The Impacts of Changes in
Federal Timber Harvest on Forest
Carbon Sequestration and Log
Markets in Western Oregon
WFE 2007
Eun Ho Im, Darius M. Adams, Greg S. Latta
Department of Forest Resources
Oregon State University
NWFP & WOR Federal Forest
„
Northwest Forest Plan
Federal forest management guidelines
… Anticipated WOR cuts: 556 MMBF
… Actual WOR harvests: 315 MMBF (’95’99), 141 MMBF (’00-’04)
…
„
Some debates on federal forest
management and timber harvest
Increase cuts to NWFP levels for
economic benefits and wildfire
… Possible losses of ecosystem values
…
Carbon and Public Forests
„
Possible carbon losses
when old growth public
forests cut (Harmon et al.
1990, Schulze et al. 2000)
„
WOR, WWA federal
timberlands
sequestered 200Mt of
carbon (1953-2000)
(Smith & Heath, 2004)
„
Future public carbon
storage?
http://www.krisweb.com/krisgualala/krisdb/html/krisweb/index.htm
Objectives
„
Examine log market and carbon flux impacts of
changes in WOR federal cuts up to maximum
sustainable level
… Expanded
federal harvest: potential carbon flux and
regional log supply changes due to increased federal
timber harvests
… Carbon
target: potential harvests from private,
federal, & state timberlands given regional carbon flux
target that is achieved by joint efforts of all owners
Public Harvest Assumptions
„
Previous studies
… Ignore
public inventories (Adams et al. 1999)
… Merge private and public inventories and harvest
decisions (Sedjo & Lyons 1996, Sohngen & Mendelson 1998)
… Exogenous public harvest and management decisions
(Adams & Latta 2005, Depro et al. 2006)
„
Our log market model includes public forests:
… Federal
harvests set by agency policies (NWFP)
… Areas to be harvested and modes of management
according to management costs and carbon impacts
Methods
Inventory data
„ Management intensity classes
„ Timber & carbon yield projection
„ Land area changes
„ Market model
„
Methods: Inventory & MICs
„
Private, federal, and state timber inventory derive from
USFS FIA periodic forest survey
…
„
Inventories are updated based on actual harvest data by ODF
MICs for private & state lands (Adams et al., 2002)
Existing stands: 7 MICs
… New stands (natural or planted): 4 MICs
…
„
Federal lands MICs based NWFP & its guidelines
Commercial thinning (CT) for LSR softwood stands
… 3 thinning options for Matrix, AMA, and RR
… Regeneration harvest for Matrix/AMA softwood stands
… No additional silvicultural practices
…
Methods: Yield & Carbon Projections
„
Yield projection using
individual tree growth model
Private & state lands:
ORGANON (Hann et al., 1997)
… Federal lands: Forest
Vegetation Simulator (Dixon,
2003)
…
„
Carbon storage in forests &
forest products
Live & dead trees, understory,
forest floor, woody residue, soil
… products and fuel substitution
(Skog & Nicholson 2000)
…
Source: http://www.whrc.org/support/index.htm
(The Woods Hole Research Center)
Methods: Federal LUA & KWS
LUA
Northwest Forest Plan
This Study
Key Watersheds
Key Watersheds
Tier1+2
non-Key
Tier1+2
non-Key
· · · · · · · · · · Thousand acres · · · · · · · · · ·
CR/AW/ND
657
767
618
694
LSR
1,318
1,756
1,360
1,764
AMA
76
497
82
500
684
2,359
679
2,415
Matrix/RR
Note: Areas include forested and non-forested lands
Methods: Market Model
DEMAND FOR LOGS
AT MILLING CENTER
MAXIMIZE NET
SOCIAL SURPLUS
PRICE
CONSUMER
SURPLUS
SHIFTS WITH
PRODUCT PRICE,
CAPACITY,
TECHNOLOGY, &
NON-WOOD COSTS
PRODUCER
SURPLUS
SUPPLY OF LOGS
FROM PRIVATE,
STATE, & FEDERAL
TIMBERLAND
LOCATIONS
SHIFTS WITH COSTS OF
MANAGEMENT, LOGGING,
HAULING, & INTEREST RATE
HARVEST
PROCESSING CAPACITY
SHIFT WITH PRODUCT PRICE,
EQUIPMENT COSTS,
DEPRECIATION, INTEREST RATE
Results: Current Carbon Stock
□ Comparison of current carbon stock (tonnes/ha)
Region/
owners
Live
Carbon
Dead
Carbon
Product
Carbon
Heath et al. (‘03)*
PNW/all
102.8
45.6
-
Birdsey&Lewis(‘03)*
OR/all
82.3
42.4
26.4
Law et al. (‘04)†
WOR/all
128.6 - 196.8
38.4 - 49.5
-
This study †
WOR/all
144.2
39.5
38.2
/Private
82.7
35.3
61.0
/USFS
204.9
45.3
19.8
/OPUB
161.4
34.1
21.9
/State
176.2
48.3
26.5
Note: * Estimate of carbon stock in 1997; and † carbon stock in 2002.
