A

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical 

Report

PNW-GTR-801

December 2009

Engaging Western 

Landowners in Climate 

Change Mitigation: 

A Guide to Carbon-Oriented 

Forest and Range 

Management and Carbon 

Market Opportunities

David D. Diaz, Susan Charnley, and Hannah Gosnell

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service 

to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income 

is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write 

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

Authors 

David D. Diaz is a research forester, Ecotrust, 721 NW 9th St., Portland, OR 97209; 

Susan Charnley is a research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 

620 SW Main St., Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205; Hannah Gosnell is an assistant 

professor, Oregon State University, Department of Geosciences, Corvallis, OR 

97331.

Cover photograph by Susan Charnley.
i

Abstract

Diaz, David D.; Charnley, Susan; Gosnell, Hannah. 2009. Engaging western 

landowners in climate change mitigation: a guide to carbon-oriented forest and 

range management and carbon market opportunities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-801. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 81 p.

There are opportunities for forest owners and ranchers to participate in emerging 

carbon markets and contribute to climate change mitigation through carbonoriented forest and range management activities. These activities often promote 

sustainable forestry and ranching and broader conservation goals while having 

the potential to provide a new income stream for landowners. We describe current 

carbon market opportunities for landowners, discuss common steps they must 

typically undergo to take advantage of these opportunities, and address related 

questions. We also provide a synthesis of the existing scientific literature on how 

different forest and range management practices are thought to contribute to 

carbon sequestration, including current debates on this topic. The science regarding 

forestry and carbon sequestration is more advanced and less controversial than that 

for range management, and more opportunities exist for forest owners to participate 

in carbon markets than for ranchers. We describe some of the challenges of including landowners in carbon markets, and issues that will likely need to be addressed 

to develop relevant policy.

Keywords: Climate change, forest owners, ranchers, land management, carbon 

sequestration, carbon markets, United States.
ii

Executive Summary

Countries around the world are seeking ways to reduce their emissions of 

greenhouse gases and greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to avoid 

significant and potentially catastrophic environmental change. Forest and range 

management for carbon sequestration are low-cost, low-technology, relatively easy 

ways to enhance carbon sequestration and can help mitigate climate change now 

while additional long-term solutions are developed. Carbon-oriented management 

of forests and rangelands also offers landowners an opportunity to obtain a new 

source of income, and commonly has broader ecological and social co-benefits. 

Interest in emerging carbon markets among landowners and others is growing 

in the United States. One analysis of the potential for forest and agricultural land 

management to contribute to climate change mitigation suggests that with greater 

financial incentives, the carbon sequestration achieved in these lands could be 

scaled up to offset as much as 30 percent of U.S. emissions for two to three decades. 

Consequently, many of the policies being developed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next century include opportunities for landowners to be compensated 

for managing their lands in ways that sequester carbon to offset the emission of 

these gases by others. 

This paper provides an overview of current and emerging opportunities for 

forest owners and ranchers in the Western United States to contribute to climate 

change mitigation. Our focus is on land use, land use change, and forestry; we do 

not address in detail options such as renewable energy generation using biomass 

or indirect emissions abatement strategies such as substitution of wood products 

for other building materials. Our purpose is to provide organizations that work 

with landowners in the American West, natural resource managers, policymakers, 

and other interested parties, some of the basic information needed to understand 

and navigate the emerging opportunities for forestry and ranching to contribute to 

climate change mitigation strategies, and specifically, to facilitate landowner access 

to emerging carbon markets through land management that sequesters carbon 

in plants and soil. We focus on carbon markets because, as of this writing, there 

are few nonmarket opportunities that reward landowners specifically for carbonoriented management in the United States. 

This paper concludes with a discussion of what landowners can expect when 

pursuing market opportunities, and addresses frequently asked questions. The 

policy and market context for forestry and range offsets in the United States is 

shifting rapidly; our information is current as of October 2009. Following is a 

summary of some of the key information contained in this document.
iii

The Policy and Market Context

As of this writing, there is no comprehensive federal mandate for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. More than 10 cap-and-trade bills have 

been proposed by members of Congress. Only one of these bills has passed through 

the U.S. House of Representatives (the American Clean Energy and Security Act) 

and none have yet passed the Senate. In September 2009, a new bill (the Clean 

Energy Jobs and American Power Act) was introduced to the Senate that builds on 

the House bill and lays the groundwork for negotiation. The Senate bill states that 

forestry and range projects should be considered as a source of carbon offsets in any 

national cap-and-trade system. In the absence of federal mandates, most greenhouse 

gas regulation in the United States to date has been pursued through the actions of 

individual states and through the formation of regional agreements between groups 

of states. 

There are two major types of carbon markets: compliance markets and voluntary markets. Compliance markets are based on government regulations that 

mandate emissions reductions from particular industries or polluters. The most 

common approach to creating a compliance market is to implement a cap-and-trade 

system. Voluntary carbon markets occur in the absence of, or alongside, government mandates to control emissions, and participation is purely voluntary. Today 

the only compliance market that operates in the United States is the cap-and-trade 

system associated with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Only landowners 

who reside in the 10 Eastern States that are party to the initiative are eligible to 

participate in this market as offsetters. Elsewhere, many companies and individuals 

are pursuing voluntary greenhouse gas emissions reductions by participating in 

voluntary carbon markets. In the United States, there are two kinds of voluntary 

carbon markets: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), and over-the-counter (OTC) 

transactions. 

To ensure the integrity and reliability of carbon markets, a number of standards, 

rules, and institutions have been established to help demonstrate that a forest or 

range management activity truly increases carbon sequestration and provides real, 

measurable, offsets over time. A number of entities have developed carbon offset 

standards for forestry, and to a lesser extent, rangeland management in the United 

States. Each standard commonly includes several protocols describing the permissible types of activities and the specific requirements associated with the standard. 

Landowners wishing to participate in a carbon market must decide which standard 

to adopt and comply with. In general, compliance markets and the CCX have set 

standards, whereas credits traded in OTC markets may comply with a range of different standards or none at all. Credits verified to a well-known third-party standard 
iv

usually transact at higher prices, meaning it may be cost-effective for landowners to 

undergo the process of verification and registration. Compliance with a more rigorous standard is not a guarantee that the price for the resulting offset credits will be 

higher, however. Registries are another key component of a viable carbon market 

because they provide a transparent and reliable way of tracking the sale and use 

of pollution allowances and carbon credits to prevent fraud and double counting. 

Registries also have standards for participation that must be rigorous and transparent to be credible. 

Landowners who wish to participate in a carbon market must typically develop 

an offset project plan, undergo verification of offset activities by an independent 

third party, and obtain certification that their land is being managed in a sustainable manner before the project can be placed on a registry and carbon offset credits 

issued. Once credits have been issued and registered, they may be sold through 

existing exchange platforms with transparent prices, or they may be sold in OTC 

transactions to other buyers through private agreements. Offset credit prices in 

OTC transactions have generally been higher than those from the Chicago Climate 

Exchange.

Forest and Range Management for Carbon Sequestration

Landowners who are interested in participating in carbon markets can benefit from 

understanding the science behind forest and range management practices that help 

sequester carbon. It is also important that landowners understand which practices 

are recognized as qualifying carbon offset activities in existing markets and registries. Forest carbon projects are primarily concerned with carbon storage in trees 

and wood products, whereas rangeland carbon projects focus on carbon storage in 

soils. The current body of research into how forests—and trees in particular—cycle 

carbon is broader and more robust than the research pertaining to rangeland carbon 

cycling, and the evaluation of offsets from soil carbon is somewhat more contentious than from other carbon pools such as live plant biomass. 

Most forestry offset standards in the United States are outcome-based, relying 

on carbon inventories to measure changes in forest carbon over time. Consequently, 

landowners have the leeway to choose the forest management practices that are 

best suited to their circumstances. Offsets from three general categories of forest 

management are eligible in U.S. carbon markets: afforestation and reforestation, 

avoided deforestation, and improved forest management. Afforestation is the term 

used for the establishment of forests on land that has not been forested for a long 

time, or never was (e.g., agricultural land). Reforestation involves reestablishing 

forests on land where forests were recently removed or destroyed (e.g. land severely 
v

affected by forest fire). Planting new forests is a relatively straightforward way to 

sequester carbon and is the simplest carbon sequestration activity to account for in 

forest carbon offset programs. 

Deforestation occurs when forested landscapes are converted to other land uses 

(e.g., agriculture, development). It typically involves a dramatic release of carbon to 

the atmosphere, even if wood products are produced in the process. Unsustainable 

timber harvesting can also lead to deforestation and forest degradation. Although 

forest clearing and land conversion represent a straightforward loss of carbon, the 

methods used to estimate carbon losses that could be avoided by preventing them 

are complicated and contentious. Thus, a major barrier to accepting avoided deforestation offset projects in the United States has been the difficulty of estimating 

reliably the real threat of future forest conversion in specific places. Another barrier 

is the risk of leakage—when the carbon sequestration or emissions reductions 

achieved by offsetting activities result in increased carbon emissions in another 

form or location. The challenges presented by quantifying and verifying offsets 

from avoided deforestation may largely account for its limited use as a source of 

offsets to date. 

Several forest management practices can increase carbon sequestration and 

storage in forests through improved forest management. These include extending 

harvest rotation intervals, partial harvest and reduced utilization practices, and 

reducing dead biomass removal from forests. Fertilization may provide an opportunity for net carbon gains, but the overall carbon balance may vary dramatically 

between forests. Although more research is emerging on the issue, wildfire mitigation treatments such as thinning and prescribed burning appear unlikely to present 

clear carbon benefits.

The science is inconclusive about how range management practices such 

as rotational versus continuous grazing, low versus high stocking rates, erosion 

control, invasive species control, and adding organic amendments to soil affect 

carbon sequestration and storage. However, revegetating bare ground and employing sustainable grazing practices that maximize plant productivity over time can 

potentially lead to higher inputs of carbon to soils, and increase carbon storage over 

time. Allowing woody encroachment can also lead to net carbon gains in some 

circumstances, although these gains may place stored carbon at higher risk to wildfire loss. Range management practices unlikely to have net carbon benefits include 

the use of prescribed fire and irrigation. Nitrogen additions (synthetic or through 

nitrogen-fixing plants) currently appear to provide no clear carbon benefits.

All of the offset standards and trading programs that exist in the United States 

today allow afforestation and reforestation projects. Most allow improved forest 
vi

management projects, and about half allow avoided deforestation projects. In 

contrast, only a few allow offsets from rangeland management. Offset standards 

for rangeland management commonly require landowners to follow specific 

management practices believed to increase carbon sequestration that are outlined by 

the relevant protocols.

We conclude by providing guidance to landowners regarding which offset 

program they might choose depending on the characteristics of their properties, 

land use restrictions they may encounter, how managing for carbon might affect 

timber-oriented management goals, the timing and sale of carbon credits, the costs 

of market participation, and other benefits and opportunities associated with managing for carbon. We hope it provides timely and informative coverage of many of 

the issues and opportunities western landowners may encounter when considering 

managing their forests and rangelands for climate change mitigation. 

Acronyms

AFOLU agriculture, forestry and other land uses

CCB climate, community and biodiversity (standard)

CO2 carbon dioxide

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GHG greenhouse gas

LULUCF land-use, land-use change and forestry

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

OTC over the counter

REDD reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation 

t CO2e metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

VCS Voluntary Carbon Standard

Relevant Emissions Trading Schemes and 

Components for the United States:

CAR Climate Action Reserve 

CCAR California Climate Action Registry 

CCX Chicago Climate Exchange 

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

JI Joint Implementation

MGGA Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord 

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

WCI Western Climate Initiative
vii

Contents

1 Introduction

3 The Carbon Cycle

6 The Policy and Market Context

6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policies in the United States

10 Current Carbon Market Opportunities for Biological Carbon Sequestration

16 Common Steps and Requirements for Pursuing Carbon Offset Projects

16 Major Players in Carbon Markets

18 Common Project Components

22 Third-Party Verification, Monitoring, and Sustainability Certification

22 Registering and Issuing Offset Credits

22 Sale of Credits

23 Forest and Range Management and Carbon Sequestration

24 Our Current Scientific Understanding of Forest and Rangeland 

Carbon Cycling

25 Forestry

26 Management Practices That Encourage Carbon Sequestration

34 Management Practices With Unclear or Unlikely Carbon Benefits

39 Timber Harvesting and Carbon Storage in Wood Products

41 General Conclusions on Forest Carbon Sequestration

41 Rangeland Management

42 Grazing Management

45 Plant Community Management

48 Soil Conservation and Amendments

51 General Conclusions on Rangeland Carbon Sequestration

52 Common Questions About Market Participation

52 Which Offset Program Should a Landowner or Project Developer Choose?

54 How Long Does it Take to Sequester Enough Carbon to Register and Sell 

Carbon Credits?

54 At What Point in This Process Will Payments for Offset Activities Occur?

55 Are There Any Time Constraints on Selling Carbon Credits?

55 How Much Does Third-Party Verification and Posting With a Registry Cost?

55 Will Managing a Forest for Carbon Sequestration Affect Timber Yields?
viii

56 Will Following Carbon-Oriented Management Practices Reduce Income?

56 Do Carbon Markets Provide an Opportunity for Financing 

Restoration Projects?

57 What Does the Future of the Crediting Program Look Like?

57 Are Forestry or Range Projects on Public Lands Eligible for Offset 

Credits in Existing Carbon Markets?

58 Is Participation in Carbon Markets the Only Way to Financially Benefit 

From Carbon-Oriented Land Management, or Are There Other Options?

59 Conclusions

60 Acknowledgments

60 Further Reading and Resources

60 Forestry References and Resources

61 Forest References About Wildfire Mitigation and Carbon Balance

62 Rangeland References and Resources

62 English Equivalents

62 Glossary

67 References

77 Appendix: Guidance and Standards for Offset Projects
1

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Introduction

“A viable carbon offsets market—one that rewards farmers, ranchers and 

forest landowners for stewardship activities—has the potential to play a 

very important role in helping America address climate change while also 

providing a possible new source of revenue for landowners.”

—U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack1

The scientific consensus surrounding the relation between greenhouse gas2 (GHG) 

emissions and global climate change has indicated a clear need for countries around 

the world to find new ways to reduce their emissions of these gases and their 

concentrations in the atmosphere to avoid significant and potentially catastrophic 

environmental changes. Land management for carbon sequestration is one of 

many opportunities available to countries seeking to reduce their net emissions of 

GHGs. 

The purpose of this booklet is to provide organizations that work with landowners in the American West, natural resource managers, policymakers, and 

other interested parties, some of the basic information needed to understand and 

navigate the emerging opportunities for forestry and ranching to contribute to 

climate change mitigation strategies, and specifically, to facilitate landowner access 

to emerging carbon markets through land management that sequesters carbon in 

plants and soil. We focus on carbon markets because, as of this writing, there are 

few nonmarket opportunities that reward landowners specifically for carbonoriented management in the United States. Our geographic focus is the Western 

United States.

Carbon-oriented management of forests and rangelands may offer landowners 

the opportunity to obtain a new source of income while simultaneously helping 

to mitigate climate change. Many of the policies being developed to reduce GHG 

emissions over the next century through regional, national, and international agreements are being pursued using market-based mechanisms. These policies often 

include opportunities for landowners to be compensated for managing their lands 

in ways that sequester carbon and thereby offset the emission of GHGs by others. 

Carbon-oriented management practices not only offer landowners the opportunity 

for financial gains, but also commonly have broader ecological benefits such as 

enhancing wildlife habitat, improving soil quality, increasing water storage and 

filtration, and conserving biodiversity. Fifty-six percent of the forest lands in the 

1 From a subscription Web site http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2009/06/12/1.

2 Words in boldfaced type are defined in the “Glossary” at the end of this document.

Carbon-oriented 

management 

practices not only 

offer landowners 

the opportunity for 

financial gains, but 

also commonly have 

broader ecological 

benefits such as 

enhancing wildlife 

habitat, improving 

soil quality, increasing water storage 

and filtration, 

and conserving 

biodiversity. 
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

United States are privately owned, and 35 percent are under nonindustrial private 

forest ownership (Butler 2008); 61 percent of the rangelands are privately owned 

(Lubowski et al. 2006). Engaging these landowners in carbon-oriented management 

can contribute to global climate change mitigation. For landowners to participate, 

however, it is important that they be provided the necessary information to do so. 

Landowner participation will also be encouraged where these opportunities involve 

financial rewards that can help prevent the conversion of forests and rangelands to 

developed uses or compensate for the opportunity costs associated with shifting 

away from non-carbon-oriented management. 

Carbon-oriented forestry and ranching provide low-cost, low-tech, relatively 

easy ways to enhance carbon sequestration relative to other options. These opportunities can contribute to climate change mitigation now while additional, longer term 

solutions to climate change mitigation are developed. The management of forest and 

range environments for carbon sequestration may also promote a variety of social 

and environmental benefits (commonly referred to as co-benefits) that other climate 

change mitigation strategies do not typically include. 

The potential to simultaneously improve environmental conditions and obtain 

financial benefits has generated significant interest in emerging carbon markets 

from landowners and others. Together, forests and farmlands sequester a volume of 

carbon every year equivalent to 10 to 12 percent of all annual U.S. GHG emissions 

(Murray et al. 2005, Woodbury et al. 2007). With greater financial incentives that 

could come with a regulated market including offsets, the carbon sequestration 

achieved in these lands could be scaled up to offset as much as 30 percent of U.S. 

emissions for two to three decades (Murray et al. 2005). The financial up side to 

many of these practices is that they offer opportunities to reduce or offset emissions 

often at a lower cost than many other strategies currently available (e.g., Enkvist 

et al. 2007).

This document provides an overview of carbon-related opportunities for landowners, along with some of the concepts and challenges that may be encountered 

when managing forests or rangelands for carbon sequestration and compensation 

through carbon markets. Our discussion focuses on offset opportunities associated 

with forest and range management (commonly referred to along with other agricultural land uses as land use, land-use change, and forestry or LULUCF); we say 

little about opportunities associated with farming and renewable energy using 

biomass fuels. Although many of the specific laws, policies, and programs 

pertaining to carbon markets in the United States are currently being developed 

and revised, they share common principles and elements that are discussed here. 
3

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Although we have made an effort to focus on the major elements of various 

emerging market opportunities that are less likely to change, these elements as 

well as many specific details of each program discussed may change in the near 

future. The details and general elements discussed for each program in this document are current as of December 2009. 

This document has several sections. First, we give a brief overview of the 

science of climate change and the global carbon cycle to provide background 

for later sections. This background discussion is followed by a review of current 

U.S. government regulations and policies that have been developed to address 

global climate change. Next, we give an introduction to carbon markets in the 

United States and current opportunities for landowners to participate in them 

through forestry and range offset projects. We then provide a synthesis of 

scientific research about how different forest and range management practices 

that landowners could potentially adopt affect carbon uptake and prevent carbon 

release from forests and rangelands, and the potential for forest and range 

management to increase carbon sequestration. We conclude with a discussion 

of what landowners can expect when pursuing offset opportunities, and address 

frequently asked questions. We also include a brief list of resources available for 

further information on the topics covered in this document. 

The Carbon Cycle

The global carbon cycle plays an important role in the science of climate change. 

A basic familiarity with this cycle and how it operates can help increase understanding of why carbon markets are currently being pursued to combat climate 

change.

On time scales ranging from seconds to centuries, carbon is exchanged 

between the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth (see fig. 1). Carbon enters 

terrestrial environments through the process of photosynthesis, in which plants 

harness energy from sunlight and convert atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2 ) into 

useful plant compounds that allow these ecosystems to grow and thrive. Carbon 

can be stored over long periods in a variety of places, or pools, within an ecosystem—including plant tissues such as live wood, woody debris, and soil. Carbon 

enters soils through the addition of plant materials above ground (litterfall) and 

below ground through root activities, death, and decomposition. Carbon usually 

transforms and moves between different pools and is eventually released back to 

the atmosphere. Carbon leaves terrestrial ecosystems primarily through plant respiration and the decay of dead plant and soil matter, returning to the atmosphere 

as CO2. 
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

A growing body of scientific research is improving our understanding of the 

specific mechanisms that govern how the natural environment captures carbon 

from the atmosphere and how it releases it back to the atmosphere over time. One 

thing is clear: the forests and rangelands of the world contain a significant proportion of the total carbon stored in the world’s terrestrial environments, and largescale changes in the carbon balance of these ecosystems can affect atmospheric 

GHG concentrations and climate change for the entire planet. Earth’s terrestrial 

ecosystems contain more than three times as much carbon in plants and soils than 

is currently found in the atmosphere, and about half of this carbon is stored in 

forest ecosystems (IPCC 2007).

The basic biological processes that increase carbon uptake and storage in 

forests and rangelands involve enhancing plant growth, minimizing plant and 

soil respiration, and preserving biologically stored carbon in plants and soils. 

Figure 1—This diagram portrays the major pools and fluxes in the Earth’s carbon cycle, as estimated 

in 2004. The numbers next to words indicate the amount of carbon stored in each pool in billions of 

metric tonnes (or gigatonnes, GtC). The numbers next to arrows show much carbon moves between 

each of these pools every year. The movement of carbon into plants and soils each year roughly 

equals the amount of carbon returned to the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration entails managing 

forests and rangelands to increase carbon uptake and reduce carbon releases from plants and soils 

to increase the total amount of carbon stored in them, and to reduce the amount in the atmosphere. The basic biological Source: NASA, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.php.

processes that 

increase carbon 

uptake and storage in 

forests and rangelands 

involve enhancing 

plant growth, minimizing plant and soil 

respiration, and 

preserving biologically 

stored carbon in plants 

and soils. 
5

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

The primary control on the carbon balance in terrestrial environments is the 

disturbance regime that governs the release of carbon from plants and soils and 

initiates a new cycle of ecosystem recovery (Chapin et al. 2002). The loss of 

carbon from plants occurs through plant breakdown and decomposition following 

disturbances such as fire, windthrow, pest and pathogen infections, water shortages, 

and mechanical disturbances such as tree harvesting and removal. Significant 

disturbances may expose litter and soils in these environments to increased levels 

of decay and decomposition, which can represent a significant loss of carbon 

from an ecosystem. Apart from the natural decomposition of soil organic matter, 

carbon in intact soil may be exposed and lost through mechanical disturbances 

such as plowing, or moved offsite through erosion. Following disturbance, it can 

take decades for carbon storage in forest and rangeland environments to return to 

predisturbance levels.

