Ecosystem Carbon Forecasting

Transcription

1 Forecasting Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: Ecosystem Carbon for the Invermere Timber Supply Area Phase II March 31, 2009 Prepared for: Invermere Timber Supply Area Defined Forest Area Management (DFAM) Group A Project Submitted by: Contact: Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd Harbourside Drive North Vancouver, BC V7P 3T2 Chris Niziolomski, RPF chris_niz@forestecosystem.ca Franz Feigl ffeigl@forestecosystem.ca tel. (604) fax.(604) Ecosystem Carbon Forecasting i

2 Acknowledgements Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (Canfor), Tembec Industries Inc. (Tembec) and BC Timber Sales (BCTS) operate within the Invermere Timber Supply Area (TSA). Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd. would like to thank the Invermere TSA licensees for their resources and commitment in undertaking this project. Special thanks goes to Brenda Hopkin for administration of this project. We are also grateful to Dr Clive Welham and Dr. Brad Seely for their support regarding the use of FORECAST and the preliminary analysis of carbon in forest products. We would finally like to thank the Canadian Forest Service for use of the Carbon Budget Model-Canadian Forest Service 3 (CBM-CFS3, version 1) and to Stephen Kull for his timely technical support. i

3 Executive Summary Initiatives resulting from the Kyoto Protocol, the Canadian Council of Forest Minister s Criteria and Indicators (adopted from the Montreal Process), and forest certification have created forest carbon management objectives as part of sustainable forest management. In consideration of these developments and in light of commitments made within SFM plans within the Invermere TSA the following project has been undertaken. For this project (Phase II) a timber supply model, Forest Simulation and Optimization System (FSOS) along with two models capable of projecting forest ecosystem carbon dynamics, the Carbon Budget Model-Canadian Forest Service 3 (CBM-CFS3), and FORECAST were used to estimate total ecosystem carbon storage and sequestration rates for the Invermere TSA. Current forest inventory data and management assumptions were applied to both models. The results of the project provide initial estimates of the current ecosystem carbon (including soil) conditions in the Invermere TSA in the crown forest land base ranging from MT to MT for the FORECAST and CBM-CFS3 models and under the base case scenario, with a range of 96.6 MT and MT and MT and MT, respectively over the forecast horizon. The sequestration rate in the base case fluctuates between a net loss of 0.1 MT C/year and a positive sequestration of 0.05 MT C/year for the CBM-CFS3 and 0.01 MT C/year and 0.1 MT C/year for FORECAST. Part of the objectives for this project was to investigate carbon storage within forest products produced from the Invermere TSA. A preliminary analysis of carbon storage in forest products (excluding emissions from harvesting, milling and transportation) show a maximum storage potential up to 11.9 MT based on the estimated product distribution as applied to the base case harvest levels and released using documented half life equations. Through an understanding of forest carbon dynamics, current management practices and impacts of harvesting and natural disturbance on the total ecosystem carbon, forest managers can begin to establish forest carbon objectives regarding targets, variance and the development of a suitable monitoring plan. Carbon objectives within the Invermere TSA refer to sustain forest carbon storage and sequestration contributions to the global carbon cycle. The purpose of the report is not to provide specific carbon measures and targets but to present appropriate information for the Invermere licensees to consider in setting such carbon measures. Important considerations include the definition of the carbon pools to include; the area (e.g. the timber harvesting land base and/or the nonharvestable land base) to include; and the relevant indicators, targets and expected variance that may occur. Unit level carbon targets may be established based on the current, the minimum or average carbon conditions experienced over a 250 year forecast horizon. As part of continuous improvement and in developing a monitoring plan, it will be important in the future to incorporate and apply existing field data for forest carbon ii

4 estimation. An initial recommendation for the Invermere TSA is to ensure that the most up to date information pertaining to forest inventory (i.e. species, age, site productivity and volume data as well as non-productive areas including wetlands) and areas in forest depletions due to human causes (e.g. oil and gas activities, forestry activities, conversion of forest to agriculture and urban areas) and natural disturbances (e.g. the partial or full loss of forests in disturbed areas) are maintained. iii

5 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... i Executive Summary... ii Table of Contents... iv List of Figures... vi List of Tables... viii 1.0 Introduction Project Methodology and Objectives Project Objectives Methods and Assumptions Review of Phase I and Phase II Methods and Assumptions Background Land base designation Timber Supply Model Stand-level Models Linkage between Stand- and Landscape-Level Models Disturbance Assumptions Scenario Description Project and Model Review FSOS - Conversion factor carbon curves (Phase I) FSOS - FORECAST carbon curves (Phase II) CBM-CFS3 (Phase II) Current Carbon Conditions Current Tree Carbon Current Total Ecosystem Carbon Base Case Scenario Tree Carbon Total Ecosystem Carbon Total Ecosystem Sequestration Maximum Harvest Scenario Total Ecosystem Carbon Total Ecosystem Sequestration No Harvest Scenario Total Ecosystem Carbon Total Ecosystem Sequestration Scenario Comparison Carbon in Wood Products First Order Decay Curves Estimates for Forest Product Carbon and Total Carbon iv

6 10.0 Future Modelling and Monitoring Destructive sampling Approximate Calculations Conclusions and Recommendations References Appendix 1: Timber Harvesting Land Base Determination for the Invermere TSA Appendix 2: Current Age Class Distribution Appendix 3: Analysis Units in Timber Supply Analysis Appendix 4: Carbon Data Appendix 5: Issues with Phase I and Adjustments Appendix 6: FORECAST model carbon curves Appendix 7: Harvest Areas Appendix 8: Comments provided by Dr. Gary Bull Appendix 9: Carbon Results by DFA v

7 List of Figures Figure 1: Current age class breakdown by land base... 7 Figure 2: Harvest flow for the base case, no harvest and maximum harvest scenarios, and comparison to the TSR3 base case Figure 3: Tree carbon as forecasted by CBM-CFS3; base case scenario Figure 4: Comparison of tree carbon as forecasted by Conversion Factor and CBM-CFS3; base case scenario Figure 5: Comparison of tree carbon as forecasted by FORECAST and CBM-CFS3; base case scenario Figure 6: Comparison of future THLB tree carbon, relative to current levels; base case scenario Figure 7: Comparison of future NHLB tree carbon, relative to current levels; base case scenario Figure 8: Comparison of future NHLB tree carbon, relative to current levels; base case scenario Figure 9: CBM-CFS3 total ecosystem carbon in the THLB over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Figure 10: CBM-CFS3 total ecosystem carbon in the NHLB over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Figure 11: CBM-CFS3 total ecosystem carbon in the CFLB over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Figure 12: FORECAST total ecosystem carbon in the THLB over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Figure 13: FORECAST total ecosystem carbon in the NHLB over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Figure 14: FORECAST total ecosystem carbon in the CFLB over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Figure 15: Comparison of total ecosystem carbon (excluding soil carbon) as forecasted by FORECAST and CBM-CFS3; base case scenario Figure 16: Comparison of litter and CWD/deadwood carbon as forecasted by FORECAST and CBM-CFS3; base case scenario Figure 17: CBM-CFS3 total ecosystem sequestration rates (MT/year) over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Figure 18: FORECAST total ecosystem sequestration rates (MT/year) over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario vi

8 Figure 19: Differences in carbon in the THLB between maximum harvest vs. base case scenarios; CBM-CFS Figure 20: Differences in carbon in the THLB between maximum harvest vs. base case scenarios; FORECAST Figure 21: CBM-CFS3 total ecosystem sequestration rates (MT/year) over the 250-year planning horizon; maximum harvest scenario Figure 22: FORECAST total ecosystem sequestration rates (MT/year) over the 250-year planning horizon; maximum harvest scenario Figure 23: Differences in carbon in the THLB between no harvest vs. base case scenarios; CBM-CFS Figure 24: Differences in carbon in the THLB between no harvest vs. base case scenarios; FORECAST Figure 25: CBM-CFS3 total ecosystem sequestration rates (MT/year) over the 250-year planning horizon; no harvest scenario Figure 26: FORECAST total ecosystem sequestration rates (MT/year) over the 250-year planning horizon; no harvest scenario Figure 27: Forest product carbon; base case scenario Figure 28: Forest product carbon as a percentage of total carbon; base case scenario Figure 29: Total carbon, total ecosystem carbon and forest product carbon; base case scenario vii

9 List of Tables Table 1: Current areas by age class and land base... 6 Table 2: Average annual harvest volumes and harvest areas Table 3: Current tree carbon Table 4: Current ecosystem carbon conditions Table 5: Base case tree carbon key statistics Table 6: CBM-CFS3 summary of ecosystem carbon over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Table 7: FORECAST summary of ecosystem carbon over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Table 8: Comparison of model output of total ecosystem carbon (without soil carbon) over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Table 9: Tree carbon; model and scenario comparison Table 10: Total ecosystem carbon; model and scenario comparison Table 11: Impact analysis; model and scenario comparison Table 12: Forest product breakdown and forest product half-lives Table 13: Fraction of carbon in products remaining in use viii

10 1.0 Introduction The goal of this project is to assist in the improvement of the stewardship of British Columbia s forest through the development of knowledge for sustainable forest carbon management. Forest managers are interested in forest carbon management because of their objectives to achieve good forest stewardship and to maintain certification in sustainable forest management (SFM). The Canadian Standards Association, as well as the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, requires that forest managers engaged in forest certification manage for forest carbon. Specifically, the Canadian Council of Forest Minister s Criteria 4, Forest Ecosystem Contributions to Global Ecological Cycles, states that one must maintain the processes that take carbon from the atmosphere and store it in forest ecosystems as well as protecting forestlands from deforestation or conversion of non-forests. In order for forest managers to learn and understand how to manage their forests for forest carbon at the same time as for timber and other non-timber values, it is critical to congregate existing information and provide forecasts of future forest conditions for resource assessment and trade-off. In general, a forest carbon-monitoring plan would entail two parts: 1. collection and aggregation of forest volume and growth and yield data (i.e. measurements) to support the determination of ecosystem carbon; and 2. forecasting total ecosystem carbon by using current inventory and forest depletions due to harvesting and natural disturbance, as well as integrating carbon data collected in the field. In developing this monitoring plan, this project provides, in the absence of field carbon measurements, an initial forecast of the tree carbon in the Invermere Timber Supply Area (TSA). Under a Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) plan, a base case is defined by current forest conditions and assumptions. For the Invermere TSA, the base case is documented in the Invermere Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Review #3 (TSR3), Analysis Report (Forsite Consultants Ltd., 2004). This analysis uses the base case as defined in TSR3. Carbon is recognized in the Sustainable Forest Management Plan Radium Defined Forest Area (Version 2.0) under the Criterion C 3. Forest ecosystem contributions to global ecological cycles are sustained within the DFA. There are 3 indicators for this criterion: 3-1. The total forest ecosystem biomass and carbon pool is sustained 3-2. The forest products carbon pool is maintained or increased 3-3. The processes that take carbon from the atmosphere and store it in forest ecosystems will be sustained. 1

11 While there was preliminary estimate and forecast of tree carbon within the SFM plan there was no provision for forest ecosystem carbon pools, forest product storage or carbon sequestration rates which have been addressed in this project. 2

12 2.0 Project Methodology and Objectives 2.1 Project Objectives The objectives of the project are: 1) To develop an accounting system of forest carbon in various carbon pools including: above ground biomass, below ground biomass, dead organic matter (snags, coarse woody debris and litter), and soils as outlined in the IPCC Report on Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (IPPC GPG-LULUCF, 2003); 2) To develop a knowledge base on the interactions and carbon transfers between different pools; 3) To predict current and future forest carbon conditions for the Invermere TSA; 4) To demonstrate the integration of forest carbon in resource analysis (like timber supply analysis and CSA forecasting) where scenario analyses such as the impact of harvesting and natural disturbance would be conducted; 5) To show how forest carbon conditions changes over spatial and temporal scales; 6) To develop linkages between forecasted results and the CSA/SFM framework (e.g. criteria and indicators, sustainable forest management plans, and monitoring guidelines); 7) To provide a reporting protocol on forest carbon conditions parallel to timber supply and CSA forecasting procedures. It should be noted that this reporting tool is limited to the carbon storage in terrestrial forest ecosystems. A full comprehensive carbon accounting system may include emissions from harvest and forest management activities, emissions from wood processing, as well as the carbon balance from aquatic and other non-forest ecosystems, which is beyond the scope of this project; and 8) To investigate carbon life cycle assumptions for forest products for Canfor and Tembec sawmills and account for that within overall carbon condition over time. 9) To compare the results of current and future carbon conditions based on three different approaches: using conversion factors-based carbon curves (Penner at al., 1997) tied to a timber supply model (Forest Simulation and Optimization System (FSOS)), and using ecosystem-based carbon curves (FORECAST) tied to a timber supply model (FSOS), and using the operational-scale Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3). The response of forest ecosystems to climate change and the associated carbon balance will not be addressed in this analysis. The issue of climate change is being addressed within the Ministry of Forests and Range through the Future Forest Ecosystems Initiative (FFEI), which under the current workplan ( is intended to: 3

13 1. better predict the impacts of climate on forest and range ecosystems; 2. identify critical issues; 3. modify and develop new management practices and policies needed to ensure adaptation to climate change; and 4. ensure, to the extent possible, that: i. work undertaken by ministry programs and external partners supports highest priority needs, ii. results are used to direct ministry activities, and iii. there is a strong FFEI communication effort to share emerging knowledge both within the ministry and with other stakeholders. Also, this report is not intended to investigate opportunities to increase carbon storage or provide for additionality in order to create marketable carbon offset project but to illustrate a reasonable projection of carbon stock and change considering current management within a broad range of future conditions. 4

14 3.0 Methods and Assumptions 3.1 Review of Phase I and Phase II Methods and Assumptions Phase I of this project estimated current and future carbon utilizing yield conversion factors (volume to biomass to carbon). Conversion factors only allow the estimation of carbon storage within trees; and do not provide estimates for other terrestrial carbon pools. The analysis utilized the Forest Simulation and Optimization System (FSOS), a spatial/temporal model developed by Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd. Phase I results were published on April 15, 2008 (Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd., 2008). The current Phase II project consists of developing additional estimates of current and future carbon conditions utilizing ecosystem-based carbon curves specially created for the Invermere TSA and rerunning the carbon analysis using FSOS. Additionally, a comparative analysis using the Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3, Version 1), was desired as an independent assessment of current and future carbon conditions. 3.2 Background With expert advice from university, government and other consultants, we have developed a forest carbon knowledge base, which we apply to timber supply modelling to predict forest carbon and other resource value conditions. Carbon forecasting consists of a three-stage process: 1. Develop a landscape-level dataset [resultant dataset] containing forest inventory and resource management data (e.g. the timber supply model); and 2. Develop a stand-level carbon attribute database; and 3. Link the stand-level data to a landscape-level timber supply model and run scenarios. For ease of comparison and summary forecasting results are presented in this report for the Invermere TSA for the Crown Forested Land Base (CFLB) as well as the current Timber Harvesting Land Base (THLB) and the current Non-Harvestable Land Base (NHLB) are also reported. All analysis results are based on the current land base designation. More detailed base case ecosystem carbon by pool, sequestration rates and carbon in products are reported separately for the Invermere DFA (Canfor and BCTS) and the Canal Flats DFA (Tembec) and are provided in Appendix Land base designation Carbon forecasting for this project is based on a dataset provided by Canfor, which in turn is based on a copy of the TSR3 resultant dataset developed by Forsite Consultants Ltd. (2004). FESL then updated the resultant with depletion, reserve and 5

15 road data provided by Canfor (current to March 2007). Throughout this document, the expressions current or years from now refer to March Guided by TSR3, the timber harvesting land base (THLB) netdown was repeated to establish the current CFLB, NHLB and THLB. As compared to TSR 3, the CFLB area increased slightly from 554,650 to 561,773 hectares, which is mostly caused by the fact that the analysis dataset contains 7,789 hectares less of Non-Forest or Non-Productive forest than the TSR3 dataset. The THLB area actually decreased by 9,057 hectares to 224,816 hectares from 233,873 hectares as calculated for TSR3. The most significant difference in the determination of the THLB is that the current dataset contains an additional 9,788 hectares of Federal Parks, Provincial Parks and Reserves. The current NHLB area, defined as the difference between the CFLB and the THLB, is 336,958 hectares. The results of the TSR3 netdown and of the current netdown are presented in Appendix 1. To characterize current conditions, summaries of age class by land base are presented in Table 1 and in Figure 1. Appendix 2 provides further detail on the current age class breakdown by including analysis units. Table 1: Current areas by age class and land base Area (ha) Area (%) Ageclass THLB NHLB CFLB THLB NHLB CFLB 1 30, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , All 224, , , % 60.0% 100.0% The current THLB represents 40% of the total forested area in the Invermere TSA, while the NHLB represents the remaining 60%. 6

