Download An Analysis of Carbon Sequestration on Clarkson University`s Campus

An Analysis of Carbon
Sequestration on Clarkson
University’s Campus
Brittany Guarna, B.S. ES&P ‘12
2011-2012 Capstone
1
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3
-
Figure 1: Clarkson University’s “Hill” Campus, with boundaries………………………..………………7
Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
-
Figure 2: Clarkson’s Seven Springs Region………………………………………………………………………9
Figure 3: Map of Transects and Point Plots in Clarkson’s Woods…………………………………….10
Figure 4: Hamlin Powers Trail & Raquette River Waterfront boundaries………………….………11
Table 1: Forest Distribution Types from Rowntree & Nowak (1991)…………………..……………12
Results……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..14
-
Table 2: Trees per Diameter Class for Clarkson Woods………………………………………….………14
-
Table 3: Analysis of Clarkson Woods Using Rowntree & Nowak’s Distributions………………..15
-
Table 4: Summary Table of Carbon Stored in Sequestered in Forested Regions………………..16
-
Table 5: Number of Hardwoods and Evergreens in each DBH Group……………………………….17
-
Table 6: Annual Sequestration by Hardwood & Evergreens based on DBH Groups…………….18
-
Table 7: Annual Storage by Hardwoods & Evergreens based on DBH Groups…………………..18
-
Table 8: Summary Table – Total Sequestration/Storage on Clarkson’s Campus………….…….19
-
Figure 5: Comparison of Carbon Stored Throughout the Different Regions………………………19
-
Figure 6: Comparison of Carbon Sequestered Throughout the Different Regions……………..20
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..20
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….22
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………24
2
Abstract
Clarkson University has a very unique campus, with over 500 acres of forested area on its
campus, including the Clarkson Woods, Seven Springs, the Hamlin-Powers (HP) trail forest, the Raquette
River waterfront property, and many individual trees planted throughout campus. Clarkson also
participates in planting projects. This project aims to place quantitative value on Clarkson’s forested
regions based on the amount of carbon that is stored and sequestered annually by these forested
regions. According to Clarkson’s greenhouse gas inventory report for 2010, the university emitted over
20,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. The sequestration of carbon in trees can help to offset
Clarkson’s greenhouse gas footprint. Estimating the carbon sequestration in trees required an inventory
of the types of trees and forested areas on campus. Sample plots were created along transects in the
Clarkson Woods, Seven Springs, the HP trail, and riverfront property, and forest type distributions were
created using the trees’ diameter breast height (DBH). Equations based on the forests’ distributions
were used to calculate stored and sequestered carbon. Individual trees around Clarkson’s campus were
measured for their DBH height, and the amount of carbon sequestered and stored was calculated using
a Carbon Calculator created by the U.S. Forest Service. The total carbon sequestered annually by these
four regions is 324 tons per year. The biomass on Clarkson’s campus stores 17,200 tons of carbon.
Based on these findings, creating a plan to plant and maintain trees will greatly benefit Clarkson
and help it to reach its sustainability goals. By creating and implementing a forest management plan,
Clarkson would be able to maintain forest growth and sequestration for longer periods of time. For
example, this research found that hardwood trees sequester carbon for longer than evergreen trees. By
focusing planting projects on hardwood trees, Clarkson would be able to maximize the sequestration
potential of its forested regions. This study provides an efficient way for Clarkson to value its forested
regions and justify future planting projects and forest management plans.
Introduction
I.
Global Climate Change
One of the most pressing issues in the modern scientific community is the problem of global
climate change and the role that greenhouse gases play in the shifting global temperatures.
Anthropogenic causes of global warming have become a major topic of concern because of the lifealtering changes that could potentially result from a rise in global temperature. Even a global average
temperature rise of 2.0°C could be extremely detrimental to today’s ecosystems, and some models are
predicting changes of up to 5.0°C warmer than historical average temperatures (IPCC, 2007). The rising
global temperatures will lead to many other changes including, but not limited to, a rise in atmospheric
water vapor, losses of forests and changes in vegetation composition, increased acidification of the
oceans, flooding, an increase in extreme weather events, and changing ecosystems that will greatly alter
biodiversity (King, 2005). It is this ever growing list of global impacts that a warming climate will have on
human life and the environment that has prompted scientists to look closer at global climate change, its
causes, and possible solutions.
Many different human activities, or anthropogenic causes, of global climate change have been
identified. These include land-use change, development, deforestation, and emission of greenhouse
3
gases that amplify the greenhouse gas effect (Mannion, 1998). The greenhouse gas effect is a naturally
occurring phenomenon, in which heat is trapped by gases in the Earth’s atmosphere and radiated back
to the Earth’s surface. It is essential for life to exist on Earth, but increased greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere have caused the temperature of Earth’s surface to rise rapidly. Many different greenhouse
gases exist, but those of major concern include carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous and
sulfurous oxides (N₂O and S₂O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and
tropospheric ozone (O₃) (Warrick and Farmer, 1990). Each of these gases affects the atmosphere at
different levels of severity and are emitted by human activities.
The gas of highest concern is carbon dioxide. Although carbon dioxide is not the strongest
greenhouse gas, it is emitted in the greatest amounts from anthropogenic activities. According to the
CO2Now website, in 2010, the emissions for carbon dioxide, globally, were 36.7 billion metric tons
(CO2Now.org, 2010). Also from the CO2Now website, the current atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration is 393.09ppm, as of January 2012. The level of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased
over 100.0ppm from its pre-industrial revolution level of 280ppm. Since 1850, the increase in
development and industrial processes has lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from human
activities, which has spiked the concentration of this gas in the atmosphere (Keeling, 1998). Fossil fuel
combustion is the leading source of carbon dioxide emissions with a total of 84.8% of all emissions.
Other notable sources of carbon dioxide emissions include cement manufacturing, iron and steel
production, natural gas systems, and the combustion of municipal solid wastes (U.S. EPA, 2011). Since
carbon dioxide plays a major role in the issue of global climate change, it is important for everyone to be
aware and conscious of their carbon dioxide emissions and work to reduce their carbon footprint.
II.
Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Due to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, it has become very important for communities,
organizations, companies, and other groups to monitor their emissions through greenhouse gas
inventories. According to the U.S. EPA website, a greenhouse gas inventory is, “an accounting of
greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted to or removed from the atmosphere over a period of time.” The use
of greenhouse gas inventories is very important because it allows groups to see where their highest
emissions are, where emissions can be cut back, and how to continue mitigating emissions over time.
With greenhouse gas inventories, the business or group is given a baseline emission level to work with
and improve on in a period of time.
The use of a greenhouse gas inventory is imperative when a business or group works to
decrease emissions in a certain area or overall. Without the use of greenhouse gas inventories,
companies would not have an idea of their baseline emissions or know where to cut back on emission
levels. Greenhouse gas inventories also determine where the most pollutants are emitted from within
an infrastructure. For example, if a company has the highest rate of emissions from electricity usage,
they can focus their reduction efforts on reducing electricity use and determine where cut-backs can be
made in this specific area. Greenhouse gas inventories provide industries or groups a priority system for
which areas to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.
