United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-918

December 

2015

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Versus Forest Sequestration in 

Temperate Rain Forests—

A Synthesis for Southeast 

Alaska Communities

David Nicholls and Trista Patterson

Sitka

Baranof 

Island

Southeast Alaska
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating 

based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income 

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases 

apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html 

and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the 

information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. 

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov . 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Authors

David Nicholls is a forest products technologist and Trista Patterson was an 

ecological economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Alaska Wood Utilization and Development Center, 

204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835. 

Cover: Map of southeast Alaska showing the locations of Sitka and Baranof Island.
Abstract

Nicholls, David; Patterson, Trista. 2015. Greenhouse gas emissions versus 

forest sequestration in temperate rain forests—a southeast Alaska analysis. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-918. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 25 p.

Sitka, Alaska, has substantial hydroelectric resources, limited driving distances, 

and a conservation-minded community, all suggesting strong opportunities for 

achieving a low community carbon footprint. In this research we evaluate the level 

of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from Sitka and compare this to the estimated 

CO2 sequestration potential of forest ecosystems. We determine whether a carbonneutral community is attained when these two factors are balanced.

Our analysis consisted of two parts: estimating anthropogenic CO2 emissions 

from Sitka, and comparing this value to estimates of carbon sequestration from 

forests on Baranof Island in southeast Alaska. We found total estimated anthropogenic emissions from Sitka to be in the range of 100,000 to 150,000 Mg carbon per 

year. Carbon sequestration by forests on Baranof Island was conservatively estimated to be more than 250,000 Mg carbon per year. This estimate was extrapolated 

from studies evaluating net ecosystem productivity of forests similar to those in 

southeast Alaska. 

Further reductions in anthropogenic emissions are still possible in Sitka. The 

expansion of the Blue Lake hydroelectric generating facility (adding up to 34,000 

megawatt-hours per year of energy) could further reduce Sitka’s carbon footprint. 

Keywords: carbon sequestration, net ecosystem productivity, greenhouse gas emissions, temperate rain forest.
Contents

1 Introduction

1 Carbon Footprints of Communities in Forested Ecosystems

2 Sitka, Alaska, Context

3 Research Objectives

3 Literature Review—Carbon Sequestration as an Ecosystem Service

3 Carbon Sequestration in Forest Ecosystems

6 Carbon Sequestration From Peat Ecosystems and Wetlands

7 Forest Ecosystem Productivity in Alaska, Canada, and the Pacific Northwest

9 Materials and Methods

9 Estimating Net Ecosystem Productivity for Forests Near 

Sitka, Alaska

12 Estimating Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions for Sitka, Alaska

14 Results and Discussion

14 Carbon Sequestration From Local Forests

14 Local Energy Use and Carbon Footprint

16 Conclusions

17 Literature Cited
1

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Versus Forest Sequestration in Temperate Rain Forests—A Synthesis for Southeast Alaska Communities

Introduction

Carbon Footprints of Communities in Forested Ecosystems

This research considers the carbon footprint of Sitka, Alaska, including the anthropogenic emissions of its residents, and the carbon sequestration capability of the 

forest ecosystems on Baranof Island near Sitka. The term “carbon footprint” has 

many interpretations; a commonly accepted definition is “a certain amount of 

gaseous emissions that are relevant to climate change and associated with human 

production or consumption activities” (Wiedmann and Minx 2007). Several evaluations have been conducted at national scales, including Australia (Lenzen and 

Murray 2001), Ireland (Kenny and Gray 2009), and Austria (Erb 2004). Other 

studies have considered general methods for national-level footprints (Kitzes et al. 

2007, 2009). Still other studies have considered the province (Bagliani et al. 2004) 

and community levels (Barthelmie et al. 2008).

A key objective for estimating community footprints is to indicate how local 

actions can reduce particular sources of emissions. These local actions can add 

up to large reductions when combined across larger geographic scales, and could 

become an essential feature of reaching global goals articulated by Pacala and 

Socolow (2004), in which up to 1 billion Mg of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 

can be avoided annually. The urgency of determining carbon footprints and 

moving quickly toward mitigation strategies is well illustrated by Rockstrom et al. 

(2009). In this study, 10 global environmental thresholds, which define the boundaries of a “safe operating space for humanity,” were identified and quantified. Six 

of these thresholds have already been exceeded. Most striking of these indices is 

the rate of biodiversity loss, which already exceeds the boundary level by more 

than tenfold. 

Estimating and comparing carbon footprints versus planetary biological capacity to support them has become more specific and standardized (GFN 2009). This 

has aided the challenge of comparative studies addressing issues related to scale 

(GFN 2009; Wackernagel et al. 1999, 2002). Early footprint theory and estimations 

were necessarily conceptual in nature (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). In the current study we pose the Sitka example in the same light. We develop connections 

between a community and the forest within its borders. Methods of quantifying carbon footprints can in some situations be imprecise, and many different 

approaches are possible. For example, only direct CO2 emissions could be measured 

vs. complete life-cycle analysis (LCA) for a range of greenhouse gases. Further, 

CO2 emissions are only one portion of greenhouse gas emissions, and have less 

warming potential than do some other gases; therefore, an accurate carbon footprint 
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-918

would need to consider which greenhouse gases to include. Accurately defining 

time scales, spatial scales, and vegetation types can further complicate this analysis. 

One conceptual model to consider would be best described as a “tea-cup” or “terrarium” construct. Here, all carbon cycling would be assumed to take place within 

a localized closed system that has well defined boundaries, rather than a real-world 

model of global extent. 

Even though a model of closed carbon cycling would not be realistic under 

actual conditions, it could help define the processes occurring near Sitka. First, 

Sitka is located in a remote part of southeast Alaska with few nearby cities that 

could mask the effects of the city’s emissions. Second, because Sitka is surrounded 

by large areas of forest land, carbon sequestration of man-made emissions could 

reasonably be influenced most directly by nearby forests. Third, Sitka is located on 

Baranof Island, which serves as a convenient geographic boundary for our analysis. 

Fourth, although this “teacup” model does not account for the important sequestration or other atmospheric interactions occurring on oceans, and other land cover, 

the linkage between a community and the services provided by its surrounding 

forests (Patterson and Coelho 2009, Smith et al. 2011) is important. 

Sitka, Alaska, Context

The legal land area of the City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska, is about 7444 km2

(USDC CB 2012), although most of this area is uninhabited, consisting of mixtures 

of forest, muskeg, rock, and glaciers. The forested area can further be described in 

terms of commercial versus noncommercial forests, young-growth versus oldgrowth trees, hardwoods versus softwoods—each of which could have differing 

rates of productivity and sequestration. Thus, quantifying the actual forest sequestration, net ecosystem productivity, and role of forest soils is beyond the scope of 

this study. 