16 Current Age Class Distribution Percent THLB NHLB CFLB Age Class Figure 1: Current age class breakdown by land base 3.4 Timber Supply Model The resultant dataset is compiled using a Geographic Information System (GIS), and is therefore inherently spatial. For modelling purposes the resultant data is converted into a stand-alone database table therefore, it is always possible to view the results of a timber supply analysis, such as harvest schedules or carbon densities, spatially. Prior to data loading, the land base designation is determined, and along with current management assumptions which designate current forest conditions. Current management assumptions are management unit specific, and include: Areas excluded from harvest: define the timber harvesting land base by excluding areas from harvest (i.e. inoperable areas and areas managed for other non-timber values such as parks and cultural heritage resources, etc.), Harvest rules: sets utilization limits and minimum harvest age criteria by analysis units, and establishes a harvest priority, Regeneration assumptions: describes the current basic silviculture program for the Invermere TSA including the silviculture regime and regeneration delay as applied in the model, Management of forest cover: achieve old seral stage targets and visual quality objectives, Natural Disturbances: natural disturbances are considered in both the non-harvesting land base and the timber harvesting land base as non-recovered losses (see Section 0 of this document for additional information on natural disturbance assumptions). 7

17 For more details on timber supply and resource management assumptions, readers are referred to the TSR3 analysis report (Forsite Consultants Ltd., 2004). The timber supply model used for this project is the Forest Simulation and Optimization System (FSOS). FSOS is a forest and landscape-level tool used for evaluating the impacts of harvesting, forest management, silvicultural practices, and/or natural disturbance on forest growth and resources over time (Liu et al.1999, 2000 and 2001). FSOS has been used on over 24 management units from small (<15,000 hectares) to very large (10 million hectares) forest areas across Canada. FSOS has been accepted for use in timber supply analysis by the chief forester in BC. It has also been used for timber supply analysis and spatial harvest allocations in two management units in Ontario totalling several million hectares. 3.5 Stand-level Models The stand-level models (VDYP and TIPSY) and associated yield curvest used in this analysis are the same as those used in the Invermere Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Review #3 Analysis Report (Forsite Consultants Ltd., 2004). The analysis units were developed to represent the inventory within the Invermere TSA and were based on leading species, site productivity and slope class. Transition pathways which were also assigned based on TSR 3 assumptions, enable models to estimate timber flow, stand volumes and carbon stored over time after harvesting or natural disturbances. 3.6 Linkage between Stand- and Landscape-Level Models The stratification of the forest inventory into analysis units provides a direct linkage between the inventory data, yield curves and carbon curves within FSOS. This linkage allows the model to track carbon over time similar to tracking stand volume over time. If total ecosystem carbon storage is modelled, transition pathways have to be very carefully considered since total ecosystem carbon storage is a continuous variable that cannot easily be reset like merchantable volume following harvest. In the case of harvesting, the biomass retained in the branches, foliage and sub-merchantable component would likely remain on site and decay over time, meaning that the carbon content of the new stand would not start at 0. Natural disturbance events, other than catastrophic forest fires, would behave similarly in terms of carbon remaining on site. Phase I of this project provided estimated aboveground tree carbon based on yield conversion factors. The associated Phase I assumptions therefore implied that carbon storage resets to zero following a harvest or natural disturbance transition. Phase II provides estimates for total ecosystem carbon, which is composed of the total of tree biomass, understory plant biomass, coarse woody debris biomass, litter biomass and humus (Blanco, J. A., 2009). For the Phase II analysis only the tree biomass resets to zero following a harvest-based transition however, the carbon stored in branches, foliage and other non-merchantable components remain on-site following harvest and would be 8

18 added to one or more of the other carbon pools tracked by the ecosystem-based carbon curves. Appendix 3 provides an overview of natural and managed stand analysis units used for this project, complete with a listing of stand composition that was used to compile age- and site class- specific biomass estimates on a per hectare basis. Each analysis unit also includes an estimate of the area-weighted average site index (based on the current inventory) and a transition pathway, which was used to determine the analysis unit that the stand will convert to following harvest (e.g. to a managed or natural stand condition). 3.7 Disturbance Assumptions Both anthropogenic and natural disturbances occur in the Invermere TSA. The dominant harvesting method is clear-cutting. Natural disturbance mechanisms such as fire, insects, and disease are constantly occurring throughout the Invermere TSA. Natural disturbances can occur as small, common events (endemic) as well as extreme, significant events (epidemic) both at the stand and landscape levels. The predominant natural disturbances in the TSA are fire and mountain pine beetle, which were modelled using the following methods. These assumptions were maintained given that the chief forester postponed the AAC determination for the Invermere TSA under Section (MOFR 2008). 1. As a reduction to the volume harvested in the timber supply model, as defined by a non-recoverable loss, and by setting harvesting priorities rules the premise is that historically these disturbances have occurred and if data is available over a period of time (5 or 10 years), the volume that is not fully salvaged or recovered following the disturbance is applied as an annual average volume reduction. For the Invermere TSA, this reduction amounts to 24,327 m 3 /year, and addresses the volume loss associated with significant events [TSR3 Data Package, Section 6.0: Unsalvaged losses]. The figure of 24,327 m 3 /year includes a loss of 16,320 m 3 /year due to insect attack, predominantly mountain pine beetle [Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopk]. To account for the likelihood of further mountain pine beetle spread, and to minimize the associated future losses of mature pine, FSOS allows the assignment of a high harvest priority to mature lodgepole pine leading stands [TSR3 Data Package, Section 8.4: Harvest Priorities and Rules]. With regards to the AAC postponement, the chief forester states that the mountain pine beetle infestation has not been as severe in the Invermere TSA and the licensees have been aggressively harvesting attacked stands within the current harvest level (MOFR 2008). 2. As a reduction to each stand to account for small disturbances the premise is that small stand level disturbances occur within a given stand type which can be linked to the yield curve and analysis unit. These reductions are typically applied in the development of the yield curves and account for a stand level reduction associated with the disturbance that is expected to occur. 9

19 3. As a modelled assumption whereby old stands break down and regenerate into young stands this is a key assumption modelled as Natural Disturbance of areas outside the THLB, or within the NHLB. Landscape-level targets apply to the CFLB area of landscape units, which include the THLB. To avoid the continued ageing of the NHLB, which can essentially remove any landscape constraints within the THLB, approximation of natural disturbance within the NHLB portion of the landscape unit needs to be applied. Natural disturbance in this project has been modelled following the criteria listed in Section : Disturbance of Areas Outside the THLB, of the TSR3 Data Package. For the baseline scenario, following harvest, it is assumed that carbon stored in harvested biomass is released (no storage in forest products) while residual slash from harvesting is left on the site to decompose. In the case of natural disturbance by fire and mountain pine beetle, a proportion of the above ground biomass and litter is immediately released back into the atmosphere while the remainder is left on site and transferred to the dead organic matter pools (snags, logs and litter). The assumption that carbon stored in harvested biomass is immediately released back into the atmosphere is consistent with the Kyoto Protocol, while the forest products scenario tests the effects of carbon storage within forest products. This scenario does not provide for full accounting of emissions based on harvest and transportation of forest products. It is understood that the assumptions proposed for natural disturbance are but one approach, which has been used for TSR purposes but is not the only possible methodology. Scenarios should be reviewed at least every five years to ensure that if a significant disturbance event has occurred, the carbon balance would be adjusted to reflect the impact of the disturbance. It is expected that this work could be incorporated into future timber supply reviews or SFM related forecasting efforts and not undertaken as a separate forecasting project. 3.8 Scenario Description The following three harvest scenarios were suggested for this project: Base Case, Maximum Harvest and No Harvest. As closely as possible, the scenario assumptions as described in TSR3 were applied to the scenario analyses in this project. As for TSR3, the non-recoverable annual timber loss of 24,327 m 3 in the THLB has been deducted from the target harvest flow, and the figures presented in the text that follows represent actual harvest levels (target harvest flow non-recoverable losses). Base Case 1 : This scenario best represents current forest conditions and management strategies within the Invermere TSA. The initial actual harvest level for this project is 581,570 m 3 /year, which represents the current allowable annual cut (AAC). 1 The base case definition used in this analysis reflects the base case commonly used in timber supply and SFM forecasting to represent the current and future forest conditions as a result of current management. This differs from the base case commonly used in the Kyoto Protocol context, in which the base case/base line refers to carbon balance in 1990 for a specific area. 10

20 Starting in period 17 (i.e. in 85 years), and maintained throughout the remainder of the 250-year planning horizon, the long-term harvest level can be increased by 50,000 m 3 /year to 631,570 m 3 /year. These harvest flow projections differ somewhat from TSR3 where the base case scenario maintained the current AAC for 30 years, after which the harvest levels declined to a low of 542,570 m 3 /year; after 100 years, the long-term harvest level climbed to 621,570 m 3 /year. Maximum Harvest: This scenario is intended to demonstrate the impact of increased harvesting on the total ecosystem carbon balance over time. For this scenario all forest cover constraints were removed while non-spatial, in-block wildlife tree patches and other reserves including riparian management areas were maintained. Under maximum harvest assumptions, the harvest level starts at 671,570 m 3 /year (an increase of 90,000 m 3 /year over base case assumptions). Starting in period 25 (i.e. in 125 years) and maintained throughout the remainder of the planning horizon, the long-term harvest level is increased by an additional 10,000 m 3 /year to 681,570 m 3 /year. This is intended to represent the theoretical maximum future harvest potential. No Harvest with Natural Disturbance: In this scenario, harvesting ceases in the THLB, but natural disturbance events previously absent from the THLB are now applied. Natural disturbance events are area-based and based on our timber supply analysis; approximately 1,260 hectares of forest stands are, on average, naturally disturbed every year in the NHLB (compared with 1,252 hectares in section of the TSR3 Data Package). This converted to an annual disturbance percentage of (annually disturbed NHLB area/total NHLB area), which, when applied to the THLB, approximates that under no harvest assumptions 821 hectares/year of THLB should be disturbed. Natural disturbance is modeled using the assumption that stands would naturally reach senescence, die (due to old age, be consumed by fire, attacked by beetles etc.) and regenerate naturally (i.e. these stands would be reset to age zero on the growth curves). This is achieved by utilizing a script that randomly disturbs a predetermined area within each natural disturbance type/landscape unit. Therefore, natural disturbance afflicts all ages. In summary, this scenario provides an approximation of the total ecosystem carbon balance when timber harvesting is absent. The harvest flow for the various scenarios, including the TSR3 base case scenario, is shown in Figure 2. 11

21 Harvest Flow Comparison 800, ,000 Forecasted Harvest (m3/yr) 600, , , , , ,000 0 TSR3 Base Case Base Case No Harvest Maximum Harvest Period Figure 2: Harvest flow for the base case, no harvest and maximum harvest scenarios, and comparison to the TSR3 base case It is noted that the base case harvest flow as established for TSR3 could not be duplicated for this analysis. While the short-term and the long-term harvest flow is almost identical, differences exist for the mid-term. Considering that the THLB for this analysis was 8,890 hectares smaller than for TSR3, we would have expected harvest flow levels to be reduced. Given that we were able to maintain harvest flow at a higher level throughout the mid-term might indicate slight differences in the dataset and assumptions between this analysis and the TSR3 analysis; however the differences could not be exactly identified. Harvest flow was the only timber supply indicator for which our analysis reported significant differences; all other indicators such as forecasted average harvest age, forecasted average harvest volume by hectare, and forecasted annual harvest area in hectares were very similar to the corresponding figures as published by TSR Project and Model Review One of the objectives of this project is to compare the results of current and future carbon conditions based on three different approaches: analysis using conversion factorsbased carbon curves (Penner at al., 1997), ecosystem-based carbon curves (FORECAST) and the use of the operational-scale carbon budget model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3). Model input assumptions and model output results differ, and may not be directly comparable. 12

22 Phase I of this project was carried out in the spring of 2008 (Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd. 2008), utilizing a set of carbon curves developed from data published by the Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre (Penner at al., 1997). Volume as presented in the yield tables (supplied by TSR3) was converted to biomass. A carbon content of 42% was assumed as an average value for estimating carbon content of green biomass (Brady and Weil, 2002). Current and future carbon conditions for all scenarios (using conversion factors and FORECAST) were modeled using FSOS, and the results are therefore directly tied to the results of the timber supply analysis as presented in the previous section. FORECAST carbon curves were developed specifically for the Invermere TSA, and allow tracking of total ecosystem carbon in the following carbon pools: trees, understory plants, coarse woody debris (CWD), litter and soil. A carbon content of 50% is assumed for all pools with the exception of the soil pool where 45% is assumed (Blanco, J. A., 2009). The tree carbon pool includes the belowground root biomass, and the litter carbon pool includes the belowground biomass remaining on-site after either a harvesting or natural disturbance event. 2 Current and future carbon conditions for all scenarios were modeled using FSOS, thereby linking with the timber supply projection as presented in the previous section. The analysis was carried out in the spring of 2009 as part of Phase II. CBM-CFS3 assumptions, and descriptions of the output data are documented in the user guide (Kull et al, 2007). The CBM-CFS3 analysis was carried out in the spring of 2009 as part of Phase II. Various carbon pools are tracked by CBM; however, not all are directly comparable to the carbon pools reported by FORECAST. Key differences are that the understory carbon pool is not included with CBM, and that the litter component does not include belowground biomass remaining on-site after either a harvesting or natural disturbance event. Also, CBM-CFS3 analysis results do not specifically provide carbon for CWD but does include a deadwood carbon pool including snags. A direct comparison is possible for the soil and the tree carbon pools. CBM-CFS3 separately tracks the root biomass, which has been calculated as a constant 18% of total tree biomass for all ages. FSOS input assumptions and model output (most notable the harvest schedule) have been used as CBM-CFS3 model input thereby approximating the TSR3 base case scenario FSOS - Conversion factor carbon curves (Phase I) The following limitations were identified with the Phase I results. 2 Based on a personal conversion with Brad Seely (ForRx Consulting Inc.) on March 24, This corrects a statement made in ForRx s documentation on the development of the carbon curves (Blanco, J. A., 2009, Section 5). This section stated that the carbon curves submitted for the tree carbon pool represented aboveground tree biomass calculated as the sum of stem, bark, branches and foliage biomass for all species. 13

23 1. Conversion factors are based on yield curves; therefore, estimates for current and future carbon conditions are available for the aboveground tree carbon pool only Ecosystem carbon sequestration analysis was not possible. This is because ecosystem carbon sequestration, which balances carbon losses via decomposition of dead organic matter against carbon gains via biomass growth, requires access to additional carbon pool data which are not available using conversion factors. Carbon estimates based on growth and yield data, which predict merchantable volume, tend to underestimate the total aboveground tree carbon pool. This is because the effective yield of young stands (stands in age classes 1 and 2) tends to be zero (as is the case with the yield tables for the Invermere TSR3 analysis). Therefore, the carbon stored in young stands without merchantable volume is usually not accounted for if the carbon analysis is based on conversion factors. However, the particular approach used for the 2008 Phase I analysis includes biomass estimates for the sub-merchantable component. In some cases, the biomass in the sub-merchantable component is considerable 4 (for an example, see Appendix 4: Conversion Factor Tree Carbon Data, Analysis Unit 112). To eliminate discrepancies from Phase I and to verify the results, the calculation of carbon based on conversion factors was revised. When Phase II was initiated, the results of Phase I were reviewed and a number of issues were identified (Appendix 5). These issues were addressed and tested against the original Phase I results. Overall, the differences between the original and the revised Phase I results were minor. In addition to the minor adjustments documented in Appendix 5, the following changes were made in order to make Phase I results more directly comparable to Phase II analysis results: the carbon curves were adjusted to reflect a 50% carbon content in the predicted biomass. Also, an additional 18% carbon content was added to the reported results to account for the root biomass, which represents the average of the observed range (pers. comm. Brad Seely, March 24, 2009). This is consistent with the percentage 3 The Phase I analysis provided estimates for the following carbon pools: stem wood, stem bark, branches, foliage and a sub-merchantable component (biomass of trees too small to harvest). The analysis excludes the biomass associated with roots. Based on a personal conversion with Brad Seely (ForRx Consulting Inc.) on March 24, 2009, the root biomass usually constitutes between 16 and 20 percent of the total tree biomass. Phase I results were adjusted after the model runs by 18% to account for the carbon stored in the root biomass. 4 On a landscape level, the biomass associated with young forest stands that yield no merchantable volume depends upon a number of variables related to forest management practices, and is highly variable as a consequence. Brad Seely estimated the sub-merchantable component at approximately 10% of total tree biomass (based on a personal conversation on March 24, 2009). For this project, the percentage of the submerchantable component of total tree biomass for current conditions was calculated at 13% for the THLB, 3.8% for the NHLB and 6.7% for the CFLB. The conversion factor tree carbon data has been double checked to verify that the large sub-merchantable component calculated for some analysis units is not due to an error in calculation. 14