The potential for carbon sequestration in the trees and soils of forest and 

rangeland environments has been recognized by policymakers, leading to the 

inclusion of select forest and range management activities in many GHG reduction 

programs. The guiding principle for including land management in climate change 

mitigation strategies and in carbon markets is that land should be managed in a way 

that increases its rate of, and capacity for, carbon capture, and decreases the rate at 

which carbon is returned to the atmosphere from land conversion, land-use intensification, or other human or natural disturbances. 

What is Carbon Sequestration?

Carbon sequestration refers to the accumulation of carbon in an ecosystem 

over time. The amount of carbon held in an ecosystem is a product of how 

much carbon enters the system and how much leaves it. When carbon inputs 

to an ecosystem outpace carbon releases from that ecosystem over time, carbon sequestration occurs. The potential to increase the amount of carbon held 

in forest and rangeland ecosystems or to minimize losses of existing carbon 

offer landowners an opportunity to manage their lands in ways that contribute 

to climate change mitigation by encouraging carbon sequestration. This can 

be done by increasing carbon inputs and uptake, decreasing or preventing 

carbon releases, or both. In some circumstances, carbon sequestration through 

biological processes (such as plant growth) is referred to as biological carbon 

sequestration to distinguish it from the capture and storage of CO2 emissions 

in geological formations. 

The primary control 

on the carbon 

balance in terrestrial 

environments is the 

disturbance regime 

that governs the 

release of carbon 

from plants and soils 

and initiates a new 

cycle of ecosystem 

recovery.
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

The Policy and Market Context

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policies in the United States

In 1992, the United States ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC served as the framework for negotiating international agreements to reduce GHG emissions and led to the development 

of the Kyoto Protocol. Since the ratification of the UNFCCC, the United States 

has yet to sign on to any further international agreements that require emissions 

reductions over time. The next round of international GHG emissions regulation 

negotiations through the United Nations is scheduled to occur in December 2009 in 

Copenhagen, Denmark. This meeting is designed to lay out the future of international climate change policy after the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.

U.S. federal policies—

As of this writing, there is no comprehensive federal mandate for reducing GHG 

emissions in the United States, although a voluntary GHG accounting registry, 

known as the 1605(b) registry, has been maintained since 1992 and was recently 

updated by the Department of Energy. More than 10 cap-and-trade bills had been 

proposed by members of Congress as of December 2009. In contrast to the current 

approach in the European Union, many of these bills explicitly mention a role for 

offsets from land use. Only one of these bills had passed through the U.S. House 

Hannah Gosnell
7

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

of Representatives (the American Clean Energy and Security Act 3) and none have 

yet passed the Senate. In September 2009. a new bill (the Clean Energy Jobs and 

and American Power Act) was introduced in the Senate that builds on the House 

bill and lays the groundwork for negotiation. The Senate bill states that forestry and 

range projects should be considered as a source of carbon offsets in any national 

cap-and-trade system. Although President Obama has expressed the desire to have 

legislation approved by both houses of Congress prior to the December 2009 meeting in Copenhagen to negotiate the followup treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, he will 

instead participate in the meeting with a national emissions reduction target but no 

completed legislation.

3 The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is also commonly referred to 

as ACES or Waxman-Markey. Complete text of the version of the bill passed by the House 

is available at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/show.

The Kyoto Protocol

The first global attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) was embodied by the Kyoto 

Protocol. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

was established to accomplish “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere 

at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” 

(UNFCCC, Article 2).* In 1997, an international protocol was designed at a United Nations 

meeting in Kyoto, Japan, that established mechanisms for reducing GHG emissions to meet 

UNFCCC goals. As of February 2009, the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified by 184 parties around 

the world. Although the United States participated in the design of the Kyoto Protocol and was one 

of the initial signatories, the treaty was never ratified by the U.S. Senate and thus did not become 

a binding agreement for the United States. Kyoto established an international cap-and-trade

program among signatories that operates from 2008 to 2012. The program has two carbon offset 

mechanisms known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) 

that govern the crediting of offset projects in developing and developed countries, respectively. 

The CDM recognizes some aspects of forestry and Joint Implementation recognizes some aspects 

of both forestry and ranching as sources of carbon offsets. However, because the U.S. government 

chose not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, landowners in the United States cannot participate in either 

program. The Kyoto Protocol has prompted some signatory countries to develop regulations that 

control GHG emissions nationally to meet the emissions reduction targets stipulated by the protocol. A prominent example is the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. This scheme does 

not currently accept offsets from forestry or ranching, however. 

* Available online at http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Some initial steps have been taken by the government to promote the inclusion 

of forest and ranch owners in carbon markets. Section 2709 of the 2008 Farm Bill 

(enacted in June 2008) calls for the Secretary of Agriculture to give priority to the 

establishment of guidelines related to farmer, rancher, and forest landowner participation in carbon markets (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008). These 

guidelines include the development and implementation of protocols for measuring, reporting, and registering carbon offset credits. In December 2008, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture announced the formation of a new Office of Ecosystem 

Services and Markets. This office is expected to play a significant role in the development of federal policy relating to natural resources and carbon markets.

What Are Offsets?

Carbon offsets refer to activities that either reduce emissions or increase 

sequestration but are not required under a regulated or voluntary cap. These 

offsets are provided by landowners and other entities. Offsets are intended to 

counterbalance the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from emitters. Offset 

projects will commonly quantify the emissions reductions or sequestration 

associated with their project as individual credits (each typically representing 

1 metric tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent offset, or 1 tCO2e) that 

may then be bought and sold in carbon markets. Individuals or organizations that wish to offset their own GHG emissions can do so by purchasing 

and retiring offset credits. Retirement of an offset credit is essentially the 

permanent removal of the credit from being traded in the market, an action 

that would be carried out by whichever registry was listing the offset at the 

request of the credit’s owner. If an offset credit is not retired by its purchaser, 

it may continue to be bought and sold by others in a carbon market, similar in 

principle to other types of markets and exchanges. The inclusion of offsets in 

carbon markets allows a broader and more diverse range of participants (such 

as private forest owners and ranchers) in carbon markets, and when used in 

cap-and-trade programs, enables the market to reward innovative and costeffective emissions reduction practices employed by entities not included in 

the cap, such as forest and range landowners. The inclusion of offsets in the 

most recent climate change legislation passed by the House of Representatives 

has been estimated to bring the cost of emissions permits down by as much as 

69 percent (Congressional Budget Office 2009).
9

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

State and regional actions—

In the absence of federal mandates, most GHG regulation to date has been pursued 

through the actions of individual states and through the formation of regional 

agreements between groups of states. Many states throughout the country have 

implemented renewable energy standards and passed resolutions establishing 

emissions targets to be met in the future, but few have yet to pass binding legislation regulating the emissions of GHGs. In 1997, Oregon passed the first regulation 

controlling CO2 emissions in the United States, requiring new powerplants to spend 

a set amount of money per ton of CO2 emissions for the development of carbon 

offsets. Ten Northeastern States launched the Regional GHG Initiative (RGGI) in 

2008 to regulate emissions of CO2 (the only GHG included in this program) from 

major powerplants using a cap-and-trade system. Also in 2008, California became 

the first state to pass legislation supporting the implementation of a market-based 

strategy covering emissions of all GHGs by passing Assembly Bill 32, which calls 

for creating a statewide emissions reduction program to meet 1990 emissions levels 

by 2020, and for launching a cap-and-trade system by 2012. Both the Oregon CO2

Standard and RGGI are smaller in scope as well as in the number of GHGs being 

regulated compared to the cap-and-trade bills proposed in Congress, adopted by 

California AB 32, and being discussed through other regional agreements.

Elsewhere in the United States, regulations are still under development. The 

governors of seven Midwestern States signed the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas 

Reduction Accord (MGGA) in November 2007, which calls for the establishment 

of a regional emissions trading program to reduce GHG emissions. The rules for 

the program are expected to be finalized in 2010, and although the use of offsets 

has been included in the program design, the specific types of eligible activities 

have not yet been disclosed. The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) is a regional 

agreement that was signed by the governors of seven Western States (Arizona, 

California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) and the 

premiers of four Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and 

Quebec) in 2007. Six other U.S. states (Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, 

and Wyoming), six Mexican states (Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo 

Leon, Sonora, and Tamaulipas), and two Canadian provinces (Nova Scotia and 

Saskatchewan) have joined the WCI as “observers.” The WCI includes a cap-andtrade program planned to launch in 2012. There has been significant collaboration 

between state governments, industry, tribes, environmental groups, and other 

stakeholders in the development of this program, including the design of an offset 
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

program. Although the specific details of which activities will be eligible for generating carbon credits had not been announced as of December 2009, the program is 

being designed with private landowner participation as offset providers in mind. 

Current Carbon Market Opportunities for Biological 

Carbon Sequestration

A carbon market is a tool designed to place an economic value on the social and 

environmental costs of GHG pollution and the benefits of emissions reduction 

activities. The market functions by translating emissions into exchangeable permits. 

There are two major types of carbon markets: compliance markets and voluntary 

markets. Compliance markets are based on government regulations that mandate 

emissions reductions from particular industries or polluters. The most common 

approach to creating a compliance market is to implement a cap-and-trade system. 

Voluntary carbon markets occur in the absence or alongside government mandates 

to control emissions, and participation is purely voluntary. 

This section discusses both the compliance and voluntary carbon markets that 

are operating in the United States and associated opportunities for biological carbon 

sequestration through forest and range management projects. Note that as the regulatory environment, carbon markets, and associated opportunities for landowners 

are changing so rapidly, we only present basic concepts and current opportunities 

here and omit finer details. 

Compliance markets—

Although other market-based systems have been experimented with in the past, 

the compliance markets that exist in the United States and around the world today 

take the form of cap-and-trade systems. In a cap-and-trade system, regulators set a 

cap on the total quantity of emissions allowed from the regulated polluters within a 

given industry or sector (e.g., powerplants, manufacturing, transportation). The cap 

creates a limited supply of pollution permits. For every ton of emissions allowed 

within the cap, a permit called an allowance is distributed through an auction or 

given for free to the polluting companies in each regulated sector. The polluters 

are then required to surrender one allowance for every ton of CO2 (or equivalent 

amount of other more potent GHGs, tCO2e) they produce. The allowances are 

exchangeable among the polluting companies, and companies that can reduce 

their own emissions below mandated levels can sell their surplus allowances. This 

trading feature enables the market to find and reward the most cost-effective ways 

to reduce overall emissions. The cap is the backbone of the cap-and-trade system. 

A strict cap ensures high demand for pollution allowances, and increases the value 

of innovation in emissions reduction strategies by rewarding companies that can 
11

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

effectively reduce their emissions. The cap is typically reduced over time to further 

cut overall emissions from the regulated sectors in accordance with environmental 

goals.

Compliance markets are commonly based on the supply and demand of 

two interchangeable types of pollution permits: allowances and offset credits.4

Allowances are issued to polluting industries by a regulatory agency. Offset credits 

are issued to persons or organizations who perform offset activities by a regulatory agency or by an organization in charge of managing GHG registries. Across 

the market, companies that can reduce their emissions cheaply and effectively will 

hold extra allowances that they can then sell to companies that have not been able 

to meet their emission reduction requirements. Companies in need of allowances 

(because it is not feasible or cost-effective for them to reduce emissions in-house) 

may purchase emissions allowances from other companies or may purchase offset 

credits. The net effect of this market activity is that those companies that reduce 

their emissions are rewarded by their ability to sell allowances while those that 

maintain or increase their emissions foot the bill. The underlying rationale behind a 

cap-and-trade system is that polluting companies can determine how and where to 

reduce their emissions to comply with the regulations more efficiently than would 

be possible through the decisionmaking process of a regulatory agency. Thus, the 

cap-and-trade approach prioritizes cost-effective emissions reductions to meet 

the mandatory cap and allows the regulated industries to make their own business decisions about whether they should reduce emissions internally or purchase 

allowances or credits from other market participants. This type of a cap-and-trade 

system has been previously implemented by the EPA to reduce emissions of sulfur 

dioxide from powerplants as part of the Acid Rain Program, which began in 1990 

and continues to operate today. The Acid Rain Program is commonly considered to 

be the strongest success story for a cap-and-trade system in the United States. The 

EPA has also implemented a variety of other types of emissions trading programs 

beginning in the 1970s with varying levels of success. A review of some of these 

programs can be found in publications by Tietenberg et al. (1999) and Ellerman et 

al. (2003). 

Confronting global climate change means reducing GHG emissions to the 

atmosphere, and simultaneously increasing the removal of these gases from the 

atmosphere to reduce GHG concentrations. It is important to recognize that taking a ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere by altering forest or range management 

4 It is important to note, however, that offsets are not a prerequisite component of emissions 

trading schemes, but are generally included to help reduce the cost of emissions permits 

compared to the use of allowances alone.

The cap-and-trade 

approach prioritizes 

cost-effective 

emissions reductions 

to meet the mandatory 

cap and allows the 

regulated industries 

to make their own 

business decisions 

about whether 

they should reduce 

emissions internally or 

purchase allowances 

or credits from other 

market participants.
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

(for example) is considered to be just as effective at affecting atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations as a ton of emissions reduction on the part of a polluter. 

Although the focus of the cap-and-trade system is primarily on reducing GHG 

emissions by major polluters, many scientists and economists have argued that 

restricting the carbon market to major emitters alone (and not allowing offsets) will 

significantly limit the number of cost-effective ways to reduce GHG concentrations. 

In some circumstances, the management practices of landowners may be more 

efficient at mitigating climate change than the emissions reduction practices of polluting industries. Carbon-oriented management of forest and rangeland ecosystems 

can also have many environmental and social co-benefits such as restoration of 

degraded wildlife habitat, enhanced water quality, and diversified income streams 

for natural-resource-based communities. 

Existing compliance markets are generally not restricted to emitters alone and 

will also allow carbon offsets. There are a number of different types of offsets, 

including renewable energy projects, methane capture projects from landfills, 

and terrestrial carbon sequestration projects associated with farms, forests, and 

rangeland management. Different systems allow different types of offsets and not 

all allow forestry and range projects. Today the only compliance market that operates in the United States is the cap-and-trade system associated with the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The RGGI allows for the use of offsets but currently 

limits offsets associated with forestry to afforestation and reforestation (described 

Hannah Gosnell
13

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

in the next section). It does not allow range management offsets. Only landowners 

who reside in the 10 Eastern States that are party to RGGI are eligible to participate 

in this market. Which types of offsets to include is currently a subject of debate 

among developers of California climate legislation, the WCI, and the MGGA, 

as well as among legislators devising a federal program. The creation of state, 

regional, and national mandatory cap-and-trade systems is expected to significantly 

increase the demand for carbon credits from offset projects and will likely provide 

more opportunities for landowners to be compensated for carbon sequestration 

activities.

Voluntary markets—

In the absence of a mandated cap-and-trade system, many companies and individuals have taken the initiative to pursue voluntary GHG emissions reductions by participating in voluntary carbon markets. They are most often motivated by a sense 

of corporate or social responsibility, and by public relations incentives (Hamilton et 

al. 2009). In the United States, there are two kinds of voluntary carbon markets: the 

Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), and over-the-counter (OTC) transactions.5

The CCX has been open since 2003 and offers opportunities for rangeland 

and forest management offset projects throughout the United States. The CCX 

is a legally binding cap-and-trade program composed of member companies and 

organizations that enter into the program voluntarily and trade emissions allowances and credits from offsetters according to an emissions cap set individually 

for each participant by the CCX. Offset participants follow CCX protocols and can 

register and sell their carbon credits (known as Carbon Financial Instruments or 

CFIs) through the CCX to other members; CFIs may also be sold over the counter 

through private contracts with any private or public entity. More information about 

CCX can be found at http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/.

Over-the-counter transactions involve the sale of offsets to companies or 

individuals through private contracts between an offset provider and an offset 

buyer. The purchasers have a variety of motivations. Some may be individuals or 

employers who wish to offset emissions from personal or business travel. Others 

may be interested in marketing their company or product as carbon neutral or 

carbon friendly. The diversity of buyers and their interests in OTC transactions 

have made this voluntary market a new and potentially valuable niche market 

for offset providers. Because OTC transactions are based on private contracts, 

the contract terms—such as the types of offset activities allowed, verification 

5 The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.

The creation of 

state, regional, and 

national mandatory 

cap-and-trade 

systems is expected 

to significantly 

increase the demand 

for carbon credits 

from offset projects 

and will likely provide 

more opportunities 

for landowners to 

be compensated for 

carbon sequestration 

activities.
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

and documentation requirements, and the price of offsets—are negotiable. 

The exchange of voluntary offsets through OTC transactions are not currently 

coordinated or regulated by any centralized market exchange or institution.

Offset standards, registries, and pricing—

To ensure the integrity and reliability of carbon markets, a number of standards, 

rules, and institutions have been established, in part because it is important to 

demonstrate that a land management activity truly increases carbon sequestration 

and provides real, measurable, offsets over time. Carbon offset activities typically 

involve some type of verification and certification prior to being registered and 

traded as credits. A clear set of standards is associated with the verification or 

certification scheme so that the buyer of offset credits understands the quality of 

the credit being purchased. These procedures are designed to prevent fraudulent or 

inaccurate offset calculations and sales. Without transparent and rigorous standards 

and accounting methods, knowledge about and confidence in carbon markets will 

suffer. 

Offset standards—Standards serve as a way to certify that an offset activity is 

credible. A number of entities have developed carbon offset standards for forestry, 

and to a lesser extent, range projects. Each standard commonly includes several 

protocols describing the permissible types of activities and the specific accounting procedures used to calculate the amount of carbon sequestration. The CCX, for 

example, has protocols for rangeland soil carbon, forest carbon, and agricultural soil 

carbon, among others. A landowner wishing to participate in a carbon market will 

have to decide which standard to adopt and comply with. In general, compliance 

markets and the CCX have set standards, whereas credits traded in OTC markets 

may comply with a range of different standards, or none at all. In 2008, a survey of 

carbon market participants suggested that as much as 96 percent of all credits (not 

just forest or range-based credits) traded on voluntary carbon markets had been 

third-party verified (Hamilton et al. 2009). There are a number of different standards, not all of which include protocols for forest and range projects. The most 

commonly used standards reported from the voluntary market are the Voluntary 

Carbon Standard, followed by the Gold Standard, the Climate Action Reserve 

(CAR), and the American Carbon Registry (Hamilton et al. 2009). The main entities 

currently operating in the United States with standards that allow offsets from forestry or range projects are described in the appendix. Table 1 indicates the category 

of forestry or range projects that are allowed by each. A landowner wishing to participate in a compliance market (such as RGGI), or in the CCX voluntary market, 

must follow the standards and protocols approved for use in that market. 
15

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Registries—Registries are another key component of a viable carbon market 

because they provide a transparent and reliable way of tracking the sale and use 

of pollution allowances and carbon credits to prevent fraud and double counting. 

Registries are databases that allow market participants to establish and publish 

GHG emissions inventories, document verified offset activities, and track and trade 

allowances and credits. Registries also have standards for participation that must be 

rigorous and transparent for them to be credible. Some entities that have developed 

carbon offset standards for forestry and range projects also maintain carbon 

registries, although some do not. In contrast to compliance markets and the CCX, 

a landowner wishing to participate in an OTC transaction does not necessarily 

need to comply with an established standard or participate in a registry. However, 

standards and registries provide increased confidence for buyers interested in 

purchasing offset credits in voluntary carbon markets, and such credits commonly 

command higher prices.

Pricing—In compliance markets (and the CCX) at any one point in time, there is 

only one prevailing price, which is the same for both allowances and offset credits. 

Although the price in compliance markets may change over time, all credits in 

the market will trade at the same price. In the voluntary OTC market, prices are 

determined through private negotiations between offset buyers and sellers. The 

price of an offset credit varies depending on the perceived quality of the offset, 

Table 1—Activities allowed by different offset standards and trading programs

Forestry Grazing

A/R FM REDD GM

Department of Energy 1605(b) (1992 to present) Y Y N N

American Carbon Registry (1996 to present) Y Y Y N

The Climate Trust (1997 to present) Y Y Y Y

Climate Action Reserve/California Climate Action Registry (2001 to present) Y Y Y N

EPA Climate Leaders (2002 to present) Y N N N

Plan Vivo (2002 to present) Y Y Y N

Chicago Climate Exchange (2003 to present) Y Y N Y

Clean Development Mechanism (2006 to present) Y Y N N

Joint Implementation (2006 to present) Y Y N Y

Voluntary Carbon Standard (2006 to present) Y Y Y N

CarbonFix (2007 to present) Y N N N

Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard (2008 to present) Y Y Y Y

Regional GHG Initiative (2008 to present) Y N N N

Midwestern Governors GHG Accord (planned for 2010) ? ? ? ?

Western Climate Initiative (planned for 2012) ? ? ? ?

