Post on 20-Jan-2016
transcript
US Army Corps of Engineers
BUILDING STRONG®
Carbon Sequestration Capability?Biomass Potential?the Military Installation Context
Dr. Hal Balbach
Environmental Biologist
USA ERDC-CERL
25 Feb 2010
What are our land uses?
“Mission needs” is the standard answer A complicated picture Need space on land, sea, and air Active training on most lands Safety setbacks and buffers for others Both are equally important
Carbon and BiomassWhat are the DoD needs?
Military installations ca 25 million acres Corps water projects another 15 million ± Roughly 50% are forest/woodland BRAC process has reduced number of
active installations recently MISSIONS have not been reduced Operation intensity has increased on
remaining installations
Stylisma pickeringii (Pickering morning-glory)
Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi)
SE Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus)
Pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus)
Gopher frog (Rana capito)
Carphephorus bellidifolius (Sandywoods chaffhead)
Warea cuneifolia (Carolina pinelandcress)
Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalias)
Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Striped Newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus)
Astragalus michauxii (Sandhills milkvetch)
SE Pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis)
Many animal (and plant) species are officially listed as threatened or endangered at the state or Federal level, and
many more are considered at-risk of being so listed.
TES and SAR Concerns
Military installations support 200+ TES Also have ca 170 SARs Highest density of TES and SAR of any
Federal land holding agency 1000+ biologists working on the ground Serious about stewardship missions Spend ca $65 million/year on this
Biomass Concerns
How to determine potential demand? What capital costs would be needed? What about effect on land uses?
► Training uses – realistic environment► Wildlife management requirements► Land restoration plans?
Who would prioritize? Potential for Congressional pressures?
Carbon Budget/Capture Concerns DoD is actively registering/measuring CO2
► Heating plants► Vehicles, aircraft, generators
They are not generally measuring terrestrial pools
Not clear what the requirement will be for terrestrial sequestration► Calculation protocol► Future management needs/requirements
Some Exceptionswith respect to terrestrial carbon issues
The SERDP program funded a series of basic studies (1999 – 2009) which examined carbon budgets at Ft. Benning, GA
Mostly looked at small study plots Some attempts to expand installation-wide One major study through USGS-EROS Another study (not research funded) was an
offshoot of a CO2 management study of operations generation activities
ENVIANCE EXPANDS U.S ARMY’S DEPLOYMENT OF REAL-TIME GREENHOUSE GAS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO TWELVE BASES NATIONWIDE
Success of Initial Fort Carson, Colorado, Program to Manage and Reduce the Army’s Carbon Footprint Prompts Further Deployments in Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas
CARLSBAD, Calif. — Enviance, a proven provider of software solutions to help organizations manage carbon and other regulatory risks, today announced that the U.S. Army has expanded its deployment of the Enviance greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting and management system, which allows for real-time tracking andmanagement of GHG emissions and energy intensity reductions as mandated by Executive Order 13423.Initially proven at Fort Carson in Colorado, the Enviance system is being rolled out to an additional 11 installations across the United States, including Fort Benning, Ga.; Letterkenny Army Depot, Pa.; Redstone Arsenal, Ala.; Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa.; Fort Rucker, Ala.; Fort Campbell, Ky.; Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Drum,N.Y.; Fort Stewart, Ga.; Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md. and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.
Enviance™ Procedure
Additional effort beyond original contract Started with an installation inventory Used reference data from Smith, Heath,
and Woodbury, 2004, How to Estimate Forest Carbon for Large Areas from Inventory Data.
