Category: Forests and Trees

Investing in America’s Urban Forests

People wait to cross a tree-lined street in Park Slope (Brooklyn), New York. Photo Credit: Diane Cook and Len Jenshel/The Nature Conservancy.

Trees provide numerous benefits in cities, storing carbon, reducing temperatures, improving air and water quality, mitigating stormwater runoff, encouraging outdoor recreation, and improving human health and well-being. In the United States, urban forests provide estimated annual benefits of about $18.3 billion in air pollution reduction, carbon sequestration, and lowered building energy use and power plant emissions.

Urban trees are responsible for nearly one-fifth of America’s captured and stored carbon emissions. In addition to providing critical ecosystem services and climate mitigation benefits, urban forestry programs create thousands of good-paying jobs and new opportunities for young people. Career opportunities include urban foresters, arborists, tree trimmers, pruners, pesticide applicators and more.

Despite the many benefits that trees provide, research suggests that tree canopy is unequally distributed in U.S. cities with low-income neighborhoods and communities of color often having less tree cover. The inequitable distribution of urban trees furthers social inequities and has serious implications for the health, wealth and resiliency of people living in cities. Two of U.S. Nature4Climate’s coalition members are tackling the issue of urban tree cover head on, taking slightly different approaches to this work. Taken together, these two studies highlight the important role urban forestry programs can play in slowing climate change, reducing social injustices, creating economic opportunities, and making communities more livable.

The Nature Conservancy – The Urban Tree Cover Disparity in US Urbanized Areas
Tree planting at Garden Place Academy in Denver’s Globeville neighborhood.

The Nature Conservancy conducted the first national survey of tree inequality, mapping urban tree canopy and temperature across 5,723 cities and towns in the U.S. The main goal for this study was to analyze tree cover and temperature inequality for the 100 largest urbanized areas in the country, housing 167 million people (nearly 55% of the total US population). The data was developed from high-resolution aerial imagery, summer temperatures, and census demographics. The study focused on tree cover inequality relative to income and race.

The research shows that inequality in tree cover between low- and high-income neighborhoods is widespread in the United States, occurring in 92% of the urban areas studied. On average, there was 15.2% more tree cover in high-income areas than in low-income areas. The average surface temperature differential was roughly 3⁰F, but in more than a dozen cities the differential exceeded 5⁰F.  Patterns regarding race were similar, with neighborhoods of predominately people of color having lower tree cover and higher surface temperature in most U.S. cities.

The greatest tree inequality was found in the Northeast of the United States, where low-income neighborhoods in some urbanized areas have 30% less tree cover and are7⁰F hotter compared to high-income neighborhoods. Even after controlling for population density and built-up intensity, the link between income, race, and tree cover was significant. Cities with greater income inequality had greater differences in tree cover between high- and low-income blocks. Another important variable in explaining variation in tree cover was population density, with urban areas with higher median population density, such as New York City and Philadelphia having lower tree cover, presumably because there is simply less area to fit trees into more densely developed areas.

The Nature Conservancy found greater disparity in tree cover in the suburbs in low density areas compared to the urban core. Greater inequality in tree cover in suburban areas could be due to the relatively greater importance of actions on private land. It may be that low-income households are less able to afford the cost of planting and maintaining trees. Additionally, low-income households are more likely to be in rental units and are thus less involved in making decisions about land management, while owners are primarily interested in reducing maintenance costs and thus may have less of an incentive to plant and maintain trees. This finding has important policy implications since currently most of the funding and resources for urban forestry programs are directed to major metropolitan areas. Increasing tree planting and maintenance in suburbs could more effectively address tree cover disparities since there is less pavement and density allowing for more room to plant trees.

Overall, The Nature Conservancy’s findings illustrate that inequality in tree cover is widespread and pervasive in American cities and deserves policy attention. Tree planting will need to occur through public sector investment and maintenance on publicly owned land. Increased investment could be more strategically applied if government agencies responsible for urban forestry actively partnered with public health agencies to maximize benefits for both people and nature.

Additionally, tree planting needs to occur on private land and incentives and regulations must be enacted to motivate the private sector to engage in tree planting. The good news is that several programs like this already exist, such as tree protection ordinances, green area ratios in planning codes, and incentives for tree planting from electric utilities. In addition to establishing new trees, it will be critically important to maintain and care for existing trees, particularly mature trees that provide ecosystem services and benefits to communities.

American Forests – Urban Trees Help Slow Climate Change and Advance Tree Equity

When thinking about how to advance Tree Equity and mitigate climate change, it is important to consider projected changes to urban tree cover. The fact is, we are losing tree canopy in cities. And it’s not a problem that is going away. American Forests’ new report on Climate Change and Urban Forests found that in U.S. urban areas, we are losing one tree for every two trees planted or naturally regenerated. There are several factors that contribute to tree loss including, natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, insects, and diseases), urban expansion and development, improper planting practices and attrition. American Forests projects that 8.3% of existing tree canopy will be lost by 2060.

American Forests looked at county-level data nationwide across different scenarios for both existing urbanized areas and the projected expansion of these areas by 2060 to determine what it would take to achieve to increase tree canopy by 10 percent. To sustain urban tree cover through 2060, they found that about 25 million trees would need to be planted annually. On average, this planting equates to a national rate of one new tree annually for every 3 acres of urban land. However, maintaining existing tree canopy will not be enough.

A 10 percent increase in tree cover is needed nationwide to meaningfully advance Tree Equity and address climate change. This will require planting 31.4 million trees every year and an investment of at least $8.9 billion in urban forestry in the U.S. every year. If we are successful, trees would cover 43.3 percent of U.S. urban areas on average. In addition to planting more trees, it is necessary to increase investment in efforts to monitor and take care of existing trees, which are often larger and more established than planted trees. Scaling up urban forestry efforts would also support more than 228,000 jobs and store almost a billion metric tons of carbon – the same impact as removing nearly 200,000 cars from the road each year. And there would be a savings of nearly $1.6 billion a year from things like avoided asthma-related emergency room visits.

American Forest’ research can help guide decisions about how many trees we need to plant in the United States and the required investment to successfully manage our urban forests.

Key Takeaways

We need a multiplicity of voices advocating for urban trees and working to advance science, policy, funding, and collaboration around urban forestry. Studies like those conducted by The Nature Conservancy and American Forests should inspire conversation among environmental organizations, local government and municipalities, policymakers, health advocates and local communities to determine how to best address equity needs in cities and avoid devastating tree loss.

Caity Varian is the Digital Communications Manager for U.S. Nature4Climate.

Ambitious Climate Legislation in Massachusetts Sets the Bar for Other States

Bass Hole boardwalk in Yarmouthport, Massachusetts. Photo Credit: Katherine Gendreau.

Climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing the world today. Its impacts can be seen clearly as sea levels continue to rise, heat waves become more frequent and storms intensify. To help avoid some of the worst impacts yet to come, immediate action is needed to not only stop further greenhouse gas emissions, but also to remove the carbon dioxide (CO2) that is already in the air.