A/R = afforestation/reforestation; FM = forest management; REDD = reduced emissions from degradation and deforestation; 

GM = grazing management.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

which is often a function of the standard with which it complies. In general, credits 

verified to a well known third-party standard transact at higher prices, meaning 

it may be cost-effective for landowners to undergo the process of verification and 

registration. Despite this general expectation, however, compliance with a more 

rigorous standard is not a guarantee that the price for the resulting offset credits 

will be higher, as there are many examples where credits verified to a third-party 

standard do not gain a discernible price premium (Hamilton, K. 2009. Personal 

communication, Ecosystem Marketplace). Also, some offsets are more attractive 

to buyers than others (and command a higher price) because of their perceived cobenefits. Thus, in voluntary transactions, offsets from different project types (e.g., 

landfill methane and reforestation) may trade at different prices even if they were 

verified to the same standard. 

Common Steps and Requirements for Pursuing 

Carbon Offset Projects

Although the specific requirements for carbon sequestration and avoided emissions projects associated with forest and range management differ among markets, 

registries, and standards, they have several shared components that a landowner or 

manager is likely to encounter in the process of market engagement. We first provide a brief description of common participants that landowners may interact with 

in carbon markets and then review some of the most common procedures in the 

conduct of offset projects. The items listed below are not requirements for all offset 

programs, but represent some of the common procedures and requirements used 

in evaluating offset projects that a landowner may have to undergo. Landowners 

should carefully consider the requirements of each relevant standard and be sure 

to fully understand what is required of them for compliance before choosing one 

standard over another. Following this discussion, we address some common questions landowners may have about participating in carbon markets.

Major Players in Carbon Markets

Project developers—

The persons or organizations that prepare all the necessary documentation for 

submitting and running an offset project. Although landowners may participate 

as project developers, many offset programs may require complex modeling or 

other specialized skills that may be beyond the capacity or interest of participating 

landowners. 

Landowners should 

carefully consider the 

requirements of each 

relevant standard 

and be sure to fully 

understand what is 

required of them for 

compliance before 

choosing one standard 

over another. 
17

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Aggregators—

A specific type of project developer, aggregators oversee the combination of 

multiple smaller projects into one larger project to reduce the various costs for 

each landowner. Aggregators are commonly involved in projects when the land 

area of the project is beneath some set limit, or the carbon sequestration potential 

of an individual project is too low to enable it to meet all the costs associated with 

measuring, monitoring, verifying, or listing the project on a registry.

Registries and standards organizations—

These organizations provide the rules and venue for registration of offset projects. 

Each registry and standards organization generally maintains a variety of offset 

project protocols that define the rules and expectations of projects seeking registration or certification using their standard.

Third-party verifiers—

Most offset programs require an independent organization to verify that offset 

activities reported to them by project developers are real and have been conducted 

in accordance with the relevant protocol. These organizations are commonly 

accredited by the registry or standards organization verifying their offset projects. 

Each standard or registry will likely provide a list of approved third-party verifiers. 

Offset buyers—

These are the people or companies who purchase offsets directly from the project 

developer or through brokers. Offset buyers may be entities regulated under a 

cap-and-trade compliance market or they may be voluntary purchasers of offsets 

through OTC transactions. Offset buyers may retire offsets or resell the offsets to 

another buyer.

Brokers—

A special type of offset buyer, brokers are people or organizations that function as 

intermediaries in the selling of emissions permits and do not take final ownership 

of a credit. Brokers typically facilitate the buying and selling of offset credits and 

allowances in much larger volumes than those of individual projects. Most brokers 

will have access to a portfolio of credits available for potential buyers and may 

enable buyers to purchase offsets created from particular locations, project types, 

or standards. 
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Common Project Components

Offset project plan—

Most credit-generating offset programs require project developers to submit a 

project proposal for their offset activities. The proposal is reviewed and accepted or 

rejected by an advisory committee or other oversight group. The project plan allows 

each standard or registry group to ensure that projects meet their eligibility requirements and must contain sufficient documentation to support approval of the offset 

project. The major components of a project plan are discussed in more detail below.

Demonstration of land ownership (and carbon ownership)—

Prior to the approval of any offset project, most programs require the landowner 

or project developer to demonstrate ownership of the land being used for the offset 

project. Documentation of any relevant easements or other property restrictions or 

stakeholder interests in the property (such as loans against the property) will typically need to be provided as well. Although there is currently no widely accepted 

legal framework for separating property rights to carbon in offset projects from 

more traditional timber or land property rights, this issue is arising as an important 

topic in the aggregation of several different landowners into a single project and 

will likely be a component of aggregation programs in the future. 

Land-use history—

Many offset programs require a description of recent land-use activities on the land 

being used for the offset project, such as previous management practices or conversion from other land uses. Some standards allow offset projects that have already 

begun prior to submitting the project plan. Forestry standards for afforestation/

reforestation activities typically require documentation that demonstrates the land 

has not been forested for a specified number of years prior to the start of the offset 

project.

Establishing a baseline—

Project developers are generally required to create a scenario showing how the land 

would be managed in the absence of the offset program. This scenario, commonly 

referred to as “business as usual,” describes the types of land management activities 

that would be carried out if the landowner did not intend to participate in a carbon 

market, and how business as usual would affect the amount of carbon storage and 

emissions from the land. Each offset standard will provide its own guidance for 

development of the baseline scenario.
19

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Demonstrating additionality—

A variety of tests are used to guarantee that project activities are being pursued 

for the primary purpose of reducing GHG emissions or sequestering carbon, and 

to ensure that the offset practices are not part of previously planned business or 

management activities being conducted for other reasons. These tests may include 

(but are not limited to):

1. Regulatory test: Management practices required by law (e.g., riparian 

buffers) are not additional. Additionality requires carbon storage to be 

above and beyond that which occurs for compliance with relevant laws 

and regulations.

Additionality and Early Actors

One of the basic principles the procedures and requirements for offset project 

initiation are designed to address is that of additionality. Carbon offset 

markets were developed to incentivize sequestration activities that would not 

have occurred in the absence of the market. Therefore, many offset programs 

apply additionality criteria to guarantee that projects actually represent new 

sequestration (or net emissions reductions). In some circumstances, although 

landowners may already engage in land management practices that help 

sequester carbon, these may not necessarily qualify for carbon offset credits. 

Landowners who have been following sustainable management practices 

for reasons other than carbon sequestration may commonly have generated 

higher levels of carbon storage in their plants and soils than those who have 

not (i.e., their baseline is higher). These “early actors” present a unique 

challenge for offset programs because although their management activities 

may provide the same level of carbon sequestration as projects initiated 

by other landowners, they may not necessarily reflect new and additional 

carbon storage that would not have occurred in the absence of the market. In 

general, carbon offset programs will require landowners to employ practices 

that are above and beyond “business as usual.” Each offset program uses 

its own definition of “business as usual,” so activities considered additional 

(and therefore eligible for offset crediting) in some standards may not be 

considered additional in others. Some of the common additionality criteria are 

discussed in this chapter.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

2. Financial test: If the management plan associated with the offset project is 

less financially attractive than alternative business-as-usual options, it may 

be considered additional. To demonstrate additionality in this case, there 

must be an anticipated reduction in income or other financial benefits from 

the project, compared to what would occur if the project did not participate 

in the carbon market.

3. Common practice test: If the activities described in the management plan 

are common practice in the industry—independent of participation in carbon markets—those activities may not be considered additional. 

Permanence and leakage—

Increased carbon storage that occurs through land management can be reversed 

through changes in land use, resource management practices, or natural disturbances, which gives rise to a concern over the “permanence” of sequestered 

carbon. Permanence is a common requirement for most offset programs, and the 

project developer may need to describe what efforts will be taken to minimize the 

risk of future carbon losses (or reversals) from events such as wildfire, changes in 

timber harvesting, or land sales. Permanence is commonly addressed through the 

use of buffer or reserve pools where a certain amount of the carbon credits earned 

by a project are held essentially as insurance to recoup carbon losses from reversals. 

Leakage refers to the risk that the carbon benefits gained by one project will 

be negated by increased carbon emissions in another location as a direct or indirect 

result of the project. Although project developers typically cannot control the land 

management decisions of other landowners, they will generally be required to 

commit to not pursuing activities on other lands within their control that increase 

the release of carbon from those lands. For example, a forestry offset project that 

involves reduced timber utilization in one stand cannot simply relocate timber 

harvests to another stand not included in the project area. 

Carbon inventory—

For programs that require them, landowners will need to have a carbon inventory 

prepared for the lands included in their project. In forestry projects, this inventory 

is similar in some senses to traditional timber inventories, but may require the 

measurement of additional carbon pools, such as nonmerchantable species, snags, 

and downed woody debris, as well as requiring additional constraints on the level 

of sampling and statistical errors allowed. These inventories are typically used to 
21

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

quantify and model a baseline scenario to estimate carbon sequestration over time. 

Most programs require a description of the sampling methodology that will be used 

to calculate and model changes in carbon storage. Examples include the location 

and number of sampling plots, the type of measurements that will be taken in the 

field, any laboratory tests, and any models or other published guides that will be 

used. To avoid overestimation of carbon storage and sequestration in projects, many 

offset standards will also use a conservative approach to the calculation of carbon 

storage in a forest by restricting the allowable statistical sampling error of an inventory (e.g., to a maximum of 20-percent sampling error at a 90-percent confidence 

level) and then subtracting some amount of the statistical error (e.g., one standard 

error of the mean) from the inventory estimate. This is a unique consideration for 

carbon inventories that is not commonly considered in traditional timber inventories 

and should be kept in mind when designing any carbon inventory to make sure that 

it will comply with a desired standard.

Tom Iraci
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Third-Party Verification, Monitoring, and 

Sustainability Certification

Most (but not all) offset standards require verification of offset activities by an 

independent third party. Many offset programs will provide a list of appropriate 

organizations that can be used for third-party verification. Others will require the 

use of an approved verifier. Many offset programs also require certification that the 

land is being managed in a sustainable manner. For forestry projects, this means the 

landowner may need to obtain forest certification through a program like the Forest 

Stewardship Council, Tree Farm, or the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. For range 

management projects, this usually means complying with the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Best Management Practices for grazing and rangeland management. These standards may vary from state to state depending on state 

and local regulations as well as different environmental concerns. Information on 

best management practices can be found by contacting a NRCS state office. Links 

to the Web sites for these offices can be found at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/

organization/regions.html.

Registering and Issuing Offset Credits

Once a project plan is approved and the offset activities are verified, the project can 

be placed on a registry and carbon offset credits issued. Many programs will charge 

a fee per ton of carbon to support the administration and operating expenses of the 

standard, registry, or trading program. Each carbon credit is typically representative 

of 1 tCO2e. Some registries use metric tonnes of CO2e, whereas others use English 

units of short tons of CO2e.

Sale of Credits

Once credits have been issued and registered, they may be sold through existing 

exchange platforms with transparent prices, or they may be sold in OTC transactions to other buyers through private agreements. Many registries or offset programs may require processing or transfer fees to be assessed when offset credits 

are transferred or sold. Under some standards, it may also be possible to negotiate 

forward sales of credits that essentially entail a contractual obligation to deliver 

credits anticipated to be earned in the future in exchange for up-front payment. 

This type of sale is distinct from ex-ante crediting because credits are not actually 

being sold in a forward sale, but instead the contract involves the promise to deliver 

credits once they have been issued. In the OTC market, the price of carbon credits 

varies from sale to sale. Price ranges for some of the major offset standards and 

markets are shown in table 2.
23

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Forest and Range Management and 

Carbon Sequestration

Landowners who are interested in participating in carbon markets can benefit from 

an understanding of the science behind forest and range management practices that 

help sequester carbon. It is also important that landowners understand which practices are recognized as qualifying carbon offset activities in existing markets and 

registries. It is likely that there are management practices that can produce carbon 

benefits that are not currently recognized in carbon offset programs. Similarly, there 

may also be requirements placed on management that do not have clear carbon 

sequestration effects. Ultimately, understanding the scientific underpinnings of how 

land management affects carbon sequestration in forest and range environments 

will enable concerned landowners to more critically evaluate why various offset 

programs require particular practices. 

Table 2—Reported prices for offset standards and trading programs

Standard/protocol Price range Average prices 

$US/tCO2e

American Carbon Registry ~2.50–20*A 3.80*A

CarbonFix 14–25 A

18.40A

14–27 B

Chicago Climate Exchange 1.90–15*A 4.00*A

1.40–2.70*C 2.10*C

Climate Action Reserve/California ~2–20*A 8.90*A

Climate Action Registry

Climate Community and Biodiversity ~2.50–15 A

10.30C

6.90–13.70C

Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism ~7.50–40*A 21.30*A

and Joint Implementation 19.20–41.10*C 30.20*C

Plan Vivo ~5–11A

5.60A

3.40–13C

8.20C

8–30B

Voluntary Carbon Standard ~2.50–30*A

5.50*A

6.90–20.60*C

13.70*C

12–18 B

Values with asterisks (*) next to them are based on ranges and averages for all offset project 

types allowed within a standard and not restricted to forestry or range projects. Letter 

codes represent sources of price ranges and averages as estimated by: A = Hamilton et al. 

(2009), prices from transactions in 2008; B = Merger (2008), expected prices for 2009; C = 

Kollmuss et al. (2008), prices on trades as of March 2008.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

In carbon markets, land-management practices used for carbon sequestration 

are commonly referred to collectively as LULUCF (land-use, land-use change, and 

forestry) or as agriculture, forestry, and other land uses (AFOLU). We use the term 

LULUCF to describe land-use-related offset projects except in circumstances where 

AFOLU is the term used internally by the specific offset standard being discussed.

Our Current Scientific Understanding of Forest and 

Rangeland Carbon Cycling

Current carbon market opportunities reflect a combination of practical and scientific 

concerns in both forestry and range management. Although LULUCF projects in 

general are somewhat more complicated than more technology-oriented offsetting 

projects, there are major differences between our current understanding of forest 

versus rangeland carbon science that affect how these activities are handled in 

carbon markets. As will be described in more detail in the sections that follow, 

forest carbon projects are primarily concerned with carbon storage in trees and 

wood products, whereas rangeland carbon projects focus on carbon storage in soils. 

As a practical matter, carbon is easier to measure above ground than it is below 

ground. Moreover, the current state of technology is such that measuring changes 

in soil carbon is expensive. Measuring carbon is also more similar to the kinds of 

measurements commonly taken as part of traditional forest management than is 

the case with range management. And there is uncertainty over how to assess soil 

carbon baselines and additionality. As a result of these and other issues, the current body of research into how forests—and trees in particular—cycle carbon is 

broader and more robust than the research pertaining to rangeland carbon cycling, 

and the evaluation of offsets from soil carbon is somewhat more contentious than 

from other carbon pools such as live plant biomass. These challenges have made the 

verification and determination of value for soil carbon sequestration complicated, 

and as a result, there are not currently many offset standards for soil carbon sequestration in rangeland environments.

Practical matters of measuring carbon storage have led to divergent methods for 

documenting carbon benefits from offset projects. The ease and relatively low cost 

of measuring tree carbon makes it possible for forestry offset projects to demonstrate that management activities are leading to carbon sequestration by inventorying their carbon over time. Standards that use this type of inventory program to 

measure changes in forest carbon are known as outcome-based standards. In 

contrast, the cost and difficulty involved in detecting changes in soil carbon make 

carbon inventories less suitable for rangeland offset projects. Instead, offset standards for rangeland management commonly require landowners to follow specific 

Forest carbon 

projects are primarily 

concerned with carbon 

storage in trees 

and wood products, 

whereas rangeland 

carbon projects focus 

on carbon storage in 

soils. 
25

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

management practices believed to increase carbon sequestration that are outlined 

by the relevant offset protocols. These are known as prescriptive standards. The 

overview of forest and range management practices that follows reflects these 

divergent requirements. Our discussion of forestry and carbon sequestration anticipates that landowners have the leeway to choose specific management practices. 

Conversely, our discussion of range management practices and carbon sequestration 

provides the scientific background for understanding how these practices may affect 

carbon balances in rangeland ecosystems, and specifies which of these practices are 

currently required by the CCX, the primary venue for rangeland carbon credits to 

date. 

Forestry

Forests are distinct from other terrestrial ecosystems in that they can sequester 

much larger amounts of carbon in plant biomass than other environments and plant 

communities. Total forest ecosystem carbon storage refers to the amount of carbon 

held on forest lands in both live and dead pools, including biomass, litter, and soils.6

The proportion of total forest ecosystem carbon that is stored in tree biomass relative to other pools like litter and soil differs with forest type, productivity, disturbance regime (including harvesting), and land-use history. Forests that are more 

productive or that foster the growth of very large trees (e.g., redwood forests and the 

temperate rain forests of the Pacific Northwest) typically contain higher proportions 

of carbon in tree biomass than less productive forests or those containing smaller 

trees. Across all forest types in the United States, the average amount of carbon 

stored in each pool is approximately 50 percent in soils, 33 percent in live trees, 

10 percent in woody debris (including standing dead trees, stumps, and snags), 6 

percent in the forest floor, and 1 percent in understory plants (Turner et al. 1995). 

In forests, carbon is sequestered by trees and can be stored in tree biomass 

(including wood products) and soils for long periods. The uptake of carbon into tree 

biomass generally occurs more quickly, and is easier to measure, than the uptake 

of carbon in soils. Many studies, though not all, have shown a measurable increase 

in soil carbon following establishment of new forests (Guo and Gifford 2002, Post 

and Kwon 2000). Most studies that have carefully considered soil carbon balance 

in managed forests have not found significant changes in soil carbon owing to 

harvesting and other common management practices, and the dearth of evidence 

showing effects of forest management on soil carbon stores has been argued by 

6 When wood products are added to the total carbon estimate for a forest, this is commonly 

referred to as total forest “system” carbon storage.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Lal et al. (2003) to be a knowledge gap in forest carbon sequestration (Johnson 

and Curtis 2001, Johnson et al. 2002, Yanai et al. 2003). The main methods of 

increasing carbon sequestration in forests are therefore to encourage carbon uptake 

by trees, and to enable long-term storage of that carbon in tree biomass. Forest 

management has traditionally focused on growing and harvesting trees, which are 

proportionately very large and easily measured carbon pools. Thus, there is a fair 

amount of scientific knowledge about forest management strategies that encourage 

tree growth, which informs our knowledge about forest management to encourage 

carbon sequestration. Although this discussion focuses largely on forest carbon 

storage and sequestration, carbon is only one factor among many that should be 

considered in sustainable forest management.

Management Practices That Encourage Carbon Sequestration

Carbon sequestration and associated carbon offset credits from forest environments 

can be generated by increasing the net uptake of carbon into forests, decreasing carbon releases from forests, or preventing carbon emissions caused by the conversion 

of forests to other land uses. Broadly speaking, there are three general categories of 

forest management that are considered in carbon markets: afforestration/reforestation, avoided deforestation, and improved forest management. 

Afforestation/reforestation—

The easiest way to visualize carbon storage by forests is to think about the growth 

of trees in a new forest. Afforestation is the term used for the establishment of 

forests on land that has not been forested for a long time, or never was (e.g., agricultural land). In many cases, afforestation can lead to rapid and dramatic accumulations of carbon in tree biomass. Carbon accumulation in litter and soil organic 

carbon may also increase with afforestation—depending on the status of the soil—

although these gains will likely be smaller and accumulate more slowly than carbon 

in tree biomass (Guo and Gifford 2002, Post and Kwon 2000). 

In contrast, reforestation involves reestablishing forests on lands where forests 

were recently removed or destroyed. This includes land that has lost forest cover 

that is not recovering naturally (e.g., land severely burned by forest fire). Many 

offset standards distinguish between afforestation and reforestation activities on 

the basis of how much time the land has been under a land use other than forestry. 

Offset standards may also stipulate how long a land area must have lacked forest 

cover to be considered as a source of carbon offset credits. For example, the CCX 

only allows areas that were not forested prior to 1990 to be eligible for afforestation 

carbon credits; the RGGI and the CAR require a minimum of 10 years of nonforest 

land cover. The timeframe set by different standards for qualifying afforestation 
27

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

projects is an important consideration for those interested in planting forests as 

a means of sequestering carbon and receiving carbon credits. To encourage the 

adaptation and resilience of forests in the face of climate change, offset standards 

may require the planting of native species in these projects and provide guidelines 

for species diversity. Planting new forests is a relatively straightforward way to 

sequester carbon and is the simplest carbon sequestration activity to account for in 

forest carbon offset programs.

Avoided deforestation—

The conversion of forested landscapes to other land uses (e.g., agriculture, developed uses) typically involves a dramatic release of carbon to the atmosphere, even if 

wood products are produced in the process. Deforestation and forest conversion lead 

to significant losses of carbon from live and dead biomass, litter, and often from 

soil organic matter as well. Preventing deforestation, particularly in tropical forests, 

has been investigated as a means to control carbon emissions because deforestation 

contributes roughly 20 percent of all GHG emissions (IPCC 2007). Unsustainable 

timber harvesting can also lead to deforestation and forest degradation. In carbon 

offset discussions, avoided deforestation is commonly referred to as “reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation,” or REDD.

Although forest clearing and land conversion represent a fairly straightforward 

loss of carbon, the methods used to estimate carbon losses that could be avoided 

Gary Wilson, Natural Resources Conservation Service
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

by preventing them are complicated and contentious. In contrast to afforestation/

reforestation activities that sequester carbon and are fairly easy to document, 

avoided deforestation activities require preventing emissions that may occur in 

the future. Rigorous carbon offset standards seek to make accurate estimates of 

prevented future emissions. Standards and methods that improperly calculate the 

threat of forest loss from deforestation can create a lack of confidence in associated 

offset credits, and can also reduce the effectiveness of offset activities in mitigating 

climate change. The challenges presented by quantifying and verifying offsets from 

REDD have led to its relatively less common adoption as an offset type in existing 

standards and emissions trading programs.