4
III.
Options to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
There are many options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, in order for the reductions to
be significant, many different methods need to be implemented. Lifestyle changes on an individual level
up to national policies have the ability to make a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. There
are many components of modern society that can be changed to reduce emissions, including
technological advancements, and through built environments and development. The process of
geoengineering does not reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but can be used to reduce
the impacts observed by these emissions.
Advances in technology have the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in many different
realms, including transportation, building efficiency, and new forms of energy. With technology
advancing, less fuel will be consumed, and therefore less greenhouse gases will be emitted from
everyday activities. Technological advances can take on many forms, including increased fuel economy
in vehicles, increased housing and building insulation, and new forms of alternative energy. In the
transportation sector alone, there are many technological advances that can come about that will
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Increases in fuel efficiency will lead to higher fuel economy and less
gasoline being consumed by drivers. The same result will come from a larger production and use of
alternative vehicles, such as electric cars. Increases in public transportation will cut down on the
number of people commuting each day (Hoffert et al, 2002). Advances in technology can reduce the
amount of oil, gasoline, and petroleum required, thereby reducing the overall amount of greenhouse
gases that are emitted.
An option to reduce the impacts from greenhouse gas emissions is though geoengineering.
Geoengineering is the manipulation of environmental processes that affect the Earth’s climate with the
goal of counteracting the effect that greenhouse gases have in the atmosphere (Marchetti, 1977).
Carbon sequestration is another form of geoengineering and generally focuses on the use of biomass to
store and sequester carbon. This naturally occurring process can be very important from a greenhouse
gas emissions viewpoint because it captures carbon from the atmosphere so that it can no longer impact
atmospheric processes. Carbon sequestration and storage is not a feasible solution for large firms or
plants looking to offset their emissions with biomass because it would be too expensive. However, for
businesses or organizations with existing forested regions, maintaining these areas could provide carbon
offset emissions with very little management and effort.
IV.
Carbon Sequestration and Storage
Carbon sequestration is the active removal of carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it in a
reservoir. Carbon storage is the long-term capture of carbon that occurs in biomass, soil, oceans, and
underground sinks such as aquifers, saline deposits, and gas reserves (Lal, 2004). Although there are
many methods of carbon sequestration that are currently being researched, the most important
currently is carbon sequestration and storage in biomass. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), forested biomass regions globally sequester 466 giga tons of carbon each year
(IPCC, 2000). By implementing proper management and forestation policies, the amount of carbon
dioxide being sequestered annually by biomass has the potential to increase substantially.
5
The carbon cycle in forests is driven by the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis converts the
energy gained from sunlight to nutrients that the plant requires. It utilizes carbon dioxide, water, and
energy and converts it to oxygen and glucose. The equation for photosynthesis can be seen below:
(1)
6𝐶𝑂2 + 6𝐻2 𝑂 + 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 → 𝐶6 𝐻12 𝑂6 + 6𝑂2
As seen in equation 1, plants retrieve molecules of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it
to usable molecules that are stored in all parts of the plant, including limbs, leaves, roots, and the stem
(Gorte, 2009). This process effectively captures and removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,
mitigating the negative effects that it can have. Forests also have natural cycles of life and death. At
the death stage, carbon is released back into the atmosphere as the plant decomposes.
The amount of carbon sequestered and stored also varies greatly based on a large number of
factors. This includes the type of forest, its net primary productivity, the age of the forest, and its overall
composition (Millard, 2007). Forest types and climate zones have a substantial impact on these
processes. Overall, forest types can be broken down into “biomes” based on their climate zones:
tropical, temperate, and boreal forests. Tropical forests are generally classified on their locality; they
are located between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. Temperate forests are located in
the mid-latitude regions which are found at fifty degrees to the north and south of the equator.
Temperate forested regions sequester the least amount of carbon when compared to the other regions.
Boreal forests are found in the northernmost regions of the globe and sequester the most carbon
annually than any other forest type (Gorte, 2009). Other important factors include the species of trees
present and the overall age of the forest. Faster growing species sequester carbon for longer periods of
time. So on average, hardwood trees sequester more carbon over their lifetime than do evergreen
species. Trees and plant matter do not actively sequester carbon throughout their lifetime, so the
relative age of the forested region is important as well. For example, an old-growth forest will not
sequester as much carbon as a younger forest. These are all important considerations when creating or
implementing a forest management plan.
Studying the carbon sequestration patterns of forests and biomass is important to determine the
correct policies to maximize the amount of carbon being sequestered. Measuring the carbon
sequestration of an area is important to the overall issue of greenhouse gases. Being aware of how
much carbon a forest can sequester is helpful because it can help a group or organization offset its
emissions and value its forested regions.
V.
Clarkson University’s Unique Campus
Clarkson University is located on the edge of the Adirondacks in St. Lawrence County, New York. It
has a very unique campus, with over 500 forested acres on campus. In addition to the Clarkson woods,
there are also large patches of wooded areas on campus, along the waterfront property, and at “Seven
Springs”. Seven Springs is Clarkson’s old ski hill, and is comprised of 64.1 acres that is now used for
recreational purposes. In order to effectively value and understand the carbon offsets and benefits of
having such a large natural biomass area, it is important to calculate the amount of carbon stored on
Clarkson’s campus, and the amount of carbon that is being sequestered annually. Figure 1 shows an
overview of these regions on Clarkson’s Campus.
6
HP Woods
Waterfront
Woods
Clarkson
Woods
Figure 1 – Clarkson University’s “Hill” Campus, with boundaries showing the Clarkson Woods, the
Waterfront woods, and the Hamlin-Powers (HP) trail woods
As seen in Figure 1, Clarkson University has a large amount of forested areas throughout its
campus. It also has a large number of forest management policies and common practices. For example,
in the 2011 fiscal year, Clarkson planted 240 seedlings and 17 large trees on campus. Many of the large
trees were relocated from SUNY Potsdam’s campus where they were scheduled to be cut down
(Powers, 2011). These planting projects cost time, resources, and money. Estimating the carbon
sequestration and storage of Clarkson’s biomass is a way to effectively value the planting of trees and
forest maintenance plans on campus.
VI.
