LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY GROUPED AFFORESTATION PROJECT
Prepared for The Nature Conservancy by TerraCarbon LLC
The Nature Conservancy1 TerraCarbon LLC2 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100 5901 N. Sheridan Rd. Arlington, VA 22203-1606 Peoria, Illinois 61614 U.S.A. U.S.A.
Project Title Lower Mississippi Valley Grouped Afforestation Project
Version Version 3.0
Date of Issue 29-August-2012
Prepared By James Eaton2, David Shoch2, Nicole Virgilio1, Ronnie Ulmer1, Richard Martin1, and Hamilton Hardman1
Contact The Nature Conservancy, 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22203-1606, U.S.A.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Table of Contents 1.0 Project Details ...... 3 1.1 Summary Description of the Project ...... 3 1.2 Sectoral Scope and Project Type ...... 4 1.3 Project Proponent ...... 5 1.4 Other Entities Involved in the Project ...... 6 1.5 Project Start Date ...... 6 1.6 Project Crediting Period ...... 6 1.7 Project Scale and Estimated GHG Emission Reductions or Removals ...... 6 1.8 Description of the Project Activity ...... 8 1.9 Project Location ...... 12 1.10 Conditions Prior to Project Initiation ...... 14 1.11 Compliance with Laws, Statutes and Other Regulatory Frameworks ...... 19 1.12 Ownership and Other Programs ...... 20 1.13 Additional Information Relevant to the Project ...... 21 2.0 Application of Methodology ...... 27 2.1 Title and Reference of Methodology ...... 27 2.2 Applicability of Methodology ...... 27 2.3 Project Boundary ...... 31 2.4 Baseline Scenario ...... 33 2.5 Additionality...... 36 2.6 Methodology Deviations ...... 39 3.0 Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals ...... 41 3.1 Baseline Emissions ...... 41 3.2 Project Emissions ...... 41 3.3 Leakage ...... 46 3.4 Summary of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals ...... 52 4.0 Monitoring ...... 54 4.1 Data and Parameters Available at Validation ...... 54 4.2 Data and Parameters Monitored ...... 56 4.3 Description of the Monitoring Plan ...... 57 5.0 Environmental Impact ...... 64 6.0 Stakeholder Comments...... 67 Appendices ...... 68 Appendix A. Non-Permanence Risk Report ...... 68 A1.0 Internal Risks ...... 68 A2.0 External Risks ...... 70 A3.0 Natural Risks ...... 72 A4.0 Overall Non-Permanence Risk Rating and Buffer Determination ...... 75 A4.1 Overall Risk Rating ...... 75 A4.2 Calculation of Total VCUs ...... 75
v3.0 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
1.0 PROJECT DETAILS
1.1 Summary Description of the Project The Lower Mississippi Valley Grouped Afforestation Project (LMV GAP) occurs within the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi as bounded by the Lower Mississippi Valley. This grouped project aims to convert degraded land, including cropland, pasture and abandoned agricultural land, to bottomland forest. As part of the project, all project lands will be enrolled in a USDA conservation program (e.g., the USDA Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, or Wetland Reserve Program, WRP), planted with native bottomland tree species, and encumbered with a permanent conservation servitude (aka “conservation easement”) held by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). The servitude will ensure that lands enrolled in the program will remain forested, once forests have been established. For example, TNC encourages private land owners to enroll in either the CRP forest practice or WRP that were not otherwise planning on enrolling, or to convert an existing CRP grassland practice contract to a CRP forest practice contract, by paying for restoration costs, as well as purchasing permanent conservation servitudes on enrolled lands in exchange for the assignment of carbon benefits. In return, land owners receive income additional to that provided by CRP/WRP alone. The project is targeted to landowners who would not have enrolled in a USDA conservation program (forest practice option), without the additional funding provided by TNC.
The initial project enrolled in LMV GAP consists of 89.4 hectares (ha) comprised of multiple fields (see Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1). Additional project areas will be added to this grouped project over time as The Nature Conservancy (TNC) acquires additional conservation servitudes.
Table 1.1. Project area information.
LMV GAP Tract Name County and Baseline Scenario Planting Type/Site project State Preparation instance LMVGAP01 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, Predominantly Hand planting/Ripping Louisiana pasture (71.3 ha) with some areas of cropland (18.1 ha)
Following purchase of the servitude, the eligible project area of the first project instance was delineated (see Figure 1.5). Site preparation was completed in November and December 2011 and site-appropriate bottomland tree seedlings were planted in January 2012. Because the project area was under pasture/cultivation immediately prior to acquisition by TNC, site preparation prior to reforestation was limited to ripping or using a chisel plow to break the compacted subsurface soil layer. Site preparation did not result in the removal of any woody vegetation. For all project instances, TNC will confirm that the contractor followed planting protocol within 2 weeks of completion of the planting job and will require remediation if deficiencies are detected. Initial seedling survival will be determined by monitoring the planting areas the first summer following planting. Survival and growth of seedlings will again be monitored by TNC in years 3 and 5. If seedling density recorded
v3.0 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
during the initial two survival monitoring events falls below 70% of the original planting density, additional plantings will be considered. Land use rights in the project area are encumbered through a legally enforceable permanent conservation servitude, retained by The Nature Conservancy, which is designed to protect the integrity of forest carbon stocks and other natural resources found on project lands. The servitude is not solely protective in nature but recognizes the potential need for intervention should forest composition and structure not meet desired conditions. The project areas will be monitored annually by TNC staff for compliance with conservation servitude restrictions. Prior to each site visit, the local TNC program manager will be required to review the terms of the servitude and past compliance monitoring reports, examine recent available aerial photography and meet with the current landowner on site. During each site inspection, all portions of the property are visited to ensure that the terms of the servitude have not been violated. The program manager will prepare a standard TNC monitoring report and certify his/her findings in the presence of a notary. Digital and hard copies of the monitoring reports are filed at multiple TNC locations (i.e. program office, state office and regional legal office).
A schedule of the important aspects of the grouped project is listed in chronological order in Table 1.2, below.
Table 1.2. Schedule of grouped project activities. Project activity Date Source/Notes Grouped project start date and October 5, 2011 Acquisition of servitude on first start of the crediting period project property by TNC and cessation of agricultural activities Site preparation and planting of November 2011 to January 2012 project instance LMVGAP01 Servitude compliance monitoring Annually, starting in 2012 by TNC Validation of the grouped project Anticipated 2012 Registration of grouped project Anticipated 2012 Survivorship monitoring Six months, 3 years and 5 years after each parcel is planted Expected grouped project 32 years October 5, 2011 through October longevity 4, 2043 Expected grouped project October 5, 2043 termination date
1.2 Sectoral Scope and Project Type This project is to be registered under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) as an Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (ARR) project and has been developed in compliance with the Verified Carbon Standard1, version 3.2 and VCS AFOLU Requirements2. The Lower Mississippi Valley Grouped Afforestation Project is a grouped project.
1 VCS. 2012 VCS Standard. Version 3.2, 01 February 2012. Verified Carbon Standard, Washington, D.C. 2 VCS. 2012 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Requirements. Version 3.2, 01 February 2012. Verified Carbon Standard, Washington, D.C.
v3.0 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
1.3 Project Proponent The grouped project will be financed and implemented by The Nature Conservancy with private funding. Roles and responsibilities of project proponents are elaborated in Table 1.3 below. All project proponents are listed in Table 1.3; no other implementation partners exist. Table 1.3. List of project proponents. Roles and Responsibility Position/Personnel Contact Details Ongoing management of the TNC Northeast Louisiana Ronnie Ulmer project area. Oversee Program Manager The Nature Conservancy contracted monitoring and 4276 Front St. inventory staff and Winnsboro, La 71295 consultants in the field. Liaise (318) 412 -0472 with fee landowner and implement and document annual conservation servitude monitoring. Implement seedling survival assessments. Budgeting, oversight of TNC Louisiana Director of Richard Martin project endowments and Forest Conservation The Nature Conservancy responsibility for expense 721 Government Street, approvals. Hiring of program Suite 200 Baton Rouge, LA management personnel. 70802 Define and oversee (225) 338 -1040 conservation objectives. Implement monitoring and verification plan, including the hiring of monitoring/inventory staff, technical consultants and VCS verifiers, as needed. Investor relations, including reporting to corporate donors and/or investors in accordance with contract terms. Manage project validation, TNC Forest Carbon Team Nicole Virgilio and Hamilton including hiring of contractors Member(s) Hardman to assist in PD development The Nature Conservancy and validators; ensure that 4245 North Fairfax Drive, offsets are registered Suite 100 following verification, and in Arlington, VA 22203-1606 accordance with contractual (703) 841-5300 commitments to project funders. Oversee compliance with all TNC Senior Attorney – Laura Robinson existing contracts relating to Southern US Region The Nature Conservancy the project. Draft, review and 222 S. Westmonte Drive approve future contracts Suite 300 relating to the hiring of Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 monitoring and inventory (407) 389-4812 staff, and VCS verifiers. Oversee remedies to any non-compliance with the conservation servitude. v3.0 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Roles and Responsibility Position/Personnel Contact Details Contracts, servitude negotiations, land purchase negotiations and general legal advice.
