Harvested Wood Product Carbon Sequestration in the. Region

Transcription

1 Harvested Wood Product Carbon Sequestration in the US Forest Service, Northern Region A carbon sequestration accounting process to assess the harvested wood products portion of carbon stock and flux in the national forests of the USDA, Forest Service, Northern Region Keith Stockmann (R1), Nate Anderson (RMRS), Sean Healey (FIA), Ken Skog (FPL), Dan Loeffler (UM), Greg Jones (RMRS), James Morrison (R1), and Krista Gebert (R1) Western Forest Economists 2011, 10:30 May 12, 2011

2 Carbon Management Presentation Outline Why does the Forest Service do Carbon Accounting How does Harvested Wood Products Carbon fit into Ecosystem Carbon Accounting System Designs Data Modeling Choices Results Future Plans Uncertainty Analysis Forest Level Estimates Peer Reviewed Work (Manuscript and General Technical Review) Integration into the Forest Carbon Management Framework National Application?

3 The Big Carbon Picture Total Ecosystem Carbon Stock = Soil Carbon + Standing Biomass + Downed Wood + Roots + Harvested Wood Products Carbon Total Ecosystem Carbon Flux = Standing Biomass + Downed Wood + Roots + Harvested Wood Products Carbon. Where change ( ) is derived from forest disturbance such as wildland fire, insect and disease impacts and silvicultural activities (including wood products harvesting) and the forest growth response to all activities. Important Equivalency: 1x10 6 g = 1 Mg = 1 tonne = 1 metric ton = Tg

4 Relevant USFS Forest Carbon Management Developments Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy Climate Change Roadmap Climate Change Scorecard, for each unit: Mitigation and Sustainable Consumption assess carbon stocks and reduce our Agency footprint, Has information relevant to the Unit level been developed and synthesized to assess carbon stocks and the influence of land management activities and disturbances on potential changes in carbon stocks? Is progress being made toward achieving sustainable operations targets to reduce energy, emissions, water, and other environmental footprints? These questions beckon for robust monitoring systems that can q g y transform questions grounded in carbon management objectives into measurable metrics.

5 Contribution to the Scientific Community Jurisdictional or Firm-level harvest wood product assessment applying national level concepts to smaller holdings. Comparison of EPA Production and CA Comparison of EPA Production and CA Forest Project Protocol

6 The Modeling Team Keith Stockmann (Economist, EAP, R1) Jim Morrison (Climate Change, EAP, R1) Nate Anderson (Research Forester, RMRS)* Greg Jones (Research Forester RMRS) Dan Loeffler (Research Forester UM / RMRS) Ken Skog (Project Leader, Economics and Statistics Research, Forest Product Lab) Sean Healey (Research Ecologist, Intermountain West Forest Inventory and Analysis) $16,000 Funding Request, 1 Year time frame

7 Harvest Data The Data Archived R1Harvest Data (total volumes in MBF, converted to CCF) Cut Sold Reports, electronic Wood to Carbon Estimates (GTR-343) Timber Product Data (Skog 1998) Primary Wood Product Data (GTR-343) End Use Data (Skog 1998) Disposition and Half-life data (Skog 2008) Timber Product Output information about processing facility timing (BBER)

8 3,500, Northern Region Cut Volume, 1906 to 2009 (Data collected from Region 1 Archives and Cut Sold Reports) 3,000,000 2,500,000 Cut Volume (CCF) Harvest in CCF 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, , Year of Harvest

9 The Accounting Systems We explored the Consequential Life Cycle Analysis, but Decided to stick with an attributional life cycle framework Focus our analysis and produce estimates that can be included in existing carbon accounting frameworks,. EPA Sinks and Emissions HWP Production Approach (excludes imports) ForestSectorProjectProtocol-October2009.pdf California Forest Project Protocol ForestSectorProjectProtocol-October2009 October2009.pdf

10 2011 Draft U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report 7. Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Environmental Protection Agency / t echange/emissions/usinve ntoryreport.html

11 Annual harvest, divided into timber product classes (ccf) Annual output of primary products (ccf) Primary product ratios Conversion factors Annual output of primary products (MgC) End use ratios C distributed to end uses (MgC) Emitted with energy capture (MgC) Fuelw wood and wood wast te for fuel Products in use (MgC) burned w/ E capture SWDS half-lives Products in SWDS (MgC) Emitted without energy capture (MgC) Landfills Dumps Compost Recovered Half-lives of primary products in end use Discarded products burned Discarded d disposition ratios

12 Distribution Examples Products in Use, Fuel wood and Waste Wood with energy recapture, Solid Waste Disposal System, Products in Use Timber Products Sawtimber softwood, Sawtimber hardwood, Poles softwood, Poles hardwood, Small roundwood softwood, small roundwood hardwood, etc. Primary Products Softwood Lumber, Softwood Plywood, Mill Residue Pulp, Mill Residue Fuel Unused, etc. End Uses New residential construction (single, multi family, mobile homes) residential upkeep and improvement, new non-residential construction (all except railroads, railroad ties, railcar repair), Manufacturing (household furniture, other furniture, other products), Shipping, Other Uses

13 Figure 1. Timber product output for Region 1. Output data for 1980 to 2009 was collected from cut/sold reports. Output data for 1950 to 1979 are based on average timber products ratios from 1980 to 2009 applied to total harvest records for Idaho and Montana from Adams et al

14 Figure 2. The major primary products produced from softwood sawtimber harvested in Region 1. Softwood sawtimber accounts for 77% of the annual harvest, on average, for years 1980 to Distribution of primary products is based on ratios for 2002 for the Northern Rockies.