Methods to Estimate Carbon Sequestration
There are many different approaches and methods that can be used to estimate the overall carbon
sequestration and storage of an area. Because sequestration depends on a large number of factors,
including climate region, primary productivity of the area, tree species, age and size of the tree, growth
rate of the tree, and many other factors, all models for carbon sequestration will contain a significant
amount of uncertainty. Most models and methods will for individual tree estimates will include at least
the age, diameter, or height of the tree, the species, and the region that the tree is located. For overall
forest estimates of carbon sequestration, rough estimates can be made based on the composition of the
forest (tree species), the estimated age of the forest, spacing between trees or tree density, or an
average canopy cover of the forest (Energy Information Administration, 1998). It is very important to
choose the correct forest sequestration model for the region in question, based on information known
or measurable. For example, for both the forested regions and individual trees at Clarkson University,
the exact age and planting date is unknown. Therefore, any methods that relied on the age of the trees
or forest had to be eliminated. This project utilized two different method types to estimate carbon
7
sequestration and storage: one for the large forested areas on campus, and one for individual trees and
small tree clusters scattered throughout campus.
To calculate the amount of carbon stored and sequestered in the larger regions of Clarkson’s
campus, such as in the Clarkson Woods and at Seven Springs, a study of urban forest sequestration from
Syracuse, New York was utilized (Rowntree & Nowak, 1991). This study looked at the importance of
urban forests and their sequestration and carbon offset potential. It provided equations to estimate the
amount of carbon stored and sequestered in a forest and estimates the total carbon stored and
sequestered throughout the United States by urban forest sites. This study was specifically chosen
because it is located in Syracuse, New York, and therefore has a very similar climate region and forest
primary productivity rate as forests located in Potsdam, New York. This study based its estimations off
of forest canopy cover and the overall diameter distribution of the forested region (Rowntree and
Nowak, 2001). Because these are both measurable characteristics of a forest, this study could be
applied to Clarkson’s campus.
The second method that was used in this project was to quantify the amount of carbon sequestered
and stored by individual trees and small tree clusters throughout Clarkson’s campus. The United States
Department of Agriculture and the United States Forest Service created the Climate Change Resource
Center, which is an online database that provides information and tools for land managers and services
(Climate Change Resource Center, 2011). The Tree Carbon Calculator (CTCC) was created by the Urban
Ecosystems and Processes Team. This calculator provides a quantitative analysis of the carbon
sequestration and storage in individual trees. This carbon calculator is based off of climate zone, tree
species, diameter of the tree or its age. Because you can choose between the diameter of the tree or
the age of the tree as a factor, this was applicable to Clarkson’s campus because these characteristics
could be measured. This carbon calculator is programmed in an Excel spreadsheet format (Climate
Change Resource Center, 2011). This carbon calculator provided a method to quantify the amount of
carbon sequestered and stored by individual trees and small tree clusters throughout Clarkson’s
campus.
VII.
Clarkson University’s Emissions
Clarkson University has completed a greenhouse gas inventory for the 2010 fiscal year, and is
working on completing the inventory report for 2011. Clarkson University’s goal is to incorporate
sustainability into all aspects of campus life, including buildings, food services, energy usage, and
landscaping. According to Clarkson’s 2010 greenhouse gas inventory, the campus’s emissions were
over 20,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. About 78% of these emissions were due to
Clarkson’s energy usage. Therefore, most of the efforts at Clarkson are currently focused on reducing
energy usage and becoming a more energy efficient campus overall. In an effort to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, valuing and calculating the amount of carbon dioxide sequestration is imperative.
VIII.
Problem Statement and Objectives
This project is important to Clarkson University’s sustainability movement because it will quantify
and give a quantitative value to the Clarkson woods, Seven Springs, and individual trees on campus. It
8
will also provide a justification for planting projects and a forest management plan, other than for
further beautification of campus. There are three overall objectives of this study:
1. To review and determine the best method for calculating carbon sequestration and storage on
Clarkson’s campus
2. Measure and calculate carbon storage and sequestration by Clarkson’s forested areas using the
determined method
3. Calculate and analyze the value of Clarkson’s woods and create a plan to manage forested areas
and future planting projects based on space available
This project provides an important analysis of the value of the forested regions on Clarkson’s campus,
and the overall impacts that these values can have on the overall University.
Methods
I.
Study Sites
Clarkson University, located in Potsdam, New York in the St. Lawrence County has a 640 acre
campus. Clarkson’s campus has a substantial amount of forest; it has about 460 acres of undeveloped,
wooded land. There were various sites surveyed on Clarkson’s campus, including the Clarkson Woods,
Seven Springs, the Hamlin-Powers trail wooded area, the Raquette River waterfront property, and
several patches of trees around campus. The overall composition of the forested areas was calculated
to be 72% hardwood and 28% evergreen trees. Figure 1, from the Introduction, shows the sample sites
that were utilized on Clarkson’s campus. Figure 2 below shows Seven Springs, which is Clarkson
University’s old ski hill, located in Parishville, New York about 12 miles from campus. The Seven Springs
forested area had the same composition of hardwood and evergreen as on campus, but there was
overall much more undergrowth and brush present than on Clarkson’s main campus. Sample points
were determined and measured at each location in order to determine the overall composition and
sequestration capability of each forested region. On Clarkson’s main campus, individual trees were
measured and included in the overall study.
Figure 2 – Clarkson University’s Seven Springs region, located off Crowley Road in Parishville, NY
9
II.
Clarkson Woods & Seven Springs
The Clarkson Woods is a region behind Clarkson’s main campus that makes up about 415 acres.
There are many hiking trails, mountain biking paths, and other recreational facilities located throughout
this region. There are also two large wetland sites in the Clarkson Woods. It is made up of both
hardwood and evergreen tree species, and is relatively unmaintained by Clarkson University. No
landscaping or other routine maintenance occurs in this region. In order to adequately sample this
forested region, sample points were chosen along transects in throughout the Clarkson woods. Point
samples were taken along three different transects throughout the woods. Sampling techniques for
large, forested regions can vary; however, transects and sample plots were feasible and applicable to
the Clarkson forested regions based on a literature review of common forest sampling techniques
(Freese, 1962). Four circular sample plots were taken on each transect, for a total of twelve sample
points. Figure 3 below is a map from Google Earth showing Clarkson University’s hill campus
(boundaries shown in red). This picture also shows the Clarkson woods, and the transects and plots
created to sample the forest’s distribution.
Figure 3 – Map of Clarkson’s Boundaries, Transects, and Plot Points for the Clarkson Woods
The transects and sample points were created using Google Earth. The coordinates were taken
from Google Earth and inputted into a GPS. Each sample site was then visited. The sample plots were
taken with a ten meter radius. A thin 10 meter long rope was attached to a stake that was driven into
the center of the plot. The rope was stretched out to its length and walked in a circle, and all trees that
fell within the circular plot were measured. Every tree that came into contact with the string was
measured. The diameters of the trees were measured in inches, and trees were measured using the
standard diameter at breast height, or DBH. DBH measures the tree’s diameter at an adult’s breast
10
height, or at about 4.5 feet. All trees over 36 inches in height were measured. During the sampling,
the number of hardwood and evergreen trees were also counted and recorded.
In order to create sample points at Clarkson University’s Seven Springs, a similar methodology
was used. The boundaries of Seven Springs can be seen in Figure 2. The three transects seen were
created using Google Maps, and a sample point was taken on each transect, for a total of three
transects. The same sampling techniques that were used in Clarkson’s Woods were used at Seven
Springs.
