The Kane Experimental Forest Carbon Inventory

1. 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

2. 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)

3. 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?

4. Carbon accounting ≠ Rocket science

5. 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

6. ...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

7. ...and that’s just live trees ! What ELSE do we need to keep track of?

8. IPCC C Pool Definitions IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF, Table 3.1.2

9. 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

10. 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

11. ? What we need is -

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. CarbCalc Keyword

16. See Stephanie Rebain’s poster for more information on the carbon reports.

17. 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

18. 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

19. KEF Carbon Stocks 2006

20. Growth Only

21. Management Scenario

22. Change in C Pools 2006-2031

23. 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.......

24. Regeneration is a challenge...

25. 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

26. 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

27. Change in C Pools 2006-2056

28. Summary Statistics in 2056 Initial values : BA = 160 sq. ft., Merch. Vol. = 4463 cu. ft., 59% of merch. vol. is sawtimber.

29. Harvested Carbon Fate

30. 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

31. and think about the influence of this.... We need to get this right.... Long-term projections are useful but....

32. ....and we definitely can’t forget about the chances of this !!

33. 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

39. 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 !