In March, Massachusetts passed An Act Creating a Next-Generation Roadmap for Massachusetts Climate Policy, a groundbreaking and ambitious law that sets a net zero emissions goal–the new global standard–and requires the Commonwealth to decarbonize our economy by decreasing our use of fossil fuels and harnessing nature to draw carbon from the air.

“The new law reflects Governor Charlie Baker’s and the state legislature’s recognition that climate change impacts are touching down in the Commonwealth’s communities today, and we need to address the causes and effects to protect our future,” says Steve Long, director of government relations for The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Massachusetts. “Once again, Massachusetts policymakers have modeled bipartisan collaboration and leadership to address climate change that should serve as inspiration for policymakers on the national stage.”

The law also provides a robust toolkit of policies and strategies—such as requirements and incentives to reduce emissions from energy production, transportation, and buildings—and ensures accountability by setting goals for interim carbon emissions reductions between now and 2050.

TNC hosted a Natural Climate Solutions briefing for legislators at the Massachusetts State House in 2019. From left to right: Emily Myron, Laura Marx, State Representative Smitty Pignatelli, State Representative Bradley Jones, State Senator Bruce Tarr, Kurt Gaertner of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Steve Long. Photo Credit: Loren Dowd/TNC

TNC led the advocacy for the inclusion of Natural Climate Solutions in the legislation. As the bill moved through the Senate and House of Representatives, we heard bipartisan support for the benefits of Natural Climate Solutions. During Senate floor debate, Senator Jo Comerford (D-Northampton) said, “We will not achieve the reductions we need without carbon sequestration and storage. It is our Commonwealth that has the lungs of New England.” And House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading) noted that, “A comprehensive, multi-faceted approach is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Using forests and other natural and working lands to promote carbon sequestration is one of the most effective ways for the state to achieve its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.”  

Natural Climate Solutions are strategies that protect, restore, and better manage natural and working lands—such as forests, farms, and wetlands—to remove carbon from the air and store it long term. We believe this law is the first in the nation to require the state to set goals for both reducing emissions from and increasing sequestration by natural and working lands, and to create a plan to achieve those goals.

Northampton Tree. Photo Credit: Lauren Owens Lambert.

Massachusetts’ forests currently remove the equivalent of nearly five million metric tons of CO2 from the air each year, an amount equal to nearly seven percent of our carbon emissions. Natural Climate Solutions have the potential to remove an additional one to two million metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year across the state—about the same amount of carbon as is emitted by 435,000 cars annually.

In addition to capturing carbon, implementing Natural Climate Solutions can bring communities many other benefits, as well. For example, protecting forests and wetlands helps clean our water and air and provides habitat for wildlife. Better managing farmland ensures healthy soils and can increase agricultural yields. And restoring wetlands and salt marshes helps reduce flood risks and enhances our fisheries. In urban areas, tree planting and creating green space can reduce the heat island effect, lower energy use in nearby buildings and reduce air pollution to improve public health.

As we move forward, it is also critical to ensure a just transition to a decarbonized economy and address the disproportionate impacts of climate change felt by underserved and overburdened communities. The new law includes important environmental justice provisions designed to enhance review of the health and cumulative impacts of projects proposed in communities with environmental justice populations and to ensure that residents have reasonable access and information to meaningfully engage in the public processes concerning those projects. TNC was proud to support environmental justice partners in advocating for these protections.

“The requirement in the new law that cumulative impacts be considered reflects the reality that the health and well-being of our communities and our environment are inextricably linked,” says Eugenia Gibbons, Massachusetts director of climate policy at Health Care Without Harm. “The environmental justice protections mark an important step towards ensuring that communities historically excluded from decision making that has left them burdened by environmental harm have reasonable access to information and an opportunity to engage meaningfully going forward.” 

At the same time TNC was advocating for the climate legislation, they led a working group on the state’s climate council to inform the science and policy recommendations for natural climate solutions in the Commonwealth’s 2030 Clean Energy and Climate Plan. The plan prioritizes the state’s action for the next ten years and will guide implementation of strategies to meet emissions reductions targets in the law. TNC collaborated with climate justice partners to jointly develop a policy framework and recommend Natural Climate Solutions strategies for equity and justice. 

Governor Baker signing Next-Generation Road Map legislation.

“The legislation signed by Governor Baker is supported by a comprehensive, science-based analysis with significant stakeholder input that took place over a two-year period, culminating with the Administration’s 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap and Clean Energy and Climate Plan,” says Kathleen Theoharides, Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary for Massachusetts. “As we move toward implementing this nation-leading legislation, including important provisions around natural working lands and protecting our environmental justice communities, the Baker-Polito Administration remains committed to achieving our climate goals in an equitable manner that protects our most vulnerable residents.”

TNC in Massachusetts could not have realized our accomplishments without a team effort that provided an effective combination of policy and science, which included Steve Long, Laura Marx, forest ecologist and Emily Myron, policy manager.

An Act Creating a Next-Generation Roadmap for Massachusetts Climate Policy is formative legislation that could be emulated across the U.S., bringing people together across the aisle and leading to important and impactful changes for the future of people and nature.

Loren Dowd is a Marketing and Communications Manager at The Nature Conservancy.

Roadmap to a Solar Energy Future on Long Island

Mid- to large-scale solar arrays, like the one at the H. Lee Dennison County Center in Hauppauge, Long Island, offer a host of benefits. Photo Credit: The Nature Conservancy

As seen from above, the solar carport at the H. Lee Dennison Building in Hauppauge, Long Island, twinkles in the sun. Since 2011, the solar canopies there, laid out in rows above the parking spaces, have generated shade in the hot summer months and carbon-free electricity all year round, along with a multitude of other benefits: improved air quality and improved public health; jobs that pay above the national average; reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; and income for Suffolk County, which has leased the parking lot to the array’s developer. 

The even better news about this solar project and ones like it—mid-to-large-scale arrays of at least 250 kilowatts—is that they can play a pivotal role in meeting New York State’s nation-leading climate and clean energy goals. In fact, these arrays, also called commercial- and industrial-scale solar, have the potential to generate more electricity than Long Island uses each year—enough to power 4.8 million homes. And, according to a new report, they can do it without negatively impacting many of the places Long Islanders hold dear—the region’s farmlands and forests, its cultural heritage sites and open spaces. 

The Long Island Solar Roadmap explores how to advance solar development on the country’s most populated island while safeguarding the landscapes people value most and expanding access to clean energy, especially for low-to-moderate income residents and people of color. Funded by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, spearheaded by The Nature Conservancy and Defenders of Wildlife, and informed by a consortium of 38 local stakeholders, the Roadmap offers a first-of-its-kind online mapping tool that identifies areas for responsible solar development and lays out clear strategies for lowering barriers to the clean energy technology. 

“This report shows that in scaling up solar, we don’t have to choose between one ‘green’ good—clean energy—and another—undisturbed forests, open spaces, and farmland….With the right approach, we have room for it all.”