A major barrier to accepting avoided deforestation offset projects in the 

United States has been the difficulty of reliably estimating the real threat of forest 

conversion in specific places. Determining the risk for conversion of forest land to 

developed uses is generally the responsibility of the authorities associated with a 

particular GHG trading program or offset standard. Calculating development risks 

does not typically require developing new methods for every offset project, but 

rather the use of accepted forest conversion rates, or a proxy for conversion risk 

such as competing property values provided by the offset standard’s authorities.

Perhaps the largest dispute over avoided deforestation projects has been the risk 

of leakage (discussed above and defined in the glossary). When forests are controlled by one landowner, leakage of carbon benefits in one stand by increased harvesting in another is not a difficult problem to control, and is commonly included 

in contractual agreements for offset crediting. Leakage to forests outside of the 

landowner’s ownership and control is much more difficult to prevent and measure. 

Leakage is one of the biggest issues slowing down the wider adoption of avoided 

deforestation activities as carbon offsets. Ultimately, how leakage is measured and 

controlled will probably be decided by the authorities of individual GHG trading 

programs and offset standards. For example, one common approach to address 

leakage is to apply a discount (or explicit deduction applied to the measured carbon 

storage) to all credits earned by forest projects. The approaches involved may differ 

among programs, and should be examined closely prior to choosing a particular 

offset standard or trading program to participate in.

Improved forest management—

Several forest management practices that can increase carbon storage in forests 

are summarized below. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all forest 

management practices, and this is not an exhaustive list of all the management 
29

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Variations in Potential Carbon Sequestration by 

Region and Forest Type

Just as forest types and productivity vary from region to region across the 

country, so too does the regional potential for forest carbon sequestration. The 

predominant land-use patterns in different regions also influence what types 

of projects will produce the largest carbon gains. An analysis of the potential for forest and agricultural management to sequester additional carbon 

above a baseline scenario (Murray et al. 2005) found that at a price of $15/

tCO2e, the South-Central and Midwestern Corn Belt regions of the United 

States would be the center for the vast majority of afforestation potential. 

The analysis also found that the South-Central and Southeast regions of the 

country would provide the largest potential for additional carbon sequestration through improved forest management. These findings were based on the 

high proportion of timberland ownership by private entities in these regions, 

and the fact that they have large amounts of marginal agricultural and other 

lands that may be converted to forests in carbon offset projects. Outside of the 

Rocky Mountain and South-Central regions of the United States, the primary 

strategy for forest carbon sequestration is predicted to be through improved 

forest management rather than afforestation/reforestation projects (Murray et 

al. 2005). 

The different growth rates and productivity of diverse forest types also 

makes for unique carbon sequestration potentials. Forest types that grow more 

quickly when they are young will also generally accumulate carbon more 

quickly during that time. It is important to note however that achieving optimal carbon sequestration through forest management is not simply a matter of 

growth rate, but of total carbon storage (see sidebar on growth rate vs. carbon 

storage). As forests age, the picture becomes considerably more complicated 

as other pools such as standing dead wood and downed woody debris begin to 

assume larger proportions of carbon stored in forests. Estimates of the carbon 

sequestration and wood products storage potential of different forest types 

throughout the country are provided in yield table form for both afforestation 

and reforestation in Smith et al. (2006). In the West, redwood forests and the 

rain forests west of the Cascades in the Pacific Northwest have the greatest 

sequestration potential.
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

practices that may have effects on forest carbon storage. The practices described 

in more detail below encompass the management practices commonly discussed in 

this field of research and other prominent management practices that are regularly 

employed in forestry.

Extending harvest rotation intervals—Forests that grow more and bigger trees 

are generally more effective at sequestering and storing carbon than those that are 

harvested, even when the carbon stored in wood products is taken into account 

(Harmon et al. 1990, see discussion of wood products storage later in this chapter). 

Therefore, the primary means of increasing tree carbon is to allow managed forests 

to grow for longer periods before harvesting them. Lengthening harvest rotation 

intervals allows carbon to accumulate in larger living trees, and reducing harvest 

disturbance can increase carbon storage in dead biomass pools like standing dead 

and downed trees, which are often counted in forest carbon inventories (Harmon et 

al. 2009, Janisch and Harmon 2002, Murray et al. 2005). The concept is straightforward: bigger trees store more carbon than smaller trees. By extending the time between harvests, the forest manager allows the forest to grow larger and store more 

carbon. The amount of additional carbon storage that could be added by extending 

rotation intervals will vary depending upon the composition, productivity, and current management scheme of each forest. Although longer rotations generally equate 

to higher carbon storage, a 40-year increase in rotation interval may not necessarily 

create twice the additional carbon of a 20-year increase in rotation intervals.

This concept must be understood from the perspective of more than one forest stand. At the individual stand level, carbon storage is dramatically reduced by 

harvest removals, and may take many years to recover to preharvest carbon store 

levels following a harvest. It may be hard to imagine that increasing harvest intervals to increase carbon storage will make a difference until the stand grows larger 

than it was when last harvested. When harvest intervals are extended across entire 

watersheds or regions, however, the annual fluctuations in carbon storage caused 

by harvesting in individual stands are dampened, and this practice leads to older 

forests on average at the landscape scale, which can make a substantial contribution to national carbon sequestration goals and efforts to mitigate climate change. 

Some offset programs combine small landowners into groups so that the effects of 

each individual’s forest management practices add together to make a more obvious 

difference.

Forests that grow 

more and bigger 

trees are generally 

more effective at 

sequestering and 

storing carbon 

than those that are 

harvested, even when 

the carbon stored 

in wood products is 

taken into account
31

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Growth Rate vs. Carbon Storage

Many foresters are familiar with the fact that younger trees usually grow more quickly 

than older trees. This observation is commonly misinterpreted to mean that because 

younger forests are more productive, we should convert older, slower growing forests 

into young forests that can capture carbon more quickly. The reason this strategy has not 

been pursued for carbon sequestration is that the end goal of carbon-oriented management is to have more carbon stored in forests (including wood products storage) than was 

there previously—to increase the total amount of carbon stored, not the rate at which 

it is stored. This goal is in contrast to traditional timber management, which strives to 

optimize the rate at which timber (or timber revenue) is produced from a stand. It is 

also important to remember that growing trees are not the only pool of carbon in forest 

ecosystems. In fact, in the average U.S. forest, living trees only contain one-third of 

total ecosystem carbon (Turner et al. 1995). Carbon management in forests thus requires 

consideration of a broader range of pools than are typically considered in traditional 

timber strategies.

Older forests can store significantly more carbon than younger forests. For example, 

a 60-year-old Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziessi (Mirb.) Franco) forest typically 

contains approximately 259 to 274 tonnes of carbon per hectare; the same forest at 450 

years of age can contain over 600 tonnes of carbon per hectare (Harmon et al. 1990). 

Because most of the carbon removed from forests via harvest is lost to the atmosphere 

within several years of harvesting (Smith et al. 2006), the amount of carbon stored in 

wood products will be less than would be gained by continued forest growth, even in 

many highly productive forests. 

Moreover, for years following a clearcut or other high-utilization harvest, the total 

uptake of carbon in the postharvest stand is very low, and is often outweighed by the 

amount of carbon being released from the decomposition of soil organic matter, forest 

floor materials, and harvest residues, causing many postharvest forests to be net emitters 

of carbon to the atmosphere (Janisch and Harmon 2002). When maximum timber yields 

or timber revenues are the goal, short-rotation forestry may be preferred; but when carbon storage is the goal, short-rotation forestry, which maintains forests at younger ages, 

will correspond to less carbon storage in trees and wood products compared to longer 

rotation forestry that maintains older forests. Although younger forests commonly grow 

and capture carbon more quickly than older forests, they do not store as much carbon 

as older forests. The goal of carbon sequestration programs (and the policies that enable 

payment for carbon sequestration services) is to store more carbon, and growing older 

forests is one of the most straightforward ways of achieving this goal.
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Partial harvest and reduced utilization—As discussed above, there is typically 

a net carbon benefit to keeping carbon in forests rather than removing it through 

harvesting. In many circumstances, however, harvest strategies can be planned in 

such a way as to provide sustainable timber yields and simultaneously encourage 

carbon sequestration. Disturbance is one of the main causes of carbon release from 

forests to the atmosphere; thus, management practices that reduce harvest-related 

disturbances will lessen the potential for forest carbon loss during and following 

harvest operations. Disturbance effects on ecosystem carbon can be minimized 

through the use of partial harvest techniques (removing part of a stand instead of 

clearcutting all of it), and through reduced utilization by leaving whole or parts 

of cut trees on site during and after a harvest. 

In the Pacific Northwest, at least two forest modeling studies of carbon-oriented 

management that include the wood products carbon pool have found that transitioning to partial harvest techniques and reducing slash burning can provide carbon 

storage in wood products that is comparable to that which occurs under clearcut 

harvesting, while dramatically increasing ecosystem carbon storage (Harmon and 

Marks 2002, Harmon et al. 2009). For example, a model of the Douglas-fir–western 

hemlock forest ecosystem showed that a shift from 100-percent clearcutting to a 

partial harvest scenario in which 80 percent of the tree mass was cut and 80 percent 

of the felled boles were removed (the remaining felled boles were left to decompose) 

resulted in significantly higher forest ecosystem carbon stores. In addition, the size 

Eini Lowell

Harvest strategies 

can be planned in 

such a way as to 

provide sustainable 

timber yields and 

simultaneously 

encourage carbon 

sequestration.
33

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

of the wood products carbon pool was sometimes larger under the partial harvest 

scenario. Although reducing the percentage of trees cut during a harvest can 

decrease short-term timber yields, the continued growth of forests under carbonoriented management may sustain yields over time at a level that is comparable 

to the yields produced under traditional even-age management practices. The 

monetary value of the changes in carbon sequestration and timber yields following a transition to carbon-oriented management will vary, depending on site and 

environmental conditions, forest types, existing management practices, and the 

prices of both timber and carbon. Landowners interested in pursuing carbon offset 

opportunities should carefully evaluate the short-term and long-term tradeoffs 

involved in pursing carbon-related forest management.

Reducing dead biomass removal—When trees die in a forest, the carbon they 

contain is not immediately released to the atmosphere. Instead, the carbon held in 

standing and downed dead trees and snags, and in other dead biomass like forest 

floor litter and debris, can persist in the forest for very long periods. Carbon in dead 

and downed biomass is slowly transformed into litter and soil organic matter where 

it continues to decompose over time. In the United States, dead biomass on average 

makes up approximately 16 percent of the total carbon stored in forest ecosystems 

(Turner et al. 1995). In old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, dead biomass 

pools can compose as much as 23 percent of total ecosystem carbon (Smithwick 

et al. 2002). These pools represent significant storage reservoirs of carbon that 

are commonly included and measured in many (but not all) offset programs. 

Management practices that involve burning—such as harvest residue removal or 

site preparation—have the potential to dramatically reduce the amount of carbon 

stored in dead biomass pools by releasing it back to the atmosphere. By minimizing 

or ceasing management practices that prevent the natural increase of dead biomass 

over time, landowners can achieve measurable and potentially valuable gains in 

forest carbon storage.

In some environments, high levels of dead biomass may mean increased fire 

risk. Thus, the carbon benefits of leaving dead biomass on site need to be weighed 

against the risk of higher fuel loading. The relationship between fire and carbon 

balance in forests is a complicated one (see discussion of wildfire and prescribed 

fire below). 

Fertilization—In many forest ecosystems, the availability of soil nitrogen and 

phosporus can be the main factor limiting tree growth. In these environments, the 

addition of nutrients through the application of fertilizers or organic amendments 

can enhance tree growth, and in turn, carbon sequestration (Chen et al. 2000, 
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Pregitzer et al. 2008). The key carbon tradeoff in using fertilizers to enrich forest 

soils is the carbon cost of manufacturing, transporting, and applying the fertilizer, 

versus the expected gains in carbon storage following enhanced growth. The 

carbon costs of nitrogen fertilizer production and transport are estimated to range 

from as low as 0.06 kg CO2/kg of ammonium sulfate, and approximately 0.5 kg 

CO2/kg of urea, to as much as 0.65 kg CO2/kg of ammonia; the carbon costs of 

phosphorus and potash fertilizers are typically below 0.1 kg CO2/kg of fertilizer 

(Markewitz 2006). Because the net carbon balance depends on the application rate 

and expected forest growth following fertilization, the use of fertilizer to enhance 

carbon sequestration should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For example, a 

relatively heavy application of ammonia fertilizer at 200 kg/ha (~175 lbs/ac) would 

correspond to a carbon cost of 0.13 tCO2e/ha (130 kg CO2/ha). If the expected 

forest growth enhancement is greater than this carbon cost (e.g., if forest biomass 

is increased by more than 70 kg/ha—approximately equivalent to 0.13 tCO2e/ha—

in the scenario above), fertilization may on balance increase carbon sequestration. 

Offset programs may require a landowner to account for fertilizer use by using 

carbon cost estimates different from the ones given here, so fertilization as a 

management strategy should be carefully evaluated. 

Management Practices With Unclear or Unlikely Carbon Benefits

Wildfire mitigation and carbon sequestration—

The frequency and extent of wildfires in the Western United States are expected 

to increase with altered precipitation and temperatures caused by global climate 

change (Westerling et al. 2006). Thus, the management of forests to reduce wildfire 

risks is likely to become a more prominent issue. Wildfire control and mitigation 

is and should be an important component of sustainable forest management, but 

evaluating its effects on carbon sequestration and storage is complex. Because 

fuel treatments and wildfires both cause carbon losses from forests, the challenge 

for assessing carbon balances with regard to wildfire mitigation is to compare the 

carbon cost of expanded fuel treatments carried out in the present to the carbon 

losses from potential wildfires in the future.

The most dramatic impact of wildfire on forests in terms of carbon storage 

is the intense and rapid loss of carbon that occurs during the wildfire. Following 

severe wildfires, carbon loss from forests may persist for decades as large numbers 

of trees killed by the fire decompose and release carbon back to the atmosphere. 

In many cases, the release of carbon from dead trees in the years following a fire 

exceeds the amount of carbon lost during the fire event itself (Dixon and Krankina 

1993, Janisch and Harmon 2002).

The challenge for 

assessing carbon 

balances with regard 

to wildfire mitigation is 

to compare the carbon 

cost of expanded fuel 

treatments carried out 

in the present to the 

carbon losses from 

potential wildfires in 

the future.
35

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Compared to the carbon sequestration of an unburned forest, the carbon sequestration potential lost in severe wildfire can be immense. For example, severely 

burned areas from the Biscuit Fire, a very large fire that burned over 200 000 ha 

(about 494,000 ac) in Oregon in 2002, are estimated to have lost 17 percent of the 

carbon stored in the affected forests, not including the carbon released from soil 

deeper than 10 cm (Campbell et al. 2007). Although this 17 percent may seem fairly 

small for such an immense and severe fire, the authors estimated that the 3 800 000 

metric tonnes of carbon lost, represents over 18 times the annual carbon uptake of 

the preburned forest. Thus, it will take decades before the amount of carbon lost 

from this catastrophic wildfire will be sequestered again by a regrowing forest. 

Nevertheless, although the carbon remaining in snags and large woody debris was 

then exposed to increased decomposition, it is also important to recognize that 

significant amounts of carbon remained in the burned forests (83 percent of carbon 

remains according to estimates by Campbell et al. 2007).

To limit the frequency and severity of wildfires, forests are managed to reduce 

fuel loads. The amount of carbon removed from forests by fuels reduction treatments differs among stands, depending on their fuel loads and associated fire risks. 

Because it is not possible to know precisely where forest fires are going to occur, 

forest managers treat many acres of forests each year. Although it is now clear that 

fuel reduction treatments can reduce the amount of carbon lost should a wildfire 

burn through a treated forest, the treatments that take place in those forests that do 

not subsequently burn cause real carbon losses that need to be considered (Hurteau 

and North 2008, Hurteau et al. 2008, Mitchell et al. 2009). The major question confronting scientists who study the carbon balance of wildfire versus wildfire mitigation treatments is how to appropriately compare the amount of carbon lost from fuel 

reduction treatments to the amount of carbon likely to be lost from wildfires. This 

is a problem with complex spatial challenges because fuel reduction and wildfires 

occur in different locations and to different extents every year. Relatively few studies have been published on this topic to date. Those that have been have helped raise 

awareness of the carbon-related aspects of wildfire, but more research is needed 

before a clear and confident conclusion can be drawn about how managing for 

wildfire risks affects forest carbon balances. More references on wildfire mitigation 

and carbon balance can be found in the “Further Reading” section toward the end 

of this document. Prescribed fire and thinning, two common fuel reduction treatments, are addressed below.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Prescribed fire—

Prescribed fire can be a quick and effective way to remove harvest residues and 

woody debris to reduce fuel loads or prepare sites for planting and other silvicultural activities. However, a significant amount of carbon stored in dead—and to 

a lesser extent in live—biomass pools is immediately released to the atmosphere 

by the use of prescribed fire. The ability of prescribed fire alone to reduce the risk 

of carbon loss from wildfire is generally not great enough to compensate for the 

amount of carbon emitted from repeated applications of prescribed fire over the 

life of a stand. Scientific evaluation of prescribed fire suggests that allowing a 

wildfire to burn a forest produces fewer carbon emissions than the repeated application of prescribed fire needed to mitigate wildfire risk (Hurteau and North 2008). 

Therefore, although it may offer some protection against wildfire occurrence, prescribed burning does not appear to offer an overall carbon benefit, and is not likely 

to be supported in carbon offset programs as a management tool to increase carbon 

sequestration or storage in forests. Some standards may factor in considerations of 

prescribed fire to reduce the risk of wildfire-related carbon losses, but documentation of emissions associated with prescribed fire may be required.

Tom Iraci

The ability of prescribed fire alone to 

reduce the risk of carbon loss from wildfire 

is generally not great 

enough to compensate for the amount of 

carbon emitted from 

repeated applications 

of prescribed fire over 

the life of a stand.
37

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Thinning—

Forest thinning is commonly used to meet a variety of management goals. Thinning 

to remove and utilize trees that would otherwise be suppressed and die may make 

sense in terms of timber yield, but in terms of carbon storage, the effect is not as 

clear. All of the carbon in a tree is not immediately lost once the tree dies. Larger 

trees that are suitable for use as long-term wood products may retain significant 

levels of carbon over time. One study estimated softwood saw log use in the Pacific 

Northwest resulted in retention of 49 percent of the carbon originally contained in 

the rough log 10 years after harvest, and 23 percent 50 years after harvest (Smith et 

al. 2006). When small-diameter trees that are not useful for long-lived wood products are thinned, the amount of carbon lost to the atmosphere is greater. If thinned 

biomass is used as a source of renewable energy generation to offset fossil fuels, the 

net carbon balance may be more favorable (see sidebar).

Forest growth is central to carbon sequestration; thus, the role of thinning in 

stand development deserves closer attention in order to understand its effects on 

the carbon balance of forests. The removal of trees from a stand is well known to 

enhance growth among the trees that remain in the stand because it reduces competition for scarce soil nutrients, water, and sunlight (Langsæter 1941). Although this 

effect is well established, it is often misinterpreted to imply that the total growth 

rate of the forest will increase as a result of thinning. Instead, a common outcome 

of thinning is that it concentrates growth among fewer trees. In the short term, 

tree removal reduces the amount of leaves that are present in the forest to capture 

carbon and sunlight. As the remaining trees grow new leaves and branches and take 

advantage of new gaps, water, and soil nutrients, the growth rate of the forest stand 

approaches the rate it experienced prior to thinning. Thinning does not commonly 

cause a direct increase in total forest biomass growth, or in carbon sequestration 

(Schroeder 1991). In cases where forests are densely overstocked, thinning may 

lead to increased biomass growth and carbon storage, but this is an exception to the 

general rule (Cooper 1983, Finkral and Evans 2008). 

The carbon balance associated with thinning is directly tied to the growth rate 

of a particular stand and the fate of the trees harvested from it. Typically, the more 

the thinned trees are used for long-lived wood products and biofuels, the less the 

carbon losses from thinning. Leaving stands unthinned typically supports greater 

total carbon storage, but the use of thinning to achieve other management goals can 

still be a part of carbon-oriented forest management. 

In cases where 

forests are densely 

overstocked, thinning 

may lead to increased 

biomass growth and 

carbon storage, but 

this is an exception to 

the general rule.
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Biomass Energy and Biofuels

The use of forest biomass as a renewable energy source has received renewed 

attention and interest in recent years (Malmsheimer et al. 2008a). There is currently considerable interest in utilizing forest biomass removed through wildfire 

mitigation thinning treatments to not only enhance financing for fuel reduction 

treatments, but to support the development of sustainable energy production, 

and to support natural-resource-based economies in rural communities. Many of 

the climate change policies currently being discussed in Congress include some 

efforts to incorporate forest biomass into renewable energy standards. Although 

biomass for fuels is a very promising avenue for diversifying and increasing revenue for forest landowners, the relationship between biomass energy and carbon 

markets is generally not a direct one that can be made by landowners. Specifically, 

although biomass use for energy may qualify for carbon offset crediting in some 

standards, it is typically treated as a renewable energy offset rather than as a land 

management-based offset, the focus of this document. Thus, the generation of 

offset credits from biomass energy will go to the energy producer that uses the 

biomass, as opposed to the landowner who provides the forest biomass for use as 

energy. The carbon accounting methods used with biomass energy are beyond 

the scope of this document. Nevertheless, the use of removed biomass for energy, 

particularly in circumstances where thinning or other harvesting treatments are 

already planned, may offer renewed opportunities for landowners to sell forest 

products as a source of energy and simultaneously contribute to climate change 

mitigation, whether or not they directly receive carbon credits.