15 Figure 3. Distribution of end uses for softwood lumber from Region 1. Softwood lumber is the largest primary product carbon pool. The distribution of lumber production to end uses is based on data for 1950 to 2006 from McKeever 2009.

16 Figure 4. Harvested carbon remaining in products in use in Each bar shows the amount of carbon remaining in product in use in 2010 from that vintage year.

17 Figure 6. Disposition of discarded wood and paper. The distribution of carbon from wood and paper after use to dumps, landfills, composted, recovered and burned pools is based on percentages from Skog 2008.

18 Figure 8. Disposition of all carbon harvested in Region 1 for reference year g p g y This figure displays the same data as Figure 7, but shows the emissions pools as negative.

19 Table 6. Annual net change in carbon stocks and emissions from Region 1 harvested wood products (HWP) in megragrams carbon (MgC) for selected years 1910 to Inventory year Stock change a Emissions b ,678 73, , , , , , , , , , , ,120 1,460, ,410 1,179, ,615 1,056, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,051 a Net annual change in the stock of carbon in Region 1 HWP in products in use and in solid waste disposal (SWD). b Net annual change in carbon emissions from Region 1 HWP from SWD and fuelwood.

20

21

22 The Preliminary Results EPA / IPCC Production Method: Peak Storage in HWP from Region 1 (1995): 28 million MgC * (44/12) = million MgCO million MgCO 2 /(5.23 metric tons CO 2 /vehicle/year) = million vehicles/year Net loss in HWP pool from Region 1 (2009): 172,111 MgC * (44/12) = 631,074 MgCO2 631,074 MgCO2 /(191.5 MgCO2/railcar of coal) = rail cars of coal

23 Future Work Complete uncertainty analysis Present results and an early draft of this manuscript to headquarters prior to submission for publication. Submit the manuscript to the international journal, Carbon Balance & Management. Produce estimates for all R1 national forests Develop slideshow of methods and results for FS land managers. Develop web-based results portal for Interdisciplinary teams. General Technical Review with forest level estimates as well as interpretation of the data challenges, the connection between forest and regional estimates. Integrate results with the Forest Carbon Management Framework Decision Support System

24 Uncertainty Analysis

25

26

27 Forest Carbon Management Framework (ForCaMF) Forest Carbon Management Framework has been developed through a partnership between the Forest Service and NASA. Landsat imagery and inventory data are critical to how ForCaMF visualizes the distribution of both forest carbon stocks and stock-resetting disturbances (e.g., harvests and fires) across planning units. Imagery is also used to measure relevant fossil carbon emissions by quantifying forest road construction activity and pinpointing how far harvested timber must be hauled to processing facilities. The carbon dynamics built into ForCaMF are derived from the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). ForCaMF integrates monitoring of both ecological and non-ecological forest carbon dynamics under a probabilistic estimation framework, allowing annual assessment of carbon stocks and fluxes as they respond to particular harvest strategies and natural disturbance trends. ForCaMF has been piloted in Ravalli Co. Montana and is currently being installed across all Forest Service land in the Northern Rockies. As a decision support system, ForCaMF is providing insight into the relationship between forest management and carbon storage at the local and regional scales where most forest management actually occurs.

28 Questions, Comments or Suggestions? Contact: Keith Stockmann, PhD, , 3549,

29

30

31

32

33

34

35 California a Forest Project Protocol oco 2009 V. 3.1, Appendix C3, page ForestSectorProjectProtocol-October2009.pdf Overview of Steps: 1. Determine the Amount of Carbon in Harvested Wood Delivered to Mills 2. Account for Mill Efficiencies 3. Estimate the Average Carbon Storage Over 100 Years in In-Use Wood Products 4. Estimate t the Average Carbon Storage Over 100 Years for Wood Products in Landfills 5. Determine Total Average Carbon Storage in Wood Products Over 100 Years

36 Preliminary Results CA Forest Project Protocol The 100-year average for Region 1 peaked in 1969 at 957,638 MgC average 100 year storage in HWP (Figure 7). In recent years, the 100-year average for Region 1 harvest levels has been between 84,000 and 92,000 MgC.

37 Table 7. Estimate of the average carbon storage (MgC) over 100 years for wood products in use and in solid waste disposal for selected years using the California Forest Project Protocol. For each year, calculations only consider carbon harvested in that year. Harvest year Products in Landfills and Total use a dumps b ,489 29,149 60, ,114 37,134 77, ,461 30, , ,837 40,580 84, ,930 88, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,394 68, , ,794 66, , ,100 44,673 91, ,694 45,010 87, ,187 45,567 84, ,541 48,377 91,917 a The 100-year average carbon storage in products in use for the harvest year. b The 100-year average carbon storage in SWDS for the harvest year.

38 Figure 5a. The 100-year average for Carbon in products in use for years 1950 to 2009 calculating using the half-life method.

39 Figure 5c. The 100-year average for Carbon in products in use for years 1950 to 2009 calculating using the FPP method (page 94), which applies 100 year average storage factors.

40