III.
Raquette River Waterfront and Hamlin-Powers Trail Forested Areas
The sample points for these areas were mapped out using Google Maps in the same manner as the
sample points for the Clarkson Woods. Because these both of these sites are much smaller than the
Clarkson Woods, no transects were created. Instead, there were two sample points measured in the
forested area by the Hamlin-Powers trail, and three sample points were measured by the Raquette River
Waterfront property. These sites can be seen in the Google Maps image, Figure 4.
Waterfront
HP Trail
Figure 4 – Borders of Hamlin-Power Trail forested region and Raquette River Waterfront Forested
Area
In order to determine the amount of carbon stored in the woods and the amount of carbon
sequestered annually, a methodology presented by Rowntree and Nowak was used. They created four
distribution types that the majority of forests can be catagorized (Rowntree and Nowak, 2001). The
forest distribution types were created based on the DBH of the forests. The distributions were broken
down based on the percentage of trees in each distribution class. The different forest type distributions
are shown in Table 1.
11
Table 1. Forest Distribution Types Determined by Rowntree and Nowak, 2001, based on DBH
Diameter Class (inches)
0-6
7-12
13-18
19-24
25-30
<30
Percent of trees in each diameter class
Type 1
42
27
14
10
6
1
Type 2
21
29
26
8
8
8
Type 3
23
15
20
16
18
8
Avg.
29
24
20
11
11
6
Once the data from Clarkson’s forests were collected and aggregated by the diameter classes
presented in Table 1, an r squared correlation coefficient test was run to determine which forest type
best describes Clarkson’s woods. Once the forest type was matched, the equations developed by
Rowntree and Nowak were used in order to calculate the amount of carbon sequestered annually, as
well as the amount of carbon stored within the forest.
Carbon Stored Equations (Rowntree & Nowak, 1991):
Type 1: % Cover (0-100) x 0.3226 x # of acres
Type 2: % Cover (0-100) x 0.4423 x # of acres
Type 3: % Cover (0-100) x 0.5393 x # of acres
Average: % Cover (0-100) x 0.4303 x # of acres
Carbon Sequestered Equations (Rowntree & Nowak, 1991):
Type 1: % Cover (0-100) x 0.00727 x # of acres
Type 2: % Cover (0-100) x 0.00077 x # of acres
Type 3: % Cover (0-100) x 0.00153 x # of acres
Average: % Cover (0-100) x 0.0035 x # of acres
The percent canopy cover was estimated using the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics
consortium (MRLC) data for National canopy cover. The data was downloaded, and the percent canopy
cover for Clarkson’s woods was determined from it.
12
IV.
Individual Trees Throughout Campus
Clarkson University has a large number of individual trees planted around campus and participates
in many planting project and tree relocation projects. In order to include these individual trees around
campus, a Carbon Calculator was used. The Carbon Calculator used for this project was created by the
Climate Change Resource Center in the United States Forest Service. The Tree Carbon Calculator (CTCC)
was downloaded from the USDA Forest Service website (http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/tools/ctcc.shtml).
This tool provides quantitative data on the amount of carbon sequestered and stored in trees based on
the region being studied, the species of tree, their diameter base height (DBH) or age, and climate zone
(Climate Change Resource Center, 2011). This calculator tool was created by studying data from six
different reference cities where tests were run. About 650 to 1,000 trees were sampled in each city,
and they were grouped into nine different DBH groups. Volumetric equations were used to determine
the amount of carbon stored in each individual tree. These used dry weight biomass calculations that
included both above and below ground stored carbon. Annual carbon sequestrations were calculated
based on a series of sequestration equations and varied between each tree species and DBH range
within the study (Center for Urban Forest Research, 2008).
For this study, climate zone 7 (Northeast) was used. Diameter base height (DBH) was also used
instead of age because the exact age of many of the trees throughout campus is unknown. There are
over 600 individual trees scattered throughout Clarkson’s main campus. In order to calculate their
approximate annual carbon sequestration and total carbon storage, eight groups of DBH were created:
less than 10 inches, 11-20 inches, 21-30 inches, 31 – 40 inches, 41 – 50 inches, 51 – 60 inches, 61 – 70
inches, and greater than 70 inches. In the Forest Service model, trees greater than 30 inches in
diameter stop sequestering carbon, but continue storing carbon. The DBH of each individual tree on
campus was measured, and all the data was then organized into the eight groups listed above. The trees
were measured at DBH using a tape measure. The trees on campus were organized and measured in
different groups based on their location on campus. Some on-campus regions included Townhouses
lawn, Hamlin-Powers lawn, and CAMP perimeter. This made it easier to keep track of trees that had
been measured and organize the results more clearly. Although several different tree species were
present on campus, the most common hardwood species at Clarkson that was found in the list was Acer
saccharum, or Sugar Maple, and the most common species in the Carbon Calculator for evergreens was
Pinus strobus, or Eastern Pine. The average DBH from each DBH group was used in the calculator (for
example: 15.5 inches was used for the 11 – 20 inches group). The amount of carbon sequestered and
the amount of carbon stored was calculated in the Carbon Calculator for each DBH group in both
hardwood and evergreen species. The amount of carbon sequestered by each individual tree was then
multiplied by the total number of trees found in that specific DBH group to get the total carbon
sequestered for each group.
13
Results
I.
Clarkson Woods
The Rowntree and Nowak forest distribution types were used to characterize the Clarkson Woods
(Rowntree and Nowak, 2001). The results from the 12 point samples throughout the Clarkson Woods
are shown in Table 2. Figure 3 showed the location of each plot in the Clarkson Woods.
Table 2. Number of trees in each diameter class for the 12 point sample plots in the Clarkson Woods
Diameter Class (in)
0 to 6 7 to 12 13 to 18 19 to 24 25 to 30
Plot number
<30
Number of Trees
Total Trees
1
0
3
4
1
3
14
25
2
25
11
10
10
1
4
61
3
12
6
3
3
5
9
38
4
17
11
3
3
2
4
40
5
9
9
2
4
0
1
25
6
7
6
4
3
2
7
29
7
4
1
2
1
6
13
27
8
20
12
4
3
2
2
43
9
11
12
15
2
3
5
48
10
4
6
3
3
3
8
27
11
1
9
3
2
1
9
25
Total
110
86
53
35
28
76
388
Percentages
28.35
22.16
13.66
9.02
7.22
19.59
Rowntree and Nowak (1991) established four types of forests (Table 1) based on the percentage
of trees in each size category. These size distributions were compared to the ones determined for
Clarkson’s woods to establish the type of forests on our campus. A correlation coefficient test was run
to compare our distribution to the Rowntree and Nowak types. The type with the highest r-squared
value, was defined as best match (Table 3).