Mark Nechedom
39

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Timber Harvesting and Carbon Storage in Wood Products

Managing forests to promote carbon sequestration is to some extent compatible 

with traditional forest management to produce wood products, but there are several 

important distinctions. From a carbon perspective, timber harvesting fragments 

aboveground biomass pools and moves them to different locations both on and off 

site. Branches, leaves, and in some cases tree trunks—and the carbon they contain—remain on site following harvest, where they are exposed to natural decomposition processes or treated during site preparation practices. One study in the 

Pacific Northwest revealed that emissions from common industrial timber harvest 

and site preparation management may correspond to as much as 12.5 percent of the 

carbon stored in these managed forests (Sonne 2006). 

Biomass that is harvested will be transformed into a variety of wood products. 

When harvested trees are processed into wood products, approximately 40 to 60 

percent of the carbon they contain is released back to the atmosphere (Harmon et 

al. 1996). The remaining 40 to 60 percent of the carbon flows into and is stored in a 

wide range of wood products, such as paper and lumber. Short-lived wood products 

typically have a shorter lifetime than biomass that is left to decompose in the forest. 

However, some forest biomass may be incorporated into long-lived wood products, 

such as wood in houses, where their carbon may be stored for long periods comparable to the lifetime of decomposing tree trunks in forests. 

Because there are significant losses of carbon when trees are processed, and 

because most wood products have shorter lifetimes than trees, trees in forests are 

more efficient for carbon storage and sequestration than wood products. Therefore, 

most carbon sequestration guidance from scientific bodies prioritizes the accumulation of carbon in live and dead forest trees as a prerequisite to including carbon 

storage in wood products as a valid method of sequestering carbon and mitigating 

climate change (Nabuurs et al. 2007). Timber harvesting and carbon sequestration 

are not mutually exclusive, however. Well-managed forests may be grown both as a 

source of wood products and for carbon sequestration benefits (Malmsheimer et al. 

2008c). We do not expect forests to be managed for carbon sequestration alone. The 

point remains, however, that forests left undisturbed by harvest will typically have 

higher levels of carbon storage than harvested forests, even when accounting for 

carbon storage in wood products. Ultimately, the balance between carbon storage 

and timber removals will be determined by landowners with access to viable timber 

and carbon markets. 

In theory, substituting wood products for other more carbon-intensive building 

materials (such as concrete and steel) may prevent emissions associated with the 

production of those materials. In many studies, this “substitution effect” is used to 

When harvested 

trees are processed 

into wood products, 

approximately 40 

to 60 percent of the 

carbon they contain is 

released back to the 

atmosphere.
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

argue for a higher potential for the use of wood products to offset or reduce GHG 

emissions. If this substitution effect is not included, there is usually a clear carbon 

benefit to keeping carbon in intact forests (see sidebar on wood products substitution).

Several offset programs (such as Kyoto’s CDM) have treated carbon removed 

through timber harvesting as though it were immediately released to the atmosphere. This view ignores the nontrivial amount of carbon that can be stored in 

long-lived wood products, and discourages timber harvest in general. Other offset 

programs have methods for estimating the amount of harvested carbon that persists 

in the form of long-lived wood products. For landowners interested in pursuing 

forest offsets, it will be important to consider how different standards treat carbon 

in long-lived wood products.

Wood Products Substitution 

Many discussions of forest management for carbon sequestration will 

commonly refer to the potential for wood products to be used as a substitute 

for more carbon-intensive materials such as concrete and steel. Many authors 

addressing this comparison commonly argue for increased use of wood 

to replace these other construction materials (Malmsheimer et al. 2008b). 

Although the debate on the proper carbon accounting methods for wood 

products substitution is still ongoing, wood products substitution as a climate 

change mitigation strategy is not likely to provide a direct link for landowners 

to carbon markets. The substitution of wood products for other materials 

is very difficult to document and quantify, and no consensus has emerged 

on how this may be approached. Ultimately, however, any potential carbon 

crediting opportunities from wood products substitution in the future would 

accrue to those who make the decision to switch to wood rather than other 

materials. As landowners providing wood products to the timber market are 

not involved in these decisions, they will be unable to claim responsibility for 

any carbon offsetting or crediting resulting from these decisions.
41

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

General Conclusions on Forest Carbon Sequestration 

The wealth of research that has gone into forest growth and management over the 

past decades provides a strong foundation for understanding how forest carbon 

sequestration can contribute to climate change mitigation. In general, forests offer 

a unique opportunity for biological carbon sequestration that is relatively easy 

to document, and that commonly provides a variety of other ecosystem services. 

Although there remain many contentious issues surrounding accounting practices 

and the scientific basis for optimal use of the many resources forests provide, our 

current understanding of carbon cycling enables forests to assume a key role in 

efforts to address climate change, and will likely continue to do so for decades to 

come. The potential for carbon financing to serve as a revenue stream for forest 

owners creates a new opportunity to support the sustainability of diverse forest 

ecosystems and the people and economies that rely on them.

Rangeland Management

Most of the carbon in rangeland ecosystems is found in soil. Carbon storage in soil 

changes more slowly and unpredictably than carbon storage in plants. Rangeland 

carbon sequestration therefore typically (but not always) focuses on increasing 

carbon inputs to soils, or decreasing carbon losses from soils. Our scientific understanding of soil carbon uptake, storage, and release in rangeland ecosystems is not 

as clear as it is for plants in forests. However, the processes governing carbon inputs 

and outputs in semiarid and arid rangelands appear to be dominated by the amount 

and timing of rainfall (Conant and Paustian 2002, Gilmanov et al. 2006, Huxman 

et al. 2004). Many rangeland environments shift from being carbon sinks to carbon 

sources seasonally, and from year to year (Svejcar et al. 2008). 

Carbon sequestration research in rangelands is a relatively new field. Scientists 

have begun to evaluate range management practices and their carbon benefits, but 

more study is needed to improve our understanding of how these practices affect 

rangeland carbon balances. The relatively small body of research on the effects 

of range management practices on carbon balances significantly limits our ability 

to predict which practices will lead to carbon storage or release from rangelands 

over time. Therefore, the discussion of range management practices presented 

here draws on the current understanding of carbon cycling from soil science in 

inferring whether activities might be expected to increase or decrease soil carbon. 

Further study of the ecological drivers of carbon balance in soils, and of the effects 

of range management practices on soil carbon, are needed to verify many of these 

inferences. 

Many rangeland 

environments shift 

from being carbon 

sinks to carbon 

sources seasonally, 

and from year to year.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

One challenge in rangeland carbon science is that change in soil carbon is 

difficult and costly to measure. As a result, many studies of common range management practices and carbon balance to date have either produced conflicting results, 

or have failed to demonstrate clear carbon benefits. Adding to these problems is the 

difficulty of generalizing findings from one study site to broader areas and different grazing environments; a number of environmental variables change from one 

range ecosystem to another, and these differences can have important consequences 

for rangeland carbon balances. Because the science is still developing, our current 

understanding of how best to manage these landscapes for carbon is comparatively 

limited. With that in mind, we do not present the management practices discussed 

below in clear groups distinguishing those that are known to sequester carbon 

from those that are not because there is not yet enough scientific certainty to draw 

these major distinctions for many management practices. Instead, we discuss 

management practices by theme: those that are primarily concerned with grazing 

management, plant community management, and finally soil conservation and 

amendments. The ordering among and within sections does not imply any hierarchy 

of scientific certainty or the validity of any of the practices discussed for sequestering carbon.

Although this discussion focuses solely on carbon balance issues, the other 

environmental values associated with these management practices should not be 

overlooked. For example, improved soil water storage and filtration capacity, soil 

fertility, and erosion control are known to correspond to increases in soil carbon 

storage. Although these values may not be explicitly rewarded through carbon 

offset credits, they are environmental benefits that generally contribute to sustainable land management, and hold potential for participation in emerging markets for 

other ecosystem services. Carbon is only one factor among many that should be 

considered in sustainable range management.

Grazing Management

Practicing sustainable grazing—

Grasses (their roots in particular) are the main source of carbon input to soils in 

grazing environments. The level and duration of grazing on a rangeland affects the 

production of grasses there. It follows that the control of grazing to maximize plant 

productivity can potentially lead to higher inputs of carbon to soils and increase 

carbon storage over time (Frank et al. 2002). Unfortunately, studies examining 

the effects of various grazing strategies on soil carbon storage have produced 

conflicting results, making it impossible to recommend specific stocking rates or 

utilization rates that will encourage carbon sequestration (Milchunas and Lauenroth 

Studies examining 

the effects of various 

grazing strategies on 

soil carbon storage 

have produced 

conflicting results, 

making it impossible 

to recommend specific 

stocking rates or 

utilization rates that 

will encourage carbon 

sequestration.
43

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

1993, Reeder et al. 2004, Rice and Owensby 2001, Shrestha and Stahl 2008). 

Nevertheless, it is clear that utilization rates that exceed sustainable levels and 

decrease plant productivity over time place the carbon stored in the soils and plants 

of grazed ecosystems at higher risk of loss. Unsustainable grazing reduces longterm plant productivity and thereby reduces carbon uptake by the ecosystem while 

simultaneously increasing the risk of erosion and decomposition of soil organic 

matter. All of these outcomes, in turn, affect the long-term capability of rangelands 

to support grazing animals, diverse wildlife habitat, and other environmental 

services. Although it is difficult to model or predict the effects of small changes in 

grazing activities on soil carbon, once overgrazing begins to affect plant productivity, the potential of rangelands to capture carbon is progressively reduced, and the 

Soil Inorganic Carbon

Most scientists and carbon offset programs considering soil carbon sequestration typically focus on the storage of soil organic carbon only (i.e., carbon 

derived from living and formerly living things). Carbon also exists and cycles 

through soils in inorganic forms. Inorganic forms of soil carbon may be 

particularly abundant in arid and semiarid environments. For example, soil 

inorganic carbon is commonly observed as white salt crusts in soil known 

as carbonates. There have been several studies investigating the effects of 

management practices such as irrigation on the occurrence of soil carbonates (Entry et al. 2004, Eshel et al. 2007, Sartori et al. 2007, Wu et al. 2008). 

Although the chemical reactions producing these carbonates are fairly well 

understood, there is considerable disagreement among scientists about 

whether the formation of these crusts represents a net release or net uptake of 

GHGs from the atmosphere (Lal et al. 2000). Calculating carbon sequestration 

in inorganic forms is complicated, and there is currently no consensus among 

soil scientists about how to do so. The significant measurement challenges 

as well as the fundamental lack of agreement over whether carbonates represent a net storage or net release of carbon will likely hinder the inclusion 

of inorganic soil carbon pools in future offset programs. The slow rate of 

soil inorganic carbon accumulation and the apparent difficulty of controlling 

changes in it through management decisions have led researchers in the field 

to conclude that soil inorganic carbon is not a viable avenue for land-based 

sequestration (Eswaran et al. 2000, Suarez 2000).
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

risk of carbon loss (and the loss of other environmental services) progressively 

increases (Conant and Paustian 2002). The net effect of unsustainable overgrazing 

on soil carbon storage is long-term carbon loss (Lal 2004a).

Rotational vs. continuous grazing—

A recent survey by Briske et al. (2008) found that there has been very little research 

comparing the effects of rotational and continuous grazing on carbon balances. 

Most of the research to date has focused instead on how these management strategies affect forage condition and animal productivity. Until the carbon effects of 

these grazing strategies are measured and reported, it is not possible to provide 

a scientifically based assessment of the benefits of continuous versus rotational 

grazing for sequestering carbon in rangeland plants or soils. Despite this lack of 

scientific evidence and the high level of uncertainty surrounding the carbon balances associated with these practices, some carbon offset programs require the use 

of one strategy over the other. For example, up until August 2009, CCX required 

ranchers participating in their program as offset providers to practice rotational 

grazing, although they have since removed that requirement and now only demand 

the completion of a formal grazing plan.

Gene Alexander, Natural Resources Conservation Service
45

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Stocking rates—

Research considering the relationship between stocking rates and rangeland 

carbon balances has found dramatically conflicting results. Some research has 

shown that high stocking rates (including but not limited to use in a short-duration, 

high-intensity grazing system) may increase carbon storage compared to light or 

no grazing (Owensby et al. 2006, Reeder et al. 2004). A review of many studies 

around the world suggested that excessive utilization reduced the carbon sequestration achieved by many grasslands and that the capacity to restore these grasslands 

to higher sequestration by reducing utilization rates improved with increasing 

amounts of annual precipitation (Conant and Paustian 2002). Still other research has 

found that grazing does not affect soil carbon sequestration, regardless of intensity 

(Lecain et al. 2000, Shrestha and Stahl 2008). These conflicting results are not 

simply a product of comparing research in different ecosystems. Studies conducted 

in tallgrass, shortgrass, mixed grass, shrub-steppe, and other grazing ecosystems 

around the world have also found conflicting results (Conant and Paustian 2002, 

Milchunas and Lauenroth 1993). This high level of uncertainty makes it difficult to 

predict the carbon benefits of low versus high stocking rates. The main exception 

to this uncertainty is where grazing is practiced at unsustainable levels that reduce 

plant productivity over time, as described above. 

Plant Community Management

Organic amendments— 

Organic amendments, such as manure and biosolids (municipal waste), are 

nonsynthetic materials that may be applied to the land for a variety of reasons. 

Rangeland soil amendments have been primarily investigated for their potential to 

mitigate erosion or to enhance nutrient availability for grass production. Studies 

that have measured how the application of organic materials to soils affect soil 

carbon have often found a positive response, with organic amendments leading to 

measurable changes in soil carbon storage (Conant et al. 2001, Follett et al. 2000, 

Moffet et al. 2005, Paschke et al. 2005). Soil amendment applications have also 

shown other rangeland benefits, including increased plant production and decreased 

erosion over time (Martinez et al. 2003, Meyer et al. 2004, Pierce et al. 1998, 

Walter et al. 2000). It is unclear, however, whether organic amendments actually 

enhance carbon sequestration following their application, or whether the increased 

soil carbon storage observed is due to remnant carbon from the organic materials 

themselves (Conant et al. 2001). 

Research considering 

the relationship 

between stocking rates 

and rangeland carbon 

balances has found 

dramatically conflicting 

results. 
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Because quantifying the carbon benefits of organic amendments is complex, 

regulators and other carbon market participants may be hesitant to recognize and 

accept organic amendments as a quantitatively verifiable means to sequester carbon 

in soils and as a management practice that should qualify for carbon offsetting. 

Moreover, the use of some organic amendments is controversial from a carbon 

perspective. For example, in the case of farmed land, adding manure to fields is a 

less efficient way of returning plant carbon to soils than simply leaving cows out 

of the equation altogether; the simplest and most direct way to introduce carbon to 

farm soils is to retain existing plant tissues to decay in the field, or to return dead 

plant material directly to the land. The diversion of plant tissues from farm land to 

feed animals that produce the manure in turn leads to a variety of other emissions 

and environmental issues (Schlesinger 2000). The policy debate surrounding such 

calculations is outside the scope of this document; such debate highlights some of 

the contentious issues surrounding management actions that may have local carbon 

benefits but raise larger environmental and policy questions.

Encouraging woody encroachment or forest growth—

The expansion of woody plants such as shrubs and trees onto landscapes previously 

dominated by grasses is a topic of particular interest for scientists investigating 

carbon cycling (Pacala et al. 2001). The encroachment of woody vegetation onto 

rangelands is a widespread phenomenon across the Western United States, and the 

effects of this shift on ecosystem carbon balances have been investigated in several 

locations, with mixed results (McKinley and Blair 2008, Smith and Johnson 2003). 

Woody plants commonly contain more of their carbon in aboveground plant tissues 

than do nonwoody plants; this fact may place sites with higher levels of woody 

encroachment at greater risk for carbon losses to wildfire should they burn. In contrast, in grassland ecosystems, significant amounts of plant production take place 

below ground in roots, which, as they die and decompose, can lead to the formation of soils high in carbon content. A key question is whether the replacement of 

grasses with woody plants that hold more carbon above ground and put less below 

ground will lead to a net gain or net loss of carbon for the ecosystem as a whole. In 

cases where woody encroachment is dense enough to lead to forest establishment, 

the carbon gains above ground are likely to compensate for any potential losses 

below ground. This phenomenon would generally be considered afforestation rather 

than woody encroachment. In situations where woody encroachment is sparse, its 

effects on the carbon balance appears to depend on other variables such as precipitation and the distribution and productivity of the resulting plant community. For 

example, a review of several studies conducted by Jackson et al. (2002) found that 

woody encroachment on wetter sites receiving 660 to 1070 mm/yr precipitation 
47

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

resulted in a net carbon loss to the atmosphere, whereas woody encroachment on 

drier sites receiving 230 to 322 mm/yr resulted in net carbon sequestration. This 

area of research is still young, and further study is necessary to make general 

predictions about the direction and size of shifts in carbon storage following woody 

encroachment.

Revegetating bare ground—

Plants are the primary vehicle for adding carbon to terrestrial environments. It 

follows that increasing plant cover or productivity should lead to increased carbon 

inputs to soils. In some circumstances, however, increased plant productivity may 

also lead to increased decomposition, resulting in no net carbon gains. In the case 

of bare ground, on balance, revegetation is a means not only to prevent soil erosion 

and land degradation, but to increase vegetation and soil carbon storage. To date, 

most of the research investigating revegetation by planting grass and vegetation 

control has taken place in the context of converting marginal agricultural lands to 

grasslands, rather than range management (Derner et al. 2005). Studies examining the restoration of agricultural fields to grasslands have shown that doing so 

increases carbon storage by replenishing some of the carbon lost from years of 

soil disturbance through tillage and erosion. More research is needed to quantify 

and characterize changes in the carbon balance resulting from revegetation of bare 

ground in rangeland environments, but preliminary results from agricultural soils 

suggest that planting grass may help to increase soil carbon storage. One example 

of how bare ground can enter into carbon considerations on rangeland project areas 

is through requirements from CCX that devegetated areas surrounding prairie dog 

towns not be counted toward acreage that is sequestering carbon (Graham, T. 2009. 

Personal communication, Aeroscene Land Logic). 

Invasive species control—

The spread of invasive species on rangelands in the West has become a major concern for range managers, and will likely continue with the changes in temperature 

and precipitation that are predicted to occur with climate change. Invasive species 

such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) can establish monocultures rapidly, outcompeting more desirable species for forage, and leading to dramatic increases in 

wildfire frequency that can, in turn, lead to long-term exclusion of other species not 

adapted to frequent fires. The increased occurrence of fire has led some researchers 

to be concerned about the release of GHGs to the atmosphere from the burning of 

plants, and to an interest in determining the effects of these invasions on ecosystem 

carbon storage. Although the results have not always been statistically significant 

when comparing between cheatgrass and native steppe and grassland communities, 
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

several studies have shown cheatgrass invasion to result in considerable carbon 

losses from aboveground plant biomass, particularly in sagebrush communities 

following fires, with the potential to shift these environments from net carbon sinks 

to sources (Bradley et al. 2006, Norton et al. 2004, Prater et al. 2006). Although 

the invasion of cheatgrass represents a concern for increased carbon losses from 

invaded communities, the ability to affect the carbon balance in these environments 

is complicated by the difficulty in preventing cheatgrass invasions as well as in 

restoring invaded areas to native plant cover. Further efforts to prevent and control 

these invasions, and research on how to do so, are needed for a number of environmental reasons.

Prescribed fire—

Wildfire in rangeland environments can exert a strong influence on the type and 

abundance of vegetation that grows there over time. Wildfire risk stems from 

the nature of the fuels present and wind and moisture conditions, which may be 

altered as climate change progresses. The increase in wildfire occurrence in many 

ecosystems over the past decade has led to management actions like fuel removal 

and prescribed burning that aim to reduce the severity of fires in these ecosystems. 

Although rangeland wildfires can release a significant amount of carbon to the 

atmosphere, they do not appear to affect long-term ecosystem carbon storage in 

rangeland environments (Davies et al. 2007). This is because fires do not significantly change belowground carbon storage, and the largest reservoir of carbon in 

rangelands is located below ground. Despite this lack of long-term observed effects, 

offset programs may require the removal of burned acreages from consideration for 

crediting for carbon sequestration for a specific number of years. For example, CCX 

excludes burned acres from counting for carbon crediting in the year they burn 

(Graham, T. 2009. Personal communication, Aeroscene Land Logic). Ultimately, 

the use of prescribed fire in rangeland environments does not appear to offer any 

distinct carbon benefits compared to allowing wildfires to burn. The lack of clear 

carbon benefits associated with prescribed burning make this practice unlikely to 

qualify for offsetting as a carbon sequestration strategy.

Soil Conservation and Amendments

Erosion control—

Just as erosion removes soil from a site and transports it to a depositional area or 

body of water, erosion also moves the carbon contained in soil from one place to 

another. Surface soils are higher in organic matter, carbon, and nutrients for plant 

growth than deeper soil layers. Consequently, surface erosion leaves the eroded 

environment less capable of supporting a thriving plant community and other 

Although rangeland 

wildfires can release 

a significant amount 

of carbon to the 

atmosphere, they 

do not appear to 

affect long-term 

ecosystem carbon 

storage in rangeland 

environments.
49

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

important ecosystem functions. Erosion can also negatively affect other areas—for 

example, by increasing sediment loads in streams and rivers, which can interfere 

with critical biological processes there. Thus, it is apparent for reasons unrelated 

to carbon sequestration that the control of soil erosion is important for sustainable 

land management in the United States and around the world.