Results: Regional Carbon Flux & Harvest
Impacts of Expanded Federal Harvest
Annualized carbon sequestration
(MILLION TONNES)
13.25
CURRENT FEDERAL CUT
AND REGIONAL ∆C
12.75
12.25
MAX SUSTAINABLE
FEDERAL CUT
-1.20 Mt
11.75
11.25
+751 MMBF
10.75
10.25
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
Average annual harvest (BILLION BOARD FEET)
4.4
4.5
□ FEDERAL HARVEST
1300
MILLION TONNES
1
MAX SUS
FED CUT
0.8
0.6
CURRENT
FED CUT
0.4
0.2
0
3.6
□ FEDERAL CARBON
1100
900
700
500
□ PRIVATE & STATE HARVEST
M ILLIO N TO NNES
BILLION BOARD FEET
BILLION BOARD FEET
Results: Carbon & Harvest Projections
(Current vs. Maximum Federal Harvest)
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
800
□ PRIVATE & STATE CARBON
750
700
650
600
550
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
Results: Carbon Flux & Harvest Impacts of
Expanded Federal Harvest on Federal lands
Annualized carbon sequestration
(MILLION TONNES)
5.25
CURRENT FED CUT
AND REGIONAL ∆C
4.75
4.25
-1.21 Mt
(+0.01 Mt)
MAX SUS
FED CUT
3.75
+751 MMBF
(0 MMBF)
3.25
2.75
∆C ON RESERVED AREA
2.25
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Average annual harvest (BILLION BOARD FEET)
0.8
1
Results: Regional Carbon Flux & Harvest
Changes with Carbon Target
Annualized carbon sequestration
(M ILLION TONNES)
10.5
CURRENT
REGIONAL ∆C
10
+716 MMBF
- 35 MMBF
9.5
CURRENT FED CUT
AND REGIONAL ∆C
9
+1.22 Mt
8.5
Expanded federal harvest
8
MAX SUS
FED CUT
Carbon target
7.5
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
Average annual harvest (BILLION BOARD FEET)
4.3
4.4
4.5
Results: Carbon Flux & Harvest Changes
with Carbon Target on Federal lands
Annualized federal carbon sequestration
(MILLION TONNES)
5.25
CURRENT FED CUT
AND REGIONAL ∆C
4.75
CURRENT
REGIONAL ∆C
-1.06 Mt
(+1.06 Mt)
4.25
3.75
0.15 Mt
+736 MMBF
(-20 MMBF)
3.25
-15MMBF
MAX SUS
FED CUT
Expanded federal harvest
2.75
Carbon target
2.25
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Average annual federal harvest (BILLION BOARD FEET)
0.9
1
Results: Concentration of Cut by Age Class
(Baseline vs. Carbon Target)
Percent of average annual harvest (%)
50
45
BASELINE:
CURRENT FEDERAL CUT
AND REGIONAL ∆C
PRIVATE
HARVEST
40
35
CARBON TARGET:
CURRENT REGIONAL ∆C
30
25
20
15
FEDERAL
HARVEST
10
5
0
0-30
40-50
60-70
80-90
100110
120130
140150
Age cohort class
160170
180190
200250
Results: Concentration of Cut by Carbon
Density Class (Baseline vs. Carbon Target)
Percent of average annual harvest (%)
40
BASELINE:
CURRENT FEDERAL CUT
AND REGIONAL ∆C
35
30
PRIVATE
HARVEST
25
CARBON TARGET:
CURRENT REGIONAL ∆C
20
15
FEDERAL
HARVEST
10
5
0
0-20 2040
4060
6080
80- 100- 120- 140- 160- 180- 200- 220- 240- 260- 280- 300+
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Carbon density class (tonnes/ac)
Results: Market Surplus Impacts
Policy scenarios
Consumer
surplus
Producer surplus
Federal
PVT/State/
Importer
Net social
surplus
· · · · · · · Annualized 1992 $US million · · · · · · ·
Baseline: Current federal
cut & regional C flux
836.3
53.6
1,406.7
2,296.5
Carbon target: Regional
C flux = baseline*
1,126.4
314.7
(80.3)
1,351.9
(72.2)
2,793.0
(152.5)
Max, Sustainable Federal
cut, no C flux limits
1,144.6
317.5
1,359.8
2,821.8
Notes: 6% discount rate
*Parenthesis is carbon payments at a $12.26 per tonne of carbon.
Summary & Conclusions
„
Regional carbon flux declines as regional harvest rises
Max sustainable WOR federal cut: 885 MMBF
… Market surplus rises 23% (consumer/federal gainer, others loser)
…
„
Significant opportunities for substituting harvest and
carbon flux between federal and private/state lands
Increase in federal harvest, but decrease in other harvests
… Carbon loss in federal lands is offset by gain in other lands
…
„
Carbon subsidy/tax can mimic carbon flux target
Baseline carbon target ≈ C flux at $12.3 tonne C
… Carbon payment exceeds market surplus loss
…
Simplified Representation of Market Model
MAX
−t
(
i
)
[ ∫ P( C, K )dC − cK ∆K − M( EP , RP , I P ) − f ( EF , RF , I F )]
1
+
∑t
s.t. C − cP( EP , RP , I P ) − cF ( EF , RF , I F , pol ) ≤ 0
cF ( EF , RF , I F , pol ) ≤ cF ,MAX
(*1)
PP( EP , RP , I P ) ≤ AP , PF ( EF , RF , I F ) ≤ AF
Kt − (1− δ )Kt−1 − ∆K ≤ 0
−t
(
1
i
)
[ ∆CW ( C ) + ∆CP( EP , RP , I P ) + ∆CF ( EF , RF , I F )] ≥ TC
+
∑t
(*1): Expanded federal harvest; and (*2): Carbon target
(*2)