24 of root biomass of total tree biomass as used by CBM-CFS3. All references to Phase I results in this document refer to the revised model runs FSOS - FORECAST carbon curves (Phase II) A key component of the Phase II project is to determine total ecosystem carbon storage, by utilizing ecosystem-based carbon curves. ForRx Consulting Inc. use the FORECAST model to create ecosystem based stand level projections for various ecosystem attributes including carbon pool projections. FORECAST provides total forest ecosystem carbon projections by analysis unit for total tree, understory plants, coarse woody debris, litter and soil carbon pools. FORECAST uses a hybrid mdoelling approach whereby local growth and yield data (often from TASS/TIPSY) are utilized to derive estimates of the rates of key ecosystem processes related to the productivity and resource requirements of selected species. While ForRx followed as closely as possible TSR3 assumptions, some differences are noted. Those differences relate mostly to the average composition of analysis units in terms of species composition, and to a reduction of the number of analysis units (analysis units that differed only in terms of slope class have been grouped; some transitions have also been modified). ForRx s documentation (Blanco, J. A., 2009) is included as Appendix CBM-CFS3 (Phase II) Modelling the three harvest scenarios in CBM-CFS3 was carried out as four distinct model runs. Modeling the natural disturbance assumptions for the NHLB represents one project (the NHLB is unaffected by the various harvest scenario assumptions as no harvest takes place in the NHLB). The other three model runs applied the three scenarios in the THLB. In order to summarize results for the CFLB, the NHLB model run results were combined with the THLB scenarios. To model disturbance in CBM-CFS3, disturbance events are loaded in the form of a disturbance table. This table contains a Measurement Type column that accept disturbance input as area disturbed, proportion disturbed or merchantable carbon (in tonnes per hectare). CBM-CFS3 does not accept volume as an input to the disturbance table, as reported for the Base Case and Maximum Harvest scenarios for FSOS runs. However, FSOS also provides harvest area reporting and the results for all scenario runs were summarized as area disturbed (or harvested) by 5 year period and analysis unit. This periodic data was then used as the input into the disturbance table for the CBM- CFS3 model runs. Table 2 lists volume and area harvested or naturally disturbed annually, based on a summary of FSOS model output. Stratified by analysis units, an average area harvested or naturally disturbed by period was used as the data input for the disturbance tables for 15

25 the various CBM-CFS3 runs (FSOS applies disturbances by period; therefore, disturbance events have been entered by period to CBM-CFS3 as well). 5 Table 2: Average annual harvest volumes and harvest areas Average volume annually harvested or disturbed (m 3 ) Scenario THLB NHLB Base Case 633, ,518.2 Maximum Harvest 691, ,518.2 No Harvest 274, ,518.2 Average area annually harvested or disturbed (ha) THLB NHLB Base Case 2, ,260.1 Maximum Harvest 2, ,260.1 No Harvest ,260.1 Average area annually harvested or disturbed (% of THLB or NHLB) THLB NHLB Base Case Maximum Harvest No Harvest In addition to providing the various input data in specified input formats, CBM- CFS3 requires the user to map input data to pre-defined classes, and to specify the geographic location (terrestrial ecozone) of the project dataset. The Montane Cordillera in British Columbia was chosen as the terrestrial ecozone. All disturbances were mapped as clear-cut harvesting (i.e. harvesting in the THLB, all natural disturbances in the NHLB, and all natural disturbances in the THLB under no harvest scenario assumptions). Species were mapped as a special classifier: Fir was mapped to alpine fir, spruce to Engelmann spruce, pine to lodgepole pine, larch to tamarack/larch, hemlock to western hemlock, cedar to cedar and Douglas fir to Douglas fir. 5 Disturbance events were applied in the middle of each period in FSOS and at the end of the period for the CBM-CFS3 runs. 16

26 4.0 Current Carbon Conditions This section presents the results of current tree carbon conditions in the Invermere TSA for the three modeling approaches used. This is followed by an overview of the current total ecosystem carbon conditions, as modeled using FORECAST and CBM- CFS3 assumptions and data. The information presented in this section relates to measure : estimated amount of carbon stored in trees in the CFLB. 4.1 Current Tree Carbon Table 3 illustrates the respective amounts of total current tree carbon for the Invermere TSA (in megatonnes, tonnes/ha and in % by land base) for the various approaches used. Table 3: Current tree carbon Land base Conversion Factor * (Revised) FORECAST CBM-CFS3 Average Carbon (MT) by land base THLB NHLB CFLB Carbon (t/ha) by land base THLB NHLB CFLB Carbon (%) by land base THLB NHLB CFLB * Includes the sub-merchantable component (percentages have been reported in footnote 4); in addition, the figures listed have been adjusted by 18% to account for the root biomass Depending on the modeling approach used, the Invermere CFLB ranges between 39.1 and 51.3 megatons (MT) or million tonnes of carbon within the CFLB tree carbon pool, while the current tree carbon pool for the THLB has a calculated range between 13.5 and 18.0 MT. These figures convert to between 69.6 and 91.4 tonnes of carbon per hectare in the CFLB, and 60.1 to 80.1 tonnes of carbon per hectare in the THLB. On a per hectare basis, the amount of carbon stored in the forests of the NHLB is larger than in the THLB, reflecting the differences in age class structure (Figure 1). The differences, expressed as a percent increase in tree carbon for the NHLB over the THLB are on average 29%, ranging from 17.6% for CBM-CFS3 to 48.7% for the conversion factor approach. 17

27 In terms of distribution by land base, between 31.0 and 36.2% of tree carbon is stored in the THLB, which accounts for 40.0 %of the CFLB (Table 1). For the CFLB, FORECAST predicts the largest tree carbon pool and CBM- CFS3 the smallest. In the THLB, FORECAST predicts the largest tree carbon pool and the conversion factor approach the smallest. In the CFLB and in terms of percentage difference, the conversion factor approach is 11.5% higher, and the FORECAST model 31.2% more total tree carbon as compared to CBM-CFS3. In the THLB, the percentage differences if compared to CBM-CFS3 are 4.6% for the conversion factor-based approach and 27.2% for FORECAST. 4.2 Current Total Ecosystem Carbon Table 4 illustrates total ecosystem carbon by each land base and carbon pool for the FORECAST and the CBM-CFS3 modeling approaches only, as the conversion factor-based approach does not predict total ecosystem carbon. A description of the various carbon pools is provided in Section 3.9. The information in this section relates to Measure carbon stored in non-tree vegetation. This is expanded to include the full forest ecosystem carbon pools. Table 4: Current ecosystem carbon conditions Model Land base Tree Understory Litter and CWD or Deadwood Soil Total Carbon without Soil Total Carbon with Soil Carbon (MT) FORECAST THLB FORECAST NHLB FORECAST CFLB CBM-CFS3 THLB CBM-CFS3 NHLB CBM-CFS3 CFLB Carbon (t/ha) FORECAST THLB FORECAST NHLB FORECAST CFLB CBM-CFS3 THLB CBM-CFS3 NHLB CBM-CFS3 CFLB Table 4 provides two total ecosystem carbon totals, one excluding and one including the soil carbon pool. Since predictions for the soil carbon pool from the CBM- 18

28 CFS3 model are about 150% higher than from FORECAST, a comparison of total ecosystem carbon including soil carbon would be ambiguous. Including the soil carbon pool, the total current ecosystem carbon in the CFLB is MT for FORECAST and MT for CBM-CFS3. In the THLB, the total current ecosystem carbon is 42.0 MT and 61.4 MT, respectively; and in the NHLB the total current ecosystem carbon is 63.7 MT and 85.3 MT, respectively. These figures translate to very consistent per hectare figures by land base. Overall the FORECAST model predicts about 188 tonnes of carbon per hectare for all land base units; CBM-CFS3 predicts between and tonnes of carbon per hectare depending on the land base. The litter and CWD (FORECAST) or deadwood (CBM-CFS3) carbon pools have been combined for reporting. The prediction made by the two models for the combined carbon pools are very similar to each other. In the THLB and NHLB, FORECAST predicts 9.2 MT and 10.5 MT and CBM-CFS3 9.3 MT and 11.8 MT, respectively. The understory carbon pool is very small, representing about ½ percent of total ecosystem carbon in the FORECAST model. Less than 1 ton of carbon is recorded for all land base units in the Invermere TSA. Even though, levels are about 40% higher in the THLB, this reflects the fact that the forests in the THLB are in younger age classes (Table 1). 19

29 5.0 Base Case Scenario This section presents projected future carbon base case conditions for the Invermere TSA. Analysis results are compared using the CBM-CFS3 output as the baseline with minimum and maximum achieved values recorded for each period. With the exception of period 0, which represents current condition, each period represents 5 years. Values presented represent the mid point of each period. As discussed in Section 0, disturbance events for the CBM-CFS3 model runs were inadvertently applied at the end of each 5-year period, which will provide for some differences when comparing results with the CBM-CFS3 model runs. 5.1 Tree Carbon Figure 3 illustrates the forecast of tree carbon over the 250-year analysis horizon for the CBM-CFS3 model run. This information relates to the forecasting and probable trends of Measure 3-1.1: estimated amount of carbon stored in trees. Tree Carbon (CBM-CFS3) Carbon (MT) CFLB NHLB THLB Period Figure 3: Tree carbon as forecasted by CBM-CFS3; base case scenario Tree carbon for the THLB, NHLB and the CFLB is forecasted to achieve maximum values in period 1. Note that the data in Figure 3 is total tree carbon values for each land base not cumulative values. 20

30 Tree carbon in the THLB declines after reaching its maximum value of 14.5 MT in period 1 and the minimum value of 11.8 MT in period 23 and eventually increases again to 13.1 MT in period 50. For the NHLB, tree carbon also achieves its maximum value in period 1 at 25.2 MT. After that, CBM-CFS3 predicts a continued decline almost to the end of the analysis horizon (period 47) where the minimum of 22.0 MT is achieved. The average decline in tree carbon between periods 2 to 47 is approximately 0.07 MT/yr and from period 48 onwards, tree carbon in the NHLB increases minimally. For the CFLB, CBM-CFS3 predicts minimum tree carbon for both period 24 and 39 at 34.4 MT. Following period 39, CFLB related tree carbon increases again and is forecasted to reach 35.2 MT in period 50. Table 5 provides the key statistics for tree carbon from the base case scenario for all three models used. Model Table 5: Base case tree carbon key statistics Land Base Current Carbon (MT) Minimum Carbon (MT) Maximum Carbon (MT) Period at Minimum Period at Maximum Difference between Minimum and Current Carbon (%) Difference between Maximum and Current Carbon (%) CBM-CFS3 THLB (16.8) 2.2 CBM-CFS3 NHLB (11.8) 0.9 CBM-CFS3 CFLB /39 1 (12.1) 1.4 FORECAST THLB (35.4) 0.0 FORECAST NHLB (10.3) 2.2 FORECAST CFLB (17.7) 0.4 Conv. Factor THLB (23.9) 0.0 Conv. Factor NHLB (12.1) 4.2 Conv. Factor CFLB (12.7) 0.1 While the prediction of absolute tree carbon differs between models, the models do exhibit similar carbon dynamic trends. 1. All three models forecast tree carbon in the CFLB to be at its maximum value in period Current tree carbon in the THLB represents maximum conditions for the FSOS based model runs; while the CBM-CFS3 model predicts the maximum condition in period 1, which is likely a result of scheduling disturbances events at the end of the period versus the mid point. 21

31 3. Percentage differences between maximum and current carbon for the various model runs exhibit a relatively narrow range with the largest percentage difference being 4.2% for the NHLB based on the conversion factor model. 4. The percentage difference between minimum and current carbon in the NHLB is almost identical for all three models (11.8, 10.3 and 12.1%, respectively). Minimum values are reached towards the very end of the planning horizon, in periods 47 and 49, respectively. This illustrates a similarity in relative carbon change over time. 5. The percentage difference between minimum and current carbon in the THLB is more pronounced. They are smallest for CBM-CFS3 at 6.8% and largest for FORECAST at 35.4%. Minimum values are generally achieved halfway through the analysis horizon between 90 and 115 years, respectively. Figure 4 shows the forecasted percentage difference in tree carbon for the three land bases over the 250-year analysis horizon comparing the conversion factor-based model and CBM-CFS3. Figure 4 measures the percentage difference between tree carbon levels as predicted by the two models. The shape of the curves illustrates the rate of change exhibited. A flat line indicates that the relative difference in model output remains unchanged from one period to the other. A descending curve indicates that CBM-CFS3 predicts either gains in tree carbon that outpace the gains predicted by the alternate model, or losses that occur slower than losses predicted by the alternate model. Comparison of tree carbon as forecasted by Conversion Factor and CBM-CFS3 Increase or Decrease (%) (10) (20) C.F. THLB C.F. NHLB C.F. CFLB Period Figure 4: Comparison of tree carbon as forecasted by Conversion Factor and CBM-CFS3; base case scenario Since the CFLB is the sum of the NHLB and the THLB, the curve for the relative difference in tree carbon for the CFLB between the two models reflects the 22

32 characteristics of both the THLB and the NHLB curves, though the influence of the NHLB will be more significant as it represents 60% of the total CFLB. For the THLB, CBM-CFS3 forecasts tree carbon levels that are on average about 10% above the levels predicted by the conversion factor model. For current tree carbon, the difference between the two model predictions is approximately 4.5%, which also represents the minimum difference while the largest difference of 16.5% occurs during period 17. Current NHLB tree carbon, based on the conversion factor model is 20.6% above CBM-CFS3 levels with the largest difference of almost 34.1% occurring at period 13; and after that, the relative difference in tree carbon forecasted gradually reaches 20% by the end of the analysis horizon. At no point does the conversion factor model predict lower values for tree carbon in the NHLB than CBM-CFS3, since the curve never crosses 0% on the y-axis. Figure 5 illustrates the forecasted percentage difference of tree carbon for the three land base units over the 250-year planning horizon by comparing the FORECAST and CBM-CFS3 model results. Comparison of tree carbon as forecasted by FORECAST and CBM-CFS3 Increase or Decrease (%) (10) (20) FORECAST THLB FORECAST NHLB FORECAST CFLB Period Figure 5: Comparison of tree carbon as forecasted by FORECAST and CBM-CFS3; base case scenario THLB tree carbon predicted by the FORECAST model is currently 27.2% above the level forecasted by CBM-CFS3 and although exhibiting a higher starting point, tree carbon then declines rapidly with the FORECAST model to period 16 where both 23

33 models report equivalent tree carbon levels (about 12.2 MT) until period 25. Following period 25, CBM-CFS3 exhibits higher levels of tree carbon than FORECAST for the remainder of the analysis horizon fluctuating between 2 and 10%. In the NHLB, FORECAST predictions are that current tree carbon is 33.5% above the CBM-CFS3 level with the differences increasing up to period 13, when FORECAST records 44.9% more carbon than CBM-CFS3. After this point, the relative difference in tree carbon starts to decline slightly; however, tree carbon predicted by the FORECAST model remains significantly higher at approximately 35% over CBM- CFS3 levels. Figure 6 provides a comparison of forecasted THLB tree carbon relative to corresponding current condition over the 250-year planning horizon for each model. Data points are calculated as: Future THLB Tree Carbon / Current THLB Tree Carbon 1.20 THLB Tree Carbon relative to current levels 1.00 % of Current Carbon CBM THLB C. F. THLB FORECAST THLB Period Figure 6: Comparison of future THLB tree carbon, relative to current levels; base case scenario Figure 6 illustrates that current THLB tree carbon levels are at or near the maximum condition under base case assumptions and further shows that the general trend for THLB tree carbon is relatively similar for all three models with THLB tree carbon levels declining for about 20 periods (or 100 years), before increasing again. FORECAST predicts the largest drop in tree carbon (Table 5), as well that the losses to THLB tree carbon are more or less permanent as the increase that follows is minimal. The least change in THLB tree carbon is associated with CBM-CFS3 with tree carbon increasing in period 1 before declining 16.8% by period 23. At the end of the 24