– Jessica Price, New York Renewable Energy Strategy Lead

Mapping Opportunities for Solar Development

Photo Credit: Ruslan Dashinsky/iStock

Like so much other work at The Nature Conservancy, this project got its start with the awareness of a problem. In 2016, several proposed large solar projects on Long Island were very publicly shot down because they would have required clear-cutting forests. “I was having lots of conversations with folks about where solar projects shouldn’t go,” says Jessica Price, The Nature Conservancy’s New York renewable energy strategy lead. “What I was really interested in talking about was where they should go.” 

To help figure that out, The Nature Conservancy and Defenders of Wildlife brought together utilities, municipalities, solar developers, commercial property owners, farmers and community groups to talk about what they valued and how those values could be used to inform decisions about solar siting. The team also undertook an ambitious effort to digitally map Nassau and Suffolk counties, creating new computer tools to identify the types of land that should be off-limits to solar development and the areas where solar could be prioritized.

What they found, Price says, was a major opportunity: “Even though we don’t have large swaths of undeveloped land on Long Island, we have plenty of parking lots, warehouse roofs, brownfields, capped landfills and other areas already impacted by development.” Support for solar sited in such places is plentiful, too. Public opinion research conducted as part of the project found that 92 percent of Long Islanders surveyed endorse the use of mid-to-large-scale solar, and the technology is especially popular when sited on parking lots and rooftops and when projects are developed and installed by local companies. 

Ramping up Solar and its Many Benefits

The report also explores the impacts that scaling up solar could have on reducing carbon emissions and improving public health. Installing just one-quarter of the solar potential identified in the project could cut carbon pollution equivalent to removing more than 700,000 cars from Long Island’s roads. And over 20 years, that amount of solar could improve air quality enough to save 36 lives and prevent as many as 28 hospitalizations. Ramping up solar to that degree could also create thousands of local jobs and improve the access of low-and-moderate income residents and people of color to clean energy. 

Now, Price and others will take the map on the road or, for the time being, to virtual meetings with local officials and others interested in advancing mid-to-large scale solar on Long Island. “Solar power offers incredible benefits,” says Price. “This report shows that in scaling up solar, we don’t have to choose between one ‘green’ good—clean energy—and another—undisturbed forests, open spaces, and farmland. Even on densely populated Long Island, with the right approach, we have room for it all.”

Download the Long Island Solar Roadmap Report.

Liz Galst is a Communications Manager for the New York division of The Nature Conservancy, focusing on Long Island. 

Five Reasons Why You Should Listen Out for ‘Nature Tech’ This Year

Photo Credit: Forbes, This Start-Up Wants To Make Reforestation More High-Tech. Andrew Wight.

Whether’s it’s watching David Attenborough’s latest Perfect Planet films or using high-tech VR to experience the Amazon, many of us are familiar with experiencing the natural world through technology. We are, however, much less familiar with understanding the many emerging ways in which technology can and should help us protect, restore and more sustainably manage our natural resources.

At Nature4Climate (N4C), we are excited by the emergence of what we are calling ‘nature tech’ – a term that encompasses the application of modern technology to help enable, accelerate and scale-up nature’s ability to combat climate change and deliver a range of other benefits for people and the planet.

Left to its own devices, nature has been providing benefits to humankind since the beginning of time. Unfortunately, in far too many places, nature is under threat and we now know that proactive steps need to be taken care for our natural ecosystems. These actions are known, collectively, as nature-based solutions (NbS), which are defined by IUCN as ‘actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits’. A sub-section of NbS are natural climate solutions that are focused specifically on climate mitigation and adaptation.

In the midst of a global health crisis, the collapse of biodiversity, and a warming climate, the need for NbS has never been greater. But despite their potential, NbS still face a number of barriers. They require government policies and incentives; they require community support and engagement; and they require private sector understanding and investment, both in the corporate and finance sectors.

These are all areas that N4C, and many others, are working on. But it is also clear that, like most things, NbS can be greatly aided by innovative technology. Many see nature and technology as polar opposites, and by extension believe that “natural” and “technological” solutions to global crises exist in conflict. We believe the opposite, and so this year we will be turning our attention to ‘nature tech’ – technology that can accelerate the deployment of NbS at scale.

Defining ‘nature tech’

The notion of ‘cleantech’ has existed for more than a decade, and is synonymous with eco-innovation, encompassing high-tech companies that create environmental added value. In its 2020 report, the Cleantech Group estimated that more than $7.4 billion had been raised by its top 100 companies from investors spanning 45 countries – and the whole sector has been estimated to be worth about $4 trillion. Cleantech is defined as ‘new technology and related business models that offer competitive returns for investors and customers while providing solutions to global challenges’.

To date, definitions of cleantech have mostly covered companies that focus on renewable energy, energy efficiency, recycling, supply chain efficiencies, etc., with emerging trends in what is known as ‘ag tech’. At N4C, we believe there is huge potential for the growth of companies that apply technology advances – whether that’s satellite monitoring, drone technology, AI, genomic sequencing, block chain etc – for the benefit of nature and the climate.

So, how do we define ‘nature tech’? In its broadest sense, it is high-tech applications that enable, accelerate and scale-up NbS. N4C is currently conducting a landscape-mapping and scoping exercise and will release a more precise definition during the CogX festival in June in the UK. But based on our initial assessment, we believe it covers the following areas, albeit not exclusively:

Emerging trends

The number of the companies that embody this trend are still relatively few compared to the numbers reported by the Cleantech Group, but it is increasing. For example, Pachama has attracted attention and funding for its combination of machine learning and satellite monitoring to protect forests by connecting them to global carbon markets. In Canada, Flash Forest has pioneered a high-tech approach that can speed up reforestation by 10 times. Moja global is developing open-source software to improve accuracy and lower the cost of developing a system to measure emissions from forestry, agriculture and other land uses. Finnish company Carbo Culture focuses on high-tech biochar solutions to enhance carbon sequestration in soils, while NatureMetrics uses cutting-edge genetic techniques to monitor biodiversity. Tech can also give us an insight into a previously obscure and hidden world. We have long relied on systems like TRASE to look at supply chain transparency and the cause and effect of commodity production and trade, and this technology is rapidly improving.

There are also initiatives focused on building support and funding for these companies: the Techstars Sustainability Accelerator was launched in partnership with The Nature Conservancy to accelerate investment in start-ups looking to help solve food, water and climate challenges. In December 2020, the Sustaintech Xcelerator was launched by DBS, Google, the World Bank and others to support climate innovators who are developing solutions that increase confidence in NbS.

Why is this emerging trend important? We believe that there are five good reasons for nature-tech – the bridge between the worlds of technology and nature – to be strengthened and invested in.