14
Table 3. Comparison of Rowntree and Nowak’s Forest Distribution Types and Clarkson’s Woods Using
the Correlation Coefficient Test
Diameter Class (in)
Distribution Type 0 to 6 7 to 12 13 to 18 19 to 24 25 to 30
>30
Correlation Coefficient
CU Woods
28.35
22.16
13.66
9.02
7.22
19.59
N/A
Type 1
42
27
14
10
6
1
0.75
Type 2
21
29
26
8
8
8
0.53
Type 3
23
15
20
16
18
8
0.11
Average
29
24
20
11
11
6
0.66
According to the correlation coefficient test, the Clarkson Woods were most closely related to
the Type 1 forest distribution with a correlation coefficient 0.75. The equations used to calculate carbon
sequestered and carbon stored in the Clarkson Woods were based off of the equations for Rowntree
and Nowak’s equations for Type 1 forest distributions. With the Rowntree and Nowak study, a
distribution of 75% hardwood trees and 25% evergreen trees was assumed. The Clarkson Woods had an
average distribution of 71.27% hardwood trees and 28.73% evergreen, so it fit the assumption well. In
order to calculate the amount of carbon stored per acre, the percent cover (80%)(determined by the
MLRC data described in the Methods section) was multiplied by the constant 0.3226 (Rowntree et al,
2001). In order to find the amount of carbon stored by the Clarkson woods as a whole, it was then
multiplied by the size of the woods, or 395.64 acres. The calculations are shown below:
# acres x % cover x 0.3226
395.64acres x 80.0% x 0.3226 = 10,210 tons of carbon
This calculation shows that, based on the distribution of the forest, there are 10,210 tons of carbon
stored in the Clarkson woods currently. The second calculation was used to find the amount of carbon
that is being sequestered annually per acre. In order to find this number, the percent cover (80%) was
multiplied by 0.00077. This value was then multiplied by 395.64 acres, for the total acreage of the
Clarkson woods. These calculations are shown below:
# acres x % cover x 0.00727
395.64acres x 80.0% x 0.00727 = 230.10 tons of carbon per year
This calculation shows that the Clarkson Woods sequester an additional 230 tons of carbon every year.
II.
Seven Springs
At Clarkson University’s Seven Springs, a total of three sample point plots were taken in order to
determine the distribution of the forest. As in the Clarkson Woods, the Rowntree and Nowak forest
15
distribution types were used to characterize the Seven Springs’ forested region. The results from the
three sample points taken at Seven Springs are found below, in Table 4. The same methods were used
for this site that were used for the Clarkson Woods.
Seven Springs forested area most closely matches the Average Type distribution from Rowntree
and Nowak with a correlation coefficient value of 0.96 (Rowntree and Nowak, 2001). The overall
composition of Seven Springs was 74% hardwood and 26% evergreen, so it fit the Rowntree and Nowak
assumption of forest composition very well. The percent forest cover for Seven Springs was 75%. Using
this information and the equations generation by Rowntree and Nowak, the annual amount of carbon
sequestered and stored by this region were calculated. There were 2,068 tons of carbon stored in Seven
Springs and 16 tons of carbon sequestered in this region.
III.
Raquette River Waterfront and Hamlin-Powers Trail Forested Areas
The Rowntree and Nowak forest distribution types were also used to characterize the Hamlin
Powers Trail forested region and the forested area along the Raquette River waterfront property
(Rowntree and Nowak, 2001). There were 3 point sample plots taken in these two areas, and the two
regions were combined for analysis. The same methods were used in these regions as were used for
the Clarkson Woods and Seven Springs. The results of these calculations are shown in Summary Table 4,
and the calculations and detailed analysis can be seen in the appendix. The HP-trail and Raquette River
forested areas are most closely related to the Type 1 forest distribution, with a correlation coefficient
0.72. The HP-trail and Riverfront forested areas had a combined composition of 72% hardwood trees
and 28% evergreen trees, so it fit the Rowntree and Nowak assumption of 75% hardwood and 25%
evergreen trees. The percent cover for these two regions was estimated to be 75%. The total acreage
of both sites is 34.20 acres. The calculations for carbon stored and carbon sequestered between these
two sites are shown in the appendix. Total, the Hamlin-Powers and Raquette River waterfront store 828
tons of carbon and annually sequester 19 tons of carbon per year.
Table 4. Summary of Carbon Stored and Sequestered in the Forested Regions on Clarkson’s Campus
Study Site
Acres/Individual
Trees
Diameter
Class Type
Correlation
Coefficient
Total Carbon
Stored (Short
Tons)
Annual Carbon
Sequestered (S.
Tons/Yr)
CU Woods
395 acres
Type 1
0.75
10,210
230
Seven
Springs
64.1 acres
Avg. Type
0.96
2,069
16.1
34.2 acres
Type 1
0.72
827
18.6
TOTAL
13,106
265
Waterfront/
HP Trail
16
IV.
Individual Trees Throughout Campus
The individual trees scattered throughout campus were each measured, as they are fairly spread out
and do not belong to any specific forested region. Because the individual trees do not correlate with
any of Rowntree and Nowak’s distribution types, a Carbon Calculator was used from the U.S. Forest
Service’s Climate Change Resource Center. The climate zone used was the Northeast, or climate zone 7.
The measurements were made in diameter base height (DBH) inches. For the evergreens measured, the
species used was Pinus strobus, or Eastern Pine. The hardwood trees were calculated under Acer
saccharum, or Sugar Maple. The tree diameter base heights were split into eight different groups in
order to simplify the carbon sequestration calculations, because there are over 600 individual trees on
Clarkson’s campus. The number of trees for both hardwoods and evergreens in each group are shown
in Table 5.
Table 5. Number of Hardwood and Evergreen trees in each DBH group
DBH (in)
# of Hardwood
# of Evergreen
<10
40
2
11 to 20
146
16
21 to 30
142
19
31 to 40
70
35
41 to 50
26
15
51 to 60
39
20
61 to 70
8
30
>70
14
13
Total
485
150
A total of 635 trees were sampled across Clarkson’s main campus. Because the individual trees
were grouped into DBH sets, the average DBH from each group was used in the Carbon Calculator. For
example, for DBH group 11 to 20 inches, a DBH of 15.5 inches was put into the Carbon Calculator. The
results from the Carbon Calculator analysis are shown in Table 6.
In total, individual trees, both hardwood and evergreen, on Clarkson’s campus sequester almost
60 tons of carbon annually. However, hardwood trees sequester 57.97 tons of carbon annually, and
evergreen trees sequester only 1.28 tons of carbon annually. Evergreen trees stop actively
sequestering carbon after they reach 30 inches in diameter, and hardwood trees stop sequestering
carbon after 50 inches in diameter base height. However, even after these trees stop sequestering
more carbon, they still act as carbon storage areas. The total amount of carbon stored in the individual
trees throughout Clarkson’s campus was calculated using the Carbon Calculator (Table 7).