Maintain electronic database TNC’s Louisiana Director of Richard Martin of GIS coverages detailing Forest Conservation and GIS The Nature Conservancy parcel boundaries and plot Manager 721 Government Street, locations, archive raw field Suite 200 Baton Rouge, LA measurements and analysis 70802 in hard and electronic copies. (225) 338 -1040
1.4 Other Entities Involved in the Project Table 1.4. List of other entities involved in the project. Roles and Responsibility Position/Personnel Contact Details Develop PDD and design Independent Consultant James Eaton monitoring plan in TerraCarbon LLC consultation with TNC staff, 5901 N. Sheridan Rd. as well as perform initial Peoria, Illinois 61614 carbon calculations. U.S.A. (434) 326-1144 Owners of project property. Individual property owners Located in project database Responsibility to comply with in title documents. terms of the conservation servitude.
1.5 Project Start Date The grouped project has a project start date of October 5, 2011, the date of acquisition of and cessation of agricultural activities on the first project instance, the Catlands Tract, by The Nature Conservancy. 1.6 Project Crediting Period The Lower Mississippi Valley Grouped Afforestation Project has crediting period of 32 years. It is set to start October 5, 2011 and continue through October 4, 2043. 1.7 Project Scale and Estimated GHG Emission Reductions or Removals The initial project instance is expected to sequester 426.5 tons3 of CO2 per hectare (172.6 per acre) over 32 years on the 89.4-ha (220.9-acre) project area. Taking into account baseline stocks, leakage, and a non-permanence risk buffer of 10% (see Section 2 for details), the total amount of emission reductions generated over the 32 year crediting period is estimated to reach 29,629 tons of CO2 (Table 1.5). On average, this would yield 926 tons CO2 equivalent (e) emissions reductions per year. The project is not currently, nor expected to be, a mega project (> 1 million tons of CO2 per year).
3 All tons in Project Description are metric tons (1,000 kg)
v3.0 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Table 1.5. Estimated net emissions reductions (t CO2-e) generated by the Lower Mississippi Valley Grouped Afforestation Project over the 32 year crediting period for the first project instance, LMVGAP01. Year Annual estimates of net emission reductions (t CO2) 2011 0 2012 574 2013 367 2014 415 2015 469 2016 528 2017 666 2018 730 2019 795 2020 859 2021 923 2022 960 2023 1,017 2024 1,070 2025 1,118 2026 1,160 2027 1,161 2028 1,191 2029 1,215 2030 1,232 2031 1,244 2032 1,081 2033 1,082 2034 1,077 2035 1,067 2036 1,052 2037 1,022 2038 999 2039 973 2040 943 2041 911 2042 882 2043 846 Total net emission reductions (t 29,629 CO2) Number of crediting years 32
v3.0 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
1.8 Description of the Project Activity The Lower Mississippi Valley Grouped Afforestation Project will achieve GHG removals by planting trees that sequester atmospheric CO2 in live aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, dead wood, and soil. The project activity involves cessation of previous agricultural activities, followed by implementation of site preparation and tree planting technologies that have been in use for decades in the region. Seedlings of several native bottomland hardwood tree species are to be planted on a 10-foot grid resulting in a planting density of 435 seedlings per acre (1,074 trees per ha). The vast majority of previous plantings in the LMV have used a 12-foot spacing (302 seedlings per acre) based on earlier guidance from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service governing the implementation of the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP). The increased planting density used for the Lower Mississippi Valley Grouped Afforestation Project follows recently issued recommendations from the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Forest Resource Conservation Working Group4, and represents a 44% increase in planting density. It is expected that the increased planting density will result in stands attaining canopy closure and wildlife habitat structure more quickly, as well as reduced competition from early successional plants.
In addition to bottomland oaks, the project planting will incorporate a significant component of light- seeded species like sweet gum and green ash. Earlier reforestation guidance had emphasized oaks, with the expectation that light-seeded (i.e., wind and water-dispersed) species would seed into planted stands on their own, with no need for direct intervention. However, due to a variety of constraints operating in the LMV region, natural regeneration of light-seeded species did not occur to a satisfactory level, borne out over 15 years of experience under the WRP5. In recognition of these findings, and in further conformance with the most recent technical guidance (Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Forest Resource Conservation Working Group 2007), the project planting mix will be extended to include light-seeded species. The diversity of the planting mix is also expected to quickly produce differential height growth and more complex canopy architecture. These structural conditions are favored by many forest dependent neotropical migrant bird species6. There is also reduced potential of stand stagnation by accelerated expression of dominance and density dependent self-thinning7. The actual mix of tree species planted on each project tract is based upon site-specific topographic setting and hydrologic conditions. Site preparation prior to reforestation will include “ripping”, running a chisel plow set on 10 foot spacing to a depth of 18 inches to break the compacted subsurface soil layer. Planting will use native species of 1-
4 Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Forest Resource Conservation Working Group. 2007. Restoration, Management and Monitoring of Forest Resources in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Recommendations for Enhancing Wildlife Habitat. Edited by Wilson, R., Ribbeck, K., King, S. and D. Twedt. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 88 pp. 5 Stanturf, J. A., Schoenholtz, S. H., Schweitzer, C. J. and J. P. Shepard. 2001. Achieving restoration success: myths in bottomland hardwood forests. Restoration Ecology 9:189-200. 6 Twedt, D. J., R. R. Wilson, J. L. Henne-Kerr, and D. A. Grosshuesch. 2002. Avian response to bottomland hardwood reforestation: The first 10 years. Restoration Ecology 10:645-655. 7 Johnson, R. L., Burkhardt, E. C. 1976. Natural cottonwood stands-past management and implications for plantations. In: Thielges, Bart A.; Land, Samuel B., Jr., eds. Proceedings: Symposium on Eastern Cottonwood and Related Species; 1976 September 28 - October 2; Greenville, MS. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, Division of Continuing Education: 20-29.
v3.0 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
year-old nursery stock, 18-24 inches in height, 3/8” in diameter at the root collar, with 4-5 well developed lateral roots. The seedlings will be lifted from the nursery beds and stored in refrigerated trailers overnight prior to delivery at the planting site where they will be planted within a few days of delivery. Replanting will be assessed based on results from survival monitoring and in consultation with forestry experts. While the crediting period of this project is 32 years, the project area will be managed as forest land for the long term in conformance with the conservation servitude8 placed on each property as part of this project. The following is a summary of the reserved rights held by TNC under the initial servitude agreement, as well as activities that the current and future owners are either prohibited from or permitted to engage in (see Annex 1, located in the project database, for full servitude language) Servitudes for additional parcels enrolled into the grouped project in the future will include similar reserved rights and restricted uses, though certain aspects of future servitudes are negotiable, so long as they do not prevent the Conservancy from achieving the climate change mitigation goals outlined within this project document or required by VCS:
Reserved Rights Right of Entry. TNC shall have the right to enter the LMV GAP tract (“Protected Property”) in a reasonable manner and at reasonable times for the following purposes:
• Inspecting the Protected Property at least once per calendar year to determine if land owner, or its heirs, successors or assigns, is complying with the provisions of this Conservation Servitude;
• Periodic monitoring of the Carbon Rights on any forested or reforested areas of the Protected Property;
• Re-establishing, relocating or adding additional monitoring plots from time to time;
• Obtaining evidence for the purpose of seeking judicial enforcement of this Conservation Servitude;
• Conducting biological surveys, monitoring and other scientific studies, including but not limited to biomass inventories;
• Conducting any other activity on the Protected Property reasonably necessary to protect the Carbon Rights granted pursuant to the Carbon Rights Assignment conveyed in conjunction with the Conservation Servitude, provided such activity is in conformance with the purpose of the Conservation Servitude.
Prohibited and Permitted Uses of the Protected Property • Commercial, Agricultural and Industrial Activity. There shall be no industrial, agricultural or commercial activities undertaken or allowed on the Protected Property, other than the hunting and forestry practices specifically permitted in the Conservation Servitude. No right of passage shall be granted to a third party or retained by land owner across or upon the Protected Property if that right of passage is used in conjunction with prohibited activities.
8 A “Grant of Conservation Servitude and Rights of Use” was signed by the property owners and The Nature Conservancy as part of required project documentation. These conservation servitudes can be found in the project database.
v3.0 9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
• Mining. There shall be no mining, drilling, or removal of minerals on the Protected Property except by off-site techniques. Access to oil, gas and other minerals shall be by slant drilling from adjacent property or by any pooling method in which drilling takes place on other property.
• Topography. There shall be no ditching, draining, diking, filling, excavating, removal of topsoil, sand, rock or other materials, or any change in the topography of the land in any manner except in conjunction with activities otherwise specifically authorized in the Conservation Servitude.