  1. Nature tech has a vital role to play in accelerating the deployment of nature-based solutions, at a time when speed is of the essence. We cannot reach the goals of the Paris Agreement without large-scale deployment of natural climate solutions by 2030. It can also help us map, measure and deploy NBS at the right places at the right time.
  2. Equally important are the jobs that can be created. This includes all the livelihoods supported by nature-positive investments, such as sustainable food production and reforestation efforts, as well as creating new opportunities for entrepreneurs to build nature tech businesses that may not currently exist.
  3. Technology also enables the democratization of opportunity. Ideas can come from anywhere, and a bottom-up revolution in nature-based solutions is possible in every country, facilitated by accessible technology such as mobile phones and platforms such as the World Economic Forum’s UpLink that connects projects on the ground to experts and investors.
  4. Transparency and accountability are especially critical in the race to net zero, particular for nature’s place in that race. This is where technology can play an outsized role, to help solve many of the existential hurdles that nature-based solutions to climate have faced – around monitoring, measuring, verifying and reporting.
  5. And last but never least, finance. Nature-based solutions are much in need of investment, attracting less than 10% of current public climate finance. Technology can help derisk projects and play an important role in both creating a marketplace and attracting finance, by reducing transaction costs, enhancing supply chain transparency, and looking into past and future models and trends.

Instead of just using technology to experience nature – a poor substitute for the real thing – N4C believes tech can be a huge force for unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions. It’s time to bridge the worlds of nature and technology. We live at a moment of extreme urgency with a need for innovation, solutions and using the best tools that the modern world can give us. Nature Tech is just beginning. We think it’s the next big thing, the next big investment opportunity, the next revolution in thinking and solutions.

“Tech is a tool; it’s up to us how we use it. Nature now needs tech support too.”

Lucy Almond is the Director and Chair of Nature4Climate.

The United States of Fire

Laura Spellman, a “hot shot” firefighter, uses a drip torch to burn vegetation as part of efforts to contain a 2018 wildfire in Mendocino National Forest, Calif. Photo Credit: Cecilio Ricardo / U.S. Forest Service.

When the Creek Fire roared to life near Shaver Lake, Calif., last September, it chewed through the area’s overgrown, sickly forests, belching smoke and spitting out blackened, matchstick trunks.

But in forests owned by the electrical utility Southern California Edison, the Creek’s famished roar turned to a purr. The wildfire licked over the landscape, charring mature trees but not killing them. There simply wasn’t enough fuel — dense, dry shrubs and drought-stricken trees — to feed the fire to excess.

This was in large part thanks to John Mount, a retired California Edison forester. In 1979, Mount quietly began setting controlled burns on the utility’s land surrounding Shaver Lake. His fires cleared overgrown brush and weeded out small and unhealthy trees. At the time, this flew in the face of conventional forestry practice, which, for a century, had labored to extinguish all fires as quickly as possible.

Mount discovered setting moderate fires protects and rejuvenates the land, and prevents intense wildfire. Credit: John Mount.

As a forestry student, the stance had made no sense to Mount. California’s forests thrived before modern wildfire control. “I simply asked myself a question,” Mount said. “If lightning has been starting fires for millennia, why are we putting them out?” Mount discovered for himself what North America’s native peoples had known for centuries: Setting moderate fires protects and rejuvenates the land, and prevents intense, dangerous wildfire.

Now, after a record-busting fire season that scorched 4 million acres in California alone, it’s clear that our forests are starving for “good” fire — not just in the West, but across the country.

The gargantuan scale of the problem means that restoring flames to fire-famished forests won’t be easy or quick. With money and manpower, though, it can be done. “I’m more hopeful today than I’ve been for a while,” says Brittany Dyer, American Forests’ California state director. “Everyone is angry at the state of our forests. And once you get to anger, you get change.”

Native Flames

This 1905 photo from the southern rim of the Grand Canyon shows the parklike conditions once common in western forests. Photo Credit: U.S. Geological Survey.

The first Europeans to arrive in North America found a land of seemingly divine abundance: a profusion of nut trees and berry bushes, grassy clearings swarming with deer, parklike woodlands that you could drive a wagon through. It wasn’t providence they should have thanked, but native people.

For millennia, tribes across North America used fire as a tool to favor useful plants and animals. Fire regenerates bushes that produce food, dye, medicine and materials for baskets and tools. It aids oaks, and other trees that grow edible nuts, and opens up grazing areas for game animals. Ron Goode, the chairman of California’s North Fork Mono Tribe and an advocate for the restoration of tribal burning, explains: “The forest is a garden, and the native people took care of it.”

In the wildfire-prone landscapes of the western U.S., burning was also a matter of safety. It helped to prevent wildfires from encroaching on villages and kept extensive trail networks open as evacuation routes. People and wildlife used these trails when it was time to flee. “Lion has her kids, bear has her kids, deer has her kids,” Goode says. “Better hope no one is hungry.”

Tribes burned throughout the year, setting many small fires that added up in a big way. In California, an estimated 4.5 to 12% of the state’s land burned before Europeans arrived. Tribes burned around 2% of this total, or roughly 2 million acres, according to Goode. Now, in stark contrast, California burns somewhere between 50,000 and 125,000 acres a year.

The result of all that burning was a profoundly different landscape from the one we see today. Compared to today’s overcrowded forests, “the basal distance between trees was huge,” Goode says. “You might be talking 50 feet.” Burning created a rich patchwork of oak savannahs, meadows and pine-dotted slopes. Fire-adapted species flourished: not only oaks, but also sequoias, Ponderosas and other hardy conifers. Frequent, low-level fire also favored big, mature trees, which are more flame-proof than little ones. “It was well-documented that a ‘small’ tree was 6 feet in diameter,” Goode says.

Tribes set fires in all corners of the country, even in the East’s wet, fire-resistant woodlands. Many eastern forests that are now dim, dense thickets of trees and tangling underbrush were, for centuries, open, park-like spaces, with a far greater dominance of flame-resistant, food- bearing trees: American chestnuts, which are now functionally extinct due to disease, along with oaks and hickories.

Starved of fire, eastern oak-hickory forests are being outcompeted by northern hardwood species that grow profusely in ample rain and rich soil. This is bad news for nut-loving wildlife, as well as for communities that want to protect their forests for the future. Oaks and hickories are “better situated than northern hardwoods with dealing with a changing climate,” says Bill Zipse, a supervising forester with the New Jersey Forest Service. By letting less-resilient trees like beech and sugar maple overrun forests, “you might be setting yourself up with something more fragile now than what you started with.”

Flame Wars

Wildlands firefighters set “backburns” to control the 2020 Pine Gulch Fire, the second-largest wildfire in Colorado history. Credit: Kyle Miller, Wyoming Hotshots / U.S. Forest Service.

At first, Europeans didn’t snuff out all fire. Many colonizers actually adopted tribal burning methods, after seeing the good it did for the land. In the early days of the United States Forest Service, foresters debated whether total fire suppression was the goal, or if the “Indian way” of light burning should be.

The Great Fire of 1910 scorched all debate, along with 3 million acres in Idaho and Montana. This mammoth conflagration stunned the country and cemented the Forest Service’s zero-tolerance approach to wildfire. From then on out, all wildfire had to go, as soon as possible. In 1935, the agency institutionalized its infamous “10 a.m. policy” — the practice of put- ting out a wildfire the morning after its initial report. A decade later, Smokey Bear cemented the idea that forest fires are wasteful, even immoral.