34 planning horizon, THLB tree carbon levels are forecasted to climb to 87% of their current level. Following the first 25 years, the conversion factor model THLB tree carbon projection trends in between the projections from CBM-CFS3 and FORECAST. Figure 7 compares forecasted NHLB tree carbon relative to corresponding current condition over the 250-year planning horizon for each model. Data points were calculated as: Future NHLB Tree Carbon / Current NHLB Tree Carbon NHLB Tree Carbon relative to current levels % of Current Carbon CBM NHLB C.F. NHLB FORECAST NHLB Period Figure 7: Comparison of future NHLB tree carbon, relative to current levels; base case scenario Future tree carbon levels in the NHLB follow a similar trend for both the FSOS model based runs (FORECAST and conversion factor) while the CBM-CFS3 run is quite different. NHLB tree carbon levels are forecasted to climb between 2% and 5% for the FSOS-based model runs reaching the maximum condition in period 9 then declining to 90% of current levels throughout the analysis horizon. While FORECAST predicts slightly lower increases over current condition as compared to the conversion factor approach, the decline after period 9 is less pronounced. FORECAST NHLB tree carbon levels surpass conversion factor model tree carbon levels in period 30. CBM-CFS3 forecasts declining NHLB tree carbon over the entire planning horizon. The decline is gradual, but continuous reaching slightly less than 90% of current levels. Figure 8 provides a comparison of forecasted CFLB tree carbon relative to corresponding current condition over the 250-year planning horizon for each model. Data points are were calculated as: 25

35 Future CFLB Tree Carbon / Current CFLB Tree Carbon CFLB Tree Carbon Levels relative to current levels % of Current Carbon CBM CFLB C.F. CFLB FORECAST CFLB Period Figure 8: Comparison of future NHLB tree carbon, relative to current levels; base case scenario Variations from current tree carbon levels in the CFLB for all models follow very similar trends over the entire planning horizon. FORECAST predicts the largest overall changes with tree carbon levels at the end of the planning horizon projected at 84% of current levels while the conversion factor and the CBM-CFS3 runs predict tree carbon levels somewhat higher (at 89% and 90%), by the end of the planning horizon. For the first 10 periods, CBM-CFS3 and FORECAST CFLB tree carbon levels are almost identical. After period 10, CBM-CFS3 forecasts a slight increase in relative CFLB tree carbon levels, and starting at period 28, CBM-CFS3 and the conversion factor model predict almost identical CFLB tree carbon levels. Overall, the conversion factor model predicts the highest CFLB tree carbon levels relative to current conditions, and FORECAST the lowest. Apart from a minor increase of CFLB tree carbon in period 1 for the CBM-CFS3 run, future CFLB tree carbon never exceed current levels. 5.2 Total Ecosystem Carbon This section describes the forecasted total ecosystem carbon for the FORECAST and the CBM-CFS3 model results. The information in this section relates to the forecasting and probable trends of Measure 3-1.2: estimate carbon in non-tree vegetation. Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11 illustrate total ecosystem carbon for the THLB, the NHLB and the CFLB for CBM-CFS3, while Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate total ecosystem carbon for the THLB, the NHLB and the CFLB for FORECAST. 26

36 Total Ecosystem Carbon in the THLB - CBM-CFS3 Soil Litter Deadwood Tree Carbon (MT) Period Figure 9: CBM-CFS3 total ecosystem carbon in the THLB over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Total Ecosystem Carbon in the NHLB - CBM-CFS3 Carbon (MT) Period Soil Litter Deadw ood Tree Figure 10: CBM-CFS3 total ecosystem carbon in the NHLB over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario 27

37 Total Ecosystem Carbon in the CFLB - CBM-CFS3 Carbon (MT) Soil Litter Deadw ood Tree Period Figure 11: CBM-CFS3 total ecosystem carbon in the CFLB over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Total Ecosystem Carbon in the THLB - FORECAST Carbon (MT) Soil Litter CWD Understory Tree Period Figure 12: FORECAST total ecosystem carbon in the THLB over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario 28

38 Total Ecosystem Carbon in the NHLB - FORECAST Carbon (MT) Soil Litter CWD Understory Tree Period Figure 13: FORECAST total ecosystem carbon in the NHLB over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Total Ecosystem Carbon in the CFLB - FORECAST Carbon (MT) Period Soil Litter CWD Understory Tree Figure 14: FORECAST total ecosystem carbon in the CFLB over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario 29

39 Table 6 provides a summary of ecosystem carbon storage by carbon pool over the 250-year planning horizon for CBM-CFS3. Table 7 provides the equivalent information for FORECAST. Table 6 and Table 7 list minimum, maximum and current carbon storage, the corresponding period the minimum or maximum value is achieved, as well as the percent change compared to current conditions. The data is sorted by carbon pool and by land base, allowing for an effective comparison of the reported values. Where the same minimum and/or maximum values are recorded for more than one reference period the first year where the respective value was recorded is identified with an asterisk. It should be noted that the total ecosystem carbon pools ( All ) include the contribution from soil carbon. Since the soil carbon pool is the most significant contribution to total ecosystem carbon (currently 58.9%), and remains the most constant over time, the percentage differences for total ecosystem carbon summarized in Table 6 and Table 7 for CBM-CFS3 and FORECAST will moderate the overall carbon dynamics as compared with the corresponding data in Table 8, which summarizes total ecosystem carbon excluding soil carbon. Table 6: CBM-CFS3 summary of ecosystem carbon over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Land Base Carbon Pool Current Carbon (MT) Minimum Carbon (MT) Maximum Carbon (MT) Period at Period at Minimum Maximum Difference between Minimum and Current Carbon (%) Difference between Maximum and Current Carbon (%) THLB All (7.6) 0.2 NHLB All (3.1) 0.6 CFLB All (4.8) 0.4 THLB Tree (16.8) 2.2 NHLB Tree (11.8) 0.9 CFLB Tree (12.1) 1.4 THLB Deadwood (12.7) 0.9 NHLB Deadwood (0.4) 9.2 CFLB Deadwood (4.9) 5.3 THLB Litter (9.9) 0.0 NHLB Litter (4.2) 3.2 CFLB Litter (6.0) 1.7 THLB Soil (6.4) 0.0 NHLB Soil CFLB Soil (2.3)

40 The following results are noted for the CBM-CFS3 runs: 1. Current total ecosystem carbon in all land base units is near their respective maximum values. However, following the first period, the model projects ongoing declines in total ecosystem carbon with the minimum in the THLB being achieved in period 39 at 56.7 MT, representing a 7.60% decline over current carbon levels. The model also predicts losses in the NHLB, where the minimum value is achieved in period 48 at 82.6 MT, representing a loss of 3.13% over current conditions. 2. Similarly, all other carbon pools are at or close to their respective maximum value. An exception is the deadwood carbon pool in the THLB, which reaches its maximum in period 8. However, the increase is minimal less at than 1% over current levels. As is the case with total ecosystem carbon, all carbon pools on all land base units are forecasted to decline over time. In the CFLB, the largest percentage declines are recorded for the tree carbon pool, then for the litter pool, the deadwood pool and the soil pool. The trend is similar in the THLB with a slight variation in the litter and the deadwood pools. 3. Deadwood carbon in the NHLB shows an increase of 9.2% over current levels by period 3, and is forecasted to return to current levels at the end of the planning horizon. In the THLB however, deadwood carbon is forecasted to decline by almost 13% by period Soil carbon levels are the most stable over the entire planning horizon; the magnitude of the change on the CFLB is forecasted as a decline by 2%. Most of the change occurs on the THLB, where carbon levels are forecasted to decrease by 6.4% at period 50. This decline is partly offset by a gain of 1.16% on the NHLB, recorded in period

41 Table 7: FORECAST summary of ecosystem carbon over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Land Base Carbon Pool Current Carbon (MT) Minimum Carbon (MT) Maximum Carbon (MT) Period at Minimum Period at Maximum Difference between Minimum and Current Carbon (%) Difference between Maximum and Current Carbon (%) THLB All (20.5) 0.0 NHLB All (1.5) 5.7 CFLB All (8.5) 0.5 THLB Tree (35.4) 0.0 NHLB Tree (10.3) 2.2 CFLB Tree (17.7) 0.4 THLB Understory * 14 (21.8) 24.5 NHLB Understory * 25* (7.3) 37.4 CFLB Understory * (12.0) 29.6 THLB CWD (62.5) 0.00 NHLB CWD CFLB CWD THLB Litter (20.2) 2.5 NHLB Litter (0.7) 8.8 CFLB Litter (6.1) 1.2 THLB Soil * NHLB Soil * 9 (1.0) 0.7 CFLB Soil * 11 (0.4) 0.7 Given base case analysis assumptions, the following results occur for the FORECAST model runs: 1. Current total ecosystem carbon in the THLB is at its maximum value, and in the CFLB it is close to its maximum; however, in the NHLB total ecosystem carbon is forecasted to exhibit a gain of almost 6% by period 11. Similar to CBM-CFS3 model runs, FORECAST projects ongoing losses of total ecosystem carbon. The minimum in the THLB is achieved in period 33 at 33.4 MT, representing a 20.5% decline over current carbon levels, while losses in the NHLB are projected at 1.5% as compared to current levels (recorded in period 49). In the CFLB, FORECAST projects a loss of total ecosystem carbon by 8.5%, recorded in period

42 2. The percentage differences between minimum and current carbon for all carbon pools are largest in the THLB. Also, the differences in the forecasted change of various carbon pools between the THLB and the NHLB are significant: for example, total ecosystem carbon is forecasted to decline by 20.5% in the THLB, compared to 1.5% in the NHLB. 3. The CWD carbon pool is currently at its maximum value in the THLB, but at its minimum in both the NHLB and the CFLB. In terms of forecasted percentage change, the CWD carbon pool shows the largest increases and decreases of any carbon pool however, given the relatively small absolute values and its minimal contribution to overall ecosystem carbon the effects of these changes are negligible. Current management practices can also significantly impact the amount of CWD within the THLB. 4. The understory carbon pool represents the smallest of all carbon pools at less than 1% of total ecosystem carbon (Table 4). Current understory carbon is equivalent in the THLB and NHLB and even though the NHLB is approximately 100,000 hectares larger than the THLB, the similarity is likely due to the age structure of these areas (Table 1) with the NHLB containing a larger proportion of older forest than the THLB and thereby less understory species. Understory carbon is forecasted to decline over the next 2 to 5 periods in all land base units; following that, levels are forecasted to increase. 5. FORECAST and CBM-CFS3 predicted soil carbon remains relatively constant over the entire analysis horizon for all land base units. Table 8 provides a measurement for the differences between minimum and current carbon as well as for the differences between the minimum and current carbon value excluding soil carbon. 33

43 Table 8: Comparison of model output of total ecosystem carbon (without soil carbon) over the 250- year planning horizon; base case scenario Model Land Base Carbon Pool Current Carbon (MT) Minimum Carbon (MT) Maximum Carbon (MT) Difference between Minimum and Current Carbon (%) Difference between Maximum and Current Carbon (%) CBM-CFS3 THLB All (14.9) 1.6 CBM-CFS3 NHLB All (8.5) 3.0 CBM-CFS3 CFLB All (9.7) 2.4 FORECAST THLB All (32.6) 0.9 FORECAST NHLB All (7.9) 8.6 FORECAST CFLB All (14.2) 2.7 As expected, the inclusion of soil carbon in the total ecosystem carbon pool significantly moderates the carbon dynamics. Revised total ecosystem carbon in the CFLB declines by 9.7 and 14.2% for CBM-CFS3 and FORECAST, respectively (original figures are 4.8 and 8.5%). For the TFLB, revised figures are 14.9 and 32.6% for CBM-CFS3 and FORECAST, respectively as compared to 7.6 and 20.5%. Figure 15 summarizes the forecasted percentage difference in total ecosystem carbon (excluding soil) for the three land base units over the 250-year planning horizon for the FORECAST and CBM-CFS3 models. 34

44 Comparison of total ecosystem carbon (without soil carbon) as forecasted by FORECAST and CBM-CFS3 Increase or Decrease (%) (10) (20) FORECAST THLB FORECAST NHLB FORECAST CFLB Period Figure 15: Comparison of total ecosystem carbon (excluding soil carbon) as forecasted by FORECAST and CBM-CFS3; base case scenario Total ecosystem carbon in all land base units as predicted by the FORECAST model is about 18% higher than the CBM-CFS3 forecast and the future trends are significantly different for each land base unit. For the THLB, FORECAST total ecosystem carbon begins to decline rapidly and much faster than CBM-CFS3. Between period 8 and 9, both models predict the same amount of total ecosystem carbon (21.9 MT); after that, the rate of decline in total ecosystem carbon for the THLB as predicted by FORECAST stabilizes around period 18. After this point, the trend is maintained around a 10% difference. In absolute terms, total ecosystem carbon levels stabilize around 21.5 MT for CBM-CFS3 and around 19.4 for FORECAST (Figure 9 and Figure 12). For the NHLB, the differences in total ecosystem carbon continues to increase, and to a high of 33.9% in period 13. As illustrated in Figure 10 and Figure 13, this is due to the fact that total ecosystem carbon as forecasted by CBM-CFS3 has declined by 1.4 MT, while FORECAST predicts an increase of 3.3 MT. After period 13, the difference as forecasted by the two models begins to gradually decline through to the end of the analysis horizon where the percentage difference in total ecosystem carbon remains at 30%. Total ecosystem carbon as forecasted by CBM-CFS3 is 33.8 MT, and as forecasted by FORECAST 43.5 MT. For the CFLB, the current percentage difference in total ecosystem carbon is 18.7% and gradually declines to 13.7% by the end of the planning horizon. 35

45 Figure 16 illustrates the forecasted percentage difference of the combined litter and CWD/deadwood carbon pools for the three land base units over the 250-year planning horizon comparing the FORECAST and CBM-CFS3 models. Comparison of litter and CWD/deadwood carbon as forecasted by FORECAST and CBM-CFS3 Increase or Decrease (%) (10) (20) (30) FORECAST THLB FORECAST NHLB FORECAST CFLB Period Figure 16: Comparison of litter and CWD/deadwood carbon as forecasted by FORECAST and CBM-CFS3; base case scenario Overall, the trends exhibited for litter and CWD/deadwood carbon pools are similar to those exhibited for total ecosystem carbon. For the THLB, following the initial fifteen years, CBM-CFS3 predicts a maximum of 20% more carbon in the combined litter/cwd/deadwood pool at periods 18, 35 and 50. In absolute terms, the combined THLB carbon pool is fairly stable, though currently CBM-CFS3 predicts 11.8 MT and FORECAST 10.5 MT of litter and CWD/deadwood carbon in the THLB, compared to 11.7 MT and 12.6 MT, respectively, at the end of the planning horizon. For the NHLB, FORECAST current conditions are 11.3% below forecasted CBM-CFS3 levels and by period 17, FORECAST predicts 10.7% more carbon for this combined carbon pool which remains consistent throughout the remainder of the analysis horizon. Overall the CFLB, which is a combination of the trends for the THLB and NHLB, are almost identical for this combined carbon pool over the entire analysis horizon. In absolute terms, CBM-CFS3 forecasts approximately 21.1 MT of carbon currently and 36

46 20.0 MT in period 50 while FORECAST predicts about 19.7 MT of carbon in period 1 and 19.3 MT in period Total Ecosystem Sequestration The information in this section relates to the Measure 3-3.1: average carbon sequestration rate. Forest ecosystem carbon sequestration describes the process where carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from the atmosphere is absorbed by trees, plants through photosynthesis, and stored as carbon in biomass (tree trunks, branches, foliage and roots) and soils. When an area is considered a "sink" it refers to the maintenance of a positive sequestration rate. Negative sequestration rates indicate a net loss of carbon stored, i.e. a release of carbon into the atmosphere or source. Forest ecosystem sequestration rates can be calculated by estimating the rate of change in carbon storage over time by the following equation: Average Sequestration Rate t = (Ecosystem C t Ecosystem C t-y ) / y The FSOS model reports results by period (5 years increments); therefore the time interval: y = 5. Since the resulting sequestration curves can be uneven they were smoothed using a simple arithmetic average for two consecutive periods, based on the following formula: Smoothed Sequestration Rate = (Sequestration Rate t1 + Sequestration Rate t2 ) / 2 The sequestration rate can be calculated; the first value for the smoothed sequestration rate is for the end of period 1 (i.e. in year 5 from now). Graphs for CBM- CFS3 and for FORECAST total ecosystem sequestration have been generated. Total ecosystem sequestrations include the soil carbon pool. Because the CFLB is the sum of the THLB and the NHLB, sequestration rates in the CFLB can also be calculated as the sum of the sequestration rates in the THLB and the NHLB. Figure 17 illustrates the smoothed sequestration curves for each land base for CBM-CFS3, and Figure 18 illustrates the smoothed sequestration curves for each land base for FORECAST. 37