• Water and Hydrology. Except to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate the residential uses permitted within adjacent development areas, there shall be no disruption, alteration, pollution, depletion, or extraction on or from the Protected Property of existing surface or subsurface water flow or natural water sources, fresh water lakes, ponds and pond shores, marshes, creeks, or any other water bodies except to advance the purpose of this Conservation Servitude. Nor shall any activities or uses be conducted on the Protected Property that may reasonably be expected to cause detriment to water purity or alter natural water levels and/or flow in or over the Protected Property...No new water management levees and/or ditches may be constructed on the Protected Property except to improve surface hydrology subject to approval by TNC, which approval shall lie within TNC's sole discretion.
• Dumping. There shall be no dumping of trash, non-compostable garbage, hazardous or toxic substance or other unsightly or offensive material.
• Roads. Existing roads may be maintained but shall not be widened or improved except as specifically authorized by TNC. No new roads are allowed.
• Paths and Foot Trails. Land owner has the right to construct, and maintain paths and foot trails that do not detract from the purpose of the Conservation. All paths and foot trails shall be constructed only of permeable materials and there shall be no building of paths and foot trails that break the forest canopy.
• Animals. There shall be no grazing or housing of livestock on the Protected Property. There shall be no feedlots permitted anywhere on the Protected Property. There shall also be no introduction of non-native game or other animal species on the Protected Property without prior consent by TNC.
• Vegetation. There shall be no removal, destruction, cutting, trimming or mowing of any native trees or vegetation, living or dead, except (i) as specifically authorized in an approved Forest Management Plan, (ii) as part of normal management of the existing water management levees, (iii) to remove hazardous trees for reasons of safety, or (iv) to maintain existing or authorized roads, fire breaks, fences, foot trails and paths on the Protected Property. Existing roads and water management levees may be planted with non-invasive annual grasses to reduce erosion and serve as wildlife food plots provided that the seed mix is approved by TNC prior to planting. Existing disturbed areas may be restored to natural forest by planting native species upon receiving prior approval from TNC. No plant species shall be introduced to the Protected Property unless those species are native to the Parish in which the Protected Property is located, or unless specifically authorized by TNC. Land owner may manage and control any occurrence and spread of exotic or nuisance plants. TNC hereby specifically reserves the right, in TNC's sole discretion
v3.0 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
and at TNC's expense, to develop and implement an exotic plant removal plan for the eradication of exotics or non native plants on the Protected Property, together with the right of ingress and egress to the Protected Property for the purpose of exercising such right.
• Plowing. There shall be no tilling or plowing or use of the Protected Property for the cultivation of row crops. • Spraying. There shall be no use of pesticides or biocides, including but not limited to insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides and herbicides, except as may be necessary to eliminate invasive non- native species; provided however, that herbicides may be used only in those amounts and with a frequency of application that constitute the minimum necessary for control and in compliance with all government regulations.
• Vehicles. There shall be no operation of motorcycles, all terrain vehicles or other types of motorized recreational vehicles, cars, trucks, skidders and farm vehicles on the Protected Property except that these vehicles may be: a) operated on existing roads in order to gain access to the Protected Property; b) operated on existing roads within the Protected Property, c) low- pressure all-terrain vehicles and farm vehicles may be operated on existing water management levees, and d) equipment and vehicles typically used during commercial timber harvest may be operated off of existing roads if specifically permitted in the Forest Management so long as such equipment and vehicles are operated under current or updated Louisiana Office of Forestry Best Management Practices.
• Hunting and Trapping and other Recreational Uses. Land owner may hunt and trap game species on the Protected Property as allowed under state law, and may allow or deny access to others for the purpose of hunting and trapping at land owner's sole discretion. Land owner may lease the Protected Property for recreational hunting. Land owner may also utilize the Protected Property for hiking, wildlife viewing and other passive recreational uses that have limited, localized impacts not destructive of the Conservation Values, and that are consistent with the purpose of the Conservation Servitude.
• Forestry Practices/Protection of Carbon Rights. The Protected Property may be used for forestry practices in accordance with an ecologically sustainable Forest Management Plan developed by land owner in consultation with TNC, and approved by TNC. Such plan may provide for the production of timber and related forest products in accordance with the purpose of this Conservation Servitude, provided however, any Forest Management Plan shall be consistent with TNC's objective that the Protected Property be managed for the protection of the Carbon Rights transferred in conjunction with the Conservation Servitude. No timber harvesting shall be permitted for a period of ten years from the date of the Conservation Servitude; thereafter, no timber harvesting or other forestry activities shall be conducted until the Forest Management Plan contemplated hereunder has been approved by TNC, in its sole discretion. The guiding principles for the Forest Management Plan are:
o Forest management plans must be written to ensure that harvest prescriptions are designed to result in stands that support a minimum of 260 metric tons of CO2 [per acre] at age 80.
v3.0 11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
o After age 80, forest stands will be managed to approximate mature forest conditions that support late seral stage bottomland wildlife populations…
• Non-Disturbance of Monitoring Plots. Land owner hereby acknowledges that TNC has established monitoring plots to allow monitoring of the Carbon Rights and land owner shall not disturb the plots or the markers relating to such plots.
• Existing CRP Contract - Land owner and TNC acknowledge that the Protected Property is subject to a pre-existing CRP Enrollment per the CRP Contract, which was executed prior to the servitude agreement execution, only due to additional financial incentives provided by the Conservancy in relation to this carbon project. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the parties do not intend to limit the applicability of the CRP Contract or prevent any restoration activity that is in compliance with the Conservation Restoration Plans of Operations. 1.9 Project Location The area of the first project instance LMVGAP01 (Table 1.6) includes planted fields located in Franklin Parish, Louisiana.
Table 1.6. Unique identifier for each discrete planted parcel, tract name, location, planting year, and area. LMV GAP Project Instance- Tract Name County and State Planting Area (ha) Field Number Year LMVGAP01-001 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 3.37 LMVGAP01-002 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 1.82 LMVGAP01-003 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 3.63 LMVGAP01-004 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 3.60 LMVGAP01-005 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 3.40 LMVGAP01-006 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 3.73 LMVGAP01-007 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 2.17 LMVGAP01-008 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 4.38 LMVGAP01-009 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 2.52 LMVGAP01-010 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 2.51 LMVGAP01-011 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 2.32 LMVGAP01-012 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 3.37 LMVGAP01-013 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 1.08 LMVGAP01-014 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 2.69 LMVGAP01-015 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 1.08 LMVGAP01-016 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 3.18 LMVGAP01-017 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 1.40 LMVGAP01-018 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 3.38 LMVGAP01-019 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 3.31 LMVGAP01-020 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 6.35 LMVGAP01-021 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 3.96 LMVGAP01-022 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 2.72 LMVGAP01-023 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 2.87 LMVGAP01-024 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 3.63 LMVGAP01-025 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 4.98 LMVGAP01-026 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 3.01 LMVGAP01-027 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 3.59
v3.0 12 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
LMVGAP01-028 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 2.66 LMVGAP01-029 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 2.46 LMVGAP01-030 Catlands Tract Franklin Parish, LA 2012 0.21
Figure 1.1. Project instance LMVGAP01 with field ID numbers.
v3.0 13 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
The entire grouped project area will be located in the Lower Mississippi Valley within the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi. All additional project instances will be located within this geographic boundary. An overview of the geographic boundary of the grouped project can be found in Figure 1.6 below. Detailed project instance boundaries will be archived as GIS files located in the project database. 1.10 Conditions Prior to Project Initiation
1.10.1 Historical conditions in the Lower Mississippi Valley Bottomland hardwood forests and cypress swamps were historically the predominant forest cover types along the major river floodplains in the Lower Mississippi Valley (LMV). The LMV, which occupies the former floodplain of the Mississippi River from Cairo, Illinois to the mouth of the river in Louisiana, historically supported one of the largest contiguous tracts of floodplain forest in the World. Over the past century, these forests were cut and converted to agriculture on a massive scale and today only 26% of their former extent remains9, much of it as isolated fragments. Most of the original forest cover in the Lower Mississippi Valley was removed by logging between the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, facilitated by development of the railroad and implementation of flood control measures10. Forests in the region were cleared again in the 1960’s through the mid 1970’s in response to booming soybean markets and federal subsidies for clearing11,12.
The historic bottomland forests of the LMV were diverse, with over 60 tree species; this forest type continues to be one of the most productive in the U.S.13,14 Bottomland forests in the region also provided habitat for a wealth of wildlife, including the Florida panther, Red Wolf, Louisiana Black Bear, and Ivory- billed Woodpecker, species which are now rare or extirpated from the region.
The Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Forest Resource Conservation Working Group (2007, referencing Tanner15, Conner16) present an overview of the natural distribution of bottomland hardwood communities in the LMV in relation to hydrology. Sites subject to flooding can be characterized as well-
9 Gardiner, E. and J. Oliver. 2005. Restoration of bottomland hardwood forests in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, U.S.A. Pp. 235-251 in: Stanturf, J and P. Madsen eds. Restoration of boreal and temperate forests. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 10 LMVJV Forest Resource Conservation Working Group. 2007. Restoration, Management, and Monitoring of Forest Resources in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Recommendations for Enhancing Wildlife Habitat. Edited by R. Wilson, K. Ribbeck, S. King, and D. Twedt. 11 Sternitzke, H. S. 1976. ”Impact of changing land use on delta hardwood forests.” Journal of Forestry. 74:25- 27. 12 Rudis, V.A. and R. A. Birdsey. 1986. “Forest resource trends and current conditions in the lower Mississippi valley.” Resource Bulletin SO-116. USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans. 7 pp. Schnur, G.L. 1937. Yield, stand, and volume tables for even aged upland oak forests. USDA Technical Bulletin No. 560. 87 pp. 13 Brinson, M. 1990. Riverine forests. p. 87–141. In A. E. Lugo, M. Brinson, and S. Brown (eds.) Ecosystems of the World 15: Forested Wetlands. Elsevier, New York, NY, USA. 14 Shoch, David T., Gary Kaster, Aaron Hohl and Ray Souter. “Carbon storage of bottomland hardwood afforestation in the Lower Mississippi Valley, U.S.A.” March 2008. 15 Tanner, J. 1986. Distribution of tree species in Louisiana bottomland forests. Castanea 51: 168-174. 16 Conner, W. 1994. Effect of forest management practices on southern forested wetland productivity. Wetlands 14: 27-40.
v3.0 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
drained, wet, and seasonal or permanently inundated. Well drained and sandy soils, often characteristic of slightly raised areas including natural levees, are dominated by Black Willow (Salix nigra), Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) initially, and followed by American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), American Elm (Ulmus americana), Cedar Elm (Ulmus crassifolia), and Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Wetter areas, typical of backwater swamps, are dominated by Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) and Bitter Pecan (Carya aquatica), but Nuttall Oak (Quercus nuttallii) and Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) may also be present. Depressions, ox bows and bayous, which typically hold water for much of or all of the year, are dominated by Baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) and Water Tupelo (Nyssa aquatica). Sites more influenced by precipitation than flooding are characterized by Willow Oak (Quercus phellos), Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda), Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii), Pin Oak (Quercus palustris) and Nuttall Oak (Quercus nuttallii). Knowledge on the distribution of native forest communities as related to position in the floodplain will serve to guide the implementation of the project activity, by matching species to sites where they are best adapted.
1.10.2 Conditions on project area prior to planting The vast majority of the project instance LMVGAP01 area has been without forest cover since at least the 1970’s. The property was utilized for catfish aquaculture prior to 2009, at which time the property was converted to pasture (71.3 ha) and cropland (18.1 ha). No pre-existing tree cover was present in the project area at the time of planting, as project area boundaries were drawn to exclude any pre-existing tree cover (Figures 1.4-1.5). Digital photos, such as Figure 1.2 and 1.3, taken on-site prior to planting were recorded to document pre-project conditions and verify the absence of pre-existing woody biomass within the project area.
Figure 1.2. Photo of pasture at the Catlands Tract LMVGAP01 (in September 2011).
v3.0 15 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Figure 1.3. Photo of wheat crop at the Catlands Tract LMVGAP01.
1.10.3 Eligibility Eligibility as an ARR project was determined with reference to the VCS AFOLU Requirements guidance17 and CDM guidance18.Reforestation of the project area does not lead to the violation of any law, as detailed in Section 1.11. Further, project activities do not lead to the conversion of any native ecosystems. This project qualifies as a reforestation or afforestation project as project lands were not forested 10 years prior to the project start date. Conversely, project activities are intended to lead to the restoration of the native ecosystem, bottomland forest.
The National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD, www.mrlc.gov)19 together with aerial photos, are the best available sources for historic, spatially-explicit, land cover data to document lack of forest, the native ecosystem, ten years prior and directly prior to project implementation. The NLCD is based on classified Landsat imagery. NLCD data were used to demonstrate non-forested conditions in the project area in 2001 (Figure 1.4). Aerial photos were used to demonstrate non-forest conditions in the project area directly prior to project start (Figure 1.5).
17 VCS. 2012 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Requirements. Version 3.2, 01 February 2012. Verified Carbon Standard, Washington, D.C. 18 CDM. 2007. Procedures to demonstrate the eligibility of land for afforestation and reforestation CDM project activities. Version 1.0. 19 http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd_definitions.php
v3.0 16 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Figure 1.4. Demonstration of non-forest conditions 10 years prior to the project start using 2001 National Land Cover Database (NLCD). Forest land cover classes are displayed in shades of green. The open water class, blue, are catfish ponds which were drained in 2009 prior to landowner’s decision to enroll in the LMV Grouped Afforestation Project.
Legend
v3.0 17 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Figure 1.5. Demonstration of non-forest conditions (i.e. pasture and croplands) for the Catlands property LMVGAP01 one-year prior to the project start using a 2010 orthophoto, the most recent orthophoto available.
v3.0 18 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
1.11 Compliance with Laws, Statutes and Other Regulatory Frameworks The project proponent has, to the best of their knowledge, complied with all relevant local, state and national laws, including labor and non-discrimination laws, in the course of project implementation. The following summary is based on the project proponent’s review of applicable local, state and national laws. The project proponent is a District of Columbia non-profit 501(c) corporation with authority to do business in Louisiana under Louisiana Revised Statutes 12:301. The project proponent maintains compliance with the following applicable anti-discrimination laws: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Federal Executive Order 11246 as amended, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the Vietnam Era Veteran’s Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The project proponent is also in compliance with Department of Labor Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 5) and all applicable standards, orders, or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
Based on consultation with in-house and outside experts and a review of U.S. Department of Agriculture Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation Determination dated February 1988 and Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation Certification signed by Wisner Minnow Hatchery, Inc. dated August 9, 2011 as well as other information, the project proponent has determined that the LMV GAP project is in compliance with applicable wetland laws, specifically including Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Louisiana Coastal Wetland Conservation and Restoration Act, L.R.S. 49:214.1 et seq. No local laws regulating wetlands were identified.
LMV GAP project is in compliance with La. R.S.9:1271, Louisiana Conservation Servitude Act, which allows for the creation of a permanent conservation servitude. Project proponent is a qualified Holder as defined in La.R.S. 9:1272(2) (b). The creation of an enforceable conservation servitude on the project property provides for long-term protection of natural resources and accrued emission reductions.
The project is also in accord with La. R.S.9:1103 which provides that any monetary compensation derived from the sequestration of carbon on the surface of land through biological processes, including through the growth of plants, is the property of the owner of the land upon which the sequestration occurs unless contractually assigned to another party. In addition to the statutory law addressing ownership of carbon rights, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, held in Roseland Plantation, LLC vs. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al., 2006 U.S. District LEXIS 29334 (April 2006) that in connection with real property located in Louisiana “the right to report, transfer, or sell carbon credits is part of the bundle of rights associates with property ownership.” The findings in the Roseland Plantation decision, coupled with La. R.S. 9:1103 are in accord with the legal structure of this ARR Project.
The Conservancy has worked closely with local and federal United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies in developing this program to insure legal compliance. A detailed description of the program along with applicable documentation has been shared with USDA staff and no legal prohibitions were identified by USDA.
v3.0 19 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
A key component of the program is the conveyance of a conservation easement to The Nature Conservancy on property that has been enrolled in the United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program (“CRP”) or Wetland Reserve Program (“WRP”). The post enrollment transfer of a conservation servitude by a landowner who is enrolled CRP WRP is not prohibited under the statutory framework for either program (see 16 U.S.C. §§3831-3835A and 16 U.S,C.§3837, respectively).(see also 62 Fed. Reg 7602, 7606 (Feb. 19, 1997). Another key aspect of the program is the transfer of carbon rights from the landowner to the Conservancy via an assignment of carbon rights (and as specified in the conservation servitude) following enrollment of land in either CRP or WRP. Both CRP and WRP regulations clarify that enrollment in either program, including the granting of an easement under the WRP, does not forfeit a landowner’s rights in carbon or other environmental (ecosystem services) credits. With respect to CRP, 7 C.F.R § 1410.63 (c) (6) provides “[t]he following activities may be permitted on CRP enrolled land insofar as they are consistent with the soil, water, and wildlife conservation purposes of the program….(6) The sale of carbon, water quality, or other environmental credits, as determined by the Deputy Administrator.”
With respect to WRP, the program regulations provide that “USDA recognizes that environmental benefits will be achieved by implementing conservation practices and activities funded through WRP, and that environmental credits may be gained as a result of implementing activities compatible with the purpose of a WRP easement, 30-year contract, or restoration cost share agreement. NRCS assert no direct or indirect interest in these credits. 7 C.F.R. §1467.20(b)(1).