Deprived of tribal burning, forests started to go haywire. The diverse mosaic of habitats that moderate burns once maintained turned to uniform sweeps of rangy, same-aged trees. Moist forests grew denser, wetter and less likely to burn. Dry forests, conversely, grew more likely to burn — not with your everyday “good” fire, but in tree-torching infernos. As Western forests racked up a deep “fire debt,” they grew cramped and unhealthy. Overcrowded trees competed for water, sunlight and nutrients, and succumbed to drought and bark beetle outbreaks that past forests had been able to withstand.

In California, the few advocates for controlled burning fought a current of entrenched belief.

“My mom even at one point burned a couple of times, and she got in trouble for it,” Goode recalls. “The fire people showed up, the sheriffs showed up. They all wanted to arrest her.” As for Mount, during his brief stint with the Forest Service before California Edison, he was “chastised quite soundly” for suggesting that fire could be good.

The legacy of over a century of fire famine — and decades of climate inaction — is now inescapable. Since 2014, drought and beetles alone have killed a staggering 162 million trees in California’s national forests. Fire seasons have grown longer, costlier and more severe. Last year’s record-breaking infernos in California, Colorado and Oregon underscored the apocalyptic cost of ignoring forest health. “The wildfires were not unforeseen or accidental,” says Dyer, of American Forests. “It was a bomb that was ready to go off.”

Florida on Fire

With 1.5 to 2.5 million acres of controlled burns a year, Florida’s fire culture sets itself apart. Photo Credit: Carlton Ward Jr. / The Nature Conservancy.

Hope for our fire-hungry forests might, of all places, come from Florida, a state more famous for spring break than land stewardship. But with 1.5 to 2.5 million acres of controlled burns a year, the Sunshine State might be better distinguished as the Flame State.

Here, for many landowners, burning is considered as much a right as life, liberty and happiness. “Some of the best, intuitive, artistic fire professionals I’ve ever met were private landowners who learned the art of fire from their families,” says Zachary Prusak, the Florida fire manager for The Nature Conservancy.

Prusak, who grew up in Daytona Beach smelling smoke from controlled burns, has worked with prescribed fire for 33 years. He’s had plenty of time to reflect on what sets Florida apart, fire-wise. The biggest difference, he suspects, is that state residents simply never stopped burning. The Seminole Tribe has been burning uninterrupted for centuries. Cattle families, some of which have ranched the same land for five generations, are vocal proponents of fire, which regenerates grass for grazing.

Florida’s love affair with fire translates at the legislative level as well. The Great Fire of 1910, and the policies that came after, were blips on the radar. Following severe wildfires in 1998, the state amended its laws to make prescribed fire easier, not harder. Now, people can’t be held liable for damages or injuries from a controlled burn unless proven “grossly negligent.” In addition, a culture of collaboration — a necessity, given Florida’s densely packed population — makes it easier to work across agencies, and across public and private lands.

Of course, nothing is perfect. Even with the statewide enthusiasm for firelighting, Florida’s landscapes are still hungry for more. Sandhill habitats and longleaf pine forests need to be sated with fire every two to three years, or run the risk of withering away. “To use an Alice in Wonderland metaphor, we are the Red Queen. We’re trying to run as fast as we can just to stay in the same place,” Prusak says. “We need to do more.”

Back to the Burn

The aftermath of a “good” fire: burned underbrush, unscathed trees. Photo Credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Florida is one of fire’s biggest fans, but it isn’t alone. Many other states, tribes and private entities have progressive mindsets and policies when it comes to controlled burning. New Jersey, for example, passed legislation in 2019 making it easier for private landowners to burn. The state’s Forest Fire Service boasts dedicated fire wardens, who manage both fire suppression and prescribed burns. “I don’t even see that in most western states, let alone most eastern states,” says Zipse, of the N.J. Forest Service. “That’s kind of a luxury.”

Ironically, the places that would most benefit from firelighting have historically been the most averse to it. Across the West, communities and regulators have long balked at controlled burns, and for understandable reasons. Smoke is a nuisance, and downright dangerous to people with lung conditions such as asthma. There’s always the risk, though remote, that a burn could spin out of control and hurt people or structures.

Attitudes can change, though, and fast. In Shaver Lake, John Mount overcame any initial resistance with good old public outreach. “That meant going to coffee shops every morning,” he says. “I would stop off and have a beer in the after- noon. I went to every Lion’s Club meeting, every Women’s Club meeting. They very quickly understood that having to put up with a little smoke … that I was really protecting their homes.”

In the wake of the 2020 wildfires, more communities are clamoring for prescribed fire and other fuel reduction work. Culture is less of a barrier now than scale: Western wildlands are vast, and massive slices are federally owned. Forty percent of land in Colorado is federal. That number jumps to 50% in California and Oregon, and 60% in Idaho.

For forests that depend on regular fire to stay healthy, this isn’t great news. The U.S. Forest Service and other federal land agencies are chronically understaffed and underfunded, and tend to be more risk-averse and less nimble when it comes to prescribed fire. Even as the merits of “good” fire have come into laser focus, the use of prescribed fire on western lands flatlined — and in some cases decreased — over the last decade. Perhaps not surprisingly, the only national agency that has significantly increased prescribed fire is the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Money and manpower are major hurdles. In California, for example, a whopping 20 million acres need to burn before forests and other habitats stabilize. Prescribed fire alone costs around $200 an acre — but because so many forests in California are too overgrown to burn without raging out of control, they first need to be thinned of excess brush and trees, to the tune of roughly $1,500 an acre. Environmental permits can cost as much as the on-the-ground work itself. “You’re looking at a price tag of potentially billions of dollars,” Dyer says.

Those pricey permits don’t necessarily translate to action. In Oregon, 1.3 million acres of federal land are permitted for prescribed fire, but are languishing without funds or foresters to do the work. Burn crews can be vanishingly scarce, and the complexity of coordinating with a mishmash of local, state and national agencies means that these crews are often unavailable during the narrow, unpredictable weather windows when it’s safe to burn.

Still, some promising changes are on the horizon. “A fire season like this kind of coalesces our attention,” says Courtney Schultz, a wildfire policy expert at the University of Colorado. “I do think there’s some good momentum around prescribed fire.” She cited the National Prescribed Fire Act of 2020, which would provide $300 million a year for federal agencies to set prescribed fires, $10 million for burns in areas at high risk of severe wildfire, and a cash incentive to any local or state government conducting burns bigger than 100,000 acres.

More money is on the way. In 2018, American Forests helped to pass the “Fire Funding Fix,” which secured stable funding for wildfire fighting, without cannibalizing money from other federal programs that benefit forests. In August, California announced it will begin using fire and other fuel-reduction methods on 1 million acres of land each year by 2025.

At the same time, a recent cultural shift towards “shared stewardship” is enhancing collaboration between federal and state agencies, nonprofits, tribes and other groups. This enables identifying the most at-risk forests on a landscape scale, rather than ownership-by-ownership, and using science to prioritize where to send money, expertise and manpower. American Forests is supporting this shift by convening meetings, providing research and advancing policies that align with shared stewardship.

