post — in community places, storefronts or make into small handbills to give out. Let these ideas grow life with love. New informational Electric Vehicle web tools for Jefferson County - -- " =nr- Jefferson County's 2018 Greenhouse Gas Inventory indicates that transportation accounts for 66% of our greenhouse gas emissions. This might be your best excuse yet for buying the most responsive (fast), fun vehicle you've ever had! Our community has a new set of web tools that can help you in your EV research: https://jeffersoncan.org/electric-vehicles/ Local 20/20's COVID-19 Resources Online is a central location for community -wide information relating to COVID-19, updated frequently. Includes Reliable Information Sources, Vaccine info, Food Sources, Community Covid-19 Resource pages, Giving and Getting Assistance, Community Events Online, Community Face Mask Program, and information web posts related to COVID-19. Look in the red box at the top of the page for all the newest information. Master Gardeners Q&A PLANT CLINIC 4iE�,liriy pl>�r Have a question about a plant/insect/composting/landscape issue? Master Gardener volunteers are here to help. You can fill out our online intake form and a Master Gardener will get back to you via email. Just Soup on Tuesdays Every Tuesday at 11:30 -1:3o, Just Soup provides free, hot soup lunches at St. Paul's Episcopal Church, 1020 Jefferson St, on the Tyler St, bus line (by the Bell Tower). Enter the rear church parking lot on Franklin, and whether you are on foot, bike, or car, you will be in line for curbside pickup, with masks, gloves, and safe distancing protocols in place. Pick up a lunch for yourself or your neighbor in need. No questions asked. Many partners and supporters have come together to feed Port Townsend one bowl at a time. This information also appears on Local 20/20's COVID-lo Resources Meals Page. Time: Tuesdays, 11:3o AM -1:3o PM I Location: St. Paul's Episcopal Church, 1020 Jefferson St. Emergency Text Alerts from Jefferson County up to receive Jefferson Count�Department of Emergency Management Is emergency alerts by text on your mobile phone and/or by email. NIXLE messages provide crucial information in an emergency & are sent directly to your text -enabled device and/or email. The sign up web page also has information about other alert and warning systems, including the tsunami warning system and the WSDOT alert system. 12 NPREP: Prepared Neighborhoods r , ft-9-' np—.Lep_ Prepare for emergencies with your neighbors by joining or starting an NPREP neighborhood. There are currently over ioo NPREP neighborhoods organizing here in Jefferson County. Learn if you live in A Jefferson County Action Group an NPREP trained neighborhood. Learn about NPREP. A Tool for Neighborhood Organization Nextdoor Nextdoor is a private social network for YOUR neighborhood. Use this link to join one of 59 Nextdoor Neighborhoods in Jefferson County. Currently there are 14,535 subscribers, with many new members joining each day. Email Pete Hubbard with questions or comments. Calling Local Photographers Local 20/20 Weekly Announcements invites local photographers to submit images that capture the character of our community and its natural setting. For the opening photo of each weekly email (which is also posted to our website), we seek local color, horizontal ("landscape") orientation, and jpeg format. Please no children, pets or recognizable faces. Kindly send to events(@1202o.org. Please include your name in the jpeg filename. We are an all -volunteer non-profit, so compensation for your talent and generosity is a photo credit and our profound thanks. Resilience Readings Do you have readings, podcasts or videos to share that are aligned with our Local 20/20 mission? Please submit them here. A Better Transportation Future 13 ILABI David Thielk shares the TLAB's vision for a better transportation future in the latest Local 20/20 Port Townsend Leader column. A vibrant Water Street filled with walkers and cyclists, tourists on bikes, and the absence of cars are part of the vision. Learn more about the vision and the road map to getting there in the full column. New IPCC Report Warns Climate Change is Causing Dangerous Disruption in Nature and Affecting Billions of People "Human -induced climate change is causing dangerous and widespread disruption in nature and affecting the lives of billions of people around the world, despite efforts to reduce the risks. People and ecosystems least able to cope are being hardest hit, said scientists in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report..." notes the press release for the the latest IPCC report, "The Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Working Group II report, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability", which was released on 2/27/2022. The press release also notes that ""There are options to adapt to a changing climate. This report provides new insights into nature's potential not only to reduce climate risks but also to improve people's lives." The report itself states that "Approximately half of the species assessed globally have shifted polewards or, on land, also to higher elevations." The report also highlights that we need to act now to both reduce emissions and adapt to the changes - "There is a narrowing window of opportunity to shift pathways towards more climate resilient development futures as reflected by the adaptation limits and increasing climate risks, considering the remaining carbon budgets." A shorter summary of the report can be found in this World Resource Institute article. 14 Local 20/2o Leader Column - Showing Our Love for Our Community Local 20/20's latest column in the Port Townsend Leader highlights how we can show our love for our community through volunteering. Suzanne Jones describes some ways that we can help co -create a community that serves the needs for all of its citizens, and is even more resilient in the future. What sort of new story do need to build that future? It highlights the many organizations in our county that are helping addressing the needs of our community. And as Suzanne ends, "As we are reminded of how much we love our family and friends this February, let us also remember how much we love our community and consider some ways we can volunteer to keep it regenerating itself." Quimper Community Harvest 2021 Gleaning Season and Applesauce Project Successes Quimper Community Harvest group, part of the Local 20/2o Local Food Action Group, made impressive progress in 2021 with over six tons of fruit delivered to twenty organizations! And, the group successfully fundraised for, and implemented, the "applesauce project", where a cooler was designed and built to quickly cool the fresh sauce. The result was 700 pounds of applesauce being made, to be offered to local schools and other organizations from now until next season. Learn more about these successes, and how you can get involved, in the recent Local 20/20 PT Leader Column about the efforts. Anticipated Meteorological "Bomb" Documented by King Tide Team w r'st / ,The Local 20/2o King Tide team documented the tides and water levels on 10/25/21, during a rapidly developing low pressure system, referred to a meteorological "bomb". The event was selected based on the predicted storm surge and strong winds during a time of moderately high tide. Since the winds had largely subsided and the remaining waves were in the 1' range, the wave runup appeared to be only about o.1'. With that in mind, this event was a good chance to compare the storm surge forecast to the difference between predicted and observed water levels at the tide gauge. In this case, the surge forecast was very good! See the post linked above for photos of the event and the full analysis. Local 2O/2o Leader Column on Electric Vehicles and New Web Tools 15 Jefferson .org Climate Action Now The October Local 20/2o Leader Column highlighted some of the many reasons to consider buying an electric car. It discussed how far they can go on a charge, compares costs, and notes rebates available. Also described are the wide range of electric vehicles available now - not just passenger cars, but SUVs, motorcycles, and pickup trucks! And it mentions the new web tools where you can learn more about Electric Vehicles at https://jeffersoncan.org/electric-vehicles/`. ............................................ Local 20/20 Mission Working together toward local sustainability and resilience — integrating ecology, economy and community through action and education. F Local Beyond Initiatives Waste i Energy Action Economic Locailzatlon Transport- ation Lab Localfood Nextl ,� Health & � �. Wellness Resiliencyucation —,*x of Heart Emergency Action Groups are where we do most of our work. Each is focused on an interrelated aspect of sustainability. Visit 12020.org to learn what the different action groups are working on. Want to submit an announcement? We welcome notices of events, calls for participation and other items of interest. Local 20/2o Announcements goes out every Monday morning. Please submit the following in paragraph form: Subject or event. Brief description. Day, date, time. Venue 16 address. Contact information. Web links. Include a logo or a photo in jpeg format. See existing announcements for examples — no bullets, colored fonts, etc., plain text is best. Email to eventsP1202o.org by 8:0o PM Saturday to be included in the next Monday's newsletter. We post announcements aligned with Local 20/20's mission and of interest to our community. Note that we don't post on line petitions, pleas to contact legislators, or gofundme type items. Local 20/2o reserves the right to edit or reject submissions. If you have questions or concerns, please email us at eventsP1202O.org, The posting of any specific event does not in itself endorse the organization or the event. We reserve the right to edit or reject submissions considered inappropriate or inconsistent to our mission statement. Consider forwarding Local 2O/2o Announcements to a friend. New subscribers can sign up here. Copyright Qc 2o2i.by Local 2o/2o.All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: 1240 W. Sims Way #12, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. This email was sent to heisenhour(cDco.iefferson.wa.us why did / pet this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Local 20/20 • 1240 W. Sims Way #12 • Port Townsend, Wa 98368 • USA 17 /29 Grow your business with mallchimp 18 Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 12:47 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Discover April in Port Townsend! From: EnjoyPT Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 12:45:16 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: Discover April in Port Townsend! ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Enjoy iP:o rt Tu'r4L wns 40"t( , /1 " Discover April in Port Townsend! As we are all traveling again, Port Townsend is bursting with activities and experiences for Spring. Port Townsend is a gorgeous year-round destination with exciting activities indoor and out, no matter the season! Consider some of these amazing events happening in the coming weeks for an exciting getaway! Music is springing forward with the return of Buskers on the Block at the Tyler Street Plaza on Water Street downtown. Main Street Programs bring you local musicians who create music and fun for a free, casual small-scale venue from 2-3pm most Thursdays beginning this month. Port Townsend Victorian Festival: this heritage event was founded in 1996 to celebrate the history and lifestyle of early settlers in Port Townsend, runs April 291h through May 15t from 8:00 am — 5:00 pm Uptown Walking Tours are new this year. Local guides will regale walkers with tales of the lives of Uptown citizens and their abodes. The schedule includes a one-time exclusive N Walking Tour, limited to 16 people and featuring an invitation to step into the iconic Anne Starrett House. Tour guides have planned a round-trip walking journey from the Courthouse and past Uptown homes to the Starrett House, where homeowners will guide them through the elegant parlors of this historic home. The McCurdy House offers another opportunity to enter a historic home, with entry to the parlor and library as part of the tour. Visitors will hear the history of this heritage home and stories of the owners' experience restoring a Victorian house. Northwest Maritime Center features new, open to all tours of the world-renowned Northwest Maritime Center launching in April and free to all. 431 Water Street, Port Townsend . 5:00- 6:00 pm. For additional information contact: info(a)nwmaritime.org There is no better place to learn from the Sea. Family friendly on the water activities are planned for this summer. So if you are planning a stay in Port Townsend this summer, be certain to check out this link https://nwmaritime.org/programs/adult-programs/adult-learn-to- sail-classes/ Port Townsend Vineyards & Vintage Love great wine, historical waterfront buildings and fabulous music? Check out Port Townsend Vintage downtown at 725 Water Street from 4:30-6:30pm porttownsendvinyard.com/events • April 8: Jazz Trio with Jenny Davis • April 15: Mike, Val, George - Gershwin Tribute • April 22: Clarinetist, Jonathan Doyle • April 29: Trevor Hanson, classical, jazz, rock, folk, & other styles • May 6: Guitarist, Brian Douglas Port Townsend is a fantastic year-round destination, but its beauty really starts to shine in the spring time. Be sure to check out EnjoyPT.com to start planning your trip! • Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce 1 2409 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Unsubscribe heisenhour@co.jefferson.wa.us Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by communications@jeffcountychamber.org powered by G Constant Contact Try email marketing for free today! Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 2:52 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Coronavirus pandemic resources for counties — April 4, 2022 From: NACo Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 2:50:51 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: Coronavirus pandemic resources for counties — April 4, 2022 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Having trouble viewing this email? Click Here • " C• RESOURCES FOR COU'rIdETIES NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF •UNTIES I NACo.org/coronavirus A CELEBRATE NATIONAL COUNTY GOVERNMENT MONTH AND SHARE HOW YOUR COUNTY IS DRIVING COVID-19 RECOVERY Each April, National County Government Month (NCGM) is a celebration of counties and an excellent opportunity to showcase how you are serving residents and driving recovery from COVID- 19. Join us in highlighting effective county programs and raising public awareness of county governments across America. LEARN MORE Apply today for a NACo Achievement Award APPLICATION DEADLINE IS APRIL 15 Earn national recognition and share your county's innovative programs by applying for a NACo Achievement Award. LEARN MORE I QUESTIONS? EMAIL AWARDS@NACo.org UPCOMING WEBINARS & EVENTS NACo Healthy Counties Forum APRIL 6-8 1 WAKE COUNTY, N.C. This in -person event will focus on strategies for equitably addressing systems that impact the social determinants of health, particularly emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic. REGISTER I EXPLORE THE FULL SCHEDULE A Commissioner's Point of View: The Power of Liquidity Data For Your County APRIL 13 1 1 P.M. EDT Join Douglas County, Neb. Commissioner and former NACo President Mary Ann Borgeson for a commissioner's point of view on partnering with the county treasurer to enhance liquidity strategies. REGISTER Evolving to AWS Cloud APRIL 22 1 1 P.M. EDT Join Amazon Web Services (AWS) to learn how cloud computing can help counties enhance mission -critical operations, improve access to data and meet increasing community demands for digital services. REGISTER 1-1c LL+. 4 Leveraging ARPA Funds to Prevent Violent Crime APRIL 27 1 2 P.M. EDT Participate in a discussion with county leaders who are investing American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) resources to reduce violence crime and strengthen communities. REGISTER JOIN NACo's UNTOLD STORIES CAMPAIGN AND TELL YOUR COUNTY'S STORY 3 Counties across the country continue to invest in pandemic recovery and plan for the future. Tell the story of your county's efforts. Use the form below to tell your county's story, and visit NACo.org/UntoldStories to learn more and explore resources to share how you are investing ARPA funds in local priorities. Share your county's story County Name State + Add Share your county's story * What county service, program or idea are you highlighting and how will it impact the lives of residents? Share specific examples of how this service or program has helped residents during the pandernic How has the program positively impacted the lives of residents? Please share specific examples and stories. If available, share a link to your story or program Does this program use ARPA or CARES Act funding?* Click below to scieet all that apply, American Rescue Plan Act CARES Act Please share any relevant photos or videos 0 Att&Ch file 4 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OfCOUNPES 660 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20001 EA"0 Did someone forward you this email? Sign up to stay up-to-date on topics affecting America's counties! Click here to unsubscribe. Julie Shannon From: Greg Brotherton Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:36 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Port Townsend Yacht Club Opening Day Sail By Parade From: kpainterrn@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:35:05 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Bruce Painter Subject: Port Townsend Yacht Club Opening Day Sail By Parade ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. For further information, contact Alice Tibbals: fleet _Ptyc.net El 0 0 11 r Ivol a Wel AP a MC M= CO ID-19 VER 3 Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:34 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Thanks From: maryjeanryan20@gmail.com Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:32:34 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour; Greg Brotherton; Kate Dean Subject: Thanks ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Your letter to the DNR is excellent! The thoughtful discussion you had and the way you all work together is inspiring. Just wanted to say a sincere thanks. • Mary Jean Pa b U c 60"�to- R ti- OL�/V V12� Z, AU:r yP. P�c:rl April 4, 2022 Dear Commissioner Franz and Board of Natural Resources, We are writing to respectfully request that you defer action tomorrow on the Beaver Valley Sorts Timber Sale which is in the Port Ludlow community in Jefferson County. The timber sale has been on hold for over a year and was just recently pulled forward for sale. We are requesting more time so the County can complete its due diligence. The County would like to look thoroughly at each of the forested areas included in the proposed sale and consider available options. In addition to the need for financial resources and economic opportunity, we are also concerned with many other important public priorities including recreation, water quality, climate and habitat protection. We would appreciate having adequate time to complete our review of all the issues raised by the proposed sale of this older forest. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Center for Responsible Forestry P.D. Box 7504, Tacoma, WA 98417 Phone: (360) 544-6510 Email: info@c4rf.org May 14, 2021 Mona Griswold, DNR Olympic Region Manager Via: SEPA Center P.O. Box 47015 Olympia, Washington 98504-7015 s dLellter` nnwa.gov Re: Beaver Valley timber sale -comments (File No. 21-043001) pa6u6, co'", IV 2 Z �r,z I r� P&ch dall Emergency Conservation Committee Pacific Northwest Jessica Randall (360) 301-2376 jr.ecc@yahoo.com ecc--pnw org Dear Ms. Griswold, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the "Beaver Valley" timber sale. The above referenced timber sale includes the harvest of up to 212 acres of 80 to 120-year olds structurally complex forest that has the potential to contribute to the attainment of older forest targets in the Straits HCP Planning Unit. Because no forest land plan has been completed for the planning unit, and the SPEA checklist includes no analysis of the potential role of the included forest inventory units in meeting older forest targets, the proposed activity violates the Policy for Identifying and Managing Structurally Complex Forests (PR 14-004-046). DNR is obligated under the Policy for Sustainable Forests, PR 14-604-046, and the Multi -species Conservation Strategy of the 1997 Habitat Conservation Plan to work toward maintaining "fully functioning forests" on 10 to 15 percent of lands covered by the HCP. in the Policy for Sustainable Forests FEIS, the Board's preferred alternative "emphasizes that the 10 to 15 percent older -forest targets will be accomplished" within 70 to 100 years. PR 14-004-046 directs DNR to develop landscape level management strategies to achieve the 10 to 15 percent older forest target during the forest land planning process that will be conducted for each HCP planning unit. Only after the 10 to 15 percent targer is met may structurally complex forest stands be considered for harvest activities.2 According to the HCP (Table IV.14), at least 150 years is required for a stand to reach the "fully functioning" development stage. An analysis of the most recent combined origin forest resource information dataset suggests that less than one-half of one percent (0.4%) of lands managed by DNR within the Straits planning unit currently meet this threshold. It is commonly assumed, and has been stated previously by the Olympic Region Office, that old growth stands and structurally complex forests located in special ecological management areas (EMAs) such as 1 Based on origin dates reported in SERA checklist. 2 See Policy for General Silvicultural Activity, p. 46, in Policy for Sustainable Forests (DNR, 2006). 1 protected spotted owl and marbled murrelet habitat, NRCAs, natural areas, gene pool areas, and riparian management zones (RMZs), will provide the fully functional habitat necessary to satisfy the 10 to 15 percent older forest target. There are about 16,400 acres in the Straits HCP planning unit that are protected within one or more EMAs, and another 30,000 acres contained within RMZs. However, according to the Department's combined origin resource inventory data, only 7,021 acres are old enough to contribute to the 10 to 15 percent target within the Straits HCP planning unit by 2097. This means that less than 6% of lands managed by DNR within the planning unit are both capable of contributing to this target and excluded from variable retention harvest. The combined origin data, which is based to a large extent on the FRIS 2.0 DAP -based data, may under- estimate stand age for some forest inventory units, and is known to under -represent the contribution of riparian areas to older forest targets. To calculate an upper estimate of the maximum potential contribution of the EMAs and RMZs to the 10 to 15 percent target, we merged the combined origin polygons with the old plot -based data and newer 2017 DAP -based raster dataset (FRIS 3.0), by first converting the raster dataset to polygons using a pattern recognition routine in ArcGIS, and then taking the maximum value of each of the three datasets for each raster cell. Results suggest that up to 17,844 acres of land within an EMA or RMZ, representing approximately 14%of the planning unit as a whole, may be capable of reaching the fully functioning stage of development by 2097. The actual attainment value probably falls somewhere between 6% and 14%. Based on these results, it is not at all clear that existing EMAs and RMZs are sufficient to meet older forest targets for the Straits planning unit. PR 14-004-046 dictates that: The identification and review of landscape level management strategies to achieve the 10 to 15 percent older forest target will be completed during the forest land planning process that will be conducted for each HCP planning unit. To date, no forest land plan has been completed for the Straits planning unit. In the interim, PR-004-046 requires that any proposal to harvest structurally complex forests must be accompanied by: a) an assessment of forest conditions using readily available information; b) an analysis of the known landscape management strategies and; cy role of the structurally complex stand in meeting older forest targets. This information should have been provided with the SEPA checklist. The Policy for Sustainable Forests recognizes the conservation of biodiversity as a "fundamental guiding principle for sustainable forest management."3 The HCP dictates that multi -species conservation strategy objectives be met through "forest management that provides a variety of well - distributed, interconnected habitats" in order to support the continued presence of suitable habitat for each species "over as much of its historic range as possible", thereby ensuring the "successful reproduction of wide-ranging unlisted species". The Policy for Sustainable Forests specifically directs DNR to protect wildlife species and habitats by working to conserve biodiversity:4 3 See Policy on wildlife Habitat, p. 36, Policy for Sustainable Forests (DNR, 2006). 4 See Intended outcomes, p. 6, Policy for Sustainable Forests (DNR, 2006). i� "An important trust objective is the conservation of upland, riparian, and aquatic wildlife species, including fish and their habitats, species listed as threatened and endangered, and non -listed species.... with a focus on ecosystem sustainability and the conservation of biodiversity across forested landscapes. " This timber sale is located in the Olympic rainshadow, which is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency as a distinct ecoregion of Western Washington. This ecoregion has been decimated by fogging and contains very little old growth or native second growth forest. This and similar timber sales would eliminate the few remaining older, low elevation forest remnants within the ecoregion. Logging of the last remaining 80-to-100-year old structurally complex, low elevation forest remnants in the ecoregion is not consistent with the objectives of the HCP or the Policy for Sustainable Forests. PR 14-004-046 dictates that: Harvest activities in older forest and other structurally complex stands designated as suitable to meet older forest targets must enlrcrnre the older forest condition. Parts of this sale are already complex and multi -layered, and contain large legacy trees (see photographs, below). Other parts of this sale are overstocked with competing trees and/or dense layers of shrubs, and would probably benefit from thinning or prescribed burning. Although we recognize that these stands have not been specifically designated by DNR as suitable to meet older forest targets, they certainly are capable of contributing to older forest targets and should have been so designated. The overall timber sale as presented in the FPA and SEPA checklist will not enhance older forest conditions or contribute to the development of fully functioning forests. Instead, it takes us in the opposite direction by harvesting some of the few remaining patches of structurally complex forest in the planning unit. in the absence of a plan to meet older forest targets in the planning unit, the forest practices application for the proposed project should be withdrawn. Instead of logging the oldest and most structurally complex forests that remain in the Olympic rainshadow, we recommend that the Department focus on developing a management strategy to generate revenue for trust beneficiaries that preserves older forests, accelerates the development of fully functional forest stands, and is consistent with the requirements of the Habitat Conservation Plan, PR 14-Do4-046, and the Policy for Sustainable Forests. Respectfully, Stephen Kropp Director 3 ram" _ : j.- -,' --,Tz m a t i i rr de AW w w e � � r a X° • IL It fi r, .f op F .. .. - _ a. ' - • � �_ '�� ': R a. " _ - � ' - we "fir : :i - Te .>11 y - e•` 0. ' • s ems„ s E T. +4 irk, ir -t ,• a '� - t ° i 11 � ^ � ,. �I>. � ,. 1 - ��• #" +a � tea, T °F ii jot * r TAW,y, , a _ - 44 IF ! k ter. 'YI 4wV 1. � .. .:. _ _, _ •, .v.. a. �°.- ., T _ .may • - � a �f _ � f� , It kF Alk r R 6 t t -y� ■ r s !° TY flu i- e ID ,� #W. r pa * + ^� a k 9� R - � I M A•L ! ! r� c ' + +� 1 # fi lb 40 + r S M i ! - ti. P d F _ -j h � a � b . 4 1 IL E -- PIC + 4 of 1p E of 5. . 46 a ,. , - P Ty t , .. ,a•I a *Ir L #ate SW P ,{yam 50,. _ ��� y lb. IL 1 e:e _- �P 4 "G f i do _ —W I f — P IIL * .1. ** }qr ,a 0r i e " N Ol f ° 1 � y e At to l A fill .�J 1r1 It t ?ffi Aw _ T Jp 6L rwllll- ■ L A 9 ' fir $ y , R Jill ir• IP _-, a �. T1. all— e� IT M a X # yr, Y All r . >! 6 0 u { t e + ah "w, i * s M y 4 ir a + r 1 ,p e , *i q ,. ,. ' Vim•+'a eV ,� e'i • � ea * 4", 41, 1 e L i + r + - , If - , - .. 'Of Y ry ` n _ Y � 40 'j, •M • _ ... T '� 0 .all, jil ire •+'' ; , � n Iw am ,Yi' - Agw�o. ��p Yr AWL Low t r OF lip kk • T y y Yto X s y .M j 1 h . itsle IF a ,=u• _ ,7�- "L.M N r 1 IL 14A. 1 y 40 - V�z a Nw ow Rai PO r . .� may _ • _ r i 0 f, + T e Y .1 � 4x, I — { m • :r `- 3 qp IMF , 1, r PF s dr 44, 41 ae +yf s �i ir. 1 � � .,� .. •* h � � r � � � r or ME ip IL Al + .• i �` f , ■_ r i' T , • Y !! is _ .. N � � • _ as • �.. Ir .. , • _ Lk STATEMENT OF DR. BEVERLY LAW PROFESSOR EMERITUS OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY BEFORE THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS APRIL 29, 2021 CONCERNING "WILDFIRE IN A WARMING WORLD: OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE COMMUNITY COLLABORATION, CLIMATE RESILIENCE, AND WORKFORCE CAPACITY" Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to discuss wildfires and opportunities to improve climate resilience. I am Professor Emeritus of Global Change Biology & Terrestrial Systems Science at Oregon State University, where I have been working for 25 years. I am appearing today in my person capacity, not representing OSU. I am a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union. I served on the US Carbon Cycle Science Steering Group, and on IPCC expert panels. I was an editor for 8 years with Global Change Biology, one of the leading peer -reviewed journals. I have been a lead author of the National Climate Assessment, and co-author of National Research Council reports on verifying greenhouse gas emissions and air quality management. My research topics include multi -scale analysis of the effects of drought, fire and management on forest carbon and water processes, and land use strategies to mitigate climate change and benefit biodiversity. I will focus my remarks on forest carbon and biodiversity conservation for climate resilience and effects of fire and management on carbon. Forest carbon stoats and accumulation have an important role in climate mitigation Atmospheric carbon dioxide is 50% higher than preindustrial levels. The next 10 to 30 years are a critical window for climate action (IPCC 2018). We need to simultaneously reduce carbon dioxide emissions and increase carbon accumulation in land reservoirs of forests and other terrestrial ecosystems. Annual emissions from forest harvesting are slightly greater than emissions from the entire building sector in the U.S. Reducing this source of emissions could help the U.S. meet its climate goals. Further, regional studies have shown that preserving western U.S. temperate forest with high carbon density and lower vulnerability to mortality would account for about 8 years of the region's fossil fuel emissions, supporting US climate goals (Buotte et al. 2019). This provides near -term opportunities to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and increase carbon storage and accumulation. Forest protections are part of Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) strategies, recognizing that increasing forest carbon stocks is important to the intent of the Paris climate treaty. The goal is "... Law/1 stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" [Article 2 UNFCCC 1992]. when allowed to grow longer, natural forests do more to mitigate climate than management activities that keep forest carbon stocks at a level below the potential carbon stock over time; a level that is insufficient to meet climate goals. The ability of forests to pull carbon from the atmosphere and accumulate it in living trees and soil far decades to centuries will continue to play a major role in reducing the severity of climate consequences. Preserving high carbon density forests like those of the Pacific Northwest, and allowing them to continue to accumulate carbon could increase forest carbon stocks substantially by 2100 (Hudiburg et al. 2009, Law et al. 2018, Buotte et al. 2020). A comparison of strategies showed that restricting harvest by 50% on public forests to allow them to continue growing while lengthening current harvest cycles in forests with low vulnerability to drought and fire under future climate conditions contribute the most to increasing forest: carbon and reduce emissions. Less effective are reforestation and lastly afforestation, which can have competing land uses for agriculture and urban development (Law et al. 2018). Thus, temperate forests with high carbon density and lower vulnerability to mortality have substantial potential for climate mitigation. Reforestation can be part of the climate solutions, but is not the only solution. Young trees will eventually grow to have large carbon stocks that contribute to climate mitigation, but allowing some existing forests with their large carbon stocks to continue to accumulate carbon will accumulate far more carbon out of the atmosphere during the critical coming decades. It is also far more difficult and expensive to initiate a forest than to grow additional carbon stocks in existing forests. Harvesting forests for wood products and bioenergy that is as carbon intensive as coal results in depletion of ecosystem carbon stocks and the regrowth of these stocks takes many decades to centuries into the future, creating a long-term carbon debt. More carbon is stored longer in forests than in wood products because about half of the harvested carbon is emitted soon after logging (Harmon 2019, Hudiburg et al. 2019,. Harris et al. 2016). of the accumulated carbon harvested from west coast U.S. forests since 1900, 65% has returned to the atmosphere while only 19% is in long-lived wood products, and the remaining 16% is in landfills. That is, 81% of the wood removed from west coast forests since 1900 has been emitted to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide or is in landfills (Hudiburg et al. 2019). Increased harvesting adds additional carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, accelerating climate change. Forests with medium and high carbon per acre also have medium and high biodiversity, promoting ecosystem resilience to climate change We are in the midst of an emergency to address both climate change and biodiversity loss (Ripple et al. 2019). We must consider both forest carbon and biodiversity when determining management strategies in forests. Studies estimate that at least one-third of American wildlife, more than 12,000 species, are at increased risk of extinction, with extinction risk being highest in the largest and smallest vertebrates (Ripple et al. 2017). Under future climate projections, medium to high carbon density western U.S. forests with relatively low to moderate vulnerability of mortality from fire or drought also have high amounts of critical habitat and high species diversity (Buotte et al. 2020). If protected, these forests have a strong potential to support biodiversity into the future and to promote ecosystem resilience to a changing climate. These Law/2 areas are primarily in the Pacific Northwest and northern Rocky Mountains in Idaho and Montana. A recent global study also strongly confirmed the spatial coincidence of areas important for carbon storage and biodiversity protection (Dinerstein et al. 2020). Vulnerability to wildfire varies across the western US region in the next decades. Broad -scale thinning to reduce severity results in more carbon emissions than would be released by fire, creating a multi - decade carbon deficit that conflicts with climate goals. Forests account for only about 40% of the area burned in wildfires in the U.S. Wet forests like the coastal forests of the PNW have longer fire return intervals (100-300 years). Strategically focusing on homes and communities is a smart place to start in fire -prone areas. At subregional to regional levels, roughly 1% of treatments (thinning, prescribed fires) experiences wildfire each year, and the effectiveness of treatments is only 10-20 year, so the treatments likely have little effect on wildfire (Campbell et al. 2012, Schoennagel et al. 2017). Vulnerability of forests to wildfire varies spatially in the next decades. Wildfire is mainly a function of dryness, heat and wind. The warm, dry regions are expected to get warmer and drier. Projections show that burn area is expected to increase in the next few decades. vulnerability to future fire is projected to be highest in the Sierra Nevada and portions of the Rocky Mountains, while high carbon -density forests in the coastal forests are expected to experience low vulnerability to fire (Buotte et al. 2018). Wildfires have relatively little impact on forest carbon stocks as fires mainly combust surface litter and duff. If trees are killed, most of the carbon remains in the forest as dead wood that takes decades to centuries to decompose. only a small portion of the total forest carbon is emitted to the atmosphere in wildfires — less than 10% of the total ecosystem carbon in live and dead trees, litter and soils combined has been found to enter the atmosphere as carbon dioxide in Pacific Northwest forest fires (Campbell et al. 2012; Law &Waring 2015). Thinning to reduce fire severity or intensity is usually 30-50fo of live tree biomass, and it puts much of the harvested carbon into the atmosphere quickly. A thinning study in a drought -prone young ponderosa pine plantation in Idaho found that removal of 40% of the live biomass from the forest would subsequently release about 60% of that carbon over the next 30 years (Stenzel et al. 2021). Enlarging the treated area more than would burn would further increase the carbon losses. Local reduction of seedlings and saplings may be useful to protect the large trees in some fire -prone dry forests with high future vulnerability to fire. It will reduce whole ecosystem carbon, but can protect the large trees that store and accumulate the most carbon and are more drought- and fire-resistant than young trees (Irvine et al. 2004, Hurteau et al. 2019). Increasing the use of prescribed fires and managing wildland fires may promote resilience to more frequent fire (Schoennagel et al. 2017). Because climate change mitigation is expected to be part of decision -making, potential impacts of treatment options on forest carbon stocks should be assessed as part of a strategic decision -making process. Broad -scale thinning of forests conflicts with carbon climate goals. The amount of carbon removed by thinning is much larger than that saved, and more area is harvested than would actually burn (Mitchell et al. 2009, Rhodes et al. 2009, Law &Harmon 2011, Campbell et al. 2012). The multi-decadal biomass carbon deficit following moderate to heavy thinning is supported by most analyses of mid to long-term thinning impacts on forest structure and carbon storage (thou et al. 2013). There is no evidence that thinning forests increases biomass stored. Law/3 Fire emissions are small relative to harvest emissions. Harvest -related emissions in the Oregon, Washington and California average about 5 times fire emissions (Hudiburg et al. 2019). In California, fire emissions are just a few percent of California's fossil fuel emissions. Post fire reforestation. Many western US forest fires are mixed -severity, meaning that a large portion of the fire burns at low and moderate severity in patches and a smaller portion burns at high severity where a majority of trees are killed (Law & Waring 2015). After fires, remaining trees and those on the periphery of burn areas provide seed source for natural regeneration (Donato et al. 2009). it is important to allow natural regeneration to occur because it provides the genetic and species diversity that existed prior to the fire, and that diversity makes the ecosystem more resilient. The complex early seral forest habitat that develops in the high severity patches is important to a host of species associated with these conditions (Donato et al. 2012). That is, both early- and late -successional forest canopies can support equally complex functioning and biodiversity. We can supplement with planting where regeneration fails. Summary The next 10 to 20 years are a critical window for climate action. Wildfires are an essential ecological process. They have relatively little impact on the total ecosystem carbon stock as fires mainly combust surface litter and duff, and if there is tree mortality the deadwood takes decades to centuries to decompose. in dry fire -prone forests projected to be vulnerable to fire -related mortality under future climate, it may be necessary to remove small trees in places. It would decrease ecosystem carbon but protect the large trees that are more fire-resistant and accumulate the most carbon. Impacts of tree removals on forest carbon stocks should be assessed as part of a strategic decision -making process. Preemptive broad -scale thinning will create a multi -decade carbon deficit that conflicts with carbon climate goals. Deforestation and degradation reduce carbon stocks and other ecosystem benefits, create habitat loss that is a major cause of species extinctions, and are major sources of greenhouse gas emissions that further contributes to warming that amplifies risk of species extinction. Mature and old forests store more carbon in trees and soil than do young forests, and continue to accumulate it over decades to centuries making them the most effective forest -related climate mitigation strategy. High carbon density forests also have high biodiversity (species,. critical habitat), promoting resilience to climate change. Forest carbon, biodiversity and ecosystem type and integrity need to be considered concurrently when determining what to do with forests in the face of climate change. To meet zero net carbon goals and eventually halt climate change while also meeting biodiversity goals, some forests need to be protected. Citations Buotte, P.C., B.E. Law, W.J. Ripple, L.T. Berner. 