Although the process of erosion is well known to negatively affect the soil 

environment and related ecosystem processes in the places where soil is lost, there 

is much disagreement among experts on how erosion affects local, regional, and 

global carbon balances (Harden et al. 2008; Lal 2003; Lal and Pimentel 2008; Lal et 

al. 2004a, 2004b; Renwick et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2001; Stallard 1998; Van Oost et 

al. 2004, 2007). The debate has focused primarily on agricultural fields rather than 

rangelands because soil erosion is a common problem associated with farming. The 

major difficulty in evaluating how erosional processes affect the carbon balance 

of soils is determining how quickly carbon can be replaced by plant growth, and 

whether the movement, deposition, and burial of eroded sediments in basins or 

water bodies actually reduces its decomposition rate.

At smaller scales, the issue of erosion is more straightforward. Locally, the 

removal of soil through erosion commonly causes its transport to another site 

located beyond a given landowner’s property boundaries and control, potentially 

leaving behind bare ground or areas with sparse vegetation or low productivity. 

Hannah Gosnell
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

This represents a clear loss for the landowner not only of the carbon contained in 

the eroded soil, but also of important ecological functions provided by the soil. 

Lands used for carbon offset activities that include soil carbon in their measurements will therefore benefit from the prevention of soil erosion through good soil 

management practices. When eroded soils are redeposited onsite, it is more challenging to calculate the resulting site-specific carbon balance.

In general, GHG policies are concerned with carbon balance questions at much 

larger scales than that of individual properties. It is therefore unclear whether 

carbon sequestration standards or policies will recognize erosion control as a means 

to avoid carbon loss, and as a stand-alone land management practice eligible for carbon credits. Regardless, erosion control remains an important strategy for sustainable land management, and should not be considered solely a carbon issue.

Irrigation—

Irrigation is a method commonly used to enhance plant growth, particularly in 

environments where water is the most limiting plant resource. Although most of the 

research on irrigation and carbon balance has focused on croplands, and to a lesser 

extent on pasture lands, the high carbon costs of developing irrigation systems 

make the limited gains that might occur from enhanced plant growth in rangelands 

unlikely candidates for carbon sequestration offsets in markets. The construction of 

irrigation systems and the pumping of irrigation water require the use of materials 

and energy that release GHGs to the atmosphere (Lal 2004b, Schlesinger 2000). 

Furthermore, water removed from belowground reservoirs can have CO2 concentrations more than 25 times atmospheric levels. When this water is brought to the 

surface, most of this CO2 leaves the water and returns to the atmosphere (Martens 

et al. 2005). Although some research in croplands has shown a potential for carbon 

sequestration following irrigation, few studies have included the carbon costs of 

establishing and running the irrigation system. Schlesinger (2000) estimated that 

irrigation to increase plant production in semiarid and arid environments often 

leads to a net release of carbon to the atmosphere. Simply put, the carbon costs of 

irrigation are difficult to recoup through the slow and indirect process of soil carbon 

sequestration. Ultimately, the practice of irrigation in arid and semiarid rangeland 

environments appears unlikely to produce enough soil carbon gain from increased 

plant growth to overcome the significant carbon costs of building and operating the 

irrigation system. 

The carbon costs of 

irrigation are difficult 

to recoup through 

the slow and indirect 

process of soil carbon 

sequestration. 
51

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Nitrogen additions—

In many plant communities, nitrogen is the most limiting nutrient for plant growth. 

Adding nitrogen to soils would therefore seem like a straightforward way to stimulate plant growth and thereby encourage soil carbon sequestration. In the case of 

synthetic fertilizers, the GHG emissions associated with producing, transporting, 

and applying them compete against the increased carbon uptake rates enabled by 

fertilization. Some studies of the use of synthetic fertilizers have shown modest 

carbon sequestration gains in agricultural soils, but few have weighed these gains 

against the GHG emissions costs associated with using the fertilizer (Schuman 

and Derner 2004). Other studies have found either no change in soil carbon from 

nitrogen fertilization, or that the carbon costs of fertilizer use outweigh any carbon 

sequestration benefits (Schlesinger 2000, Verburg et al. 2004). 

Introducing plants such as legumes that naturally fix nitrogen to rangelands 

is one means of increasing nitrogen in soils to promote plant growth and carbon 

sequestration. However, the leading studies to date on the effects on soil carbon 

have not shown convincing results. One study in South Dakota showed some 

increase in soil carbon stores with alfalfa seeding, although the results were not 

always significant (Mortenson et al. 2004). In a study in Wyoming, seeding with 

alfalfa did not produce significant changes in soil carbon storage (Robles and Burke 

1997). Based on these findings, it remains uncertain whether the use of nitrogenfixing plants such as alfalfa is a reliable way to sequester carbon.

General Conclusions on Rangeland Carbon Sequestration

The science of carbon cycling in rangelands is a relatively new field, and considerable additional research is necessary to enable reliable quantification of management effects on carbon storage. In general, carbon sequestration occurs more slowly 

and is more complicated and costly to measure and monitor in soils than in plant 

pools. Despite these apparent hurdles, many scientists believe there is a significant 

potential for sustainable rangeland management to complement other offset types 

at mitigating climate change (Follett et al. 2000). Compared to opportunities for 

forestry, the carbon market currently offers relatively few standards for rangeland 

management. Nevertheless, sustainable rangeland management will be an important 

component of adapting to climate change throughout the world, and opportunities 

for ranchers to participate in carbon markets will likely continue to emerge and 

evolve. 
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Common Questions About Market Participation

The following questions cover what we anticipate will be the major issues of 

interest to landowners and project developers who are considering carbon market 

participation. The list is not comprehensive, but provides basic information and 

direction towards further resources where appropriate.

Which Offset Program Should a Landowner or 

Project Developer Choose?

Although many offset standards have been developed with similar goals and 

requirements, each standard is unique and may yield different results for your 

project. If you begin a project with the expectation of selling credits through 

voluntary OTC transactions, you can expect different standards to correspond 

to different prices for offset credits. Web links to references that compare some 

of the standards are provided in the “Further Reading” section at the end of this 

document. Some of the questions that should be asked when choosing an offset 

standard or trading program include:

• What activities are eligible?

As indicated in table 1, different offset programs allow different types of 

activities. The standards are evolving, and the most current version of the 

standard should be consulted to determine what management activities are 

eligible under a particular standard.

• Is an existing forest or rangeland environment or management plan in 

line with the standard?

Some standards place restrictions on the types of forest or rangeland that 

can be enrolled in a program. For example, CCX has a list of counties and 

precipitation zones that a range management project must fall within to 

participate. Rangelands lying outside of these zones are excluded. The CAR 

forestry project protocol requires maintenance of diverse forest age classes 

and has minimum requirements for native species planting and diversity. 

Finally, every standard defines “forest” and “rangeland” in a slightly different way. It is important to make sure that your land and management plan 

are compatible with the standard.

• Does a landowner’s property have enough sequestration potential to 

enter a project on its own?

The smaller the area, or the lower the productivity of land being managed 

for carbon sequestration, the more likely it is that you will have to seek 
53

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

the assistance of an aggregator. Smaller landowners will commonly find 

that their carbon sequestration activities may not provide enough income 

to support the costs of verification and other expenses and program fees. 

Some offset programs also have a minimum sequestration amount for participation. This requirement may lead to a minimum threshold of acreage 

for landowners to participate without the assistance of an aggregator. The 

aggregation of projects reduces the financial hurdle for each landowner 

by combining verification and monitoring expenses, as well as other fees 

assessed for market entry and participation.

• What are the requirements for carbon measurement and monitoring, 

and how much do they cost?

The methods required for measuring and monitoring carbon storage may 

differ among standards and are continuing to evolve over time. Most standards have been designed to balance the costs of measurement against the 

need for precise and accurate inventories. In forestry projects, the shift 

from a traditional timber inventory to a carbon inventory may or may not 

require the field measurement of additional carbon pools not traditionally 

counted but commonly includes estimates of the amount of carbon stored 

in wood products. Each program will mandate how and when inventories 

should be conducted and have guidance on acceptable sampling error. The 

cost of a carbon inventory for forestry projects can be expected to be at 

least as expensive as that of a traditional timber cruise and will likely be 

somewhat higher, depending upon the program’s requirements. Most programs will also require some form of annual or periodic monitoring and 

reporting to describe intentional or unintentional changes to the project’s 

carbon stores, including natural disturbances, shifts in harvesting strategies, or increased confidence from further inventories. The cost of monitoring and reporting will differ among offset programs depending upon the 

role of third-party verifiers and how frequently monitoring updates must be 

submitted.

• Are there any land use restrictions? How are they enforced?

To discourage landowners from abandoning their carbon-oriented management plan following enrollment in an offset program, landowners may 

be required or encouraged to implement a conservation easement or other 

land-use restriction to guarantee the permanence of stored carbon on their 

lands. These restrictions may or may not stay with the land following its 

sale or transfer to another owner. The contract terms for how long the 
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

land must stay enrolled will vary from program to program, and can be an 

important issue in determining which standard best fits your management 

goals. Because many offset programs are very young, there is not a clear 

record of procedures for enforcing program rules or addressing noncompliance. Most programs rely on the use of contracts between landowners 

or project developers and the credit-issuing organization (i.e., a registry or 

standards organization). The general expectation is that enforcement will 

be based on legal actions resulting from failure to comply with contractual 

obligations.

How Long Does it Take to Sequester Enough Carbon to 

Register and Sell Carbon Credits?

Depending upon the nature of the project and the accounting procedures used by 

each standard, carbon credits may be generated in the first year of a project. Some 

standards may recognize (explicitly or indirectly) the carbon storage achieved by 

early actors. Depending upon the arrangement used to sell credits, income streams 

can vary widely. The significant upfront costs of many projects (particularly forest 

planting) make forward selling of credits a particularly useful strategy. By creating a contract with a buyer that commits the seller to deliver credits once they 

become available (i.e., are verified and/or registered) from the project, offset project 

developers may tap into some of the value of those credits to meet startup or other 

expenses. Most projects should be able to start generating income beginning in the 

first years of the project, but both the rate of growth and total expected additional 

growth of the forest may have a direct impact on how much money can be expected. 

Ultimately, the cashflow associated with carbon offset projects is highly dependent 

upon the arrangements made between the project developer and offset buyers as 

well as the current forest condition and potential for growth.

At What Point in This Process Will Payments for Offset 

Activities Occur?

As mentioned above, a variety of arrangements can be made between buyers and 

sellers of offset credits. Credits may be committed to buyers through forward sales 

or may be sold to buyers after they have already been verified and registered. Note, 

however, that verification and registration of offset activities does not guarantee any 

particular price for the credits or that the credits will even necessarily be purchased. 

Although verification and registration of offset activities may increase the visibility 

of the credits generated, it is up to the landowner or project developer to make connections with potential buyers who would then purchase the offset credits. 
55

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Are There Any Time Constraints on Selling Carbon Credits?

In some trading programs, carbon credits may expire after a certain period of time, 

so it is important to consider when and how you are planning to sell your credits. 

Over-the-counter transactions have been the most popular venue for trading carbon 

credits in voluntary markets (compared to CCX), and can have different prices from 

contract to contract. Compliance markets (e.g., RGGI, WCI) have one price for 

carbon that will change over time based on the supply and demand of allowances 

and credits.

How Much Does Third-Party Verification and Posting With a 

Registry Cost?

Third-party verification is paid for by the project developer or landowner and can 

be one of the largest single expenses of the project. Estimates of the cost of verification for forestry standards range from $2,000 to $40,000, depending on the standard used, the amount of land to be verified, and the type of project (Merger 2008). 

Many registries or offset programs also charge a fee for posting a project’s credits 

to the registry. These fees differ from program to program and can be flat fees or a 

set percentage of each registered credit. 

Will Managing a Forest for Carbon Sequestration Affect 

Timber Yields?

In the short term, shifting away from short rotations or high levels of utilization 

will cause reduced timber removals while trees continue to grow and sequester 

carbon. Longer term yields will depend on the management strategy and composition and growth conditions of each forest. Forests managed for carbon sequestration 

may provide sustainable timber yields from older and larger trees, but the difference 

in yields between traditional forestry practices and practices that maximize carbon 

sequestration will differ from forest to forest. Because the price of carbon credits 

is expected to rise in the future, the value of storing carbon in trees may eventually 

compete with the timber value of some tree species. As carbon sequestration activities become more common and regulated markets for carbon credits are established, 

the prices for offset credits are expected to rise, but it is not clear whether they will 

outpace timber values. Carbon-oriented practices may complement other forest 

management practices, and will likely be compatible with, rather than exclusive of, 

several different forest management goals.

Carbon-oriented 

practices may 

complement other 

forest management 

practices, and will 

likely be compatible 

with, rather than 

exclusive of, several 

different forest 

management goals.
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Will Following Carbon-Oriented Management Practices 

Reduce Income?

Depending on current management practices, a shift to managing for carbon 

sequestration may result in reduced income from traditional sources. Because these 

programs are voluntary however, a landowner is able to carefully consider any 

tradeoffs involved in starting an offset project and enter into these commitments 

only if he or she feels that it makes the most sense. For example, a management plan 

for carbon sequestration in forests may include reduced amounts of timber harvesting, thereby leading to reduced timber sales, at least in the short term. These shortterm reductions in timber revenue may be compensated for by revenues from carbon 

sequestration, depending upon the capacity for the forest to sequester additional 

carbon. Similarly, reducing rangeland stocking levels to meet sustainability requirements could lead to lower livestock sales. In both circumstances, this reduction in 

income may at least be partially compensated for by the income earned from the 

sale of carbon credits. However, the net change in income will depend on the current 

management strategy and the capacity of the land to sequester carbon. The price of 

carbon credits has varied dramatically over the past few years, and the economic 

viability of managing for carbon will likely depend on the price of carbon credits 

and the income they can generate. Before making a decision to pursue a specific 

carbon offset activity, offset standard, or GHG program, careful consideration of the 

associated economic, environmental, and social benefits and costs should be made 

by the landowner. The carbon market and offset standards have been designed to 

encourage particular types of activities that may or may not be suitable for every 

forest and rangeland. There are a variety of opportunities for landowners to become 

involved in these markets and it is to the landowner’s benefit to become aware of 

their options and consider the costs and benefits associated with diversifying the 

sources of revenue from their land.

Do Carbon Markets Provide an Opportunity for Financing 

Restoration Projects? 

The carbon market may provide an opportunity for financing restoration projects if 

there is a clear carbon benefit associated with the restoration activity. In recent years, 

carbon offset standards have developed to include broader environmental and social 

benefits, but the main thrust of the project must be carbon sequestration or emissions 

abatement. Some restoration activities that have unclear or disputed carbon benefits 

will face significant challenges to entering carbon markets, whether or not they have 

other social or environmental benefits. One example is the case of forest thinning 

and prescribed fire to mitigate the risk of wildfire (see “Forestry” section). 
57

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Most offset standards have been developed to streamline carbon offset activities into paths that are efficient to verify and account for using general project 

types such as afforestation or forest management, among others. Some restoration 

projects that offer carbon benefits may not be included in current offset standards 

because they present unique measurement challenges or for other reasons. If a 

restoration activity is not currently included in the existing protocols or standards, 

offset programs generally have an established process for reviewing proposals for 

new offset activities that are not currently included within their rules. The OTC 

transactions in the voluntary market provide a bit more flexibility for restoration 

activities that provide carbon benefits (or other environmental benefits) that may be 

outside the scope of the offsets allowed by other existing standards or compliance 

markets. As with all OTC transactions, financial compensation for these projects 

will depend on the individual contract negotiations between the buyer and the seller 

of the carbon credits.

What Does the Future of the Crediting Program Look Like?

Many compliance markets are expected to come on line in the next few years. It is 

not clear how the voluntary market will change as a result, or whether particular 

standards or credits will be grandfathered into these new markets. To manage this 

risk, it is important to consider whether the standard you are pursuing is rigorous enough to be supported by other markets. For example, the CAR/California 

Climate Action Registry standard has been approved by the Voluntary Carbon 

Standard (VCS), meaning that if you follow CAR protocols, you are eligible to post 

your credits not only to CAR but also to VCS registries. Similarly, Kyoto’s CDM 

protocols have been endorsed by several standards and cap-and-trade systems, and 

international credits registered through CDM (or whatever standard takes its place 

post-Kyoto) are likely to be eligible for domestic cap-and-trade programs. Because 

the policies for these regional and any future federal cap-and-trade programs have 

not yet been finalized, it is not possible to guarantee the price or future of any 

specific standard or crediting program.

Are Forestry or Range Projects on Public Lands Eligible for 

Offset Credits in Existing Carbon Markets?

Ranchers, forest owners, and other residents of communities that surround public 

lands may engage in forestry and grazing activities on public lands. At present, 

public lands in the United States have not commonly been used for carbon offsetting, and it is unclear whether they will be eligible in the future. The CAR allows 

participation of state-owned forests in their offset program, but does not currently 
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

allow for activities on federal lands. Many of the policies governing cap-and-trade 

programs in the United States are still being developed; it may take a year or more 

before the role of state and federal lands in carbon and other ecosystem services 

markets is clear. Some of the primary concerns with public lands include unique 

challenges for assessing the “business-as-usual” scenario and how and whether 

carbon and other ecosystem service benefits from public lands should be sold to 

private entities. The specter of the potentially large volume of offsets from federal 

lands flooding the market has also been raised by market observers, but this potential is likely to be significantly constrained by additionality requirements that would 

be placed on activities carried out on public lands. For example, although the CAR 

does not currently allow federal lands to participate in the offsetting program, the 

additionality requirements placed on publicly owned lands are considerably more 

restrictive than those placed on privately owned lands.

Is Participation in Carbon Markets the Only Way to Financially 

Benefit From Carbon-Oriented Land Management, or Are 

There Other Options?

For landowners who are unable to pursue viable offset projects in carbon markets, 

there are also new funding opportunities emerging from government agencies that 

may provide financial or technical support to landowners interested in incorporating the types of sustainable management practices discussed throughout this 

document on their land. To find out more about these opportunities, we recommend that landowners contact their local Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) office, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Extension office, or other 

organizations serving landowners locally. Programs such as the Conservation 

Reserve Program, Conservation Security Program, and the Environmental Quality 

Incentive Program commonly provide support for the development of sustainable 

land management plans, and cost-sharing opportunities for specific management 

activities. Landowners interested in pursuing new conservation practices may also 

inquire about the Conservation Innovation Grants administered through NRCS. 

The availability of funding from each of these programs may vary from year to year 

and region to region, so the best source of information about these opportunities is 

the local offices of these conservation organizations. The use of conservation easements is also one other opportunity for landowners to reduce their tax burden while 

maintaining the property as a working forest or rangeland. 
59

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Conclusions

The rapid increase in GHG emissions over the past century has initiated a dramatic 

shift in the behavior of the global climate system, and is expected to have a significant influence on the functioning of terrestrial and marine ecosystems around the 

world. To address this problem, many local, regional, national, and international 

bodies have begun regulating the emissions of GHGs in an attempt to mitigate the 

impacts of potential climate change. Carbon markets and offset strategies have 

arisen as one of the leading tools governments are adopting to reduce GHG emissions. These offset markets offer new opportunities for forest and rangeland owners 

to finance sustainable land management activities and to help mitigate climate 

change. The state of our scientific understanding of land management practices 

to achieve carbon sequestration is more robust for forest ecosystems than it is for 

rangelands, but, nevertheless, there are opportunities for landowners to pursue 

sustainable land management of both forests and rangelands and engage with these 

emerging markets.

A variety of standards have arisen in recent years to help instill more confidence and transparency in offset markets, and each available standard presents 

unique opportunities and considerations for landowners interested in starting offset 

projects on their lands. These markets have not been designed explicitly as conservation support programs, and thus there may be landowners whose lands are not 

suitable for market participation, even though they may have valuable conservation 

potential. Markets for other ecosystem values may offer opportunities in such cases. 

A variety of different rules and regulations apply for each offset program, so landowners should review their options for creating and selling offset credits carefully, 

including possibly not using a published standard.

Biological sequestration presents many unique considerations not found in other 

types of offset projects. Concerns over additionality, permanence, leakage, and 

verifiability are all pressing policy considerations that need to be addressed for this 

market to thrive. Although many voluntary standards have emerged in recent years 

to address these issues, the future function, structure, and even existence of many 

federal, regional, and state GHG market programs remains unclear. Policymakers 

throughout the United States are considering issues like these and many others as 

they go about the formulation of policy for our states and country to address the 

challenges presented by climate change and the need for a renewed economy. The 

policy choices made by legislators and government agencies in coming years will 

exert a very strong influence in the development of these markets and the potential 

for landowners to participate in them.
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Although much of the policy and market landscape for GHG emissions and 

payments for other beneficial services provided by natural ecosystems are likely to 

grow and evolve over time, there are several opportunities currently open to landowners wishing to pursue carbon-oriented management. The emergence of carbon 

markets has raised the potential for offset credits to simultaneously incentivize 

sustainable land management, increase and diversify income streams for landowners, and contribute to efforts at mitigating climate change. It is our hope that this 

document provides a first glance for many landowners and related groups at these 

emerging markets and the opportunities they may present.

Acknowledgments

We give special thanks to Katherine Hamilton of Ecosystem Marketplace, Rick 

Brown from Defenders of Wildlife, Matt Delaney of Finite Carbon, Todd Graham 

of Aeroscene Land Logic, Linda Heath, Richard Birdsey, and Sarah Hines of the 

USDA Forest Service, Tony Svejcar of the USDA Agricultural Research Service, 

and Amy Grotta at Oregon State University for their critical review of and comments on this document. Their thoroughness and quick turnaround enabled us to 

provide what we hope is timely and informative coverage of some of the major 

issues and opportunities that land management for climate change mitigation 

presents to western landowners.

Further Reading and Resources

Forestry References and Resources

Forest Carbon Portal. http://www.forestcarbonportal.com/.

This Web site provides a look into some of the different forest offset projects that 

have been launched around the world. A map of the globe shows projects listed 

with information about standards used, project type, and tons sequestered. This 

site is run by The Ecosystem Marketplace, a major provider of information and 

analysis on the emerging carbon markets.