47 Total Ecosystem Sequestration (Smoothed) CBM-CFS3 - Base Case Annual Carbon Sequestration Rate (MT/year) Period CFLB THLB NHLB Figure 17: CBM-CFS3 total ecosystem sequestration rates (MT/year) over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario For the CBM-CFS3 model, the total ecosystem sequestration rate for each land base follows a relatively narrow range around 0 for the entire planning horizon. Since the sequestration rate cannot be calculated for period 1, reporting starts at period 2. For the CFLB the sequestration rate is slightly positive then turns negative reaching the lowest negative sequestration rates around period 9. Following this, the trend is that the sequestration rates increase and tend to fluctuate around 0 (between +0.05MT/yr and 0.05 MT/yr) beginning around period 25 indicating that the Invermere TSA for the most part is maintaining its carbon sequestration rate. 38

48 Total Ecosystem Sequestration (Smoothed) FORECAST - Base Case 0.20 Annual Carbon Sequestration Rate (MT/year) Period CFLB THLB NHLB Figure 18: FORECAST total ecosystem sequestration rates (MT/year) over the 250-year planning horizon; base case scenario Based on the FORECAST model, the current total ecosystem sequestration rate for the land bases initially occur over a much wider range than exhibited by CBM-CFS3. The THLB in period 2 is forecasted at 0.10 MT/yr with the NHLB at.10 MT/yr and the CFLB averaged out to 0. The rate for the THLB declines over the next 6 periods, where the minimum value of 0.15 MT/yr is estimated. Following this point sequestration rates are forecasted to climb rapidly afterwards with the THLB reaching 0 or positive sequestration rate at period 22 and then fluctuates around 0 to the end of the analysis horizon. In the NHLB, the period 2 sequestration rate is forecasted at 0.10 MT/yr representing the maximum rate predicted over the entire planning horizon, which then declines rapidly and turns negative in period 11 with the minimum sequestration rate ( 0.04 MT/yr) achieved in period 16. Following this point, the rate trends upwards very close to 0. The total ecosystem sequestration rate in the CFLB is forecasted to be 0 in period 2 following which rates then decline, reaching a minimum of 0.11 MT/yr in period 17. Following period 17, sequestration rates gradually increase towards 0. While there is more variation in the sequestration rates over the first 100 years with the FORECAST model, the future trend is similar to CBM-CFS3 where the sequestration rate is very close to 0. 39

49 6.0 Maximum Harvest Scenario This section discusses projected carbon levels for a theoretical maximum harvest scenario in the Invermere TSA. The maximum harvest scenario involves the removal of forest cover constraints on the THLB and is intended to provide a benchmark condition and comparison with the baseline based on a hypothetical extreme event. 6.1 Total Ecosystem Carbon This section provides a comparison of base case and maximum harvest scenario results for CBM-CFS3 and FORECAST models. Maximum harvest assumptions affect only the THLB. When graphing the percentage difference in carbon levels between the two management assumptions, the overall pattern for the CFLB will be identical (though less pronounced) to the pattern recorded for the THLB, as the additional areas of the NHLB will again moderate the impact of the maximum harvest assumptions. Overall, differences in total ecosystem carbon between the maximum harvest and the base case scenario over the 250-year planning horizon are relatively minor. This is because the area harvested under maximum harvest assumption increases by only 18% as compared to base case assumptions (Appendix 7). Figure 19 and Figure 20 illustrate the differences between the base case and the maximum harvest scenario in the THLB for CBM-CFS3 and FORECAST, respectively Difference in Carbon Storage in the THLB Maximum Harvest vs. Base Case (CBM-CFS3) Tree Deadwood Litter Soil Ecosystem Difference (%) Period Figure 19: Differences in carbon in the THLB between maximum harvest vs. base case scenarios; CBM-CFS3 40

50 The following results are noted for CBM-CFS3: 1. The soil carbon pool is essentially unaffected by forest management. 2. Losses in total ecosystem carbon due to an increase in harvest level are forecasted from period 1 on forward. 3. The largest differences for total ecosystem carbon are recorded at the end of the planning horizon at 1.9% and 4.6% for the CFLB and the THLB, respectively. 4. Maximum harvest assumptions are forecasted to first increase deadwood and litter carbon in the Invermere TSA, after which a slight decline is realized. 5. In the THLB, deadwood carbon increases slightly then trend along the base case condition until late in the analysis horizon until periods 22 and 39 when carbon is predicted to be 6% lower. 6. Litter carbon is very similar to deadwood carbon with slight increases then trending along the base case until periods 22 and 39, when litter carbon is predicted to be 5% less than under base case assumptions. 7. Tree carbon is the carbon pool most affected by maximum harvest assumptions. Relative tree carbon levels in the THLB start to decline in period 1 with minimum value achieved in period 17 at 15.9%, after which the difference fluctuates around -12%. Difference in Carbon Storage in thethlb Maximum Harvest vs. Base Case Difference (%) Tree Understory CWD Litter Soil Ecosystem Period Figure 20: Differences in carbon in the THLB between maximum harvest vs. base case scenarios; FORECAST The following results are noted for the maximum harvest FORECAST result: 1. Again, the soil carbon pool is essentially unaffected by forest management. 41

51 2. Losses in total ecosystem carbon due to an increase in harvest level are forecasted from period 1 on forward. The maximum harvest scenario results in a reduction of 3.3% in total ecosystem carbon in the CFLB, and of 9.4% in the THLB at the end of the 250-year planning horizon. In absolute terms, total ecosystem carbon in the CFLB as recorded in period 50 is projected to decrease by 11.9 MT to 93.7 MT for the maximum harvest scenario (compared to a loss of 8.8MT for the base case scenario). 3. The largest differences for total ecosystem carbon are recorded for period 19 at 3.8% and 11.3% for the CFLB and the THLB, respectively; after that, the difference levels out. 4. Maximum harvest assumptions are forecasted to increase CWD, litter and understory carbon in the Invermere TSA. These trends are characterized by significant variability; however, time intervals where relative losses are recorded are for reasonably short periods. 5. Understory carbon is the smallest component of the five carbon pools tracked by FORECAST and shows the most variability. This fluctuation of understory carbon is a result of the quick response of understory growth to changing forest cover conditions as the result of increased harvesting. 6. CWD carbon levels are forecasted to increase under maximum harvest assumptions, which are likely, a function of an assumed level of increased debris left on site due to increased harvest. Two distinct maxima are recorded for periods 36 and 50, with CWD carbon levels projected to be 14% above to base case assumptions. It is of interest to point out that these maxima are recorded when understory carbon levels are close to their respective minima. 7. Tree carbon is the carbon pool most affect by maximum harvest assumptions. Relative tree carbon levels in the THLB begin to decline in period 1, and are remain below the base case for the entire analysis horizon with the minimum value being achieved in period 19 at 32.6%. Although a temporary increase in tree carbon is noted, relative tree carbon levels remain approximately 28% below base case levels. Absolute tree carbon in the THLB for period 50 is forecasted at 12.4 MT, compared to a current level of 18.0 MT, representing a drop of 31.1%. 6.2 Total Ecosystem Sequestration Figure 21 and Figure 22 provide total ecosystem sequestration rates (smoothed) for all land base units for the maximum harvest scenario for CBM-CFS3 and FORECAST, respectively. 42

52 Total Ecosystem Sequestration (Smoothed) CBM-CFS3 - Maximum Harvest 0.20 Annual Carbon Sequestration Rate (MT/year) Period CFLB THLB NHLB Figure 21: CBM-CFS3 total ecosystem sequestration rates (MT/year) over the 250-year planning horizon; maximum harvest scenario Total Ecosystem Sequestration (Smoothed) FORECAST - Maximum Harvest 0.20 Annual Carbon Sequestration Rate (MT/year) Period CFLB THLB NHLB Figure 22: FORECAST total ecosystem sequestration rates (MT/year) over the 250-year planning horizon; maximum harvest scenario 43

53 Total ecosystem sequestration rates for CBM-CFS3 based on maximum harvest assumptions are generally negative for all land base units over the entire planning horizon. In the NHLB, total ecosystem sequestration rates remain negative for the entire planning horizon with the exception of the first period. In the THLB, only two time intervals exhibit slightly positive sequestration rates: period 26 and 30, and period 39 to 45 with average sequestration rates of 0.02 and 0.01 MT/yr. For all other periods, total sequestration rates in the THLB remain negative; the minimum is forecasted for periods 9 and 10 at 0.10 MT/yr. NHLB total ecosystem sequestration rates for FORECAST are positive for the first eleven periods with an average sequestration rate 0.06 MT/yr. Following period 11, sequestration rates decline to a minimum of MT/yr in period 17. After period 17, sequestration rates are forecast to increase toward zero, which they reach at the end of the planning horizon. In the THLB, total ecosystem sequestration rates are negative from period 1 onward. The absolute minimum is reached in period 7 with 0.21 MT/yr; after that, sequestration rates rapidly climb and turn positive in period 21. After period 21, the curve for sequestration rates in the THLB fluctuates around zero. 44

54 7.0 No Harvest Scenario This section discusses projected future carbon in the Invermere TSA under a no harvest scenario. The no harvest scenario assumes that natural disturbance events will dominate in the THLB at the same rate as calculated for the NHLB, while all harvesting activities are suspended. To avoid data processing bias (FSOS will apply natural disturbance events sequentially based on polygon numbers), the original sequence has been randomized, generating a secondary polygon number upon which natural disturbance events are based. As with the maximum harvest scenario, the no harvest scenario is provided for benchmarking and comparison of theoretical extreme events only, and does not represent any expected future condition. 7.1 Total Ecosystem Carbon This section provides a comparison of base case and no harvest scenario results for CBM-CFS3 and FORECAST models. As with maximum harvest assumptions, no harvest assumptions affect only the THLB and therefore the NHLB is assumed to remain the same. When graphing the percentage difference in carbon levels between the two management assumptions, the overall pattern for the CFLB will be identical (though less pronounced) to the pattern recorded for the THLB, as the additional areas of the NHLB will moderate the impact of the maximum harvest assumptions in the CFLB. Differences in total ecosystem carbon between the no harvest and the base case scenario over the 250-year planning horizon are significant. Using base case assumptions, the average area harvested annually in the THLB has been calculated at 2,342 hectares (Appendix 7). No harvest assumptions replace the annual harvest with natural disturbance events that are applied at the same rate as calculated in the NHLB (calculated annually to be 0.374% of the total NNLB area (Table 2) and if applied to the THLB, this percentage represents an area of 821 hectare/year; a decrease of 65% in area disturbed as compared to the average harvest area (Appendix 7). Figure 23 and Figure 24 illustrate the differences between the base case and the no harvest scenario in the THLB for CBM-CFS3 and FORECAST, respectively. 45

55 Difference in Carbon Storage in the THLB No Harvest vs. Base Case - CBM-CFS3 Difference (%) Tree Deadwood Litter Soil Ecosystem Period Figure 23: Differences in carbon in the THLB between no harvest vs. base case scenarios; CBM- CFS3 The following results are noted for the no harvest scenario compared with the base case scenario using the CBM-CFS3 model. 1. Under no harvest assumptions, total ecosystem carbon in the THLB increases consistently over the planning horizon, reaching a maximum around period 36, approximately 20% above base case assumptions. 2. No harvest assumptions also positively affect the soil carbon pool, which increases consistently over the planning horizon, reaching its maximum level in period 50; approximately 8% greater than the base case condition. 3. The deadwood carbon pool decline initially as compared to the base case and by period 4 are 6.4% lower. By period 11, deadwood carbon in the no harvest scenario is larger than the base case assumptions increasing to over 20% by period CBM-CFS3 tree carbon is most affected by no harvest assumptions with increasing positive differences over the first 24 periods which also represents the maximum difference (67%). In absolute terms, tree carbon continues to be accumulated in the THLB over the entire planning horizon. In period 50, 20.3 MT of carbon is forecasted, compared to 14.2 MT of current carbon representing an increase of 43%. 46

56 Difference (%) Difference in Carbon Storage in the THLB No Harvest vs. Base Case Tree Understory CWD Litter Soil Ecosystem Period Figure 24: Differences in carbon in the THLB between no harvest vs. base case scenarios; FORECAST The following results are noted for the no harvest scenario compared with the base case scenario using the FORECAST model. 1. Carbon storage in the soil is essentially unaffected by forest management. 2. The no harvest scenario forecasts an increase of about 46% in total ecosystem carbon in the THLB by the end of the 250-year planning horizon. After increasing gradually the carbon increment levels out by period 24. In absolute terms, total ecosystem carbon in the THLB is forecasted to increase by 7.6 MT to 49.6 MT (compared to a loss of 8.1 MT for the base case scenario) by period For the tree carbon pool, the response to the change in forest management assumptions is realized immediately and gains in tree carbon are forecasted to reach 130% by period 29 before leveling out. The increase in CFLB tree carbon by period 29 is projected to be approximately 36%. 4. CWD and litter carbon are projected to decline initially with lowest levels recorded in period 10 and in period 8, respectively. CWD carbon is predicted to decline by about 20% in the THLB, while the litter carbon pool is expected to decline by about 11%. Around period 18, both carbon pools will reach base case levels again, after which carbon levels continue to exceed base case levels throughout the remainder of the planning horizon. CWD carbon will stabilize with permanent gains of about 15%, while litter carbon will stabilize with permanent gains of about 5%. 5. In the no harvest scenario, understory carbon levels are initially higher than the base case level for the first 6 periods, after which they remain below base case levels for the entire analysis horizon. Minimum values are realized towards the end of the planning horizon, with an overall difference of approximately -56%. 47

57 7.2 Total Ecosystem Sequestration Figure 25 illustrates total ecosystem sequestration rates for all land base units for the no harvest scenario for CBM-CFS3. Total Ecosystem Sequestration (Smoothed) CBM-CFS3 - No Harvest Annual Carbon Sequestration Rate (MT/year) Period CFLB THLB NHLB Figure 25: CBM-CFS3 total ecosystem sequestration rates (MT/year) over the 250-year planning horizon; no harvest scenario Under the no harvest assumptions, total ecosystem sequestration rates for CBM- CFS3 and FORECAST produce comparable results in terms of the forecasted range of sequestration. Forecasted sequestration rates for both models and for all land base units tend to decline over time, and are forecasted to approach zero towards the end of the analysis horizon. The total ecosystem sequestration rates in the NHLB using the CBM-CFS3 model are slightly negative for the entire analysis horizon with the exception of the first period, with a forecasted sequestration rate of 0.05 MT/yr. In the THLB, total ecosystem sequestration rates are forecasted to be positive over the entire planning horizon with an average sequestration rate of 0.03 MT/yr. Total sequestration rates are forecasted to reach a maximum of 0.08 MT/yr at period 4 and then gradually decline toward zero by the end of the analysis horizon. Total sequestration rates in the CFLB remain positive for most of the analysis horizon with a slight negative rate during periods 43 to 48. Figure 26 illustrates total ecosystem sequestration rates for all land base units for the no harvest scenario for the FORECAST models. 48

58 Total Ecosystem Sequestration (Smoothed) FORECAST - No Harvest Annual Carbon Sequestration Rate (MT/year) Period CFLB THLB NHLB Figure 26: FORECAST total ecosystem sequestration rates (MT/year) over the 250-year planning horizon; no harvest scenario Using the FORECAST model, total ecosystem sequestration rates in the NHLB remain positive for the first eleven periods with an average sequestration rate of 0.06 MT/yr and a maximum of 0.10 MT/yr in period 1. Sequestration rates then decline in the NHLB and become negative in period 12 reaching their minimum of MT/yr in period 17. After period 17, sequestration rates trends toward zero by the end of the planning horizon. In the THLB, aside from being slightly negative initially (-0.02 MT/yr), the forecasted total ecosystem sequestration rate remains positive for the remainder of the analysis horizon with maximum rates occurring in periods 15 and 16, at 0.07 MT/yr. Following the peak, rates gradually decline to 0 by period 28. The CFLB total ecosystem sequestration rates are positive for the first 24 periods with a maximum of 0.14 MT/yr in period 6. Sequestration rates then decline and become negative in period 25 with a minimum of 0.02 MT/yr in period 29, then trend to zero by period