2020. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity co -benefits of preserving forests in the western United States. Ecol. Applic. 30(2):e02039. Doi: 10.1002/eap.2039 Buotte, P.C., S. Levis, B.E. Law, T.W. Hudiburg, D.E. Rupp, J.J. Kent. 2018. Near -future vulnerability to drought and fire varies across the western United States. Global Change Biol. 25:290-303. Doi :10.1111/gc b.14490 Law/4 Law, B.E., T.W. Hudiburg, L.T. Berner, J.J. Kent, P.C. Buotte, and M. Harmon. 2018. Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 115:3663-3668. Doi: 10.1073/pna s.1720064115 Law, B.E., R.H. Waring. 2015. Carbon implications of current and future effects of drought, fire and management on Pacific Northwest forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 355:4-14. Mitchell, S., M.E. Harmon, K.B. O'Connell. 2009. Forest fuel reduction reduces both fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecol. Applic. 19: 643-655. Ripple, W.J., C. Wolf, T.M. Newsome, P. Barnard, W.R. Moomaw. 2019. World scientists' warning of a climate emergency. BioSci. 70:8-12. https:Hdoi.org/10.1093/biosci/bizO88 Ripple, W.J., C. Wolf, T.M. Newsome, M. Hoffmann, A.J. Wirsing et al. 2017. Extinction risk is most acute for the world's largest and smallest vertebrates. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 114:10678-10683. Doi: 10. 1073/pnas.1702078114 R-hodes, J.J., W.I. Baker. 2009. Fire probability, fuel treatment effectiveness and ecological tradeoffs in Western US public forests. open Forest Sci. J. 1:1-7. Schoennagel, T., J.K. Balch, H. Brenkert-Smith, P.E. Dennis„ et al. 2017. Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes. Proc. Not. Acad. Sci. 114:4582-4590. Doi:10.1073/pnas.1617464114 Stenzel, J.E., D.M. Berardi, E.S. Walsh, T.W. Hudiburg. 2021. Restoration thinning in a drought -prone Idaho forest creates a persistent carbon deficit. JGR Biogeosci. Doi:10.1029/2020JG005815 thou, D., S. Liu, S. Zhao, J. Oeding. 2013. A meta -analysis on the impacts of partial cutting on forest structure and carbon storage. Biogeosci. 10:3691-3703. Doi: 10.5194/bg-10-3691-2013 Law/6 Campbell, J., M.E. Harmon, S.R. Mitchell. 2012. Can fuel -reduction treatments really increase forest carbon storage in the western US by reducing future fire emissions? Front. Ecol. Env. Doi:10.1890/110057 Dinerstein, E., A.R. Joshi, C. Vynne, A.T.L. Lee, F. Pharand- Deschenes, et al. 2020. A "global safety net" to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth's climate. Science Ads. 6 no. 36, eabb2824. Doi: 10.1126/sciadv.a bb2824. Donato, D., J.B. Fontaine, J.L. Campbell, W.D. Robinson, J.B. Kaufmann, B.E. Law. 2009. Conifer regeneration in stand replacement portions of a landscape -scale mixed -severity fire. Can. J. For. Res. 39:823-838. Donato, D., J.L. Campbell, J.F. Franklin. 2012. Multiple successional pathways and precocity in forest development: Can some forests be born complex? J. Veg. Sci. 23: 576-584. Griscom, B.W., J. Adams, P.W. Ellis, R.A. Houghton, G. Lomax, D.A. Metiva, W.H. Schlesinger et al. 2017. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Not. Acad. Sci. 114:11645-11650. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.170465114. Harmon, ME. 2019. Have product substitution carbon benefits been overestimated? A sensitivity analysis of key assumptions. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 065008. Harris, N.L., Hagen, S.C., Saatchi, S.S. et al. 2016. Attribution of net carbon change by disturbance type across forest lands of the conterminous United States. Carbon Bai.Manage. 11, 24. Doi: 10.118 6/s 13 021-016-006 6-5 Hudiburg, T.W, B.E. Law, W.R. Moomaw, M.E. Harmon, J.E. Stenzel. 2019. Meeting GHG reduction targets requires accounting for all forest sector emissions. Env. Res. Lett. 14: 095005. Hudiburg, T., B.E. Law, D.P. Turner, J. Campbell, D. Donato, M. Duane. 2009. Carbon dynamics of Oregon and Northern California forests and potential land -based carbon storage. EcoL Applic. 19:163- 180. Hurteau, M., M.P. North, G.W. Koch, B. Hungate. 2019. Managing for disturbance stabilizes forest carbon. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. opinion 116: 10193-10195. IPCC. 2018. Global Warming of 1.50C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 150C. [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Portner, et al. (eds.)]. Irvine, J., B.E. Law, M. Kurpius, P. Anthoni, D. Moore, P. Schwarz. 2004. Age related changes in ecosystem structure and function and the effects on carbon and water exchange in ponderosa pine. Tree PhysioL 24, 753-763. Kline, J.D., M.E. Harmon, T.A. Spies, A.T. Morzillo, R.J. Pabst, B.C. McComb, F. Schnekenburger, K.A. Olsen, B. Csuti, J.C. Vogeler. 2016. Evaluating carbon storage, timber harvest, and habitat possibilities for a western Cascades (USA) forest landscape. Ecol. Applic. 26:2044-2059. Law, B.E. and M. Harmon. 2011. Forest sector carbon management, measurement and verification, and discussion of policy related to climate change. Carbon Management 2:73-84. Law/5 communications earth & environment ARTICLE r��� Strategic Forest Reserves can protect biodiversity in the western United States and mitigate climate change Beverly E. LawG 1®, Logan T. Berner2, Polly C. Buotte3, David J. MildrexlerG 4 & William J. Ripplel Forest preservation is crucial for protecting biodiversity and mitigating climate change. Here we assess current forest preservation in the western United States using spatial data and find that beyond the 18.9% (17.5 Mha) currently protected, an additional 11.1% (10.3 Mha) is needed to achieve 30% preservation by 2030 (30 X 30). To help meet this regional pre- servation target, we developed a framework that prioritizes forestlands for preservation using spatial metrics of biodiversity and/or carbon within each ecoregion. We show that meeting this preservation target would lead to greater protection of animal and tree species habitat, current carbon stocks, future carbon accumulation, and forests that are important for surface drinking water. The highest priority forestlands are primarily owned by the federal govern- ment, though substantial areas are also owned by private entities and state and tribal gov- ernments. Establishing Strategic Forest Reserves would help protect biodiversity and carbon for climate adaptation and mitigation. 1 Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA. 2 EcoSpatial Services L.L.C., Flagstaff, AZ, USA. 3 Energy and Resources Group, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA. 4 Eastern Oregon Legacy Lands, Joseph, OR, USA. ®email: I C 0 M M U N I C A I 10NS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT 1 (2021)2:2541 https://doLorg/10.1038/s43247-021-00325-01 www.nature.com/commsenv 1 ARTICLE CCMl' U N IC .ATIONS EART 1-'I & IJ'AVIRONMENT 1 !''.` f �}� , f ��,toP �r .10 are Ln the midst of dhnate and b od vversity eniergencies , and pledges have been niade by the wo rl d's goys m menu to address both. Studies s ugges t that countries must ramp up climate pledges by 80% to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate changert. International, national, and state biodiversity targets have been established to include protection of 30% of the land by 2030 (30 x 30), and 50% by 2050 (50 x 50)3,4, a timeframe over which accelerated abrupt ecological disruption is expected In addition to the targets, the United States (US) stated it's understanding of the role of natural climate solutions in climate mitigation and resilience in its Nationally Determined Contributions in line with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement6. Nevertheless, only 6.1 % of forestland in the conterminous US is protected at the highest level (Supplementary Table 1), with 0.2% in strict nature reserves to protect biodi- versity, 4.8% in Wilderness areas, and 1.1 % in National Parks . How do we achieve our preservation targets given the pressing need to increase carbon removals from the atmosphere, make substantial reductions in carbon emissions, protect biodiversity, and slow the accelerating species losses? The Intergovernmental Science -Policy Platform on Biodi- versity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) jointly recognized the intertwined nature of climate and biodiversity'. Their landmark report highlights the synergies and trade-offs between protection of biodiversity and climate change adaptation and mitigation, and recommend measures that can be jointly takens. Global studies have identified terrestrial areas that, if preserved, would stem biodiversity loss, prevent carbon emissions from land conversion, and enhance natural carbon removal from the atmosphere - . Although global studies provide estimates of the role of natural climate solutions to store carbon or benefit biodiversity and carbon storage , regional analyses with finer resolution infor- mation are needed at a scale appropriate to inform decision - making. Our analysis here is among the first to apply z U) N . z MF 120°W P". USGS GAP Status .{ 2 Forest Carbon (Mg C ha-1) WYI +. 'a co >400 , 300 P _ �4 200 F 100 >0 l 0 200 400 110°W km Fig. I Current protected lands and forest ecosystem carbon stocks (Mg C ha-1) across the western US. Protected lands shown here are those with GAP Status 1 or 2 from the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD -US v. 2.1) . These statuses reflect areas with permanent protection from anthropogenic conversion of natural land cover. The forest carbon stocks were spatially imputed from inventory measurement by the USFS FIA . The protected lands shown here include forestlands and non- forestlands. recommendations of the IPBES-IPCC report to forests in a spe- cific geographic region. Emissions from land cover and land use change now exceed half of removals from the atmosphere by all terrestrial ecosystems `. Much attention has been on reducing deforestation and degradation in tropical forests because of their large extent , high biodiversity , and carbon density , and because tropical deforestation and degradation are the second largest source of anthropogenic emissions after fossil fuel emissions l . Deforesta- tion and degradation result in habitat loss that is a major cause of species extinctions, and contribute to warming that amplifies risk of species extinction . Little attention has been given to the nexus of high carbon density and biodiversity forests in the temperate region, and their importance to climate mitigation and adaptation. Across forests of the western US an earlier study found that medium to high carbon density forests (carbon per unit ground area) with low vulnerability to mortality from fire or drought by 2099 also had high amounts of critical habitat for threatened and endangered species . The study focused on high carbon priority areas for protection that had low vulnerability to mortality, but did not prioritize areas for biodiversity, identify preservation opportunities within each ecoregion, or distinguish land owner- ships as a factor for decision -making. Here, we develop and apply a regional framework to identify forest areas in the western US (Fig..i. ) for permanent protections that if preserved, would stem further biodiversity loss, prevent emissions from forest conversion, and safeguard natural carbon stocks and accumulation. This regional framework is unique in that it evaluates the current extent of protected areas and then explicitly determines ways to reach specific forest preservation targets based on three preservation priority scenarios (carbon and/or biodiversity; Fig. ). We focus on the following questions: (1) How much forestland is currently protected in each western state and how much additional forestland would need to be protected to reach the 30 and 50% targets? (2) Which forestlands are the highest priority for preservation to meet these targets if prioritized based on forest carbon and/or biodiversity scenarios? (3) Who owns the forestlands that have the highest preserva- tion priority under each scenario? (4) If these targets were reached, then for each scenario how much forest carbon and species habitat would occur in protected areas compared with present? The spatial extent of the analysis is 92.46 Mha of forest land in the western US. We first determined current forest preservation status and how much additional forest would be needed to meet the 30 x 30 and 50 x 50 targets in the western US. Specifically, we identified the regional extent of forests at 1 km resolution using a geospatial dataset produced by the US Forest Service (USFS) Forest Inventory and Analysis program (FIA) l and determined current preservation status using the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD -US version 2.1) from the US Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP) . To identify forests with the highest preservation priority, we developed a forest preservation priority ranking (forest PPR) system using geospatial data related to forest biodiversity, carbon, and future vulnerability to drought or wildfire (Fig. ). To ensure protection for the many facets of regional biodiversity and promote regional connectivity, we computed the forest PPR components for each grid cell relative to other grid cells in the same ecoregion within each state. Forest biodiversity was characterized based on terrestrial verte- brate (hereafter anirnao and tree species richness derived from species habitat distribution models produced by the USGS GAP and USFS FIA respectively. Current forest ecosystem carbon C0MJMUNICA-r 10NS F A R T H & F.+ti1VIRONiM': N1 1 (2021)2:2541 https://doLorg/10.1038/s43247-021-00326-01 www.naturexom/commsenv COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT J https://doi org/10.1038/s43247-021-00326-0 ARTICLE Carbon Sladitersity Stocks Species NEP Habitat GAP1 30x30 GAP1 & GAPZ 50x50 J Pote nti a I ga p in available area Preservation Priority needed to Areas reach target limited by forest vulnerobility to drought or fire Fig. Z Analysis framework for prioritizing areas for forest carbon and/or biodiversity preservation across the western US. Regional framework evaluates the current extent of protected areas and then explicitly determines ways to reach specific forest preservation targets based on three preservation priority scenarios (carbon, biodiversity, carbon, and biodiversity). stocks (2000 to 2009) were quantified using a dataset produced by the USFS FIA , while potential forest carbon accumulation from 2020 to 2050 was quantified using cumulative net ecosystem production simulated with a region- and species -specific para- meterized version of the Community Land Model version 4.5 (CLM4.5) . These previous simulations used climatic changes predicted by two global climate models forced by representative concentration pathway 8.5 emissions . Future forest vulner- ability to drought or wildfire was also derived from these simulations and allowed us to compute forest PPRs both including and excluding forests with high vulnerabilities. High vulnerability to future mortality indicates future increases in tree mortality rates which reduces overall carbon storage capacity and has the potential to trigger transitions from forest to non -forest, however explicit vegetation transitions were not simulated. After identifying forests with the highest preservation priority for meeting preservation targets under each prioritization scenario (i.e., biodiversity and/or carbon), we then assessed who owns these forests using ownership data from PAD -US. We also evaluated current and potential protection of not only animal and tree species habitat, but also current carbon stocks, near future carbon accumulation, and forests important for surface drinking water. Our analysis reveals that to achieve 30% permanent protection of forestland in the region by 2030, an additional 10.3 Mha (11.1 %) would need to be protected at the highest levels (herein referred to as GAP 1 and GAP 2). We find that meeting pre- servation targets would help protect regional forest carbon, bio- diversity, and surface drinking water. Establishing Strategic Forest Reserves on public lands would provide climate mitigation, bio- diversity protection, and water security. Results Current extent and additional protected area needed to meet targets. Protected areas are defined by the USGS GAP as lands dedicated to and actively managed for the preservation of bio- logical diversity, recreation, and cultural uses. GAP status 1 and GAP status 2 are the highest levels of protection with mandated management plans to maintain a natural state (Supplementary Table 1). In GAP 1 areas, ecological disturbances are allowed to proceed, while GAP 2 areas may receive uses or management practices that degrade the quality of existing natural communities, including suppression of natural disturbance like wildfire. Pro- tecting 30% by 2030 using both GAP I and 2 means the targeted lands will have met these criteria for permanent protection and have mandatory management plans that do not allow extractive uses (e.g., logging, livestock grazing, mining). Our analysis showed that about 7.6% (23.2 Mha) of the land area in the region is protected at the highest level (GAP I),, of which about half (55%, 13 Mha) is forest. About 14.0% of regional forest area is GAP1 and thus to achieve 30% protection by 2030, an additional 16.0% (14.8 Mha) of forest area needs to be protected (Supplementary Table 2). If the analysis is relaxed to include both GAP I and GAP 2, then 18.9% forest area is currently protected and an additional 11.1 % (10.3 Mha) of forest area would need to be protected by 2030 (Table ). Permanently protected land area (GAP 1 and 2) covers an average of 13.2% of each state, but ranges from 6.2% in New Mexico to 23.9% in California (Fig. 1; Table 1). Similarly, permanently protected areas cover an average of 20.2% of forest area in each state, but range from 10.1 % in Oregon to 41.9% in Wyoming (-1 to 3 Mha per state). To protect 30% of forest area by 2030 and 50% by 2050, each state would need to increase protection by 0-19.9% and 8.1-36.8%, respectively, while region - wide protection would need to increase by 11.1 % and 31.1 % to achieve these targets (Table ). The area required to protect habitat and ecosystems from being i u p e rii ed is estimated to be about half of a typical region or ecoregi n ?- ", Of the 28 ecoregions in the western US that are at least 1% forested, 21% (n = 6) have at least 30% of their forest area permanently protected as GAP 1 or 2, while only 7% (n = 2) have at least half of their forest area protected at these levels (Supplementary Table 3). Highest priority areas for preservation of carbon and biodi- versity. Forest PPRs were derived from carbon and biodiversity priority ranks at 1 km spatial resolution computed when both including and excluding forestland with high future vulnerability as simulated with CLM4.5, and summarized by ecoregion and state. The areas with the highest forest PPRs are primarily in the mountain ranges (Fig. a), particularly in the Pacific Northwest. Forests with high carbon priority have high biodiversity priority when highly vulnerable forests are excluded (Spearman's corre- lation within ecoregions median r = 0.52; Figs. ). However, there are important areas of high biodiversity that do not have the highest carbon rankings. Prominent examples include the Kla- math Mountains in southern Oregon and northern California, the east slope of the Cascades in Washington, some of the Sky Island ranges in Nevada and Utah, Arizona, and the Colorado front range (Fig. ). The Sky Islands are isolated mountain ranges above the desert or grasslands that connect the subtropical Sierra Madre of Mexico with the temperate Rocky Mountains, creating unique biodiversity. Future increases in tree mortality rates, represented by high future v u1 nerabil ty to draught and/or fire?,', could destabilize carbon 27 and biodivers itY221, 2 1.. Much of the soutliwe st US, and portions of the Sierra Mountains and northwestern Wyoming are highly vulnerable to future drought and/or fire, (Fig. d, Table ). Forests in the Pacific Northwest, which currently support high carbon and biodiversity, are less vulnerable to future mortality (Fig. ). Areas that are highly vulnerable to future mortality, though concentrated in the water -limited forests of the southwest C0MMUNICAT10NS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT 1 (2021)2:254 { https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-❑21-00326-01 www.nature.com/commsenv ARTICLE COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT i IittiDs,.//doi.orb/10.1038/s43247-02"1-0032c')-O 3 � Oil C � ,o v arr E FA i C � a CL 42 0 A 0 W6 e w a 9L ari � G u r- 1= � V 1i M e A 1in :E M � e I w t \D OLn r r(Y\ r m r r- .o \0 M 0 r: ri M MIrIt 0\ W r~ MNMMNMNr MC'*l M W N N ON \D u) W ry � 0 m W r14rMMNr4N0MNM600- N WIrIT\0 0 M r r- M r M0%. r .D\Diyidr�,t--:Oi M 00 m 0 r-, !V r to 0 Q m m r r r- MR;t 0 M \Q M N 0 r• \Q r• \Q p L M qr o6 r� Sri un .o M(NrfM'TMMMMMM 0 r• m r• �Q o0 m .o N.- o por:yini6600%6Q;N r- r= I_ M K o W \0 M CV 0 r%_ \Q T �D 0 � N M r-� r- ram- ram-- � N N oLnLnM00N\0W\Q0 N m rYi c'6 r-� rf M N � Ln N \0 11�r 0 Ln 0\ (7% r- 0\ r 0\ Q", rri M .o p ni N .D p Sri 0 00 r- N r- N {y r- ry r N r r M \Q r- to P'- r� W T- M OD 0WMa•r=WrnNr-0r•� r- { .4 r r' 4" V O d r 0MN0r- aMM-'ro•r- �6cy�Ui4U1 NQr-Z'DO NNM NNr- LnmLnr-m r�r10Mr�'qr0WM0rn%Q •�rnur?utiLQr•wwrnoN'�r M0:(Y.,\DMN.00.4oNi r- MMr�1%00N�tr�ao0MIt N ryi 0; Nf 6 %d Ui N tri q: ryi r- N r r r r- � r- r \D r\0 r- M 0 M r- N N W 09 r4 \Q r't 0\'t Ch M \Q \Q 0 Mcr, N M ryi T N N N M M N "D 't r• n M C-4 W M N r• u?o�o•kvo':�\Qr=v;grno N N N M c] {may N � N M C O d 'W <UU ZzQ0�?>>rr O N D e- ly- a bo a) L 0 11 7 Z ._.4 M tO Z z u X W W Z 03 46 Q a u 0 0 U .1 O a v U U N Q O Q a� a LA [V a` O kn 0- t �3 0 a 7. u v 41 C O M ,u M v C M �bO u C J US, contain a range of current carbon and biodiversity rankings (Fig. ) . Notable high vulnerability areas with high biodiversity occur in the Southern Rockies, the Sierra Nevada, and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Fig. ). General spatial patterns of 30 and 50% preservation priority appear to be similar between inclusion and exclusion of high vulnerability areas, though fine scale differences are evident for several states in the Southwest (Fig. ). Land ownership under high preservation priority scenarios. Regional forestlands with the highest preservation priority are pri- marily owned by the federal government followed by private entities, tribal governments, and state governments, though the relative pro- portions vary by target and priority (Fig. 5�), as well as among indi- vidual states (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2). The federal government owns more than half (61-62%) of high preservation priority forest - land in the region, while states own 4 to 5% (Fig. sP ), comprising the lands most readily available for permanent protections under GAP 1 and 2. Private entities own about a quarter of these forestlands, with the bulls of those lands in industrial management and a substantial percentage managed for multiple values. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) comprise 13-18% of regional high priority foresdand and 24-28% of the high priority lands owned by the federal government. Interestingly, a larger proportion of high biodiversity priority lands and a smaller portion of high carbon priority lands is in private ownership (Fig. S). Across targets, there is minimal difference in who owns forestlands needed to achieve 30% or 50% forest preservation targets. There are also minimal differences regardless of whether forestlands with high future vulnerability to droughts and fires were not masked from analysis (Supplementary Figs. 3-5). Forest ownership of high preservation priority forestlands differs among states. Private entities own over 25% of high preservation priority forestland in California, Colorado, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Tribal governments own -45% of high preservation priority forestland in Arizona, by far the highest of any state in the region (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2). Again, across targets by state, there is minimal difference in ownership of forestlands needed to achieve 30% or 50% forest preservation targets. Forest carbon, habitat, and surface drinking water added by protected area scenarios. Protected forestlands (GAP 1 and 2) currently (2000-2009) store -2.25 Pg C, or 20% of the total forest ecosystem carbon in the western US (-11.34 Pg Q Fig. a, Sup- plementary Fig. 6) . These protected forests could accumulate another ~0.45 Pg C by 2050 as they continue to grow and mature (Fig, b, Supplementary Fig. 6). Depending on preservation priority, if 30% of forestlands were preserved, they would cur- rently store 3.60-3.94 Pg C (32-35% of total) and could accu- mulate another 0.74-0.91 Pg C by 2050. Similarly, if 50% of foresdands were preserved, they would currently store 5.78-6.21 Pg C (51-56% of total) and could accumulate another 1.20-1.47 Pg C by 2050, Preserving 50% of forestlands would triple the amount of carbon that is currently protected. Prioritizing jointly for carbon and biodiversity leads to only slightly (2-4%) lower preservation of current carbon stocks and near -future carbon accumulation compared with prioritizing for carbon alone. Generally, less than 20% of each animal and tree species' forest habitat is currently protected (GAP 1 or 2) in the region (Fig. a). The median percentage of forest habitat currently preserved for amphibian, bird, mammal, and reptile species is -18% for each taxa and 14% for tree species. If prioritized jointly for carbon and biodiversity, then preserving 30% of forestlands would increase median forest habitat protection to -30% for species of each taxa, while preserving 50% of forestlands would further increase this to -50% for species of each taxa (Fig. b). If 50% of forestlands were preserved, then most (82-95%) animal and tree species would COMMUNICATIONS EAR fH & ENVIRONMENT I (2021)2:2541 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00326-0 l www.nature.com/commsenv c. OrNI-IMNICA T 1ONS EARTH t ENVI RONn, EN-T I rttns://c!-,-_)1 orq,11 0 ; -0 003,2,E-o ARTICLE Hi-gh Vulnerability Forest Included Fore�il. Preservation Priority Rank lye -T 00 1 zLO 0 250 500AZ '`" Z 511111111111M i krn cry 120OW 11011W Forest Carbon Priority Rank Forest Wadivemlly Pdoelly dank C High Vulnerabilitv Forest Excluded i=orest Preservation Priority Rank i W win p'�} - �, UT Fol ,� Y i CA IL qL Forest Carbon Priority Rank Forest Biodivereity Priority Rank Percentile Rank I 0 50 - goo Fig. 3 Forest preservation, carbon, and biodiversity priority ranking for the western US. a, d Forest preservation priority ranks were derived from b, e forest carbon priority ranks and e, f forest biodiversity priority ranks for each ecoregion within every state. High future vulnerability to drought or fire could destabilize forest carbon and biodiversity, thus priority ranks were computed when both including (left columns) and excluding (right columns) forestland with high future vulnerability as simulated with CLM4.5. have at least 30% of their forest habitat protected. Prioritizing jointly for carbon and biodiversity leads to slightly lower forest habitat protection than if prioritized only for biodiversity. Threatened or endangered species would also benefit from increased forest preservation. For instance, currently —26% and -22% of gray wolf (Canis Lupus) and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) forest habitat is protected in the region, but —36 and 33% would be protected if 30% of forestlands were preserved. Furthermore, currently —14% and —15% of marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) and spotted owl (5trix occidentalis) regional forest habitat is protected, but —28% and —31 % would be protected by reaching this preservation target. Protecting 50% of forestlands would lead to over half of these species' regional forest habitat being preserved. Forestlands account for 56% of the most important areas (top 75%) for surface drinking water in the region (Supplementary Table 4). Only —19% of the most important forestlands for surface drinking water are currently preserved as GAP 1 or 2. However, reaching 30% or 50% forest preservation targets would mean preserving about 33 and 53%, respectively, of the forest - lands that are most important for surface drinking water, after excluding high vulnerability forests. Discussion Preservation is crucial for mitigating ongoing climate change and stemming loss of biodiversityY CJ,1 L,.3Uy thus international efforts are underway to protect 30% of land and water by 2030 (30 x 30) and 50% by 2050 (50 x 50). Here we assessed current preservation in the western US and show that 13.4% (41.08 Mha) of land area is protected (GAP 1 or 2; IUCN Ia-VI), including 18.9% (17.48 Mha) of regional forestland (Table ). To meet the 30 x 30 or 50 x 50 targets in this region, an additional 10.3 Mha or 28.8 Mha of forestland would need protection. We developed and applied a geospatial framework to explicitly identify forestlands that could be strategically preserved to help meet these targets. We propose that Strategic Forest Reserves could be established on federal and state public lands where much of the high priority forests occur, while private entities and tribal nations could be incentivized to preserve other high priority forests. We further find that preser- ving high priority forests would help protect (1) ecosystem car- bon stocks and accumulation for climate mitigation, (2) animal and tree species' habitat to stem further biodiversity loss, and (3) surface drinking water for water security. Progress has been made, but much work needs to be done to reach the 30 x 30 or 50 x 50 targets in the western US. To meet preservation targets, new permanent protections are needed at the highest levels for forests in the western US. Per- manent protection is best met on federal and state public lands with additional land designated as wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and national monuments, and by a new category of Strategic Forest Reserves for climate mitigation and adaptation. We found that about 65% of regional high priority forest occurs on federal and state lands, highlighting important roles for federal Cr-IMMl iNICATIONS EARTH & ENV IRONiVIENT 1 (2021)2:2541 https.//doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00326-01 www.nature.com/commsenv 5 ARTICLE COMMUN,iC ATION) EARTH :,k ENVIRONMENT I z_ v tn Itt Z a Ln M 70 Hiah Vulnerability Forest included oresi Preservation Priority Areas a - KW I kBMI rn 120"W 1101 Forest Carbon Priority Areas Forest Biodiversity Priority Areas I � � k 51 e Hiuh Vulnerability Forest Excluded ,Eprsst Preservation Priority Areas Forest Carbon Priority Areas Forest Biodiversity Priority Areas _4 - K�_ r 1'' JAW • c Additional forest Forest extent Preserved forest needed to reach: 30% preservation 50/preservation Fig. 4 Currently preserved forestlands and additional forestlands identified to meet preservation targets across the western US. Preservation targets include preserving 30 and 50% of forestland in each state. Preservation priority areas are presented for three scenarios that include a, d overall forest protection priority, as well as constituent b, a forest carbon priority and e, f forest biodiversity priority. High future vulnerability to drought or fire could destabilize forest carbon and biodiversity, thus protection priority areas were identified when both including (left columns) and excluding (right columns) forestland with high future vulnerability as simulated with CLM4,5. These forest priority areas were identified by sequentially combining the highest ranked forestlands within each state (Fig. } until each protection target was met. Currently protected forestlands shown here are GAP 1 and 2. Table 2 Forestland simulated to have high future vulnerability to fire, drought, and fire or drought (sum) from 2020 to 20SO for each state in the western US. State Forest Mha % High future vulnerability to... Fire Drought Mha % Mha % Either Mha % AZ 7.67 26.0 0.14 1.8 2.80 36.5 2.93 38.2 CA 11.97 29.3 2.42 20.2 0.07 0.6 2.49 20.8 CO 9.50 35.2 2.09 22.0 2.84 29.9 4.77 50.2 ID 9.53 44.0 1.22 12.8 0.19 2.0 1.41 14.8 MT 9.57 25.1 1.59 16.6 0.11 1.1 1.70 17.8 NM 6.74 21.4 1.22 18.1 2.00 29.7 3.10 46.0 NV 3.60 12.6 0.03 0.8 0.65 18.1 0.68 18.9 OR 12.68 50.5 0.57 4.5 0.19 1.5 0.75 5.9 UT 6.93 31.5 0.77 11.1 1.73 25.0 2.41 34.8 WA 10.00 57.4 0.22 2.2 0.01 0.1 0.23 2.3 WY 4.27 16.9 1.56 36.5 0.67 15.7 2.22 52.0 Region 92.46 30.1 11.82 12.8 11.28 12.2 22.71 24.6 Forest vulnerability was assessed using simulations from the Community Land Model 4 5 conducted as part of an earlier study and state governments. We also found that private entities and tribal nations own about 25 and 10%, respectively, of regional high priority forest. Strategic Forest Reserves could be established on federal lands through executive action, regulation and rule - making and could be a low-cost way to simultaneously meet goals of protecting climate and biodiversity. Private and tribal lands present substantial opportunities for increasing carbon storage and protecting biodiversity through incentives, voluntary con- servation measures, and fair market acquisition. To help meet preservation targets, federal and/or state governments could fund private entities and tribal nations to establish permanent con- servation easements that protect carbon rich and biodiverse for- ests from resource extraction. Federal and state governments must lead efforts to protect forest carbon and biodiversity, though private entities and tribal nations could make important con- tributions to these efforts in the western US. To qualify for inclusion in meeting preservation targets, lands should have protection that meets GAP 1 or 2 standards. These standards include permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a binding management plan that provides for maintaining a natural state (Supplementary Table 1). Low- ering the standard of land protections to include GAP 3 or GAP 4 has gained interest, but it conies with a cost to species and 6 COMN11UNICATIONS 'EARTH & EINIVIRCONNAENT 1 (2021)2:2541 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43747-021-00326-01 www.nature.com/commsenv 15J 1 tiV �3 0 — L 20 M 2? 