Our forests are going to burn, one way or another. The climate crisis is fueling early springs, deep droughts and withering temperatures, guaranteeing ever-bigger, hotter wildfires. If we want to stave off devastating flames — which decimate forests, watersheds, homes and wildlife — we have to cut carbon emissions in half in the next decade, all while taking sweeping action to restore forest health. Firelighting alone won’t solve our forest woes, but it’s a big part of the solution. “We have to make friends with fire,” Dyer says. “Without it, the whole system will collapse.”

Allison Guy is American Forests’ senior manager of communications for American ReLeaf program.

Seeing the Forest for the Seedlings: Challenges and Opportunities in the Effort to Reforest America

Bareroot hardwood nursery.

You never know when a casual conversation over lunch is going to change your life, nor can you appreciate just how much these life-changing moments will shape your future. These pivotal events only become obvious with the passage of time and the perspective it provides.

In college, I knew I wanted to spend my career working in forests, but like many college students, I struggled to put my finger on exactly what I wanted to do. I knew that I was interested in a job where I could focus primarily on protecting and managing our nation’s beautiful forests, having developed an affinity for the woods during summers at Girl Scout camp. Just before my senior year, my summer job supervisor suggested to me over lunch that I might like working in a tree nursery. Little did I know then that I would spend the next 30 years working with nurseries and seedlings. I often tell people, “if a tree is taller than I am, it’s out of my jurisdiction!”

Conifer seedling in a container nursery.

When walking through a beautiful, mature forest, it is sometimes easy to forget that every single one of those trees began as a tiny seedling. In their youth, tree seedlings are just as vulnerable as newborn babies. They need to be grown from high-quality seed, cultivated with care, and protected from pests and pathogens. Tree nurseries, and the workers who plant and maintain tree seedlings, help ensure that tree seedlings get a good start in life.

The need for tree nurseries and skilled workers has been heightened by a recent surge in interest around reforestation. Americans are increasingly recognizing the myriad benefits provided by healthy forests. Trees help prevent soil erosion and improve water quality. They provide habitat for wildlife and spaces for outdoor recreation. They support good-paying jobs and produce wood products. Efforts to address climate change have led to growing recognition of forests’ potential to sequester large amounts of carbon. This growing appreciation for the role of trees in maintaining healthy ecosystems and economies has led to calls for planting billions of new trees on formerly forested lands.

Even as demand for tree seedlings rises, however, these efforts are limited by a capacity to produce and plant them. Many state and federal nurseries have closed in recent decades, leading to a reduction in seedling availability, especially for small forest landowners. This gradual decline of U.S. nursery capacity has left us ill-equipped to respond to the call to reforest America.

A new study by The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Forest Service, American Forests, universities, and businesses outlines the sobering challenges we face in meeting the ambition to reforest our lands. Not only do we need to increase nursery production, but we need to expand seed collection and storage, and increase our capacity to plant seedlings in the field and care for them during their first few years after planting. In other words, every aspect of the “reforestation pipeline” must be functional at the necessary capacity to meet reforestation goals.

Actions needed to address challenges within the reforestation pipeline in order to implement an ambitious reforestation scenario.

To reforest 64 million acres of U.S. land by 2040, we need to produce at least 3 billion seedlings a year – far exceeding the 1.3 billion seedlings currently produced by U.S. nurseries. Increasing nursery capacity could mean incentivizing existing nurseries to expand, or encouraging them to form innovative partnerships with other types of nurseries to utilize excess capacity.

We also need to make sure we’re planting the right trees in the right places. To do so, we need to collect and store seeds from a diversity of forest species and geographic locations to ensure we have the appropriate species and genetic sources for the range of reforestation sites across the country. Trees must be genetically adapted to the climate where they are planted – trees adapted to coastal environments have little chance to thrive in harsher mountainous areas even if they are the same species. These steps help safeguard our ecosystems and increase the chance that trees survive and thrive until maturity.

Planting 3 billion trees each year – and providing the care needed to ensure they survive – is going to require skilled forest workers. Recruitment, job training, and grant programs can help us build the national workforce we need to collect seeds, staff nurseries, plant trees, and shepherd them through the growing process.

Popular tree planting campaigns often understate the complexity of growing a tree and ensuring its survival. A successful national tree planting strategy will require a massive effort to identify land appropriate for tree planting, increase nursery capacity, produce high-quality seedlings and develop a modern “tree army” of skilled workers. It will also require strong partnerships between government agencies, non-profit organizations, businesses, and private landowners.

Thirty years ago, I made the fateful decision to pursue a career working with nurseries, and I have never regretted it. Our efforts to reforest our country are at a similar crossroads. If we take steps now to build an integrated and smoothly functioning “reforestation pipeline,” future Americans may look back at 2021 as a pivotal inflection point in our efforts to create a more robustly forested America.

Diane L. Haase is the Western Nursery Specialist at the USDA Forest Service.

3 Steps to Reforest America for Climate

Photo Credit: Mark Godfrey © The Nature Conservancy

Did you know that America’s forests already capture and store almost fifteen percent of our nation’s carbon emissions each year? There are many actions we must take to protect and build this natural carbon sink. But there is one forest-climate solution that surpasses them all: reforestation.

To understand the importance of reforestation, take a flight with me over America’s forests.

As we take off from the Pacific Coast, you see the millions of acres of western forests that have been devastated by climate-fueled wildfires burning so hot and extensively that in some places no forest can regrow without our help.

In the heartland, we fly over vast bottomlands along the Mississippi River and Lower Rio Grande River that were once cleared for agriculture, but now have large areas ready to be replanted into forest because climate change has rendered them too wet or too dry to grow crops.

As we land on the East Coast, you will see vast swaths of poorly reclaimed mine lands in the Central Appalachians that once grew precious white oak and red spruce forests, and now await our help to be restored to their former glory.

All across America we have lands like these that need to be reforested. On average, each tree we add to the land will sequester 1240 pounds of carbon dioxide!

Photo Credit: Ruth Hoyt © American Forests

You on board? Here are three key steps to reforest America.

Reforest Public Lands. Many of the lands that are ready for reforestation are already yours and mine—public lands owned by federal, state and local government. According to the Reforestation Hub mapping tool developed by American Forests and The Nature Conservancy, there are already almost 20 million acres of public lands awaiting reforestation, if our governments will only spend the money to reforest them. This acreage in need will likely grow thanks to public lands to be acquired for the new federal “30×30” initiative to protect 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030. We can fully reforest our public lands by advocating for public policies like the REPLANT Act and the Climate Stewardship Act that would provide permanent, dedicated funding for this purpose.

Put Some Carbon in the Bank. More than half of America’s forests are in private hands, with the largest portion controlled by family landowners who own smaller properties. So how do we put all of these lands to work for climate? The Biden-Harris Administration has an emerging initiative to establish a Carbon Bank within the U.S. Department of Agriculture that would purchase carbon emissions reductions from private landowners. This Carbon Bank could offer much needed flexibility to get diverse forest-climate practices implemented on the ground while minimizing complex and expensive paperwork for landowners. This novel new approach will need strong public support to come to fruition.