17
Table 6. Annual Carbon Sequestration (tons) for Hardwood and Evergreen trees based on DBH groups
Hardwood
Evergreen
DBH(in)
Carbon Seq.
(tons/tree)
# Trees
Total Seq.
(tons)
Carbon Seq.
(ton/tree)
# trees
Total Seq.
(tons)
<10
0.030
40
1.21
0.01
2
0.02
11 to 20
0.096
146
13.97
0.045
16
0.72
21 to 30
0.15
142
22.01
0.028
19
0.54
31 to 40
0.21
70
14.41
0
35
0
41 to 50
0.24
26
6.37
0
15
0
51 to 60
0
39
0
0
20
0
61 to 70
0
8
0
0
30
0
>70
0
14
0
0
13
0
Total:
57.97
Total:
1.28
Table 7. Annual Carbon Storage (tons) for Hardwood and Evergreen trees based on DBH groups
Hardwood
Evergreen
DBH (in)
Carbon
Stored
(ton/tree)
# of trees
Total Stored
(tons)
Carbon
Stored
(ton/tree)
# of trees
Total Stored
(tons)
<10
0.24
40
9.73
0.05
2
0.10
11 to 20
2.23
146
325.71
0.92
16
14.73
21 to 30
5.99
142
850.64
3.33
19
63.21
31 to 40
11.39
70
797.21
3.61
35
126.35
41 to 50
18.12
26
471.19
3.61
15
54.15
51 to 60
19.42
39
757.24
3.61
20
72.20
61 to 70
19.42
8
155.33
3.61
30
108.30
>70
19.42
14
271.83
3.61
13
46.93
Total:
3639
Total:
486
18
Individual trees on Clarkson’s campus account for 4,125 tons of stored carbon between both
evergreen and hardwood trees. Although trees stop actively sequestering carbon at a certain stage in
their life, they continue to act as carbon storage units.
V.
Summary
When taking into account all of Clarkson’s forested regions (Clarkson Woods, Seven Springs, Hamlin
Powers trail & Riverfront forested area, and individual trees), 324.11 tons of carbon are sequestered
annually, and 17,231.65 tons of carbon are stored in the biomass.
Table 8. Summary Table – Total Sequestration and Storage on Clarkson’s campus
Study Site
Acres/Individual
Trees
Diameter
Class Type
Correlation
Coefficient
Total Carbon
Stored (Tons)
Annual Carbon
Sequestered
(Tons/Yr)
CU Woods
395.64 acres
Type 1
0.75
10,210.67
230.10
Seven Springs
64.1 acres
Avg. Type
0.96
2,068.67
16.11
Waterfront/HP
Trail
34.2 acres
Type 1
0.72
827.47
18.65
Individual
Trees
635 Individual
Trees
N/A
N/A
4,124.84
59.25
TOTAL
17,230
324
Tons Carbon Stored
Carbon Storage (tons)
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Figure 5. Comparison of Stored Carbon (short tons) for the 4 Different Regions on Clarkson’s Campus
19
Tons Carbon Sequestered
Carbon Sequestration (tons/yr)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Figure 6. Comparison of Sequestered Carbon (short tons) for the 4 Different Regions on Clarkson’s
Campus
Discussion
This analysis of Clarkson University’s forested regions showed that these areas are actively
sequestering 324 tons of carbon per year, and 17,200 tons of carbon are currently stored in these areas.
Clarkson University currently emits over 22,000 short tons of carbon per fiscal year. This means that the
carbon actively sequestered by these forested regions provides a positive credit for about 1.4% of
Clarkson’s total emissions. Although this seems fairly unsubstantial when compared to Clarkson’s overall
emissions, this is a large amount of carbon and is a very effective way to value Clarkson’s forested
regions. The following emission sources are all approximately equal to 320 tons of carbon emitted per
year:
-
using 35,000 kilowatt hours (kwhr) per month (total of 420,000 kwhr per year)
driving 91,000 miles in a small car, averaging 40 miles per gallon (mpg)
driving 49,000 miles in a large car or small truck, averaging 21mpg
travelling 660,000 miles by plane
These values were calculated using the carbon dioxide emissions calculator from the Carbonify website
(Bloch, 2012). So although the amount sequestered is only equal to about 1.4% of Clarkson’s total
emissions, it still offsets a significant amount of other activities. This analysis is important because it
allows us to give a quantitative value to planting and maintaining trees at Clarkson. The forested regions
have a high intrinsic value; they are widely used for recreational activities and their existence is highly
valued by both students and faculty at Clarkson. However, by putting a quantitative value on these
20
forested regions, it is much more convenient to justify spending funds on planting projects and forest
care.
In order to completely offset Clarkson’s emissions of 22,000 tons of carbon, about 1,100,000
trees would need to be planted and maintained. This is based off the assumption that a tree will
sequester about 0.02 short tons of carbon per year, for about 40 years (Bloch, 2012). Although it is an
unrealistic goal for Clarkson to plant over 1,100,000 trees on campus, Clarkson should have a plan to
plant trees on campus and maintain them. For example, if Clarkson made it a goal to plant 200 new
trees a year, with the trees’ success rate of 50%, the forested regions of campus would sequester an
additional 2.0 tons of carbon a year. Increased maintenance and care could only increase the success
rate of the trees planted, and therefore increase the amount of carbon being sequestered. Creating and
implementing a forest planting and maintenance plan would greatly benefit Clarkson’s forested regions.
Another way to gain positive carbon credits toward Clarkson’s current emissions levels would be
to invest in land in another area, such as in the Adirondacks. It is assumed that there are approximately
150 trees per acre in forested regions overall (Ruddell et al 2006). Based on this assumption, Clarkson
would require approximately 7,300 acres to gain enough positive carbon credits to cover its current
emission levels. This is important because it gives an idea of the overall extent to which Clarkson’s
emissions impact natural processes. Clarkson currently has a 640 acre campus, and its emissions have
the potential to impact a forest about 11 times our current campus in size.
One conclusion that can be drawn from this data set is that hardwood tree species sequester
carbon for much longer than evergreen trees. Table 8 shows that hardwood trees actively sequester
carbon up to 50 inches in diameter, but evergreen trees stop actively sequestering carbon after they’ve
reached 30 inches in diameter. Although both continue to store carbon, trees naturally stop
sequestering carbon after a certain point. Faster growing tree species will sequester more carbon than
slow growth-rate trees (Gorte, 2009). In order to maximize the amount of carbon being sequestered on
Clarkson’s campus, policies and planting projects should focus on the tree species that sequester the
most carbon, such as oaks, maples, beeches, and birch trees. By focusing planting efforts on hardwood
trees, the trees will be able to sequester carbon for longer periods of time, and therefore be more
valuable to Clarkson and its sustainability initiatives.
