HomeMy WebLinkAbout051622AS01 JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Mark McCauley, County Administrator
FROM: Kate Dean, District No. 1 Commissioner
DATE: May 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Workshop with Climate Action Committee- Forests and Trees Greenhouse
Gas Inventory for 2001 -2016 and Next Steps
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Forest ecosystems, including trees and forest soils,remove or sequester CO2 from the atmosphere and
store that CO2 long term in soils and both above and below-ground biomass. That sequestration and
storage ability can be reduced due to changes in land use, forest disturbances such as fire and
harvesting, changes in tree canopy, etc., and evidence of such reduction can be seen in this report(see,
for example, Figures 6-8.). The Climate Action Committee and partners have produced this report which underscores
the impact of these removals and emissions and estimates the net impact. This information may be useful for setting
future GHG goals for changes in the net impact from forests and trees outside forests,for informing policies and
practices to reach these goals, and also establishes a baseline for the future.
ANALYSIS:
The entirety of Jefferson County(including the Federal wilderness sections,etc.)was analyzed, as well as
other subareas based on ownership. As described in this report, undisturbed forests provide the highest levels of carbon
sequestration and carbon storage. The older the forest,the larger the volume of carbon storage. The federal government
and Washington state have begun to inventory carbon in their jurisdiction and are developing policy
that will affect Jefferson County and Port Townsend. Jefferson County and Port Townsend have opportunities to
engage early in policy and actions to develop a robust carbon management strategy.
This report recommends concrete steps to take including:
• Maintaining an inventory and report on carbon flows from forests,
• Identify barriers and gaps that may hinder the development of a robust carbon management policy,
• Contribute data(both technical and financial)to decision making,
• Inform constituents of the opportunities for carbon sequestration,
• Inspire collaboration among stakeholders and decision makers,
• Take concrete action now to protect/retain older forests that build upon and expand existing local efforts, and
• The county could adopt and/or advocate for goals for carbon sequestration levels on county owned, state,
commercial/industrial and/or federal lands in the county.
The final pages of the main Forests and Trees GHG Inventory Report include detailed suggestions on
next steps that Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend could consider to optimize carbon removals for their
jurisdictions.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
See report
REVI , ED BY:
G'G-1 .Sf 1L 1 Z-
ark McCa y, County Administrat Date
Thanks for the opportunity to update you today on behalf of the Climate Action
Committee. Cindy Jayne, chair of committee, will be speaking today, along with Cyndy
Bratz from the forest modeling team.
1
2
I offermy sincereappreciation for our modeling volunteers. Catharine Copass, Cyndy
Bratz and myself (Cindy Jayne) performed modeling. Kevin Hitchcock, Jefferson County,
offered superb GIS expertise. Patricia Jones provided policy and guidance for the report
and our suggested next steps. And MalloreeWeinheimerof Chickadee Forestry, who
contracts with Jefferson County on forestry practices, provided technical advice and
review. We also got review comments from Center for Sustainable Economy, Rayonier,
Northwest Watershed Institute, and Jefferson Land Trust. And many thanks to ICLEI for
the 6 month training program that formed the foundation for our modeling approach.
3
Forest ecosystems, including trees and forest soils, remove or sequester CO2 from the
atmosphere and store that CO2 long term in soils and both above and below-ground
biomass. This figure shows the natural forest carbon cycle, not including harvests or
changes in land uses.
4
5
Forests in Jefferson County are high-carbon priority and have high carbon sequestration
potential. This figure is from the ICLEI 2020 Forestry Cohort training and shows that our
northwest forests have some of the highest carbon removal potential in the US.
factors (metric tonnes/ha/yr) shown in this figure are negative.
6
Evidence of such reduction in removals can be seen in this report.
7
LEARN -Land Emissions And Removals Navigator
8
The entire county was modeled, as well as each of these subareas shown. Our county is
76% forested ONP and ONF are in light and dark green. Note that County-owned
parcels are quite a small portion of the total Jefferson County area. DNR managed lands
are shown in brown, while commercial/industrial forest land is in red.
9
10
This diagram shows results for entire county minus Olympic National Park/Olympic
National Forest for the 2011-2016 time period. CO2 removals are in green, while
emissions are in red. Note that undisturbed forest ƚǒƷƭźķĻ ƚŅ ONP/ONF removed more
than 2 million tons of CO2 per year during this period.