151 LL to 0 Fa 4 % �1 .i l- r. T. FED PVT STAT TRI B 1 5% 7% - -__ I r r - FED PVT STAT TRIG Forest ownership r T r4 1 �Cfr �k 0 FED PVT STAT TRI B Fig. 5 Current ownership of forestiands in the western US needed to achieve two preservation targets. Forest ownership is presented for each preservation target (rows) and priority (columns). Preservation targets include a-c 30% and d-f 50%. Preservation priorities include a, d overall forest protection priority, b, a forest carbon priority, and c, f forest biodiversity priority. Forest owners include the U.S. Federal Government (FED), Private (PVT), State Governments (STAT), and Tribal Governments (TRIB). The figure excludes ownership classes that hold <2% of high preservation priority forestland (e.g., Non -Governmental Organizations). State -level summaries are provided in Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2. Similar patterns are evident when forestlands with high future vulnerabilities are included in the analysis (Supplementary Figs. 3-5). Land ownership data from the PAD -US . ecosystem resilience. For example, livestock grazing cover_ s a large portion (121 Mha) of federal public lands in the region and causes a major decrease in biodiversity due to processes such as degradation and competition o Logging also has deleterious impacts on biodiversity and is a large source of carbon emis- sions in the western US, particularly in the Pacific Northwest'5,3"_ Lands used to meet preservation targets should have the same level of protection as Wilderness areas without grazing, and be permanently protected from roads, logging, and other develop- ment. Wilderness areas are cost-effective cornerstones of intact landscapes that provide clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, and climate change mitigation, while also supporting sustainable recreation economies worth billions of dollars annually , Recreation can be compatible with permanent protection so long as it does not include use of off -highway vehicles that have done considerable damage to ecosystems, fragmented habitat, and severely impacted animals including threatened and endangered species . Forestlands used to meet preservation targets should be managed for preservation of biodiversity, carbon, and water supplies by preserving older, mature forests and limiting resource extraction. It is possible to elevate the preservation status of GAP 3 areas on federal lands by phasing out livestock grazing, mining, and logging and strengthening protection via administrative rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) are key GAP 3 federal areas that have already been identified and are available for permanent protection. The National Forest System (NFS) includes approxi- mately 16.8 Mha of IRAs in the western US, or 71 % of all IRAs on NFS lands in the nation - . These are among the most wild and undeveloped areas not only in the nation but also within their respective states . We found that IRAs comprise 13-18% of regional high priority forest and 24--28% of the high priority forest owned by the federal government, underscoring the crucial biodiversity and carbon benefits that these forests provide. IRAs currently provide clean drinking water for millions of people, support salmon populations and wildlife, and reduce isolation between protected areas,445". However, IRAs are an adminis- trative designation of the USFS and not legislatively established by the US Congress, thus they are not considered part of the US system of protected areas (GAP 1 or 2) . There is also large potential to meet preservation targets by protecting un- inventoried radless areas (e.g., N2 Mha in Oregon), many of which are candidates for protection and contiguous with IRAs or existing protected areas. Forest protection is the lowest cost climate mitigation option. Forest carbon accumulation should not be considered as an offset that allows additional fossil fuels to be burned. This is a weakness of current "net zero" accounting that should be modified by separating emissions reduction from carbon removal from the atmosphere', . Accounting and incentives could be applied to each approach to ensure the targets are met at local to interna- tional scales. Establishment of Strategic Forest Reserves on non-federal public and private land could have important implications for international climate change mitigation agreements. For example, the Paris Agreement encourages trade in offsets. The trade in offsets has set up some potential problems, particularly when offsets are secured by storing more carbon on non-federal public land and private land but tallied twice, once when traded in markets (especially by interna- tional emitters) and again when reported in the national reporting instruments, such as NDC stock taking. Although the Paris Agree- ment is clear that double -counting must be avoided under Article 6, C 0 M M U N I C AT 10 NS EARTN & ENUIR0NMENT 1 (2021)2:2541 https•//dot.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00326-0 I www.nature.com/commsenv C U`iVl iNA J N I (--A il 10 1 N'S L A I 61-H L"51, Li',1VIROI''WiFiNFl! �����]�:,r j Li(]i,i]r - ARTICLE ID Preservation priority Carbon priority Biodiversity priority 2o- b 6, ARTICLE COMMUNICATIONS EARTH b ENVIRONMENT I https://doi.org/]O'iO38/s43247-02-1-00326-0 Preservation priority s CL U) U4 34% La C c� Current fibs,.. Carbon priority SWA Bioftersity prbaritk Current 30 50% Current 0% 5011vrlo b _ Preservatlon priority I I Carbon priority Tabdwsify priority ci 1 5 o '1 a E U - ta 0 ; to 0.01 T' Current 30% 50% Current in"i i 50' Current-11011{3 50% Forest preservation target Fig, 5 Forest ecosystem carbon stocks and near -term carbon accumulation In current and potentially preserved forestlands by preservation target and priority. a Forest ecosystem carbon stocks including carbon in live and dead trees and soil. Black text above each bar denotes the percentage of total region -wide carbon stocks that is currently or would be preserved by reaching the preservation targets. b Forest carbon accumulation from 2020 to 2050 simulated using CLM4.5 forced by the IPSL and MIROC climate models assuming no harvest on preserved forestlands. Bars denote multi -model average carbon accumulation and error bars show the range among simulations. a, b The forestlands contributing to the preservation targets (e.g., 3o11/o, 50%) include currently protected forestland. Currently preserved forestlands shown here are GAP 1 and 2. The forest ecosystem carbon stock data are from the USFS FIA and the forest carbon accumulation data are from Buotte et al. . the extent that double -counting is avoided depends on how accounting rules are operationalized. If emissions reductions are double -counted, it results in an increase in global emissions. If 40% of reserve actions are taken on non-federal public land and private land, this may have implications for emerging voluntary markets as the increased demand in markets could depress the value of those options. While economic and accounting issues are beyond the scope of this study, they exist and need to be addressed as policy commitments are made. Our study shows that strategically increasing the extent of forest protection would help safeguard climate, biodiversity, and drinking water in the western US. Forest protection is needed to prevent forest loss and degradation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and maintain large carbon sinks. Avoiding loss and restoring carbon- and species -rich ecosystems is of highest importance for combined climate change mitigation and biodi- versity protection . We find that currently only —20% of regional forest carbon stocks are in protected areas but that —35% of carbon stocks could be protected by meeting the area -based 30 x 30 target. Protecting existing forest carbon stocks and allowing forests to continue to grow are effective means of pre- venting carbon emissions and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (Supplementary Fig. 7) 1 Protecting high priority forests also creates co -benefits for adaptation to climate change for people and nature, such as higher genetic, species, and ecosystem diversities, resilience to climate extremes, and increased water availability . Preserving high priority forests across the region would increase the amount of protected habitat for animal and tree species and promote landscape connectivity, thus helping main- tain viable populations and ecological functions for climate adaptation441,15. We found that generally less than 20% of each animal and tree species' regional forest habitat is currently pro- tected, yet this could increase to —30% and ^-50% for each species if the 30 x 30 and 50 x 50 targets were met by preserving high priority forests. To ensure increased protection for the many facets of regional biodiversity, we prioritized forests for pre- servation within each ecoregion because these delineate distinct biotic (e.g., vegetation, wildlife) and abiotic (e.g., soils, climate) conditions","'. Distributing protection across ecoregions also promotes regional connectivity. Nevertheless, our current analysis did not incorporate metrics of forest connectivity or fragmentation �{ , thins isolated forest "patches" (i.e., one or several grid cells) were not ranked lower for preservation priority than forests that were part of large continuous corridors. Similarly, forest heterogeneity within each 1 km grid cell was not con- sidered. Extensive road systems are common on private and federal public lands and fragment large expanses of forest that are recovering from a century of high-grade logging�. Many of these fragmented forests are nevertheless important for carbon and biodiversity. Further efforts could combine landscape metrics with the forest PPR system to incorporate effects of connectivity and fragmentation (e.g., values of large contiguous patches versus smaller isolated patches of forest) on forest preservation priority. To best preserve biodiversity, new protected areas should be well - distributed across the region, include climate refugia49,—r10, and have connecting corridors and road crossings to facilitate species movement and gene flow Climate and land use change have contributed to animal population declines in the western US" I.. , leading to an increase in species listed under federal protection" `. These environmental changes contributed to declining bird populations in about half of assessed species (n = 108) across the western US since the 1980s (mean trend = —0.84% per year)3 ''. For instance, destruction and fragmentation of old -growth forest habitat caused marbled murrelet and spotted owl populations to decline in the Pacific Northwest, leading them to be state and federally listed" We find that only —15% of their forest habitat is currently protected and that preserving high priority forests would protect additional habitat that could aid population recovery. In addition to birds, large threatened carnivores such as gray wolves and Canada lynx would benefit from expanding regional forest protection. Gray wolves are a keystone species in the region and can trigger trophic cascades to plants with beneficial effects for biodiversity and streams . Cca rya da lynx is a cold -adapted species and increases in temperature and wildfires threaten their persistence in parts of the western US'' Animals at the southern edge of their species ranges may be particularly vulnerable to warming and thus protection of additional forest habitat may allow them to persist in higher elevations and move northward to a climate more suitable for survival" Expanding forest protection to meet pre- servation targets could help stem loss of regional biodiversity. Besides safeguarding climate and biodiversity, preserving high priority forests would help protect clean water, thus providing a crucial ecosystem service �iven mounting concerns over water security in the western US. ) . A n th ropogen is warming is con- tributing to a megadrought in the Southwest' - ` and lower mountain snowpack across much of the region`-;', with future warming expected to exacerbate water insecurity,r'���. We found that despite covering only 30% of the region, forests account for over half of the most important (top 75%) areas for regional surface drinking water. However, only 19% of these specific forestlands are currently protected (GAP 1 or 2). Forests COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT 1 (2021)2;2541 https.//doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00375-0 I www.nature.com/commsenv C0f\AIVIUHICAT I0i\1S EAR f H& LViROkI�1 E[,,T 1 1 1}tIps:/r'doi orb;/10 i038/s43211.7-02 i-UU32S-0 ARTICLE a 0 60 W Q M 40 Tan Amph ibia n 0 Bird Mammal 0 ReplHe "free CU ,,- 0 C (D p 20 4 4_+ C 17%18%1 %18% % 1.- _ Animal or plant taxa AlJ L'J O 0 W A� W Cn 2 M a� M N 75 0� o 50, M C 25 0� 0 Biodiversity priority i Carbon priority Preservation priority W _ 0 C11 r-r N (D N 0 34% 31 % 31 % 31 % 3 % 29% 30% 26% 2 % � -0". 30% 31-r:, 2 9 % tMlo � 0 a CD rn 0 54% 51% 52% 51% 56% 50% 47% 50% 44% 50% 51% 50% 50% 48% 54% :3 Animal or plant taxa Fig. 7 Current and potential forest habitat preservation for animal and plant species summarized by taxa. a The percentage of each species' regional forested habitat that currently occurs on protected (GAP 1 or 2) forestiands in the western USA, grouped by taxa. b The percentage of each species' forested habitat that would be preserved based on several preservation targets (i.e., 30% or 50%) and priorities (i.e., carbon and/or biodiversity), Data for animal species habitat from the USGS GAP21 and for tree species habitat from the USFS FIA For each boxplot, the intra-box line depicts the median, while the box extends from the 25th to 75th percentiles, and the whiskers extend from the 5th to 95th percentiles. Black text within each box denotes the median percentage of protected habitat across species of that taxa. help ensure surface drinking water quality` and thus meeting the preservation targets would provide co -benefits for water security in an era of growing need. Forest vulnerability to future drought and fire should be con- sidered when identifying areas for biodiversity and climate protection "'a . Drawing on prior mechanistic model simula- tions from CLM4.5 ' we find the highest forest vulnerability is likely to occur in parts of the Southwest (e.g., New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado; 2.98-4.77 Mha forest) whereas the lowest forest vulnerability occurs in the Pacific Northwest (e.g., Oregon, Washington; 0.23-0.75 Mha forest). The Southwest is projected to become increasingly hotter and drier over the coming century, leading to continued increases in wildfire and drought -induced tree mortality that could destabilize forest carbon and biodiversity' Lower forest vulnerability in the Pacific Northwest means that permanence of protection is more likely to be achieved. From a policy perspective, highly vulnerable forests might not be high priorities for preservation because of potential shifts from forest to non -forest, though from a biodiversity per- spective it is important to recognize that maintaining protection of these vulnerable forests may encourage species persistence in topographically complex climate refugia and facilitate species migration to areas that may be more suitable for survival . Wildfire is an important ecological process and together with climate change is a key driver of ecosystem change. Annual burn area increased in the western US over the past three decades due to warniing and drying- and more human -caused ignitions As warm d i-y ecoregions continue to get warmer and drier"') , the fire regime may change to large high -severity fires that could convert more structurally homogeneous dry forests to non -forest ecosystems"`. In other encore ions, fires may continue as a patchwork of mixed severities � that is better for forest regen- eration and biodiversity' . Moreover, mixed -severity fires mostly combust surface litter, duff, shrubs and small trees f', with regional fires leading to lower carbon losses than harvest or beetles"), I", ". Differences in fire regimes among ecoregions are important parts of the decision -making process. For example, forests in parts of Montana and Idaho are projected to be highly vulnerable to future wildfire but not drought, thus fire -adapted forests climatically buffered from drought may be good candi- dates for preservation. Moist carbon rich forests in the. Pacific Coast Range and West Cascades ecoregions are projected to be the least vulnerable to either drought or fire in the future"' " uturer, though extreme hot, dry, and windy conditions led to fires in the West Cascades in 2020. It is important to recognize that forest thinning to reduce fire risk has a low probability of success in the western USL°° ', results in greater carbon losses than fire itself, and is generally not needed in moist forests �i��'. Predicting future occurrence and timing of large disturbance events remains diffi- cult, thus to better inform land management, efforts are needed to improve the ability of terrestrial biosphere models to simulate fire, drought, and other ecosystem processes' In summary, we not only show that additional forest protection is needed to meet preservation targets (i.e., 30 x 30, 50 x 50) in the western US, but also determine where it would be most effective to preserve additional forest for climate mitigation and adaptation goals that minimize further species loss and ecosystem disruption. Our prioritization framework helps ensure preservation oppor- tunities are distributed across the region, thereby protecting many facets of regional biodiversity, promoting connectivity, and pro- viding local opportunities for engagement in decision -making. Drought and wildfire are becoming more common in this region and could destabilize forest carbon and biodiversity in some areas; thus, our framework incorporates ecosystem model simu- lations to identify forests with high future vulnerability and reduces their priority for protection. Meeting preservation targets would increase protection of forest carbon stocks and accumu- lation, animal and tree species' habitat, and surface drinking water in the western US. We focus on forestlands, but note these lands often include a mosaic of non -forest ecosystems (e.g., grasslands, wetlands, shrublands) that are also important for biodiversity preservation and carbon storage and accumulation. CO Wt U N I CA �I 0N4 EARTH & E NV I RO N M LL� N T 1 (2021)2:2541 htips://doi.arg/10.1038/s43247-021-00326-01 www.nature.com/commsenv ARTICLE COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT J https://doi org/10.1038/s43247-021-00326-0 Developing a broader landscape PPR system that includes non - forest ecosystems would require standardized spatial datasets related to current ecosystem carbon stocks (e.g. ref, habitat distribution for non -woody plant species and ideally invertebrate species, and multi-taxa simulations of potential future ecological dynamics. To help inform efforts to meet preservation targets, our new forest prioritization datasets can be combined with local knowledge and finer -scale local analyses using higher resolution spatial datasets. Next steps are to apply this framework across countries, include non -forest ecosystems, simulate future ecolo- gical conditions at higher spatial resolution, and account for how preservation prioritization is affected by uncertainty in under- lying geospatial datasets. Natural climate and biodiversity solu- tions will be most effective when simultaneously implemented with ambitious reductions in all human -caused greenhouse gas emissions. Methods General data processing and analysis. An important step in spatial conservation prioritization is selecting a spatial resolution. High spatial resolution prioritization is needed to inform land management but spatial resolution is often constrained by the availability of existing species and ecosystem datasets,"'. We derived the forest PPR using existing spatial datasets that were originally gridded at 30 m, 250 m, and 4000 m spatial resolution over the 92.46 Mha (924,600 km2) of forest land in the western US (Table 3). The coarsest resolution datasets were CLM4.5 simulations of future carbon accumulation and vulnerabilities from 2020 to 2050 . It is crucial to consider future carbon accumulation and vulnerabilities when evaluating potential contributions of forests to climate change mit4ri ti on and biodiversity protection ' � ; however, CLM4.5 and other land surface model simulations arc very computationally intensive and rarely available even at a 4000 m spatial resolution. The CLM4.5 simulations were thus the primary factor constraining the spatial resolution of our analysis. We selected a 1 km spatial resolution for this analysis as a balance between the fine resolution (30-250 m) and coarse resolution (4000 m) datasets currently available. While a finer spatial resolution (e.g., 250 m) would have been preferable, we were not confident that future forest carbon accumulation or vulnerabilities would be adequately captured by further down - scaled CLM4.5 simulations. Moreover, a 1 km resolution is amenable to large-scale conservation planning that considers multiple facets of biodiversity and ecosystem function across a subcontinent and lends itself to comparisons with other con- servation prioritization datasets produced at 1 km resolution (e.g. ref. 39). We performed the spatial analysis on a I km resolution grid in an Albers Equal Area projection using the statistical software R (version 4.0)". Data were processed using raster-88, rgdal , and gdal Utds'0, handled using data. table9 i, and visualized using ggplot292 libraries. Maps were created using Esri ArcMap 10.8 software. Assessing current preservation status of regional forests relative to pre- servation targets. We assessed the current extent and preservation status of forestland in the western US, as well as the additional forestland that would need to be protected to reach 30 and 50% preservation targets. We characterized the current forest extent using a 250 m resolution forest type dataset created by the United State Forest Service (USFS) Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program using forest inventory, MODIS satellite, and ancillary geospatial datasets . We characterized land preservation status using the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD -US version 2.1). The PAD -US is the official national inventory of protected areas in the United States and is produced by the USGS GAP . The PAD -US includes spatial information on the known protected areas for public and private lands in all 50 states, along with the status of each protected area according to guidelines developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Conservation status is characterized by GAP status codes that describe management intent to conserve biodiversity. GAP 1 and 2 signify areas with permanent protection from anthropogenic land cover conversion and management plans to maintain a fully or primarily natural state. The GAP 1 generally corre- sponds to IUCN Category Ia, Ib, and II, and GAP 2 to IUCN Categories III through VI (Supplementary Table 1). We clipped the forest extent and PAD -US datasets to the region, majority aggregated forest extent to 1 km resolution, and gridded the PAD -US GAP status code at I km resolution using the Lowest GAP status in the case of overlap. We then assessed the total land and forest area of each state that currently has permanent protection (GAP 1 or 2). Moreover, we com- puted the additional area needed if the goal is to protect 30 and 50% of total land and forest area in each state. Prioritizing forestiands for preservation based on carbon and/or biodiversity. After identifying the additional forest area needed to reach 30 and 50% pre- servation targets, we then sought to prioritize unprotected forestlands for pre- servation based on carbon and/or biodiversity (three scenarios). We derived both carbon and biodiversity priority ranks for each forested grid cell in the region and also derived a forest preservation priority rank ("forest PPR") for each grid cell that incorporated metrics of both forest carbon and biodiversity. We defined forest carbon metrics that included both current forest ecosystem carbon stocks and simulated near -future forest carbon accumulation from 2020 through 2050. The USFS FIA mapped forest ecosystem carbon stocks at 250 m resolution across the contiguous U.S. using inventory plot, MODIS satellite, and ancillary geospatial datasets '' ' . This dataset reflects forest conditions during the period from 2000 to 2009 and is the most recent spatial dataset on forest ecosystem carbon stocks available from the USFS FIA. We determined current forest carbon stocks for each I km grid cell by summing the carbon stocks of the 16 underlying 250 m resolution grid cells. Forest carbon accumulation was simulated across the western US from 1979 to 2099 by Buotte, et al. using a modified version of the CLM4.5 . The CLM is the land surface component of the Community Earth System Model and calculates multiple biophysical and biogeochemical processes, including surface heat fluxes, photosynthesis, evaporation, transpiration, carbon allocation to plant tissue, decomposition, and nitrogen cycling. The CLM4.5 was modified to represent 13 coniferous forest types commonly found in the region, and to allow soil moisture stress to increase leaf shed ` . Forest carbon cycling was simulated at -4 km resolution for two time periods: 1979-2014 and 2015-2099. The historical simulations (1979-2014) were performed using historical COZ concentrations, climate, and harvest such that the simulations represent present-day stand ages. The future simulations (2015-2099) were forced by downscaled climate data from the IPSL-CM5A-MR and MIR005 general circulation models following representative concentration pathway 8.5 concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Previous comparisons between simulation output and observational data sets showed that simulated aboveground carbon was highly correlated (R2 > 0.80) with observation -based a thnates across forest types and ecoregions''. Potential future forest carbon accumulation was estimated by running the CLM4.5 with no harvest after 2014 and then surnming annual net ecosystem production from 2020 onward, thus allowing forest carbon accumulation to be determined by forest type, soil properties, climate, and wildfires. We estimated potential forest carbon accumulation for each 4 km grid cell by summing annual net ecosystem production from 2020 to 2050 and then disaggregated these data to 1 km resolution for analysis. We defined metrics of biodiversity using tree species richness and terrestrial vertebrate species richness by taxa. The USFS FIA mapped live tree basal area for 324 tree species at 250 m resolution across the contiguous U.S, using inventory plot data along with MODIS satellite and envi.ro n me a t al datasets *'- This is a subset of the over 1000 tree species found in the USA. The USGS GAP modeled current habitat distribution for 1718 terrestrial vertebrate species at 30 m resolution across the contiguous U.S. using a suite of geospatial predictors,". This nominally includes Table 3 Spatial datasets used to derive the forest preservation priority ranking system. Category Metric Period Original resolution W Reference Ecosystem Ecoregions (level 3) 46 Forest extent 2000-2004 250 19 Biodiversity Amphibian species habitat (n = 97 species) 2000 30 11 Bird species habitat (n = 483 species) 2000 30 7.1 Mammal species habitat (n = 339 species) 2000 30 2' Reptile species habitat (n =170 species) 2000 30 21 Tree species habitat (n = 78 species) 2000-2009 250 27 Carbon Forest carbon stocks 2000-2009 250 23 Forest carbon accumulation 2020-2050 4000 Vulnerability Vulnerability to drought 2020-2050 4000 )s Vulnerability to fire 2020-2050 4000 ' 10 COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT 1 (2021)2:2541 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00326-01 www.nature.com/commsenv COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT I https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00326-0 ARTICLE all terrestrial amphibian, bird, mammal, and reptile species found during summer and/or winter in the contiguous U.S., though stopover habitats for migratory species are not included. We selected the tree and vertebrate species that occurred in the study domain, converted live tree basal area to species presence or absence, and then aggregated each species habitat map to 1 km resolution such that a grid cell was considered to have habitat if it included any modeled habitat at a finer spatial resolution. For each species, we masked out habitat on non-forestlands, resulting in our analysis including 78 tree species and 1089 terrestrial vertebrate species. We then estimated tree and vertebrate taxa (e.g., amphibian) species richness by counting the number of species with habitat in each forested grid cell. We did not include terrestrial invertebrates, non -woody plants, or non -vascular plants because there was not the necessary spatial data. Recognizing the importance of spatially distributed preservation' 1, we computed forest carbon, biodiversity, and preservation priority ranks for each grid cell relative to other grid cells in the same ecoregion within each state. There are 35 level III ecoregions in our study domain that represent land areas with distinct biotic (e.g., vegetation, wildlife) and abiotic (e.g., soils, climate) conditions . The forest carbon priority ranks were derived by computing for each grid cell the percentile ranks of current ecosystem carbon stocks and near -future carbon accumulation, summing the resulting ranks, and then re -ranking grid cells based on these summed ranks. The forest biodiversity priority ranks were derived in a similar manner using vertebrate and tree species richness ranks, with vertebrate species richness ranks computed from the ranked sum of percentile ranks for each vertebrate taxa (i.e., amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles). Finally, the forest preservation priority rank was derived for each grid cell as the ranked sum of forest carbon and biodiversity priority ranks. Ongoing warming and drying could increase forest vulnerability to drought or fire in parts of dl a wcs tffJ1 US thereby Test alai I izi tag forest carbon and biodiversity, 10- : Water- i i anti ited forests in d w Rocky Mountains, Southwest, and Great Basin regions were expected to be the most vulnerable to future drought - related mortality and the Sierra Nevada and portions of the Rocky Mountains were expected to be most vulnerable to fire in the next decades/-,". Therefore, we derive and compare preservation priority rankings with and without forests with high future vulnerability to drought or fire. Determining ownership of forestlands with high preservation priority. We determined who currently owns unprotected forestlands that have the highest priority for meeting preservation targets. The PAD -US (version 2.1) dataset includes the geographic boundaries of public lands and their ownership (e.g., Federal Government, State Government), as well as of private conservation lands that are voluntarily provided by authoritative sources'-(). This dataset does not include the geographic boundaries of other private lands, but these boundaries are included in an older, off -shoot version of the dataset created by the Conservation Biology Institute (CBI) (i.e., PAD -US CBI Edition version 2)94. We gridded both versions of the PAD -US dataset at 1 km resolution and filled data gaps in the PAD - US using the PAD -US CBI Edition. The PAD -US also is occasionally missing information on who owns public lands but the database generally has information on their management type. In these cases, we filled unknown ownerships with the corresponding management type. We then extracted ownership information for each grid cell that was identified as having high priority for meeting each pre- servation target and priority. Lastly, for each preservation target and priority we computed the total area of these high priority forestlands that occurred in each ownership category. Evaluating how meeting preservation targets contributes to protecting Brest carbon, biodiversity, and surface drinking water. We evaluated current pro- tection (GAP 1 or 2) of forest carbon, biodiversity, and important areas for surface drinking water as well as how protection would increase by meeting each pre- servation target if forests were prioritized for carbon and/or biodiversity. Specifi- cally, we estimated total current ecosystem carbon stocks and potential near term carbon accumulation (2020-2050) for currently protected forestlands and if pre- servation targets were met following each prioritization scenario. We again relied on carbon stock and accumulation datasets from the USFS FIAand Community Land Model 4.5 simulations , respectively. For biodiversity, we determined the current amount of each animal and tree species' habitat2 l ,2 2 that occurs in regional forestlands, as well as the percentage each species' forest habitat that is currently protected. We then determined how much of each species' forest habitat would be protected by reaching the preservation targets using each prioritization scenario and summarized these data by taxa (i.e., amphibians, birds, mammals, reptiles, and trees). We also assessed how meeting the preservation targets would contribute to protection of forest habitat for four select threatened animal species, including grey wolves (Canis lupus), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), marbled murrelet (Bra- chyramphus marmoratus), and spotted owl (Strix occidentalis). Moreover, we assessed current and potential protection of the most important areas (top 75%) for surface drinking water in the region using the Forests to Faucets (version 2) dataset from the USFS ' The USFS estimated surface drinking water importance for each of the country's sub -watersheds based on surface water supply, flow paths, and consumer demand. We clipped this dataset to the study domain, rasterized the Important Areas for Surface Drinking Water attribute at 1 km resolution, and identified the most important areas (top 75%) for surface drinking water in the region. We then used spatial overlays to assess the extent to which the most important areas occurred on current protected forestlands and potential future protected Iands under each preservation target and prioritization scenario. Data availability The forest preservation priority datasets generated as part of this research are publicly archived with PANGAEA (https:ll v%m,.pangaea.de/). The datasets that support the findings of this study are publicly available. The Protected Area Database of the United States (PAD -US v. 2.1) dataset is available from the USGS (https://www.sciencebase.gov/). The forest extent dataset is available from the USFS(https:lldata.fs.usda.govlgeodatao. The forest ecosystem carbon stock dataset is available from the USFS 10 27371RDS-1-013-0004). The CLM4.5 forest carbon cycle simulations are available from the ORNL DAAC N n r•. t, rl C;,O). The vertebrate species V habitat data are available from the USGS The tree species basal areas data are available from the USFS (-Lr,-,:i t`: ;:::;i ,i'i:►.1.J k :- ,c+ .�- ►�c .i). The surface drinking water data are available from the USFS (1��s:,'; ►� ►� ri.».:Ls; ecosystemserviceslFS_Efforts)forestv,2famets-shl "l). Code availability All custom scripts written for this analysis are publicly archived on GitHub (iiiips:ll 8i di uu.coiii/ecospaiial-services/w us_iures(_c:ursservaiiun). Received: 6 July 2021; Accepted: 29 November 2021; Published online: 14 December 2021 References 1. Ripple, W. J. et al. World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021. BioSCience. Ltt�rc��l.�� �i,.�� cr� kf� f)ti lhiric.-il�iah0/ (2Q21}. 2. Liu, P. R. & Raftery, A. E. Country -based rate of enussions reductions should increase by 80% beyond nationally determined contributions to meet the 2 C target. Commun. Earth Environ. 2, 1-10 (2021). 3. IPBES. (eds Brondizio, E. S., Settele, J., Diaz, S. & Ngo, H. T.) 56 (IPBES, 2019). 4. CBD Secretariat The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets Vol. Document UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2 (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). 5. Trisos, C. H., Merow, C. & Pigot, A. L. The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change. Nature 580, 496-501 (2020). 6. United State of America. The United States of America Nationally Determined Contribution- Reducing Greenhouse Gases in the United States: A 2030 Emissions Target. 24 (Submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat under the Paris Agreement; https:/1www4.unfccc.intlsites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/ United%20States%20of%2OAmerica%24First/United%2OStates%20NDC% 7�! i•ri1�,7r)71 QI�,?fl�fl? 1 °!•�ZOFir,lapclt, 2021). 7. Nelson, M. D. et al. Defining the United States land base: a technical document supporting the USDA Forest Service 2020 RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. IRS-191. 191, 1-70 (2020). 8. Portner, H. O. & et al. IPBES-IPCC co -sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change. (IPBES and IPCC, https:/Idoi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.4782538, 2021). 9. Elsen, P. R., Monahan, W. B., Dougherty, E. R. & Merenlender, A. M. Keeping pace with climate change in global terrestrial protected areas. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay0814 (2020). 10. Dinerstein, E. et al. A "Global Safety Net" to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth's climate. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb2824 (2020). 11. Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience 67, 534-545 (2017). 12. Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Nail Acad. Sci. 114, 11645-11650 (2017). 13. Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2020. Earth Syst Sci. Data 12, 3269-3340 (2020). 14. Sexton, J. O, et al. Conservation policy and the measurement of forests. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 192-196 (2016). 15. Kreft, H. & Jetz, W. Global patterns and determinants of vascular plant diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 104, 5925-5930 (2007). 16. Houghton, R A., Hall, F. & Goetz, S. J. Importance of biomass in the global carbon cycle. J. Geophys. Res. 114, GOOE03 (2009). 17. Mackey, B. et al. Understanding the importance of primary tropical forest protection as a mitigation strategy. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Grob. Chang. 25, 763-787 (2020). 18. Buotte, P. C., Law, B. E., Ripple, W. J. & Berner, L. T. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity co -benefits of preserving forests in the western United States. EcoI. Appl.30, e02O39 (2020). CO,M VtUNICATIONS EAR1_H & ENVIRONtOENT 1 (2021)2:2541 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00326-0 I www.nature.com/commsenv 11 ARTICLE COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT I ht[ps://doi_org/10.1038/s43247-021-00326-0 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 90 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Ruefenacht, B. et al. Conterminous US and Alaska forest type mapping using forest inventory and analysis data. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 74, 1379-1388 (2008). USGS GAP. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD -US) 2.1: U.S. Geological Survey data release, � ,.a! i h. (2020). USGS. Gap Analysis Project Species Habitat Maps CONUS_2001, U.S. Geological Survey, �Ij61 (2018). Wilson, B. T., Lister, A. J., Riemann, R. I. & Griffith, D. M. Live tree species basal area of the contiguous United States (2000 2009). (USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2013). Wilson, B. T., Woodall, C. & Griffith, D. Imputing forest carbon stock estimates from inventory plots to a nationally continuous coverage. Carbon Balance Management 8, 1-15 (2013). Oleson, K. et al. Technical Descriptioin of Version 4.5 of the Community Land Model (CLM) (National Center for Atmospheric Research, 2013). Buotte, P. C. et al. Near -future forest vulnerability to drought and fire varies across the western United States. Glob. Chang. Biol. 25, 290-303 (2019). Noss, R. F. et al. Bolder thinking for conservation. Conserv. Biol, 26, 1-4 (2012). Allen, C. D. & Breshears, D. D. Drought -induced shift of a forest -woodland ecotone: rapid landscape response to climate variation. Proc. Nat! Acad. Sci. 95, 14839-14842 (1998). Watson, J. E. et al. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 599-610 (2018). Lecina-Diaz, J. et al. The positive carbon stocks-biodiversity relationship in forests: co -occurrence and drivers across five subclimates. Ecol. Appl. 28, 1481-1493 (2018). Di Marco, M., Ferrier, S., Harwood, T. D., Hoskins, A. J. & Watson, J. E. Wilderness areas halve the extinction risk of terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 573, 582-585 (2019). Glaser, C., Romaniello, C. & Moskowitz, K. Costs and consequences: the real price of livestock grazing on America's public lands. Tucson, AZ: Center for Biological Diversity (2015). Flather, C. H. Species endangerment patterns in the United States. Vol. 241 (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and ..., 1994). Beschta, R. L. et al. Adapting to climate change on western public lands: addressing the ecological effects of domestic, wild, and feral ungulates. Environ. Managg, 51, 474-491 (2013). Betts, M. G., Guti6rrez Min, J., Yang, Z., Shirley, S. M. & Thomas, C. D. Synergistic effects of climate and land -cover change on long-term bird population trends of the westem USA: a test of modeled predictions. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00186 (2019). Berner, L. T., Law, B. E., Meddens, A. J. & Hicke, J. A. Tree mortality from fires, bark beetles, and timber harvest during a hot and dry decade in the western United States (2003- 2012). Environ. Res, Lett. 12, 065005 (2017). Law, B. E. et al. Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 115, 3663 (2018). Ouren, D. S. et al. Environmental effects of off -highway vehicles on Bureau of land management lands: a literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and internet resources. US Geol. Survey Open -File Rep. 1353, 225 (2007). Talty, M. J., Mott Lacroix, K., Aplet, G. H. & Belote, R. T. Conservation value of national forest roadless areas. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e288 (2020). Belote, R. T. & Wilson, M. B. Delineating greater ecosystems around protected areas to guide conservation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e196 (2020). DellaSala, D. A., Karr, J. R. & Olson, D. M. Roadless areas and clean water. J. Soil Water Conserv. 66, 78-84 (2011). McLaren, D. P., Tyfield, D. P., Willis, K. Szerszynski, B. & Markusson, N. O. Beyond "net=zero": a case for separate targets for emissions reduction and negative emissions. Front. Clim. 1, 4 (2019). Mildrexler, D. J., Berner, L. T., Law, B. E., Birdsey, R. A. & Moomaw, W. R. Large Trees Dominate Carbon Storage in Forests East of the Cascade Crest in the United States Pacific Northwest. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 3, hup0 doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.594274 (2020). Hudiburg, T. W., Luyssaert, S., Thornton, P. E. & Law, B. E. Interactive effects of environmental change and management strategies on regional forest carbon emissions. Environ. Sci. Tech. 47, 13132-13140 (2013). Noss, R. F. & Daly, K. M. In Connectivity Conservation (eds K. Crooks & M. Sanjayan) 587-619 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010). Geldmann, J. et al. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol. Conserv. 161, 230-238 (2013). Omernik, J. M. Perspectives on the nature and definition of ecological regions. Environ. Manag. 34, S27-S38 (2004). Hudibur& T. et al. Carbon dynamics of Oregon and Northern California forests and potential land -based carbon storage. Ecol. Appl. 19, 163-180 (2009). Leu, M., Hanser, S. E. & Knick, S. T. The human footprint in the west: a large- scale analysis of anthropogenic impacts. Ecol. AppL 18, 1119-1139 (2008). 49. Haight, J. & Hammill, E. Protected areas as potential refugia for biodiversity under climatic change. Biol. Conserv. 241, 108258 (2020). 50. Dobrowski, S. Z. A climatic basis for microrefugia: the influence of terrain on climate. Glob. Chang. Biol. 17, 1022-1035 (2011). 51. Jantz, P., Goetz, S. & Laporte, N. Carbon stock corridors to mitigate climate change and promote biodiversity in the tropics. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 138-142 (2014). 52. McMenamin, S. K., Hadiy, E. A. & Wright, C. K, Climatic change and wetland desiccation cause amphibian decline in Yellowstone National Park. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 105, 16988-16993 (2008). 53. Scott, J. M. et al. Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: the need for a new approach. Front Ecol. Environ. 3, 383-389 (2005). 54. Miller, S. L. et al. Recent population decline of the Marbled Murrelet in the Pacific Northwest. Condor 114, 771-781 (2012). 55. Noon, B. R. & McKelvey, K. S. Management of the spotted owl: a case history in conservation biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol, System. 27, 135-162 (1996). 56. Ripple, W. J. et al. Ruminants, climate change and climate policy. Nat Clim. Chang. 4, 2=5 (2014). 57. King, T. W. et al. Will Lynx lose their edge? Canada Lynx occupancy in Washington, j Wildl. Manag. 84, 705-725 (2020). 58. Cayan, D. R. et al. Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proc. Natl Acad. ScL 107, 21271-21276 (2010). 59. Rhoades, A. M., Ullrich, P. A. & Zarzycki, C. M. Projecting 21st century snowpack trends in western USA mountains using variable -resolution CESM. Clim. Dyn. 50, 261-288 (2018). 60. Williams, A. P. et al. Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought. Science 368, 314 (2020). 61. Mote, P. W., Hamlet, A. F., Clark, M. P. & Lettenmaier, D. P. Declining mountain snowpack in western north America. Bull, Am. Meteorol. Soc. 86, 39-49 (2005). 62. Cook, B. et al. Twenty-first century drought projections in the CMIP6 forcing scenarios. Earth's Futur. 8, e2019EF001461 (2020). 63. Vor6smarty, C. J. et al. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467, 555-561 (2010). 64. Johnson, Z. C., Leibowitz, S. G. & Hill, R. A. Revising the index of watershed integrity national maps. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 2615-2630 (2019). 65. Anderegg, W. R. et al. Climate -driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science 368, eaaz7005 (2020). 66. Buotte, P., Levis, S. & Law, B. E. NACP forest carbon stocks, fluxes, and productivity estimates, Western USA� -, 1979=2099. ORNL Distributed Active Archive Center, l,iir�.!l.�.,� �.f i99 32-�,ilr►u k� d �3,1 ,Ar�li�� � -_ (2019). 67. Williams, A. P. et al. Temperature as a potent driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality. Nat Clim. Chang 3, 292-297 (2012). 68. McDowell, N. G. et al. Multi -scale predictions of massive conifer mortality due to chronic temperature rise. Nat Clim. Chang. 6, 295-300 (2015). 69. Williams, A. P. et al. Correlations between components of the water balance and burned area reveal new insights for predicting forest fire area in the southwest United States. Ink J. Wildland Fire 24, 14-26 (2014). 70. Abatzoglou, J. T. & Williams, A. P. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc, Natl Acacir Sci. 113, 11770-11775 (2016). 71. Dennison, P. E., Brewer, S. C., Arnold, J. D. & Moritz, M. A. Large wildfire trends in the western United States, 1984-2011. Geophys. Res, Lett. 41, 2928-2933 (2014). 72. Balch, J. K. et al. Human -started wildfires expand the fire niche across the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 114, 2946-2951 (2017). 73. Schoennagel, T. et al. Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 114, 4582-4590 (2017). 74. Law, B. E. & Waring, R. H. Carbon implications of current and future effects of drought, fire and management on Pacific Northwest forests. For. Ecol. Management 355, 4-14 (2015). 75. Donato, D. C., Campbell, J. L. & Franklin, J. F. Multiple successional pathways and precocity in forest development: can some forests be born complex? J. Veg. Sci. 23, 576-584 (2012). 76. Campbell, J. L., Harmon, M. E. & Mitchell, S. R. Can fuel -reduction treatments really increase forest carbon storage in the western US by reducing future file emissions? Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 83-90 (2012). 77. Harris, N. et al. Attribution of net carbon change by disturbance type across forest lands of the conterminous United States. Carbon Balanc. Management 11, 24 (2016). 78. Ghimire, B. et al. Large carbon release legacy from bark beetle outbreaks across Western United States. Grob. Chang Biol. 21, 3087-3101 (2015). 79. Mitchell, S. R., Harmon, M. E. & O'connell, K. E. Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 19, 643-655 (2009). 80. Rhodes, J. j. & Baker, W. L. Fire probability, fuel treatment effectiveness and ecological tradeof in western US public forests. Open For. Sci J. 1, 1-7 (2008). 81. Law, B. E. & Harmon, M. E. Forest sector carbon management, measurement and verification, and discussion of policy related to climate change. Carbon Management 2, 73-84 (2011). 12 COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT 1 (2021)2:2541 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00326-01 www.nature.com/commsenv COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT 1 https://do,i.org/10,10.?S/`s432/-17-021 00326-0 ARTICLE 86, 82. 88. 89. 90. 91, 92, 93. 4. 95. 1-ludibut% T. W. law, L E., Wirth, C~ .& lrnysmert� S, Regional carbon dioxide implications of forest bioencrgy production. Nair Chi n. aarog. 1, 419-42 (2011). Bonan, C. B. & Domy, S. C, Climate, ecosystems, and planetary l+i.ttures: the chd1 cngt± to pmdict l In Earth -stun mrAl cls, .5ctenrc 359, eaarn 28 (20 18). Law, B. E Regional analysis of drought and heat impacts on fore5ts: current and futuireXtence directions. Glob. (Jtang..lhot 20, 35 5 -35 2014). Spawn, S. A„ Sullivan, C. C., lark. T+ J. & C ibbs� Ji. K. Harmonized global maps of above and below round Nora a won density i n t he yeti r 2010. Sci. Data 7. 1-22 (2020). KuD leer , P. & Mollanen, A. blow do recent spatial b iodlve.rsii v e,irt y support the 0onvention on blologleal diversity in the expai nsioal of the global conservation area networkT Nalnreza Con_,-;;_,rvaeao 12, 3-10 (2014). R Core 'ream. R. A Language awl ))i irrronaPicrot for Statisfical Con 11mling (R lnc undation for Statistical Computing, 2020). Hij rnans, R, J. tester: Geographic Analysis and Modeling. it pack-rkge verslor l B vand� R., :l eitt. T. & lkowlinWn, B. rgdak 1311idings for Cite Veaspaf al' Dour Abstraclion L i.bra , R ,package version 1.4 8, I i ttps d1Cl N _ It- p ro je .or, O'Brien. 1. gdalUti fieg Wrappers ers for VDAL ` Utilities Execia tables. R package version 1. hi lJit "kAi� .-pi,oject.tir1! 1 e-kAge- -V�la ii t a Mil ieg (2019). Dawle, M. & Srinivaun, A. data. table. &Ie#nsion of WaseLf ame d R package version 1.12.8. (2019). Wickham.,. K g fot.: Elegant GraphICS for Data A wl is (Springer-Verlang New York, 201 fir). Hurtell, J. W. et at. The -community earth systems, model: a framework for collaborative research. Bull, Ant. Meted 1. Ste. , 1339-1.3(2013). Conservation Bloingy Institute, Protested Arms Database of the Unked States, 1 Edition Version,2. hit p c ti i+s�ni rF.n�'! J'�r l�'cr sip ec I purl- rrstcbi- edil io p (2012). USDA I °orest SerAce. Foists to !*osi ers ..0 Is atiaf darn set). Retyleved from hops. u s-p�ahl.i pp,b r r cnt v' ,te ts?l��arr:ets ISe .t 21. 20211 (201 ). Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative of the US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Grant 2014-35100-22066) for our North American Carbon Program study, "Forest die -off, climate change, and human intervention in western North America." Author contributions B.E.L., L.T.B., and P.C.B. designed the study. Community Land Model output was provided by P.C.B. Data acquisition, analysis, and visualization were conducted by L.T.B. Ideas were contributed by W.J.R. and D.J.M. Writing was led by B.E.L. and L.T.B. with input and edits from all authors. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Additional information Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material available at ■r7.Irwr, rR 1•1 t'Kt.. 4Yr_.a i+.xa.+r`��nv �. Y9^I• ✓a?rlli, 4 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Beverly E. Law. Peer review information Communications Earth Sr Environment thanks David Skole and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer revie►ni of this work Primary Handling Editors: Gerald Forkuor and Clare Davis. Reprints and permission information is available at http://tiv%v-%v.nature.coi7ilreprin is Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. ec Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if Changes were made. The images or other third party► material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit hrrn ��c«�+�vr.-nm�sz.'►�z; nr�, ficen se-. @ The Author(s) 2021 C0MMUNICAT10NS EARTH & ENVIR0NMEPJT 1 (2021)2:2541 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00326-01 www.nature.com/comrnsen►► 13 Ecological Applications, 30(2), 2020, e02039 0 2019 The Authors. Ecological Applications published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Ecological Society of America This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity co -benefits of preserving forests in the western United States PGLLY C. BUOTTE ' ` '1'� BEVERLY E. LAW '. �' ' , I WTLLIAM J. RIPpLEG)l i AND LOGAN T. BERNER i1: 2 'Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State Unl vers ity, 321 Richantson Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 USA 2EcoSpatial Services L. L. C, 2498 }oath Oakmont Drive, 1-Yags taff, Arizona 86004 USA Citation: Buotte, P. C., B. E. Law, W. J. Ripple, and L. T. Berner. 2020. Carbon sequestration and biodiver- sity co -benefits of preserving forests in the western United States. Ecological Applications 30(2):e02039. 10.10021cap.2039 Abstract. Forest carbon sequestration via forest preservation can be a viable climate change mitigation strategy. Here, we identify forests in the western conterminous United States with high potential carbon sequestration and low vulnerability to future drought and fire, as simulated using the Community Land Model and two high carbon emission scenario (RCP 8.5) climate models. High -productivity, low -vulnerability forests have the potential to sequester up to 5,450 Tg CO2 equivalent (1,485 Tg C) by 2099, which is up to 20% of the global mitiga- tion potential previously identified for all temperate and boreal forests, or up to —6 yr of cur- rent regional fossil fuel emissions. Additionally, these forests currently have high above- and belowground carbon density, high tree species richness, and a high proportion of critical habi- tat for endangered vertebrate species, indicating a strong potential to support biodiversity into the future and promote ecosystem resilience to climate change. We stress that some forest lands have low carbon sequestration potential but high biodiversity, underscoring the need to con- sider multiple criteria when designing a land preservation portfolio. Our Work demonstrates how process models and ecological criteria can be used to prioritize landscape preservation for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and preserving biodiversity in a rapidly changing climate. Keywords: biodiversity; carbon sequestration; climate change; Community Land Model (CLM); forest, mitigation; process modeling; western United States INTRODUCTION Since the signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the United Nations has recognized the need to for- mulate a global response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in our atmosphere. The subsequent adoptions of the Sustainable Development Goals (Uni- ted Nations General Assembly 2015) and the Paris Agreement (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) 2015) provided global tar- gets for preserving biodiversity and limiting the negative effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Limiting global temperature to 1.5°C above the prein- dustrial average would limit negative climate impacts (IPCC 2018), including negative effects on biodiversity (Smith et al. 2018). Unfortunately, substantial enhance- ment or over -delivery of emissions goals in the Paris Agreement is necessary to limit warming to less than 2°C (Rogelj et al. 2016). Missing this target could desta- bilize Earth's climate, terrestrial, and aquatic systems (Steffen et al. 2018) with catastrophic consequences for biodiversity (Davis et al. 2018), ecosystem services, and Manuscript received 4 March 2019; revised 10 October 2019; accepted 21 October 2019. Corresponding Editor: Yude Pan. E-mail: pcbaettegniail.com humans (Barnosky et al. 2012). Already, ample observa- tional evidence exists that changes in climate are induc- ing ecosystem transformations through tree mortality (Allen et al. 2010, Millar and Stephenson 2015) and changes in species composition (Allen and Breshears 1998, Millar and Stephenson 2015). Process -based (Settele et al. 2014, McDowell et al. 2016) and statistical (Rehfeldt et al. 2006, Williams et al. 2007, Pearson et al. 2013) models indicate a strong potential for continued ecological transformation, and paleological analyses indicate that, if we continue on our current emission tra- jectory, drastic changes in global ecosystem structure and function are likely by the end of this century (Nolan et al. 2018a). Along with emissions, multiple biogeophysical pro- cesses, including carbon uptake by the land and oceans and ocean heat exchange (Solomon et al. 2009), influ- ence atmospheric CO2 (Canadell et al. 2007, Le Quere et al. 2018) and the integrated Earth system trajectory (Barnosky et al. 2012, Steffen et al. 2018). Recent mea- surements indicate the ocean heat uptake is at the high end of previous estimates (Resplandy et al. 2018), and decreasing land carbon uptake relative to carbon emis- sions (Canadell et al. 2007) is contributing to increasing atmospheric CO2 and chances of climate destabilization (Barnosky et al. 2012, Steffen et al. 2018). Land preser- vation and timber harvest management (natural climate Article e02039; page i Applications Article e42O39; page 2 POLLY C. BUOTTE ET AL. Vol. Ecological Applili No. 2 solutions) are viable options for avoiding greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the magnitude of the land car- bon sink (Griscom et al. 2017). Forest management (e.g., land preservation, reduced harvest) can contribute to climate change mitigation and the preservation of biodiversity (MEA 2005). Globally, improvements to land management could provide an estimated 37% of the mitigation needed to stabilize warming below 2°C by 2039 (Grissom et al. 2017). Land management can also mitigate the negative effects that climate -induced ecosystem transformations have on bio- diversity and watersheds, which influence ecosystem ser- vices that contribute to human well-being (Canadell and Raupach 2008, Griscom et al. 2017). The effects of land - use change vary globally (Bright et al. 2017), therefore regional analyses (Cameron et al. 2017, Law et al. 2018) are ideal for prioritizing lands for preservation and improving harvest management. Here, we simulate potential forest carbon sequestra- tion in the western United States, prioritize forest lands for preservation (i.e., no harvest) based on potential car- bon sequestration and vulnerability to drought or fire, and compare this carbon priority ranking with measures of biodiversity to illustrate the spatial synergies and incongruities between these two preservation metrics. We use the Community Land Model 4.5 (CLM) to simu- late future forest productivity and vulnerability to drought and fire. We prioritize land based on the spatial convergence of low future vulnerability to natural distur- bance and three levels of potential productivity and determine the CO2 mitigation potential that preserving medium- and high -priority forests could provide. We show the co -benefits and trade-offs to biodiversity preservation and ecosystem resilience by comparing cur- rent observations of aboveground carbon (Wilson et al. 2013), soil carbon (Weider et al. 2014), and species rich- ness (Jenkins et al. 2015, USG S National Gap Analysis Program 2018) across the three forest carbon preserva- tion priority categories. We use these combined analyses to underscore the need to consider multiple criteria when selecting forest lands for preservation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Simulations of future forest vulnerability and potential carbon sequestration We used the Community Land Model, version 4.5 (CLM; Oleson et al. 2013) to simulate the forest carbon cycle across the western United States (Appendix SI : Fig. S I) at a 4 x 4 km spatial resolution. The CLM is the land surface model within the Community Earth System Model (Hurrell et al. 2013). The CLM has prog- nostic carbon and nitrogen cycles and calculates multiple biogeochemical and biophysical process, such as photo- synthesis, autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration, carbon allocation to plant tissues, decomposition, and surface energy balance. It also has a fire module that predicts area, burned under future climate and biomass fuel conditions. Here, we used climate projections, described below, prescribed vegetation type (Appendix S 1: Fig. Si), and prescribed soil type to drive the model. We employed several modifications that improved the CLM's simulation of aboveground carbon, net primary productivity, and ecosystem respiration across the western United States (Buotte et al. 2019b). In particular, these include specifi- cation of physiological parameters controlling photosyn- thesis for the dominant species in the major forest types (Appendix S 1: Fig. S 1) of the western United States (Ber- ner and Law 2016, Law et al. 20189 Buotte et al. 2019b), enhanced drought sensitivity through species -specific stornatal response to soil moisture and leaf shedding during periods of drought stress (Buotte et al. 2019b), and improved fire simulation by incorporating regional ignition probabilities and fuel load constraints (Buotte et al. 2019b). The CLM was started from bare ground and run with 1901-1920 climate data and prognostic fire turned off until soil carbon pools reached equilibrium. Improve- ments to the representation of drought stress and prog- nostic fire were implemented beginning in 1901. From 1901 to 1978, we forced CLM with CRUNCEP climate data (Mitchell and Jones 2005) statistically downscaled to 4 x 4 km and bias -corrected to our 1979-2014 cli- mate data. Climate data from 1979 to 2014 were disag- gregated from daily to 3-h intervals at 4 x 4 km resolution (Abatzoglou 2013). Downscaling and disag- gregation details are provided in Buotte et al. (2019b). Furthermore, we used prescribed harvest to insure the model represented present-day stand ages (Pan et al. 2011). It is crucial to assess model performance and thus we previously evaluated the modeled present-day carbon stocks, carbon fluxes, and burned area through compar- isons with a suite of Field and satellite observations (Buotte et al. 2019a, b). In particular, we compared mod- eled carbon stocks and fluxes with aboveground biomass interpolated from plot inventories Gilson et al. 2013), carbon fluxes from five AmeriFlux sites, fluxes derived from plot inventories in Washington, Oregon, and Cali- fornia (Hudiburg et al. 2009, 2011), and net primary productivity estimated from the MODIS satellites (Ber- ner et al. 2017a). We also compared modeled burned area with a burned area data set derived from the Land - sat satellites (Eldenshenk et al. 2007). As detailed in Buotte et al. (2019b), simulated carbon fluxes agreed well with a variety of observations. Simulated net pri- mary productivity was within the range of observed and satellite -derived net primary productivity at the state level. Across all forests in the western United States, sim- ulated aboveground carbon was within one standard deviation of observation -based aboveground carbon (observed mean = 30.5 Mg Clha, SD = 39.7 Mg Clha, CLM mean = 59.1 Mg Clha, SD 45.5 Mg Clh, R2 = 0.80). When grouped by forest type, simulated aboveground carbon was highly correlated with March 2020 CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND BIODIVERSITY Article e02039; page 3 observations with a tendency toward higher simulated values (R2 = 0.84, mean bias error = 4%). Over the forested domain, simulated area burned was highly cor- related with observed area burned (R2 = 0.75), with a 28.6% overestimate when compared with observations from the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) database over 1984-2012 (Eldenshenk et al. 2007). How- ever, Whittier and Gray (2016) determined that MTBS underestimates burn area by 20% when compared with inventory data, Which implies CLM overestimates may be as low as 8%. These assessments illustrate that the model is accurately simulating important aspects of the current regional forest carbon cycle. Our future CLM simulations were driven with two future climate projections. We used a Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 carbon dioxide emis- sions scenario for our future simulations because it best represents our current trajectory (Peters et al. 2013). We chose general circulation models (GCMs) based on data availability, representation of historical climate, and cov- erage of the range of projected future climate (Buotte et al. 2019b). We selected IPSL-CM5A-MR, which pro- jects warm and dry future conditions, and MIR005, which is close to the multi -model average for future tem- perature and precipitation across the western United States (Buotte et al. 2019b). Climate projections for 2015-2099 were downscaled, bias -corrected to the 1979- 2014 climate observation data (Abatzoglou 2013), and disaggregated to a 3-h timescale. Downscaling and dis- aggregation details are provided in Buotte et al. (2019b). The number of years with low annual allocation to stem growth and/or annual net primary productivity of 0 were used to determine forest vulnerability to drought stress (Buotte et al. 2019b). For each decade, we defined low vulnerability in grid cells with 0 yr of NPP = 0 and low allocation to growth, medium vulnerability in grid cells with 1 yr with NPP = 0 and/or 1-3 yr with low allocation to growth, and high vulnerability in grid cells with more than 1 yr with NPP = 0 and/or more than 3 yr with no allocation to growth (Buotte et al. 2019b). Grid cells were ranked with low, medium, or high vulner- ability for both IPSL_CM5A-MR and MIR005 forced simulations. For every grid cell, we calculated vulnerabil- ity to fire based on the increase in simulated area burned in the future compared with the past, weighted by the simulated area burned in the past (Buotte et al. 2019b). Final drought and fire vulnerability rankings included uncertainty due to climate projections by incorporating the drought and fire vulnerability ranking from simula- tions using each of the two climate projections, such that (1) uncertain, one GCM simulation ranked as low and one simulation ranked as high; (2) low, both GCMs low; (3) med-low, one low and one medium; (4) medium, both GCMs medium; (5) med-high, one medium and one high; (6) high, both GCMs high, Further details on vulnerability calculation and assess- ment relative to observed mortality are provided in Buotte et al. (2019b). We determined potential carbon sequestration (Keith et al. 2009a) by running CLM with no prescribed har- vest beyond 2014 and summing net ecosystem productiv- ity (NEP) from 2020 to 2099, thereby allowing forest type, soil properties, climate, and CO2 concentrations to determine productivity. We pooled cumulative NEP across all grid cells and defined three categories of potential carbon sequestration based on the highest one- third (> 1.12 x 105 g /m2), middle one-third, and lowest one- third (<3.27 x 104 g C/m) of the distribution. We then ranked forested areas to identify low, medium, and high carbon preservation priority based on the spatial coincidence of low future vulnerability to drought and fire and potential carbon sequestration (Appendix S 1: Fig. S2). Forests with low vulnerability to future drought and fire and the highest potential carbon sequestration were ranked as high priority for preservation as carbon preserves; low vulnerability and medium carbon seques- tration potential were ranked as medium priority; all other combinations were ranked as low priority. Here- after we refer to forest priority for preservation as car- bon preserves as "carbon priority." Tree mortality from hark beetles Tree mortality from bark beetle attack is an important disturbance in western U.S. forests, but not currently incorporated into CLM. We therefore addressed the potential for future beetle mortality by assessing recent historical beetle mortality (Berner et al. 2017b) and existing future projections of climate suitability for bee- tle outbreaks (Bentz et al. 2010, Buotte et al. 2017) across our three forest carbon priority rankings. Above- and belowground carbon stocks We assessed observation -based estimates of carbon stocks (i.e., not our simulated carbon stocks) across for- ests in each carbon priority ranking. We used the Regridded Harmonized World Soil Database V1.2 (Wei- der et al. 2014) for belowground carbon stocks, and a gridded data set of aboveground carbon stocks based on field measurements and remote sensing (Wilson et al. 2013). Species richness and critical habitat We examined several aspects of biodiversity across forests with low, medium, and high carbon preservation priority. We acquired published tree species richness maps for the United States (Jenkins et al. 2015), species habitat maps for terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, rep- tiles, birds, and mammals) from the U.S. Geological Sur- vey Gap Analysis Program (USGS National Gap Analysis Program 2018), and species habitat maps iden- tifying critical habitat by the US. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018). Each map was resampled to the 4 x 4 km CLM grid. We Article e02039; page 4 POLLY C. BUOTTE ET AL. Ecological Applications Vol. 30, No. 2 computed terrestrial vertebrate species richness by taxa and across taxa for each grid cell. We also identified whether a terrestrial vertebrate species was listed as threatened or endangered (T&E) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and then reassessed species richness for this subset of species. Last, we summarized these aspects of species richness and critical habitat by forest carbon priority rank. RESULTS High -priority forest distribution and contribution to emissions mitigation The high -carbon -priority forests are primarily along the Pacific coast and the Cascade Mountains, with scat- tered occurrences in the northern Rocky Mountains of Idaho and Montana (Fig. 1). Forests with medium car- bon priority are more widely scattered throughout the western United States (Fig. 1). High -carbon -priority forests cover 132,016 km2 or 10.3% of the forested domain and have the potential to sequester 4,815-5,450 Tg CO2 equivalent (Tg CO2 e; 15312-19485 Tg C) in aboveground carbon between 2020 and 2099 (Fig. 1, Table 1, Appendix S 1: Table S 1). Med- ium -carbon -priority forests cover 9.5% of the forested domain and could sequester 1, 842 2,13 6 Tg CO2 e (502- 582 Tg Q. Low -carbon -priority forests cover 80.2% of the forested domain and could sequester 12,789-16,533 Z 0 L- Tg CO2 a (3,485-4,505 Tg Q by 2099. However, because the low -carbon -priority forests have higher future vul- nerability, their carbon sequestration potential is less certain. Co -benefits of preserving high -carbon -priority forests The forests we identified with the greatest potential to sequester carbon during this century provide multiple ecological co -benefits. Recent tree mortality from bark beetle attack was the lowest in these high -carbon -prior- ity forests (Appendix S1: Fig. S3). These forests have the highest average present-day soil carbon stocks (14% higher than medium and 65% higher than low carbon priority) and aboveground carbon stocks (41 % higher than medium and 248% higher than lover carbon priority; Fig. 2), and also currently support the highest tree spe- cies richness (Fig. 3). Furthermore, high -carbon -priority forests contain the highest proportional area of terres- trial vertebrate habitat for species listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Fig. 4), as well as the highest proportion of habitat des- ignated as critical for threatened or endangered species survival (Fig. 4). There is less distinction in terrestrial vertebrate species richness by carbon priority rank, though high -carbon -priority forests tend to have higher amphibian and lower reptilian richness than forests with medium or low carbon priority ranks (Appendix S 1: Fig. S4). It is important to highlight that the spatial 1200 W 1100 W tW . JLJ MT t •. t J {y Z o LO L 9 r Z 0 250 500 o- M 7 km Forest carbon priority rank �n�� = = High Medium Low 1 N FIG. 1. Forested land in the western conterminous United States classified into priority for preservation to mitigate climate change based on the spatial co -occurrence of low vulnerability to drought and fire and low, medium, and high potential carbon sequestration. WA, Washington; ID, Idaho; MT, Montana; OR, Oregon; CA, California; NV, Nevada; UT, Utah; CO, Colorado; AZ, Arizona; NM, New Mexico. March 2020 CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND BIODIVERSITY Article e02039; page 5 TABLE 1. Area, percentage of forested domain, and carbon sequestration potential during 2020-2099 (calculated as the sum of annual net ecosystem production, with business -as -usual harvest amounts) in each priority category. Carbonetj ucstration potential Carbon segUestryation potenti 1 Priority ranking Area (km2) Forested domain C/o) during 20.10 2099 Tg C 2e t during 2020-2099 (Tg 0kin) High 1323016 10.3 43815--59450 (19312-1,485 Tg C) 0.036--0.041 Medium 1203800 9.5 1,842--25136 (502-582 Tg C) 0.015- 0.018 Low 1,023,872 80.2 12,789-165533 (33485-4,505 Tg C) 0.012-0.016 t Tg CO2 equivalent. values in parentheses are Tg CO2. distribution of species richness (Appendix S 1: Fig. S5) indicates some areas of exceptionally high species rich- ness (e.g., the Klamath region in southern Oregon and northern California) have a low carbon priority ranking due to medium to high future vulnerability, particularly to fire, or low forest productivity. Summaries of species richness and habitat area by state are provided in Appendix S 1: Figs. S6 and S7. DIscussioN Hotter and drier conditions are expected to increase future tree mortality from drought (Allen et al. 2010, McDowell et al. 2016) and fire (Spracklen et al. 2009, Pechony and Shindell 2010) in parts of the western Uni- ted States, thus preserving forests with the lowest vulner- ability to future disturbance is one intuitive component of a land preservation strategy. Forest preservation offers a cost-effective strategy to avoid and mitigate CO2 emissions by increasing the magnitude of the terrestrial carbon sink in trees and soil, preserve biodiversity, and sustain additional ecosystem services (Griscom et al. 2017). we show considerable potential for forests in the western United States to sequester additional carbon over the coming century and demonstrate that protect- ing high -carbon -priority areas could help preserve com- ponents of biodiversity. However, we also find high 200 50 ® Soil C R Aboveground C 1 , a 1 + 1 1 � � d I � 1 � 1 1 y 1 y 1 y 1 1 I , 1 , 1 , � i 1 1 1 1 I Low Medium High Carbon priority ranking biodiversity in some areas with low future carbon sequestration potential due to slow growth or high vul- nerability to fire. We therefore suggest that developing area -based retention targets (Macon et al. 2018) for both carbon and biodiversity metrics, along with the consid- eration of land ownership (I rankina et al. 2014), would allow the development of a portfolio of preserves to meet these criteria. Preserving high -carbon -priority forests avoids future CO2 emissions from harvesting and mitigates existing emissions through carbon sequestration. Regional fossil fuel emissions averaged —260 Tg Clyr from 2003 to 2012 according to the U.S. Energy Information Administra- tion (2015). Preserving the high -carbon -priority forests in the western United States would account for approxi- mately 6 yr of regional fossil fuel emissions, or 1 S 20% of the global mitigation potential of natural forest man- agement solutions Griscom et al. (2017) identified for the combination of temperate and boreal forests by 2099. This would increase to almost 8 yr of regional emissions, or 27-32% of temperate and boreal forest mitigation potential, if preservation was expanded to include medium -carbon -priority forests. Carbon dioxide emissions from soils in degraded forests account for roughly 11 % of global net emissions (Houghton and Nassikas 2017). As the high -carbon -priority forests have the highest soil carbon, preserving these forests avoids 0.2c a 0.05 0.00 50 100 150 200 250 Carbon (Mg/ha) FIG. 2. Conterminous western U.S. forests ranked with the highest priority for preservation for carbon sequestration also have the highest current soil and aboveground carbon stocks. Carbon stocks from gridded measurements interpolated from observations (see Materials and Methods). Box plot components are mid line, median; box edges, first and third quartiles; and whiskers, max and min. Article e02O39; page 6 POLLY C. BUQTTE ET AL. Ecological Applications Vol. 30, No. 2 50 v� C 40 t V 30 Q. 20 Q 10 0 s � T i 1 a 1 � 1 9 1 � 1 � 1 ' 1 1 r t � 1 1 1 1 1 F 1 1 1 1 1 1 i l 0.0 Z, 0.0 WRC, 0.0 0.0 Low Medium High I I I 1 I M I 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Carbon priority ranking Tree species richness FIG. 3. Conterminous western U.S, forests ranked with the highest priority for preservation for carbon sequestration also have the highest present-day tree species richness (BioDiversityMapping. org richness data). 