Photo Credit: American Forests

Private Sector Pitches In: The private sector, from companies to non-profits, has quietly become a force in funding reforestation on public and private lands alike. Want proof? In August of 2020, the new U.S. Chapter of 1t.org was launched to bring together all of the diverse leaders in this movement, from governments to Girl Scouts, with the shared goal to help conserve, restore, and grow a trillion trees by 2030. In less than a year, we already have secured more than 40 pledges totaling over one billion trees, plus billions of dollars in supporting actions such as carbon finance, technology, and workforce development. This powerful new platform is actively recruiting new partners to step up and make a pledge, and rapidly building out a community of practice so the partners can learn from each other, innovate together, and partner in new ways. We need to keep pulling all hands on deck, and there is a place for you!

Taking these three steps to accelerate reforestation is not purely about environmental benefits. Research has shown each $1 million invested in forest restoration supports as many as 39.7 direct, indirect and induced jobs. The Biden-Harris Administration’s announcement of a new Civilian Climate Corps will help make sure we engage, train and employ the people who need these job opportunities most in the ongoing economic recovery from Covid-19.

Perhaps most importantly, taking these steps together to reforest America can also help address our profound and urgent need to reunite as a country. That is why American Forests has joined the U.S. Nature4Climate coalition, which is bringing together forest owners, farmers, businesses and environmental organizations – because we are stronger when we work together to solve our problems. Our forests have always been common ground, and the vision to build back better together can take root in this fertile soil. Let’s ramp up reforestation as “One Nation Under Trees”.

Jad Daley is the President & CEO of American Forests.

Reforesting the United States: Here’s Where We Can Put All Those Trees

A new mapping tool shows lowers costs and more feasible options for restoring forests in the U.S.

The author, Susan Cook-Patton examines a young sycamore seedling in Maryland. Photo Credit: John Park Smithsonian © Environmental Research Center

This summer I stopped weeding out the tree seedlings that routinely pop up in the garden beds behind my Maryland home. During those weeks of stay-at-home orders, I let red buds and oaks, rather than tomatoes and flowers, stretch towards the sky. It was not laziness, but the birth of my second daughter that triggered the decision.

My day job is to worry about providing the best science for tackling climate change and my all-the-time job is to worry about my daughters’ future. During a year when many of us felt pretty helpless in the face of COVID-19, turning my postage stamp yard into a mini urban reforestation project represented something I could do. I could let those tree seedlings grow, pulling carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and helping to constrain our climate crisis so that my daughters, and all of our children, can inherit a world where both people and nature can thrive.

Restoring Forests as a Natural Climate Solution

There are up to 133 million acres of opportunity in the United States to restore forest cover for climate mitigation. © Mark Godfrey/TNC

I’m not the only one with trees on the brain. Enthusiasm for reforestation as a climate solution is growing, and for good reason. Forests represent a powerful opportunity to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, helping to cool our planet, while also providing clean air, clean water, and habitat for wildlife. We are increasingly seeing reforestation commitments from nations, corporations, and individuals that are united by a desire to create a better future. 

The science around reforestation as a climate solution is rapidly advancing – from a seminal study in 2017 that documented the high mitigation potential of global reforestation, to increasingly refined estimates of just how much carbon those forests might capture. But a key question remained – where on earth are we going to put all those trees?

The climate cooling power of reforestation depends heavily on how much new forest area we can gain. The greater the footprint of new forest, the greater the amount of carbon dioxide we can pull from the atmosphere. But we can’t just put trees any old place where forests used to be. Some of those places are cities and productive croplands. 

 Reforestationhub.org is a web-based tool produced by TNC and American Forests maps out relatively low-cost and feasible options to restore forest across the contiguous U.S.

The Reforestation Hub: A Tool for Mapping New Forests

A new web-based tool called the Reforestation Hub maps out relatively low-cost and feasible options to restore forest across the contiguous U.S. Produced by The Nature Conservancy and American Forests, the hub captures different things we might care about. Such as:

  • Where did forests historically occur?
  • Who owns the land and how is it used?
  • Where might trees best control flood waters, improve the livability of our cities, or help wildlife adapt to climate change? 
  • And how expensive is that land to reforest?

Once all those maps are stacked, it becomes possible to put a pin through all the locations that meet the criteria someone like you might care about. 

There are many ways to slice and dice the data, but we focused on creating a menu of ten options that represent the less expensive and/or potentially more viable options among:

1. large open patches within forests;
2. shrublands;
3. protected areas;
4. post-burn landscapes;
5. pasture lands;
6. croplands with challenging soils;
7. urban areas;
8. floodplains;
9. streamsides;
10. and migration corridors for species trying to keep pace with climate changes. 

Vast Opportunities to Restore Forests and Capture Carbon

Reforesting appropriate areas in the contiguous U.S. with approximately 68 billion trees could capture 333 million tonnes of CO2 per year. © Erika Nortemann/TNC

The Restoration Hub identifies over 200,000 square miles of total opportunity for reforestation, an area the size of California and Maine put together, which could capture up to 333 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. That’s equivalent to the carbon pollution from all of California’s, New York’s, and Texas’s cars, combined!  We also estimate that about half of the mitigation (and a third of the area) is possible at $20 per metric ton of carbon dioxide or less.

However, our main goal was not to put out a big number. It was to help people make the reforestation choices that best suit their community, state, and county.

Want to find the places with the greatest carbon capture per acre? The places that are lowest cost? The places on public lands?  The Reforestation Hub tool answers these questions, and many more. In particular, the Reforestation Hub lets you explore the results and visualize the outcome for every single county in the contiguous United States.

More Healthy Forests for a Brighter Future

Reforestationhub.org provides resources to help landowners, organizations and agencies restore forests for the many benefits they provide, from natural climate solutions to clean water and air to recreation and habitat. © Patrick McDonald/TNC Photo Contest 2018

Just like there is no single best location to re-establish forests, there is no single best way to get those trees growing. In some places, like my backyard, we may only need to step back and let the forest recover entirely on its own. Or we may offer a bit of help such as protecting the new trees from deer or invasive weeds.

But while letting forests regrow on their own can be a cheap and effective reforestation strategy, it may not always work. Sites that are highly degraded or far from seed sources, for example, may struggle to recover on their own. Planting trees can help to kickstart or speed recovery and can help establish the right species for current and future conditions. There is also something deeply satisfying about planting a tree, knowing that future generations will be able to clamber in the leaf boughs.

We have about a decade remaining to avoid the worst effects of climate change, but we are already feeling the negative consequences of rising temperatures associated with increasing flood risk and more severe wildfires.

Some days this feels pretty overwhelming, but this year has taught us that there are challenges we need to face, and can address, when we pull together to find solutions. Planting a tree is not the sole solution.  We are absolutely going to need revolutions in our energy sector and massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We need to keep forests as forests, improve our management of existing forests, and pursue the many promising options within our agricultural sector, grasslands, and wetlands. And new trees, with their air, water, and shade benefits, are also part of the solution.