The Conservancy continues to coordinate with the USDA agencies on individual projects to assure that each individual project will meet the USDA agency intended purpose and that the terms and conditions of the Conservancy’s conservation easements are in accord with this purpose. For WRP, this may be accomplished through a WRP assessment of compatibility from NRCS.
The USDA programs potentially eligible for inclusion into the grouped project are not limited to CRP and WRP. However, before any other USDA programs are incorporated into the grouped project, the appropriate legal research will be performed and TNC will consult with the appropriate USDA agency. 1.12 Ownership and Other Programs
1.12.1 Proof of Title The project area is under clear title and subject to a legally-binding permanent conservation servitude agreement administered by TNC. TNC has reserved the rights to forest carbon in the project area through an “Assignment of Carbon Rights” in conjunction with the “Grant of Conservation Servitude and Rights of Use”. A copy of the title (Annex 4), assignment of carbon rights (Annex 3), and conservation servitude agreement (Annex 1) for each project property is contained in the project database. Relevant language from the Assignment of Carbon Rights:
1.1 Assignment and Transfer. Assignor [or land owner] herby conveys, assigns, transfers and delivers to Assignee [TNC] all Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to the Carbon Rights generated by the Protected Property in the Carbon Rights Period, including (a) any right to hold, sell, transfer, export, retire, bank or otherwise deal with Carbon Rights in advance of government regulation whether formally registered or not (for its own or account or though an agent); (b) any right to apply or register for the long-term benefit of the Carbon Rights; (c) any right to trade or
v3.0 20 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
receive value (monetary or otherwise) for Carbon Rights (including with respect to any sales or re-sales of such Carbon Rights); (d) any right to any form of acknowledgement or certification to claim reduction from an emissions baseline; (e) any credits for sequestration, ecosystem credits or forest carbon storage rights; (f) any right to discount actual emissions anywhere by applying Carbon rights; (g) any right to offset, mitigate or neutralize GHG emissions of companies, organizations or individuals; and (h) any other similar economic or other benefit or value related to the foregoing arising under any current or future treaties, statues, laws (including the common law), rules, regulations, ordinances, codes or orders of any governmental authority. Assignee hereby accepts such conveyance, assignment, transfer and delivery from Assignor.
1.12.2 Emissions Trading Programs and Other Binding Limits No emission reductions generated by the project are part of an emissions trading program.
1.12.3 Participation under Other GHG Programs The project has not been registered, nor is it seeking registration under any other GHG program.
1.12.4 Other Forms of Environmental Credit The project has not created wetland mitigation, water quality, air pollution, other non-VCS GHG emission reduction, or any another form of environmental credit.
1.12.5 Projects Rejected by Other GHG Programs The project has neither submitted to nor been rejected from any other greenhouse gas program. 1.13 Additional Information Relevant to the Project 1.13.1 Eligibility Criteria for Grouped Project All new project instances will:
1) Meet the applicability conditions set out in AR-ACM0001.
2) Use the technologies or measures specified in this project description.
3) Apply the technologies or measures in the same manner as specified in this project description.
4) Be subject to the baseline scenario determined in this project description for the specified project activity and geographic area. 5) Have characteristics with respect to additionality that are consistent with the initial instances for the specified project activity and geographic area (e.g., the new project activity instances have financial, technical and/or other parameters consistent with the initial instances, or face the same investment, technological and/or other barriers as the initial instances). Specifically, the following conditions will be met to demonstrate additional project instances added to the project after project validation are eligible for inclusion in this VCS AR project.
1.13.1.1 Geographic Boundary
All project instances will be located within the geographic boundary of Lower Mississippi Valley in the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi, as displayed in Figure 1.6.
v3.0 21 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Figure 1.6. Grouped project geographic region (outlined in green) and other state boundaries (dark grey).
1.13.1.2 Eligibility requirements and applicability conditions
Grouped projects provide for the inclusion of new project instances subsequent to the initial validation of the project. New project instances will:
1) Occur within one of the designated geographic areas specified in this project description.
v3.0 22 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
2) Comply with at least one complete set of eligibility criteria for the inclusion of new project instances.
3) Be included in the monitoring report with sufficient technical, financial, geographic and other relevant information to demonstrate compliance with the applicable set of eligibility criteria and enable sampling by the validation/verification body. 4) Be validated at the time of verification against the applicable set of eligibility criteria.
5) Have evidence of right of use, in respect of each project activity instance, held by the project proponent from the respective start date of each project activity instance (i.e., the date upon which the project activity instance began reducing or removing GHG emissions). 6) Be eligible for crediting from the start date of the instance through to the end of the project crediting period. Specifically, the following criteria will be met and substantiated for each additional project instance added to the grouped project after project validation.
1.13.1.2.1 Project instance area and activity requirements
Project instance area and activity requirements include eligibility requirements from the VCS AFOLU Requirements document version 3.2, applicability conditions of methodology AR-ACM001 version 5.2, including conditions permitting accounting for soil carbon using the CDM “Tool for estimation of change in soil organic carbon stocks due to the implementation of A/R CDM project activities”, and other requirements specific to this grouped project.
• The grouped project instance area was not cleared of native ecosystems within the 10 year period prior to the project start date.
• The grouped project instance area was not forested at the time of planting.
• Implementation of the grouped project instance activity does not violate any law.
• Clear title and rights to carbon are demonstrated for each grouped project instance.
• Each grouped project instance is subject to a permanent conservation servitude held by The Nature Conservancy, and is enrolled in a USDA conservation program, such as the USDA Conservation Reserve Program or Wetland Reserve Program. • The grouped project instance activity is implemented on degraded lands, which are expected to remain degraded or to continue to degrade in the absence of the project; hence the land cannot be expected to revert to a non-degraded state without human intervention. Degraded status will be demonstrated by applying the CDM tool20 for the identification of degraded lands. Specifically, the grouped project instance area is demonstrated to have no existing forest cover at the time of inclusion in the project, demonstrating a clear “reduction in plant cover or productivity due to overgrazing or other land management practices” because the native vegetation in the grouped project geographic area was historically forest.
20CDM Executive Board. 2008. Tool for the identification of degraded or degrading lands for consideration in implementing CDM A/R project activities - Version 01. UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany.
v3.0 23 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
• The grouped project instance activity involves machine or hand planting, with or without site preparation, of native bottomland tree species. Encroachment of natural tree vegetation that leads to the establishment of forests is not expected to occur. • No project instances will use flooding irrigation as part of the project activity. • The grouped project instance is not located on organic soils.
• No project instances will lead to a decrease in the availability of fuelwood.
• The grouped project instance does not fall into the wetland category, as defined by the IPCC21. • Organic litter from vegetation will remain on site and will not be removed.
• Any site preparation involving ploughing/ripping/scarification, implemented as part of the grouped project instance activity, will be: a. Done in accordance with appropriate soil conservation practices (e.g., follows the land contour);
b. Limited to the first five years from the year of initial site preparation; and
c. Not repeated, if at all, within a period of 20 years.
1.13.1.2.2 Project instance baseline conditions and demonstration of additionality requirements
The “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality in A/R CDM project activities” will be used to demonstrate the baseline and additionality for each new project instance. The pre-existing land use of the grouped project instance area is either degraded pasture/grassland (including grasslands part of the CRP grasslands program), cultivation of annual crops with or without fallow periods, or abandoned nonforest lands which have previously been in agriculture.
Investment analysis22 for the grouped project instance demonstrates that net present value (NPV) of USDA conservation program enrollment alone (using CRP/WRP as an example), without carbon-related payment from The Nature Conservancy is less than the NPV from agriculture. The same investment analysis outcome serves to demonstrate an investment/financial barrier to implementing the grouped project instance activity, which is the essential distinction from common practice reforestation through USDA conservation program sign ups in the region. The investment analysis is conducted using the following steps. 1. Identify the major agricultural commodities at the parish or county level at time of inclusion in the project, using data from the USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service23. 2. For each commodity identified above, including commodities generated by the pre-existing land use, collect annual net revenue data ($/acre) at in order of preference, the parish or county, state, regional, or national level. Data from the year of inclusion of the project instance, or the most
21 The IPCC describes a wetland as “land that is covered or saturated by water for all or part of the year (e.g., peatland) and that does not fall into the forest land, cropland, grassland or settlements categories.” IPCC 2003. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF). 22 Approved CDM “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate the additionality in A/R CDM project activities, Version 1”. 23 http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/ accessed December 2011
v3.0 24 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
recent year available, will be used. Parish/county specific yield data is available from USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service24, while commodity price and operating costs data is available from the USDA Economic Research Service25. 3. Collect annual cash flow data for the project activity without VCU-related revenue (i.e., bottomland hardwood afforestation and permanent conservation servitude with USDA conservation program sign up). Obtain USDA conservation program rental rates ($/acre) at time of inclusion in the project (from USDA Farm Service Agency offices) at the parish or county level. Data from the year of inclusion of the project instance, or the most recent year available, will be used. 4. Perform investment comparison analysis applying annual cash flow analysis and NPV analysis, using a 6% discount rate over 99 year net revenue stream, assuming cost and price inflation are equal (i.e., constant nominal net revenue over time).
