* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download An Analysis of Carbon Sequestration on Clarkson University`s Campus
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Iron fertilization wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
Decarbonisation measures in proposed UK electricity market reform wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Mountain pine beetle wikipedia , lookup
Carbon pricing in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Climate-friendly gardening wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere wikipedia , lookup
Carbon capture and storage (timeline) wikipedia , lookup
Carbon sequestration wikipedia , lookup
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