To accurately value and continue understanding the benefits from Clarkson’s forested regions, it
would be helpful to make and maintain a register of trees and forested regions at Clarkson. This data
sheet could be updated based on samples taken every year. It would be possible to track the increases
in carbon sequestration that occur due to changes new tree growth and maintenance. By implementing
an on-going study, Clarkson would be able to determine how its forested regions sequester carbon and
how the sequestration rates change with planting projects or other goals. Continuing planting projects
such as relocating full-grown trees and planting seedlings will help the sequestration processes on
campus, but it is important to keep track of these projects in order to fully value them in the long run.
Also, by creating and implementing forest policies, Clarkson University would be able to also maintain
their forested regions more efficiently. By implementing a policy that prohibits cutting-down or
removing trees over a certain height or diameter, Clarkson could ensure that it continues to sequester
and store carbon. Also, if Clarkson designated a certain region of its forested area as “Forever Wild”, it
21
would further be able to further increase its ability to store and sequester carbon. By creating and
implementing forest policies such as prohibiting cutting down trees, planting plans, and a “Forever Wild”
region, Clarkson would be able to greatly increase its carbon sequestration and storage of forested
areas.
Clarkson University has a very unique and useful campus and it is important to value and
maintain these characteristics. The forested regions on campus are crucial in Clarkson’s sustainability
initiative and should be valued for their carbon sequestration and storage properties. By maintaining a
record of Clarkson’s forested regions and planting projects, it would be possible to monitor carbon
sequestration and storage by these regions over time and see how different practices alter these rates.
By creating policies such as a “Forever Wild” region and a ban on cutting down trees, Clarkson would be
able to maximize its sequestration potential. Protecting its forests and maintaining them is important
because they have very valuable natural processes that sequester carbon dioxide and therefore help to
offset Clarkson’s emissions. Through policies and management practices, Clarkson University will be
able to maximize the sequestration of its forested regions and ensure that it continues to sequester as
much as possible.
Bibliography
1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “How are Temperatures on Earth
Changing?” CO2Now.org. 2007. Web. 8 Feb 2012.
2. King, D. 2005. “Climate Change: the Science and Policy.” Journal of Applied Ecology. 42(5): 779783.
3. Mannion, A.M. 1998. “Global Environmental Change: The Causes and Consequences of
Disruption to Biogeochemical Cycles.” The Geographical Journal. 164(2): 168-182.
4. Warrick, R. and Farmer, G. 1990. “The Greenhouse Effect, Climate Change, and Rising Sea Level:
Implications for Development.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 15(1) 5-20.
5. CO2Now.org. “Global Carbon Emissions.” CO2Now.org. 2010. Web. 8 Feb. 2012.
6. Keeling, C.D. “Discovery of Atmospheric CO2 Levels.” CO2Now.org. 1998. Web. 8 Feb 2012.
7. U.S. EPA. “Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide.” United States Environmental
Protection Agency. 2011. Web. 10 Feb. 2012.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
8. Marchetti, C. 1977. “On Geoengineering and the CO2 Problem.” Climatic Change, 1: 59-68.
9. Hoffert, M.L., Caldeira, K., Benford, G., Criswell, D.R., Green, C., Herzog, H., Jain, A.K., Kheshgi,
H.S., Lackner, K.S., Lewis, J.S., Lightfoot, H.D., Manheimer, W., Mankins, J.C., Mauel, M.E.,
Perkins, L.J., Schlesinger, M.E., Volk, T., & Wigley, T.M.L. 2002. “Advanced Technology Paths to
Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet.” Science, 298(1): 981 – 987.
10. Coakley, J.A. & Cess, R.D. 1983. “The Effect of Tropospheric Aerosols on the Earth’s Radiation
Budget: A Parameterization for Climate Models.” Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 40(1): 116138.
11. Gorte, R. (2009). “Carbon Sequestration in Forests.” Congressional Research Service.
www.crs.gov.
22
12. Millard P., Sommerkorn M., & Grelet G. 2007. “Environmental Change and Carbon Limitation in
Trees: A Biochemical, Ecophysiological and Ecosystem Appraisal.” New Phytologist, 175(1): 1128.
13. Powers, S. 2011. “Academic Year 2011 Sustainability Highlights.” Clarkson University: Data and
Reports. http://clarkson.edu/green/data_reports.html
14. “Clarkson University Greenhouse Gas Inventory – 2010.” Clarkson University: Data and Reports.
http://clarkson.edu/green/docs/GHG.pdf
15. The Climate Change Resource Center. 2011. Tree Carbon Calculator. USDA Forest Service.
http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/tools/ctcc.shtml
16. Bloch, M. 2012. “Carbon Dioxide Emissions Calculator.” Carbonify: Global Warming Resources.
http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-calculator.htm
17. Lal, R. 2004. Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security.
Science, 304: 1623 – 1627.
18. Energy Information Administration. 1998, April. Method for Calculating Carbon Sequestration by
Trees in Urban and Suburban Settings. United States Department of Energy, Voluntary
Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.
19. Rowntree R & Nowak D. 1991. “Quantifying the Role of Urban Forests in Removing
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” Journal of Arboriculture: 17 (10), 269 – 295.
20. Center for Urban Forest Research. 2008. CUFR Tree Carbon Calculator – Help Menu and
Background. United States Forest Service.
file:///C:/Users/Customer/Desktop/Carbon%20Calculator/CCTC_Help.html
21. Ruddell, S., Walsh, M.J., Kanakasabi, M. 2006. Forest Carbon Trading and Marketing in the
United States. U.S. Federal Ecosystems Services.