Values expressed as Mg C per ha Broad regional values only ones used
USGS – EROS Study
Multi-year SERDP Project (SI-1642) Broad biogeochemical focus Example of combining several models and
datasets► SSURGO► CENTURY► Several others
Implementation of GEMS system Resulted in numerous papers by Zhao, Liu and
others in 2009 - 2010
Tree density distribution From original inventory
0
5
10
15
20
25
0-49 50-99
100-149
150-199
200-249
250-299
300-349
350-399
400-449
450-499
>500
Tree Density Class (trees/ha)
Fre
qu
ency
(%
)
Liu, et al 2008
Distribution of aboveground biomass density among density classes
From original inventory
aboveground biomass C (Mg C/ha)
7.7
64.0
25.4
2.3
0.6
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
>80
Liu, et al 2008
Modeling Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Uncertainty Assessment
Shuguang (Leo) Liu and GEMS Team U.S. Geological SurveyEarth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center
U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey
Land cover change and disturbance maps Land cover change (e.g., ag census data, GIS grid time series, or both) Disturbances maps of extent and severity (fire, pests and insects, etc.) Coefficients describing carbon flow among pools induced by disturbances
Soil and DEM data GIS dataset such as SSURGO, STATSGO, FAO soil database DEM data (USGS/EROS) Stream networks (USGS/EROS), stream and nutrients flow (USGS)
Climate GIS datasets of monthly precipitation, max and min temperature To run EC-LUE: daily radiation/PAR, temperature, relative humidity, wind speed
Management Data Crop composition, crop rotation probability (e.g., NRI) Ag harvesting change in history (whole vs. grain only ...) Tillage information Nitrogen deposition map Forest age distribution and biomass data Selective cutting data by state Timber production
Model setup match table: land cover classes to model ecosystems (make GEMS very flexible)
GEMS Inputs
GEMSData Assimilation
GEMS General Ensemble Biogeochemical Modeling System
Input Data Module Output Data Module
Biogeochemical models (e.g., EDCM,
CENTURY, BIOME-BGC)
Data model fusion system
In-situ and Census Data
Land Surface Dynamics
Soil data
Vegetation data(FIA, USDA, etc)
Fluxnet data
Land cover/use change model (e.g., FORE-SCE,
CLUE)
Land cover and disturbances
Ecosystem Performance (e.g., productivity)
Spatially distributed characterization of ecosystem states and changes (e.g., carbon stocks and fluxes) with measure of uncertainty under various land use, management, and climate change scenarios
Assessment (e.g., carbon sequestration, risk, cost-benefit)
Climate Change Scenarios
IPCC, etc.
Land Use Scenarios
Economic and managementScenarios
Reporting by land management units, regions, and nation
GEMS
o A modeling system for spatially explicit simulation of biogeochemical cycling over large areas
o Developed at USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science Center
o Deployment of the encapsulated plot-scale model in space is based on a Joint Frequency Distribution of the major controlling variables (e.g., land cover, climate, soil, etc.).
o Included data assimilation algorithms
o It includes a dynamic land cover/use change submodel
o Stochastic ensemble simulations to incorporate uncertainties in input data
o Uncertainty estimate of carbon dynamics
o Major applications (US, Africa, and Central America)
GEMS and Other Models
GEMS is a modeling platform, originally designed to facilitate the deployment of classic site-scale models (e.g., CENTURY, DNDC, Biome-BGC, EDCM) in space. It uses two approaches to interact with encapsulated biogeochemical (BGC) models:
Agent Implementation. Any Model Interface (AMI) or agent is developed to implement the interface between any BGC model and GEMS. Agent Implementation avoids modifications to BGC models and can be very useful for sharing models that are hard to modify.
Direct Implementation. EDCM is merged with GEMS to allow running simulations of landscape and river transport, and also easier interactions with other modeling systems such as FORE-SCE. This direct implementation allows GEMS to run simulations in the space-time sequence rather than the original time-space sequence.
GEMS Outputs
Carbon stocks Biomass C: root, stem, leaf and branchDetritus/LitterSOC: active, slow and passiveEcosystem carbon stock
Ecosystem Carbon Fluxes and GHG Fluxes 4Ps: GPP, NPP, NEP (NEE), NBP Respiration N2O and CH4 Fluxes Fire induced carbon emission Tree biomass removal Grain yield Crop straw removal Lateral fluxes of C and N
Carbon trends and sensitivity to environmental factors Carbon change through time Carbon sensitivity to climate (precipitation, temperature) and atmospheric changes (CO2 concentration, Nitrogen deposition) Carbon sensitivity to natural disturbance and human land use (fire, logging etc.)
Other outputsWater balance (e.g, ET, run-off), hydrological routing and soil erosion/deposition
FORE-SCE Projected Land Cover Change from 1992 to 2050: Southeast U.S.
FOREcasting SCEnarios of future land cover (FORE-SCE) model ( Sohl and Sayler, 2008. Ecol Model)
Spatial Distribution of C Sequestration: FB vs. SUR
Carbon Sequestration
Land Cover Change
Carbon Sequestration: Fort Benning (FB) and Surrounding Area (SUR)
Average carbon sequestration rates for FB vs. SUR:
Current (1992-2007): 76.7 vs. 18.5 g C m-2 yr-1
Future (2008-2050): 75.7 vs. 25.6 g C m-2 yr-1
-50
0
50
100
150
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
C s
eq
ue
stra
tion
(g
C m
-2 yr
-1)
FB_current SUR_currentFB_future SUR_future
Different C sequestration rates caused by different land use change and practices.
Impacts of Spatial and Temporal Resolution of Land Cover Change Info