Sitka is an island community of close to 8,800 residents (USDC CB 2012), 

and relies primarily on hydroelectric power, with installed capacity of more than 

24 megawatts (MW) (CBS 2011). The 6 MW Blue Lake facility started operation 

in 1961 and now meets close to 20 percent of Sitka’s electrical needs. A second 

hydroelectric facility (the 18.6 MW Green Lake facility), has been in operation 

since 1979. In periods of relatively high electrical demand (or low hydropower production) a diesel generator system is available to meet a portion of Sitka’s electrical 

needs. The diesel generator is a last-resort option owing to its high consumption 

of fuel, even for short periods of operation. For example, during a six-day period 

in May 2011, Sitka burned 21,866 gallons of diesel fuel to meet the city’s electrical 

demand (CBS 2011). 
3

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Versus Forest Sequestration in Temperate Rain Forests—A Synthesis for Southeast Alaska Communities

Sitka has a very limited road system (about 16 miles of primary roads) and 

therefore very limited transportation needs. Although more than 8,000 registered 

vehicles are in Sitka (Alaska DMV 2007), many residents drive just a few thousand 

miles per year, in one study estimated to be 4,380 miles per vehicle per year (Dhittle and Associates, Inc. 2008). Sitka’s relatively mild maritime climate results in 

essentially no air-conditioning needs in summer and a relatively mild winter heating season by Alaska standards. Sitka could become a proving ground for electric 

vehicles owing to short daily driving requirements, relatively low travel speeds (45 

mph or less), and relatively flat terrain. Any significant expansion of Sitka’s electric 

vehicle capacity, however, would not be prudent until Sitka’s hydroelectric capacity 

has been augmented. In other words, large scale use of electric vehicles powered 

ultimately by diesel generators (and not base-load hydroelectric power) would not 

make sense, economically or environmentally. 

Research Objectives

The objectives of this research were to evaluate the carbon balances of Sitka, 

assessing local anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the carbon sequestration of local 

forests, as measured by net ecosystem productivity (NEP). By weighing these two 

quantities against each other, we evaluate whether Sitka is a carbon-neutral community, and describe quantified conceptual connections (such as the forest area needed 

to sequester emissions from an average resident). These results could help stimulate 

community planning dialog, or serve as a framework for other communities where 

estimations may be less straightforward. 

Literature Review—Carbon Sequestration as an 

Ecosystem Service

Carbon Sequestration in Forest Ecosystems

Oceans, peatbogs, grasslands, savanna, and taiga are all important land covers 

for carbon sequestration, yet of these, forests are most actively managed and 

planted for this purpose. Globally, about 25 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are estimated to be sequestered in forests (Nabuurs et al. 2000). More than 

66 percent of the global carbon (C) stocks in forest ecosystems are estimated to 

be in forest soils and peat deposits (Dixon et al. 1994). In the European continent an estimated 7 to 12 percent of anthropogenic emissions (i.e., 135 to 205 

Tg per year) are sequestered in forests (Janssens et al. 2003). Here, the changing carbon sink is related primarily to growth of relatively young trees, and is 

attributable to both tree biomass (about 70 percent of the sink) and soils (about 

30 percent of the sink) (Liski et al. 2006, Nabuurs et al. 2000). This estimate 

Sitka could become 

a proving ground for 

electric vehicles owing 

to short daily driving 

requirements, relatively 

low travel speeds 

(45 mph or less), and 

relatively flat terrain.
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-918

compares favorably to Nabuurs et al. 1997, who estimated a whole-tree carbon 

sink in Europe of about 101.3 Tg C per year (equivalent to 9.5 percent of European Union emissions).

Also in Europe, latitudinal variations in carbon flux have been noted. Valentini et 

al. (2000) found that forests in boreal regions sequestered very little carbon, whereas 

Mediterranean forests sequestered up to 5 Mg C/ha/year. This lack of sequestration 

at high latitudes could be significant given that an estimated 49 percent of carbon in 

forest ecosystems is contained in high latitude forests (Dixon et al. 1994), with 37 

percent of carbon in low-latitude forests and 14 percent in mid-latitude forests. 

Net ecosystem productivity (NEP) in forests can be defined as “the net carbon 

accumulation by ecosystems,” which incorporates “all the carbon fluxes from an ecosystem, including autotrophic respiration, heterotrophic respiration, losses associated 

with disturbance, dissolved and particulate carbon losses, volatile organic compound 

emissions, and lateral transfers among ecosystems” (Randerson et al. 2002). It can 

be expressed as the change in carbon storage over some time interval. Net ecosystem 

productivity can also be thought of as the difference between net primary production 

and respiration. The woody component of NEP can be represented by the sum of 

live and coarse woody debris stores, measured over a given time interval (Janisch 

and Harmon 2002). Pregitzer and Euskirchen (2004) studied latitudinal climatic 

gradients and their effect on the net primary productivity (NPP) and NEP of forest 

ecosystems. They synthesized 120 papers into a single database and found that forest 

stand age played an important role in determining the distribution of carbon pools. 

Aggregated estimates of both NPP and NEP were found to be highest in intermediate-aged stands (i.e., 30 to 120 years in age), whereas older forests were generally less 

productive. The youngest age class (0 to 10 years old) exhibited negative mean NEP 

in boreal and temperate biomes. Summary NEP data for temperate forests revealed a 

peak of 4.5 Mg C/ha/ year occurring in the 11- to 30-year age class. 

Six different forest ecosystem carbon pools are generally recognized in the 

literature; these include live trees, standing dead trees, understory vegetation, 

down dead wood, forest floor, and soil organic carbon (Smith et al. 2006). However, the most effective strategies for use of forests to sequester carbon depend 

to a large degree on the current status of the land (Marland and Marland 1992). 

For forests composed mainly of standing biomass, and also characterized by low 

productivity, an effective strategy is to protect the existing forest. However, for 

land containing little biomass, with low productivity, an effective sequestration 

strategy is to reforest and manage for carbon storage (Marland and Marland 

1992). Important questions remain, in southeast Alaska and elsewhere, regarding 

Net ecosystem 

productivity can be 

thought of as the net 

change in carbon 

storage of forests over 

some time interval.
5

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Versus Forest Sequestration in Temperate Rain Forests—A Synthesis for Southeast Alaska Communities

the rate at which trees are able to sequester carbon and the land area available for 

reforestation and afforestation.

Under certain conditions, forest stands could contribute significant sequestration potential. For example, Moulton and Richards (1990) estimated that the United 

States could offset 56 percent of its CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion by 

planting trees on 140 million ha of marginal crop, pasture, and nonfederal forest 

lands. They also describe tree planting as an “interim measure” for carbon sequestration in that sequestration rates will inevitably decline over time owing to the 

maturity and senescence of trees. 

The effect of rotation length on carbon sequestration potential was evaluated by Liski et al. (2001), who considered 60-year and 90-year rotation lengths 

in Finland. Shortening the rotation length by 30 years (to more closely match 

culmination of mean annual increment) had the effect of decreasing carbon stocks 

in trees while increasing carbon stocks in soils. The shorter rotation lengths also 

had the effect of increasing fossil carbon emissions associated with harvesting 

and manufacture. The sequestration potential of mature forests has also been 

considered. Harmon et al. (1990) evaluated the sequestration potential of harvested lumber from old-growth forests. They concluded that it would take at least 

250 years for the net carbon stored in forests plus “long-lived” wood products to 

recover the carbon content of the old growth stand prior to harvest. Unmanaged 

forests in Austria were also found to have higher carbon storage (versus managed 

forests) (Seidl et al. 2007). Meng et al. (2003) found carbon storage to be higher 

in undisturbed, naturally growing forests in New Brunswick, Canada, versus 

those managed by current industrial practices. Under the no-disturbance scenario, 

forest carbon stocks increased over a period of 60 years, after which they started 

to decline.

Seely et al. (2002) studied the effect of rotation length on carbon balances 

of boreal forests using an ecosystem simulation model. Total ecosystem carbon 

increased with longer rotation ages regardless of species, and primarily resulted 

from increases in live biomass. However, the proportion of ecosystem carbon 

in soils decreased with longer rotation lengths. Short rotation scenarios showed 

reductions in site productivity during subsequent rotations. However, application of 

nitrogen fertilizer ameliorated this trend, and in some cases increased total carbon 

storage by up to 9 percent. Carbon stocks in boreal forests were also studied by 

Garcia-Gonzolo et al. (2007), who considered timber production under several 

management regimes. Any tree stocking densities that were greater than “business 

as usual” regimes were found to increase both timber production and ecosystem 
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-918

carbon stocks. Maximum carbon stocks were found under the regime in which no 

thinning was done before the final harvest.