Planting a tree, or simply letting seedlings grow in our own backyards, represents something we can do now to reignite our hope for a better future. 

Susan Cook-Patton is the Senior Forest Restoration Scientist at The Nature Conservancy.

Six Habitat Improvements That Are Also Climate Solutions

Colorado fisherman. Photo Credit: Russ Schnitzer/The Nature Conservancy

From extreme droughts, flooding, and fires to altered migration patterns and “hoot owl” fishing restrictions, America’s sportsmen and women have seen firsthand the impacts of a changing climate. If we are to protect and restore the habitats that support all the species we love to pursue, the hunting and fishing community must be part of climate change solutions.

There is no one silver bullet or single set of actions that will turn the tides entirely—climate change can only be addressed with a comprehensive strategy that involves all of us and all the tools we have. Thankfully, this includes habitat conservation measures already supported by sportsmen and women.

Here are six habitat improvement strategies that provide this win-win proposition: better hunting and fishing opportunities and fewer climate-change-driven impacts to fish and wildlife.

Improve Forest Management

The nation’s forests provide habitat for wildlife, shade to cool trout streams, and many convenient places to hang a tree stand, but they also store carbon—keeping carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere and warming the globe. In fact, across the world, forests store as much as one-third of all emissions from burning fossil fuels or about 2.6 billion tons of carbon each year.

Forests also draw additional carbon out of the atmosphere. Young, healthy growing forests mostly sequester carbon while older forests store it, which is why it helps to have diverse, well-managed forests. Unfortunately, decades of fire suppression and past management practices have left many public forests in poor health and vulnerable to uncharacteristically large wildfires. Poorly managed forests can alter the carbon storage and sequestration balance.

Hunters and anglers are already advocating for reforestation, active management of young stands, and conservation of late-successional forests, because these measures promote diverse habitat conditions, reduce fire risk, and filter polluted runoff that would otherwise harm trout and salmon streams. But these are also natural climate solutions. One of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership’s s top priorities this year is pushing decision-makers to ensure that savings from the recent wildfire funding fix will go toward forest health and management. This is just one step toward securing more of the habitat and climate benefits of our national forests.

Reverse Grasslands Loss

Native grasslands are being lost at an alarming rate due to agricultural conversion, development, and other factors. Just like forests, degraded western rangelands and grasslands are less resilient to temperature and weather changes, and their carbon storage and sequestering benefits are altered as more habitat damage is done. Invasive species like cheatgrass now dominate many sagebrush landscapes and have dramatically altered this ecosystem’s productivity, stability, and fire regime.

But grasslands and shrub communities also absorb huge amounts of carbon.

Restoration and conservation of rangelands and grasslands will be an important component of a broad-scale, comprehensive habitat and climate resilience strategy. We need to stop converting these habitats and focus on restoring grasslands to increase their resilience and productivity.

Conserve and Restore Wetlands
Wetland Ducks. Photo Credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Inland and coastal wetlands, marshes, estuaries, swamps, deltas, and floodplains are among nature’s most productive ecosystems—providing vital habitat for migratory waterfowl and both fresh and saltwater species of gamefish—that also store carbon.

Wetlands across the country already provide critical habitat, reduce erosion, improve water quality, and filter flood waters to protect our communities. But they are also being lost—drained, developed, converted to crops, or damaged beyond repair.

We are still fighting the rollback of Clean Water Act protections that has stripped wetlands and headwater streams of the safeguards that could prevent further wetlands loss.

Globally, wetlands may presently sequester as much as 700 billion tons of carbon each year. Once drained or partially dried, these areas may become a net source of methane and carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere. They are also particularly vulnerable to climate change. Rising temperatures and increased drought can convert permanent wetlands to semi-permanent or seasonal ones.

We need to protect our remaining wetlands and reverse the loss while restoring those that have been altered to help meet the nation’s goals for flood control, clean water, habitat, and carbon reduction.

Boost Farm Bill Conservation Programs

Roughly 40 percent of the United States is in agricultural production. This sector represents about 9 percent of all carbon emissions, but farmers and ranchers also contribute significantly to carbon storage and sequestration when they manage and preserve grasslands, wetlands, and forests.

Our community is already preparing to work with Congress on a 2023 Farm Bill with strong conservation funding, and this would give landowners more of a chance to contribute to climate change solutions, as well. Increasing Conservation Reserve Program acreage to 50 million acres, for example, would enhance the habitat benefits for whitetail and mule deer, prairie chickens, pheasants, quail, wild turkeys, waterfowl, and countless other species—not to mention provide better hunting and fishing experiences for the sportsmen and women who rely on CRP lands for access.

Boosting the CRP would also give landowners the option to conserve grasslands and wetlands that combat climate change. Expanding this and other conservation programs would be a great starting point for strengthening the role that private landowners play in the climate fight.

Continue the Gulf Coast Comeback
Whiskey Island. Photo Credit: Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority

Rising seas have already destroyed thousands of miles of coastline and hundreds of thousands of acres of coastal salt marshes and seagrass beds that are vital to many sportfish and waterfowl. Louisiana’s more seasoned duck hunters can likely point to actual ground they once hunted that has now been lost.

The good news is that building coastal infrastructure is a viable solution to fight these catastrophic losses.

Reparation funds from the BP oil spill have already helped to rebuild habitat health beyond what was damaged in the environmental disaster and recover some of what has been lost to subsidence, erosion, and sea-level rise.

The continued conservation and restoration of these habitats can help save lives and protect coastal communities, while providing healthier fisheries, cleaner water, and enhancing resilience to climate change. We need to ensure federal programs and funding are available to identify areas for protection, restoration, or management and to develop effective strategies to sustain the natural benefits of coastal habitats.

Shore Up Streambanks

One of the most obvious impacts of climate change for America’s anglers is rising water temperatures that threaten coldwater trout species. This is compounded in places where streams have been degraded by major floods, wildfires, dam construction and land-use changes. Many conservation volunteers cut their teeth on projects aimed at restoring healthy stream flows, reducing streambank erosion, and ultimately lowering water temperatures, but they may not realize riparian areas have an underappreciated ability to store carbon, both in vegetation and the soil itself.

At the federal level, we will need to invest in numerous solutions to build resilient river systems and ensure our lakes, rivers, and streams are able to function as productive carbon sinks while also supporting the fish and wildlife we love to pursue. Programs and policies emphasizing water conservation, water efficiency, nutrient reductions, and riparian zone protection and restoration will be critical.

Let Habitat Work

Any national climate strategy must include land- and water-based solutions that harness the power of our natural systems. But, as you can see, these habitat improvements are already on our wish list as a conservation community.

It’s important to note that these actions will not only benefit fish and wildlife, enhance soil quality, and create cleaner water—they will also create jobs and strengthen rural economies. But there is no time to waste, whether we’re talking about implementing natural climate solutions, reversing habitat loss and wildlife species declines, or putting Americans back to work through conservation. We have to stop debating about resolving climate change and get to work on implementing these straightforward natural solutions. Let’s allow habitat to contribute all it can to the climate fight.

Ed Arnett is the Chief Scientist at Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.