Kollmuss, A.; Zink, H.; Polycarp, C. 2008. Making sense of the voluntary 

carbon market: a comparison of carbon offset standards. World Wildlife 

Fund Germany. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/vcm_report_final.pdf.

Merger, E. 2008. Forestry carbon standards 2008: a comparison of the 

leading standards in the voluntary carbon market. Carbon Positive. 

http://www.carbonpositive.net/fetchfile.aspx?fileID=133.
61

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Oregon Forest Resources Institute. 2006. Forests, carbon and climate change: a 

synthesis of science findings. Portland, OR: Oregon Forest Resources Institute, 

Oregon State University College of Forestry, and Oregon Department of Forestry.

http://www.ofri.org/assets/uploads//For_Carbon_fullrpt.pdf.

USDA Forest Service’s Forest Carbon Tools. http://nrs.fs.fed.us/carbon/tools/.

This Web site provides links to methods for inventorying forest carbon, carbon 

yield tables, growth-and-yield modeling resources and online carbon calculators.

Wayburn, L.A.; Franklin, J.F.; Gordon, J.C.; Binkley, C.S.; Mladenoff, D.J.; 

Christensen, N.L., Jr. 2007. Forest carbon in the United States: opportunities 

& options for private lands. San Francisco, CA: The Pacific Forest Trust.

http://www.pacificforest.org/policy/forestcarbon.html.

Willey, Z.; Chameides, B., eds. 2007. Harnessing farms and forests in the lowcarbon economy: how to create, measure, and verify greenhouse gas offsets. 

Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 

Paperback available from the Duke University Press for $60. Excerpts can 

be found at http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/institute/ghgoffsetsguide/

ghgexerpts.pdf.

Forest References About Wildfire Mitigation and Carbon Balance

Boerner, R.E.J.; Huang, J.J.; Hart, S.C. 2008. Fire, thinning, and the carbon 

economy: effects of fire and fire surrogate treatments on estimated carbon 

storage and sequestration rate. Forest Ecology and Management. 255: 3081–3097.

Finkral, A.J.; Evans, A.M. 2008. Effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks 

in a northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 

255: 2743–2750.

Hurteau, M.; North, M. 2008. Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon 

storage and emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios. Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment. http://westinstenv.org/ffsci/2009/01/20/fuel-treatmenteffects-on-tree-based-forest-carbon-storage-and-emissions-under-modeledwildfire-scenarios. (12 August 2009).

Hurteau, M.D.; Koch, G.W.; Hungate, B.A. 2008. Carbon protection and fire 

risk reduction: toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment. 6(9): 493–498.
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Mitchell, S.R.; Harmon, M.E.; O’Connell, K.E.B. 2009. Forest fuel reduction 

alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest 

ecosystems. Ecological Applications. 19: 643–655.

Rangeland References and Resources

Ribera, L.A.; Zenteno, J.; McCarl, B.A. 2008. Carbon markets: a potential 

source of financial benefits for farmers and ranchers. Research Report 08-

3. College Station, TX: Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Texas A&M 

University. http://www.afpc.tamu.edu/pubs/2/519/RR%2008-03.pdf.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Field Office Technical 

Guides. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Handbook of 

Conservation Practices. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/Standards/

nhcp.html.

English Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Millimeters (mm) 0.0394 Inches

Centimeters (cm) .394 Inches

Hectares (ha) 2.47 Acres

Kilograms (kg) 2.205 Pounds

Metric tonnes (t) 1.102 Tons

Tonnes per hectare (t/ha) 893 Pounds per acre

Kilograms per hectare(kg/ha) .893 Pounds per acre

Glossary 

additionality—Describes carbon offset activities, emissions avoidance, reductions, 

or sequestration that would not have been pursued in the absence of an emissions 

trading system or market. Activities or changes in emissions that would have 

occurred regardless of whether there was a carbon market in place do not meet the 

requirement of additionality. There are several tests that are commonly used to 

assess additionality. These generally consider the economic, social, or environmental barriers that prevent the conduct of the offset activity in the absence of a carbon 

market. Activities required by law such as replanting following harvests, or maintaining riparian buffers, are typically not considered additional and are therefore 

not eligible for carbon offsets.
63

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

AFOLU—See LULUCF

aggregator—A person or company that works with landowners or project developers to combine their carbon management activities so that they can access the 

market as if they had one bigger project. 

allowances—Allowances represent a permit to emit a fixed amount of greenhouse 

gases. In cap-and-trade programs, allowances are distributed to polluters who must 

surrender one allowance for every equivalent amount of emissions they produce. 

Over time, the government may decrease the number of allowances distributed to 

reduce the cap on the total amount of allowable emissions. 

baseline—The level of carbon emissions or sequestration that would have occurred 

without the existence of emissions regulations or a carbon market. There are many 

ways to determine baselines, and the specific calculation methods differ among offset standards and emissions trading schemes. Baselines are compared with actual 

carbon emissions or storage data to calculate the amount of emissions reduced, 

avoided, or sequestered by a project. A baseline is also commonly referred to as a 

business-as-usual scenario.

biomass—Living and dead plant material. Biomass is commonly broken down into 

aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, standing dead biomass, downed dead 

biomass (trees), and litter. Soil and litter are typically not considered biomass, but 

each offset standard will have its own definitions for biomass and various carbon 

pools.

cap-and-trade—The most common type of emissions trading scheme for controlling greenhouse gas emissions and reducing them over time. A limit, or cap, is set 

on the volume of emissions that are allowed from a particular activity or industrial 

sector (e.g., powerplants). For every ton of emissions allowed within the cap, the 

government (or other regulatory body) distributes or auctions allowances to the 

emitters within the regulated sector. At the end of a compliance period, all emitters 

are required to surrender one allowance for every ton of emissions they released 

during the period. The emitters who have not used all of their allowances are 

permitted to trade (sell) them to other emitters who exceed their allowances and 

need more to match their emissions levels. Alternatively, emitters who exceed their 

allowances may buy carbon offset credits from other suppliers.

carbon-oriented management—Land management that explicitly considers the 

effects of management activities on carbon storage and sequestration, with the 

general goal of enhancing the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere 

through increased carbon sequestration, avoided emissions, or both. 
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

carbon offset credits—Carbon offsets represent a specific quantity of greenhouse 

gas emissions that have been reduced, prevented, or neutralized by carbon sequestration or other emissions reduction activities. In emissions trading systems, offsets 

are quantified as credits that may be traded interchangeably with allowances, and 

used by emitters to meet their emissions requirements. Carbon offsets are so-named 

because the activities they describe offset emissions from another source. 

carbon sequestration—The accumulation of carbon in an ecosystem over time. 

This can be achieved by increasing carbon inputs and uptake, decreasing or preventing carbon releases, or both. Biological carbon sequestration in plants and 

soils is commonly distinguished from the storage of CO2 emissions in geological 

features, known as carbon capture and sequestration.

early actors/action—Early action is a term used to describe the activities of pioneer landowners and organizations that began emissions abatement activities prior 

to the startup of an emissions trading scheme. Many greenhouse gas (GHG) trading 

programs and offset standards have policies that require landowners to change 

existing management practices in order to participate in the carbon market. These 

policies may effectively leave landowners who have practiced carbon-oriented 

management for years out of emerging markets, even though they are contributing 

to the reduction of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Critics of crediting activities 

by early actors point out that these credits do not meet strict additionality criteria 

and would have happened under business-as-usual circumstances, thus failing 

to provide new or additional carbon benefits. Advocates of early action crediting 

argue that these activities have been providing a value to the environment, often at 

nontrivial expense, for some time and that these good actors should be rewarded for 

the activities and investments they have made that have carbon benefits. Each offset 

standard and GHG trading program has its own regulations regarding the cutoff 

period for eligible activities, and policies regarding the rewarding of early action. 

emissions trading scheme (ETS)—This is a market-based approach to controlling 

emissions of pollutants. Polluters regulated by an ETS may trade credits or 

allowances with each other to meet a mandated level of reductions. By allowing 

emitters to trade with each other, those that can reduce their emissions at lower than 

average costs will do so and be compensated through the sale of unneeded credits 

or allowances to other companies who cannot reduce emissions at such a low cost. 

Emissions trading is seen as a more efficient way to reduce emissions across many 

industries and economic sectors than simply requiring all companies to reduce their 

emissions to a fixed level, regardless of the cost for each emitter. Cap-and-trade is 

one type of ETS.
65

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

forward sale—A type of sale that involves payment up front for a product to be 

delivered in the future. In the case of offsets, this will usually involve a contractual 

obligation to deliver credits in the future once they have been verified, registered, 

or issued. Project developers may use these contracts with potential offset buyers to 

deliver credits in the future in exchange for payments to help cover initial startup 

costs or other expenses.

greenhouse gases (GHGs)—Gases that absorb solar radiation and increase the 

trapping of heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, giving rise to the “greenhouse effect.” 

The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, perfluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. 

land-use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) and agriculture, forestry 

and other land-uses (AFOLU)—These are terms used to collectively refer to land 

management and land-use activities that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions 

reduction or sequestration potential. In common carbon market use, LULUCF and 

AFOLU are generally interchangeable terms. The LULUCF or AFOLU activities 

that are eligible for offset projects and GHG emissions trading programs will vary, 

and are specified by each program. These activities typically do not include renewable energy generation, even when this energy is derived from biological sources 

(such as ethanol, methane capture from manure, biomass energy, etc.). Common 

LULUCF and AFOLU activities include afforestation, avoided deforestation, 

improved forest management, conservation tillage in agriculture, and improved 

rangeland management.

leakage—The risk that the carbon sequestration or emissions reductions achieved 

by offsetting activities result in increased carbon emissions in another form or location. For example, if harvesting in one stand is reduced to encourage carbon storage 

for offset purposes, any increase in harvesting in other stands that compensates 

for that reduction diminishes the credibility of the offset activity, and is referred to 

as leakage. Many offset standards require some assessment of leakage risks, and a 

plan to mitigate those risks. Internal leakage refers to leakage within one project or 

landowner’s control. External leakage is more difficult to control and refers to leakage that occurs outside of the offset project’s boundary, for example on neighboring 

lands not owned or controlled by the landowner or offset project developer. 

offset—Positive effects from one activity that compensate for negative effects from 

another activity are said to offset those negative effects. For the use of this term in 

regard to greenhouse gas emissions, see the definition of “carbon offset credits” in 

the glossary or the sidebar discussion “What are offsets?”
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

offset standards—A formalized collection of guiding principles for the character 

and quality of offset projects (regardless of the type of offset project) allowed to use 

the name of the standard’s organization in the registry or sale of offset credits. In 

this document, we consider the term “standards” to be distinct from “protocols,” 

which we use to refer to the specific rules governing the submission and review of 

individual offset projects of a particular type (e.g., a forest project protocol). The 

words “standard” and “protocol” are often used interchangeably in real world situations, but are used as defined above in this document to provide as much clarity as 

possible.

outcome-based standards—Standards that base the effectiveness or acceptability 

of an activity on the outcome of that activity, rather than on the requirements associated with specific management practices. Most forest carbon credits are calculated 

using field measurements that verify how much carbon is actually sequestered over 

time. Some outcome-based offset standards may also require certification that the 

enrolled land is being managed using sustainable practices. Most forest carbon 

offset standards are outcome-based.

permanence—The requirement that the amount of carbon sequestered, or emissions reduced by a project, is secured in perpetuity. Disturbances such as wildfire, 

pest/pathogen outbreaks, or unauthorized harvesting activities may expose the 

carbon previously sequestered in biological forms such as trees, litter, and soil to be 

released back to the atmosphere. Many offset standards or programs require some 

plan to mitigate the risk of carbon losses in the future, or may require that some 

carbon credits be reserved in a “buffer” account to insure against unanticipated 

future carbon losses.

pool—A term used to describe a particular form that carbon takes in an ecosystem. 

Examples of forest carbon pools that are commonly considered for offset purposes 

include living trees (live biomass), standing and downed dead wood (dead biomass), 

litter, and soil.

prescriptive standards—Standards that base the effectiveness or acceptability of 

an activity on adherence to a set of approved management practices or methods. 

These standards may or may not require the physical measurement of carbon 

storage. For example, the Chicago Climate Exchange rangeland soil standards do 

not require the physical measurement of soil carbon storage, but do require the land 

manager to follow specific management guidelines. 
67

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

registry—A database that can be used to keep track of emissions inventories, 

carbon credits, allowances, or transactions between participants in greenhouse 

gas emissions trading programs. Registries are an important component of carbon 

markets because they provide an increased level of transparency in the functioning 

of the market.

sink/source—A carbon pool (such as soil or live trees) that takes up more carbon 

than it releases over time is described as a carbon sink. Carbon pools that release 

more carbon over time than they capture are called carbon sources (to the atmosphere). Many ecosystems can behave as both carbon sinks and sources over time, 

depending on how plant productivity and decomposition respond to seasonal or 

long-term changes in environmental variables like precipitation, temperature, and 

sunlight, and disturbances such as wildfire, pests, and diseases. 

tCO2e—Metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. This unit is used to describe 

quantities of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by comparing their global warming 

potential over time to that of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most common GHG. One 

metric tonne of CO2 is equal to 1 tCO2e. Those gases that contribute more to global 

warming per tonne than CO2 have higher values. For example, one tonne of methane, which is 25 times stronger than CO2 in contributing to global warming over 

100 years, is equal to 25 tCO2e. A tonne of nitrous oxide, which is 298 times as 

strong a GHG over 100 years as CO2, is equal to 298 tCO2e. In the case of biological carbon sequestration, where the measurements collected in the field are usually 

used to calculate volume, then biomass and finally tonnes of carbon (not tonnes 

of carbon dioxide), one tonne of carbon is equal to ~3.67 tCO2e. Prices for carbon 

credits and allowances are commonly expressed as dollars per tCO2e. 

References

Bradley, B.A.; Houghton, R.A.; Mustard, J.F.; Hamburg, S.P. 2006. Invasive 

grass reduces aboveground carbon stocks in shrublands of the Western US. 

Global Change Biology. 12: 1815–1822.

Briske, D.D.; Derner, J.D.; Brown, J.R.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Teague, W.R.; 

Havstad, K.M.; Gillen, R.L.; Ash, A.J.; Willms, W.D. 2008. Rotational 

grazing on rangelands: reconciliation of perception and experimental evidence. 

Rangeland Ecology and Management. 61: 3–17.

Butler, B.J. 2008. Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. GTRNRS-27. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Campbell, J.; Donato, D.; Azuma, D.; Law, B. 2007. Pyrogenic carbon emission 

from a large wildfire in Oregon, United States. Journal of Geophysical ResearchBiogeosciences. 112, GO4014. DOI: 10.1029/2007JG000451.

Chapin, F.S., III; Matson, P.A.; Mooney, H.A. 2002. Principles of terrestrial 

ecosystem ecology. New York: Springer. 472 p.

Chen, W.; Chen, J.M.; Price, D.T.; Cihlar, J.; Liu, J. 2000. Carbon offset 

potentials of four alternative forest management strategies in Canada: a 

simulation study. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 

5(2): 143–169.

Conant, R.T.; Paustian, K. 2002. Potential soil carbon sequestration in overgrazed 

grassland ecosystems. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 16(4): 1143.

Conant, R.T.; Paustian, K.; Elliott, E.T. 2001. Grassland management and 

conversion into grassland: effects on soil carbon. Ecological Applications. 

11: 343–355.

Congressional Budget Office. 2009. Cost estimate for H.R. 2454. 42 p. 

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10262/hr2454.pdf. (14 October 2009).

Cooper, C.F. 1983. Carbon storage in managed forests. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 13: 155–166.

Davies, K.W.; Bates, J.D.; Miller, R.F. 2007. Short-term effects of burning 

Wyoming big sagebrush steppe in southeast Oregon. Rangeland Ecology and 

Management. 60: 515–522.

Derner, J.D.; Schuman, G.E.; Jawson, M.; Shafer, S.R.; Morgan, J.A.; Polley, 

H.W.; Runion, G.B.; Prior, S.A.; Torbert, H.A.; Rogers, H.H.; Bunce, J.; 

Ziska, L.; White, J.W.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Reeder, J.D.; Venterea, R.T.; 

Harper, L.A. 2005. USDA-ARS global change research on rangelands and 

pasturelands. Rangelands. 27: 36–42.

Dixon, R.K.; Krankina, O.N. 1993. Forest fires in Russia: carbon dioxide 

emissions to the atmosphere. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 23: 700–705.

Ellerman, A.D.; Joskow, P.L.; Harrison, D., Jr. 2003. Emissions trading in the 

U.S.: experience, lessons, and considerations for greenhouse gases. Washington, 

DC: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 72 p.

Enkvist, P.-A.; Nauclér, T.; Rosander, J. 2007. A cost curve for greenhouse gas 

reduction. The McKinsey Quarterly. 2007(1): 35–45.
69

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Entry, J.A.; Sojka, R.E.; Shewmaker, G.E. 2004. Irrigation increases inorganic 

carbon in agricultural soils. Environmental Management. 33: S309–S317.

Eshel, G.; Fine, P.; Singer, M.J. 2007. Total soil carbon and water quality: an 

implication for carbon sequestration. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 

71: 397–405.

Eswaran, H.; Reich, P.F.; Kimble, J.M.; Beinroth, F.H.; Padmanabhan, E.; 

Moncharoen, P. 2000. Global carbon stocks. In: Lal, R.; Kimble, J.M.; Eswaran, 

H.; Stewart, B.A., eds. Global climate change and pedogenic carbonates. Boca 

Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. 15–26.

Finkral, A.J.; Evans, A.M. 2008. Effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks 

in a northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 

255: 2743–2750.

Follett, R.F.; Kimble, J.M.; Lal, R., eds. 2000. The potential of U.S. grazing 

lands to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Boca Raton, FL: 

Lewis Publishers. 472 p.

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; Pub.L. No. 110-234; 122 Stat. 923.

Frank, D.A.; Kuns, M.M.; Guido, D.R. 2002. Consumer control of grassland 

plant production. Ecology 83: 602–606.

Gilmanov, T.G.; Svejcar, T.J.; Johnson, D.A.; Angell, R.E.; Saliendra, N.Z.; 

Wylie, B.K. 2006. Long-term dynamics of production, respiration, and net 

CO2 exchange in two sagebrush-steppe ecosystems. Rangeland Ecology and 

Management. 59: 585–599.

Guo, L.B.; Gifford, R.M. 2002. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta 

analysis. Global Change Biology. 8: 345–360.

Hamilton, K.; Sjardin, M.; Shapiro, A.; Marcello, T. 2009. Fortifying the 

foundation: state of the voluntary carbon markets 2009. Washington, DC: 

Ecosystem Marketplace; New Carbon Finance. 108 p.

Harden, J.W.; Berhe, A.A.; Torn, M.; Harte, J.; Liu, S.; Stallard, R.F. 2008. 

Soil erosion: data say C sink. Science. 320: 178–179.

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: 699–702.

Harmon, M.E.; Garman, S.L.; Ferrell, W.K. 1996. Modeling historical patterns 

of tree utilization in the Pacific Northwest: carbon sequestration implications. 

Ecological Applications. 6: 641–652.
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Harmon, M.E.; Marks, B. 2002. Effects of silvicultural practices on carbon 

stores in Douglas-fir–western hemlock forests in the Pacific Northwest, USA: 

results from a simulation model. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue 

Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere. 32: 863–877.

Harmon, M.; Moreno, A.; Domingo, J. 2009. Effects of partial harvest on 

the carbon stores in Douglas-fir/western hemlock forests: a simulation study. 

Ecosystems. 12: 777–791.

Hurteau, M.; North, M. 2008. Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon 

storage and emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios. Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment (e-View).

Hurteau, M.D.; Koch, G.W.; Hungate, B.A. 2008. Carbon protection and fire 

risk reduction: toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment. 6: 493–498.

Huxman, T.E.; Snyder, K.A.; Tissue, D.; Leffler, A.J.; Ogle, K.; Pockman, 

W.T.; Sandquist, D.R.; Potts, D.L.; Schwinning, S. 2004. Precipitation pulses 

and carbon fluxes in semiarid and arid ecosystems. Oecologia. 141: 254–268.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2007. Climate change 

2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group 1 to the fourth 

assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: 

Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; 

Tignor, M.; Miller, H.L., eds. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1008 p.

Jackson, R.B.; Banner, J.L.; Jobbagy, E.G.; Pockman, W.T.; Wall, D.H. 

2002. Ecosystem carbon loss with woody plant invasion of grasslands. Nature. 

418: 623–626.

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

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

22: 77–89.

Johnson, D.W.; Curtis, P.S. 2001. Effects of forest management on soil C and N 

storage: meta analysis. Forest Ecology and Management. 140: 227–238.

Johnson, D.W.; Knoepp, J.D.; Swank, W.T.; Shan, J.; Morris, L.A.; Van Lear, 

D.H.; Kapeluck, P.R. 2002. Effects of forest management on soil carbon: results 

of some long-term resampling studies. Environmental Pollution. 116: S201–S208.
71

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Kollmuss, A.; Zink, H.; Polycarp, C. 2008. Making sense of the voluntary carbon 

market: a comparison of carbon offset standards. Frankfurt: World Wildlife Fund 

Germany. 119 p.

Lal, R. 2003. Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environment International. 

29: 437–450.

Lal, R. 2004a. Carbon emissions from farm operations. Environment International. 

30: 981–990.

Lal, R. 2004b. Carbon sequestration in dryland ecosystems. Environmental 

Management. 33: 528–544.

Lal, R.; Griffin, M.; Apt, J.; Lave, L.; Morgan, M.G. 2004a. Ecology: managing 

soil carbon. Science. 304(5669): 393–393.