Active management of forest stands could become an integral part of carbon 

sequestration while providing economic benefits to landowners. It has been suggested that financial incentives for improved forest management could become 

attractive to landowners if carbon had a market value of $10 USD per Mg or higher 

(Birdsey 2006). By comparison, Leighty et al. (2006) used an assumed carbon 

value of $20 USD per Mg when considering forest biomass in southeast Alaska. 

The transition path from old-growth to second-growth forests on the Tongass 

National Forest (NF) occurring over the next several decades could be greatly 

influenced by both the market value of carbon and forest carbon sequestration 

potential, among other factors. From a practical standpoint there is very little 

timber harvested on Baranof Island near Sitka. However, as this region transitions 

to actively managed second-growth timber in coming decades, harvest levels could 

change, especially on Prince of Wales Island, where much of the second-growth 

resource is located.

The subject of carbon neutrality of forests has become quite contentious 

recently, in part because spatial and temporal scales can be difficult to define, making scientific analysis challenging. Some have suggested that the carbon benefits 

of forests might be more limited than previously thought; thus it is not accurate to 

characterize all bioenergy as being “carbon neutral.” For example, some studies 

(Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences 2010) have asserted that wood burned 

for energy can result in greater life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than even coal 

burned to create an equivalent amount of energy. However, it must be realized 

that forest scale, geographic region, and forest growth rates among other factors 

all are important in determining carbon balances. Moreover, there are numerous 

integrated carbon pools involving wood products, bioenergy, and other uses (for 

direct use and substitutions), making it difficult to assess best practices and policy 

(Lippke et al. 2011).

Carbon Sequestration From Peat Ecosystems and Wetlands

The carbon balances of wetlands (including peatlands, muskeg, and estuaries) can 

have important implications in southeast Alaska. Here, peat systems are found 

intermixed with forests, and four transition zones have been identified within 

shared peat and forest ecosystems (Hartshorn et al. 2003). Northern peat ecosystems are characterized by relatively low NPP, decomposition, and net CO2

 exchange 

(Frolking et al. 2002). However, even though carbon sequestration occurs very 

slowly, substantial quantities of organic carbon can be found within a depth of a 
7

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Versus Forest Sequestration in Temperate Rain Forests—A Synthesis for Southeast Alaska Communities

few meters because of centuries of accumulation. For example, sequestration rates 

of 2 to 3 Mg/ha over the past 5,000 to 10,000 years have been evaluated by Gorham 

(1995). Other research on northern peatlands in North America found net sequestration rates of about 6 Mg C/ha/year, based on eddy covariance techniques (LaFleur 

et al. 2001). Hartshorn et al. (2003) estimated that peatland-forest ecosystems in 

southeast Alaska could contain up to 23 kg C/m2 (23 Mg per ha). These studies 

indicate the importance of carbon stored in peat, and the important implications for 

carbon cycles and climate change.

Forest Ecosystem Productivity in Alaska, Canada, and the 

Pacific Northwest

Carbon sequestration in trees, although not a significant factor in the inhabited 

portion of Sitka, could be a significant ecosystem service when considering land 

areas adjacent to Sitka, including Baranof Island and the Tongass NF. The Tongass 

covers close to 17 million acres and contains an estimated 2.8 ± 0.5 Pg1 of carbon 

(equivalent to 7.7 percent of total carbon in U.S. forests) (Leighty et al. 2006). This 

study identified seven different carbon pools, and found that 66 percent of the total 

Tongass carbon was stored in soils, 30 percent in aboveground biomass, and 4 

percent in roots (Leighty et al. 2006). 

Southeast Alaska’s Baranof Island contains much of the legal area of the City 

and Borough of Sitka. Two biogeographical provinces have been identified; eastern 

Baranof Island and western Baranof Island (Bschor 2008). The combined forest area 

for these regions is 663,686 ac, of which almost half is productive old-growth forest. 

Our evaluation will be based on productive old-growth area of 316,651 ac and other 

forest land area of 347,035 ac (table 1). We estimate the combined carbon sequestration potential of these two biogeographical provinces (rather than separate eastern 

versus western Baranof Island).

Table 1—Conifer old-growth types by biogeographic province in the vicinity of 

Sitka, Alaska

Biogeographic province

Total 

land area

Productive 

old growth

Other forest 

lands

Total forest 

area

Hectares

East Baranof Island 159,904 39,613 40,968 80,582

West Baranof Island 323,258 88,529 99,469 187,998

Total (combined) 483,162 128,142 140,437 268,579

Source: Bschor 2008. 

1 Pg = 1 petagram = 1015 grams = 109

 tonnes.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-918

Goodale et al (2002) evaluated forest carbon sinks in the northern hemisphere, 

based on forest inventory information, allometric relationships, and supplementary 

data sets and models. They estimated that, during the early 1990s, northern forests 

and woodlands provided a total sink for 0.6 to 0.7 Pg C/year, and this consisted of 

0.21 Pg C/year in living biomass, 0.08 Pg C/year in forest products, 0.15 Pg C/year 

in dead wood, and 0.13 Pg C/year in the forest floor and soil organic matter. 

Leighty et al. (2006) modeled carbon fluxes on the Tongass NF under five management scenarios, based on combined geographic information system and Forest 

Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data, for a 200-year period (from 1995 to 2195). They 

found that additional sequestration of 0.03 to 0.25 Mg C/ ha/year could be possible 

under a scenario of no harvesting. Mean carbon density has been estimated for 

hemlock–Sitka spruce stands in the Pacific Northwest (Smith et al. 2006) (table 2). 

The mean carbon density of 125-year-old stands is estimated to be close to 900 Mg 

C/ha (excluding soil organic carbon). For 35-year-old stands, carbon density is about 

216 Mg C/ha. This is significant from the standpoint of carbon sequestration on the 

Tongass NF, because many of the mixed stands of young growth and older stands 

would lie within these age ranges. Note, however, that this data (Smith et al. 2006) 

is from stands in Oregon and Washington, not southeast Alaska. Based on this 

research, we can infer average carbon sequestration (total non-soil) in the Pacific 

Northwest region ranging between 10.0 Mg C/ha/year (35- to 65-year age class) and 

5.5 Mg C/ha/year (95- to 125-year age class).

Table 2—Regional estimates of timber volume and carbon stocks for hemlock-Sitka spruce stands with 

afforestation of land in the Pacific Northwest, Westa

Mean carbon density

Age 

(years)

Mean 

volume Live tree

Standing 

dead tree Understory

Down dead 

wood

Forest 

floor

Soil 

organic

Total 

non-soil

Cubic 

meters per 

hectare Megagrams of carbon per hectare

0 0 0 0 4.7 0 0 87.3 4.7

35 413.7 161.0 16.1 2.7 15.9 20.2 98.5 215.8

65 1 119.3 403.3 39.9 2.2 39.8 31.3 111.0 516.4

95 1 672.1 583.0 50.0 2.9 57.5 39.3 115.6 732.7

125 2 103.3 721.0 56.9 3.6 71.1 45.3 116.3 897.8

a

 Volumes are for high-productivity sites that have growth rates greater than 225 ft3 wood per acre per year.

Source: Smith et al. 2006.
9

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Versus Forest Sequestration in Temperate Rain Forests—A Synthesis for Southeast Alaska Communities

Kurz and App (1999) developed carbon budget models of Canadian forests. 