http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/pdf/forest-carbon-trading.pdf
23
Appendices
Appendix A – Raw Data and Statistics for the Clarkson Woods
Table 1. Number of trees per plot and the diameter breast height (DBH) for each tree in the Clarkson
Woods (raw data)
Number of Trees Per Plot - Clarkson Woods (Diameter – inches)
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Plot 5
Plot 6
12
2.5
3.5
3
2.5
3.5
12
3
3.5
3
3
4
12
3
3.5
3
3
4
12.5
3.5
4
3.5
3.5
5
14
3.5
4.5
3.5
4
6
16
4
4.5
4
4
6
17
4
5
4
5.5
6.5
18.5
4
5.5
4
6
7.5
23.5
4
5.5
4
6
9
26
4.5
6
5
8
10
27
4.5
6.5
5
8
10
28.5
4.5
6.5
5.5
9
10.5
30.5
4.5
6.5
5.5
9.55
11
32
4.5
7
5.5
11
14
33
4.5
7.5
5.5
11
15.5
34
4.5
8
6
11
16
35
5
8
6.5
11
18.5
35
5
8.5
7.5
12.5
19
37
5
8.5
8
14
21
37.5
5
14
8
15
23
38.5
5
15
8
19
25
40
5
17
9
19
26
40
5.5
20
9.5
21
31
24
41.5
6
20.5
10
22
35
41.5
6
24.5
10.5
37.5
41
50.5
7.5
25.5
11.5
45.5
8
26
12
50
8
28
12.5
51
8.5
28.5
13
54
9.5
29.5
13
9.5
32.5
18
10
33
19
10.5
38
20
11
38
22.5
11.5
39.5
26.5
12
43
29
12
45
37.5
13
54
54
13
61
14
63
14.5
16
16
16.5
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
20
20.5
25
21
21
22.5
23
24
27
31
31
42
46.5
48.5
Number of Trees Per Plot - Clarkson Woods (Diameter – inches)
Plot 7
Plot 8
Plot 9
Plot 10
Plot 11
5
2
3
4
4
5
2
3
5.5
7
5.5
2
3
6
7
6
2
3.5
6
7
7
2.5
4
7
7
13.5
3
4
8
8
16
3
4
9.5
10
22
3.5
6
9.5
10
25
4
6
10
10
28
4
6
12.5
11
29
4
6.5
14
13
29.5
4
7
16
14
30
4.5
7
17
16
30
4.5
8
19.5
19
31
5
8
21
20
26
31
5
9
24
25
33.5
5.5
9.5
27
32
36
6
10
30
38
39
6.5
10
30.5
39
39.5
7
10.5
31
41
41.5
7
11
32
42
42
7
11
32
43
43.5
7.5
11
35
45
44
8
13
36
52
47
8.5
13.5
39
62
57
8.5
14
46
62
9
14.5
55.5
10
15
11
15.5
11.5
16
12
16
15.5
16
15.5
17
16.5
17
18
18
18
18
22.5
18
23
19
24
21
26
23
29
25
55.5
25
67
27
32
27
35
39
41
61
Table 2. Comparison of Rowntree & Nowak’s Forest Distribution Types and Clarkson Woods using the
Correlation Coefficient test
Diameter Class (in)
Distribution Type 0 to 6 7 to 12 13 to 18 19 to 24 25 to 30
>30
Correlation Coefficient
CU Woods
28.35
22.16
13.66
9.02
7.22
19.59
N/A
Type 1
42
27
14
10
6
1
0.75
Type 2
21
29
26
8
8
8
0.53
Type 3
23
15
20
16
18
8
0.11
Average
29
24
20
11
11
6
0.66
Appendix B – Raw Data and Statistics for Clarkson’s Seven Springs
Table 3. Number of trees per plot and the diameter breast height (DBH) for each tree in Seven Springs
(raw data)
Tree Diameter
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
1
2
3
2
2
2.5
3
2.5
3
3
3
3
4
3
3.5
4
5
4
4
5.5
6
4
4
6
7
4.5
4
6
8
5
4
6
9
5
4
7
28
10
6
4
7
11
7
5
7
12
7.5
5
7
13
9
5
8
14
10.5
5
8
15
12
5
8
16
12
5
9
17
13
5
9
18
13.5
5
11
19
14
6
13
20
14
6
14
21
16
6
15
22
16
6
15
23
16
6
15
24
17
6
17
25
17
6
18
26
22
6
21
27
22
6
23
28
26
7
28
29
27
7
28
30
30
7
30
31
32
7
32
32
34
8
34
33
37
8
46
34
38
9
35
46
9
36
10
37
10
38
10
29
39
10.5
40
11
41
11
42
11
43
11
44
11
45
12
46
12
47
12
48
13
49
13
50
13
51
14
52
14
53
15
54
15
55
18
56
18
57
19
58
19
59
20
60
22
61
23
62
31
63
32
64
36
65
43
Table 4. Comparison of Rowntree & Nowak’s Forest Distribution Types and Seven Springs using the
Correlation Coefficient test
30
Diameter Class (in)
Distribution Type 0 to 6 7 to 12 13 to 18 19 to 24 25 to 30
>30
Correlation Coefficient
Seven Springs
33.83
27.06
18.8
6.67
5.26
8.27
N/A
Type 1
42
27
14
10
6
1
0.95
Type 2
21
29
26
8
8
8
0.82
Type 3
23
15
20
16
18
8
0.53
Average
29
24
20
11
11
6
0.96
Appendix C – Raw Data and Statistics for Clarkson’s Hamlin-Powers Forested Region and the Raquette
River Waterfront Forested Region
Table 5. Number of trees per plot and the diameter breast height (DBH) for each tree in Hamlin-Powers
Trail forested region and the Raquette River Waterfront forested region (raw data)
Plot 1 (HP)
Plot 2 (HP)
Plot 3 (WF)
14
12
1
19
12
1.5
21
13
2
22
14
2
23
14
2.5
23
15
3
24
15
4
26
15
4
28
15
4
28
16
4.5
29
17
5
29
17
5
31
17
6
31
18
7
32
18
8
31
32
18
11
33
19
13
34
19
13
34
19
14
35
19
15
36
19
16
36
19
17
37
19
20
38
20
22
39
20
22
46
20
22
54
20
24
56
20
29
64
20
32
66
21
35
71
21
38
71
21
42
80
21
42
83
22
54
85
22
73
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
26
32
26
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
29
30
30
30
30
31
32
33
33
33
34
34
37
45
48
48
50
50
51
53
55
33
56
56
60
62
64
68
72
73
74
74
80
Table 6. Comparison of Rowntree & Nowak’s Forest Distribution Types and H-P Trail and Riverfront
forested regions using the Correlation Coefficient test
Diameter Class (in)
Distribution Type 0 to 6 7 to 12 13 to 18 19 to 24 25 to 30
>30
Correlation Coefficient
Trail/Waterfront
29.06
18.60
15.12
12.80
4.65
19.75
N/A
Type 1
42
27
14
10
6
1
0.72
Type 2
21
29
26
8
8
8
0.44
Type 3
23
15
20
16
18
8
0.14
Average
29
24
20
11
11
6
0.61
34
Appendix D – CUFR Tree Carbon Calculator Screenshot Example
Appendix E - Raw Data and Statistics for Clarkson’s Individual Trees located throughout campus
Table 7. Number of Individual Trees located in each DBH Group throughout Clarkson’s Campus
DBH (in)
# of Hardwood
<10
40
35
# of Evergreen
2
11 to 20
146
16
21 to 30
142
19
31 to 40
70
35
41 to 50
26
15
51 to 60
39
20
61 to 70
8
30
>70
14
13
Total
485
150
Table 6. Annual Carbon Sequestration (tons) for Hardwood and Evergreen trees based on DBH groups
Hardwood
Evergreen
DBH(in)
Carbon Seq.
(tons/tree)
# Trees
Total Seq.
(tons)
Carbon Seq.
(ton/tree)
# trees
Total Seq.
(tons)
<10
0.030
40
1.21
0.01
2
0.02
11 to 20
0.096
146
13.97
0.045
16
0.72
21 to 30
0.15
142
22.01
0.028
19
0.54
31 to 40
0.21
70
14.41
0
35
0
41 to 50
0.24
26
6.37
0
15
0
51 to 60
0
39
0
0
20
0
61 to 70
0
8
0
0
30
0
>70
0
14
0
0
13
0
Total:
57.97
Total:
1.28
36