59 8.0 Scenario Comparison Table 9 provides a comparison of tree carbon by land base for the three forest management scenarios (base case, maximum harvest and no harvest) and by model. Table 9 provides current tree carbon, and the range of forecasted future tree carbon for the three scenarios; for each land base, the data is presented in MT and in t/ha. Table 9: Tree carbon; model and scenario comparison Model Land base Current Base Case Maximum Harvest No Harvest Tree Carbon (MT) CBM-CFS3 THLB FORECAST THLB Conv. Factor THLB CBM-CFS3 NHLB FORECAST NHLB Conv. Factor NHLB CBM-CFS3 CFLB FORECAST CFLB Conv. Factor CFLB Tree Carbon (t/ha) CBM-CFS3 THLB FORECAST THLB Conv. Factor THLB CBM-CFS3 NHLB FORECAST NHLB Conv. Factor NHLB CBM-CFS3 CFLB FORECAST CFLB Conv. Factor CFLB Table 10 provides a comparison of total ecosystem carbon by land base for the three forest management scenarios (base case, maximum harvest and no harvest) and by model. Only CBM-CFS3 and FORECAST predict total ecosystem carbon; the data 50

60 presented includes the soil carbon pool. Table 10 provides current total ecosystem carbon, and the range of forecasted future total ecosystem carbon for the three scenarios; for each land base, the data is presented in MT and in t/ha. Table 10: Total ecosystem carbon; model and scenario comparison Model Land base Current Base Case Maximum Harvest No Harvest Total Ecosystem Carbon (MT) CBM-CFS3 THLB FORECAST THLB CBM-CFS3 NHLB FORECAST NHLB CBM-CFS3 CFLB FORECAST CFLB Total Ecosystem Carbon (t/ha) CBM-CFS3 THLB FORECAST THLB CBM-CFS3 NHLB FORECAST NHLB CBM-CFS3 CFLB FORECAST CFLB Table 11 is a representation of the data presented in Table 9 and in Table 10. It provides a comparison of tree carbon and total ecosystem carbon by land base for the three forest management scenarios (base case, maximum harvest and no harvest) and by model in terms of forecasted percentage change. The percentage change has been calculated as: Forecasted future minimum (maximum) carbon / current carbon - 1 Table 11: Impact analysis; model and scenario comparison Model Land base Current Base Case Maximum Harvest No Harvest Tree Carbon (% change from current condition) CBM-CFS3 THLB 0.00 (0.17) (0.27) FORECAST THLB 0.00 (0.36) (0.55)

61 Conv Factor THLB 0.00 (0.24) (0.45) CBM-CFS3 NHLB 0.00 (0.12) (0.12) (0.12) FORECAST NHLB 0.00 (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) Conv Factor NHLB 0.00 (0.12) (0.12) (0.12) CBM-CFS3 CFLB 0.00 (0.12) (0.16) FORECAST CFLB 0.00 (0.18) (0.24) Conv Factor CFLB 0.00 (0.13) (0.20) Total Ecosystem Carbon (% change from current condition) CBM-CFS3 THLB 0.00 (0.08) (0.11) FORECAST THLB 0.00 (0.20) (0.29) CBM-CFS3 NHLB 0.00 (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) FORECAST NHLB 0.00 (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) CBM-CFS3 CFLB 0.00 (0.05) (0.07) FORECAST CFLB 0.00 (0.09) (0.12) In Table 11, current carbon conditions are represented as null and the three columns that follow represent the forecasted range of percent variation from current conditions for the three forest management scenarios. Overall the following trends are observed: 1. In the THLB, for both the base case and the maximum harvest scenario, all models predict that current carbon conditions either represent or are close to the forecasted maximum for tree and total ecosystem carbon followed by a decline over time. 2. For all models, under no harvest assumption, the THLB current carbon conditions represent the forecasted minimum for tree and total ecosystem carbon and as expected increase over time. 3. NHLB tree carbon, in all three models estimate a fairly consistent percentage change for minimum carbon condition up to approximately 12%. For total ecosystem carbon, both CBM-CFS3 and FORECAST predict that future conditions are similar to current conditions, as percentage changes are relatively small and exhibit both increases and decreases relative to current conditions. This would imply that the forests in the NHLB represent a mature forest ecosystem and sequestration rates tend to fluctuate around zero. 52

62 9.0 Carbon in Wood Products This section introduces forest product carbon and its impact on the total carbon budget of the Invermere TSA. This analysis provides a measure for the carbon that remains in over time since the harvesting the original trees. The information in this section relates to Measure 3-2.1: carbon pool forest products. This analysis is provided as a first approximation of accounting for carbon in forest products for the Invermere TSA. The assumptions used are simplistic and do not incorporate full accounting of carbon footprint associated with harvesting and transportation of timber. This is very complex and if required, would necessitate the licencees within the TSA to develop more detailed life cycle information for all volume. 9.1 First Order Decay Curves Carbon stored in forest products will eventually be re-released into the carbon cycle when the product decays, however, the exact timing depends on the product produced. First order decay curves provide an estimate of the fraction of carbon that remains in use after year y. The first order decay curve is calculated as: FR = (1/1+( /HL))^Y 6 FR = Fraction of carbon remaining in use in year Y HL = Half-life (in years) Y = Elapsed Time (in years) First order decay curves use estimates for common forest product half-lives (Table 12), which was applied, based on the average forest product breakdown within the Invermere TSA. The forest product breakdown was provided for Canfor operations as the information was not available for Tembec; and excludes 8% of waste, assumed to be left behind in the forest. Table 12: Forest product breakdown and forest product half-lives Forest Product Proportion in the Invermere TSA Half-life Sawn Wood Plywood Veneer Structural Panels 0 30 Non-structural Panels 0 20 Paper The function and the values for half-lives listed in Table 14 were derived from: Characterizing Carbon Sequestration in Forest Products Along the Value Chain. Reid Miner, NCASI. December 26, 2003 Report prepared for the Climate Change Working Group of the International Council of Forest and Paper Associations. 53

63 Table 13 provides the proportion of product carbon in use up to year 35. Table 13: Fraction of carbon in products remaining in use. Year Sawn Wood Veneer, Plywood & Structural Panels Non-structural Panels Paper Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year

64 9.2 Estimates for Forest Product Carbon and Total Carbon The analysis estimating forest product carbon used the FORECAST model and the base case scenario assumptions. The forest product breakdown estimate (Table 12) was applied to the annual harvest in the FSOS model over the entire 250-year planning horizon. The information in this section relates to Indicator 3-2: the forest products carbon pool is maintained or increased. Figure 27 illustrates the quantity of carbon stored in forest products generated from timber harvested in the Invermere TSA. The carbon stored in forest products generated prior to 2007 is not considered based on this analysis, which is a forecast going forward. Based on historical harvest there is obviously carbon currently stored in forest products, however, without backcasting recognizing different eras of forest management and product profiles in the TSA, which is very complicated to quantify Carbon Stored in Forest Products Base Case Scenario All Products Sawn Wood Plywood Veneer Paper 10.0 Carbon (MT) Period Figure 27: Forest product carbon; base case scenario All product curves start in period 1, the first year for which product estimates are available and begin with a zero value, as forest products from previous harvesting are not considered. Depending on the half-life of the product, the quantity of forest product carbon continuously increases over time as harvest is projected and level off when the amount of additional forest product carbon is equivalent to the amount of carbon being released by product decay. These product carbon projections do not include any emissions from harvesting equipment, transportation or processing. 55

65 Based on the assumptions made, carbon permanently stored in paper products produced from the Invermere TSA reaches a maximum total of approximately 11.9 MT around period 22 or 110 years with an estimated distribution of 0.2 MT for paper, veneer of 1.6 MT, 1.7 MT for plywood and sawn wood at 8.4 MT. Specific forest products reach their respective maximum value in the following periods: paper products in period 2, veneer and plywood in period 21 and sawn wood in period 29. Based on current assumptions, it is likely that the Invermere TSA is still increasing it forest products carbon pool considering that it takes 110 years to reach an equilibrium where the loss due to product decay and the carbon storage gain due to new products are equal. However, the ultimate timing of this equilibrium will change depending on future species harvest and forest product mix. Figure 28 provides the contribution of forest product carbon to total carbon (defined as the sum of total ecosystem carbon and forest product carbon). Forest Product Carbon as a Percentage of Total Carbon Base Case Percent (%) Forest Product Carbon (%) Period Figure 28: Forest product carbon as a percentage of total carbon; base case scenario The contribution of forest product carbon to total carbon is projected to reach a maximum of approximately 11% in period 38; however, the curve essentially levels off around period 20 at about 10%, that in absolute terms, represents approximately 12 MT (Figure 27), which corresponds with trends exhibited within the forest products carbon pool. Figure 29 shows forest product carbon, total ecosystem carbon (for the CFLB, as under base case assumptions) and total carbon for the Invermere TSA. Total ecosystem carbon (excluding forest product carbon) is forecasted to decline, as discussed previously 56

66 (Section 5.2 and Figure 14), however, total carbon (including forest product carbon) is forecasted to increase from currently MT to a maximum of MT in period 11, for an increase of 6.5 MT then to decline to MT as total ecosystem carbon falls faster than forest product carbon is increasing. After period 20, when the contribution of forest product carbon to total carbon stabilizes (Figure 28), total ecosystem carbon and the total carbon follow a parallel trend. Total Carbon, Total Ecosystem Carbon and Forest Product Carbon Base Case Carbon (MT) Total Carbon Total Ecosystem Carbon Forest Product Carbon Period Figure 29: Total carbon, total ecosystem carbon and forest product carbon; base case scenario 57

67 10.0 Future Modelling and Monitoring This project presents a range of forest ecosystem carbon conditions across the Invermere TSA based on three different modelling approaches. While the range of carbon values varies, sometimes significantly between the different approaches used, the trends exhibited are mostly consistent. Future monitoring and modelling will require the Invermere licensees to select an approach that can be best implemented within existing forest management or SFM initiatives. In order to track forest ecosystem carbon values this would either be CBM- CFS3 or FORECAST at a coarse scale. Either approach would allow the Invermere licensees to incorporate carbon monitoring into other management planning processes. The benefit of using CBM-CFS3 is that it provides a linkage to the Canadian Forest Service and the national Forest Carbon Accounting Program with the associated research and development. This would require running a future forest management model (like in timber supply review or certification forecasting) and then inputting disturbance information into CBM-CFS3 as was undertaken in this project. While not prohibitive, if this approach were adopted, it would require some level of maintenance and support for two models. If using FORECAST for future carbon reporting, the carbon curves (Appendix 4) could be used in future analyses, if they match future analysis units. The benefit of using FORECAST carbon curves allows for dynamic analysis within a single model, whereby trade-offs can be assessed between carbon and other values such as timber, biodiversity, etc. SFM analysis could also be enhanced with the FORECAST model by allowing users to track forest management and natural disturbance effects on forest productivity stand dynamics and the ability to produce a wide range of biophysical indicators of non-timber values. ForRx Consulting Inc. and the Ecosystem Simulation Group at UBC are also continually developing the FORECAST model undertaking a wide range of research. Also, the Invermere licensees may want to consider that the Ministry of Forests and Range is considering policy issues through the FFEI program of incorporating carbon reporting into TSR as well as options available to develop carbon curves into the stand level yield models such as within Table Interpolation Program for Stand Yields (TIPSY), which may offer an additional option for future modeling (Grieg and Bull, 2009). Future improvement of site specific carbon data or sampling would involve two phases: 1) destructive sampling to determine or improve existing allometric relationships 7, and 2) continuous monitoring of forest attributes for the purpose of a forest carbon and monitoring program. Destructive sampling is research intensive and not recommended for the Invermere licensees independently. Pending extensive research, approximate calculations are satisfactory to determine a preliminary carbon budget estimate and track changes at a landscape/forest management unit level. 7 Alometric equations relate one part of the organism in proportion to another as a consequence of growth (e.g. crown width to crown biomass). Allometric equations are useful to link an easily measured variable (e.g. tree diameter) with a more time-consuming and costly variable (e.g. tree biomass). 58

68 10.1 Destructive sampling Destructive sampling is required to develop equations for tree and vegetation biomass and is well accepted throughout the research community. Depending on approach selected for future modelling additional samples of various tree and vegetation sites within the Invermere TSA may be considered in the future. Less knowledge and information is available for the allometric relations of other components including snags and CWD. Destructive sampling to determine snag and CWD allometric relations involves taking wood samples or cookies for each decay class to be measured for wood density. This wood density can then be used to derive weight from volume; CWD volume is already being calculated as part of the SFM plan (via measuring diameter). Once allometric equations and wood densities are established, non-destructive sampling can be used where easy-to-measure variables are obtained in future monitoring or growth and yield plots (e.g. measuring diameter to determine tree biomass). However, such non-destructive sampling may not be preferred for the belowground biomass pool because such relationships have not been well developed. Carbon in soils, litter and humus are less documented and understood. However, relationships quantifying the amount of carbon in soils, litter and humus to an easily measured variable (such as tree basal area or litter depth) are emerging. Nevertheless, direct carbon sampling of these pools (i.e. using lab analysis) is also not recommended for the Invermere licensees but these efforts should be investigated to identify opportunities to cooperate with researchers who are currently addressing these topics. For example, under the Canada s National Forest Inventory (NFI) initiative, soil samples are being collected and analyzed for carbon content. Under the NFI, data is being collected for biomass and carbon reporting Approximate Calculations There are some measurements that can be taken in the field and applied to published allometric equations. For example, diameter measurements can be used to determine aboveground tree biomass (Standish et al, 1985) and belowground tree biomass can be determined through shoot:root ratios (Li et al. 2003). The most comprehensive collection of information regarding forest carbon calculations using forest inventory data have been compiled by the CFS in their development of the CBM-CFS3. Therefore, by using this approach it is ensured that the most recent carbon calculations using forest inventory for the Invermere TSA are applied. In the meantime, there are other data management efforts that the Invermere TSA group can maintain to help improve carbon storage and sequestration calculations in the forested land base with the most important being an updated forest inventory. The inventory used for this project was completed in 1995, which has been projected and updated for disturbances as well as volume reductions for partially harvested stands and rolled over into a VRI format. New inventories can improve carbon estimation based on enhanced species, volume, site productivity and age information over old inventory data. 59

69 Other data management or update considerations, which are all part of ongoing reporting, forest management and SFM requirements, are: 1. THLB and NHLB definitions, particularly defining non-productive areas (i.e. wetlands, rock, alpine, etc.), 2. area that is planted annually, and 3. area that is depleted from the forest land base due to: forestry activities (roads, trails and landings), urbanization, oil and gas activities, conversion to agriculture, and areas subjected to natural disturbances such as MPB and fire. Therefore, a key component of carbon monitoring within the Invermere TSA needs to be linked with the modeling approach that is ultimately selected. Both CBM- CFS3 and FORECAST are under continuous improvement based on on-going research and development. Essentially, monitoring of carbon indicators is based on a continuous improvement process, linked to the derivation of biomass as it relates to measurements of current and future volume estimates through permanent sample plot measurements and model improvements and improvement of forest inventory estimates as the key drivers of volume. Through the FFEI program monitoring needs are being assessed and as policies and related information is developed should be considered for the next periodic carbon forecast. An important consideration for the Invermere licensees is that based on the recommendations from Dr. Gary Bull (Appendix 8) that the carbon reporting and monitoring standards are likely to going to change in the near future, the decision of modelling and future monitoring approaches can wait until such time that new CSA standards are clearly defined. It is likely that the CSA standards will evolve considering the significant activity around new standards for verifiable carbon offset projects (Voluntary Carbon Standard, California Climate Action Registry), which provide specific requirements for third party verification of forest inventories as well as annual reporting of carbon stocks for projects. Currently, annual reporting of carbon stocks are not required as part of CSA/SFM requirements and as such do not need to be considered at this time, therefore, periodic monitoring through modeling and continuous improvement of the input data remain appropriate. 60