They estimated total carbon content (aboveground and belowground) of softwoods 

in Pacific coastal forests to be 136.7 Mg C/ha (in 1989). Trofymow et al. (2008) 

developed retrospective carbon budgets for old-growth forests on Vancouver Island, 

British Columbia. They found that during periods of active logging and slash burning (1930 to 1945), net biome productivity (NBP) varied dramatically from -3 to -56 

Mg C/ha/year. When disturbances were minimal (1960 to 1990), the result was a net 

carbon sink of 3 to 6 Mg C/ha/year.

Pregitzer and Euskirchen (2004) evaluated forest age in relation to net ecosystem 

productivity (NEP) for temperate forests. They found that NEP was -1.9, 4.5, 2.4, 

1.9, and 1.7 Mg C/ha/year across five age classes spanning 200 years. These findings 

would indicate greatest NEP on sites having trees in the 11- to 30-year age class, 

which would be considered young growth for comparable sites on the Tongass NF. 

Janisch and Harmon (2002) assessed live and dead carbon stores in forests, and 

their impact on net ecosystem productivity (NEP). They found that transitions from 

negative to positive NEP occurred between 0 and 57 years after a disturbance, with 

shorter times to transition occurring as live-tree growth rates increased. However, 

total carbon stores were not reached until about 200 years after a disturbance. For 

all of the scenarios evaluated, NEP ranged from about -14.1 to 3.9 Mg C/ha/year. 

Materials and Methods

Estimating Net Ecosystem Productivity for Forests Near 

Sitka, Alaska

We supplemented the research of Leighty et al. (2006) with other international 

research conducted on similar forest ecosystems (table 3). Based on these diverse 

studies of net ecosystem productivity throughout Alaska, Canada, and the Pacific 

Northwest, we used a relatively low (i.e., conservative) value of +1.0 Mg C/ha/year 

in our analysis. We recognize that this value might not be appropriate for all age 

classes of timber on Baranof Island. Further, much of the research on forest carbon 

relations in southeast Alaska is still in progress and considers elements such as soil 

carbon, streamflow carbon balances, old growth forest dynamics, and the transition 

to second growth timber. However we feel that our estimates of NEP are conservative, are in general agreement with the composite results of studies in the Pacific 

Northwest (table 4), and serve a useful estimator for making inferences regarding 

carbon-neutrality within Sitka and Baranof Island. In our sensitivity analysis we 

use average NEP values ranging from 0.25 to 2.00 Mg C/ha/year (carbon sink). We 

compared this to anthropogenic emission values ranging from 100,000 to 200,000 

Mg C/year (carbon source) (table 5).
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-918

Table 3—International studies estimating net ecosystem productivity (NEP) of forests

Estimated 

carbon sinka

Lead author Year Low High Location Forest type

Mg C/ha/yr

Dolman et al. 2002 3.38 3.38 Netherlands Temperate coniferous forest

Krankina et al. 2004 0.34 0.36 Northwest Russia Live forest biomass

Knohl et al. 2003 4.90 4.94 Central Germany Unmanaged 250-year-old deciduous forest

Granier et al. 2000 -2.57 4.71 Eastern France Young beech forest

Liski et al. 2006 3.8 3.8 Finland Study period 1992 to 2004 (Scots pine, Norway 

spruce, silver birch)

Bottcher et al. 2008 0.6 0.6 Germany Projected average sink for 2003 to 2043

Gough et al. 2007 0.53 1.35 North America (Great 

Lakes)

Stands from 6 to 50 years old, following harvest 

and fire disturbances

Howard et al. 2004 -1.9 0.4 Saskatchewan, Canada Jack pine stands ranging from 0 to 79 years old 

Law et al. 2001 0.76 2.36 Oregon, USA Ponderosa pine stands in young- and old-growth 

forests

Average NEP 1.07 2.35
11

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Versus Forest Sequestration in Temperate Rain Forests—A Synthesis for Southeast Alaska Communities

Table 4—Pacific Northwest regional studies estimating net ecosystem productivity (NEP) of forests

Estimated 

carbon sinka 

Lead author Year Low High Location Forest type

Mg C/ha/yr

Leighty et al. 2006 0.03 0.25 Tongass National Forest, 

Alaska, USA

Western hemlock, Sitka spruce

Smith et al. 2006 5.5 10.0 Pacific Northwest, USA Western hemlock, Sitka spruce

Harmon et 

al. 

2004 -1.16 1.56 Washington state, USA Old-growth Douglas-fir

Waring and 

McDowell

2002 2.07 2.94 Washington state, USA Douglas-fir stands (20, 70, and 150 years old)

Jassal et al. 2007 8.43 8.43 Vancouver Island, British 

Columbia, Canada

Intermediate-aged Douglas-fir (56-year-old 

stand)

Hudiburg et al. 2009 7.8 7.8 Oregon and northern 

California, USA

Coast Range forests

Morgenstern 

et al. 

2004 2.70 4.20 West coast of Vancouver 

Island, British Columbia, 

Canada

Second-growth Douglas-fir (approximately 50 

years old)

Humphreys 

et al. 

2006 2.54 4.24 East coast of Vancouver 

Island, British Columbia, 

Canada

Second-growth Douglas-fir (approximately 50 

years old)

Amiro et al. 2006 0.21 0.68 Saskatchewan, Canada Mature black spruce

Amiro et al. 2006 1.39 3.61 Saskatchewan, Canada Mature aspen

Law et al. 2001 0.76 2.36 Oregon, USA Ponderosa pine stands in young- and oldgrowth forests

Barr et al. 2002 0.7 2.7 Central Canada Deciduous boreal forest (northern 

mid-latitude)

Barr et al. 2002 0.6 2.4 Central Canada Deciduous temperate forest (northern midlatitude)

Seely et al. 2002 1.2 2.5 Northeastern British 

Columbia

Boreal mixed forest—10 different rotation 

scenarios

Luyssaert et al. 2007 3.56 4.40 Temperate forest–humid 

(evergreen)

Values from a comprehensive global database 

of forest types

Luyssaert et al. 2007 0.52 2.10 Boreal forest–humid 

(evergreen)

Values from a comprehensive global database 

of forest types

Average NEP 2.24 3.68

a Net ecosystem productivity; positive values denote ecosystem uptake of carbon.
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-918

Estimating Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions for Sitka, Alaska

Few if any comprehensive estimates are available for anthropogenic emissions 

for Sitka, Alaska. Therefore we base our analysis on statewide CO2 emissions in 

Alaska, then discuss factors that could influence Sitka’s emissions. Recent estimates 

for statewide Alaska CO2 emissions per capita include 75 Mg/year (Borenstein 

2007) and between 38 and 44 Mg/year (US EIA 2014). Given the discrepancy 

between Sitka and statewide values, we choose to use US EPA data of 61.793 Mg 

per capita per year, which we then applied to Sitka’s population (8,747 residents) 

(table 6). The resulting estimate of 540,503 Mg of CO2 per year was used as a base 

value to estimate all anthropogenic emissions for the City and Borough of Sitka. 

Separately, the Sitka Climate Action Plan (Putz et al. 2010) estimated that close 

to 3,728 tons of equivalent CO2 emissions per year can be attributed to municipal 

operations. However, this analysis does not include residential use, transportation, 

or industrial emissions, among other categories.

