Notes

Biological Carbon Sequestration Working Group Meeting

April 7, 2009, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Room 530, Arlington Square, Arlington, VA

Notes – “09 Action and Beyond”

FY 2009 Action Items

8.1. By February 27, 2009, AD-NWRS and RD-4 will establish and charter a multidisciplinary Carbon Sequestration Working Group. This Working Group will:

8.1.1. Provide up-to-date science relative to GHG mitigation and sequestration;

The group can help consolidate, highlight burning science issues related to this topic. Looking into the future what are the priorities for gathering this science?

·  See 8.1.2 for discussion on this item.

·  This item is not on USGS list of projects at present time. Currently, their highest priority is to develop a methodology to assess biological carbon sequestration resources.

8.1.2. Identify research to fill priority information needs;

·  Pauline Drobney (Region 3) will coordinate the writing of a white paper. This will be an interactive process. USGS is interested in specific management questions, reporting and tools that would be useful to FWS.

1) Understand questions to best meet our management objectives. Which management questions are currently being answered and which still need to be answered.

a) What USGS and others are currently working on.

2) Each region will identify 4-5 priority habitats and how carbon moves through those habitat types.

3) Understand what’s been done, what’s in the literature (Cindy & NCTC).

Highlights from discussion leading to development of above 3 action items:

Is our primary focus to develop the science in order to better understanding? Or, is it to respond to the market and how to fit habitat projects into the market? For example, if the market determines value of a grassland do we just accept it? Numbers are currently not well developed at least for grasslands. They are underestimated. Urgency felt to be able to be able to respond now.

Need to develop a portfolio of our lands for companies based on value. However, it is not possible to calculate the carbon credits from currently available info.

Some types of projects have more robust data available than others. Opportunity to be proactive versus reactive and steer. We can provide good information based on data available to us. Many projects currently sequester carbon. Opportunity internally and with partners on lands around us to expand what we would like to do.

Historically, FWS has managed its lands opportunistically to enhance habitat at a local level. This is not always an easy fit with this kind of long range, science based approach of USGS. FWS need for immediate decision making tools. Well established protocols exist at an international level, Voluntary Carbon Offset Trading Program. Possibility of hiring a contractor to apply one of these protocols at a local scale. USGS cannot supply support at project level. USGS is long term policy related. FWS needs more local level immediate project related assistance.

Need to characterize carbon and habitat conditions. How habitats should be managed. Not very market oriented. Markets take care of themselves. We do best job to manage habitat on ground. Interested companies have come and found us. We’ve never focused on the market itself. We understand the basic relationships but always been driven by habitat related objectives. What methodologies should be applied to various habitats? How carbon moves through a salt marsh versus a fresh water wetland? What happens over the long term?

FWS needs better understanding of how to work with the market. Currently up to the market to determine the amount of carbon residing in our habitat types. Need an MOU. It’s partially about letting go of our reclusive culture and taking on a leadership role to provide info to our publics, interact with USDA, and provide science and info on a larger scale.

We also need to know how to manage our own carbon stores to benefit wildlife. What management actions provide the most advantage for sequestering the greatest amount of carbon? The data also useful to us internally to inform management decisions.

USGS is working toward generating tools that will benefit market value. But, they will only be as good as the info going into the system. Can work from generic ecosystem type but what about disturbance and other influential factors that alter ecosystems? Might require additional on- the-ground science.

USGS and FWS can partner. Moving target. Science continues to evolve. Need to identify highest priority wildlife research goals. Where the gaps in science? FWS is looking at carbon sequestration as a tool to do our work better. We know our high priority projects where we want to focus our effort. Discreet number of projects.

Is this also about getting more money to do our work? Part of it is but land acquisition objective needs to be based on overall management goals and objectives. Need a certain baseline of info about our lands. Maybe burning every 3 years instead of every 4 years would give us a benefit in terms of carbon footprint as well as meeting our own manage goals. Whole bunch of tree planting projects out there but to optimize our own management maybe there’s something else we are doing that can also help.

We also have a global responsibility to do this in a cost effective manner.

Partnering with corporations if we can get carbon neutral might attract good favor with Congress and get a larger share of the pie. Also, can’t we sell carbon credits?

Each agency has different opinion of how to approach the situation, NPS, BLM, etc. FWS most interested in habitat conservation. Carbon footprint stuff is important but our special portion is making better habitat and conserving wildlife.

Should look at the State of Carbon report released a few years ago and identify which of our priority habitats may be covered.

Species vulnerability and endangered species. Lots of info already out there. Don’t want to reinvent just need to figure out how to work with it. Forest Service and States have already done a lot. What’s already been synthesized? Work collectively and leverage resources among agencies. Call neighbors in other agencies to save time.

So, find out what’s already out there and then pull them together. BMP’s will come to light as we move forward.

·  Task: need a coordinator to work with regional folks and get all of this into a white paper working with GS.

·  Task: Each region identify priority habitats and then research what’s already out there. Compile state of the art science. Pull together what’s already out there. Challenge: what are gaps, priority research needs that need to be dealt with? Start with report and see what else has been generated since. Will change within a year so go out again and come back and present. Willing partner in GS. FWS folks on this committee need to step up. GS going through a similar exercise. Best when volunteers are selected by director. Have list of products that might be useful to us.

