Harvested Wood Product Carbon Sequestration in the

US Forest Service NorthernUS Forest Service, Northern Region 1906-2010

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(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

Presentation Outline• Carbon Management

– Why does the Forest Service do Carbon Accounting– How does Harvested Wood Products Carbon fit into Ecosystem

Carbon Accounting

• System Designsy g– Data– Modeling Choices

Results– Results

• Future Plans– Uncertainty Analysis – Forest Level Estimates– Peer Reviewed Work (Manuscript and General Technical Review)– Integration into the Forest Carbon Management FrameworkIntegration into the Forest Carbon Management Framework– National Application?

The Big Carbon PicturegTotal Ecosystem Carbon Stock = Soil Carbon + Standing Biomass + Downed Wood + Roots + Harvested Wood ProductsBiomass + Downed Wood + Roots + Harvested Wood Products Carbon

Total Ecosystem Carbon Flux = ∆ Standing Biomass + ∆ Downed Wood + ∆ Roots + ∆ Har ested Wood Prod cts CarbonWood + ∆ 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(including wood products harvesting) and the forest growth response to all activities.

Important Equivalency:Important Equivalency:

1x106 g = 1 Mg = 1 tonne = 1 metric ton = 0.000001 Tg

Relevant USFS Forest Carbon Management Developments

• Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategyg g p gyClimate Change RoadmapClimate 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?”reduce energy, emissions, water, and other environmental footprints?

These questions beckon for robust monitoring systems that can q g ytransform questions grounded in carbon management objectives into measurable metrics.

Contribution to the Scientific Community

• Jurisdictional or Firm-level harvest wood product assessment applying nationalproduct assessment applying national level concepts to smaller holdings.

Comparison of EPA Production and CA– Comparison of EPA Production and CA Forest Project Protocol

The Modeling Team• Keith Stockmann (Economist, EAP, R1)• Jim Morrison (Climate Change, EAP, R1)

• Nate Anderson (Research Forester, RMRS)*Greg Jones (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

The Data• Harvest Data

1906 1979 Archived R1Harvest Data (total volumes in– 1906-1979 Archived R1Harvest Data (total volumes in MBF, converted to CCF)

– 1980-2010 Cut – Sold Reports, electronic• Wood to Carbon Estimates (GTR-343)• Timber Product Data (Skog 1998)( g )• Primary Wood Product Data (GTR-343)• End Use Data (Skog 1998)End Use Data (Skog 1998)• Disposition and Half-life data (Skog 2008)• Timber Product Output information about processingTimber Product Output information about processing

facility timing (BBER)

3 500 000

Northern Region Cut Volume, 1906 to 2009(Data collected from Region 1 Archives and Cut Sold Reports)

3,000,000

3,500,000

2 000 000

2,500,000

CC

F

Cut Volume (CCF)

1,500,000

2,000,000

Har

vest

in C

500,000

1,000,000

0

,

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

1 1 1 1 1 2

Year of Harvest

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)pp ( p )– http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/climate-change/1-

ForestSectorProjectProtocol-October2009.pdf

• California Forest Project Protocolhttp://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/climate-change/1-ForestSectorProjectProtocol-October2009 pdfForestSectorProjectProtocol October2009.pdf

2011 Draft U.S. Greenhouse Gas InventoryInventory Report

7. Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry

Environmental Protection Agencyhtt // / li thttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

Annual harvest, divided into

Products in use (MgC)

Products in SWDS

Emitted with energy

Emitted withoutdivided into

timber product classes (ccf)

Primary

use (MgC) SWDS (MgC)

energy capture (MgC)

without energy capture (MgC)

SWDS half-lives

Annual output of primary

yproduct ratios

te fo

r fue

l

Landfills Dumps Compostof primary products (ccf)

Conversion factors w

ood

was

t

R d

Landfills Dumps

Di d d

Compost

burned w/ E

burned

Annual output of primary

products (MgC)Discarded

d twoo

d an

d w Recovered Discarded

disposition ratioscapture

products (MgC)

End use ratios

products

Fuel

w

C distributed to end uses (MgC) Half-lives of primary products in end

use

Distribution ExamplesDistribution Examples• Products in Use, Fuel wood and Waste Wood with

energy recapture Solid Waste Disposal Systemenergy recapture, Solid Waste Disposal System, – Products in Use

• Timber ProductsTimber Products – Sawtimber softwood, Sawtimber hardwood, Poles softwood, Poles hardwood,

Small roundwood softwood, small roundwood hardwood, etc.