0.8 16 cd -r- 0.6 w co H r 0.4 ca 0 0.2 L LL b 0.30 co s cd .S2 0.20 U cts aD 0 0.10 c 0 L 0. -- 0.00 Low Medium High Low Medium High Priority ranking Priority ranking FIG. 4. Fraction of forest in each carbon priority ranking with (a) habitat of all threatened and endangered (T&E) species desig- nated as critical for that species survival and (b) habitat of terrestrial vertebrate species listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. additional CO2 emissions from the soil as surface litter National Forests are the largest source of drinking water and root material decay after harvest. (Furniss et al. 2010). In the Pacific Northwest, conver- We found that high -carbon -priority forests in the sion of old -growth forests to plantations reduced sum - western United States exhibit features of older, intact mer stream flow by an average of 50% (Perry and Jones forests with high structural diversity (Keith et al. 2009b, 2017). Preserving intact forests would provide the great- Krankina et al. 2014), including carbon density and tree est benefit to watershed protection and clean water sup - species richness. Forest resilience and adaptive capacity ply (DellaSala et al. 2011). Unfortunately, the area of increase with increasing plant species richness (Morin forest interior (defined as forest area per land area) is et al. 2018, Watson et al. 2018), suggesting that preserv- declining faster than the total area of forest in the Uni- ing the high -carbon -priority forests would provide an ted States (Ratters and Wickham 2012). Remaining pri- added buffer against potential ecosystem transformation mary and intact forests need to be identified and to future climate change. incorporated in land management policies. Intact forests are particularly important for watershed Recent studies have found positive relationships protection by regulating soil permeability, overland flow, between carbon density and biodiversity across multiple and erosion (DellaSala et al. 2011, Creed et al. 2016, biomes (Brandt et al. 2014, Lecina-Diaz et al. 2018), but Moomaw et al. 2019). Across the United States, also weak relationships at the stand scale (Sabatini et al. March 2020 CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND BIODIVERSITY Article e02039; page 7 2019). We show that preserving forests in the western United States with high productivity and low vulnerabil- ity to future fire and drought can aid in the maintenance of vertebrate biodiversity, as these forests contain the highest proportion of critical habitat for threatened and endangered species. Because extinction rates are expected to increase with projected climate change (Segan et al. 2016), preserving critical habitat is an important consideration for maintaining biodiversity. Our analysis also shows that benefits to biodiversity depend in part on the biodiversity metric. For example, we found amphibian richness was the highest in forests we identified with high carbon priority, likely because these forests occur most often in the moist maritime cli- mate suitable to amphibians. On the other hand, these wet, high -carbon -priority forests tend to have lower rep- tile diversity than low -carbon -priority forests, such as those in the Southwest where reptile diversity was high- est. We show that spatial overlap in measures of biodi- versity and potential carbon sequestration occurs such that land management policies can optimize both priori- ties. However, we also demonstrate that areas of high biodiversity are found in medium to low -carbon -priority forests. Therefore, sound land preservation strategies need to include multiple priority metrics (Brandt et al. 2014). Indeed, preservation of carbon -dense primary (Mackey et al. 2015) and intact forests (Watson et al. 2018) is a critical but insufficient criterion for maintain- ing biodiversity. Secondary forests can support high bio- diversity (Donato et al. 2009, Gilroy et al. 2014), as well as different species assemblages compared with primary forests (Ferreira et al. 2018). There are regions identified as globally significant centers of biodiversity (Olson et al. 2012; e.g., the Klamath-Siskiyou region in south- west Oregon) that we identified with medium to high future vulnerability due to fire. Therefore, when protect- ing biodiversity is a high conservation priority, distur- bance -prone forests will need to be included in area - based targets (Maron et al. 2018). Regional assessments (Dass et al. 2018) that simulate vegetation transforma- tion on multi-decadal timescales are needed to elucidate the effect of future disturbance regimes on plant commu- nity composition in order to assess potential future bio- diversity and determine preservation priority rankings of disturbance -prone forests. Because secondary forests also arise from a legacy of human intervention, conservation of managed land- scapes will be an important component of policies to maintain biodiversity and enhance climate mitigation (Kremen and Merenlender 2018). Regional analyses have shown that lengthening harvest cycles can substan- tially improve carbon sequestration (Law et al. 2018) and biodiversity (Gilroy et al. 2014) and therefore pro- vide pathways for additional climate mitigation (Gris- com et al. 2017). Historical stand structure analysis indicates young trees may have played an important role in buffering against particular types of disturbance (Baker and Williams 2015). However, because young trees can be more vulnerable to drought stress than mature trees (Irvine et al. 2002), assessments of future climate vulnerability of young forests will be a critical factor when evaluating harvest strategies (Nolan et al. 2018b). Regional dynamic vegetation simulations with explicit treatment of forest regeneration are necessary to assess the effects of land management scenarios and develop strategies for managed lands. Assessing the potential for future forest carbon sequestration has inherent uncertainties concerning real- ized future climate, forest growth, and sources of forest mortality. We address uncertainties in future climate by using two climate scenarios that span a wide range of variability in temperature and precipitation (Buotte et al. 2019b), though we acknowledge that future cli- mate remains uncertain due to the trajectory of carbon emissions, climate sensitivity to these emissions, and cli- mate feedbacks (Collins et al. 2014, Schuur et al. 2015). Furthermore, simulated forest growth depends on how the model was parameterized (white et al. 2000). Here, we used parameterizations developed specifically for for- est types in the western United States (Hudiburg et al. 2013, Law et al. 2018, Buotte et al. 2019b), which improved model agreement with historical observations as compared with more general forest type parameteri- zations (Buotte et al. 2019b). In response to increasing COZ concentration, trees may increase their water use efficiency (Keenan et al. 2013, Schimel et al. 2015), how- ever, this response may depend on nutrient availability (Oren et al. 2001, Norby et al. 2010). The CLM incor- porates nitrogen limitation (Oleson et al. 2013), which allows the CLM to accurately simulate recent changes in NPP observed under increasing CO2 concentrations (Smith et al. 2016). Mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae) were responsible for the majority of tree mortality from beetles in the recent past (Meddens et al. 2012). Previous analysis (Buotte et al. 2019b) indicates our drought met- ric identifies forests vulnerable to beetle attack due to the presence of drought -stressed trees (Boone et al. 2011), increasing our confidence in our vulnerability metric's ability to capture this important disturbance agent. Importantly, future projections of beetle popula- tion dynamics (Bentz et al. 2010) do not indicate increasing beetle populations in areas we define with high carbon priority. Climate suitability for tree mortal- ity from mountain pine beetles is projected to increase in some high -elevation whitebark pine forests (Buotte et al. 2017), which we ranked with low carbon priority due to lower carbon sequestration potential, or medium to high vulnerability to future drought or fire. Predictive models of beetle population dynamics for multiple beetle spe- cies, that include host tree status when appropriate, would increase our ability to incorporate specific spatial representation of future forest vulnerability to beetle attack. We simulated future fire, but the model does not capture the potential for anomalous mega -fires. Article e02039; page 8 POLLY C. BUOTTE ET AL. Ecological Applications Vol. 30, No. 2 Therefore, our estimates of future carbon sequestration potential in the absence of large-scale mortality events are likely to be robust. Preservation of high carbon density Pack Northwest forests that are also economically valuable for timber production will have costs and benefits to consider, including socioenvironmental benefits, the feasibility of preservation, and opportunity costs harvest. There is tremendous potential for proforestation, growing existing forests intact to their ecological potential, which is an effective, immediate, and low-cost approach to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (Moomaw et al. 2019). Proforestation serves the greatest public good by maximizing co -benefits such as biological carbon seques- tration and unparalleled ecosystem services including biodiversity enhancement, water and air quality, flood and erosion control, and low impact recreation. The development of governance programs to promote forest preservation will be critical. Our study is a first step at identifying areas with the highest potential for natural co -benefits and proforestation. CONCLUSIONS If we are to avert our current trajectory toward massive global change, we need to make land stewardship a higher societal priority (Chan et al. 2016). Preserving temperate forests in the western United States that have medium to high potential carbon sequestration and low future climate vulnerability could account for approximately 8 yr of regional fossil fuel emissions, or 27-328/o of the global miti- gation potential previously identified for temperate and boreal forests, while also promoting ecosystem resilience and the maintenance of biodiversity. Biodiversity metrics also need to be included when selecting preserves to ensure species -rich habitats that result from frequent disturbance regimes are not overlooked. The future impacts of climate change, and related pressures as human population expo- nentially expands, make it essential to evaluate conserva- tion and management options on multi-decadal timescales, with the shared goals of mitigating committed CO2 emissions, reducing future emissions, and preserving plant and animal diversity to limit ecosystem transforma- tion and permanent losses of species. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative of the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Grants 2013- 67003-20652, 2014-67003-22065, and 2014-35100-22066) for our North American Carbon Program studies, "Carbon cycle dynamics within Oregon's urban -suburban -forested -agricul- tural landscapes" and "Forest die -off, climate change, and human intervention in western North America," (and the U.S. Department of Energy (Grant DE-SCO012194). High-perfor- mance computing resources to run CLM on Cheyenne (https://doi.org/10.5065/d6rx99hx) were provided by NCAR's Computational and Information Systems Laboratory, spon- sored by the National Science Foundation. LyrE R ATUR E CUED Abatzoglou, J T. 2013. Development of gridded surface meteo- rological data for ecological applications and modelling. International Journal of Climatology 33:121-131. Allen, C. D., and D. D. Breshears. 1998. Drought -induced shift of a forest/woodland ecotone: rapid landscape response to cli- mate variation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95:14839-14842. Allen, C. D., et al. 2010. A global overview of drought and heat - induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest Ecology and Management 259:660---684. Baker, W. L., and M. A. Williams. 2015. Bet -hedging dry -forest resilience to climate -change threats in the western USA based on historical forest structure. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 2:1--7. Barnosky, A. D., et al. 2012. Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere. Nature 486:52-58. Bentz, B. J, J Regniere, C. J Fettig, E. M. Hansen, J. L. Hayes, J. A. Hicke, R. G. Kelsey, J F Negron, and S. J Seybold. 2010. Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: direct and indirect effects. BioScience 60:602-613 . Berner, L. T., and B. E. Law. 2016. Plant traits, productivity, biomass and soil properties from forest sites in the Pacific Northwest, 1999-2014. Nature Scientific Data 3:1-14. Berner, L. T., B. E. Law, and T. W Hudiburg. 2017a. Water availability limits tree productivity, carbon stocks, and carbon residence time in mature forests across the western US. Bio- geosciences 14:365-378. Berner, L. T., B. E. Law, A. J H. Meddens, and J. A. Hicke. 2017b. Tree mortality from fires, bark beetles, and timber har- vest during a hot and dry decade in the western United States (2003-2012). Environmental Research Letters 12:065005. Boone, C. K., B. H. Aukema, J Bohlmann, A. L. Carroll, and K. F. Raffa. 2011. Efficacy of tree defense physiology varies with bark beetle population density: a basis for positive feed- back in eruptive species. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41:1174-1188. Brandt, P., D. J Abson, D. A. DellaSala, R. Feller, and H. von Wehrden. 2014. Multifunctionality and biodiversity: ecosys- tem services in temperate rainforests of the Pacific North- west, USA. Biological Conservation 169:362-371. Bright, R. M., E. Davin, T. O'Halloran, J Pongratz, K. G. Zhao, and A. Cescatti. 2017. Local temperature response to land cover and management change driven by non -radiative processes. Nature Climate Change 7:296. Buotte, P. C., J. A. Hicke, H. K. Preisler, J T. Abatzoglou, K. F. Raffa, and J A. Logan. 2017. Recent and future climate suit- ability for whitebark pine mortality from mountain pine bee- tles varies across the western US. Forest Ecology and Management 399:132-142. Buotte, P. C., S. Levis, and B. E. Law. 2019a. NACP: forest car- bon stocks, fluxes and productivity estimates, western USA, 1979-2099. ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. bttps:Hdoi.org/10.3334/ornldaac/1662 Buotte, P. C., S. Levis, B. E. Law, T. W Hudiburg, D. E. Rupp, and I J Kent. 2019b. Near -future forest vulnerability to drought and fire varies across the western United States. Glo- bal Change Biology 25:290-303. Cameron, D. R., D. C. Marvin, J M. Remucal, and M. C. Pas- sero. 2017. Ecosystem management and land conservation can substantially contribute to California's climate mitigation goals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 114:12833-12838. CanadelI, J G., and M. R. Raupach. 2008. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science 320:1456 -1457. March 2020 CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND BIODIVERSITY Article e02039; page 9 Canadell, J G , C. Le Quere, M. R. Raupach, C. B. Field, E. T. Buitenhuis, P. Ciais, T. J Conway, N. P. Gillett, R. A. Houghton, and G. Marland. 2007. Contributions to acceler- ating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, car- bon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104:18866-18870. Chan, K. M. A., et al. 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113:1462 1465. Collins, M., et al. 2014. Long-term climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility. Pages 1029-1136 in T. R Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P. M. Midgley, editors. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. IPCC, Cambridge, UK, New York, New York, USA. Creed, 1. E, M. Weber, E Accatino, and D. P. Kreutzwei- ser. 2016. Managing forests for water in the Anthro- pocene-the best kept secret services of forest ecosystems. Forests 7:60. Dass, P., B. Z. Houlton, Y. P. Nang, and D. Warlind. 2018. Grasslands may be more reliable carbon sinks than forests in California. Environmental Research Letters 13:074027. Davis, M., S. Faurby, and J.-C. Svenning. 2018. Mammal diver- sity will take millions of years to recover from the current bio- diversity crisis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 115:11262 11267. DellaSala, D. A., J R. Karr, and D. M. Olson. 2011. Roadless areas and clean water. Journal of Soil and Water Conserva- tion 66:78A-84A. Donato, D. C., J B. Fontaine, W. D. Robinson, J B. Kauffman, and B. E. Law. 2009. Vegetation response to a short interval between high -severity wildfires in a mixed -evergreen forest. Journal of Ecology 97:142 154. Eldenshen k, J , B. Schwind, K. Brewer, Z. Zhu, B. Quayle, and S. Howard. 2007. A project for monitoring trends in burn severity. Fire Ecology Special Issue 3:3-21. Ferreira, 1, et al. 2018. Carbon -focused conservation may fail to protect the most biodiverse tropical forests. Nature. Cli- mate Change 8:744. Furniss, M. J, et al. 2010. Water, climate change, and forests: watershed stewardship for a changing climate. PNW GTR_812. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, USA. Gilroy, J J., P. Woodcock, F. A. Edwards, C. Wheeler, B. L. G. Baptiste, C. A. M. Uribe, T. Haugaasen, and D. P. Edwards. 2014. Cheap carbon and biodiversity co -benefits from forest regeneration in a hotspot of endemism. Nature Climate Change 4:503-507. Griscom, B. W., et al. 2017. Natural climate solutions. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 114:11645- 11650. Houghton, R. A., and A. A. Nassikas. 2017. Global and regio- nal fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850-2015. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 31:456-472. Hudiburg, T., B. Law, D. P. Turner, J Campbell, D. C. Donato, and M. Duane. 2009. Carbon dynamics of Oregon and Northern California forests and potential land -based carbon storage. Ecological Applications 19:163-180. Hudiburg, T. W, B. E. Law, C. Wirth, and S. Luyssaert. 2011. Regional carbon dioxide implications of forest bioenergy pro- duction. Nature Climate Change 1:419-423. Hudiburg, T. W., B. E. Law, and P. E. Thornton. 2013. Evalua- tion and improvement of the Community Land Model (CLM4) in Oregon forests. Biogeosciences 10:453--470. Hurrell, J W. et al. 2013. The Community Earth System Model A Framework for Collaborative Research. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 94:1339-1360. IPCC. 2018. Summary for policymakers. in V. Masson- Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. P-rtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. M Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okla, C. POan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. 1. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Water - Feld, editors. Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre- industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. World Meteorological Organiza- tion, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp. Irvine, J, B. E. Law, P. M. Anthoni, and E C. Meinzer. 2002. Water limitations to carbon exchange in old -growth and young ponderosa pine stands. Tree Physiology 22:189--196. Jenkins, C. N., K. S. Van Houtan, S. L. Pimm, and J O. Sexton. 2015. US protected lands mismatch biodiversity priorities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112:5081-5086. Keenan, T. E , D. Y. Hollinger, G. Bohrer, D. Dragoni, J W Munger, H. P. Schmid, and A. D. Richardson. 2013. Increase in forest water -use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise. Nature 499:324. Keith, H., R. Leuning, K. L. Jacobsen, H. A. Cleugh, E. van Gorsel, R. J Raison, B. E. Medlyn, A. Winters, and C. Keitel. 2009a. Multiple measurements constrain estimates of net car- bon exchange by a Eucalyptus forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 149-535-558. Keith, H., B. G. Mackey, and D. B. Lindenmayer. 2009b. Re- evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world's most carbon -dense forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:11635-11640. Krankina, O. N., D. A. DellaSala, J Leonard, and M. Yatskov. 2014. High -biomass forests of the Pacific Northwest: who manages them and how much is protected? Environmental Management 54:112-121. Kremen, C., and A. M. Merenlender. 2018. Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science 362:eaau6020. Law, B. E., T. W Hudiburg, L. T. Berner, J Kent, P. C. Buotte, and M. E. Harmon. 2018. Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 115:3663-3668. Le Quere, C., et al. 2018. Global carbon budget 2018. Earth System Science Data 10:2141-2194. Lecina-Diaz, J , A. Alvarez, A. Regos, P. Drapeau, A. Paquette, C. Messier, and J Retana. 2018. The positive carbon stocks- biodiversity relationship in forests: co -occurrence and drivers across five subclimates. Ecological Applications 28:1481-- 1493. Mackey, B., et al. 2015. Policy Options for the World's Primary Forests in Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Conser- vation Letters 8:139-147. Maron, M., J S. Simmonds, and J E. M. Watson. 2018. Bold nature retention targets are essential for the global environ- ment agenda. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2:1194-1195. McDowell, N. G., et al. 2016. Multi -scale predictions of mas- sive conifer mortality due to chronic temperature rise. Nature Climate Change 6:295-300. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA. Meddens, A. J H., J A. Hicke, and C. A. Ferguson. 2012. Spa- tiotemporal patterns of observed bark beetle -caused tree mor- tality in British Columbia and the western United States. Ecological Applications 22:1876---1891. Article e02039; page 10 PDLLY C. BUOTTE ET AL. Ecological Applications Vol. 30, No. 2 Millar, C. I., and N. L. Stephenson. 2015. Temperate forest health in an era of emerging megadisturbance. Science 349:823--826. Mitchell, T. D., and P. D. Jones. 2005. An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high -resolution grids. International Journal of Climatology 25:693-712. Moomaw, W R., S. Masino, and E. K. Faison. 2019. Intact for- ests in the United States: proforestation mitigates climate change and serves the greatest good. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 2:1--10. Morin, X., L. Fahse, H. Jactel, M. Scherer -Lorenzen, R. Gar- cia -Valdes, and H. Bugmann. 2018. Long-term response of forest productivity to climate change is mostly driven by change in tree species composition. Scientific Reports 8: 1--12. Nolan, C., et al. 2018a. Past and future global transformation of terrestrial ecosystems under climate change. Science 361:920--923. Nolan, R. H., D. M. Drew, A. P. O'Grady, E. A. Pinkard, K. Paul, S. H. Roxburgh, R J. Mitchell, J. Bruce, M. Battaglia, and D. Ramp. 2018b. Safeguarding reforestation efforts against changes in climate and disturbance regimes. Forest Ecology and Management 424:458-467. Norby, R. J., J M. Warren, C. M. Iversen, B. E. Medlyn, and R. E. McMurtrie. 2010. CO2 enhancement of forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen availability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107:19368-19373. Oleson, K. W., et al. 2013. Technical description of version 4.5 of the Community Land Model (CLM). National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA. Olson, D., D. A. DellaSala, R. F Noss, J R. Strittholt, J. Kass, M. E. Koopman, and T. F. Allnutt. 2012. Climate change refugia for biodiversity in the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion. Natural Areas Journal 32:65-74. Oren, R., et al. 2001. Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems in a CO2-enriched atmosphere. Nature 411:469-472. Pan, Y., J M. Chen, R. Birdsey, K. McCullough, L. He, and F. Deng. 2011. Age structure and disturbance legacy of North American forests. Biogeosciences 8:715--732. Pearson, R. G., S. J Phillips, M. M. Loranty, P. S. A. Beck, T. Damoulas, S. J Knight, and S. J Goetz. 2013. Shifts in Arctic vegetation and associated feedbacks under climate change. Nature Climate Change 3:673--677. Pechony, O., and D. T. Shindell. 2010. Driving forces of global wildfires over the past millennium and the forthcoming cen- tury. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107:19167-19170. Perry, T. D., and J. A. Jones. 2017. Summer streamflow deficits from regenerating Douglas -fir forest in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Ecohydrology 10:e 1790. Peters, G. P., R. M. Andrew, T. Boden, J. G. Canadell, P. Ciais, C. Le Quere, G. Marland, M. R. Raupach, and C. Wilson. 2013. COMMENTARY: the challenge to keep global warming below 2 degrees C. Nature Climate Change 3:4-6. Rehfeldt, G. E., N. L. Crookston, M. V. Warwell, and J. S. Evans. 2006. Empirical analyses of plant -climate relationships for the western United States. International Journal of Plant Sciences 167:1123-1150. Resplandy, L., R. F Keeling, Y. Eddebbar, M. K. Brooks, R. Wang, L. Bopp, M. C. Long, J. P. Dunne, W Koeve, and A. Oschlies. 2018. Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric 02 and CO2 composition. Nature 563:105-108. Riitters, K. H., and J D. Wickham. 2012. Decline of forest inte- rior conditions in the conterminous United States. Scientific Reports 2:1-4. Rogelj, J., M. den Elzen, N. Hohne, T. Fransen, H. Fekete, H. Winkler, R. S. Chaeffer, F. Ha, K. Riahi, and M. Mein- shausen. 2016. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 degrees C. Nature 534:631-639. Sabatini, F. M., et al. 2019. Trade-offs between carbon stocks and biodiversity in European temperate forests. Global Change Biology 25:536 --548. Schimel, D., B. B. Stephens, and J B. Fisher. 2015. Effect of increasing CO2 on the terrestrial carbon cycle. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112:436-441. Schuur, E. A. G., et al. 2015. Climate change and the per- mafrost carbon feedback. Nature 520:171-179. Segan, D. B., K. A. Murray, and J. E. M. Watson. 2016. A glo- bal assessment of current and future biodiversity vulnerability to habitat loss -climate change interactions. Global Ecology and Conservation 5:12-21. Settele, J, R. Scholes, R. Betts, S. E. Bunn, P. Leadley, D. Nep- stad, J T. Overpeck, and M. A. Taboada. 2014. Terrestrial and inland water systems. Pages 271-359 in C. B. Field, et al., edi- tors. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerabil- ity. Part a: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group ii to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, UK. Smith, W. K., S. C. Reed, C. C. Cleveland, A. P. Ballantyne, W. R. L. Anderegg, W. R. Wieder, Y Y. Liu, and S. W Running. 2016. Large divergence of satellite and Earth system model estimates of global terrestrial CO2 fertilization. Nature Cli- mate Change 6:306-310. Smith, P., J. Price, A. Molotoks, R. Warren, and Y. Malhi. 2018. Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity of moving from a 2 degrees C to a 1.5 degrees C target. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a -Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 376. Solomon, S., G. K. Plattner, R. Knutti, and P. Friedlingstein. 2009. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emis- sions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:1704-1709. Spracklen, D. V., L. J. Mickley, J A. Logan, R. C. Hudman, R. Yevich, M. D. Flannigan, and A. L. Westerling. 2009. Impacts of climate change from 2000 to 2050 on wildfire activity and carbonaceous aerosol concentrations in the west- ern United States. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmo- spheres 114:1-17. Steffen, W, et al. 2018. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 115:8252-8259. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). 2015. The Paris Agreement. UNFCC, Paris, France. United Nations General Assembly. 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations General Assembly, New York, New York, USA. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2015. Energy -related carbon dioxide emissions at the state level, 2000-2013. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., USA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. U.S. FWS threatened & endangered species active critical habitat report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA. USGS National Gap Analysis Program. 2018. Gap analysis project species habitat maps CONUS. U.S. Geological Sur- vey, Reston, Virginia, USA. Watson, J E. M., et al. 2018. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2:599-610. March 2020 CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND BIODIYERSITY Article e02039; page 11 Weider, W R., J. Boehnert, G. B. Bonan, and M. Langseth. 2014. Regridded harmonized world soil database. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. White, M. A., P. E. Thornton, S. W. Running, and R. R. Nemani. 2000. Parameterization and sensitivity analysis of the BIOME-BGC terrestrial ecosystem model: net primary production controls. Earth Interactions 4:1-85. Whittier, T. R., and A. N. Gray. 2016. Tree mortality based fire severity classification for forest inventories: a Pacific North- west national forests example. Forest Ecology and Manage- ment 359:199209. Williams, J. W., S. T. Jackson, and J. E. Kutzbach. 2007. Pro- jected distributions of novel and disappearing climates by 2100 AD. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104:5738-5742. Nilson, B. T., C. W Woodall, and D. M. Griffith. 2013. Imput- ing forest carbon stock estimates from inventory plots to a nationally continuous coverage. Carbon Balance and Man- agement 8:15. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional supporting information may be found online at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/I 0. 1002/eap.2039/full DATA AVAILABILITY Simulated carbon fluxes are available from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center (ORNL DAAC) at: https://doi.org/10.3334/ornidaac/1662 IF To vivivPoint World Scient'ists' Warning of a Climate Emergency WILLIAM J. RIPPLE, CHRISTOPHER WOLF, THOMAS M. NEWSOME, PHOEBE BARNARD, WILLIAM R. MOOMAW, AND 11,258 SCIENTIST SIGNATORIES FROM 153 COUNTRIES (LIST IN SUPPLEMENTAL FILE S1) 4 len t is have a moral obligation o clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to "tell it like it is." On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequiv- ocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency. Exactly 40 years ago, scientists from 50 nations met at the First world Climate Conference (in Geneva 1979) and agreed that alarming trends for climate change made it urgently neces- sary to act. Since then, similar alarms have been made through the 1992 Rio Summit, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the 2015 Paris Agreement, as well as scores of other global assemblies and scientists' explicit warnings of insuf- ficient progress (Ripple et al. 2017). Yet greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are still rapidly rising, with increasingly damaging effects on the Earths cli- mate. An immense increase of scale in endeavors to conserve our biosphere is needed to avoid untold suffering due to the climate crisis (IPCC 2018). Most public discussions on climate change are based on global surface temperature only, an inadequate mea- sure to capture the breadth of human activities and the real dangers stem- ming from a warming planet (Briggs et al. 2015). Policymakers and the public now urgently need access to a set of indicators that convey the effects of human activities on GHG emis- sions and the consequent impacts on climate, our environment, and society. Building on prior work (see supple- mental file S2), we present a suite of graphical vital signs of climate change over the last 40 years for human activi- ties that can affect GHG emissions and change the climate (figure 1), as well as actual climatic impacts (figure 2). We use only relevant data sets that are clear, understandable, systematically collected for at least the last 5 years, and updated at least annually. The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle. The most affluent countries are mainly responsible for the his- torical GHG emissions and generally have the greatest per capita emissions (table S 1). In the present article, we show general patterns, mostly at the global scale, because there are many climate efforts that involve individ- ual regions and countries. Our vital signs are designed to be useful to the public, policymakers, the busi- ness community, and those working to implement the Paris climate agree- ment, the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Profoundly troubling signs from human activities include sustained increases in both human and rumi- nant livestock populations, per capita meat production, world gross domes- tic product, global tree cover loss, fossil fuel consumption, the number of air passengers carried, carbon diox- ide (CO2) emissions, and per capita Cat emissions since 2000 (figure 1, supplemental file S2). Encouraging signs include decreases in global fer- tility (birth) rates (figure 1b), decel- erated forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon (figure Ig), increases in the consumption of solar and wind power (figure lh), institutional fossil fuel divestment of more than US$7 tril- lion (figure 1)), and the proportion of GHG emissions covered by car- bon pricing (figure lm). However, the decline in human fertility rates has substantially slowed during the last 20 years (figure lb), and the pace of forest loss in Brazil's Amazon has now started to increase again (figure lg). Consumption of solar and wind energy has increased 373% per decade, but in 2018, it was still 28 times smaller than fossil fuel consumption (com- bined gas, coal, oil; figure lh). As of 2018, approximately 14.0% of global GHG emissions were covered by carbon pricing (figure 1 m), but the global emissions -weighted aver- age price per tonne of carbon dioxide was only around US$15.25 (figure In). A much higher carbon fee price is needed (IPCC 2018, section 2.5.2.1). Annual fossil fuel subsidies to energy companies have been fluctuating, and because of a recent spike, they were greater than US$400 billion in 2018 (figure lo). Especially disturbing are concur- rent trends in the vital signs of cli- matic impacts (figure 2, supplemental file S2). Three abundant atmospheric G HGs (CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide) continue to increase (see figure S 1 for ominous 2019 spike in Cat), as does global surface tempera- ture (figure 2a-2d). Globally, ice has been rapidly disappearing, evidenced by declining trends in minimum sum- mer Arctic sea ice, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glacier thick- ness worldwide (figure 2e-2h). Ocean heat content, ocean acidity, sea level, area burned in the United States, and extreme weather and associated damage costs have all been trending upward (figure 2i-2n). Climate change is predicted to greatly affect marine, freshwater, and terrestrial life, from plankton and corals to fishes and for- ests (IPCC 2018, 2019). These issues highlight the urgent need for action. Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have generally conducted business 8 BioScience . January 20201 VoL 70 No. I https:llacademic.oup.com/bioscience 7 6 5 76 50 25 4 3 2 1 Human population r a' (billion individuals) ' [" +15.5%110 yr World GDP i e' (trillion current US $lyr) C +80.5%/10 yr 12.4 f. Global tree comer loss i (million hectares/yr) Total fertility rate 30.1 +49.6%110 yr 25 20 15 ' Air transport (billion ! Total institutional assets 9 +28100000%/10 yr 6- 4- 2 0 Ruminant livestock C' (billion individuals) ! d' 4.00 . +8.72%/l0 yr 45 i 3.75 4D 3.50 3.25 - 35 3.00 . 3a � 2.75 - r Brazilian Amazon forest Energy consumption 9' loss (million hectares/yr) h(Gt oelyr) 3 5 2 --24.3°/o/10 yr e ' co emi saion�a (g igatonnes k. co, ciqulvaiont/yr) 351 +17.9%/10 yr 30 25 20 Per capita meat production fttyr) 4 oil +11.9%/jo y 3 Coal +22.5%/10 2- Gay +30.1 %/10 yr Solar/wind +373%110 yr 0 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.8 Per capita Cap emissions I p' (tonnes CCs equivalent/yr) i - - - - - - 198D 1090 2000 2010 2020 i rn GHG emissions covered n. Carbon price ($ per D. Fossil fuel subsidies by carbon pricing (°gyp) . tonne CO. emissions) 1 (billion USDIyr) 5�10 40D 301 -1.08%/10 yr 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1980 19W 2000 2010 2020.1980 1 M 2000 2010 2020 Year Figure 1. Change in global human activities from 1979 to the present. These indicators are linked at least in part to climate change. In panel (f), annual tree cover loss may be for any reason (e.g., wildfire, harvest within tree plantations, or conversion offorests to agricultural land). Forest gain is not involved in the calculation of tree cover loss. In panel (h), hydroelectricity and nuclear energy are shown in,igure S2. The rates shown in panels are the percentage changes per decade across the entire range of the time series. The annual data are shown usinggray points. The black lines are local regression smooth trend lines. Abbreviation: Gt oe per year, gigatonnes of oil equivalent per year. Sources and additional details about each variable are provided in supplemental, f ile S2, including table S2. 15 +256%110 yr 60 50 10 40 .5 - 30 20 0 _, _ F 1 as usual and have largely failed to address this predicament (figure 1). The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected (figure 2, IPCC 2018). It is more severe than anticipated, threat- ening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity (IPCC 2019). Especially worrisome are potential irreversible climate tipping points and nature s reinforcing feedbacks (atmospheric, marine, and terrestrial) that could lead to a catastrophic "hothouse Earth" well beyond the control of humans (Steffen et al. 2018). These climate https:llacademic.oup.com/bioscience January 20201 Vol. 70 No. I . BioScience 9 Vieivp-oint dioxide I b. Methane C. Nitrous oxide (COz parts per million) (CH4 parts per billion) (N2O parts per billion) 410 +4.98%110 yr ` 1850 +3.65%/10 yr 330 +2.46%110 yr 390 370 350 7 6 5 4 1800 1750 1700 10 Minimum Arctic sea Ice F Greenland ice mass (million W) I f' change (gigatonnes) 0 Ocean heat content 1. change (1022joules) +6.18 x 10 joules/10 yr 20 15 1a 5 0 -1 -2000 -3000 8.12 8.10 8.08 +4.12% acidil Annual losses due to weather/ n' climatehrydro events (Bn. $) +83.7%/10 yr 300 200 100 320 310 Juu +i-- I Antarctica ice mass 19' change (gigatonnes) 0 Surface temperature d' change (°C) 1.00 � +0.183 °C110 yr 1 0.75 1 0,50 11 0.25 b. Glacier thickness change (m of water equivalent) -5 -500 -1D -1000 -15 -1500 -4.84 m of water -1230 gigatonnes/1 On yr T -20 equivalent110 yr 40 20 0 -20 k, Sea level change ++ I . Area bumed in the United relative to 20-year mean (mm) I States (million hectares/yr) +31.4 mm/10 yr 4 +44.1 %/10 yr 3 2 1 1990 1990 2000 2010 2 0 140 1 d90 2000 2010 2020 1980 1 M 2000 2010 2020 1 M 1890 2000 2010 2020 Year Figure 2. Climatic response time series from 1979 to the present. The rates shown in the panels are the decadal change rates for the entire ranges of the time series. These rates are in percentage terms, except for the interval variables (d, f, & h, i, k), where additive changes are reported instead. For ocean acidity (pH), the percentage rate is based on the change in hydrogen ion activity, ajy+ (where lowerpH values rep rese n t grea ter acidity). The annual data are shown using gray points. The black lines are local regression smooth trend lines. Sources and additional details about each variable are provided in supplementalfile S2, including table S3. chain reactions could cause significant improve the vital signs summarized O'Neill 2018); therefore, we need bold disruptions to ecosystems, society, and by our graphs. Economic and popu- and drastic transformations regarding economies, potentially making large lation growth are among the most economic and population policies. we areas of Earth uninhabitable. important drivers of increases in CO2 suggest six critical and interrelated To secure a sustainable future, we emissions from fossil fuel combustion steps (in no particular order) that gov- must change how we live, in ways that (Pachauri et al. 2014, Bongaarts and ernments, businesses, and the rest of 10 BioScience • January 20201 VoL 70 No. 1 https:llacademic.oup.com/bioscience Viewpoirat humanity can take to lessen the worst effects of climate change. These are important steps but are not the only actions needed or possible (Pachauri et al. 2014, IPCC 2018, 2019). Energy The world must quickly implement massive energy efficiency and conser- vation practices and must replace fos- sil fuels with low -carbon renewables (figure lh) and other cleaner sources of energy if safe for people and the environment (figure 52). We should leave remaining stocks of fossil fuels in the ground (see the timelines in IPCC 2018) and should carefully pur- sue effective negative emissions using technology such as carbon extraction from the source and capture from the air and especially by enhancing natural systems (see "Nature" section). Wealthier countries need to support poorer nations in transitioning away from fossil fuels. We must swiftly elim- inate subsidies for fossil fuels (figure lo) and use effective and fair policies for steadily escalating carbon prices to restrain their use, - Short -lived pollutants We need to promptly reduce the emis- sions of short-lived climate pollutants, including methane (figure 2b), black carbon (soot), and hydrofluorocar- bons (HFCs). Doing this could slow climate feedback loops and poten- tially reduce the short-term warming trend by more than 50% over the next few decades while saving millions of lives and increasing crop yields due to reduced air pollution (Shindell et al. 2017). The 2016 Kigali amendment to phase down HFCs is welcomed. Nature We must protect and restore Earth's ecosystems. Phytoplankton, coral reefs, forests, savannas, grasslands, wetlands, peatlands, soils, mangroves, and sea grasses contribute greatly to sequestra- tion of atmospheric CO2. Marine and terrestrial plants, animals, and micro- organisms play significant roles in car- bon and nutrient cycling and storage. We need to quickly curtail habitat and biodiversity loss (figure 1 f 1 g), protecting the remaining primary and intact forests, especially those with high carbon stores and other forests with the capacity to rapidly sequester carbon (proforestation), while increas- ing reforestation and afforestation where appropriate at enormous scales. Although available land may be limit- ing in places, up to a third of emissions reductions needed by 2030 for the Paris agreement (less than 2°C) could be obtained with these natural climate solutions (Grissom et al. 2017). Food Eating mostly plant -based foods while reducing the global consumption of ani- mal products (figure 1 c-d), especially ruminant livestock (Ripple et al. 2014), can improve human health and signifi- cantly lower GHG emissions (including methane in the "Short-lived pollutants" step). Moreover, this will free up crop- lands for growing much -needed human plant food instead of livestock feed, while releasing some grazing land to support natural climate solutions (see "Nature section). Cropping practices such as minimum tillage that increase soil carbon are vitally important. We need to drastically reduce the enormous amount of food waste around the world. Economy Excessive extraction of materials and overexploitation of ecosystems, driven by economic growth, must be quickly curtailed to maintain long-term sus- tainability of the biosphere. We need a carbon -free economy that explic- itly addresses human dependence on the biosphere and policies that guide economic decisions accordingly. Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality. Population Still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day (figure 1 a-b), the world population must be stabilized --and, ideally, gradually reduced -within a framework that ensures social integrity. There are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates and lessening the impacts of population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss. These policies make family -planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women (Bongaarts and O'Neill 2018). Conclusions Mitigating and adapting to climate change while honoring the diversity of humans entails major transforma- tions in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems. We are encouraged by a recent surge of concern. Governmental bodies are making climate emergency declarations. Schoolchildren are strik- ing. Ecocide lawsuits are proceeding in the courts. Grassroots citizen move- ments are demanding change, and many countries, states and provinces, cities, and businesses are responding. As the Alliance of World Scientists, we stand ready to assist decision -mak- ers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future. We urge wide- spread use of vital signs, which will better allow policymakers, the pri- vate sector, and the public to under- stand the magnitude of this crisis, track progress, and realign priorities for alleviating climate change. The good news is that such transforma- tive change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being than does business as usual. We believe that the prospects will be greatest if decision -makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a cli- mate emergency and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home. Contributing reviewers Franz Baumann, Ferdinando Boero, Doug Boucher, Stephen Briggs, Peter https.Ilacademic.oup.comlbioscience January 20201 VoL 70 No. I • BioScience I I V1 e wl) al" n t Carter, Rick Cavicchioli, Milton Cole, Eileen Crist, Dominick A. DellaSala, Paul Ehrlich, Inaki Garcia-De-Cortazar, Daniel Gilfillan, Alison Green, Tom Green, Jillian Gregg, Paul Grogan, John Guillebaud, John Harte, Nick Houtman, Charles Kennel, Christopher Martius, Frederico Mestre, Jennie Miller, David Pengelley, Chris Rapley, Klaus Rohde, Phil Sollins, Sabrina Speich, David Victor, Henrik Wahren, and Roger Worthington. Funding The Worthy Garden Club furnished partial funding for this project. PrnJect webslte To view the Alliance of World Scientists website or to sign this arti- cle, go to https:llscientistswarning. fore stryoregonstate.edu. Supplemental material Supplemental data are available at BIGSCI online. A list of the signatories appears in supplemental file S 1. References cued Briggs S, Kennel CF, Victor DG. 2015. Planetary vital signs. Nature Climate Change 5: 969. Bongaarts J, O'Neill BC. 2018. Global warming policy: Is population left out in the cold? Science 361: 650-652. Griscom BW, et al. 2017. Natural climate solu- tions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114: 11645-11650. [IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report. IPCC. [IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2019. Climate Change and Land. IPCC. Pachauri RK, et al. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ripple WJ, Smith P, Haberl H, Montzka SA, McAlpine C, Boucher DH. 2014. Ruminants, climate change, and climate policy. Nature Climate Change 4: 2-5. Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Galetti M, Alamgir M. Crist E, Mahmoud MI, Laurance WE 2017. World scientists' warning to human- ity: A second notice. BioScience 67:1026-1028. Shindell D, Borgford-Parnell N, Brauer M, Haines A, Kuylenstierna J, Leonard S, Ramanathan V, Ravishankara A, Amann M, Srivastava L. 2017. A climate policy pathway for near- and longterm benefits. Science 356: 493-494. Steffen W. et al. 2018. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 8252-8259. William J. Ripple (bill. ripple@oregonstate.edu) and Christopher Wolf (christopherwolf@ oregonstate.edu) are affiliated with the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society at Oregon State University, in Corvallis and contributed equally to the work Thomas M Newsome is affiliated with the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at The University of Sydney, in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Phoebe Barnard is affiliated with the Conservation Biology Institute, in Corvallis, Oregon, and with the African Climate and Development Initiative, at the University of Cape Town, in Cape Town, South Africa. William R. Moomaw is affiliated with The Fletcher School and the Global Development and Environment Institute, at Tufts University, in Medford, Massachusetts. doi:10.1093Ibiosci Ibiz088 12 BioScience • January 20201 Vol. 70 No. 1 https:llacademic.oup.com/bioscience Submitted 30 March 2021 Accepted 26 June 2021 Published 21 July 2021 Corresponding author James C. Robertson, jrobertson@tnc.org Academic editor Leveraging the potential of nature to meet net zero greenhouse gas emissions in Washington State James C. Robertson' Kristina V. Randrup2 Emily R. Howe' Michael J. Case' Phillip S. Levin 1,3 'The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA, United States of A in erica x The University of Washington, Seattle, VITA, United States of America 3 School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, The University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America The State of Washington, USA, has set a goal to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the year around which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommended we must limit global warming to 1.5 'C above that of pre- industrial times or face catastrophic changes. We employed existing approaches to calculate the potential for a suite of Natural Climate Solution (NCS) pathways to reduce Washington's net emissions under three implementation scenarios: Limited, Moderate, and Ambitious. We found that NCS could reduce emissions between 4.3 and 8.8 MMT CO2eyr-1 in thirty-one years, accounting for 4% to 9% of the State's net zero goal. These potential reductions largely rely on changing forest management practices on portions of private and public timber lands. We also mapped the distribution of each pathways Ambitious potential emissions reductions by county, revealing spatial clustering of high potential reductions in three regions closely tied to major business sectors: private industrial forestry in southwestern coastal forests, cropland agriculture in the Columbia Basin, and urban and rural development in the Puget Trough. Overall, potential emissions reductions are provided largely by a single pathway, Extended Timber Harvest Rotations, which mostly clusters in southwestern counties. However, mapping distribution of each of the other pathways reveals wider distribution of each pathway's unique geographic relevance to support fair, just, and efficient deployment. Although the relative potential for a single pathway to contribute to statewide emissions reductions may be small, they could provide co -benefits to people, communities, economies, and nature for adaptation and resiliency ency across the state. Xinfeng Wang S t i h j erf q Ecosystem Science, Coupled Natural and Human Systems, Climate Change Biology, Additional Information and Natural Resource Management, Atmospheric Chemistry Declarations can be found on Keywords Climate change, Nature -based, Natural climate solutions, Mitigation, Justice, Equity, page 18 Distribution, Resiliency, Adaptation, Washington D O 110.77171peerj.11802 8 Copyright W l d n0L# ii C i ikji :14 2021 Robertson et al. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned of significant impacts to Distributed under economic, ecological and social systems if average global temperatures exceed 1.5 'C Creative Commons CC -BY 4.0 2018). To prevent warming above this threshold, the world must reduce net emissions OPEN ACCESS by 50% by 2030 and to zero by the middle of the century. Achieving this ambitious goal How to cIte this artieie Robertson JC, Rand rup KV, Howe ER, Case ML Levin PS. 2021. Leveraging the potential of nature to meet net zero greenhouse gas emissions in Washington State. Peerl 9:e 11802 http:Ildoi.org110.77171peeij.11802 requires significant investment to reduce greenhouse gases emitted by the transportation, the built environment, and energy systems (Ricliter ct a1-, 2008). Additionally, changes in land management, ecosystem restoration and conservation have the potential to increase carbon storage and avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands (Griscom et al., 2017). Such "Natural Climate Solutions" (NCS) can significantly contribute to CGz equivalent (CO2e) emissions reduction goals at global T: = -::: ;� Y n i , _- : a i}, national ' : 1 r :; : ;a 8), and regional levels _ ►� .;z u et al., 2017; Graves et al., 2020). Indeed, Griscom and colleagues 7) suggested that if NCS were deployed in 2017, by 2030 they could mitigate over one-third of the GHG emissions needed to keep global warming below 2 ° C. The reduction of GHGs is a global problem, and associated goals are often promulgated at international or national scales (Gupta, 2010) . Implementation of NCS is fundamentally a natural resource matter, and thus in the United States is managed by landowners and legal authorities acting within nested and overlapping federal, state, and county regulatory and jurisdictional frameworks. While national and international agreements are necessary to create accountability and to deploy broadscale decisions, top -down approaches can impede effective solutions when they do not consider equity across land -use sectors in cross -scale decision -making (Landatier, hi ho./a e' Kgein, 2019), consider indigenous and local Conl111un1 values € E.'�..� rG ?• i �t �fE:::: �.-1r F iv ?r F i • community , �. . e f , , _ ) or consider ecosystem - specific limitations (Bustatnante et al., 2014) . Thus, investigations of NCS must not only estimate the potential magnitude of emission reductions by various NCS approaches, but they must also reveal where on the landscape NCS opportunities exist. Understanding the geographic pattern of NCS opportunities is foundational to the equitable distribution of costs and benefits, the assessment of the social and political feasibility of different NCS strategies, and the assessment of social -ecological co -benefits of NCS implementation (Bustainante et al., 2014; Klinsk-y et al., 2017; Soto -Navarro et al,, 202-0). In 2020, the Washington State (USA) legislature passed the Climate Pollutants Limits bill, which requires the state to reduce GHG emissions to 45% below 1990 levels by 20302 70% below 1990 levels by 2040, and 95% below 1990 levels by 2050, plus offsets to address the final 5% to achieve carbon neutrality (Washington .State Legislature, 2020). This is the first law in the U.S. that sets a net zero target and keeps Washington in line with the goals of the Paris Climate Accord agreement. Importantly, this law explicitly establishes a policy to promote the removal of carbon from the atmosphere through voluntary and incentive -based sequestration activities on natural and working lands. That is, the bill specifically calls for the development of NCS as part of the State"s net emissions reduction portfolio. In this paper we aim to assess the degree to which NCS can contribute to Washington State's decarbonization policy. Moreover, because the geographic distribution of NCS opportunities in Washington State has not been systematically evaluated, we identify where on the landscape NCS pathways could be implemented to maximize carbon sequestration and prospective co -benefits. As a first step in connecting specific NCS pathways to their appropriate geographies, and thereby to ecological and socio-economic systems, we quantified potential NCS Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peerj.11802 �rJ emissions reductions in Washington State at the scale of counties. We report the potential magnitude and geographic distribution of carbon reductions of a series of NCS pathways at multiple spatial scales and levels of intensity. our goal is to provide the foundational spatial information needed to conduct inclusive planning and assessments for climate mitigation and adaptation. MATERIALS & METHODS Study context The latest account of Washington statewide emissions was 99.57 MMT Coe e in 2018 (WECY, 2021). To achieve a net zero goal by 2050, reductions in emissions will have to occur directly within transportation, energy, agriculture, and industry, and the State also recognizes that increasing carbon sequestration rates and avoiding activities that continue GHG emissions in nature -based activities will be required (WECY, 2019; VVA Governors Office, 2019). In this paper, we draw on existing methods ((-.rrkmm et. ra l: ; 2017; f 'ra ni e r i e t ra l , 2017; ; ,' a 8; = ; r; 3 s Y n , ; r ; � 0) to calculate emissions reductions potential from Natural Climate Solutions in Washington and for each of the 39 counties within the state. We chose to focus on the county scale because Washington counties are feasible units for analyzing industry clusters, or regionally concentrated groups of closely related industries that may fall in different business sectors but are closely linked by local commerce between them (Chrisinger, Fowler & Kle i t, 2015). Regionalized climate solutions, including NCS, could be deployed within industry clusters to account for indirect and induced economic impacts as well as to create resilience for businesses involved. For example, the Washington maritime industry is implementing programs such as low emissions fleets and technical training to retain jobs in local communities ( Mash i ngto n State Department of Commerce, 2019). Moreover, county -level assessment is commonly used for social and resource -related objectives such as logistical deployment of state and federal programs like crop loss and is aster Insurance �t►. , .._ >�_.l �,_. ,_r }, annual timber harvest accounting ( 1 ► . r , ..t..._. 'l -F }, state economic forecasts (14,rasliington State Office of Financial Management, 2019), and equitable distribution of social programs and healthcare (Washington Stare Department of Health, 2018). County analysis units also allow finer -scaled socio-demographic analysis with US Census Tracts, Block Groups, and Blocks nested within their boundaries T ., Census Bureau, 2010). General approach We calculated the emissions reduction potential of 11 NCS pathways (here referred to as pathways) in Washington State, USA, largely following the approaches used previously in the states of Oregon (Graves et A, 2020) and California (Cameron et at., 2017), the United States nationally (Fargione et A, 2018), and the world (Griscom et A, 2017). The NCS pathways examined included activities associated with avoided land conversion, land management practices, and restoration (Tablc 1). In Washington State, the ecosystems of focus included temperate forestlands, shrub -steppe sagebrush lands, agricultural landscapes, riparian forests, and tidal wetlands. Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, Dal 10.77171peerj.11802 31-125 Table t Descriptions of each NCS pathway adapted from Graves et aL (2020). Pathway definitions were adapted from Caineron et ai. (2017), Gil i�CUr►t t;4 tii. �'2i«7), and Fal9.1 1161 %i 41U10). Theme Natural climate solution Description Avoided conversion of forests to rural development Emissions avoided by limiting anthropogenic conversion of forests to low -density and agricultural development. Avoided conversion of forests to urban development Emissions avoided by limiting anthropogenic conversion of forests to high -density, urban development. Avoided conversion of sagebrush -steppe to invasive annual Emissions avoided by limiting the conversion, post -fire, of Avoided grasses sagebrush -steppe to invasive annual grasses; assumes active Conversion management of sagebrush -steppe recovery. Avoided conversion of grasslands to tilled cropland Emissions avoided by limiting the anthropogenic conversion (e.g., tilling) of existing grassland to intensive agriculture. Extended timber harvest rotations Avoided emissions and increased sequestration associated with deferring harvest on a portion of Washington's forest. We consider timber harvest across all forest ownerships in Washington but limit deferred harvest to counties with lower risk of wildfire. Use of cover crops Land No -till agriculture Management Restoration Nutrient management Replanting after wildfire on federal land Riparian forest restoration Tidal wetland restoration Increased carbon sequestration due to use of cover crops, either to replace fallow periods between main crops or as inter -row cover in specialty crops such as orchards, berries, and hops. Increased carbon sequestration due to the use of no -till agriculture on tilled cropland. Avoided emissions from improving N fertilizer management on croplands, through reducing whole -field application or through variable rate application. Increased carbon sequestration from increased post -wildfire reforestation on managed federal lands (e.g., wilderness areas are not included). This NCS assumes no salvage harvest or site -prep before replanting. Increased carbon sequestration through active replanting of forest along non -forested riparian areas. Increased carbon sequestration due to restoring tidal processes where tidal wetlands were the historical natural ecosystem. Given the similarity of physiographic, industrial, and socio-economic characteristics of Washington and Oregon, we opted to assess 11 of the 12 pathways in excluding the sage brush restoration pathway because data are lacking for Washington, and rates of sage brush restoration are low. Griscom et al. (2017) and Fargione et at. (2018) investigated additional NCS pathways, but we opted not to include these because of their low relevance or low practicality in Washington. The Cascade Mountain Range divides both states into long Pacific Coastlines and wet temperate forests in the west and dry forests and shrub -steppe in the east of the state. Timber, agriculture, and tourism direct these states' rural economies (Spies et al., 2019). However, the lands and waters making up the Puget Sound region, also called Puget Trough, contains a naturally protected inland sea unique to Washington, though many of its terrestrial ecosystems fiulction similarly to coastal ecosystems and western forests of Oregon. Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, aol 10.77171peerj.11802 Peprj We conducted three effort -level scenarios of future NCS pathway implementation across a 31-year period of simulation, applied to a hypothetical timeframe of 2020 through 2050. However, we recognize that actual deployment will require some years of program development. We calculated reductions annually to quantify potential cumulative COZ e reductions over that period. The three effort scenarios —Limited, Moderate, and Ambitious —highlight the potential for each pathway to reduce GHG emissions under different intensities of implementation relative to the variability of the pathways existing baseline rate of change, or historical variation. Scenarios differ by the degree to which implementation rates ramp up in the first decade and level off or continue to increase over the remainder of the 31-year study period (Tihip ,S I) . Applying a ramp -up period represents a strategic approach to work hard at emissions reductions in the near -term so as to not have greater burden as we approach 2050. For each pathway within each scenario, a feasible implementation rate was determined via stakeholder feedback collected by Graves and colleagues (2020) in Oregon. Given the similarities of the Washington and Oregon timber industry history and socioeconomic changes following Northwest Forest Plan implementation in both states (Grinspoon, jaworski & Phillips, 2016), feasibility estimates collected from Oregon stakeholders are reasonable for our study. Importantly, implementation rates of scenarios are meant to illustrate a range of potential outcomes for each NCS pathway. All scenarios provide additionality, meaning they are equal to the prior year's activity rate plus a calculated future implementation. We assume future implementation of each pathway will occur at some proportion of the historical variation of the pathway (e.g., annual variation of timber harvested from 2003 to 2017). Historical variation is calculated as the baseline annual rate of change times the historical Coefficient of Variation (CV). For pathways with input data provided in annual time series (Deferred Timber Harvest and Replanting After Wildfires), we calculated historical Coefficient of Variation (CV) over the available data years for each county and each region. When the CV was greater than the amount of activity, we capped the baseline rate at 100% of the activity to keep from calculating values greater than the available resource. For all other pathways, we assumed a conservative annual historical variation of 10% in place of the CV. Scenarios for each pathway can be generalized as follows (see T�,_' -:11 k � I for a more detailed description). The Limited scenario can be generalized as a steady increase by 10% of the historical variation each year, with growth reaching 100% of that historical variation after ten years of implementation and then remaining at 100% through the last twenty years :.3 S' and ). Moderate and Ambitious scenarios are generally characterized as the historical variation times a scenario growth coefficient for each pathway to reach a target rate during the first decade and then holding at or continuing to increase from that rate through the second and third decade ff.ables S2 and ). The initial growth coefficients ramp up implementation for the first ten years and are then replaced by lower growth coefficients or simply by the baseline rate, depending on the pathway, to simulate leveling off of the implementation rate during subsequent years. We used Monte Carlo simulations to model the range of potential emissions reductions for all combinations of each county, NCS pathway (and sub -activity when necessary), Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peerj.11802 5/25 PQQrJ 16 simulation year, sequestration or avoided emissions rate, and implementation scenario (Tables S4 and S9). The simulations sample 1,000 iterations from a distribution created with the uncertainty range (i.e., standard deviation of sequestration or emission rate) for the pathway. All simulations and analyses were conducted using the software R (version 3.4.1) (Code S10and S11). NCS pathways The following are generalized descriptions of the methods we used for each pathway. Pathways are organized under three themes: Land Management, Avoided Conversion, and Restoration. Detailed descriptions of the methods are provided in Graves et al. (2020), Tabl es S I —S 3 , and Co d c S 10. We ran all three scenarios for each pathway. Lanai management pathways Extending Timber Harvest Rotations: We estimated business -as -usual annual carbon emissions with timber harvest data for each forest ownership in Washington from 2003 to 2017 �' r'� F'' "} Our assumed harvest deferral is from a 45-year rotation to a Y'IL'1`!!!� rJ1C1 . 75-year rotation to maximize sequestration potential from tree growth (Curtis, 199.5). We performed calculations separately for areas east and west of the Cascade Mountain Range to address known productivity differences (Latta, Teinesgcn ter Barrctt, 2009) and excluded counties where wildfire risk was considered high or extreme on more than 50% of forestland (Gilbertson -Day et al., 2018) to limit influence of fire on carbon stocks. We also did not assess tribal lands in our analysis because their harvest volumes were not included in the published timber harvest reports. To capture net carbon flux of this pathway, we calculated sequestration and emissions associated with harvest volume, below -ground biomass, unused mill residues, wood as commercial fuel, and short-lived (�20-years) transformed wood products, as described in Gravc-s rt al (2020). We developed these rates each for wet and dry dominated forests, west and east of the Cascades Mountain Range respectively. For delayed harvest scenarios, we also calculated added sequestration which occurs at higher rates on delayed harvest stands than on recently harvested stands of private -owned, even -aged managed forests (Smith et al., 2006). We used Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) fire perimeters (Finco et 1 ,?) to filter out forest cover loss from wildfire and used growth tables for regional forests after clearcuts (Smith et al., 2006) to estimate differences in carbon sequestration in even -aged managed forests. We calculated baseline rates of clearcutting where private land boundaries intersect forest change data during the period 2000 to 2016 (Honsen et al,, 20.13, version 1.5). Because Washington defines categories of private ownership differently than Oregon, we departed from Graves et al. in that we combined private industrial and private non- industrial forest ownerships into a single sub -activity. We therefore changed the scenario implementation rates to reflect this. Based on discussion with natural resource managers, we selected maximum possible implementation to be limited to 40% on private lands for the Ambitious scenario as a compromise between the percentages used by Graves et al. for private non -industrial forests (100%) and private industrial forests (21%). As Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, Dol 10.77171peerj.11802 D�c- - rJ we do not distinguish these two owner types, we chose to apply a value of 40% which largely biases towards the industrial. For state lands, we used the 32% used by Graves et al. Implementation is allowed to reach 100% on all other ownerships in western Washington counties and for all ownerships in eastern counties. After the first decade, the implementation holds at the maximum rates achieved in the first decade. The Moderate scenario increases annually for the first decade by an amount equal to 10% of a percentage of the historical variation, reaching 100% of that allowed growth at ten years. These percentages are 30% of the baseline rate on private ownerships, 15% on state, and 75% on federal and other. During the last two decades, the rate holds steady at the maximum rate achieved over the first decade. The Limited scenario differs in that it increases annually for the first decade by an amount equal to 10% of the historical variation, and then it drops and stabilizes at half the historical variation for the remaining twenty years. In some cases, the Limited scenario can result in emissions reductions greater than those of the Moderate scenario in a given year depending on the Moderate scenario's proportional growth coefficient and the CV for the pathways baseline activity. Agricultural Practices: To prevent deemphasis of the potential contribution of agriculture to NCS in Washington, we present Agricultural Practices as a single pathway though we calculated it as the sum of three separate sub -activities: applying cover crops, no - till practices, and nutrient management. The sub -activities were calculated independently of each other and do not simulate interactions between them that could potentially reduce or amplify GHG emissions, but we assume they will be applied with deliberate attention to address those interactions. For cover crops, we estimated baseline rates of cover crop application with the 2012 and 2017 Census of Agriculture county -level data (USDA IITASS, 2019a). Where county -level data were not made available, we calculated each of those county's cover crop areas using the difference of the statewide reported cover crop area and the total proportion of that difference relative to the area reported for the other year. The area of maximum possible implementation is equal to the reported cropland area without cover crops, and crop type is not specified. We assume cover crops can be applied to all croplands, though we recognize this likely is not the case. The maximum possible implementation area was not reached in our scenarios. Similarly, for no -till agricultural practices, we estimated baseline rates of no -till agriculture with data from the 2012 and 2017 Census of Agriculture county -level data (I'T'irlb/Iz r i :01 � } . The area of maximum possible implementation is equal to the reported cropland area managed with tilling. Like cover crops, we assume no -till practices can be applied to all croplands although this is unlikely in practice. The maximum possible implementation area was not reached in our scenarios. To calculate the nutrient management activity, we used published methods to produce county -level estimates of N fertilizer application, combining fertilizer sales and reported fertilizer chemical composition to convert tons of product sold to kg of N per county (R ��" 1) r, L" ; � 4-1 e A A I,* � r r� y � nn �� A � �;L�; r�� 2 � � y ). This estimate d isaggregates agricultural Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, Dal 10.7717/peerj.11802 Ppinkrj and other fertilizer uses. To maintain consistency with Graves et al. (2020), we use 40% of croplands as the maximum possible area of reduced fertilizer application, Avoided conversion Conversion of forests to development: We estimated the baseline rate of forest conversion on private land by intersecting land use data layers from 1994 and 2013, calculating conversion as the sum of two separate activities: from forests to urban (complete loss) and from forests to rural (partial loss) land uses (Gray et al., 2013; Gray et al., 2016). We grouped counties into east and west of the Cascade Mountain Range to address uncertainty in pre -conversion carbon stocks and sequestration. Sagebrush -steppe conversion to invasive annual grasses: To estimate current rates of burn -associated conversion of sagebrush -steppe to invasive annual grasses, we combined the areal extent of fires from 1984 to 2014 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2018) with the annual grass dominance (U.S. Geological Sur ley, 2016) . Background level of invasion by annual grasses is the proportion of burned areas dominated by invasive annual grasses minus the proportion of invasive annual grass -dominated land outside of burned areas. Grassland conversion to cropland: We calculated rate of grassland Loss in Washington from the 15,681 acres of land uncultivated since the 1970s which were retained or restored to grassland and subsequently converted to cropland between 2008 and 2012 (_[Aii�'- G&4 2015}. Lacking county -level statistics, we used Lark, Saltnon & Gibbs (201.5) methods to classify grasslands with the 2012 USDA Cropland Data Layer (USDA MASS, 2019b), and then we calculated per county baseline conversion rates as proportional to the county's percent of statewide grassland area. Ides tora tion Riparian reforestation: We estimated the annual rates of riparian forest restoration using data on reported riparian restoration tree plantings from 1999 to 2015. The Washington Conservation Enhancement Reserve Program (CREP) 2015 monitoring summary report (Cochrane, 201 6) served as our primary data source, and we supplemented this with acreage of riparian planting by county from the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office PRISM (PRoj ect Information SysteM) database (1AM Cn, �, .0 19) . Because there is no mandatory system for reporting riparian reforestation efforts across Washington, we likely undercalculate the baseline riparian reforestation rate. Washington's sequestration rate for riparian reforestation was derived as a weighted average of coastal and interior sequestration rates, where weights were calculated as the spatial distribution of efforts reported in the PRISM database. We assume a similar effort of implementation between PRISM and CREP in Washington. Replanting after hires: We estimated the current level of replanting effort on US Forest Service and US Bureau of Land Management lands post -wildfire and quantified the C sequestration benefits from replanting versus natural regeneration on those lands (Stnidl et al., 2006). The baseline for replanting on Federal land was determined by examining current patterns of replanting after wildfire. In areas defined as high burn severity, the baseline rate is 0 hay". as no replanting is occurring in these areas (U.S. Bureau o f Lan al Afa n ag cm cn t, Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peerj.11802 8125 D ,�� J e -nr 2018; U.S. Forest Service, 2019). Sequestration rates were calculated on a per year basis to simulate changes in growth rates over time. Tidal wetland restoration: We used tidal wetland restoration areas and lost (converted) tidal wetland areas to estimate a baseline rate of restoration in most counties (PSM.FC GIS, 2017; Ramirez, 2019). We assumed all lost tidal wetland area to have restoration potential, an area totaling 47,000 ha statewide, and each county's potential restoration area was capped at its lost wetland area. We also assumed no further wetland loss will occur. In Puget Sound counties where tidal wetland restoration was not known or mapped in the restoration data, we assumed some restoration will occur in the future. We assigned each of those counties a restoration rate equal to its lost tidal wetlands hectares times a constant 0.00215, where that constant is the proportion of the statewide lost tidal wetland area that was restored annually in the Puget Sound during the baseline period. To estimate restoration rates in Pacific County, where known projects were not included in the input dataset, we obtained and inserted restoration areas described by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (2015). R 11E. S U Las Washington State We estimate that NCS has potential to achieve an emissions rate of - 8. S MMT CO2 eyr- 1 in 31 years under an Ambitious pathway 2). This is approximately 8.9% of theannual emissions reductions needed in Washington to achieve carbon neutrality by the year 2050 (assuming the baseline emissions rate from 2018 and start date of 2020). Of this 8.9% reduction, extending timber harvest rotations has the largest potential contribution (64%), followed by combined agricultural practices (16%) and avoided conversion of forests (13%). Our results demonstrate that Moderate and Limited scenarios offer pathways for reducing statewide emissions by approximately 5.1% and 4.3% respectively. Like the Ambitious scenario, extending timber harvest rotations, instituting different agricultural practices, and avoiding forest conversion make up the top pathways of these two scenarios. (Annual results of each combination of pathway, scenario, and geography -county and statewide -are in Tables S4-S8) . Geographic patterns Potential NCS reductions are unevenly distributed across Washington (Fig. 1). Extending timber harvest rotations drives the spatial concentration of potential reductions toward coastal and southwest counties with large private timber ownership. Indeed, under the Ambitious scenario, that pathways -0.6 MMT CO2 e potential 2050 reductions in Lewis County alone are greater than the highest aggregated reductions from all other pathways in any single county. Excluding the Extended Timber Harvest Rotations pathway, Grant County has the highest aggregated reductions, which are largely driven by cover crop and no -till activities in the Cropland Agriculture pathway and total -0.2 MMT CO2e potential reductions in 2050. While the maximum potential Cate reductions achievable via extending timber harvest rotations (and thus total NCS) is located in Washington's western coastal counties, the Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, Dol 10.77171peerj.11802 T •; e 2 Assessed NCS pathways listed in descending order by their respective Ambitious potential Cote reductions in the final year (ca. 2050) of a 30-year deployment for Washington state. Reductions are shown here as the median of 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations along with the mini- mum and maximum ends of confidence intervals ranging from 5th to 95th percentiles. Ambitious Moderate Limited Pathway Median (MMT CO20n-r) Median (MMT Cox' Median (MMT Co2a Y t ) 5th & 95th percentiles 5th & 95th percentiles 5th & 95th percentiles Extended timber har- -5.63 -3.46 -4.02 vest rotation`' -5.40 -5.84 -3.32 -3.60 -3.88 -4.16 Agricultural prac- -1.40 -0.83 -0.10 tiCeSb -1.28 -1.52 -0.75 -0.90-0.0863-0.1074 Avoided conver- -1.16 -0.58 -0.12 sion of forest -1.05 -1.27 -0.52 -0.64 -0.11 -0.13 Riparian reforesta- -0.29 -0.07 -0.01 tion -0.29 -0.30 -0.07 -0.08 -0.01 -0.01 Avoided conversion -0.13 -0.03 -0.01 of sagebrush -steppe -0.11 -0.14 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 Tidal wetland restora- -0.11 -0.06 -0.03 tion --0.10 --0.12----0.05 --0.06 -0.03 -0.03 Post -wildfire replant- -0.11 -0.06 -0.03 ing (on federal land) -0.09 -0.13 -0.05 -0.06 -0.03 -0.04 Avoided conver- [-0.01 C-0.01 [-0.01 sion of grassland c-0.01 <-0.01 [-0.01 [-0.01 C-0.01 c-0.01 Total`' -$.S4 -5.10 -4.32 -8.56 -9.10 -4.92 -5.25 -4.17 -4.46 Notes. 'Combination of five activities: harvests on Private, State, Federal, and Other land owner types, and additional sequestration occurring where evert -aged management would otherwise likely take place on Private timberlands. bCombination of three activities: cover crops, no -till, and nutrient management on croplands. `Combination of two activities: avoided conversion from forest -to -rural and forest -to -urban development. dMedaan and confidence intervals of all pathways combined (called Total here) were calculated from all pathways simultaneously and not by summing the median and confidence interval results of each pathway listed in this table. maxima of other NCS pathways occurs in other regions of the state (Fig, 2.). For instance, the maximum for the Avoided Conversion of Forests pathway occurs in the urbanizing Puget Sound region, and the greatest opportunities for the Cropland Agricultural Practices pathway is in agricultural regions in eastern Washington (Fig. 2). The greatest NCS gains can be clustered into three geographically concentrated resource -specific social -ecological systems: private industrial timber in southwestern wet forests, cropland agriculture in the Columbia Plateau and Palouse Prairie, and suburban development and urban sprawl in central Puget Sound (Fig. 3). Private industrial timber drives the Extended Timber Harvest Rotations pathway, with over half the emissions reductions potential in southwestern wet forests (plus the highly industrial forests of Stevens County in the northeast.) The second highest NCS reductions are found through Cropland Agricultural Practices pathway, with nearly half of its reduction potential in four eastern Washington counties. The Avoided Conversion of Forests pathway provides the third highest potential reductions with nearly half being clustered in five of Puget Sound's fastest growing counties marked by suburban and rural development. Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peerj.11802 1 0/ ; All Pathways Combined -r,3 5 29 09 07 31 35 33 27 45 67 53 17 9 f 9 15 �9 L Na� 01 Adams 03 Asotin 05 Benton 07 Chelan 09 C lallam 11 Claris 13 Columbia All Pathways minus Extd.Timb. Harv. Rotations s 73 47 19 66 55 57 47 19 65 51: 29 09 0i 1 l7 43 63 31 07 17 43 63 25 01 75 21 05 71 t 3 0: Max: -0.74 Min: -0.01 15 Cowlitz 31 Jefferson 17 Douglas 33 King 19 Ferry 35 Kitsap 21 Franklin 37 Kittitas 23 Garfield 39 Klickitat 25 Grant 41 Lewis 27 Grays Harbor 43 Lincoln 29 Island 45 Mason 35 3 3 27 45 67 53.� 5 07 75 3� .. w 49 41 21 - 69 � 1' 5 71 3 03 i 59 g 119 Max: -0.20 Min: -0.01 47 Okanogan 63 Spokane Pozen hal re dudions 49 Pacific 65 Stevens in 0 0 (M!MT ' o e) 51 Pend Oreille 67 Thurston =014 - -0.62 53 Pierce 69 Wahkiakum -0,61 - _150 55 San Juan 71 Walla Walla -0.49 - -0.36 57 Skagit 73 Whatcom -037 - -D.26 59 Skamania 75 Whitman -0, 2 5 - -0 A 3 61 Snohomish 77 Yakima -0,12-.-0.01 Figure 1 Prominence of the Extended Timber Harvest Rotations pathway among all NCS pathways in the state of Washington (A) Total potential reductions from all pathways combined under the Ambitious scenario in 2050, shown with six equal classes in the displayed value range (minimum to maximum). (B) Total potential reductions under the Ambitious scenario in 2050 from all pathways except Extended Tim- ber Harvest Rotations, shown with the same six classes as (A) though the actual range is smaller. Range minimum and maximum are the lowest and highest aggregated potential reductions of all Washington counties. T'l I��-11�i.f' f ►� J1; � i�, f ,� I_ r 1 Ilr-`r~� 1. A � l�I �r,► i �- { Our estimates of the potential CO2 e reductions with NCS ranged from 4.3 to 8.8 MMT CO2 e by the 31 st year of implementation, depending on the aggressiveness of our scenarios. These values are similar to the 2.9 to 9.8 MMT CO2 e at the 31 st year estimated by for Oregon and highlight the potential. for NCS to contribute to atmospheric carbon sequestration efforts. Our results reveal that an ambitious implementation of NCS has the potential to achieve up to 8.9% of Washington's net zero goal by 2050, with much of these gains achieved by extending timber harvest rotations. However, the three major pathways —Extended Timber Harvest Rotations, Cropland Agriculture, and Avoided Forest Conversion, have vastly different reduction potentials depending on where they are implemented across the state. Similar to studies in other western US states, such as Oregon and California (Co 1-7 rrony -7; '::::f<.• Y rr�)), we found that extending harvest rotations on industrial forestlands in Washington's wet forests offered the largest NCS contribution. Although current industrial forest management is focused on short-term capital gains (Lacy, 2006), we demonstrate that extending timber harvest rotations could have significant reductions in Washington's GHC emissions, a finding that aligns with evidence showing that large trees disproportionately drive forest carbon cycle dynamics (Mildrexler et al., 2020). These Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peerj.11802 i 1121b pe'-p-r-1 ,Management Avoided Conversion Restoration Extended Timber Harvest Rotations_, Avoided Conversion of Forests Post-VVil ,lire Replanting jFederat Land) 7-3 4 fT IP I�!� � }a 55 47 a 1P R5 ! e 157 { s M; 5l 61 1 L oI 61 7 k 15 rryT 31 17 0 HA ■rj 5 i :3 y4dI S R` IT 33 43 32 2;$ 01 75 27 37 25 rt1 f 2x Ss � 17, 215 Or T5 � 77 21 21 41 3a n 21 Q 41 77 2 1 05 71 ti3 Ef'� 1� 71 1-, 03 159 1� 06 71 1s 13 11 .50 `" Max: -0.65 '11 Max: -0.12 59 39 11' Max- -0,04 Min: -0.00 Min: -0.00 Min.- -0.00 Cropland Agricultural Practices Sagebrush Steppe Avoided Cianversion Tidal Wetland Restoration 5y.� 1U 51 19 95 5T 12 09 $ S OF 4111� 4} I ¢9 4 } 1r? 4a 9� 3 07 17 63 Ala1 07 IF ' r�% ' 43 1a 1 17 6 101 7 27 e s i V 37 25 0% T5 .44 7121 49 41 77 y 23 90 41 77 21 23 ft 95 ' k 1:3 {xis 016 05 71 1 a 03 189 1$ D5 IT 1 �s Max: -0.20 1 + 39 Max: -0.04 11 Max: -0.04 Min: -0.00 Min: -0.00 Min: -0.00 Avoided Conversion of Grassland _ _ Riparian Reforestation Most65 Potential annual 57 47 } } �5 51 7 47 _. -1 7� 51' ._ reduction in ?� 6' � �� 41 MMT CO2e by � 1Fr U r mid-century scaled5137 53 37zt_ h'7117 25 53 1 75 to six equal intervals 4 , a1 -. 49 41 21 for each pathway , 0$ ?1 13 M 15 ii Least 1A � .�- ". Max.. -0-001 11 �� Max: -0.05 Min: -0.000 Min: -0.00 R2 lVame 15 Cowlitz 31 Jefferson 47 Okanogan 63 Spokane 01 Adams 17 Douglas 33 King 49 Pacific 65 Stevens 03 Asotin 19 Ferry 35 Kitsap 51 Pend Oreille 67 Thurston 05 Benton 21 Franklin 37 Kittitas 53 Pierce 69 Wahkiakum 07 Chelan 23 Garfield 39 Klickitat 55 San Juan 71 Walla Walla 09 Clallarn 25 Grant 41 Lewis 57 Skagit 73 Whatcom 11 Clark 27 Grays Harbor 43 Lincoln 59 Skamania 75 Whitman 13 Columbia 29 Island 45 Mason 61 Snohomish 77 Yakima Figure 2 Potential emissions reductions per county by each pathway in 2050, arranged by theme (Management, Avoided Conversion, Restoration). Each map shows six equal classes in a given pathways stated range (minimum and maximum) of MMTCO2eyr-1 in 2050, and therefore ranges differ from map to map. County ID numbers match the county names in the included table. For example, Lewis County (ID 41) has the highest potential reductions of the Extended Timber Harvest Rotations pathway with a value of—0.6495 MMTCaze, but Whitman County (ID 75) reductions are near zero. Conversely, reductions with Cropland Agriculture are near zero in Lewis County and highest in Whitman County with —0.1980 MMTCO2e, though that highest reduction is much less than Lewis County's Extended Timber Harvest Rotations. li�;ll : ® rl()1: 1 f1. 7 71 ? Ir 4: z j. 1�! 'r�', 2 reductions would likely supplement a list of co -benefits including improved water quality, improved summer baseflows, wildlife habitat, and salmon productivity. Cropland agricultural pathways, such as cover crops, no -till agriculture, and nutrient management, offer the greatest climate mitigation potential for NCS in the eastern half of Washington where highly productive and extensive croplands are found. Historically, nutrient -rich shrub steppe and grassland ecosystems dominated these current agricultural Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, Do! 10.7717Ipeeri.11802 PU not Sound 73 47 09 61 07 t 31 17 4 27 37 7 77 �. 69 " - ' � 45 L� 15 ,. 59 € ` - � 11 , . 39� i r 165 1 Columbia F ` Plateau Pa'kUU6e - - prairie 71 03 Major NCS drivers Private Industrial Timber Cropland Agriculture f Suburban Development LQ Na 15 Cowlitz 31 Jefferson 47 Okanogan 63 Spokane 01 Adams 17 Douglas 33 King 49 Pacific 65 Stevens 03 Asotin 19 Ferry 35 Kitsap 51 Pend Oreille 67 Thurston 05 Benton 21 Franklin 37 Kitlitas 53 Pierce 69 Wahkiakum 07 Chelan 23 Garfield 39 Klickitat 55 San Juan 71 Walla Walla 09 Ciallam 25 Grant 41 Lewis 57 Skagit 73 Whatcom 11 Clark ii 27 Grays Harbor 43 Lincoln 59 Skamanis 75 Whitman 13 Columbia 29 Island 45 Masan 61 Snohomish 77 Yakima Figurc 3, Map revealing spatial clusters where the highest -potential counties of the three highest - potential pathways provide approximately half of each of those pathways emissions reductions in 2050. These NCS clusters are largely driven by major industry sectors within the region. FulI-size CW DO1: 10.77171peerj.1 1802lfig-3 landscapes due to frequent wildfires and a dry continental climate which limit forest productivity. Our study also shines a spotlight on the substantial threat of land -use change and forest conversion in the rapidly growing Puget Trough, driven by a growing technology industry and the desire for affordable housing. However, recent analysis by the Washington Department of Fish & wildlife and. the Puget Sound Partnership found that conversion of forest cover loss to development has declined considerably and continuously in the region since 1991 (Pierce Jr et alb., 2017; Puget Sound Partnership, 2020). The cause of this decline is not well understood, but slowdowns of development due to economic downturns and other possibly temporary factors may indicate that development and therefore conversion rates could increase with further economic growth. If the existing declining trend in forest conversion rates continues, this study may over -calculate the NCS potential of avoiding Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peerj.11802 forest conversion in Washington State, though the net emissions reductions would likely still occur with or without implementing NCS under our scenarios. Spatial patterns Three factors drive the spatial patterns we report; (1) spatial extent of ecosystems; (2) abundance and productivity of vegetation; and, (3) land ownership. Extensive forest ecosystems across Washington State mean that NCS pathways that involve forest management could contribute substantially to NCS potential simply due to scale. It is thus not surprising that, combined, forest strategies (extending timber harvest rotations, forest avoided conversion, riparian reforestation, and post -wildfire replanting) contribute over 80% of the NCS potential in Washington State. Our Tidal Wetland Restoration results further demonstrate that natural ecosystem size strongly influences NCS sequestration potential. The Tidal Wetland Restoration pathway has its greatest potential for emissions reductions where restorable wetland area is currently large in spatial scale, such as the large estuarine deltas of eastern Puget Trough and southwest coastal Washington counties. By contrast, topographically constrained estuaries in the western Puget Trough and along the Olympic coast are smaller in size and therefore have lower NCS potential. Geologic and climatic patterns drive the composition, abundance, and productivity of vegetation, thereby influencing the potential of NCS across Washington. While some regions, such as the moist forests along the coast are characterized by highly productive forests and high rates of carbon sequestration, dry areas of the state have less productive forests and are at high risk of wildfire. By excluding counties with high wildfire risk from our extended timber harvest rotations analysis, the geographic pattern is focused on counties with high productivity and low fire risk to west of the Cascade Mountain Range. Cropland agricultural pathways show distinct patterns as well, focusing where historically available water and fertile soils promote productive cropland in valleys of eastern Washington and floodplains of the Puget Trough. Land ownership is a third major driver of geographic patterns. In Washington, public lands have low risk of forest conversion (Gray et A, 2013), and major changes to public forest management are limited by policy restrictions on federally -owned forests (Spies r� 1, s 20 1 9) and legally bound fiduciary obligations in the case of State Forest Lands trust (VVashington Department ofNatural Resources, 2021). Thus, potential for additional emissions reductions is generally highest in counties with large private ownership of forests such as Lewis and Stevens Counties. For those same reasons, counties with little private forest ownership likely will have lower relative NCS potential even if they have vast public forest ownership, such as Jefferson and Whatcom Counties with large state forests, US Forest Service ownership, and the Olympic and North Cascades National Parks respectively. This is particularly evident in Puget Trough counties, where remaining forests are generally public -owned. However, the remaining privately owned Puget Trough forests are more profitable for suburban development than for logging. As a result, the Avoided Conversion of Forests pathway holds its greatest potential in those Puget Trough counties. Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peerj.11802 14/25 nr Success and challenges Success of a net zero goal likely requires individuals and decision -makers to redefine their notions of practicality, considering many pathways as courageous enterprises rather than unfeasible concepts. Even mitigation pathways that sequester relatively small amounts of carbon should be considered for at least two reasons. First, every small reduction will be necessary to approach net zero emissions, and negative emissions could help offset other states that do not achieve net zero emissions. Second, all pathways have co -benefits, and these co -benefits may contribute to climate adaptation and resilience in a region. The scale at which decisions are made can inhibit the effective implementation and outcomes of climate mitigation strategies. Extensive actions addressing climate mitigation may be impeded by social and cultural differences as well as differences in lived experiences that are not considered in the broad -scale top -down decision --making approaches (Landauer, juhola & Klein, 2019; Nightingale et al., 2020). Additionally, conflicting policy - objectives among different scales of governance can hinder adoption of broad -scale climate mitigation measures. Furthermore, the large scales at which mitigation is often discussed can be disconnected from the local scale of adaptation. Such separation may thwart efforts to build local support for mitigation and distances government accountability for addressing local needs (Nigh-tificralp rt at, 20?0). The need for multiple solutions to the climate crisis is clear, and thus NCS should not be considered as an alternative to other carbon mitigation strategies (Anderson et al., 20I9). While forest restoration and afforestation may be highly effective strategies for mitigating climate change (Bastin et al., 2019), these strategies alone cannot adequately nullify emissions from fossil -fuels and other anthropogenic GHCs at a global scale (Anderson et al., 2019; Friedlingstein et al., 2019). Indeed, our results highlight the potential for improved management of ecosystems and natural resources to provide greatest net emissions reductions among NCS pathways in Washington State. Also, while the costs of NCS can be low relative to other strategies (Grisc,_-iin eE al.,, 2r 17), a number of constraints can diminish practicality and effectiveness of natural solutions, such as political interests, local economic factors, varying scales of decision -making, deployment time, and undesired collateral effects such as resource leakage and biophysical changes in the environment (?!T.--7;:;•„- --; _� '+�17• 1 —__ � _., - T..7. _7 � .I T' pp •'+�37 • T'•-: ]7;•s-•-1-:; .•r '�� �• �.'rs1�7�.--r+ l i.Y.YILZ/'vti.��� iti .� i�tii ,vy�ii i.�iiiiii� 1vi.iei�iin ! iti�eiL� c��ii � iiti%.k"LPuibry.7Lk' 1,1 ■. in.�•.j _a> Fy iWit l/LAf VV&,j et al., 2020). Logistics of NCS deployment and concerns about economic losses by industries and communities may also stall implementation of NCS. For example, an argument might be made that the economic cost of extending harvest rotations is too great, rendering this NCS pathway infeasible. Moreover, extending timber rotations can disrupt markets and undermine NCS benefits if the equivalent carbon sequestration is lost through harvesting elsewhere (i.e., leakage). Although leakage may limit this pathways practicality (Mulligan -st �4., 2020), in the Pacific Northwest leakage has been shown to be relatively small when compared to the substantial amount of carbon stored through improved forest management and embodied carbon in wood products (Diaz et al., 2018). While there is no doubt that implementation of this pathway may be challenging, even under our Ambitious scenario, only up to 40% of private timber harvest is subjected to lengthened harvest rotations, and Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peerj.11802 9 c j many counties do not reach that maximum in our analysis. Thus, the utility of lengthening timber harvest rotations may be greater in Washington than in other locations. The effects of leakage with NCS is a key consideration. All pathways have potential for leakage if not implemented appropriately, and NCS in theory and in practice should address this challenge. just as NCS forest management needs to account for possible losses of carbon sequestered by other forests that may be logged to meet the demand for timber, agricultural practices and wetland restoration need to account for possible reductions in crop production that may increase elsewhere to meet market demand, thus diminishing mitigation gains. The inherent nature of agricultural management pathways for carbon is that they should retain or increase crop productivity through improvements to soil health, water efficiency, and other advantages e ! al., l., ? 0_1_Lh�j) . While there are many challenges in implementing NCS, these obstacles may be relieved by cost efficiencies and other advantages arising from the focused spatial patterns, concentrated business sectors, and industry clusters associated with NCS pathways. Efficiencies and co -benefits might also be ma a ed when addressing multiple overlapping pathways in a region with a whole systems approach. Certainly, this is the case for sub -activities of the Cropland Agriculture pathway, where carbon benefits can be best realized through simultaneous management interventions that increase no -till cover crop practices and decrease N-fertilizer application al., /_' 2012i 4 � 7. � e /R-�I�T.��j! �r r. tir.� ►�7.� { i�1 With limited resources and regionalized economies, our results highlight that a fruitful way forward may be to deploy NCS at a county scale. With county -level information, state decision -makers can focus attention on regional issues and include local stakeholders in a manner that may be impractical statewide. As a result, appropriate program incentives addressing socio-cultural sensitivity, economic development, and ecological protections can be catered to the needs of specific communities and industries. In turn, those local stakeholders can work with state decision -makers to develop ecological and human resilience plans in concert with mitigation activities. The success of the local climate planning approach to climate policy implementation and achievement of implementation goals has yet to be widely studied, but early investigations from the European Union suggest climate change issues are best tackled by either (1) developing dedicated local plans in parallel with larger scale mainstream plans, or (2) starting with a dedicated local plan and subsequently developing a mainstream plan (Reckien et- A,1019). Further research should look at the value per unit of pathway implementation to plan for the most cost-effective and optimal outcomes of implementing multiple pathways within a county. A simple calculation of mitigation potential per county area may provide a starting point (Table S9), but calculating the implementation per available resource quantity within the county could provide better means for prioritizing pathway deployment. Multiple benefits of NCS Despite real and potential benefits of NCS for climate change mitigation, NCS could be of greater service for climate resilience and other co -benefits (Grisconi et ai., 2017; Seddon et- aL, 2019) when implemented to avoid negative or unintended consequences (Hashida et al, 2020). Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peeri.11802 16/25 " -4 S For example, numerous human health, social equity, and ecological benefits exist from reduced N fertilizer use. Nitrates from fertilizer seep into groundwater, contaminating human dfinking water reservoirs �. ::::: s ►- �.. ti .,�Ly, �.;.. a . } . This nitrate contaminated water has been linked directly to high cancer rates, low fertility rates, increased water treatment costs, and devaluation of property in rural communities, including in Washington (Townsend et cal., 2003; Dttbrov5ky et al., 2-010; Moore et al., 2011; heeler & Palasky, 2014). Likewise, reduction of N fertilizer use has benefits for marine and freshwater biota and soil health (Culina n et al., 2010; Dubro vsky et td., 2010). NCS can generate multiple benefits when implemented in concert across whole systems. We found that much of the greatest emissions reduction potential by three pathways (Avoided Conversion of Forest, Riparian Restoration, and Tidal wetland Restoration) exist in the Puget Trough, particularly overlapping in Snohomish County. The links between the upland forests, river corridors, floodplains, and estuaries are important ecologically, culturally, socially, and economically. From an ecological perspective, Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) are listed under the US Endangered Species Act and vital to the health of many freshwater and riparian ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest (TvVillson & llali4pka, 1995). Chinook salmon use the full Snohomish River system, spawning in upland streams, rearing in mainstem floodplain and estuarine channels, feeding in nearshore marine waters, and migrating back upstream to spawn. These life stage requirements thus link Chinook salmon to the Avoided Conversion of Forest, Riparian Restoration, and Tidal Wetland Restoration NCS pathways. Upland forests help control stream flashiness and sedimentation, which can inhibit spawning and rearing (Beechic et A, 2013). Riparian tree cover cools streams, provides refugia along riverbanks, and delivers terrestrial insect food resources 2009; Beecliie et al., 2013}. High productivity tidal wetlands provide juvenile Chinook with the low salinity habitat they need to transition from fresh to saltwater living, as well as the saltmarshes which provide energy -rich food resources critical to early marine survival for juvenile Chinook (rji',_ .; -, _4 :.� ;7r00n; ,--. •" 7 .-=-'") Chinook salmon are also 1Ri_-Fp Vv;gvi C� C l�i. jale:ir•) ;;IL i;, itF1i'%ilia i.r- [lir 1 . an important cultural and nutritional resource to the indigenous Coast Salish peoples, and fishing of the Chinook is an intrinsic right legally affirmed by the US Supreme Court's 1974 Boldt Decision (Tin i teal S to tes v. Wo s b, i n� to n) 1974). In addition to improving conditions for Chinook salmon, these three pathways may provide other co -benefits such as mitigation for flooding of croplands and homes downstream, and improved water quality associated with sedimentation, nutrification, and fecal pathogens (DeGasperi et al., 2018). Natural Climate Solutions have the potential to play a significant part in climate change mitigation. Our findings show that NCS can assist in achieving a Net Zero goal by 2050 in Washington, and those achievements range by the aggressiveness of NCS pathway implementation. Further research assessing costs and practicality of NCS and the ongoing impacts of climate change will yield additional insight that could influence the feasibility of NCS pathways. Likewise, rigorous examination of the ecological, social, cultural and health co -benefits of NCS is crucial for assessing the benefit -cost ratio of any pathway. Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peerj.11802 17/25 pincir, Clearly, a broad portfolio of tools and approaches will be needed to combat climate change. Indeed, to achieve carbon neutrality in Washington by mid-century, NCS pathways may be required even if reductions through changes in transportation, industry, and residential sectors can be achieved. Our work provides needed information that emphasizes the potential scope of NCS to achieve carbon goals as well as the spatial distribution of NCS opportunities. This is the foundation required to generate natural climate solutions that are fair, just and contribute significantly to address climate change in Washington and beyond. Addressing climate change is urgent. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to Rose Graves, Ryan Haugo, Michael Schindel, and Bryce Kellogg for sharing methods, data, and advice, to Mary Ramirez and Jennifer Burke for sharing data and thoughts on estuary restoration rates, and to Juliana Tadano, Elizabeth Matteri, Chase Puentes, and Pascale Chamberland for literature research. Thanks also to Ailene Ettinger and Kristina Bartowitz for detailed reviews, to Maia Murphy -Williams for fac' 'tating some aspects of this project, and to Mo McBroom for early encouragement and insight. I _. Funding No funding was received for this study. Competing Interests The authors declare there are no competing interests. Author Contributions e James C. Robertson conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft. . Krishna V. Randrup performed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft. Emily R. Howe, Michael J. Case and Phillip S. Levin analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft. Data Availability The following information was supplied regarding data availability: Raw data and code are available in the Supplemental Files. Supplemental Information Supplemental information for this article can be found online at http-.//dx,doi.org/ 10.7 71:'� peerj .11 802#supplemental- information. Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 1 Q.7717/peerj.11802 18/25 P erj REFERENCES AAPFC0. 2014. Association of american plant food control officials, commercial fertilizer reports. 1? i :,i : .:r. ;. ,; accessed on 18 March 2020) . Anderson CM, DeFries RS, Litterman R, Matson PA, Nepstad DC, Pacala S, Schlesinger WH, Shaw MR, Smith P. Weber C, Field CB, 2019. Natural climate solutions are not enough. Science 363:933-934 Dr I ��?. � !��-, �-�_ ;0741. Bastin J-F, Finegold Y, Garcia C, Mollicone D, Rezende M, Routh D, Zohner CM, Crowther TW. 2019. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365:76-79 DOI 10.1126/science.aax0848. Beach HM, Laing KW, Walle Mv, Martin RC. 2018. The current state and future directions of organic no -till farming with cover crops m canada, with case study support. Sustainability 10:373 DOI 10.3390/su10020373. Beechie T, Imaki H, Greene J. Wade A, Wu H, Pess G, Roni P, Kimball J. Stanford J. Kiffney P, Mantua N. 2013. Restoring salmon habitat for a changing climate. River Research and Applications 29:939--960 DOI 10.1002lrra.2590. Bustamante M, Robledo-Abad C, Harper R, Mbow C, Ravindranat NH, Sperling F. Haberl H, deS Pinto A, Smith P. 2014. Co -benefits, trade-offs, barriers and policies for greenhouse gas mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector. Global Change Biology 20:3270-3290 DOI 10.111 l/gch.12591. Cameron DR, Marvin DC, Remucal JM, Passero MC. 2017. Ecosystem management and land conservation can substantially contribute to California's climate mitigation goals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114:12833-12838 DOI 10.10731pnas.1707811114. Chrisinger C, Fowler C, Kleit R. 2015. Industry clusters and employment outcomes in Washington State. Economic Development Quarterly 29 1X0I J 0- j .1771(;1 T r r4; �.r � � 711 Cochrane B. 2016. Implementation, effectiveness monitoring and financial report for the Washington Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) for Federal Fiscal Year 2015. Available at https:ll iviv .scc iva.gcvl consenution-reserve- enhancement- r: r�;, L rn (accessed on 18 March 2020). Culman SW, Young -Mathews A, Hollander AD, Ferris H, Sanchez -Moreno S. o'Geen AT, Jackson LE. 2010. Biodiversity is associated with indicators of soil ecosystem functions over a landscape gradient of agricultural intensification. Landscape Ecology 25:1333--1348 D01 10.1CU?`71s1� ���:�._C; ►-95i 1-0 Curtis Ro.1995. Extended rotations and culmination age of coast Douglas -fin old studies speak to current issues. PNW RP-455. Portland. Dabney SM, Delgado JA, Meisinger JJ, Schomberg HH, Liebig MA, Kaspar T, Mitchell J, Reeves W. 2010. Using cover crops and cropping systems for nitrogen manage- ment. In: Delgado JA, Follett RF, eds. Advances in nitrogen managementfor water quality. Ankeny: Soil and Water Conservation Society, 230-281. Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peerj.11802 i G►;_Zj PeNew I David AT, Ellings CS, Woo I, Simenstad CA, Takekawa JY, Turner KL, Smith AL, Takekawa JE. 2014. Foraging and growth potential of juvenile chinook salmon after tidal restoration of a large river delta. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 143:1515-1529 DO! 10.10o"0100028487.2014.945663. DeGasperi CL, Sheibley RW, Lubliner B. Larson CA, Song K. Fore LS. 2018. Stormwater action monitoring status and trends study of puget lowland ecoregion streams: evaluation of the first year (2015) of monitoring data. Available at 6. kiixgcounty.go-vl SciepiceLibraryl Docidi?iciit.aspx?-l;-tir_ie.TD-53O (accessed on 29 January 2021). Diaz D, Loreno S, Ettl G, Davies B. 2018. Tradeoffs in timber, carbon, and cash flow under alternative management systems for douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. Forests 9:447 D01 10.3390I1'-9080447. Dubrovsky NM, Burow KR, Clark GM, Gronberg JAM, Hamilton PA, Hitt KJ, Mueller DK, Munn MD, Nolan BT, Puckett LJ, Rupert MG, Short TM, Spahr NE, Sprague LA, Wilber WG,, 2010. The quality of our Nation's waters -nutrients in the Nation's streams and groundwater. 1992-2004. Fargione JE, Bassett S, Boucher T, Bridgham SD, Conant RT, Cook -Patton SC, Ellis PW, Falcucci A, Fourqurean JW, Gopalakrishna T. Gu H, Henderson B, Hurteau MD, Kroeger KD, Kroeger T, Lark TJ, Leavitt SM, Lomax G, McDonald RI, Megonigal JP, Miteva DA, Richardson CJ, Sanderman J, Shoch D, Spawn SA, Veldman JW, Williams CA, Woodbury PB, Zganjar C, Baranski M, Elias P, Houghton RA, Landis E, McGlynn E, Schlesinger WH, Siikamaki JV, Sutton -Grier AE, Griscom BW. 2018. Natural climate solutions for the United States. Science Advances 4:eaatl869 DOI 10.11261sciadv.aat1869. Finco M, Quayle B, Zhang Y, Lecker J. Ka Megown, Brewer CK, 2012. Monitoring Trends and Burn Severity (MTBS): monitoring wildfire activity for the past quarter century using LANDSAT data. Available at ha OP./ I IV 1111 js. i;50a ���.►;►; ► I t0Zt ,:: Lr! ►:,Y/ 42750. Friedlingstein P. Allen M. Canadell JG, Peters GP, Seneviratne SI.2019. Comment on The global tree restoration potential. Science 366:eaay8060 Gilbertson -Day JW, Scott JH, Vogler KC, Brough AM, Stratton R. 2018. Pacific northwest quantitative wildfire risk assessment: methods and results. Available at M �/ 1�": r-o cy; v0 ... �- �.x f r_ n ��rF - - - rl -1 (accessed on 18 March 2020). Graves RA, Haugo RD, Holz A, Nielsen -Pincus M, Jones A, Kellogg B, Mac- donald C, Popper K, Schindel M. 2020. Potential greenhouse gas reductions from Natural Climate Solutions in Oregon, USA. PLOS ONE 15:e0230424 DOI 10.1371ljournal.ponc.02304.24. Gray AN, Azuma DL, Lettman GJ, Thompson JL, McKay N. 2013. Changes in land use and housing on resource lands in Washington State,1976-2006. USDA Forest Service - General Technical Report PNW-GTR:1-51. DOI 10.2737IPNW-GTR-881. Gray A, Hubner D, Lettman GJ, McKay N, Thomppson JL. 2016. Forests, farms & people: Land use change on non-federal land in Oregon 1974-2014x. Available at Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, Doi 10.77171peerj.11802 20125 https:llinr. oregonstate. edul biblio/ forests- farms- people- rand- use -change- non- federal- land- orcgon 1974 20111 (accessed on 18 March 2020). Grinspoon E, Jaworski D, Phillips R. 2016. Northwest Forest Plan the first 20 years (1994-2013): social and economic status and trends. Report FSIR61PNW1201510006. Available at ht ps:l/www. fs. fed. usl r6l reol monitoringl downloadsl socioeconomicl Niyfp24yrNforiitoringReportSocioeconornic.prlf (accessed on 15 March 2021). Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW, Houghton RA, Lomax G, Miteva DA, Schlesinger WH, Shoch D, Siikarn" ' JV, Smith P, Woodbury P, Zganjar C, Blackman A, Campari J, Conant RT, Delgado C, Elias P, Gopalakrishna T, Hamsik MR, Herrero M, Kiesecker J, Landis E, Laestadius L, Leavitt SM, Minnemeyer S, Polasky S, Potapov P, Putz FE, Sanderman J, Silvius M, Wollenberg E, Fargione J. 2017. Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114:11645-11650 DOI 10.10731pnas.1710465114. Gupta J. 2010. A history of international climate change policy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1:636--653 DOI 3 0.100. 211>>rcc.67. Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, Ha.ncher M, Turubanova SA, Tyukavina A, Thau D, Stehman SV, Goetz SJ, Loveland TR, Kommareddy A, Egorov A, Chini L. Justice Co, Townshend JRG. 2013. High -resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342:550-853 D0_ _ -11 � ? : i li C.a ' m Hashida Y, Withey J, Lewis DJ, Newman T, Kline JD, 2020. Anticipating changes in wildlife habitat induced by private forest owners' adaptation to climate change and carbon policy. PLDS ONE 15:e0230525 DOI 10.13711journal.pone.0230525. IPCC. 2018, Global Warming of 1.5 'C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 'C above pre -industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. Available at h tips:llwiilw, ipcc- cli.I sr- r it domlii.l oadl #fi.ill (accessed on 15 April 2020). Feeler BL, Polasky S. 2014. Land -use change and costs to rural households: a case study in groundwater nitrate contamination. Environmental Research Letters 9:074002 DOI 10.108811748-932619171074002. Klinsky S, Roberts T, Huq S. okereke C, Newell P, Dauvergne P, O'Brien K, Schroeder H, Tschakert P, Clapp J, Keck M, Biermwm F, Liverman D, Gupta J, Rah - man A, Messner D, Pellow D, Bauer S. 2017. Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research. Global Environmental Change 44:170-173 1 )01 10, 10 16, /j, P% P14 N S., L - �A' i K"M Lacy P. 2006. Forest investment: the emergence of timberland as an asset class. Australian Forestry 69:151--155 DOI 10.1080/00049158.2006.10674995. Landauer M, Juhola S. Klein J. 2019. The role of scale in integrating climate change adaptation and mitigation in cities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Manage- ment 62:741-765 DOI 10.1080109640568.2018.1430022. Lark TJ, Salmon JM, Gibbs HK. 2015. Cropland expansion outpaces agricultural and biofuel policies in the United States. Environmental Research Letters 10:44003 4`91'_i 61!� iii4 iZ_? rk, ij I� Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peerj.11802 21125 Pax- I �jU Latta G, Temesgen H, Barrett TM. 2009. Mapping and imputing potential productivity of Pacific Northwest forests using climate variables. Canadian journal of Forest Research 39:1197--1207 11-301 Mildrexler DJ, Berner LT, Law BE, Birdsey RA, Moomaw WR. 2020. Large trees dominate carbon storage in forests east of the cascade crest in the United States Pacific Northwest. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 3:127. Moore E, Matalon E, Pacific Institute, Oakland C, Community Water Center, Clean Water Fund, Washington DC, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. 2011. The human costs of nitrate -contaminated drinking water in the San Joaquin Valley. Oakland: Pacific Institute, Mulligan J, Rudee A, Lebling K, Levin K, Anderson J, Christensen B. 2020. CarbonShot: federal policy options for carbon removal in the United States. Available at wwtv. wri. orglpublica tionlcarbonshotfederal-policy-options-for-carbon-removal-in-the-united- states (accessed on 5 January 2021). Nesshaver C, Assmuth T, Irvine KN, Rusch GM, Waylen KA, Delbaere B, Haase D, Jones -Walters L, Keune H, Kovacs E, Krau.ze K, Ktdvik M, Rey F, Van Dijk J, Vistad 0I, Wilkinson ME, Wittmer H. 2017. The science, policy and practice of nature - based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective. Science of the Total Environment DOT� �rstntp z� Nightingale AJ, Eriksen S, Taylor M, Forsyth T, Pelling M, Newsham A, Boyd E, Brown K, Harvey B, Jones L, Kerr RBezner, Mehta L, Naess LO, Ockwell D, Scoones I, Tanner T, Whitfield S. 2020. Beyond Technical Fixes: climate solutions and the great derangement. Climate and Development 12:343-352 DO 110.1080/ 17565 529.2019.1624495 . Pierce Jr KB, Miller J, Samson K, Quinn T. 2017. A comparison of land development and cover vital sign indicators as generated from landsat and NAIP data, Deliverable 2.2 under Contract IAA 2016-23 With the Puget Sound Partnership. Olympia: Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2017. Indirect Assessment of West Coast USA Tidal Wetland Loss. Available at http://www.pacificfi.5hhabitat.orgldata.1 (accessed on 19 March 2020). Puget Sound Partnership. 2020. Rate of Forest Loss to Development. Available at h atps: llwww.pugetsoundinfo.wa.govlProgressMeasurelDetain191 VitalSigns (accessed on 10 December 2020). Ramirez M. 2019. Tracking estuarine wetland restoration in puget sound; report- ing on the puget sound estuaries vital sign indicator. Available at h ttps: 11 ww w. pugetsoundinfo. wa.govlProgressMeasurelDetaillI I (accessed on 19 March 2020). Redden D, Salvia M, Pietrapertosa F, Simoes SG, Olazabal M, Hurtado SDeGregorio, Geneletti D, Krkoska Lorencovi E, D'Alonzo V, Krook-Riekkola A, Fokaides PA, Ioannou BI, Foley A, orris H, Orru K, Wejs A, Flacke J, Church JM, Feliu E, Vas' 'e S, Nador C, Matosovic M, Flamos A, Spyridaki NA, Balzan MV, Fiildp O, Grafakos S, Paspaldzhiev I, Heidrich 0.2019. Dedicated versus mainstreaming approaches Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peerj.11802 22125 in local climate plans in Europe. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 DOI 10.101611.rs era 2019.0 5.014. Richter B. Goldston D. Crabtree G, Glicksman L, Goldstein D, Greene D, Kammen D, Levine M. Lubell M. Savitz M, Sperling D. Schlachter F. Scofield J, Dawson J. 2008, How America can look within to achieve energy security and reduce global warming. Reviews of Modern Physics 80 DOI 10.1103Irevmodphys.80.s 1. Ruddy BC, Lorenz DL, Mueller DK. 2006. County -level estimates of nutrient inputs to the landsurface of the conterminous United States, 1982-2001. Reston: U.S. Geological Survey DOI 10.31331sir20D65012. Schmidt R, Gravuer K, Bossange AV, Mitchell J, Scow K. 2018. Long-term use of cover crops and no -till shift soil microbial community life strategies in agricultural soil. PLOS ONE 13:e0192953 DOI 10.1371Ijouriial.pone.0192953. Scoones 1.2016. The politics of sustainab' 'ty and development. Annual Review of Envi- ronment and Resources 41:293-319 DOI 10.11461annurev-environ-110615--0900390 Seavy NE, Gardali T, Gold GH, Griggs FT, Howell CA, Kelsey R, Small SL, Viers JH, Weigand JF, 2009. Why climate change makes riparian restoration more important than ever: recommendations for practice and research. Ecological Restoration 27:330--338 DOI 10.33681er.27.3.330. Seddon N, Turner B, Berry P, Chausson A, Girardin CAJ. 2019. Grounding nature - based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science. Nature Climate Change 9:84-87 DOI 10.1038Js41558-019-0405-0. Simenstad CA, Cordell JR. 2000. Ecological assessment criteria for restoring anadromous salmonid habitat in Pacific Northwest estuaries. Ecological Engineering 15:282 302 DOI 10.1016150925-8574(00)00082-3. Smith JE, Heath LS, Skog KE, Birdsey RA. 2006. Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States, Newtown Square: USDA Northern Research Station, Soto -Navarro C, Ra ' 'ous C, Arnell A, De Lamo K, Harfoot M, Hill SLL, Wearn OR, Santoro M, Bouvet A, Mermoz S, Le Toan T, Xia J, Liu S, Yuan W, Spawn SA, Gibbs HK, Ferrier S, Harwood T, Alkemade R, Schipper AM, Schmidt - Traub G, Strassburg B, Miles L, Burgess NIA, Kapos V. 2020. Mapping co - benefits for carbon storage and biodiversity to inform conservation policy and action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 375 DOT 10.1098lrsth.2019�0128. Spies TA, Long Jw, Charnley S, Hessburg PF, Marcot BG, Reeves GH, Lesmeister DB, Reilly MJ, Cerveny LIK, Stine PA, Raphael MG. 2019. Twenty-five years of the Northwest Forest Plan: what have we learned? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17:511-520 DOI 10.10021fee.2101. Stisdde C. Higgins S, Kemanian A, Nelson R, Huggins D, Marcos J, Collins H. 2012. Carbon storage and nitrous oxide emissions of cropping systems in eastern Wash- ington: a simulation study. journal of Soil and Water- Conservation 67:365--377 DOI 10.24811)SVV(1.u7.5.3 5. Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peerj.11802 23/25 �rJ Townsend AR, Howarth RW, Bazzaz FA, Booth MS, Cleveland CC, Collinge SK, Dobson AP, Epstein PR, Holland EA, Keeney DR, Mallin MA, Rogers CA, Wayne P, Wolfe AH. 2003. Human health effects of a changing global nitrogen cycle. