Pacific Coast Forest Carbon: Forest Inventory Results from California, Oregon, and Washington Glenn Christensen, Forest Inventory Analyst PNW Research Station. Portland, Oregon • Forest Service’s Forest Inventory & Analysis Program • Forest carbon analysis at the PNW Research Station • Pacific Coast results Overview • Latest results and next steps What is FIA? • National Forest Inventory Program • Congress authorized the program with the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act of 1928 • Initially started as a marketable timber survey • Data collected as funding and interest allowed • 1998 Farm Bill - Annualized inventory for all forest resources • Annual inventory to provide data on status and trends • Inventory all forest lands, on all ownerships • Consistent sampling protocol, compilation, database, reporting requirements • FIA at PNW Research Station: Led the first comprehensive timber survey of the Douglas-fir Region, 1930 FIA: Sampling & Plot Design • Multi-year measurement cycle (PNW=10-year cycle) • Plots are permanently located to measure change • Consistent across PNW states since 2001: AK, CA, OR, WA • Hawaii and Pacific Islands implemented later • Data confidentiality protecting landowners and data integrity • Provides a statistically unbiased annual estimate of forest land conditions and trends FIA in Washington State Field measured plots permanently located on a base grid of 1 plot per 6,000 acres • National Forest: 1 plot per 1,850 ac. outside wilderness Annual field measurements began 2002: 6,112 field plots installed FIA National Program: Carbon Assessments • US EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory • National Climate Assessment • National Forests Carbon Assessments • FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment • UN Land use, Land change and Forestry Assessment Forest Carbon Reporting at PNW-FIA • California • 2008: PNW-FIA completed initial baseline carbon estimates for California Air Resources Board in response to California AB32: 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act. • 2014: CAL FIRE funded annual carbon reporting began. • Oregon • 2019: Oregon Department of Forestry funded Oregon Forest Ecosystem Carbon Inventory: 2001-2016. Carbon in harvested wood products report completed 2020. • Washington • 2019: Washington Department of Natural Resources funded Washington Forest Ecosystem Carbon Inventory: 2002-2016. Carbon in harvested wood products report completed 2020. Forest Carbon Stocks Forest land area by Ownership California: 31.7 million ac. • 61% Public, 48% Forest Service • 39% Private, 17% Corporate Oregon: 29.6 million ac. • 64% Public, 47% Forest Service • 36% Private, 22% Corporate Washington: 22.1 million ac. • 57% Public, 37% Forest Service • 43% Private, 22% Corporate Forest Carbon Flux Forest Carbon Flux Forest Carbon Flux: Estimates of Change • Every pool of forest carbon has a rate of carbon input and rate of carbon output. • Flux represents the amount of carbon going into a pool minus the amount going out. • Net increase = carbon sequestration • Net loss = transfer out of pool or carbon emission as CO2 • Flux is reported in units of CO2 equivalents. • Annual forest carbon flux is estimated from actual measurements of growth, removals, and mortality. • Carbon removed as harvested wood products are not included but is accounted for in a separate analysis. Annual Net flux (CO2eMMT/yr) California: 29.16 Oregon: 30.91 Washington: 16.14 Growth on live trees represents California: 58% Oregon: 69% Washington: 50% Note: Values greater than zero represent an annual increase in CO2e for a pool, values below zero represent an annual reduction in CO2e for a pool. Oregon and Washington: Live Tree Carbon Flux (CO2e) by Ownership Oregon: 2001-2006 to 2011-2016 Washington: 2002-2006 to 2012-2016 California: Live Tree Carbon Flux (CO2e) by Ownership, 2019 Update Disturbance Impacts on Forest Carbon Note: Values greater than zero represent an annual increase in CO2e for a pool, values below zero represent an annual reduction in CO2e for a pool. 2019 Data Update: Changing Live Tree Carbon Sequestration (Forest land remaining forest land) California Report year: 2017* 2018 2019 (change, MMT CO2 Live Tree Carbon Pool equivalent/year) Mortality -39.0 -41.5 -42.5 Harvest -13.8 -12.3 -13.4 Growth 71.0 69.5 69.0 Net change 18.2 15.7 13.1 * Unadjusted to updated ownership stratification 2019 Data Update: Changing Live Tree Carbon Sequestration (Forest land remaining forest land) California Oregon Report year: 2017* 2018 2019 2016* 2019** Live Tree Carbon Pool (change, MMT CO2 equivalent/year) Mortality -39.0 -41.5 -42.5 -25.3 -26.5 Harvest -13.8 -12.3 -13.4 -34.8 -36.9 Growth 71.0 69.5 69.0 90.2 88.2 Net change 18.2 15.7 13.1 30.1 24.8 * Unadjusted to updated ownership stratification ** Preliminary estimate 2019 Data Update: Changing Live Tree Carbon Sequestration (Forest land remaining forest land) California Oregon Washington Report year: 2017* 2018 2019 2016* 2019** 2016* 2019** Live Tree Carbon Pool (change, MMT CO2 equivalent/year) Mortality -39.0 -41.5 -42.5 -25.3 -26.5 -32.9 -34.2 Harvest -13.8 -12.3 -13.4 -34.8 -36.9 -31.2 -31.9 Growth 71.0 69.5 69.0 90.2 88.2 78.4 75.7 Net change 18.2 15.7 13.1 30.1 24.8 14.3 9.6 * Unadjusted to updated ownership stratification ** Preliminary estimate Thank you [email protected] www.fia.fs.fed.us American Forest Resource Council Annual Meeting, Skamania Lodge, WA August 3, 2021 Talking Points for the Forest Sector Wood products as a critical element of US climate mitigation efforts by Elaine Oneil PhD Director of Science and Sustainability CORRIM Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials A non-profit corporation formed by 20 research institutions to conduct cradle to grave environmental studies of wood products Member Research Institutions Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials - CORRIM Wood as a Climate Mitigation Tool Controversies and Arguments Four Camps 1. Don’t cut any trees – leave them grow to sequester carbon and get your building materials somewhere else 2. Manage less intensively – a single tree here and another there for continuous cover and cropping 3. Manage on longer rotations to maximize carbon sequestration in each tree you harvest 4. Manage more intensively to reduce the amount of time and focus site resources on the trees 1st Argument Against “Don’t cut any trees – leave them grow to sequester carbon and get your building materials somewhere else” Figure 1 from Lippke et al, 2021, The Plant a Trillion Trees Campaign to Reduce Global Warming – Fleshing Out the Concept, Journal of Sustainable Forestry, Berlyn Reviews, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi /full/10.1080/10549811.2021.1894 951 2nd Argument Against “Don’t cut any trees – leave them grow to sequester carbon and get your building materials somewhere else” Figure 6 from Lippke et al, 2021, The Plant a Trillion Trees Campaign to Reduce Global Warming – Fleshing Out the Concept, Journal of Sustainable Forestry, Berlyn Reviews, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10 80/10549811.2021.1894951 Intensive Management Model Confusion about Carbon Debt arises because of scale Mason et al 2019: Graphic representation of the spatial and temporal dynamics of C storage for a typical PNW forest managed on 45-year rotations presented as: the growth and harvest cycles of one forest stand (in turquoise), an average per ha for 10 forest stands harvested in sequential intervals (in teal), and an average for 100 stands harvested sustainably as part of a “normal” forest (in brown). Adapted from McKinley et al. 2011 and Janowiak et al. 2017. Alternative Silvicultural Pathways on Federal Lands Douglas-fir Forest Types – USFS – Western WA - forest + products + offsets carbon Accounting for Potential Fire Emissions Total Carbon Storage over time for various management practices (black) compared to baseline management practices (red) for US Forest Service lands located in Western Washington State. Dimensions of Forest Carbon Sequestration Time and amount of carbon sequestered Most effective Carbon sequestered drawdown scenario Dimensions of Forest Carbon Sequestration Increasing drawdown by increasing forest area US Regional Timberland Acreage Trends US Timberland PNW Region Southern Pine Region NE Region Rest of United States Average Volume/Ac by age class based on real inventory data in PNW avg vol/inventory age 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 MBF/ac MBF/ac 10,000 5,000 - 22 27 32 37 42 47 52 Inventory Age Midpoint Thank You For More Information www.corrim.org Elaine Oneil, PhD Director of Science and Sustainability [email protected] Carbon Carrying Capacity PNW Douglas-fir Forests Carbon in Standing Inventory by Age Class for Western Washington Federal Lands 500 Harmon et al 1990 – 1 site - OGDF – Oregon 432 t C/ha 450 Smith 1994: coastal BC – fully stocked OG – 230 t C/ha Smith 1994: coastal BC 146 OG stands – 133 t C/ha 400 350 300 250 200 150 Maximum Tree Carbon 100 Carbon Carbon in tonnes C/hectare 50 0 Age in Decades Carbon in Standing Tree Inventory Forest and Wood Product System relative to unharvested, unmanaged Range of Carbon Storage for unmanaged, unharvested forest PNW Douglas-Fir forest • Sustained trend of 2.3 t C/ha/year • 1.9 times the no- harvest maximum by Range of Carbon Storage for unmanaged, unharvested PNW year 135 Douglas-Fir forest • Sustained trend of 5.9 t C/ha/year • Exceeds no- harvest maximum at year 45 • Seismic code Range of Carbon Storage for unmanaged, unharvested PNW Douglas-Fir forest standards Image courtesy of Alan Organschi, Gray Organschi Architecture and Senior Critic, Yale School of Architecture, Forest Policy, Carbon, and People 2021 AFRC Annual Meeting August 03, 2021 Terry Baker, CEO Society of American Foresters Connecting science to policy makers • Determining the best available science to put forward is a multidisciplinary effort that requires the extensive collaboration of stakeholders and demands an adequate investment into research, education, and outreach.