– Primary Productsy• Softwood Lumber, Softwood Plywood, Mill Residue Pulp, Mill

Residue Fuel Unused, etc.

End Uses– 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)construction (all except railroads, railroad ties, railcar repair), Manufacturing (household furniture, other furniture, other products), Shipping, Other Uses

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. 2006.

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 2009. Distribution of primary products is based on ratios for 2002 for the Northern Rockies.

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.

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

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.

Figure 8. Disposition of all carbon harvested in Region 1 for reference year g p g y2010. This figure displays the same data as Figure 7, but shows the emissions pools as negative.

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 changea Emissionsb

1910 99,678 73,0741920 78 389 119 385

2010.

1920 78,389 119,3851930 57,871 137,2141940 6,088 104,1101950 266,258 344,3351960 605,839 784,1351970 996,120 1,460,6281980 457,410 1,179,4581990 480 615 1 056 0671990 480,615 1,056,0671995 59,992 782,6462000 -184,096 571,8372005 -150,408 503,2032006 -134,633 500,6812007 -199,125 460,5882008 -197,820 444,2332009 -190 299 451 7752009 -190,299 451,7752010 -172,111 465,051

aNet annual change in the stock of carbon in Region 1 HWP in products in use and in solid waste disposal (SWD).bNet annual change in carbon emissions from Region 1 HWP from SWD and fuelwood.

The Preliminary Results

• EPA / IPCC Production Method:– Peak Storage in HWP from Region 1

(1995):( )• 28 million MgC * (44/12) = 102.6 million MgCO2

• 102.6 million MgCO2/(5.23 metric tons CO2/ / ) //vehicle/year) = 19.61 million vehicles/year

– Net loss in HWP pool from Region 1 (2009)(2009):

• 172,111 MgC * (44/12) = 631,074 MgCO2631 074 M CO2 /(191 5 M CO2/ il f l)• 631,074 MgCO2 /(191.5 MgCO2/railcar of coal) = 3295.4 rail cars of coal

Future WorkFuture WorkComplete uncertainty analysisPresent results and an early draft of this manuscript to headquartersPresent results and an early draft of this manuscript to headquarters prior to submission for publication. Submit the manuscript to the international journal, Carbon Balance & ManagementManagement.Produce estimates for all R1 national forestsDevelop 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

Uncertainty Analysis

Forest Carbon Management Framework (ForCaMF)g ( )

• 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 faremissions 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• 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.

C C• 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.

Questions, Comments or ,Suggestions?

Contact: Keith Stockmann, PhD, 406-329-3549, kstockmann@fs.fed.usContact: Keith Stockmann, PhD, 406 329 3549, kstockmann@fs.fed.us

California Forest Project Protocol 2009 V. Ca o a o es ojec o oco 0093.1, Appendix C3, page 94-97.– http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/climate-change/1-

ForestSectorProjectProtocol-October2009.pdf

Overview of Steps:1 Determine the Amount of Carbon in Harvested Wood1. 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 Products4 E ti t th A C b St O 100 Y4. Estimate the Average Carbon Storage Over 100 Years

for Wood Products in Landfills 5. Determine Total Average Carbon Storage in Wood5. Determine Total Average Carbon Storage in Wood

Products Over 100 Years

Preliminary ResultsPreliminary Results

• CA Forest Project ProtocolCA Forest Project Protocol– The 100-year average for Region 1 peaked in

1969 at 957 638 MgC average 100 year1969 at 957,638 MgC average 100 year storage in HWP (Figure 7).

– In recent years, the 100-year average forIn recent years, the 100 year average for Region 1 harvest levels has been between 84,000 and 92,000 MgC.

Table 7. Estimate of the average carbon storage (MgC) over 100 years for wood products in use and in solid waste disposal foryears 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 usea

Landfills and dumpsb

Total

1910 31,489 29,149 60,6371920 40,114 37,134 77,2481930 32 461 30 049 62 5101930 32,461 30,049 62,5101940 43,837 40,580 84,4171950 95,930 88,802 184,7321960 332,952 308,215 641,1671970 477,050 441,606 918,6551980 264 075 238 803 502 8781980 264,075 238,803 502,8781990 328,911 284,163 613,0741995 105,103 102,151 207,2552000 74,394 68,890 143,2852005 73,794 66,384 140,1772006 47 100 44 673 91 7742006 47,100 44,673 91,7742007 42,694 45,010 87,7042008 39,187 45,567 84,7542009 43,541 48,377 91,917

a The 100-year average carbon storage in products in use for the harvest year.y g g p yb The 100-year average carbon storage in SWDS for the harvest year.

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

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.