Jefferson County forests generate significant removals of atmospheric CO.
2
Forest disturbances harvests, insects, fire and forest conversion (to development, ag,
etc.) reduced total removals.
Harvests released largest amount of COin all 3 inventory periods. These emissions
2
occur when trees are cut, although approximately 20% is stored in harvested wood
products.
Insect damage alsohad a significant impact by reducing the rate of COremoval
2
State law requires replanting of lands harvested for timber products.
11
This figure shows CO2 removal per acre for each ownership category. Negative numbers
indicate CO2 removals, while positive numbers indicate emissions. So the
Commercial/Industrial land was the only emitter during this period and the other 2
periods as well.
You can see thatUSFS has the highest rate of CO2 removal, and is also the highest %
forested. While the National Park is high, note that its percent forested is lower than
some others due to beach, lakes, glaciers, etc.
You may recall from the map a few slides ago that total land area for each of these
ownership categories differs. Total land area for County-owned land is very small
compared to others. City of PT and Port Hadlock also occupy relatively small areas.
12
This figure shows percent of County-wide CO2 removal by ownership category. Most are
positive, the negative numberfor commercial is because it is a net emitter, so reduces
county wide CO2 removal. County-
enough to include on this chart.
Compared to the last slide that shows CO2 removal per acre, this slide (showing %
removal by ownership) reflects land area and land management both. The largest area
with the least harvest, ONP+Wilderness, has the highest % Removal.
13
This figure showsthe net GHG Flux on State DNR land for the 2011-2016 period. Note
that insect and disease is green because while the level of CO2 removal in insect/disease
damaged forests is reduced, it is still a net remover of CO2. Harvests on DNR land
(shown in red) were lower for this period than for earlier periods.
14
This slide showstrends are over time for each sub-area by ownership category. In this
slide, a decreaseis a reduction in rate of CO2 removal (bad).
The first line of this table shows that for All of Jefferson County, there was a slight
reduction in removal between 2001-2006 and most recent period, driven by a slight
decrease in total forest. There was also a decrease in removal from ONP due to the 2015
Paradise Fires as well as disturbances such as wind damage.
And a nice increase in removal in County-Owned Land! A result of decreased harvesting.
15
While these numbers show a net sequestration or removal, it is not surprising given the
large forested area, relatively small population (~30,000) and limited industrial facilities
in Jefferson County. It is expected that the sequestration ability of Jefferson County
forests will be key for Washington State and perhaps even the US as a whole in meeting
their GHG emissions reduction goals.
16
17
Thank you for that letter!
18
19
The following additional suggested next steps are not shown on the slides, only in the notes
below. See full report for complete list of Suggested Next Steps.
Additional Suggested Next Steps -County:
Encourage Federal Agencies to consider including carbon sequestration as a target
objective in wildland fire management
Establish a program for transfer or purchase of development rights for forested areas
within the county
(https://kingcounty.gov/services/environment/stewardship/sustainable-
building/transfer-development-rights.aspx).
Support efforts to strengthen DNR policies that protect forests on state land,
incorporate transparency in reporting on carbon impacts and income of DNR
management, and overall request that DNR set goals to increase carbon storage.
Consider steps to encourage, incentivize, or require sustainable forest management
to decrease carbon emissions from this sector, following guidance such as the Forest
City Suggested Next Steps:
Most of above as well as:
Permanently protect city-owned older forests.
Revise the tree ordinance (Port Townsend Municipal Code, Chapter 19.06 Tree
Conservation) to encourage retaining standing trees as practical.
Protect large forest properties important for open space, stormwater treatment and
carbon storage within the City of Port Townsend
20
As donewith previous inventory and GHG redux reports, will use these slides as a base
for presentation to public, tailored to that audience; will also use that to gather
feedback related to possible goals.
Now we are in outreach mode and have established a Forest Working Group. Most of
the Forest Inventory team is in the FWG and we have added Mary Jean Ryan, who has
specific policy expertise, and Kate Chadwick,a CAC member who has expertise in global
forest policy. Jefferson Land Trust and Northwest Watershed Institute stand ready for
technical advice and review if and when needed.
21
I would like to invite all of you to download the full Forest and Trees GHG Inventory on
the Jefferson County website here:
https://www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/638/Documents
for complete information on our modeling process, results and a complete list of
Suggested Next Steps. There are 2 versions: with attachments (large file) and without
attachments (small file size).
22