THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE US FOREST CARBON INVENTORY: RECENT PAST AND NEAR FUTURE Christopher W. Woodall, Research Forester, U.S. Forest Service,

THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE US FOREST CARBON INVENTORY: RECENT PAST AND NEAR FUTURE

Christopher W. Woodall, Research Forester, U.S. Forest Service, St. Paul, MN

Co-Authors

Grant Domke James Smith John Coulston Sean Healey Andy Gray

Outline

Why Inventory? Coordination within FIA 2011 Accomplishments

CRM vs Jenkins Standing Dead

2012 and Beyond

Why Inventory?

Accounts for majority of carbon sequestration in U.S.

Flux Related to U.S. Emissions

12 % Offset

UNFCCC Information

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: www.unfccc.int

Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry: LULUCF

Report Forest Area, Carbon Stocks, and Stock Change Annually back to 1990

How Many States did the FIA inventory in 1990? 2

Carbon Pools = Biomass

Aboveground biomass Belowground biomass Dead wood Litter Soil organic carbon

Aboveground Live Tree Biomass

Aboveground Carbon Flux

Organization within FIA

National Carbon Accounting Steering Committee Representatives from each FIA unit Serve as liaisons to their regional units

Northern Research Station Carbon Group

Prepare UNFCCC inventory Facilitate techniques integration into FIA

tools/documentation Leads on accounting research

Brief History of C Accounting Prior to Annual FIA

Almost pure modeling effort No P3 data Missing reserved land information

Now in a period of transition from pure models of past and annual inventory Incorporation of P3 data Refined tree component estimation

State of Accounting in 2010

Live Tree = Field Measurement Standing Dead Tree = Model Litter = Model Downed Dead Wood = Model Soil Organic Carbon = Model Belowground = Model

Vs.

* Used in 2009 National Greenhouse Gas Inventory of Forests (LULUCF)

Problem with Models

Do trees really grow/die in such a stable manner?

How about invasive earthworms and warming temperature impact on litter depth?

How about western tree mortality and fires?

Improvements in 2011

Jenkins to Component Ratio Method

Phase 2 standing dead

Released to Public in April 2012

CRM and Jenkins: 2 Accounting Books

Resource Protection

ActReport to Congress

Volume and Biomass

EPA

National Greenhouse

Gas Inventory

Forest Carbon

x 0.5 ≠

“Gaming the System?”

CRM vs. Jenkins

Jenkins

Nationally consistent method

Tree component estimates

Single field-based parameter: dbh

Useful at large scales Not linked to tree

volume Relies on external stump

equation

Component Ratio Method (CRM)

Nationally consistent method

Standardized use of regional volume equations

Utilizes dbh and height measurements

Requires Jenkins to estimate component biomass

Incorporates rotten and missing cull deductions

Relies on external stump equation

CRM vs. Jenkins

MethodJenkins:CRM:

79.5 kg C70.0 kg C

25.0 kg C21.7 kg C

4.9 kg C4.3 kg C

109.4 kg C96.0 kg C

Bole Top and limbs

Stump Total AG carbon

CRM vs. Jenkins

9 inch tree biomass by tree height across United States

Douglas-fir Quaking Aspen

CRM vs. Jenkins

* For 20 most abundant hwd/sftwd species by region

CRM vs. Jenkins

Woodall, C.W., Heath, L.S., Domke, G.M., Nichols, M.C. 2011. Methods and equations for estimating aboveground volume, biomass, and carbon for trees in the U.S. forest inventory, 2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-88. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 30 p.

CRM vs. Jenkins

Domke, G.M., Woodall, C.W., Smith, J.E., Westfall, J.A., McRoberts, R.E. 2012. Consequences of alternative tree-level biomass estimation procedures on U.S. forest carbon stock estimates. Forest Ecology and Management. 270: 108-116.

Standing Dead Wood

Wood density

Structural loss

Density Reduction Factors

Density Reduction Factors

Structural Loss Adjustment

Cline et al. 1980

Structural Loss Adjustment

Structural Loss Adjustment

*Paper birch in New Hampshire

Models vs. Measurements

Models may not account for recent disturbance mortality such as fire or insects

Standing Dead Research

Woodall, C.W., Domke, G.M., MacFarlane, D.W., Oswalt, C.M. 2012. Comparing field- and model-based standing dead tree carbon stock estimates across forests of the United States. Forestry. 85: 125-133.

Domke, G.M., Woodall, C.W., Smith, J.E. 2011. Accounting for density reduction and structural loss in standing dead trees: Implications for forest biomass and carbon stock estimates in the United States. Carbon Balance and Management 6: 14.

Implications of Changes to 2012 US LULUCF

Not all changes are due to the revised estimation procedures for live and standing dead trees (e.g., new inventories).

Reduction in US C stocks by 6.7% (3,232 Tg C) Increase in US C annual sequestration (2009 inventory

year) by 3.5% (8.3 Tg C/yr) CRM adoption was partially responsible for reducing AG

live tree stocks (2010) by 15.2% (2,606 Tg C). However, annual stock change (2009) increased by 0.9% (1.2 Tg C/yr)

Using FIA Phase 2 standing dead trees reduced standing dead tree US stocks (2010) by 14.8% (458 Tg C). However, annual stock change (2009) increased by 122.2% (11.0 Tg C/yr).

Baseline Trend Recalculations

Mid-Term Changes

Phase 3 downed dead wood Changes to FIADB being

currently implemented Refined AK managed

lands layers Released to public in

2013

Longer Term Changes

Improved individual tree volume/biomass models

Meshing remotely sensed imagery/models with soil measurements

Belowground and foliage model improvements

Phase 3 forest floor Biomass GRM

Summary

Improving estimation of each pool…step by step

CRM adoption and standing dead refinements first

Dead wood next Continued P3 sampling and success of

volume/biomass study essential

Thank You!!!