70 11.0 Conclusions and Considerations The results of this project provide a range of current forest ecosystem carbon conditions in the Invermere TSA. Depending on the model used current total ecosystem carbon in the CFLB is estimated in a range of MT to MT (188.1 to 261 t/per ha). Under base case assumptions, FORECAST estimates current total ecosystem carbon in the CFLB to fluctuate between 96.6 MT and MT over the 250-year analysis horizon while CBM-CFS3 estimates a range of MT to MT. The difference in the CFLB between the two approaches is due to the significantly increased levels in the forecast of soil carbon (CBM-CFS3 forecasts 86.4 MT of current soil carbon, FORECAST 34.2 MT). Sequestration rates trend in a very narrow range from to 0.1 MT/yr for the CBM-CFS3 and 0.01 to 0.1 MT/yr for FORECAST. Carbon stored in forest products may reach a maximum condition of approximately 11.9 MT which represents an equilibrium where additional carbon in new forest products is balanced out by decay of past forest products. In terms of total ecosystem carbon stored and sequestration, the trends are generally similar between the CBM-CFS3 and FORECAST models based on whether carbon is increasing or decreasing over time and which scenarios contain more carbon or sequester more, as compared in this report. However, absolute carbon storage and sequestration estimates differ where CBM-CFS3 demonstrate more ecosystem carbon in soils, trees, and deadwood than FORECAST. However, the FORECAST results contain more carbon in the litter pool than the CBM-CFS3 results and FORECAST also provide carbon estimates in plants, whereby the CBM-CFS3 does not. It is very difficult to reconcile the specific differences between the CBM-CFS3 and FORECAST model. The models have different emphases in transfers and/or decay rates amongst carbon pools as well as the contents in each pool. For example, the FORECAST model focuses on carbon storage within the rooting zone (0-75cm) whereas the CBM-CFS3 considers rooting depth based on the forest type (i.e. varying rooting depth). It is in the authors opinion that the differences in the explicit results of each model are not as much as a concern given that the scenario trends are reasonably similar. Also, CBM-CFS3 is an aspatial model while the use of FORECAST and a spatial timber supply model can be inherently spatial. As suggested earlier in this report future carbon forecasting and monitoring in the Invermere TSA will need to agree on an approach and the carbon model chosen should be transparent and verifiable to address uncertainties in the model. Under current management and the predicted changes to the total ecosystem carbon due to harvesting and natural disturbance in the Invermere TSA, forest managers could establish ecosystem carbon storage baseline and sequestration rate targets within the range of variation illustrated by the base case scenario and if necessary adjust this range or target with considerations to the uncertainties highlighted in the analysis. Moreover, base case sensitivities with alternative management activities and natural disturbance methods may be developed to further enhance the knowledge of forest carbon dynamics and management. This could be undertaken during future SFM or TSR related 61

71 forecasting efforts. The consideration of carbon in forest products while informative, does not present a full carbon balance given the lack of emissions reporting which is expected to become necessary and should be considered by the Invermere licensees. The inclusion of carbon indicators in SFM plans is in recognition that forest ecosystems contribute to the global carbon cycle and that the SFM objective is to sustain the ecosystem carbon contributions from the Fort Nelson DFA. To sustain these ecosystem carbon contributions requires an assessment of both current and future carbon conditions and carbon modeling allows for such an assessment by using currently available information such as the forest inventory data, growth and yield data, forest depletion areas (by anthropogenic and natural causes), integrated with current management assumptions simulated using a model. Various carbon models and scenarios analyses have been conducted in this report for the Invermere TSA. A natural question resulting from this work is how do forest managers and Public Advisory Groups use these results for defining SFM carbon objectives, including appropriate targets and variances? In no particular order, the following is a list of considerations for the Invermere licensees to discuss in defining reasonable and achievable forest carbon objectives for SFM. 1) What carbon pools should have objectives? Given Canada s participation in the Kyoto Protocol, it would be appropriate to include both aboveground and belowground tree biomass, litter, dead wood and soil (and if possible, other plants) in establishing total ecosystem carbon monitoring. When establishing an objective, it would be appropriate to set objectives for total ecosystem carbon and not by each individual carbon pool since it is not necessarily crucial where the carbon is stored or sequestered, but more important that the appropriate totals are maintained. It would also be appropriate to set an objective for the total ecosystem carbon (i.e. a sum of all carbon pools) but to report individually for each carbon pool. 8 2) Should the objectives be established separately for the THLB and the NHLB or together for the DFA? Considering the impact of natural disturbance in the NHLB on forest carbon and the limitations of forest manager to manage the NHLB, it would be appropriate to set objectives for the NHLB and THLB separately. Furthermore, if a significant disturbance event occurs, targets and variances may need to be revised. 3) Which model results would the carbon objectives be based on? The timber supply model, FSOS, was used in conjunction with two other carbon models: FORECAST and CBM-CFS3. It is in the opinion of the authors, that both carbon models are credible and reliable although are not directly comparable. The approach chosen should be easy to 8 For carbon monitoring purposes, it would be practical and cost-effect to first focus on monitoring the carbon pools whose storage changes are the greatest, especially if they are expected to decline over time. For example, if carbon in plants can be shown (e.g. through forecasting) that the pool is relatively small and that it does not change much over a period of time, it may be reasonable to exclude the plant carbon pool from initial carbon monitoring. 62

72 understand, transparent, verifiable, and cost-effective. The ultimate decision on what model to use should be made by the Invermere TSA licensees. 4) What scenario best reflects current management? The scenario that represents our best guess about current forest management should be used in setting the carbon target and/or variance. Future management assumptions and conditions will change but currently we do not know what those changes will be. As a result, the Base Case scenario best reflect our current knowledge of recent carbon conditions. As time progresses into the future, those associated results illustrated in this report become less appropriate and usable. Further scenario analyses will be required to address future changes and uncertainties including issues such as assessing the impact of natural disturbance on forest carbon in the THLB. Other scenarios to consider in the future are: intensive management (i.e. use of genetically improved seedlings or intensive silviculture) and the impacts of climate change on forest carbon. 5) How would a carbon related target be set - would it be a minimum target or a floating target over time? It has been demonstrated that total ecosystem carbon storage is forecasted to be highest now and then decline in to the future. Considering the outstanding uncertainties in carbon modeling and future prediction, it is reasonable and cautious to initially set a minimum carbon storage target (i.e. current carbon storage level) that reflects the future low value. However, if current management practices change significantly or extreme natural disturbances occur, the target may be set to reflect such carbon variations. Monitoring procedures needs to be utilized to assess appropriate carbon targets in the future. As illustrated in this report, the timing of ecosystem processes that illustrate higher carbon storage (i.e. the land base containing older stands) don t necessarily equate to higher sequestration rates (given younger stands generally have a higher sequestration rate than old stands). There must be a balance in setting objectives for these two somewhat conflicting goals under traditional forest management given the other objectives in sustainable forest management including economic, ecological and social indicators 9. This emphasizes the importance of integrating carbon accounting with other forest management processes in order to ensure that tradeoffs are recognized in a timely matter. Thus necessitating the periodic review of carbon conditions. For example, under a Kyoto-afforestation scenario, where there is currently a significant non-forested area (for 50 years), which is then forested, would increase overall forest carbon storage and sequestration (since the land was previously barren). However, current forest management scenarios are much more complicated, due to ongoing harvest and planting activities thereby creating a diverse forest of assorted stand ages and species with various carbon storage and sequestration conditions. Establishing a target rate for carbon sequestration could also be based on the current, minimum or average carbon sequestration rates that are predicted over a period of time. A target based on the minimum sequestration rate over time may be set as a safeguard while an average 9 It is beyond the scope of this project to evaluate the possibility and feasibility of underaking a monetary carbon sequestration project in the Invermere TSA for carbon credits under an international emissions trading system. It is mentioned here, as this project is limited to an ecological perspective; however, when setting carbon objectives and targets, a bigger picture involving social, political, and economic considerations may be required. 63

73 sequestration rate may be established in addition to setting a large variance to account for the range in carbon sequestration rates over time. Given the large forecasted fluctuations in carbon sequestration rates and the uncertainties associated with the rates, it is recommended a sequestration rate be established based on forecasts over a short period of time (i.e. 5 to 20 years). 6) How would the variance be set? This is a very difficult question since the variance should consider all the risks and uncertainties associated with the forest carbon objective and target while the error of these values is unknown and may be greater than the variance in forecasted conditions. Risks in carbon estimation are introduced by sampling errors around input data (such as the forest inventory), coefficients and model parameters creating multiple estimates around the true value (Brack, 2001). Uncertainties, on the other hand, include an unknown range of outcomes, introduced by external sources such as changes in management preference or investment returns, government policies, climate change and the role of natural disturbance on the forested land base (Brack, 2001). Currently, it is difficult to evaluate the risks associated with the model estimates of carbon because: 1) risk based on model parameter and assumptions are unknown, and 2) an extensive set of sensitivity analyses around model parameters has not been completed. Examples of model parameters to be tested involve those coefficients and ratios, which convert volume into carbon mass and relative growth in other biomass pool components (Brack, 2001). The testing of the impact of model parameters on forest carbon estimation would involve developing probability density functions (i.e. a range of acceptable parameter estimates with reasonably known probabilities of occurrence). Furthermore, model parameters may also be verified through ground sampling. Uncertainties from external sources will also be an issue and this can be partly understood through sensitivity and scenario analyses. Risks and uncertainties (particularly those pertaining to the future) are generally outside the realm of control of forest managers. As such, it is important to acknowledge and reduce risks and uncertainties (through further sensitivity analyses and field sampling) and to maintain continuous improvement within the existing SFM plan by reviewing current conditions. This can be addressed within the range of sensitivity analysis, which is typically conducted during timber supply or SFM forecasting efforts. If carbon targets and variance are determined, an explanation of the risks, uncertainties and limitations of the analysis in which these targets and variance are based should accompany this determination. For example, both carbon storage and sequestration rates are forecasted to fluctuate over time in the various scenarios undertaken in this project. It would be reasonable to assume and allow for such a range in variation as being a minimum variance for the target. 7) What are appropriate measurement and reporting units? Carbon measurement and reporting units can be detailed on a total or per hectare basis. For example in the case of carbon storage, carbon can be reported by MT or by MT/ha for a given area. The per hectare basis may be conceptually easier to manage for and would not be affected if the area of the DFA, THLB, or NHLB changes. However, given that the goal is to sustain carbon in the DFA and as such there must be some measure or consideration to include the total carbon in the DFA, then total is a more appropriate unit. It is recommended that 64

74 the total (MT for carbon storage and MT/year for carbon sequestration) be the units used for reporting but per hectare units can be used for verification and monitoring purposes. Future integration of CSA reporting with broader emissions reductions may require the consideration of using CO2 equivalent units be used which may also assist in explaining results to a non-technical audience (also recommended by Dr. Gary Bull). While all of the carbon indicator measures use C as the main reporting unit, if C02 equivalents are required, they can be calculated using the formula: C02e = C (44/12). In setting targets and variances for forest carbon indicators it is important to set them within the capacity and funding availability of the Invermere licensees so that the carbon objectives are achievable. Furthermore, given the uncertainties discussed, if the Invermere licensees are not confident with setting carbon target and variances, they may consider using continuous monitoring using forecasting/modeling and/or on-the-ground measurements until a time in the future where there may be more clarity and confidence in the forecasting results and changing standards. 65

75 References BC Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Landscape Unit Planning Guide. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia. Victoria: Province of British Columbia. Blanco, J. A., Creation of ecosystem C curves for Invermere TSA with FORECAST model. ForRx Consulting Inc. Brack, C Risk and Uncertainty in Forest Carbon Sequestration Project. Paper presented at the IEA Bioenergy Task 38: Workshop on Carbon Accounting and Emissions Trading Related to Bioenergy, Wood Products an Carbon Sequestration: Canberra, Australia, March Brady, N.C. and Weil, R.R, The Nature and Properties of Soils. Prentice Hall. New Jersey. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, Canadian Criteria and Indicators Framework. Available at: Forsite Consultants Ltd., Invermere Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Review #3, Version 3.0. Available at: itted.pdf Forest Ecosystem Solutions Limited, Codes for the Biomass Conversion Factor Tables. Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd., Forecasting Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: Tree Carbon for The Invermere Timber Supply Area. Grieg, M and G. Bull, Carbon management in British Columbia s forests: opportunities and challenges. (Forrex series, ; 24). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Kimmins, J.P., D. Mailly, and B. Seely, Modelling forest ecosystem net primary production: the hybrid simulation approach used in FORECAST. Ecological Modelling 122: Kull, S.J., W.A. Kurz, G.J. Rampley, G.E. Banfield, R.K. Schivatcheva and M.J. Apps, Operational-Scale Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM- CFS3) Version 1.0: User s Guide. 66

76 Liu, G., Niziolomski, C. and J. Nelson, Target-oriented approach to planning sustainable forest ecosystems in the mountain section of Manitoba. In Proceedings of Forest Modelling for Ecosystem Management, Forest Certification, and Sustainable Management International Conference of I.U.F.R.O. Aug 12-17, Vancouver, Canada: Liu, G., Wardman, C. and J. Nelson, Target-oriented forest ecosystem and landscape planning. Ecological Modelling, 127: Liu, G., Niziolomski, C. and J. Nelson, An Ecosystem Management Investment Model: Applications of Planning Issues in British Columbia. In Proceedings of 1999 International Forest Ecosystem Management Conference, Nelson, BC, Canada. Ministry of Forests and Range (MOFR), Chief forester Order Respecting the AAC Determination for the Invermere TSA. Penman, J., Gytarsky, M., Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Kruger, D., Pipatti, R., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K., and F. Wagner (editors), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report on Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Available at: Penner, M.; Power, K.; Muhairwe, C.; Tellier, R.; Wang, Y., Canada's forest biomass resources: Deriving estimates from Canada's forest inventory. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC. Information Report BC-X-370. Available at: Standish, J.T., Manning, G.H., and J.P. Demaerschalk Development of Biomass Equations for British Columbia Tree Species. Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forest Research Centre. Rep. BC-X-264, 48 pp. 67

77 Appendix 1: Timber Harvesting Land Base Determination for the Invermere TSA Netdown Summary as per the Invermere Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Review #3, Final Report, Version 3.0, May 12, 2004 Table 1. Timber harvesting land base area netdown summary Factor Total area (Invermere Forest District less TFL14) Less: Total area Effective* % of (ha) Area (ha) Forest District 1,153,073 1,153, % Private Land, First Nation reserves 74,034 74, % Woodlots, X-mas tree permits, Misc Leases 16,264 16, % Total TSA Area 1,062,775 1,062,775 Non-forest / Non-productive forest 520, , % Non-Commercial Brush % Backlog NSR (non-productive stands) % Unclassified existing roads, trails and landings 17,573 10, % Total Crown Forested Land Base ** (CFLB) 554, % 100% Less: In CFLB: Fed Parks, Prov Parks and Reserves 232,340 77, % 14.0% Inoperable/Inaccessible 254, , % 33.1% Operable/Inaccessible (Slope > 70%) 4,320 4, % 0.8% Unstable Terrain 32,307 6, % 1.2% Environmentally Sensitive Areas (excludes Es except where terrain mapping does not exist) 82,151 6, % 1.2% Non-Merchantable 24,810 5, % 1.0% Low Sites 100,611 11, % 2.1% Problem Forest Types 9,828 6, % 1.1% Riparian Management Areas 31,415 17, % 3.2% Existing Wildlife Tree Patches % 0.1% Timber Harvesting Land Base THLB (ha) 233, % 42.2% Volume Reductions: Identified Wildlife Management Strategy Future Wildlife Tree Patches (%) Other Future Reductions: FMER Open Range Future roads, trails and landings Long-term Timber Harvesting Land Base (ha) 0% 0 1.6% 3,812 1,585 11, ,531 * Effective netdown area represents the area that was actually removed as a result of a given factor. Removals were applied in the order shown above, thus areas removed lower on the list do not contain areas that overlap with factors that occur higher on the list. For example, the unstable terrain netdown did not include an non-forested or inoperable area. ** Crown forest in this context denotes the forest area that contributes to forest management objectives, such as landscape-level biodiversity, wildlife habitat and visual quality. It did not include alpine forest or Non Productive areas with trees species. % of Crown forest 68

78 Netdown Summary from Phase 1 - Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd., April Table 1. Timber harvesting land base area netdown summary (FESL) Factor Total area Effective* % of % of (ha) Area (ha) Forest Crown District Forest Total area (Invermere Forest District less TFL14) 1,152,875 1,153, % Less: Private Land, First Nation reserves 74,040 74, % Woodlots, X-mas tree permits, Misc Leases 90,307 16, % Total TSA Area 1,062,775 1,062,568 Non-forest / Non-productive forest 513, , % Non-Commercial Brush % Backlog NSR (non-productive stands) % Unclassified existing roads, trails and landings 17,744 11, % Total Crown Forested Land Base ** (CFLB) 561, % 100% Less: In Total Area: Fed Parks, Prov Parks and Reserves 322,602 87, % 15.6% Inoperable/Inaccessible 188, , % 33.5% Operable/Inaccessible (Slope > 70%) 146, % 0.0% Unstable Terrain 84,167 7, % 1.3% Environmentally Sensitive Areas (excludes Es except where terrain mapping does not exist) 76,926 9, % 1.6% Non-Merchantable 30,212 5, % 1.0% Low Sites 167,143 12, % 2.2% Problem Forest Types 49,489 8, % 1.5% Riparian Management Areas 91,325 17, % 3.2% Existing Wildlife Tree Patches 1, % 0.1% Timber Harvesting Land Base THLB (ha) 224, % 40.0% Long-term Timber Harvesting Land Base (ha) not calculated 69