5. Investment analysis will demonstrate that at least one alternative land use is financially more attractive than the project activity without VCU based income.
6. Sensitivity analysis using the lowest NPV for each dominant agricultural commodity in the parish or county, identified in step 1, over the last five years, further demonstrates that at least one alternative land use is financially more attractive than the project activity without VCU based income.
To further demonstrate additionality, for the grouped project area, a signed affidavit will be secured from landowners attesting that they would not have signed up for the USDA conservation program, without the additional carbon-related incentive provided by The Nature Conservancy.
1.13.1.3 GHG Information Tracking System
Each new grouped project instance will be given a unique identifier (LMVGAP01, LMVGAP02, LMVGAP03, etc.) and incorporated into the overall project accounting tracking system. The project maintains an electronic database of GIS coverages detailing parcel boundaries and monitoring plot locations (once established), and maps archived in both digital and hard copy form. Original field monitoring data sheets, GIS data layers, reports of analyses and supporting spreadsheets will be stored in both hard copy and digital form at the TNC Louisiana Field Office in Baton Rouge for at least 2 years beyond the project crediting period. Given the extended timeframe and the pace of production of updated versions of software and new hardware for storing data, electronic files will be updated periodically or converted to a format accessible to future software applications. Adherence to these procedures will ensure smooth transitions and maintain “institutional memory” in the event of changes in personnel responsible for the monitoring plan. TNC’s Louisiana Director of Forest Conservation (or subsequent equivalent positions) will be assigned program data management responsibility.
1.13.2 Leakage Management
24 http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/ accessed December 2011 25 http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/costsandreturns/testpick.htm accessed December 2011
v3.0 25 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
The project activity addresses leakage by providing payments to landowners that serve to replace agricultural income foregone by participation in the activity, thus mitigating risk of displacement of former activities.
1.13.3 Commercially Sensitive Information There is no commercially sensitive information in this project description document.
1.13.4 Further Information Not applicable.
v3.0 26 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
2.0 APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY
2.1 Title and Reference of Methodology This project uses approved Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) afforestation/reforestation methodology AR-ACM0001 “Afforestation and reforestation of degraded land” - Version 5.2, together with the following tools: • Approved CDM “Tool for the identification of degraded or degrading lands for consideration in implementing CDM A/R project activities”, Version 1; • Approved CDM “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate the additionality in A/R CDM project activities, Version 1”; • Approved CDM tool, “Procedures to demonstrate the eligibility of land for afforestation and reforestation CDM project activities”;
• Approved CDM “Guidelines on conservative choice and application of default data in estimation of the net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks”, Version 2;
• Approved CDM tool “Estimation of the increase in GHG emissions attributable to displacement of pre-project agricultural activities in A/R CDM project activity”; and
• Approved CDM “Tool for estimation of change in soil organic carbon stocks due to the implementation of A/R CDM project activities”, Version 01.1.0;. 2.2 Applicability of Methodology The grouped project instance LMVGAP01 meets the applicability conditions of methodology AR- ACM0001 as demonstrated in Table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1. Applicability conditions for CDM AR-ACM0001 methodology. The A/R CDM project activity is implemented Addressed below. on degraded lands, which are expected to remain degraded or to continue to degrade in the absence of the project, hence the land cannot be expected to revert to a non- degraded state without human intervention. If at least a part of the project activity is The project area does not include any organic implemented on organic soils, drainage of soils. these soils is not allowed and not more than 10% of their area may be disturbed as result of soil preparation for planting. The land does not fall into wetland26 The project instance area is not considered to category. be a wetland as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The project instance area prior to reforestation was used for agriculture and thus is not considered to be a wetland, as per the IPCC definition.
26 The IPCC describes a wetland as “land that is covered or saturated by water for all or part of the year (e.g., peatland) and that does not fall into the forest land, cropland, grassland or settlements categories.”
v3.0 27 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Litter shall remain on site and not be removed No litter will be removed from the project in the A/R CDM project activity. area. Ploughing/ripping/scarification attributable to Ripping occurred prior to planting. As ripping the A/R CDM project activity, if any, is: is associated with planting, it occurs only (i) Done in accordance with appropriate soil once. The project instance area is uniformly conservation practices, e.g. follows the land level terrain and features no strong contour; and topographic contours. Further, site (ii) Limited to the first five years from the year preparation and planting occurs within one of initial site preparation; and year of each other. (iii) Not repeated, if at all, within a period of 20 years.
The project region is mostly classified as degraded using the CDM tool27 for the identification of degraded lands. The project area has a degraded designation from an international land classification system produced within the last 10 years (Stage 1 and III(a)). The FAO National Soil Degradation map28, published in 2008 (2004 data) and referenced by the CDM tool, quantifies the severity of human induced degradation regionally, and categorizes the project area region as light to moderate to severe human- induced degradation (Figure 2.1). The GLASOD29 map (Figure 2.2), also referenced by the CDM tool and published in 2008 (1987-1990 data), classifies the status of human induced soil degradation in the region as medium.
Project instance LMVGAP01 also qualifies as degraded under Stage 2a and III(c.ii), of the CDM tool due to the clear “reduction in plant cover or productivity due to overgrazing or other land management practices”. As the project instance baseline is row crop agriculture and pasture, there is a clear “reduction in plant cover” due to “land management practices”, as the native vegetation prior to human land management practices was bottomland forest.
27CDM Executive Board. 2008. Tool for the identification of degraded or degrading lands for consideration in implementing CDM A/R project activities - Version 01. UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany. 28 FAO, 2004. National Soil Degradation Maps. 29ISRIC, 2008. Global Assessment of Human-induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD). http://www.isric.org/sites/default/files/glasod_mercator1000.jpg, accessed June 2012.
v3.0 28 Figure 2.1. United States National Soil Degradation Map, as generated by FAO.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Figure 2.2. Global Assessment of Human-induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD).
v3.0 30 2.3 Project Boundary Identification of GHG sources and sinks follows methodology AR-ACM0001 Version 5.2 and relevant VCS guidance. Selection of terrestrial carbon pools and GHG sources for inclusion in the project boundary is summarized in Table 2.2 below. None of these pools is expected to be a source of emissions in the with-project case. Table 2.2. GHG sources and sinks for inclusion in the project boundary. Source Gas Included? Justification/Explanation
Above-ground biomass CO2 No Assumed to be equal to zero for the life of the project. The above-ground biomass carbon pool is nonexistent or in a steady state under both annual row crop agriculture and Baseline pasture.
Below-ground biomass CO2 No Assumed to be equal to zero for the life of the project. The below-ground biomass carbon pool is nonexistent or in a steady state under both annual row crop agriculture and pasture.
Dead-wood CO2 No Assumed to be equal to zero for the life of the project. The dead-wood carbon pool is nonexistent or in a steady state under both annual row crop agriculture and pasture.
Litter CO2 No Assumed to be equal to zero for the life of the project. The litter carbon pool is nonexistent or in a steady state under both annual row crop agriculture and pasture.
Soil organic carbon CO2 No Assumed to be equal to zero for the life of the project. Soil organic carbon stocks are expected to remain at a steady state for pasture or decrease due to recurring soil disturbance from annual tillage as practiced in the region for annual row crop agriculture.
Burning of woody CO2 No GHG emissions in the baseline can be conservatively biomass ignored. CH4 No
N2O No
Above-ground biomass CO2 Yes Required. Largest pool affected by project activity.
Below-ground biomass CO2 Yes Required. Expected to increase due to project activity. Project
Dead-wood CO2 Yes Expected to increase due to project activity.
Litter CO2 No This pool is not expected to decrease, or increase less, due to the project activity.
Soil organic carbon CO2 Yes This pool is included and expected to increase due to project activity. Numerous studies have demonstrated that comparable reforestation activities lead to increased soil organic matter, and thus this pool should not be a source of emissions in the with-project case.
Burning of woody CO2 No No burning was involved as part of project implementation, biomass nor was any woody biomass present in the project area prior CH4 No to planting. Hence, in conformance with the methodology, no emission sources are included in the project boundary. N2O No
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
As per the methodology AR-ACM0001 Version 5.2, the only emission source that must be included in the project boundary is methane and nitrous oxide emissions resulting from burning of woody biomass (excluding herbaceous biomass). No burning was involved as part of project implementation, nor was any woody biomass present in the project area prior to planting. Hence, in conformance with the methodology, no emission sources are included in the project boundary. Emissions due to removal of herbaceous vegetation due to implementation of afforestation/reforestation activities are treated as insignificant by both the CDM, per CDM EB 42 (Paragraph 35), which applies to AR-ACM0001 Version 5.2: "The Board clarified the guidance on accounting GHG emissions in A/R CDM project activities from the following sources: (i) fertilizer application, (ii) removal of herbaceous vegetation, and (iii) transportation; and agreed that emissions from these sources may be considered as insignificant and hence can be neglected in A/R baseline and monitoring methodologies and tools” and VCS, per VCS AFOLU Requirements, version 3.2:
“Further, the following GHG sources may be deemed de minimis and need not be accounted for:
1) ARR, IFM and REDD: N2O emissions from project activities that apply nitrogen containing soil amendments and N2O emissions caused by microbial decomposition of plant materials that fix nitrogen. ALM projects that apply nitrogen fertilizer and/or manure or plant nitrogen fixing species shall account for N2O emissions.