We followed the approach of Bastianoni et al. (2004) in which a geographic 

accounting of CO2 emissions is analyzed for each contributing sector within a given 

physical boundary. In our simplified analysis we consider emissions from industrial, residential, within-city transportation, and electric sectors balanced against 

sequestration from area forests. Our analysis does not consider embodied carbon in 

consumer goods transported to Sitka, or attempt to assign the accumulated emissions during production chains, an approach used by Bastianoni et al. (2004). Nor 

does our analysis account directly for wood harvested for residential energy (i.e., 

firewood substituting for fossil fuels) or durable wood products that replace more 

Table 5—Sitka, Alaska, carbon emissions versus forest sequestration

Mg of carbon sequestered 

annuallya

Mg C emitted annuallyb

100,000 150,000 200,000

Per hectare Total

0.25 67,146 -32,854c -82,854 -132,854

0.50 134,293 +34,293 -15,707 -65,707

1.00 268,585 +168,585 +118,585 +68,585

2.00 537,170 +437,170 +387,170 +337,170

2.24d 601,630 +501,630 +451,630 +401,630

3.68e 988,393 +888,393 +838,393 +788,393

a

 Based on total forested area of 268,585 ha on Baranof Island in Sitka, Alaska.

b Based on expected 147,018 Mg C per year emitted by residents of Sitka, Alaska.

c Negative signs represent carbon sources; positive signs represent carbon sinks.

d

 Minimum sequestration (from Pacific Northwest and Canada research).

e

 Maximum sequestration (from Pacific Northwest and Canada research).
13

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Versus Forest Sequestration in Temperate Rain Forests—A Synthesis for Southeast Alaska Communities

carbon-intensive materials (i.e., wood structural elements substituting for steel). 

Sustainably harvested wood substituted for fossil fuels could effectively lower the 

net carbon emissions in Sitka owing to the renewable nature of wood versus fossil 

fuels. Because of lack of data, flights taken by residents and arrival transport of visiting tourists are also not accounted for. Tourism is prominent in the Sitka economy, 

and although the carbon footprint for tourism is incorporated into the average Sitka 

statistics, air and seafare emissions still represent an important gap, as carbon 

footprints for arrival often constitute more than 85 percent of the total footprint for 

tourist stays (Patterson et al 2007). 

We used statewide emissions as a proxy for Sitka even though there is a limited road system (and therefore limited driving miles), because no local emissions 

data were available. Dhittle and Associates (2008) estimate average driving of 

only 4,380 miles per year, which is expected to be less than residents of Anchorage or Fairbanks (where an extensive road system is present). Another offsetting 

factor is residential heating—because Sitka is in a mild maritime climate, heating 

needs would likely be less than for residents of Anchorage or Fairbanks. Sitka 

residents could contribute more emissions from air travel (versus state-wide averages) because Sitka is located on an island; however, we have no data to support 

this. When considering the combined factors of automobile driving, residential 

heating, and air transportation (versus other similarly sized communities in 

Alaska), we feel that using statewide emissions to represent Sitka will provide a 

conservative analysis. 

Table 6—Estimated Sitka, Alaska, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and carbon 

equivalent

Source Statewide CO2 emissions 

Estimated Sitka 

CO2 emissions 

Estimated Sitka 

carbon emissions 

Teragrams

Megagrams 

per capitaa Megagrams Megagramsb

Commercial 2.12 3.035 26,547 7,221

Industrial 18.16 26.0 227,422 61,859

Residential 1.85 2.649 23,171 6,303

Transportation 17.76 25.427 222,410 60,496

Electric power 3.27 4.682 40,953 11,139

Total 43.15 61.793 540,503 147,018

a Based on Alaska population of 698,473, and a Sitka population of 8,747 (USDC CB 2012)

b

 Assumes that 1 Mg of CO2 contains 0.272 Mg of carbon.

Source: US EPA (2012).
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-918

Results and Discussion

Carbon Sequestration From Local Forests

Of the 17 studies reviewed from Alaska, Canada, and the Pacific Northwest (table 

4), almost all indicated positive forest NEP values. The average minimum NEP for 

these studies was about 2.24 Mg C/ha/year, and the average maximum value was 

about 3.68 Mg C/ha/year. Also noteworthy is that only one study considered forest 

ecosystems in southeast Alaska, and this study indicated relatively low NEP values, 

ranging from 0.03 to 0.25 Mg C/ha/year (Leighty et al. 2006). When 11 international studies on forest NEP were considered, the average minimum was about 1.07 

Mg C/ha/year, and the average maximum was about 2.35 Mg C/ha/year. Because 

these studies were conducted over diverse ecosystems using various measurement 

techniques, we would expect wide-ranging results in carbon fluxes. However, the 

fact that almost all studies indicated positive NEP values is consistent with broadscale research estimating that global forests act as carbon sinks, and supports our 

use of positive NEP values in the evaluation of Sitka. Further, because forests near 

Sitka are part of a temperate rain forest, they do not experience the wildfire-related 

carbon losses that can occur in fire-prone ecosystems. 

Local Energy Use and Carbon Footprint

This research has found that the City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska, can be considered a carbon sink when weighing its anthropogenic emissions versus expected forest sequestration. In other words, recent emissions and sequestration have resulted 

in a net annual addition to carbon stored when including the emissions by the 

residents of Sitka and also the carbon additions to forest. For Sitka, there are great 

opportunities to expand the use of hydropower to displace fossil fuels for current 

residential heating needs and future transportation needs. However, this will require 

careful management of any new electrical generating capacity (expected within the 

next 10 years), as well as a community-wide commitment to energy conservation. 

For example, plans are underway for construction to increase the dam height at the 

Blue Lake hydroelectric facility—a move that would increase generating capacity 

to 18 MW, and should increase Sitka’s overall generating capacity by about 27 percent (CBS 2011). Once this expansion is completed, any “new” electricity could in 

theory be used to power electric vehicles. However, many have expressed concern 

that by the time the dam improvements are completed, any excess will be quickly 

used to meet growing baseline demand.

Therefore, a pathway for Sitka’s CO2 emission reduction needs to be considered 

holistically, where all energy sources and uses are considered. One such approach is to 

consider a group of stabilization wedges, where each wedge corresponds to a differOf the 17 regional 

studies reviewed in 

western North America, 

almost all indicated 

positive values 

for net ecosystem 

productivity.

This research has 

found that the City 

and Borough of 

Sitka, Alaska, can be 

considered a carbon 

sink when weighing 

its anthropogenic 

emissions versus 

expected forest 

sequestration.
15

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Versus Forest Sequestration in Temperate Rain Forests—A Synthesis for Southeast Alaska Communities

ent area of reduction (Pacala and Socolow 2004). Proposed wedges for Sitka are all 

designed to reduce fossil fuel consumption, and could include residential energy conservation, increased use of wood energy for home heating, increased use of alternative 

fuel vehicles (such as electric cars), and increased use of electricity for home heating.

Sitka’s limited road system and already high use of renewable hydropower make 

it ideally suited for low emissions from transportation. New vehicle technologies 

are likely within the next decade, including improvements to hybrid vehicles and 

commercialization of electric vehicles. Substantial reductions in Sitka’s fossil fuel 

use could hinge on development of key new technologies, including electric vehicles 

with a driving range of at least 20 miles (the approximate length of Sitka’s road system). Electric vehicles are already starting to be used in Sitka, with an estimated six 

vehicles already in use. In Petersburg, Alaska, a community of about 3,100 residents, 

at least eight low-speed electric vehicles have been shipped (Viechnicki 2008). 

Sitka, Petersburg, and other communities in southeast Alaska that have limited road 

systems and relatively low driving speeds could be early adopters of electric cars 

for neighborhood use at relatively low speeds. As new technologies are developed 

(particularly more efficient batteries), enabling greater driving ranges, communities 

with more extensive road systems could potentially benefit from electric vehicles. 

The limited road system in Sitka means not only fewer personal miles driven but 

also shorter distances for delivering goods and providing services to residents.