·  Task: to define the subset of priority habitats. Solicit the group, talk to regional reps in group, what would you focus on? Bottomland hardwoods? Come up with the list, do a lit review, what do we know, what would we like to know? There may be common issues across refuges with respect to role of fire, disturbance types, etc. Where does climate change come in with respect to your world view? Over time? FWS area of leadership is wildlife conservation. We have a huge role to play in terms of wildlife conservation and managing various areas like climate change. Look at climate in context of habitat conservation. Most people just thinking in terms of carbon. What’s the role of fire in long leaf pine? We don’t have a good answer when it comes to climate change.

8.1.3. Compile and share scientifically sound approaches, standards, guidelines, and BMPs for terrestrial sequestration activities in the context of landscape-scale fish and wildlife conservation, including strict requirements for use of native vegetation;

Region 4 will take the lead (Pete Jerome). BMP’s? Need a template for organizing the discussion. Depending on habitat type what are scientifically best approaches to take? Doesn’t exist in completed form yet but will be made available when ready. Table of contents. Placeholder for BMP we may not be using yet? Based on what we currently know. Adaptive management. For FWS, BMP’s mean making the deal work with investor, planting trees in the ground. Focus on restoration. Relationship between BMP’s and protocols.

8.1.4. Develop a protocol to assess potential terrestrial sequestration opportunities on Service lands so that we are prepared to respond to an emerging carbon market;

Region 4 will take lead (Pete Jerome) and Region 6 offers to assist (Mike Estey). Do we need a nationally approved MOU? Will require industry input. What does industry consider a quality carbon offset project? If private lands are included Ron Haynes (R4) will also assist. Conservation Fund looking at this to be sure its meets IPPC protocol.

Refuge acquisition boundaries play in here, too. Depending on price of carbon, companies will be looking for fairly large blocks of land (20,000 acres). Has to be a mosaic of private, public, etc. land. Larger the block of land the easier it is to make a deal. If we are looking at refuge lands only, the answer to above question is no. CCP’s failed to look at expanding refuge boundaries. Years of scar tissue built up…need to change minds of refuge leadership. Use re-thinking regarding land acquisition and boundary expansion.

Internally prioritizing habitat types within FWS to meet emerging markets. Which non-restored habitat types have a large carbon footprint? Of all our habitat types, which ones have the biggest bang for buck? In terms of carbon sequestration can pool our needs as an agency and thereby escape the trap of saying this one’s better than that one. Forested habitats are priority of current market due to its evolution. But, we’d like to move beyond this and encourage restoration on other types of habitat types, too. But, they may or may not be recognized under a cap and trade bill. Maybe do some forecasting… what is the stakeholder perception of largest bang for the buck. Do we want to go towards the carbon end and prioritize based on carbon trend? Importance of sticking with our mission. Let the market come to us.

Are we only going to deal with restoration? Or, also try to protect what is there now? Management practices on existing habitats? Run into the additionality issue. Pacific Forest Trust. Grasslands already exists on Chicago Exchange, but what about forests? Need to figure that out. Need to demonstrate additionality. If forest land owners are changing practices to longer rotations we’ve got to show that its being done to sequester more carbon and not for economic purposes. Just need to be clear that we are focusing only on restoration.

8.1.5. Facilitate international partnership to reduce key deforestation rates (e.g., tropical forests), and provide technical assistance and funding for restoration efforts;

International Program (Brian Hayum) will take lead with assistance from Office of the Science Advisor (Kurt Johnson). Deforestation rates are addressing something other than restoration in international arena. So, what about destruction of salt marsh, internationally? This item should be expanded to deforestation and degradation. Boreal forests under First Nation people. Very little to no attention from DOI or maybe even US government. International program will take the lead in writing a white paper on this. Has anyone from FWS been sitting in on sessions/negotiations? Need a DOI delegation to attend meetings. USGS is going to look into establishing a delegation to influence policy. Would have to involve State Dept. The conventions are often highly procedural and don’t touch the levels we are involved in. To the extent we can assist by keeping things real through dialogue with higher officials this would be a good role. Development of regional training centers for lesser developed nations. Also, insert some ecological prudence instead of leaving it to the WTO. WWF overlay of best lands for carbon sequestration. Concern that DOI is going to focus on alternative energy and underemphasize habitat.

8.1.6. Support Interior Department efforts evaluating and implementing geologic sequestration to minimize impacts and maximize benefits to fish and wildlife; and

Office of the Science Advisor (Kurt Johnson) will lead this one. What does it mean? Tracking function to be sure we stay on top of what the DOI is doing. Injecting CO2 on public lands. Need to stay on top of it. Potential to be infrastructure heavy. Abandoned wells can become conduits for escaping CO2. Need to pay attention. Don’t know yet what lands could be impacted. A lot of the water that is displaced is saline water.

8.1.7. Issue a report by September 1, 2009.

Region 4 will lead (Pete Jerome)

8.2. By January 31, 2010, AD-NWRS will issue a report assessing carbon storage capacities on Service lands, related market opportunities, and priorities to promote refuge-based sequestration projects that support landscape-scale conservation efforts and achievement of population objectives.

Would be good to know what the Forest Service is thinking about this. Idea originated as part of discussions of Lynn Scarlett’s climate team. Getting a sense of what carbon sequestration opportunities are on DOI lands. Huge undertaking. Sounds almost like minerals management. Is it biological or geological or both? GS working in conjunction with others to do all Sec 7.12 of Energy Independent Act.