390 likes | 548 Views
The Kane Experimental Forest Carbon Inventory. C. M. Hoover S. Rebain, L. Heath, S. Stout, J. Smith USDA Forest Service. The Third FVS Conference, February 13-15, 2007, Fort Collins, CO. Why Carbon Estimates?. Lots of activity in the area of carbon registries 1065b revisions, CA, RGGI, PA
E N D
The Kane Experimental Forest Carbon Inventory C. M. Hoover S. Rebain, L. Heath, S. Stout, J. Smith USDA Forest Service The Third FVS Conference, February 13-15, 2007, Fort Collins, CO
Why Carbon Estimates? • Lots of activity in the area of carbon registries • 1065b revisions, CA, RGGI, PA • International plans : UK and CA • Some proposals allow reporting of C uptake from forest management • Most require estimates of baseline C (BAU case)
Why Carbon ? • National Forests starting to get questions about carbon consequences of planned management actions • Carbon markets are emerging • Need to set baselines • Need to balance costs of inventory and monitoring against price of credits – is participating worth it? • Lack of data on which practices might optimize C storage • Tradeoffs?
Did something get lost in translation? ...but it can be awkward... Volume to carbon approach • Need expansion factor to account for trees below merchantable dbh • Conversion from cords to cubic feet is needed for pulpwood (metric is easier!) • Conversion from bf to cu ft need for sawtimber • Also need a factor to account for tops
...or cumbersome Biomass approach • Tree by tree calculation • Cleaner approach; no scaling factors needed • Can use general or specific equations • Amounts to a LOT of computations
...and that’s just live trees ! What ELSE do we need to keep track of?
IPCC C Pool Definitions IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF, Table 3.1.2
Carbon in Harvested Trees • Some plans allow carbon in products to be counted if verifiable • Categories: • Products in use • Products in landfills • Wood burned for energy • Emissions • Challenging to track through time; changing markets and regional differences
in summary.... • Carbon accounting is not technically difficult • Conducting inventories for all pools is expensive • Calculations for anything other than small areas are time consuming – impractical for landowners and managers • Estimating carbon in wood products is challenging
? What we need is -
History of C Reporting in FVS • Nick Crookston tested the idea with a prototype in 2003 • Need for easier accounting methods • 1605b C Accounting Rules and Guidelines • Move from research stands to larger scales • Requests from managers for information on C consequences of management actions • Attended FVS training in 2005 to explore utility of FVS for C estimation
History of C Reporting in FVS • Obvious that most of the parts were there • FFE tracked many needed pools • Model structure would work with Jenkins equations • Everyone got together to hammer out the reports, data sources, and computation methods • Don Robinson and Sarah Beukema of ESSA Technologies tackled the programming
Carbon Reporting Basics • Part of FFE – most calculations already exist, just need to convert to carbon • Live aboveground biomass calculations • Jenkins et al. (For. Sci. 2003) • FFE default method • Live and dead roots from Jenkins et al. • Harvested carbon from Smith and Heath (2006) – 1605b method
See Stephanie Rebain’s poster for more information on the carbon reports.
Kane Experimental Forest • Cherry-maple forest in NW Pennsylvania • Mostly even-aged • About 1700 acres • Original 1932 inventory was replicated in 2006 • Pilot study of carbon inventory methods
Kane Experimental Forest Pilot • Not a large forest, so feasible test of inventory and accounting methods • Data are available for all pools tracked by FVS • Growth only scenario • Simulated thinnings
Lessons learned from Step 1 • Carbon reports performed well – everything is working the way we wanted • Allegheny hardwoods are tough test case • Will need some work with customized functions • Use relative density statistic unique to the forest type • DDW default value about twice as high as inventory data • And.......
What if? BBA, Compartment 8 • Thin BBA • Age between 85-120 • Smallest tree removed is 6” dbh • Leave 90 sq ft BA • Regeneration same for all scenarios, from inventory data
What if? DBH, Compartment 8 • Thin DBH • Age between 85-120 • Smallest tree removed is 13” dbh • Leave 10 sq ft BA • Regeneration same for all scenarios, from inventory data
Summary Statistics in 2056 Initial values : BA = 160 sq. ft., Merch. Vol. = 4463 cu. ft., 59% of merch. vol. is sawtimber.
Points to Ponder • In carbon accounting, short-term and long-term results almost always differ • Short-term • Management effects generally small • Mix of products: saw/pulp has small effect • Long-term • Management effects should increase as stands age • Product mix should play larger role
and think about the influence of this.... We need to get this right.... Long-term projections are useful but....
....and we definitely can’t forget about the chances of this !!
Next Steps • Work on Allegheny hardwood specific functions • Prepare and run most accurate simulation possible of recommended Allegheny hardwood management prescriptions • Simulate other practices common in the region • Onward – Allegheny National Forest. Carbon consequences of Forest Plan Alternatives
Thank You ! • Harry Steele and the 2006 inventory field crew • Cori Weldon – data management • Stephanie Rebain – • Gary Dixon and the rest of the FVS team – it’s really been a pleasure to work with you !