Woody biomass supplies and deliveries to Sitka are likely to increase new 

opportunities for residential heating with wood energy as well as larger bioenergy heating projects. Bioenergy products could include wood chips, firewood, 

or compressed fuel. This array of products would be influenced by the scale of 

individual bioenergy projects as well as the aggregate demand from all bioenergy 

users in Sitka. 

Biomass energy could play an integral role in Sitka’s energy planning, for both 

residential and “small-industrial” systems. A general increase in the use of firewood 

for residential heating has been observed, with users in southeast Alaska burning 

close to 3.6 cords per heating season (Nicholls et al. 2010). Other potential wood 

energy users include the Coast Guard base in Sitka for development of wood pellet 

systems. A limited amount of biomass harvesting has occurred near Sitka, with 

close to 18 cords being removed from the Starrigavan area in 2008 (Nicholls et al. 

2010), supplying several small firewood dealers in Sitka. Increased use of biomass 

in Sitka, whether for residential or small-industrial users, will likely require some 

degree of behavioral change among energy consumers as well as successful demonstrations to aid in technology diffusion.

Biomass energy could 

play an integral role in 

Sitka’s energy planning.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-918

Even if the residential and personal transportation sectors were to become 

nearly carbon neutral over the next 10 years, significant challenges could remain 

when considering industrial energy uses, marine transportation, and air transportation (all of which consume significant amounts of fossil fuels). However, 

Sitka’s island economy and ecosystems could provide important insights into 

characteristics of community carbon footprints that could potentially be extended 

to other locations. Sitka’s example of building capacity to respond to environmental 

limitations within its island community underscores that importance of local-scale 

decisionmaking and how this can translate into much broader scales. Perhaps the 

greatest element influencing Sitka’s carbon footprint is the volatile price of fossil fuels and people’s willingness to switch to less expensive heating sources (for 

example, electric heating or wood) during market fluctuations. Fossil fuel prices 

also can strongly influence the shipment of consumer goods to Sitka, because very 

few products are produced locally.

Conclusions

The carbon management implications of forests in southeast Alaska are potentially far-reaching. The Tongass NF is entering into a transition phase in which 

young-growth timber, regenerated following harvests during the pulp mill era, 

is beginning to reach merchantable size. How this resource is used for timber, 

wildlife values, recreation, and other ecosystem services will directly influence 

carbon sequestration rates. The value of carbon on international markets, although 

far broader in scope than the southeast Alaska forest base, could have an impact 

on regional timber management practices and the relative importance of carbon 

sequestration as an ecosystem service. 

Quantified expressions of individual and community reliance on environment 

may support substantive community discussions, and active planning for change 

and resilience (Wackernagel et al 2002). Interest and concern are often expressed by 

Sitka residents on interrelated topics such as climate change, energy planning, and 

economic development (City of Sitka 2011). However, conceptual linkages between 

these topics may be difficult to tie to action, especially when issues of scale are 

involved—such as the role of the individual or small rural community in the growth 

of global greenhouse gas emissions. This underscores the need for future research 

in which communities and individuals gain a better understanding of their dependence on the ecosystems of which they are a part. Although reductions in annual 

carbon emissions and increased sequestration from the Sitka area result in a net 

annual addition to carbon stored, we need further study and quantification to help 

motivate additional achievements. 

Even if the residential 

and personal 

transportation sectors 

were to become 

nearly carbon neutral, 

significant challenges 

could remain for 

industrial energy use, 

marine use, and air 

transportation.
17

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Versus Forest Sequestration in Temperate Rain Forests—A Synthesis for Southeast Alaska Communities

Literature Cited

Alaska Division of Motor Vehicles [Alaska DMV]. 2007. Currently registered 

vehicles. http://www.state.ak.us/dmv/research/curreg07.htm. (20 October 2014). 

Amiro, B.D.; Barr, A.G.; Black, T.A.; Iwashita, H.; Kljun, N.; McCaughey, 

J.H.; Morgenstern, K.; Murayama, S.; Nesic, Z.; Orchansky, A.L.; Saigusa, 

N. 2006. Carbon, energy and water fluxes at mature and disturbed forest sites, 

Saskatchewan, Canada. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 136: 237–251.

Bagliani, M.; Da Villa, E.; Gattolin, M.; Niccolucci, V.; Patterson, T.; Tiezzi, 

E. 2004. The ecological footprint analysis for the Province of Venice and the 

relevance of tourism. In: Marchettini, N.; Brebbia, C.A.; Tiezzi E.; Wadhwa, 

L.C., eds. The Sustainable City III. Southampton, United Kingdom: WIT Press: 

123–132. 

Barr, A.G.; Griffis, T.J.; Black, T.A.; Lee, X.; Staebler, R.M.; Fuentes, J.D.; 

Chen, Z.; Morgenstern, K. 2002. Comparing the carbon budgets of boreal and 

temperate deciduous forest stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 32: 

813–822.

Barthelmie, R.J.; Morris, S.D.; Schechter, P. 2008. Carbon neutral Biggar: 

calculating the community carbon footprint and renewable energy options for 

footprint reduction. Sustainability Science. 3: 267–282.

Bastianoni, S.; Pulselli, F.M.; Tiezzi, E. 2004. The problem of assigning 

responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecological Economics. (49): 253–257.

Birdsey, R.A. 2006. Carbon accounting rules and guidelines for the United States 

forest sector. Journal of Environmental Quality. (35): 1518–1524.

Borenstein, S. 2007. Texas, Wyoming lead in emissions. USA Today. http://www.

usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-06-02-emissions_N.htm. 

(12 October 2011).

Bottcher, H.; Freibauer, A.; Obersteiner, M.; Schulze, E.-D. 2008. Uncertainty 

analysis of climate change mitigation options in the forestry sector using a 

generic carbon budget model. Ecological Modelling. 213: 45–62.

Bschor, D.E. 2008. Tongass Land Management Plan Amendment: Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Alaska Region. Chapter 3. 

City and Borough of Sitka [CBS]. 2011. Electric Department. http://cityofsitka.

com/government/departments/electric/index.html. (20 October 2014). 
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-918

Dhittle and Associates, Inc. 2008. City and Borough of Sitka 2008 electric 

system load forecast. Final report. 34 p. http://www.cityofsitka.com/

government/departments/electric/documents/LoadForecastRpt2008-Final.pdf. 

(20 October 2014).

Dolman, A.J.; Moors, E.J.; Elbers, J.A. 2002. The carbon uptake of a mid 

latitude pine forest growing on sandy soil. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 

111: 157–170.

Dixon, R.K.; Brown, S.; Houghton, R.A.; Solomon, A.M.; Trexler, M.C.; 

Wisniewski, J. 1994. Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. 

Science. (263): 185–190.

Erb, K-H. 2004. Actual land demand of Austria 1926–2000: a variation on 

ecological footprint assessments. Land Use Policy. 21(3): 247–259.

Frolking, S.; N.T. Roulet, N.T.; Moore, T.R.; Lafleur, P.M.; Bubier, J.L.; Crill, 

P.M. 2002. Modeling seasonal to annual carbon balance of Mer Bleue Bog, 

Ontario, Canada. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 16(3): 21 p.

Garcia-Gonzalo, J.; Peltola, H.; Gerendiain, A.Z.; Kellomaki, S. 2007. Impacts 

of forest landscape structure and management on timber production and carbon 

stocks in the boreal forest ecosystem under changing climate. Forest Ecology and 

Management. (241): 243–257.

Global Footprint Network [GFN]. 2009. Ecological footprint standards 2009. 

Oakland, CA: 20 p. http://www.footprintstandards.org. (15 September 2012).