2) ARR, IFM, REDD and PRC: GHG emissions from the removal or burning of herbaceous vegetation and collection of non-renewable wood sources for fencing of the project area.
3) ARR, IFM, REDD and PRC: Fossil fuel combustion from transport and machinery use in project activities. Where machinery use for selective harvesting activities may be significant in IFM project activities as compared to the baseline, emissions shall be accounted for if above de minimis, as set out in Section 4.3.3.” Some emissions from fossil fuel combustion occurred as a result of project-related transportation, which are similarly treated as insignificant per VCS guidance and CDM decisions (above). Site preparation prior to planting involved ripping/sub-soiling, running a chisel plow set on 10 foot spacing to break the compacted subsurface soil layer. This practice has proved effective in increasing seedling survival and growth on bottomland hardwood plantings and is endorsed by the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Forest Resource Conservation Working Group (2007). Tractor emissions from site preparation are insignificant as per the CDM Executive Board decision in November 2008 (CDM EB 44, Paragraph 37), which applies to AR-ACM0001 Version 5.2:
“The Board agreed that the GHG emissions from the following sources related to A/R CDM project activities: (a) Fossil fuel combustion in A/R CDM project activities; (b) Collection of wood from non-renewable sources to be used for fencing of the project area; and (c) Nitrous oxide
v3.0 32 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
(N2O) emissions from decomposition of litter and fine roots from N-fixing trees are insignificant in A/R CDM project activities and may therefore be neglected in A/R baseline and monitoring methodologies.” While soil disturbance was minimal, some small amount of emissions from the soil organic carbon pool is likely to have resulted from ripping/sub-soiling. However, any emissions should be quickly recovered by accumulation of new soil organic matter from forest growth and thus there should be no long-term emissions associated with site preparation activities. A meta-analysis of 43 studies worldwide found no difference in change in soil carbon post-afforestation between high/medium disturbance (e.g., mounding, ripping, disking) and low/no disturbance site preparation. While afforestation tends to result in short term net emissions of soil carbon, attributed by the authors to low organic matter inputs during the early stages of stand development, rather than emissions resulting from site preparation or planting practices, short- term losses are regained on afforested sites30. MacDonald31 demonstrated from a chronosequence net accumulation of soil carbon on afforested bottomland hardwood sites in the region with varying levels of site preparation, in conformance with estimates generated by the U.S. Forest Service32. No long-term emissions are expected from the soil carbon pool in the with-project case; substantiated by meta- analyses of numerous land-use change studies (IPCC 2006GL, Guo and Gifford 2002). Furthermore, the project applies the CDM “Tool for estimation of change in soil organic carbon stocks due to the implementation of A/R CDM project activities”, which applies a soil carbon loss value of zero for sites with not more than 10% of the area subject to ploughing/ripping/scarification (Step 3); the project instance area was ripped with a chisel plow on a 10 foot spacing, resulting in <10% of the surface disturbed. 2.4 Baseline Scenario The CDM “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate the additionality in A/R CDM project activities” is applied to identify the baseline scenario of the grouped project instance LMVGAP01.
As per Step 1 of the tool, the following alternative land use scenarios were identified. None of the activities identified are restricted by any laws or regulations (Sub-step 1b of the tool).
1. Continuation of pre-project land use, including row crop agriculture and pasture.
2. Reforestation of the project area without being registered as a VCS AFOLU project.
2.4.1 Continuation of pre-project land-use, including row crop agriculture and pasture The entire project instance area was in agricultural use (i.e., cropland or pasture) prior to project start and would be expected to remain under that land use in the absence of the project, given its agricultural income-generation potential, demonstrated in Section 2.5.2. Table 1.1 specifies whether lands at a specific planting location were either cropland or pasture/managed grassland.
30 Paul KI, Polglase PJ, Nyakuengama JG, Khanna PK. 2002. Change in soil carbon following afforestation. Forest Ecology and Management 168:241-257. 31 MacDonald, C. 1999. Dynamics of soil organic carbon content due to restoration of bottomland hardwood forests on marginal farmland in the Mississippi River Valley. Masters of Science in Forestry Thesis, Stephen F. Austin State University. 32 Smith, J.E., Heath, L.S., Skog, K.E., and R.A. Birdsey. 2006. Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. Newtown Square, PA, USA. General Technical Report NE-343.
v3.0 33 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
The types of crops in the region are expected to vary over time in response to agricultural markets, but generally will comprise soybeans, cotton, or corn and in some cases wheat, as was the case with the first project instance. Fields are sometimes set aside to rest for a short fallow period (most often less than one year), as part of the crop rotation cycle in the region. The short fallow period on croplands, and grazing pressure on pasture, do not permit the establishment of woody vegetation and development of forested stands.
2.4.2 Reforestation of the project area without being registered as a VCS AFOLU project. Establishment of forest in the project instance area would be unlikely under any non carbon market- related scenario. Outside of federal subsidy programs such as the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) administered Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) funded by the USDA and administered by the states, there have been no significant hardwood afforestation activities in the region, predominately due to the long investment timeframe. While commercial pine and poplar planting has occurred in the region, it has generally been planted on an industrial scale under short pulp rotations. Importantly, prior to the project start, pulp markets in the region have drastically declined33 34 in the past decade, with nearby mill operations closing, including International Paper mill in Bastrop, Louisiana in 2008 and Natchez, Mississippi in 2003.
In the baseline scenario of the initial grouped project instance LMVGAP01, the property could have been enrolled by the landowner in the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) administered Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) without also being registered as a forest carbon project, whereby the site would be retired from production under a renewable 10-15 year servitude in return for annual payments as established by the USDA. While a number of conservation practices are provided for under the CRP, most of the land enrolled under CRP in the region has been planted in hardwood trees under the CRP CP3A Hardwood Tree Planting program35. Landowners enrolled in the CRP receive annual rental payments for the term of the servitude, which are not competitive with returns from agriculture (see Section 2.5.2).
Even if the site were abandoned, which is unlikely due to continued profitability of agricultural use, dense forest is unlikely to become established via natural regeneration within the timeframe of the project. Numerous studies on old (abandoned) field sites in the region have documented that natural regeneration of heavy-seeded species (e.g., oaks and hickories) rarely occurs, and that natural regeneration of light- seeded species dispersed by wind, water and/or birds (e.g., elms, sweetgums, sugarberrys) tends to be concentrated within 60-100 meters of borders with existing forest and on the east-facing side of borders due to prevailing wind direction36 37 38 39 40. Consequently, fields in the region generally feature no or poor
33 Spelter, H., McKeever, D., and M. Alderman. 2007. Profile 2007: Softwood sawmills in the United States and Canada . Profile 2007: Softwood sawmills in the United States and Canada. Research Paper FPL RP-644. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory: 65 pages. 34 Wear, D., Carter, D., and J. Prestemon. 2007. The U.S. South’s timber sector in 2005: a prospective analysis of recent change. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-99. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 29 p. 35 Burger, L.W. 2005. The Conservation Reserve Program in the Southeast: Issues Affecting Wildlife Habitat Value. Pgs. 135-141 in A.W. Allen and M.W. Vandever, eds. The Conservation Reserve Program: Planting for the Future: Proceedings of a National Conference, Fort Collins CO, June 6-9, 2004. Biological Science Report, USGS/BRD/BSR--2006-5145: U.S. Government Printing Office, Denver, CO. 36 Allen, J. A. 1990. Establishment of bottomland oak plantations on the Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 14(4): 206-210.
v3.0 34 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
natural regeneration, with rare and irregularly distributed patches of abundant natural regeneration. Stanturf et al.41 estimate that natural succession may take 80 years to reach canopy closure on old field sites. Dispersal of waterborne seeds, like baldcypress and water tupelo, is also impeded. Historically, the bottomland hardwood forests of the LMV were maintained by regular backwater and headwater flood events and localized ponding on poorly drained soils. Most areas within the historic LMV floodplain are no longer connected to the floodplain processes that deposited waterborne seeds due to flood control structures in place. This is borne out in results of WRP plantings, which involved low planting densities undertaken with the assumption that natural recruitment would be sufficient to supplement stocking. Analysis of results of 1992 WRP plantings in Mississippi found that 90% of planted sites 3 years after planting failed to meet the minimum stocking/standard of success in part due to insufficient natural recruitment on the majority of sites42. Hence, in recognition that natural regeneration processes could not be relied upon, subsequent restoration guidance has called for increasing planting density and expanding the species mix to light-seeded species43.