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:240 DOI 10.2307/386801 I. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 2018, BLM OR revegetation treatment polygons. Available at httpsW wwty, bIni govI serviresIgenspatia GIS1-) l fat oregon (accessed on 19 March 2020). U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 TIGER/Line Geodatabases. Available at https:ll www. census.govl geographiesl mapping- f ilesl time-serieslgeol tiger- data.201 0. html (accessed on 15 January 2019). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2015. Willapa Estuary Restoration. Available at h I 11 www. fws.govl refugel willapal conservationl estuary restoration. htmi (accessed on 15 January 2019) . U.S. Forest Service. 2019. S_USA. SilvReforestation. Available at ►-l: � �1 ell 'v1 � � R» r►li 3 (accessed on 18 March 2020). U.S. Geological Survey. 2016. LA.NDFIRE.US_200BPS. Available at hops:ll www.landf ire. govl bps. php (accessed on 18 March 2020). U.S. Geological Survey. 2018. Burned Area Boundaries Dataset 1984-2017. Available at lit ►;so:l r�r►i►;. �,.1 Ty-e,FE_�l,►�ri:.�.,�,t►;: (accessed on 15 November 2019). r USDA NASS, 2019a, USDA NASS 2017 Census of Agriculture - County Data. Washing -- ton D.C: USDA MASS. USDA NASS. 2019b. USDA -National Agricultural Statistics Service, Cropland Data Layer (2008-2012). Washington D.C.: USDA NASS. USDA NASS, 2020. County Agriculture Production. Available at lattps:ll wwly. pass, usda. gov/SurveysIGuide—to—NASS Surveysl County Agricultural Productionl index.plip (accessed on 16 June 2020). Washington State Governor's office. 2019. Inslee announces bold climate legislation as part of supplemental budget rollout. Available at laT. s=11 in ed. F I.IIn, c0iIt/ tvago ver-no inslee-announces- bold- ai mate -legislation -as -part -of -supplemental-budget-rollout- 75a.5a rt-'5f0 (accessed on 8 April 2020). United States v. Washington. 1974. Boldt Decision. 384 F. Supp. 312. Available at haps.Illet m tistia.cornl cases) cler-cdl district-courtslFSupp1� 131211, 7 6I1. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2021. Trust lands performance assess- ment project: charting a course for the future, Legi.stlative Report 2020. Available at lx t . f - - �, f ,. x . - • - . j _ . 7 ._ +i► �(��� a� t. j,"� (accessed on 20 March �,tir�l�l' tiV bV�'iiir �VRa 1�1%f ij%i►iii.��R•�Ei�i_*i �. �•�ipT �E iyii l+..i 2021). Washington State Department of Commerce. 2019. Washington Maritime Blue launches ambitious plan for economic growth, jobs, ocean health. Available at https: ii;iviv.c+lit, iijer ibis is t fj��ieirii --� a►�i C/f `rr�i nre i"r y��y� + `r�■ ■ii�j ley.{ +ni )till+ lair tj rir + ■ rra�7 r r .� r r .• . r .. r r {� V j r r r r r r ... ri / �L r ar s e i ' r i r .r iJ r �f r r f y J F v r.�v . f► � r r i- �r ► r� i 'i� �� i i y e- blue-launches-ambitious-plan for -economic -growth -jobs -ocean -health (accessed on 11 March 2021). Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.11802 24!25 Peer Washington State Department of Health. 2018, 2018 Washington State Health Assess- ment DOH Pub 78945. Available at ivmv. doh. Wa.govl healthassessmeil t (accessed on 12 June 2020). Washington State Office of Financial Management. 2019.2019 Data Book. Available at https://www.ofm.wa.govl sitesl defaultl filesl publicl dataresearchl databookl pdfl datrbook,ptcf (accessed on 12 June 2020). Washington State Legislature. 2020. Amending state greenhouse gas emission limits for conistiency with the most recent assessment of climate change science. Olympia: Washington State Legislature. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2018. Washington State Timber Harvest Reports, 2003 to 2017. Available at rat do r, i ra. govl TimberHarvestReports (accessed on 16 March 2020). Washington State Department of Ecology. 2019. Washington State Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Limits: Report prepared under RCW 70.235.040. Available at h ttps:ll fortrescO i�`�7g.�� . r � YI p, . �; ��, :��, t� .���s � ��; A��.�� „),�....� _T; I ��� � Y ��t: �?(accessed on 30 .O. . t. C%V LC. 'f L.C. ■L. .k�:.`. .�►. .l ►t:� f 'V:}�L..�I 1 .:r .iLr March 2020). Washington State Department of Ecology. 2021. Washington State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory: 1990-2018. Available at https:l/a,pps. ecology.Wa.govl p,l•fbricatto.nldocii?nenti12002020,p f (accessed on 12 February 2021), Willson MF, Halupka KC.1995. Anadromous fish as keystone species in vertebrate com- munities. Conservation Biology 9:489-497 DOI 10.10461j.1523-1739.1995.09030489.x. WRCO. 2019. PRISM (PRoj ect Information SysteM) database. Available at https:ll rco.wa. . ` J i!I f7!! !.� , l.J %'f. !C'..+r-,r I •1rY►_ %,! 7%',J� !T/fr'1 �,-; f.;.�,. fi,r_%._l.T.l'Y1r ,�-r�.�(accessed on '. ��7 �h► ,. �.. _,r r �. 15 November 2019). Robertson et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.77171peerj.11802 2,-5r'25 Port ludlov% iv I • &tAcl-eel Serving the Village of Port Ludlow Since 1998 m April 2022 jeffbocc From: Elizabeth Dunne <edunne@earthlaw.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 11:12 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: thank you re Beaver Valley Sorts Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Dear Commissioners: Thank you for requesting a delay of the Beaver Valley Sorts timber sale. I greatly appreciate your leadership in this and hope that you are able to come to a long term solution that will preserve this forest in its entirety. Best, Elizabeth Port Angeles, WA Elizabeth M. Dunne, Esq. (she/her) Director of Legal Advocacy Earth Law Center (808) 554-1409 Join the movement: Facebook • LinkedIn • Twitter • Newsletter jeffbocc From: E Lessing Sokol <preussenfrau@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 11:27 AM Subject: Fwd: Stop childhood mandates in Washington ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stand for Health Freedom <advocates@standforhealthfreedom.com> Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 Subject: Stop childhood mandates in Washington To: Elisabeth Yates <zindandy@gmail.com> STAND FOR HEALTH FREEDOM Washington: Submit Comments by Noon Friday, April 8 Elisabeth, As you probably know, the Washington State Board of Health (BOH) is considering adding the COVID-19 spike shots to the state's daycare and K-12 requirements. The BOH assembled a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to receive BOH-selected information during three meetings; nonetheless, the TAG recommended NOT to require the shots. However, the BOH has the mand continue its pursuit of coercing parents into having these experimental pharmaceuticals injected into their children. Here's where you come in: if you don't want COVID-19 shots mandated for children in Washington, then you mu act! The protection of our young depends on every one of us. Some TAG members indicated that public outcry was one reason for their favorable decision, so we know our voices make a critical difference. This matter is on the OH' ena for next Wednesday, April 13, and they need to hear from you! Two actions requested: (1) Email the BOH by NOON this Friday, April 8. Respectfully urge them to ratify the TAG's recommendation against a mandate and tell them why. are nick lips for writing a brief and effective ublic cornment„ plus talking points and sources for citations. For more help preparing, join ICWA's free "What to Say to the BOW webinar 5:30-6:30 PM Wednesday, April 6, tc learn from experienced activists, scientists, and healthcare providers. There will be time for Q&A. More info HERE including how to access the recording afterwards. In your BOH comments, you can also express your support for the two citizen petitions for rulemaking (linked as three petitions within the meeting materials HERE) that the BOH will also consider during its meeting. (2) RpAktor for and attend the online BOH meeting (9:00-3:45) on Wednesday, April 13, via Zoom or by dialing it The board needs to know that the pLjbic 'ssvathin . Even if you can't listen to the entire meeting, you can have streaming in the background all day. (3) Bonus points: testify during the 9:30 general public comment period on April 13. To sign up, check the appropriate box when you register. (This is available only for Zoom attendees --not those attending by dialing in.) Thank you for doing your part to help stop mandates! Share this call -to -action with your friends, colleagues and neighbors, we must stop this now! In Solidarity, Stand for Health Freedom & Informed Choice Washington Stand for Health Freedom is a nonprofit dedicated to protecting basic human rights, constitutional rights and parental right We exist to educate people and for people to have the tools to educate their lawmakers. Please support our work by making a donation today. We rely on the generosity of concerned individuals like you so that together - through education and action we can see a cultural shift for health freedom. Don't like these emails? Unsubseribe jeffbocc From: Washington State Department of Commerce <WAStateCommerce@public.govdelivery.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 2:22 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Governor's 2022 Smart Communities Awards nominations open now through May 6 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Having trouble viewing this email? View it online Governor's 2022 Smart Communities Awar nominations open now through May 6 1 awards Annual • outstanding • • planning and development Olympia, WA -- The Washington State Department of Commerce today called for nominations for the 16th annual Governor's Smart Communities Awards, a program that recognizes outstanding work by local governments and their partners on long-term community planning and development. Nominees offer a view into the values and long-term priorities of their communities through their plans and actions shaping how they want to look and function 20 or even 50 years from now. For one community, it may be an emphasis on supporting cultural and natural attractions, another may prioritize downtown redevelopment, and all require a shared vision, tough decisions and partnerships. "Too often we hear about the controversies and debates involved in land -use planning and growth management," said Commerce director Lisa Brown. "The Smart Communities Awards showcase collaboration and hard work by diverse community members and leaders to envision and put plans into action that create and sustain the vibrant neighborhood and places that make Washington state such a great place to live, work and play." 3EZME��M 11=0 M51FINTZ-:11 - #1 IN 1 0 11WINOW 100104 r-141 a IN 111[ow V1 Ultitit! M171111111MOM311 tile 71TI --ZT--,,jm art MrTojec award. Starting in 2016, Lake Stevens implemented a long-term subarea plan, helping t4: guide a community vision to reality. "We had the vision to build a town center, and fortunately for us, we already knew where the town center was going to be," Former Mayor john Spencer said. "We had our consultant give us a basic plan, but the big question was what we should do now. I think the answer to that lies in a very simple phrase: Just get started." Watch a video about 2020-21 award -winner Lake Stevens North Bend chose to engage their community, in a robust planning process geared towards developing Form -Based Code focused on Downtown Co L erci mm ff zoning. To prepare for anticipated growth, city officia for how the town should evolve while maintaining its charm and sense of community. "People engage with each other, they care about their community," North Bend Mayor Rob McFarland said. "It's absolutely looking down the road," he said of the project. "It's looking for a way to accommodate the changes that we know are coming and to find a way to allow for a vast variety of uses and changes." Profile in smart housing strategies: 2020-21 award winner Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Housing Solutions Study, last year's winner of the Smart Housing Strategies Award, conducted extensive community for the development of a multigenerational community. The Tribe pulled together cotta e modular and car o container housing to discuss product suitability, quality, and cost as a way to meet community needs, The judges noted that this housing marketplace was an innovative idea for other jurisdictions to consider. This housing study has already led to four strategic actions identified for immediate initiation by the Tribe, opening up opportunities to implement the adopted housing and site development concepts. Learn more about these and all of the other 2020-21 award winners, and keep an eye on this Smart Communities playlist for more videos coming soon. The 2022 awards .••-• • new category to recognize successful • with planning legacy award. Nominations are sought across these seven categc I • ch .................. 2. Smart Projects Award for project implementing a comprehensive plan. Recognizing the successful achievement of a governmental project with implementing a local county, city, or town's comprehensive plan. These may include, but are not limited to, adoption of implementing development regulations, infrastructure projects, community facilities, community -driven art installations, design implements, or parks. 3. Smart Partnership Award for a joint public project that implements a comprehensive plan. Successful applicants will demonstrate the joint implementation of a local county, city or town's comprehensive plan. These may include, but are not limited to, regional open space network plans, government -to -government long-term planning strategies, region-benefitting infrastructure projects, public/private partnerships. 4. Smart Housing Strategies Award for creative plans, policies, programs and/or actions. Successful applicants will demonstrate innovation and creative strategies to address housing affordability through plans, policies, programs, development regulations and/or actions. For example, subarea plans that increase housing capacity, new housing element, policies with particular attention towards affordability, equity and displacement. 5. Smart • Strategies Award • plans, policies, programs and/or actions addressing impacts to community equity. Successful applicants will demonstrate the use of planning techniques to address impacts of equity and the protection of vulnerable people, places and systems. For example, plans or policies that directly address mitigation of impacts, such as displacement or gentrification by demonstrating how equity was achieved, such as the ending of negative effects and reversing redlining, unequitable exposure to toxins, poor air quality or extreme heat, urban renewal, gerrymandering & exclusionary zoning, or other inequitable land -use policies. 6. Smart Climate Change Strategies Award for plans, policies, programs and/or actions addressing community climate impacts. Successful applicants will demonstrate innovation and creative strategies to address local -issues driven by a rapidly changing climate, i.e. a community with extreme temperature events, flooding, fire hazards. Recognizing that different areas of the state will employ different tools and strategies, i.e. th prevention of wildfires in a region east of the cascades, and a fast-growinll, coastal city where flooding and storm effects are the most prominent thre 7. *New* Planning Legacy Award for successful places Recognizing a place that is the result of implementing a plan over the last 25 or more years. This award recognizes the successful achievement of a county, city, town, or Tribe in implementing its long-term community vision, through plans, development regulations, or local actions and the significant planning Smart Communities Award nominations are open through May 6, 2022. Visit our webpage for more information and nomination forms. Media Contact Commerce works with local governments, businesses, community -based organizations and tribes to strengthen communities. The department's diverse portfolio of more than 100 programs and effective public and private partnerships promote sustainable community and economic development to help all Washingtonians thrive. For more information, visit . For information onlocating orexpanding abusiness inWashington, visit . Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page.You will need tnuse your email address tnlog in. Kyou have questions orproblems with the subscription service, please visit . This service isprovided 1nyou agnocharge by Washin ton Department of Commerce This email was sent to jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: Washington State Department of Commerce • 1011 Plum Street SE, P.O. Box 42525 • Olympia, WA 98504- 2525 Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 1:40 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: PRA Workshops I Procurement I Workplace Culture Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: MRSC Training Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 1:37:59 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: PRA Workshops I Procurement I Workplace Culture ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. 6 • usTor our local training MRSC's webinars and workshops provide valuable training opportunities and certification credits for local government staff and officials across Washington State. Below are some of our upcoming events. You can also find this information on our website under Training. Registration for each webinar closes at 5 PM the day before the event. All pre -registered attendees will get access to the recorded webinar a day after the broadcast. Training scholarships may be available for certain events. �• Upcoming Webinars Public Records Act Basics & More Virtual Workshop Multiple dates/times from April 14 — May 1 1 This virtual workshop consists of two three-hour sessions and will provide an in-depth review of the Public Records Act (PRA). Registrants will sign up for a morning session and an afternoon session, which do not need to be on the same day. The morning session will explore PRA basics and legal aspects, while the afternoon session will cover the more practical process of responding to a public records request. Credits: WAPRO, CLE, CML Cost: $140 for two sessions Procurement Series Part 3: Public Works April 21, 1 P — 2:30 P This webinar will provide an overview of public works contracting processes, including prevailing wages, bidding thresholds, various processes including small public works rosters, and exemptions. It is the last in a series of three procurement webinars. Credits: APWA-CAEC Cost: $40 Building a Great Workplace Culture in a Time of Change May 19,11 AM —12P Workplaces are going through a time of tremendous stress and change due to COVID-19, the "Great Resignation," challenges with recruitment and retention, changing expectations of leadership, and more. During this webinar, you'll learn practical tips from local governments that are undertaking purposeful efforts to ensure that all staff feel connected and can thrive in the new workplace environment. Credits: CML (pending approval) Cost: $35 Post -Pandemic Planning: Using the Public R.O.W. for Outside Dining May 25, 12 P —1 P During the pandemic, some communities modified their development standards to allow portions of the public right-of-way (R.O.W.) to be used for outdoor dining and display of commercial goods. This webinar will provide an overview of these programs as well as issues to consider when deciding whether to allow these programs to continue into a post -pandemic future. Credits: CM (pending approval) Cost: $35 Modern Election Law and Voting Rights Challenges June 2, 11 A — 12 P 4 MRSC 1 2601 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98121 Unsubscribe heisenhour@co.jefferson.wa.us Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by it@mrsc.org 3 Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 3:38 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: County News Now —April 5, 2022 From: NACo County News Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 3:36:16 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: County News Now — April 5, 2022 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Having trouble viewing this email? Click Here April 5, 2022 Bipartisan agreement reached on COVID-ig supplemental legislation The $10 billion COVID-19 supplemental appropriations bill would support the ongoing domestic response to the public health emergency, and includes the bipartisan State, Local, Tribal and Territorial Fiscal Recovery, Infrastructure, and Disaster Relief Flexibility Act allowing additional flexibilities for counties to invest ARPA Recovery Funds. READ MORE Celebrate National County Government Month this April NCGM is an excellent opportunity for your county to highlight effective county programs and raise public awareness and understanding about the various services provided to the community, and how counties have helped the United States emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic stronger and more resilient. Read more County rec programs not just about "bats and balls' anymore Macon -Bibb County, Ga. has added digital broadcasting programming to its parks and recreation offerings. Read more •• OUNTY NEWS CONNECTED !k NATION err-6-i�a Conne cte Na on.or 2 SPONSORED C'ONTENT Boost Your Local Economic Development Coastal Cloud has developed a robust, innovative solution to empower economic development for your community with the power of Salesforce. Attract, retain and promote businesses more efficiently and effectively with a modern-day tool that can be implemented in as little as 45 days. Our economic development solution streamlines all aspects of your day-to-day work; provides standard, accurate reporting; and forecasts incoming investment and job growth. Learn more Legislative Updates Treasury releases guidance on reallocation of ERA 2 funds The guidelines' incentives encourage state and local governments to commit additional funding — including a portion of their State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds — to assist more renters and make continued investments in housing stability and make long-term investments in eviction prevention. Read more EPA accepting nominations for the Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities Advisory Committee The FRRCC provides independent policy advice, information and recommendations to EPA administrator on a range of environmental issues and policies of importance to agriculture and rural communities. Nominations are due May 16. Read more Department of Labor releases guidance to provide access to voting through the American Job Center Network The Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration released guidance to all 50 states and U.S. territories allowing them to designate American Job Centers as voter registration agencies in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act. Read more HUD announces new funding for Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program The initiative supports selected communities in the development and implementation of a coordinated community approach to preventing and ending youth homelessness with a total of $72 million in grants, applications for which are due June 28. Read more Senators reintroduce bipartisan Two -Generation Economic Empowerment Act The bill would provide counties with flexible federal funding to combat multigenerational poverty, improve economic security for families and further support and promote educational success. Read more 4 VA shares implementation plan and locations of PAWS Act pilot program The Department of Veterans Affairs released its plans to implement a five-year pilot program to connect veterans with mental health treatment through work with service dogs. Read more The Latest From NACo Apply Now! Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Funding Opportunities Connect and Protect: Law Enforcement Behavioral Health Response BJA is seeking applications for funding to support law enforcement -behavioral health cross -system collaboration to improve public health and safety responses and outcomes for individuals with mental illness and co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders. Applications are due May 27th. Learn more and apply here. Improving Substance Use Disorder Treatment and Recovery Outcomes for Adults in Reentry BJA is seeking applications for funding to establish, expand and improve treatment and recovery support services for people with substance use disorders during their incarceration and upon reentry into the community. Applications are due May 27th. Learn more and apply here. VDCI's How to Protect Public Health Through Integrated Mosquito Management webinar Mosquitoes are an age-old problem, but modern strategies and innovations have made it possible to curb local populations by safely targeting the insect at all life stages. This is important for mosquito abatement districts, municipalities, and county or state entities responsible for leading vector management programs. Learn more. Counties master advanced liquidity management techniques Put your entity's data to work and generate new revenue. Three counties are using a nationally recognized best -practice solution in cash and liquidity management to greatly increase their earnings and savings. Learn more. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OfCOUNTIES 660 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20001 ""MI E: Did someone forward you this email? Sign up to stay up-to-date on topics affecting America's counties! Click here to unsubscribe. Julie Shannon From: Kate Dean Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 3:39 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Please join us Wednesday for Clallam Transit and Saturday for Fog & Fern Clothing Co. Ribbon Cutting! From: director@forkswa.com Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 3:27:34 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kate Dean Subject: Please join us Wednesday for Clallam Transit and Saturday for Fog & Fern Clothing Co. Ribbon Cutting! ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Dear Kate Dean, Nominations for 2021 "Best Of" Business, Citizen and Volunteer of the Year are open. Don't assume someone else will nominate that wonderful citizen, volunteer, or business! Please submit your nominations by April 13th at Noon. We will celebrate the nominees at our May 4th meeting and announce the winners. Ways to nominate: 1) Fill out a nomination form! Nomination forms available for download or they can be picked up at the Chamber. Email them back to us or turn them in personally. 2) Simply reply back to this email or send mean email with your nomination./ will reply back that the nomination was received. Please join us Wednesday, April 6th for our weekly meeting featuring Kevin Gallacci, General Manager and Jim Fetzer, Operations Manager at Clallam Transit. They will be sharing information on what's new at Clallam Transit, including news that affects Forks! There will be a lunch special, or you can order off the menu. Our meetings take place at Blakeslee's Bar & Grill, 1222 S. Forks Avenue, Noon —1pm and are open to the public and all are welcome to attend. This is an in -person meeting. We will not have a Zoom or call -in option due to limited internet at the venue. UPCOMING PROGRAMS April 6 — Kevin Gallacci, General Manager and Jim Fetzer, Operations Manager at Clallam Transit April 13 — Christine Gilmore, Leadership Services Business Manager and Heidi Khokhar, Executive Director at Rural Development Initiatives April 20 — Diana Reaume, QVSD Superintendent discusses new stadium project April 27 — Clallam County Commissioner Bill Peach May 4 — "Best Of" Awards and Volunteer Appreciation Luncheon WE WANT TO DO YOUR RIBBON CUTTING CEREMONY Would you like to celebrate your new business, grand opening, re -opening, addition, or a special unveiling with a ribbon cutting ceremony? We would love to provide that service to you! Simply contact me and we will put it on the calendar. Ribbon Cutting Ceremonies make great acknowledgements for business milestones! Please join us for these Upcoming Ribbon Cutting Ceremonies: Fog & Fern Clothing Co. 71 E. Division Street Saturday, April 9th at Noon. Hobucket House Open House & Quileute Family Blessing 251 Ash Avenue Wednesday, April 20th at 1pm. RUBY BEACH CLOSURE ANNOUNCED A project to improve the Ruby Beach parking area and access road will begin in May or June of this year. The project will require the closure of Ruby Beach for about three months, until the work has been completed. Currently, the parking area and access road are gravel. Improvements include regrading and paving to improve drainage, achieve accessibility compliance, and improve vehicle and pedestrian traffic flow. The trail from the overlook to the beach is not included in this project. Exact dates of the work window are unknown and will be announced once dates have been confirmed. Beach access to the south of Ruby Beach, including Beach 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the Kalaloch Campground, will continue to be available. To the north, coastal access is available through LaPush at Rialto Beach and First, Second and Third Beaches. This information can also be found on the Olympic National Park website at https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/news/ruby-beach-area-closure.htm. For current trail, road, and travel information, visitors should consult the park website at www.nps.gov/olym or call the recorded Road and Weather Hotline at 360-565-3131. FORKS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION FORM AVAILABLE NOW Do you know a Forks High School graduate looking for additional scholarships? Any current graduate of Forks High School, Forks Alternative School or the Quileute Tribal High School may apply as long as they meet the requirements. Our scholarship applications are due by May 20th. Find out more on this link! SAVE THE DATE — COMMUNITY SHRED EVENT IN OCTOBER! The Forks Chamber of Commerce will be sponsoring a community shred event on Saturday, October 151 from 10am —1 pm. This gives you 6 months to go through that pile of paperwork in your closet, garage, storeroom, desk, etc. and sort it out to see what needs to be shredded in October. More details TBA. CLALLAM EDC MAKE SURE TO JOIN CLALLAM EDC'S MAILING LIST SO YOU DON'T MISS GRANT OPPORTUNITIES AND COUNTY NEWS! https://chooseclallamfirst.com/ Join Dave Lowry, General Manager of Interfor Pacific's mill in Port Angeles on Wednesday on Coffee with Colleen as he shares: Information about Interfor, such as: • # employees & their production levels lately; • Products Interfor produces at the Port Angeles Mill; • Where Interfor products are sold; • What's happened pre and post COVID in the log supply market locally from both an availability standpoint and price; • Expansion Plans; • Community Support Efforts including - youth sports donations to Habitat for Humanity. Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/i/89474510306?pwd=VlIrRHh5RG1nYVh3V3JXRzFSMmRodzO9 Meeting ID: 894 7451 0306 Passcode: 187447 One tap mobile +12532158782„89474510306#,,,,*187447# US (Tacoma) Dial by your location - 253 215 8782 (Tacoma) HELP WANTED — please share with those looking for employment OU RC Xbs t� FORKS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WANTS TO AOD YOU TO OUR TEAM ceriw r.re 50-d..yn W a P.al,rdruW: wa,A...,+>.n.a:xrK. eW "wh-7 We rexed a puree WN ssiMnur.*bnr 4r tt.O CO"o—,Wo-t-kitf.l pgopll.t rp frk-* aedtpvt ceixkt�q iu1eM ct'a pubk. 7 ..4re, W? Qaedt,, b t m i Mawa:ary. AppI+ x 1e 4 to are area 4vawi. �dgeaek .11 wa w. toA k1-54.0'—k 1"11u6m Smld.y& hM1d34i2n'SS Famx.spee'wtek deSlending on the dme o! mw=.pwcwein,M�la twlpfudwston rWd+areaenSameslon. pprttssmtrz� vMko dudes. s!o6klr,E dveb.ea,.va3ng t65h rs�f•. tier. E4lrvi'ui tp7SKaM+ait+nms9s as ats(grind, Pryvtawa od'loe and/or rtompttm(3lye�erie>.caav*afP:sai. pleai4 kAout 8n adAgtaMan 3t Sdtl S. Bork4 FreRue. If you would like to share your "help wanted" ad, please send us the jpeg image of your advertisement. WEST END BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION (WEBPA) WEBPA meetings take place at the Congregational Church, 7:30am. Dues are only $10 for an individual, and $25 for a business. WEBPA is a wonderful non-profit organization that provides business networking, and through fundraising, keep our lovely town decorated for Christmas! For more information, please contact Christi Baron 360-374-3311 or cbaron@forksforum.com FOREVER TWILIGHT IN FORKS COLLECTION & FESTIVAL FTF IS LOOKING FOR LOCAL VENDORS! Forever Twilight in Forks Festival Grand Bazaar - Friday, September 9th 9am-5pm at Ki'tla Center. All spots are outdoors, so bring your own table, chair, pop-up. We will set up in the grassy area in the SE corner and there will be high visibility from the highway. People are coming from all over and want to buy local art, photography, jewelry, Twilight-themed items and more! Spaces are only $25 each. We are offering free spaces for local non -profits, and our Quileute and Hoh neighbors! Advance registration is required. To find out more information or to register click on this link. All are welcome to shop!! FOREVER TWILIGHT IN FORKS COLLECTION Forever Twilight in Forks Collection is open NEW winter hours! Come see us Friday 2 — 4 pm and Saturday Noon — 4pm. Please see link for more details. We will be open Fridays and Saturdays from September 17, 2021 to May 21, 2022. We will begin summer hours on May 26tn UPCOMING IN -PERSON EVENTS For more events, please visit our website RECURRING • Tuesdays — Bingo Night @ Forks Elks Lodge • Wednesdays —Quileute Drum Group @ Quileute Akalat Center APRIL EVENTS • April 9 Ribbon Cutting for Fog & Fern Clothing Co. • April 9 Adult Easter Egg Hunt @ Blakeslee's Bar & Grill • April 16 Forks Elks Lodge presents Easter Egg Hunt @ Tillicum Park Ball Fields • April 16 Free Entrance Day @ Olympic National Park • April 17 Annual Easter Breakfast @ Forks Elks Lodge • April 20 Ribbon Cutting for Hobucket House • April 23 Washington Coastsavers Washington Coast Cleanup (WCC) • April 29 American Elm Heritage Project Dedication & Planting Ceremony MAY EVENTS • May 1 Annual Kids Fishing Day @ Bogachiel Rearing Pond • May 4 Forks Chamber of Commerce 2021 "Best Of" Awards @ Blakeslee's Bar & Grill • May 4 Senior Lunch @ Forks Congregational Church • May 8 Annual Mother's Day Breakfast @ Forks Elks Lodge • May 14-October 1 (Saturdays) Forks Open Aire Market @ Sully's Parking Lot • May 14 Richwine Road Band Live Music Fundraiser for Forks Food Bank @ The Ki'tla Center Roundhouse • May 20 Forever Twilight in Forks Collection Fifth Anniversary • May 25-August 31 (Wednesdays) Forks Logging & Mill Tours • May 28-29 The 1st Annual Forks Sasquatch Days @ Rainforest Arts Center, downtown For more events, please visit our website if you would like to submit an event for our events page, send the information to Events@ForksWA.com and include your contact details and a photo or flyer. Lissy Andros, executive director Reach me at director@forkswa.com Kari Larson, assistant to the E.D., Kari handles all of our visitor correspondence and administrative duties for the Chamber, and the online store. She is also in charge of ordering our merchandise and sending out visitor packets. Reach Kari at chamber@forkswa.com info@forkswa.com and events@forkswa.com Gay Bunnell, Forever Twilight in Forks Collection and VIC staff member. Gay is our lead staff member at the Collection, including maintaining the records for the exhibits. Reach Gay at collection@forkswa.com Wendy Sumner, Visitor Center staff member. (no email) Rob Hunter, Forever Twilight in Forks Festival volunteer and part-time staff member. Reach Rob at projects@forkswa.com Susie Michels, IT Manager. Susie runs our website and handles all technical issues. Reach Susie at webmaster@forkwa.com 2022 DUES Thank you to everyone who has sent in their dues for 2022! We will send out reminders this week. If you haven't received yours, please contact me. Thank you for your,time. I hope you have a wonderful day! Best, ,&6 6 q Lissy Andros, Executive Director Forks Chamber of Commerce 1411 S. Forks Avenue Forks, WA 98331 360-374-2531 office 903-360-4449 cell director@ForksWA.com Julie Shannon From: Heidi Eisenhour Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 8:17 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Help the EDC Help You Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: The Chamber of Jefferson County Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 8:15:19 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Heidi Eisenhour Subject: Help the EDC Help You ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. The Chamber OF JFFFFRSON COUNTY building business, building community www.jeffcountychamber.org 360.385.7869 director@jeffcountychamber.org r� AM AWL 11 We're reaching out today to share an opportunity for your perspective to be included in economic development planning. Your unique feedback will ensure a broad range of perspectives are represented. The survey will take 10-20 minutes to complete. This is an invitation to participate in the Community Goal Survey, which seeks to understand the goals and priorities of Jefferson County residents related to community economic development. Your unique feedback will ensure a broad range of perspectives are represented. Here is the link: https://bit.ly/ASAPJefferson. The survey will be live until the 3,dweek of April. Jefferson County, WA is taking part in the Area Sector Analysis Process (ASAP), a community -driven tool that informs sustainable community economic development decisions. ASAP uses national and local data to identify compatible and desirable business sectors unique to each community. This link described the process (https://www.usu.edu/wrdc/asap). The EDC will be evolving our economic development strategy and work plan based on the interpretation of the data in this study. Thank you! Best, Cindy Brooks Executive Director EDC Team Jefferson 360-379-4693 Sent on behalf of our Community Partner EDC Team Jefferson We can send yours too, just ask us how! www.jeffcountychamber.org Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce 1 2409 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Unsubscribe heisenhour@co.jefferson.wa.us Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by director@jeffcountychamber.org powered by AdD ON Constant Contact Try email marketing for free today! Julie Shannon From: Greg Brotherton Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:17 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Currently Playing - are these on your calendar From: The Chamber of Jefferson County Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:15:06 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Greg Brotherton Subject: Currently Playing - are these on your calendar ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. [' CThe Chamber OFJFFFFRSON COUNTY UPITIRTM While some events are still virtual more and more are becoming hybrid or live so please check the chamber calendar regularly for accurate updated information. Dr. Tamara Meredith will be discussing new and continuing programs and opportunities with the Jefferson County Library. If you haven't been there lately, join us and learn more about in person and virtual happenings. Learn more and register here Ribbon Cuttings Are Back! Join us! April 12th 12:30 pm Flagship Marketplace 1003 Water Street, PT centrum creativity in community Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce 1 2409 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Unsubscribe gbrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by director@jeffcountychamber.org powered by Constant Contact Try email marketing for free today! N