Goodale, C.L.; Apps, M.J.; Birdsey, R.A.; Field, C.B.; Heath, L.S.; Houghton, 

R.A.; Jenkins, J.C.; Kohlmaier, G.H.; Kurz, W.; Liu, S.; Nabuurs, G.-

J.; Nilsson, S.; Shvidenko, A.Z. 2002. Forest carbon sinks in the Northern 

Hemisphere. Ecological Applications. 12(3): 891–899.

Gorham, E. 1995. The biogeochemistry of northern peatlands and its possible 

responses to global warming. In: Woodwell, G.M.; Mackenzie, F.T., eds. Biotic 

feedbacks in the global climatic system). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford 

University Press: 169–187.

Gough, C.M.; Vogel, C.S.; Harrold, K.H.; George, K.; Curtis, P.S. 2007. The 

legacy of harvest and fire on ecosystem carbon storage in a north temperate 

forest. Global Change Biology. 13: 1935–1949.
19

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Versus Forest Sequestration in Temperate Rain Forests—A Synthesis for Southeast Alaska Communities

Granier, A.; Ceschia, E.; Damesin, C.; Dufrêne, E.; Epron, D.; Gross. P.; 

Lebaube, S.; Le Dantec, V.; Le Goff, N.; Lemoine, D.; Lucot, E.; J. M. 

Ottorini; J. Y. Pontailler; B. Saugier. 2000. The carbon balance of a young 

beech forest. Functional Ecology. 14: 312–325.

Harmon, M.E.; Ferrell, W.K.; Franklin, J.F. 1990. Effects on carbon storage of 

conversion of old-growth forests to young forests. Science. 247(4943): 699–702.

Hartshorn, A.S.; Southard, R.J.; Bledsoe, C.S. 2003. Structure and function of 

peatland-forest ecotones in southeastern Alaska. Soil Science Society of America 

Journal. 67: 1572–1581.

Howard, E.A.; Gower, S.T.; Foley, J.A.; Kucharik, C.J. 2004. Effects of logging 

on carbon dynamics of a jack pine forest in Saskatchewan, Canada. Global 

Change Biology. 10: 1267–1284.

Hudiburg, T.; Law, B.; Turner, D.P.; Campbell, J.; Donato, D.; Duane, M. 2009. 

Carbon dynamics of Oregon and Northern California forests and potential landbased carbon storage. Ecological Applications. 19(1): 163–180.

Humphreys, E.R.; Black, T.A.; Morgenstern, K.; Cai, T.; Drewitt, G.B.; Nesic, 

Z.; Trofymow, J.A. 2006. Carbon dioxide fluxes in coastal Douglas-fir stands at 

different stages of development after clearcut harvesting. Agricultural and Forest 

Meteorology. 140: 6–22. 

Janisch, J.E.; Harmon, M.E. 2002. Successional changes in live and dead wood 

carbon stores: implication for net ecosystem productivity. Tree Physiology. 

22(2–3): 77–89. 

Janssens, I.A.; Freibauer, A.; Ciais, P.; Smith, P.; Nabuurs, G.-J.; Folberth, 

G.; Schlamadinger, B.; Hutjes, R.W.A.; Ceulemans, R.; Schulze, E.-D.; 

Valentini, R.; Dolman, A.J. 2003. Europe’s terrestrial biosphere absorbs 7 to 

12% of European anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Science. 300(5625): 1538–1542.

Jassal , R.S.; Black, T.A.; Cai, T.; Morgenstern, K.; Li, Z.; Gaumont-Guay, 

D.; Nesic, Z. 2007. Components of ecosystem respiration and an estimate of net 

primary productivity of an intermediate-aged Douglas-fir stand. Agricultural and 

Forest Meteorology. 144: 44–57.

Kenny, T.; Gray, N.F. 2009. Comparative performance of six carbon footprint 

models for use in Ireland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. (29): 1–6.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-918

Kitzes, J.; Galli, A.; Bagliani, M.; Barrett, J.; Dige, G.; Ede, S.; Erb, K.; 

Giljum, S.; Haber, H.; Hails, C.; Jolia-Ferrier; L.; Jungwirth, S.; Lenzen, 

M.; Lewis, K.; Loh, J.; Marchettin, N.; Messinger; H.; Milne, K.; Moles, 

R.; Monfreda, C.; Moran. D.; Nakano, K.; Pyhälä, A.; Rees, W.; Simmons, 

C.; Wackernagel, M.; Wada, Y.; Walsh, C.; Wiedmann, T. 2009. A research 

agenda for improving national ecological footprint accounts. Ecological 

Economics. 68(7): 1991–2007.

Kitzes, J.; Peller, A.; Goldfinger, S.; Wackernagel, M. 2007. Current methods for 

calculating national ecological footprint accounts. Science for Environment and 

Sustainable Society. 4(1): 1–9. 

Knohl, A.; Schulze, E.-D.; Kolle, O.; Buchmann, N. 2003. Large carbon 

uptake by an unmanaged 250-year-old deciduous forest in Central Germany. 

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 118: 151–167.

Krankina, O.N.; Harmon, M.E.; Cohen, W.B.; Oetter, D.R.; Zyrina, O.; 

Duane, M.V. 2004. Carbon stores, sinks, and sources in forests of northwestern 

Russia: Can we reconcile forest inventories with remote sensing results? Climatic 

Change. 67: 257–272.

Kurz, W.A.; Apps, M.J. 1999. A 70-year retrospective analysis of carbon fluxes in 

the Canadian forest sector. Ecological Applications. 9(2): 526–547.

Lafleur, P.M.; Roulet, N.T.; Admiral, S.W. 2001. Annual cycle of CO2 exchange 

at a bog peatland. Journal of Geophysical Research. 106: 3071–3081.

Law, B.E.; Thornton, P.E.; Irvine, J.; Anthoni, P.M.; Vantuyl, S. 2001. Carbon 

storage and fluxes in ponderosa pine forests at different developmental stages. 

Global Change Biology. 7: 755–777.

Leighty, W.W.; Hamburg, S.P.; Caouette, J. 2006. Effects of management on 

carbon sequestration in forest biomass in southeast Alaska. Ecosystems. 9: 

1051–1065.

Lenzen, M.; Murray, S.A. 2001. A modified ecological footprint method and its 

application to Australia. Ecological Economics. 37: 229–255.

Lippke, B.; Oneil, E.; Harrison, R.; Skog, K.; Gustavsson, L.; Sathre, R. 

2011. Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization on carbon 

mitigation: knowns and unknowns. Carbon Management. 2(3): 303–333.

Liski, J.; Pussinen, A.; Pingoud, K.; Makipaa, R.; Karjalainen, T. 2001. Which 

rotation length is favourable to carbon sequestration? Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 31(11).
21

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Versus Forest Sequestration in Temperate Rain Forests—A Synthesis for Southeast Alaska Communities

Liski, J.; Lehtonen, A.; Palosuo, T.; Peltoniemi, M.; Eggers, T.; Muukkonen, 

P.; Mäkipää, R. 2006. Carbon accumulation in Finland’s forests 1922–2004—

an estimate obtained by combination of forest inventory data with modelling of 

biomass, litter and soil. Annals of Forest Science. 63: 687–697.

Luyssaert, S.; Inglima, I.; Jung, M. et al. [64 authors]. 2007. CO2 balance of 

boreal, temperate, and tropical forests derived from a global database. Global 

Change Biology. 13: 2509–2537.

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 2010. Massachusetts biomass 

sustainability and carbon policy study: report to the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. Natural Capital Initiative 

Report NCI-2010-03. Brunswick, ME. 182 p. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/

renewables/biomass/manomet-biomass-report-full-lorez.pdf. (20 October 2014).