79 Appendix 2: Current Age Class Distribution Note: Analysis Unit 0 in this table refers to a deciduous leading stand. TSR3 excluded these stands from the THLB. Since no yield curves were available for these stands, they were excluded from the conversion factor model analysis; they were, however, included in the FORECAST and the CBM-CFS3 analysis. Current (2007) THLB Age Class Distribution Age Class Distribution Analysis Unit Total , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,761.0 Total 30, , , , , , , , , ,

80 Current (2007) NHLB Age Class Distribution Age Class Distribution Analysis Unit Total , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Total 8, , , , , , , , , ,

81 Current (2007) CFLB Age Class Distribution Age Class Distribution Analysis Unit Total , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,862.4 Total 38, , , , , , , , , ,

82 Appendix 3: Analysis Units in Timber Supply Analysis Analysis Unit Summary as per the Invermere Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Review #3, Final Report, Version 3.0, May 12, 2004 Table 21. Analysis Unit Descriptions: Existing Natural Stands and Associated Future Managed Stands Analysis unit Existing Future THLB SI SI Variable used to define Natural Managed Area Inv SIBEC analysis unit Stands Stands (ha) AU # AU# Wtd Wtd Inv Site Slope Rationale / Comments Avg Avg type groups index range range % FdPy, Py , , 32 All All Shelterwood outside OR and OF FdOthers Poor , ,7,8 <14 All CC with Reserves FdOthers Mod , ,7,8 14 to <18 All CC with Reserves FdOthers High , ,7,8 18+ All CC with Reserves SB Poor , <14 All CC with Reserves SB Mod , to <18 All CC with Reserves SB High , All CC with Reserves CH (All Sites) All All CC with Reserves Pl Poor slopes 0-40% , < CC with Reserves GB Harvest Pl Mod slopes 0-40% , to < CC with Reserves GB Harvest Pl High slopes 0-40% , CC with Reserves GB Harvest Pl Poor slopes >40% , <14 >40 CC with Reserves Cable Harvest Pl Mod slopes >40% , to <18 >40 CC with Reserves Cable Harvest Pl High slopes >40% , >40 CC with Reserves Cable Harvest Lw Poor , <14 All CC with Reserves / Seedtree Lw Mod , to <18 All CC with Reserves / Seedtree Lw High , All CC with Reserves / Seedtree FMER-OR 150 N/A 1, All All All FMER Open Range - single entry FMER-OF Total FMER Open Forest - Part cut All All All 8,570 regime 185,580 Table 22. Analysis Unit Descriptions: Existing Managed Stands and Associated Future Managed Stands Analysis unit Existing Future THLB SI SI Variable used to define Managed Managed Area Inv SIBEC analysis unit Stands Stands (ha) AU # AU# Wtd Wtd Inv Site Slope Rationale / Comments Avg Avg type groups index range range % FdPy, Py , 32 All All Partial Cutting Regime FdOthers , ,7,8 All All CC with Reserves SB , All All CC with Reserves CH All All CC with Reserves Pl Slopes 0-40% , All 0-40 CC with Reserves Pl Slopes >40% , All >40 CC with Reserves Lw , All All CC with Reserves / Seedtree Total 48,345 * Inventory base SI provided only for comparison SIBEC SI s were used to model these AU's from time zero. The FdPy/Py analysis units (101, 102) were intended to mimic the short term shelterwood regimes used on the hot, dry sites in the NDT 4. Overstory trees were retained to provide shade for seedling establishment but were then removed within 10 years thus this regime was modeled as a clearcut with natural regeneration (VDYP curves). These AU s did not include areas mapped for Open Range or Open Forest ecosystem restoration treatments. Modeling details are provided in Table 23 with volumes shown in the Invermere TSA Timber Supply Review Analysis Report B

83 Analysis Unit Summary as per Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd., March Note: Two transitional pathways are shown for existing managed stands (Table 22). Future managed stand in red show future managed stands as identified by ForRx Consulting Inc., and as applied to the FORECAST analysis. Future managed stand in black show future managed stands as per TSR3; they have been applied to the conversion factor and the CBM-CFS3 analysis. Table 21. Analysis Unit Descriptions: Existing Natural Stands and Associated Future Managed Stands Analysis unit Existing Future THLB SI Inv SI Variable used to define Natural Managed Area (ha) SIBEC analysis unit Stands Stands Wtd Wtd Inv Type Site AU# AU# Avg Avg Groups Index Slope Range Rationale / Comments FdPy, Py , , 32 Range All (%) All Shelterwood outside OR and OF FdOthers Poor , ,7,8 <14 All CC with Reserves FdOthers Mod , ,7,8 14 to <18 All CC with Reserves FdOthers High , ,7,8 18+ All CC with Reserves SB Poor , <14 All CC with Reserves SB Mod , to <18 All CC with Reserves SB High , All CC with Reserves CH (All Sites) All All CC with Reserves Pl Poor slopes 0-40% , < CC with Reserves GB Harvest Pl Mod slopes 0-40% , to < CC with Reserves GB Harvest Pl High slopes 0-40% , CC with Reserves GB Harvest Pl Poor slopes >40% , <14 >40 CC with Reserves Cable Harvest Pl Mod slopes >40% , to <18 >40 CC with Reserves Cable Harvest Pl High slopes >40% , >40 CC with Reserves Cable Harvest Lw Poor , <14 All CC with Reserves / Seedtree Lw Mod , to <18 All CC with Reserves / Seedtree Lw High , All CC with Reserves / Seedtree FMER-OR 150 n/a 1, All All All FMER Open Range - Single Entry FMER-OF , All All All FMER Open Forest - Part cut regime Total 172, % Table 22. Analysis Unit Descriptions: Existing Managed Stands and Associated Future Managed Stands Analysis unit Existing Future THLB SI Inv SI Variable used to define Rationale / Comments Natural Managed Area (ha) SIBEC analysis unit FdPy, Py Stands AU# 501 Stands AU# 601/ Wtd Avg 12.7 Wtd Avg 16.7 Inv Type Groups 6, 32 Site Index Range All Slope Range (%) All Partial Cutting Regime FdOthers /204 7, ,7,8 All All CC with Reserves SB /207 9, All All CC with Reserves CH / All All CC with Reserves Pl Slopes 0-40% /211 26, All 0-40 CC with Reserves Pl Slopes >40% /215 5, All >40 CC with Reserves Lw /218 1, All All CC with Reserves / Seedtree Total 52, % Grand Total 224,816 74

84 Stand Composition by Analysis Unit, as calculated by Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd., April Species Composition of each analysis unit: Calculated from the inventory data or from TSR3: Regeneration Assumptions. Table 21. Analysis Unit Descriptions: Existing Natural Stands and Associated Future Managed Stands Analysis unit Existing Natural Stands Future Managed Stands Existing Natural Stands Future Managed Stands AU # AU# Label Label FdPy, Py F57-P39-L4 F85-P10-L5 FdOthers Poor F76-P13-S6-L4-B1 F55-P40-S5 FdOthers Mod F69-P15-S8-L7-B1 F55-P40-S5 FdOthers High F68-P16-S10-L5-B1 F55-P40-S5 SB Poor S56-B29-P9-F3-L2 S60-P35-B5 SB Mod S54-B27-P10-F7-L2 S60-P35-B5 SB High S63-B12-P12-F12-L1 S60-P35-B5 CH (All Sites) CH81-S9-F4-B4-L2 S50-L40-P5-CH5 Pl Poor slopes 0-40% P80-S7-F5-L4-B4 P71-F15-L9-S5 Pl Mod slopes 0-40% P77-F10-S7-L4-B2 P71-F15-L9-S5 Pl High slopes 0-40% P77-F9-S7-L6-B1 P71-F15-L9-S5 Pl Poor slopes >40% P75-S10-F7-B6-L2 P71-F15-L9-S5 Pl Mod slopes >40% P76-F9-S8-L5-B2 P71-F15-L9-S5 Pl High slopes >40% P75-F11-S9-B4-CH1 P71-F15-L9-S5 Lw Poor L61-F12-P11-S10-B6 L59-P20-S10-F6-B5 Lw Mod L60-F18-P16-S5-B1 L59-P20-S10-F6-B5 Lw High L64-P20-F12-S4 L59-P20-S10-F6-B5 FMER-OR P43-F40-S14-L3 P43-F40-S14-L3 FMER-OF F53-P42-L3-S2 F85-P10-L5 Table 22. Analysis Unit Descriptions: Existing Managed Stands and Associated Future Managed Stands Analysis unit Existing Natural Stands Future Managed Stands Existing Natural Stands Future Managed Stands AU # AU# Label Label FdPy, Py P49-F37-L14 F85-P10-L5 FdOthers F71-P11-S9-L6-B3 P53-F35-L10-S2 SB S46-B29-P15-F8-L2 P72-S16-L11-B1 CH CH53-B17-S13-F12-L4-P1 L59-P33-S8 Pl Slopes 0-40% P68-F13-S10-L6-B3 P78-L8-S6-B4-F4 Pl Slopes >40% P71-S16-F5-B5-L3 P78-L9-S7-B3-F3 Lw L60-P22-F9-S6-B3 P63-L27-F6-S3-B1 Deciduous Leading (not currently used) 999 Decid69-F12-P11-S6-L2 Decid69-F12-P11-S6-L2 AU 250 has been assigned a constant 25m3/ha as per TSR3. 75

85 Appendix 4: Carbon Data Conversion Factor Tree Carbon Data (Note: The carbon data listed excludes the root biomass, estimated at 18%) Existing Natural Stands Existing Managed Stands Age/Analysis Unit

86 Future Managed Stands Future Managed Stands Age/Analysis Unit

87 Note: All carbon data for analysis unit 110 is identical to 114; 111 is identical to 115, 112 is identical to 116, 210 is identical to 214, 211 is identical to 215 and 212 is identical to 216 (see Appendix 6). FORECAST Tree Carbon Data Existing Natural Stands Existing Managed Stands Age/Analysis Unit

88 Future Managed Stands Future Managed Stands Age/Analysis Unit

89 FORECAST Understory Carbon Data Existing Natural Stands Existing Managed Stands Age/Analysis Unit

90 Future Managed Stands Future Managed Stands Age/Analysis Unit

91 FORECAST CWD Carbon Data Existing Natural Stands Existing Managed Stands Age/Analysis Unit

92 Future Managed Stands Future Managed Stands Age/Analysis Unit

93 FORECAST Litter Carbon Data Existing Natural Stands Existing Managed Stands Age/Analysis Unit

94 Future Managed Stands Future Managed Stands Age/Analysis Unit

95 FORECAST Soil Carbon Data Existing Natural Stands Existing Managed Stands Age/Analysis Unit

96 Future Managed Stands Future Managed Stands Age/Analysis Unit

97 Appendix 5: Issues with Phase I and Adjustments 1. Carbon conversion factors are based on key species for which conversion factors are available. Table 1 of the Phase I report shows the relationship between the Invermere TSA species and the species for which average province-wide conversion factors are available. The Invermere TSA includes parts of the Interior Hemlock-Cedar (ICH) zone that is the most productive zone in the interior of B.C. (ForRx Consulting Inc., 2009). It is therefore likely that conversion factors based on provincial averages for key species underestimate the potential for carbon storage in the Invermere TSA. 2. Appendix F Analysis Unit Volumes of the TSR3 report provides the effective yield data that was used for modeling timber supply, and for the calculation of carbon storage for this project. A quick review shows that the effective yield is 0 (or 1) for all analysis units up to age 20, 0 for about half of all analysis units at age 30, and 0 still for some low yielding analysis units at age 40. Therefore, a conversion factor-based carbon model will drastically underestimate carbon storage for forests in age classes 1 and Since all deciduous leading stands (inventory type groups 35 42) are excluded from the THLB, no yield curves were available. Therefore, the carbon stored in deciduous leading stands cannot be included in the results if the analysis is based on conversion factors. The total area involved is 11,132 hectares (0 hectares on the THLB). 4. The linkage between yield and carbon curves for analysis units 112 and 212, as well as analysis unit 11 (which represents a subset of 112 with a history of fire disturbance) was incorrect. 5. The stand level model developed during Phase I included 1,075 hectares of deciduous leading stands in the two fire maintained analysis units (Open Range and Open Forest, analysis units 150 and 151, respectively). Those stands have been removed from analysis units 150 and 151 for the revised Phase I analysis. These along with the unassigned deciduous leading stands, been assigned to a new deciduous leading ecosystem-based carbon curve. 88

98 Appendix 6: FORECAST model carbon curves Creation of ecosystem C curves for Invermere TSA with FORECAST model Updated February 2009 Juan A. Blanco ForRx Consulting Inc. 89

99 1. Introduction The forest ecosystem model FORECAST has been used in a variety of forest management applications: to assess the utility of soil organic matter as an indicator of the relative sustainability of alternative stand management practices (Morris et al. 1997, Seely et al. 2009), to evaluate patterns of carbon sequestration in boreal forest ecosystems (Seely et al. 2002), to examine the utility of the two-pass mixedwood harvesting system (Welham et al. 2002), for a comparison of wildfire and harvesting on long-term site productivity in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.) forests (Wei et al. 2003), for the application of a hierarchical decision-support system to evaluate multi-objective forest management strategies (Seely et al. 2004) and to project the productivity across multiple rotations of short-rotation hybrid poplar (Populus sp.) plantations (Welham et al. 2006). FORECAST has also been validated several times against field data, always showing an acceptable performance (Bi et al. 2007, Blanco et al. 2007, Seely et al. 2008). All these works show the utility and suitability of using this model to estimate long-term trends in carbon sequestration and storage in forest ecosystems. The objective of this report is to describe the methodology followed to create curves of ecosystem carbon storage in the Invermere Timber Supply Area (Interior B.C., Canada). 2. Description of the Invermere Timber Supply Area The Invermere Timber Supply Area (TSA) is within the B.C. Southern Interior Forest Region - Rocky Mountain Forest District and is administered out of the district office in Cranbrook. The TSA contains 1.15 million hectares (Figure 1). The Columbia River flows north from Columbia Lake, creating a large, complex wetland ecosystem called the Columbia Wetlands. (FigThe TSA includes one national park (Kootenay) and eleven provincial parks: Mount Assiniboine, Height of the Rockies, Top of the World, Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, Bugaboo Glacier, Windermere Lake, Whiteswan Lake, Premier Lake, Canal Flats, James Chabot, and Dry Gultch. A detailed description of the TSA can be found in Forsite (2004). 90

100 Figure 1. Location of the Invermere TSA. The Invermere TSA contains six biogeoclimatic zones, the ICH, ESSF, and MS zones being the most important ones from a timber management perspective. The Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH) zone occurs at low to middle elevations (700 to 1500 m) in the wetter portions of the Purcell and Rocky Mountains. This zone has a climate dominated by easterly moving air masses that produce cool wet winters and warm dry summers. Snow melt minimizes soil moisture deficits in the summer. This is the most productive zone in the interior of B.C. and also has the highest diversity of tree species of any zone in the province. Western redcedar, western hemlock and hybrid white spruce dominate the rare climax forests that occur in the Invermere TSA. Other species are Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, white pine, western larch, ponderosa pine, birch, trembling aspen and cottonwood. The Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (ESSF) zone is the uppermost forested zone from 1600 to 2000 m. Growing seasons are cool and short while winters are long and cold. Forests are continuous at the lower elevations of this zone, but at higher elevations clumps of trees occur within areas of heath, meadow and grassland. Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir are the dominant climax tree species, but whitebark pine, lodgepole pine, alpine larch and trembling aspen are also common. The Montane Spruce (MS) zone is found at mid-elevations, often between the Interior Douglas-fir Zone and the Engelmann Spruce- Subalpine Fir Zone (between 1200 and 1600 m). This zone is characterized by cold winters and moderately short, warm summers. Moisture deficits can occur during the growing season. Although subalpine fir and varieties of spruce are the dominant, climax tree species, one of the most distinctive features of this zone is the extensive even-aged stands of lodgepole pine that have formed following wildfire. 91