Lal, R.; Griffin, M.; Apt, J.; Lave, L.; Morgan, M.G. 2004b. Response to 

comments on "Managing soil carbon." Science. 305(5690): 1567.

Lal, R.; Kimble, J.M.; Birdsey, R.A.; Heath, L.S. 2003. Research and 

development priorities for carbon sequestration in forest soils. In: Kimble, 

J.M.; Heath, L.S.; Birdsey, R.A.; Lal, R., eds. The potential of U.S. forest soils 

to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Boca Raton, FL: CRC 

Press: 409–420.

Lal, R.; Kimble, J.M.; Eswaran, H.; Stewart, B.A., eds. 2000. Global climate 

change and pedogenic carbonates. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.

Lal, R.; Pimentel, D. 2008. Soil erosion: A carbon sink or source? Science. 

319: 1040–1042.

Langsæter, A. 1941. Om tynning i enaldret gran- og furuskog. Meddelelser fra 

Det norske Skogforsøksvesen. 8: 131–216.

Lecain, D.R.; Morgan, J.A.; Schuman, G.E.; Reeder, J.D.; Hart, R.H. 2000. 

Carbon exchange rates in grazed and ungrazed pastures of Wyoming. Journal of 

Range Management. 53: 199-206.

Lubowski, R.N.; Vesterby, M.; Bucholtz, S.; Baez, A.; Roberts, M.J. 2006. 

Major uses of land in the United States, 2002. EIB-14. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 54 p.
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Malmsheimer, R.W.; Heffernan, P.; Brink, S.; Crandall, D.; Deneke, F.; Galik, 

C.; Gee, E.; Helms, J.A.; McClure, N.; Mortimer, M.; Ruddell, S.; Smith, 

M.; Stewart, J. 2008a. Forest management solutions for mitigating climate 

change in the United States—preventing GHG emissions through biomass 

substitution. Journal of Forestry. 106: 136–140.

Malmsheimer, R.W.; Heffernan, P.; Brink, S.; Crandall, D.; Deneke, F.; 

Galik, C.; Gee, E.; Helms, J.A.; McClure, N.; Mortimer, M.; Ruddell, S.; 

Smith, M.; Stewart, J. 2008b. Forest management solutions for mitigating 

climate change in the United States—preventing GHG emissions through wood 

substitution. Journal of Forestry. 106: 132–135.

Malmsheimer, R.W.; Heffernan, P.; Brink, S.; Crandall, D.; Deneke, F.; Galik, 

C.; Gee, E.; Helms, J.A.; McClure, N.; Mortimer, M.; Ruddell, S.; Smith, 

M.; Stewart, J. 2008c. Forest management solutions for mitigating climate 

change in the United States—reducing atmospheric GHGs through sequestration. 

Journal of Forestry. 106: 148–156.

Markewitz, D. 2006. Fossil fuel carbon emissions from silviculture: impacts on net 

carbon sequestration in forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 236: 153–161.

Martens, D.A.; Emmerich, W.; McLain, J.E.T.; Johnsen, T.N. 2005.

Atmospheric carbon mitigation potential of agricultural management in the 

Southwestern USA. Soil and Tillage Research. 83: 95–119.

Martinez, F.; Cuevas, G.; Calvo, R.; Walter, I. 2003. Biowaste effects on soil 

and native plants in a semiarid ecosystem. Journal of Environmental Quality. 

32: 472–479.

McKinley, D.C.; Blair, J.M. 2008. Woody plant encroachment by Juniperus 

virginiana in a mesic native grassland promotes rapid carbon and nitrogen 

accrual. Ecosystems. 11: 454–468.

Merger, E. 2008. Forestry carbon standards 2008: a comparison of the leading 

standards in the voluntary carbon market. Carbon positive. 71 p. http://www.

carbonpositive.net/viewFile.aspx?FileID=133. (20 August, 2009).

Meyer, V.F.; Redente, E.F.; Barbarick, K.A.; Brobst, R.B.; Paschke, M.W.; 

Miller, A.L. 2004. Plant and soil responses to biosolids application following 

forest fire. Journal of Environmental Quality. 33: 873–881.

Milchunas, D.G.; Lauenroth, W.K. 1993. Quantitative effects of grazing 

on vegetation and soils over a global range of environments. Ecological 

Monographs. 63: 328–366.
73

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Mitchell, S.R.; Harmon, M.E.; O’Connell, K.E.B. 2009. Forest fuel reduction 

alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest 

ecosystems. Ecological Applications. 19: 643–655.

Moffet, C.A.; Zartman, R.E.; Wester, D.B.; Sosebee, R.E. 2005. Surface 

biosolids application: effects on infiltration, erosion, and soil organic carbon 

in Chihuahuan Desert grasslands and shrublands. Journal of Environmental 

Quality. 34: 299–311.

Mortenson, M.C.; Schuman, G.E.; Ingram, L.J. 2004. Carbon sequestration 

in rangelands interseeded with yellow-flowering alfalfa (Medicago sativa ssp. 

falcata). Environmental Management. 33: S475–S481.

Murray, B.C.; Sohngen, B.; Sommer, A.J.; Depro, B.; Jones, K.; McCarl, B.; 

Gillig, D.; DeAngelo, B.; Andrasko, K. 2005. Greenhouse gas mitigation 

potential in U.S. forestry and agriculture. EPA 430-R-05-006. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs. 154 p.

Nabuurs, G.J.; Masera, O.; Andrasko, K.; Benitez-Ponce, P.; Boer, R.; 

Dutschke, M.; Elsiddig, E.; Ford-Robertson, J.; Frumhoff, P.; Karjalainen, 

T.; Krankina, O.; Kurz, W.A.; Matsumoto, M.; Oyhantcabal, W.; 

Ravindranath, N.H.; Sanchez, M.J.S.; Zhang, X. 2007. Forestry. In: Metz, B.; 

Davidson, O.R.; Bosch, P.R.; Dave, R.; Meyer, L.A., eds. Climate change 2007: 

mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom 

and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 44 p.

Norton, J.B.; Monaco, T.A.; Norton, J.M.; Johnson, D.A.; Jones, T.A. 2004.

Soil morphology and organic matter dynamics under cheatgrass and sagebrushsteppe plant communities. Journal of Arid Environments. 57: 445–466.

Owensby, C.E.; Ham, J.M.; Auen, L.M. 2006. Fluxes of CO2 from grazed and 

ungrazed tallgrass prairie. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 59: 111–127.

Pacala, S.W.; Hurtt, G.C.; Baker, D.; Peylin, P.; Houghton, R.A.; Birdsey, 

R.A.; Heath, L.; Sundquist, E.T.; Stallard, R.F.; Ciais, P.; Moorcroft, P.; 

Caspersen, J.P.; Shevliakova, E.; Moore, B.; Kohlmaier, G.; Holland, E.; 

Gloor, M.; Harmon, M.E.; Fan, S.M.; Sarmiento, J.L.; Goodale, C.L.; 

Schimel, D.; Field, C.B. 2001. Consistent land- and atmosphere-based U.S. 

Carbon Sink Estimates. Science. 292: 2316–2320.
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Paschke, M.W.; Topper, K.; Brobst, R.B.; Redente, E.F. 2005. Long-term effects 

of biosolids on revegetation of disturbed sagebrush steppe in northwestern 

Colorado. Restoration Ecology. 13: 545–551.

Pierce, B.L.; Redente, E.F.; Barbarick, K.A.; Brobst, R.B.; Hegeman, P. 1998. 

Plant biomass and elemental changes in shrubland forages following biosolids 

application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 27: 789–794.

Post, W.M.; Kwon, K.C. 2000. Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: 

processes and potential. Global Change Biology. 6: 317–327.

Prater, M.; Obrist, D.; Arnone, J.; DeLucia, E. 2006. Net carbon exchange and 

evapotranspiration in postfire and intact sagebrush communities in the Great 

Basin. Oecologia. 146: 595–607.

Pretziger, K.S.; Burton, A.J.; Zak, D.R.; Talhelm, A.F. 2008. Simulated chronic 

nitrogen deposition increases carbon storage in northern temperate forests. 

Global Change Biology. 14(1): 142–153.

Reeder, J.D.; Schuman, G.E.; Morgan, J.A.; LeCain, D.R. 2004. Response of 

organic and inorganic carbon and nitrogen to long-term grazing of the shortgrass 

steppe. Environmental Management. 33: 485–495.

Renwick, W.H.; Smith, S.V.; Sleezer, R.O.; Buddemeier, R.W. 2004. Comment 

on "Managing soil carbon" (II). Science. 305: 1567.

Rice, C.W.; Owensby, C.E. 2001. The effects of fire and grazing on soil carbon 

in rangelands. In: Follett, R.F.; Kimble, J.M.; Lal, R., eds. The potential of U.S. 

grazing lands to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Boca 

Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers: 323–342.

Robles, M.D.; Burke, I.C. 1997. Legume, grass, and conservation reserve program 

effects on soil organic matter recovery. Ecological Applications. 7: 345–357.

Sartori, F.; Lal, R.; Ebinger, M.H.; Eaton, J.A. 2007. Changes in soil carbon 

and nutrient pools along a chronosequence of poplar plantations in the Columbia 

Plateau, Oregon, USA. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment. 122: 325–339.

Schlesinger, W.H. 2000. Carbon sequestration in soils: some cautions amidst 

optimism. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 82: 121–127.

Schroeder, P. 1991. Can intensive management increase carbon storage in forests? 

Environmental Management. 15: 475–481.
75

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Schuman, G.E.; Derner, J.D. 2004. Carbon sequestration by rangelands: 

management effects and potential. Proceedings, Western Regional Cooperative 

Soil Survey Conference. Casper, WY: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. 28 p.

Shrestha, G.; Stahl, P.D. 2008. Carbon accumulation and storage in semiarid sagebrush steppe: Effects of long-term grazing exclusion. Agriculture 

Ecosystems and Environment. 125: 173–181.

Smith, D.L.; Johnson, L.C. 2003. Expansion of Juniperus virginiana L. in the 

Great Plains: changes in soil organic carbon dynamics. Global Biogeochemical 

Cycles. 17(2): 1–12.

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. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 216 p.

Smith, S.V.; Renwick, W.H.; Buddemeier, R.W.; Crossland, C.J. 2001. 

Budgets of soil erosion and deposition for sediments and sedimentary organic 

carbon across the conterminous United States. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 

15: 697–707.

Smithwick, E.A.H.; Harmon, M.E.; Remillard, S.M.; Acker, S.A.; Franklin, 

J.F. 2002. Potential upper bounds of carbon stores in forests of the Pacific 

Northwest. Ecological Applications. 12: 1303–1317.

Sonne, E. 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions from forestry operations: a life cycle 

assessment. Journal of Environmental Quality. 35: 1439–1450.

Stallard, R.F. 1998. Terrestrial sedimentation and the carbon cycle: coupling 

weathering and erosion to carbon burial. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 

12: 231–257.

Suarez, D.L. 2000. Impact of agriculture on CO2 as affected by changes in 

inorganic carbon. In: Lal, R.; Kimble, J.M.; Eswaran, H.; Stewart, B.A., eds. 

Global climate change and pedogenic carbonates. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis 

Publishers: 257–272.

Svejcar, T.; Angell, R.; Bradford, J.A.; Dugas, W.; Emmerich, W.; Frank, 

A.B.; Gilmanov, T.; Haferkamp, M.; Johnson, D.A.; Mayeux, H.; Mielnick, 

P.; Morgan, J.; Saliendra, N.Z.; Schuman, G.E.; Sims, P.L.; Snyder, K. 

2008. Carbon fluxes on North American rangelands. Rangeland Ecology and 

Management. 61: 465–474.
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

Tietenberg, T.; Grubb, M.; Michaelowa, A.; Swift, B.; Zhang, Z. 1999. 

International rules for greenhouse gas emissions trading. UNCTAD/GDS/GFSB/ 

Misc. 6. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 125 p.

Turner, D.P.; Koerper, G.J.; Harmon, M.E.; Lee, J.J. 1995. A carbon budget for 

forests of the conterminous United States. Ecological Applications. 5: 421–436.

Van Oost, K.; Govers, G.; Quine, T.A.; Heckrath, G. 2004. Comment on 

"Managing soil carbon" (I). Science. 305: 1567–1567.

Van Oost, K.; Quine, T.A.; Govers, G.; De Gryze, S.; Six, J.; Harden, J.W.; 

Ritchie, J.C.; McCarty, G.W.; Heckrath, G.; Kosmas, C.; Giraldez, J.V.; 

Marques da Silva, J.R.; Merckx, R. 2007. The impact of agricultural soil 

erosion on the global carbon cycle. Science. 318: 626–629.

Verburg, P.S.J.; Arnone, J.A.; Obrist, D.; Schorran, D.E.; Evans, R.D.; 

Leroux-Swarthout, D.; Johnson, D.W.; Luo, Y.Q.; Coleman, J.S. 2004. Net 

ecosystem carbon exchange in two experimental grassland ecosystems. Global 

Change Biology. 10: 498–508.

Walter, I.; Cuevas, G.; Garcia, S.; Martinez, F. 2000. Biosolid effects on soil 

and native plant production in a degraded semiarid ecosystem in central Spain. 

Waste Management and Research. 18: 259–263.

Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. 2006.

Warming and earlier spring increase Western U.S. forest wildfire activity. 

Science. 313: 940–943.

Woodbury, P.B.; Smith, J.E.; Heath, L.S. 2007. Carbon sequestration in the U.S. 

forest sector from 1990 to 2010. Forest Ecology and Management. 241: 14–27.

Wu, L.S.; Wood, Y.; Jiang, P.P.; Li, L.Q.; Pan, G.X.; Lu, J.H.; Chang, A.C.; 

Enloe, H.A. 2008. Carbon sequestration and dynamics of two irrigated 

agricultural soils in California. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 

72: 808–814.

Yanai, R.D.; Currie, W.S.; Goodale, C.L. 2003. Soil carbon dynamics after forest 

harvest: an ecosystem paradigm reconsidered. Ecosystems. 6: 197–212.
77

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

Appendix: Guidance and Standards for Offset Projects

American Carbon Registry 

http://www.americancarbonregistry.org

The American Carbon Registry is a private registry designed with GHG inventory 

capabilities for companies, as well as a registration and tracking system for offset 

projects. The registry is run by Winrock International, a company that has been 

involved in the formation of many forest offset standards and projects around the 

world. A forest project protocol was released in March 2009. Registration with 

the American Carbon Registry includes certification of offset activities and the 

generation of carbon credits. The American Carbon Registry accepts offset projects 

verified under its own protocols as well as those accepted by VCS.

CarbonFix Standard (CFS)

http://www.carbonfix.info/

This standard is designed solely for offset projects involving the establishment 

of new forests. CarbonFix allows for credits to be certified and sold prior to field 

verification of the offset activities (ex-ante credits). The CFS has offset tracking 

capabilities that encourage companies to use the purchase of these offsets for green 

marketing by providing codes that allow the consumer to trace carbon-neutrality 

claims on products back to individual offset projects. 

Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

The CCX opened in 2003 and provides offsets derived from land-use projects 

for both rangelands and forests (as well as many other agricultural project types) 

throughout the United States. The CCX is a voluntary, but legally binding, cap-andtrade program with both emitters and offsetters participating. Offset providers follow CCX protocols and can register and sell their carbon credits (known as Carbon 

Financial Instruments or CFIs) through the CCX to other members; CFIs may also 

be sold over the counter through private contracts with any private or public entity. 

The CCX protocols were recently updated as of August 20, 2009. 

Climate Action Reserve/California Climate Action Registry

http://www.climateregistry.org/

California launched a Climate Action Registry (CCAR) in 2001 that allows offset 

activities through a new overarching organization known as the Climate Action 

Reserve (CAR). The reserve has also led the development of offset standards for 

several land-use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) activities. Although 
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

California plans to launch its own cap-and-trade program in 2012, the CAR has 

been designed to function with voluntary markets as well, and following the launch 

of its most recent forest protocol in September, 2009, is now open to forestry 

projects throughout the United States. Although the reserve allows livestock management offsets (through manure and methane management), it does not currently 

allow range management offset projects. Offset project developers follow reserve 

protocols and register projects for credits (known as Climate Reserve Tonnes or 

CRTs). Credits registered through the CAR can then be independently sold to any 

interested private or public entity using private contracts. 

Climate, Community, and Biodiversity (CCB) Standard

http://www.climate-standards.org/

This standard is designed to recognize all land-based offset projects that include climate, community, and biodiversity benefits. It does not register or generate carbon 

credits, but rather certifies that all projects meeting CCB criteria provide additional 

social and environmental benefits beyond carbon sequestration alone. The standard 

complements other offset standards that do create and register carbon credits. The 

advantage of using this standard is that, by including community and biodiversity 

co-benefits, carbon credits may yield a higher sale price when sold on the voluntary 

market.

The Climate Trust

http://climatetrust.org

The 1997 Oregon legislation regulating carbon dioxide emissions created a nonprofit organization called The Climate Trust to develop offset projects with the 

money provided by power companies. The Climate Trust periodically opens calls 

for offset project proposals to meet the need for these offset projects, which can 

include forestry and range projects provided they meet The Climate Trust’s offset 

quality criteria. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Good Practice Guidance

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf.html

Commissioned by the United Nations, this report provides guidance for “estimating, measuring, monitoring and reporting on carbon stock changes and GHG 

emissions” from land-use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) activities. 

The guidelines do not lead to any kind of certification or to the creation of carbon 

credits; they were designed primarily to aid in the completion of national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories as part of the United Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Apart from UNFCCC commitments, this guidance 
79

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

has also served as a guide for policymakers and market participants such as offset 

developers and verifiers.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14064 Standard

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.

htm?commid=546318

The ISO is a standard-developing organization that has published more than 17,500 

standards on a wide variety of subjects and industries. The 14064 standard contains 

three sections, which provide guidance on quantifying and reporting greenhouse 

gas inventories, project-level accounting for offset projects, and guidance for the 

validation and verification of emission-related claims; 14064-2 is the standard that 

applies to offset projects. This standard is primarily used as an auditable framework 

for accounting and has been used as a building block for offset protocols. This 

standard provides detailed guidance for project-level accounting and quantification 

issues, but is not specifically applied to generate or register offset credits.

Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint 

Implementation (JI)

http://cdm.unfccc.int/index.html and http://ji.unfccc.int/index.html

The CDM and JI are designed for offset projects carried out in developing and 

developed countries, respectively, as part of the international cap-and-trade program within the Kyoto Protocol. The CDM-approved offset project protocols have 

been used much more than JI and have served as a starting point for many other 

offset standards. This standard can be applied to offset projects regardless of their 

location, but for countries like the United States that are not party to the Kyoto 

Protocol, compliance with CDM standards does not generate credits within the 

Kyoto Protocol’s cap-and-trade system. Instead, it serves solely to demonstrate 

that project activities were carried out and verified according to CDM guidelines. 

Owing to the very rigorous nature and high cost of verification and compliance with 

CDM, relatively few forestry projects have been registered through this mechanism. 

It does not include range management offset projects.

Plan Vivo 

http://www.planvivo.org/

Plan Vivo focuses on sustainable development issues including the environmental 

and social co-benefits of managing for carbon. It is primarily targeted at offset 

projects in developing countries. Plan Vivo is a relatively small standard program 

and can include ex-ante credits, which are generated before an offset project begins 

in anticipation of its eventual carbon reduction benefits. 
80

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-801

U.S. Department of Energy Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases 

Program [1605(b)]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/index.html

This registry was created by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. It allows participants to 

post emissions reduction and sequestration activities. The program does not involve 

the generation or sale of carbon credits, but rather is solely a registry for posting 

emissions-related activities. Emissions data entered into the registry do not require 

third-party verification or field-based measurement of carbon storage. Many of the 

accounting methods developed for the program have been used in the creation of 

other offset standards. The program underwent significant revision and updating in 

the early 2000s and now serves as a reference used for many other offset standards.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Leaders Program

http://www.epa.gov/stateply/

This program was primarily designed to facilitate the completion of greenhouse 

gas management plans and reduction strategies for private businesses. The EPA 

launched the Climate Leaders program in 2002. Companies that enroll in the 

program commit to completing a company-wide emissions inventory and setting 

reduction targets with periodic reports of progress made to the EPA. Although this 

program was primarily intended to ease the transition to greenhouse gas accounting and demonstrate early action for participating companies, the program has also 

recently been expanded to offer guidance for offset projects. Although this program 

provides a protocol for offset projects, it is generally provided as a recommendation 

for how to carry out project accounting and documentation because there is not 

currently a third-party verification system or registry system for projects generated 

using this protocol. 

Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS)

http://www.v-c-s.org/

The VCS protocols were developed in an effort to standardize and provide transparency to all offsets in the voluntary carbon market. Basic descriptions of the VCS 

goals for offset standards for agriculture, forestry, and other land uses (AFOLU) 

have been developed, but no specific protocols for these project types had been 

released as of December 2009. Projects verified using this standard are issued 

credits after carbon storage has been verified (ex-post credits) and registered on one 

of several registries. The VCS is one of the most widely used offset standards in 

the voluntary market to date. The VCS allows registration of offsets from projects 

certified by VCS standards as well as those from CAR.
81

Engaging Western Landowners in Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide to Carbon-Oriented Forest and Range Management

World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable 

Development (WBCSD) GHG Protocol

http://www.ghgprotocol.org/

The WRI/WBCSD GHG protocol provides guidance to governments, companies, 

and offset project developers for inventorying and reporting GHG emissions 

activities. Additional guidelines have been composed for LULUCF activities to aid 

in offset project implementation that address measurement and other accounting 

issues. This protocol does not offer carbon credits or registration, but has been used 

as a guide in the development of registries for GHG inventories such as CAR and 

the American Carbon Registry. 

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

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300