Marland, G.; Marland, S. 1992. Should we store carbon in trees? Water, Air, and 

Soil Pollution. (64): 181–195.

Meng, F-R.; Bourque, C.P.-A.; Oldford, S.P.; Swift, D.E.; Smith, H.C. 2003. 

Combining carbon sequestration objectives with timber management planning. 

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. (8): 371–403.

Morgenstern, K.; Black, T.A.; Humphreys, E.R.; Griffis, T.J.; Drewitt, G.B.; 

Cai, T.; Nesic, Z.; Spittlehouse, D.L.; Livingston, N.J. 2004. Sensitivity and 

uncertainty of the carbon balance of a Pacific Northwest Douglas-fir forest 

during an El Niño/La Niña cycle. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 123: 

201–219.

Moulton, R.J.; Richards, K.R. 1990. Costs of sequestering carbon through tree 

planting and forest management in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTRWO-58. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 47 p. 

Nabuurs, G.J.; Paivinen, R.; Sikkema, R.; Mohren, G.M.J. 1997. The role of 

European forests in the global carbon cycle—a review. Biomass and Bioenergy. 

13(6): 345–358.

Nabuurs, G.J.; Mohren, F.; Dolman, H. 2000. Monitoring and reporting carbon 

stocks and fluxes in Dutch forests. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and 

Environment. 4(4): 308–310.

Nicholls, D.L.; Brackley, A.M.; Barber, V. 2010. Wood energy for residential 

heating in Alaska: current conditions, attitudes, and expected use. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-826. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p. 
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-918

Pacala, S.; Socolow, R. 2004. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem 

for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science. 305(5686): 968–972. 

Patterson, T.M.; Coelho, D.I. 2009. Ecosystem services: foundations, 

opportunities, and challenges for the forest products sector. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 257: 1637–1646.

Patterson, T.M.; Niccolucci, V.; Bastianoni, S. 2007. Beyond “more is better”: 

Ecological footprint accounting for tourism and consumption in Val di Merse, 

Italy. International Journal of Ecological Economics. 62: 747–756.

Pregitzer, K.S.; Euskirchen, E.S. 2004. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: 

biome patterns related to forest age. Global Change Biology. 10: 2052–2077.

Putz, M.; Olson, P.; Nicholls, D.; Maclane, K.; Neel, D.; Bradley, K.; Campbell, 

N.; Ozment, J.; Agne, J. 2010. City and Borough of Sitka climate action 

plan. 70 p. http://www.cityofsitka.com/government/clerk/boards/info/climate/

documents/SitkaClimateActionPlan6-11-10.pdf. (20 October 2014).

Randerson, J.T.; Chapin, F.S.; Harden, J.W.; Neff, J.C.; Harmon, M.E. 2002. 

Net ecosystem production: a comprehensive measure of net carbon accumulation 

by ecosystems. Ecological Applications. 12(4): 937–947. 

Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, A.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, 

E.F.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; Nykvist, B.; 

de Wit, C.A.; Hughes, T.; van der Leeuw, S.; Rodhe, H.; Sörlin, S.; Snyder, 

P.K.; Costanza, R.; Svedin, U.; Falkenmark, M.; Karlberg, L.; Corell, R.W.; 

Fabry, V.J.; Hansen, J.; Walker, B.; Liverman, D.; Richardson, K.; Crutzen, 

P.; Foley, J.A. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature. 461: 472–475.

Saah, D.; Patterson, T.; Albert, D.; Rush, K. 2014. Modeling economic and 

carbon consequences of a shift to wood-based energy in a rural ‘cluster’; a 

network analysis in southeast Alaska. Ecological Economics. 107: 287–298.

Seely, B.; Welham, C.; Kimmins, H. 2002. Carbon sequestration in a boreal forest 

ecosystem: results from the ecosystem simulation model, FORECAST. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 169: 123–135.

Seidl, R.; Rammer, W.; Jager, D.; Currie, W.S.; Lexer, M.J. 2007. Assessing 

trade-offs between carbon sequestration and timber production within 

a framework of multi-purpose forestry in Austria. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 248: 64–79.
23

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Versus Forest Sequestration in Temperate Rain Forests—A Synthesis for Southeast Alaska Communities

Smith, J.E.; Heath, L.S.; Skog, K.E.; Birdsey, R.A. 2006. Methods for calculating 

forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types 

of the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-343. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 222 p.

Smith, N.; Deal, R.; Kline, J.D.; Patterson, T.; Spies, T.; Blahna, D. 2011. Using 

ecosystem services as a framework for forest stewardship: executive summary. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW GTR-852. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 p. 

Trofymow, J.A.; Stinson, G.; Kurz, W.A. 2008. Derivation of a spatially explicit 

86-year retrospective carbon budget for a landscape undergoing conversion from 

old-growth to managed forests on Vancouver Island, BC. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 256: 1677–1691.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration [US EIA]. 

2014. State-level energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, 2000–2011. 21 p. 

http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/pdf/stateanalysis.pdf. 

(2 March 2015).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [US EPA]. 2012. Greenhouse gas 

emissions program. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/state_

energyco2inv.html. (5 March 2013).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [USDC CB]. 2012. State and 

county quick facts, Sitka City and Borough, Alaska. http://quickfacts.census.gov/

qfd/states/02/02220.html. (5 March 2013).

Valentini, R.; Matteucci, G.; Dolman, A.J.; Schulze, E.-D.; Rebmann, C.; 

Moors, E.J.;. Granier, A.; Gross, P.; Jensen, N.O.; Pilegaard, K.; Lindroth, 

A.; Grelle, A.; Bernhofer, C.; Grünwald, T.; Aubinet, M.; Ceulemans, 

R.; Kowalski, A.S.; Vesala, T.; Rannik, U.; Berbigier, P.; Loustau, D.; 

Gudmundsson, J.; Thorgeirsson, H.; Ibrom, A.; Morgenstern, K.; Clement, 

R.; Moncrieff, J.; Montagnani, L.; Minerbi, S.; Jarvis, P.G. 2000. Respiration 

as the main determinant of carbon balance in European forests. Nature. 404: 

861–865.

Van Kooten, G.C.; Bulte, E.H. 1999. How much primary coastal temperate 

rain forest should society retain? Carbon uptake, recreation, and other values. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 29(12): 1879–1890. doi:10.1139/x99-173.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-918

Viechnicki, J. 2008. Low-speed electric cars come to Petersburg. KFSK radio. 

http://www.kfsk.org/2008/06/11/low-speed-electric-cars-come-to-petersburg/. 

(20 October 2014).

Wackernagel, M.; Schulz, N.B.; Deumling, D.; Linares, A.C.; Jenkins, M.; 

Kapos, V.; Monfreda, C.; Loh, J. 2002. Tracking the ecological overshoot of 

the human economy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America. 99(14): 9266–9271.

Wackernagel, M.; Onisto, L.; Bello, P.; Linares, A.C.; Falfan, I.S.L.; Garcia, 

J.; Guerrero, A.I.S.; Guerrero, C.S. 1999. National natural capital accounting 

with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics. 29(3): 375−390.

Wackernagel, M.; Rees, W. 1996. Our ecological footprint: reducing human 

impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. 160 p.

Waring, R.H.; McDowell, N. 2002. Use of a physiological process model with 

forestry yield tables to set limits on annual carbon balances. Tree Physiology. 

22: 179–188. 

Wiedmann T.; Minx, J. 2007. A definition of “carbon footprint.” Research Report 

07-01. Durham, United Kingdom: ISAUK Research & Consulting. 11 p.


Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808–2592

Publication requests (503) 808–2138

FAX (503) 808–2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

1220 SW 3rd Ave., suite 1400

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300