Natural regeneration on old fields in the LMV is constrained not only by lack of immediate seed sources but also by competition and adverse site conditions. Allen et al.44 45 observed that “on large old-field sites,
37 Allen, J.A., Keeland, B.D., Stanturf, J.A., Clewell, A.F., and Kennedy, H.E., Jr. 2004. A guide to bottomland hardwood restoration: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2000-0011, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report SRS-40, 132 p. 38 Battaglia, L., Minchin P. and D. Pritchett. 2002. Sixteen years of old-field succession and reestablishment of a bottomland hardwood forest in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Wetlands 22: 1-17. Twedt, D. J. 2004. Stand development on reforested bottomlands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Plant Ecology 172:251-263. 39 Wilson, R. R. and D. J. Twedt. 1999. Bottomland Hardwood Establishment and Avian Colonization of Reforested Sites in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Pages 341-352 in L. H. Fredrickson, S. L. King, and R. M. Kaminski, editors, Ecology and Management of Bottomland Hardwood Systems: The State of Our Understanding. University of Missouri-Columbia. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No. 10, Puxico. 40 Allen, J.A., McCoy, J., and Keeland, B.D. 1998. Natural establishment of woody species on abandoned agricultural fields in the Lower Mississippi Valley: first- and second-year results, in Waldrop, T.A., ed., Proceedings of the Ninth Biannual Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, February 25-27, 1997, Clemson, S.C.: Asheville, N.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report SRS-20, p. 263-268. 41 Stanturf, J. A., Schoenholtz, S. H., Schweitzer, C. J. and J. P. Shepard. 2001. Achieving restoration success: myths in bottomland hardwood forests. Restoration Ecology 9:189-200. 42 Stanturf, J. A., Schoenholtz, S. H., Schweitzer, C. J. and J. P. Shepard. 2001. Achieving restoration success: myths in bottomland hardwood forests. Restoration Ecology 9:189-200. 43 Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Forest Resource Conservation Working Group. 2007. Restoration, Management and Monitoring of Forest Resources in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Recommendations for Enhancing Wildlife Habitat. Edited by Wilson, R., Ribbeck, K., King, S. and D. Twedt. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 88 pp. 44 Allen, J.A., Keeland, B.D., Stanturf, J.A., Clewell, A.F., and Kennedy, H.E., Jr. 2004. A guide to bottomland hardwood restoration: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2000-0011, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report SRS-40, 132 p. 45 Allen, J.A., McCoy, J., and Keeland, B.D. 1998. Natural establishment of woody species on abandoned agricultural fields in the Lower Mississippi Valley: first- and second-year results, in Waldrop, T.A., ed.,
v3.0 35 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
the herbaceous plants may dominate a site for 10 years or more”, some of which, like broom sedge which is common at the project site, are allelopathic and inhibit the regeneration of trees46. In recent years, Johnson Grass (Sorghum halepense), an exotic species from the Mediterranean region, has become widely established in Louisiana47, invading many old field sites, and where established will further delay natural succession by suppressing growth of other plants48. 2.5 Additionality Additionality is demonstrated for the grouped project instance LMVGAP01 through the use of the approved CDM “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate the additionality in A/R CDM project activities” as cited in the CDM methodology AR-ACM0001. This tool is applicable to the project because it meets the applicability conditions. Namely, the project activity does not lead to violation of any applicable law and the project follows a large-scale CDM A/R methodology. Step 0 of this tool provides for a preliminary screening based on the starting date of the A/R project activity. As the start date of this project, October 5 2011, is after December 31 1999 and the original intent of this project was reforestation for the purpose of sequestering carbon dioxide this project fulfils the requirements of the pre-screening.
Step 1 of this tool, the identification of alternative scenarios is presented in section 2.4. Step 1 resulted in the identification of two alternative scenarios:
1. Continuation of pre-project land use, including row crop agriculture and pasture.
2. Reforestation of the project area without being registered as a VCS AFOLU project.
Following the identification of the alternative land use scenarios a barriers test/investment analysis was performed. Step 2 of the tool was used to identify a financial barrier. This barrier was analyzed through the use of an investment comparison analysis (sub-step 3 b of the tool) presented in section 2.5.1. The investment comparison analysis is warranted as reforestation of agricultural lands will generate income related to enrolment in the USDA CRP program un-related to VCS income. Finally, Step 4 of this tool, the “common practice analysis” is presented in section 2.5.2.
2.5.1 Investment Comparison Analysis As the grouped project instance LMVGAP01 will generate income related to enrollment in the USDA CRP program, un-related to VCS income, an investment comparison analysis is conducted here. This analysis provides further demonstration that continuation of the pre-project land use, agriculture, is the most likely baseline land use scenario. For the investment comparison analysis, the project applies a net present value analysis for a 99 year period applying a 6% discount rate. Annual net revenues for each baseline scenario, including the dominant agricultural land-uses in Franklin Parish and enrollment in CRP (without
Proceedings of the Ninth Biannual Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, February 25-27, 1997, Clemson, S.C.: Asheville, N.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report SRS-20, p. 263-268. 46 Rice, E. 1972. Allelopathic effects of Andropogon virginicus and its persistence in old fields. American Journal of Botany. 59(7): 752-755. 47 http://plants.usda.gov/java/county?state_name=Louisiana&statefips=22&symbol=SOHA 48 Newman 1993, TNC stewardship abstract http://wiki.bugwood.org/Sorghum_halepense#Impacts
v3.0 36 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
carbon finance) are detailed in Table 2.3 below. Agricultural data from 2010, the year most recent to the year of inclusion of the project instance for which data was available, was used Table 2.3. Annual cash flows and net revenues for various land-uses in Franklin Parish, Louisiana. Data/Land Use Corn Cotton Soybeans Pasture3 CRP4 Source USDA - Acreage (harvested in the NASS data1, case of crops) and head 73,700 13,300 44,000 22,000 ----- specific for of cattle Franklin parish USDA - Yield (Corn- bushels per 1, NASS data acre; Cotton- pounds per 153.7 942 35.7 ------specific for acre; Soybean- bushels Franklin per acre) parish Prices received (Corn- $/bushel; Cotton- USDA-ERS $4.40 $0.76 $10.08 ------2 $/pound; Soybeans- data $/bushels) Gross revenue per acre ($/acre, market price $676 $716 $360 $35 $109 received) Operating cost per acre USDA-ERS $276 $573 $159 ------2 ($/acre) data Net revenue per acre $401 $143 $200 $35 $109 ($/acre) 1www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Louisiana/Publications/Parish_Estimates/index.asp, accessed December 2011 2www.ers.usda.gov/data/costsandreturns/testpick.htm, accessed December 2011. Data (2010) on corn was for the US overall, while data (2010) on soy and cotton was specific to the Mississippi Portal region.
3Pasture rental rates in the region vary from $20-$50/acre (FSA personnel, pers. comm.). We used the average rental rate of $35/acre for estimating net revenue for pasture lands. We assume there are no operating costs, as the land would most likely be leased for pasture.
4CRP annual rental payment is based on soil type and ranges from $56-$123/acre/year in the project region. For the purpose of this analysis we have used $109/acre/year, the CRP payment for the Catlands Tract. We assume there are no operating costs for this program.
Net revenues estimated for 2010 for Franklin Parish range from $35 to $401 per acre, with the high value being for corn and the low value for pasture. The average net revenue across all agricultural land uses was $195/acre. NPV’s generated by agricultural uses are greater than those generated by reforestation without the additional carbon-related payment provided by The Nature Conservancy. If the property was enrolled in CRP alone, the landowner would receive annual payments of $109 (see Annex 2, located in the project database, for a copy of the CRP contract). While CRP payments are increasing in step with agricultural markets (the Franklin Parish average rental rate increased from $75.75/acre in 2007 to $84.00/acre in 2010), payments are not competitive with net income potential from agriculture (Table 2.4).
v3.0 37 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Table 2.4. Net present value analysis for all baseline land use scenarios. Analysis includes 99 years of annual cash flows discounted at a 6% rate.
Data/Land 1 Corn Cotton Soybeans Pasture CRP WRP Use Net Present $7,058.17 $2,519.24 $3,530.25 $616.51 $1,919.99 $1,900.00 Values 1The estimated WRP amount is based on a one time lump payment of $1900/acre (conservatively, the high end of the range for Northeastern Louisiana, $1400-$1900), rather the results of the net present value analysis.
Over a 99 year period (and using a 6% discount rate), the pre-project land use, agriculture, is expected to generate net present value of up to $7,058/acre (Table 2.4). Over a similar time period, reforestation without the aid of carbon-related payments is unlikely to generate a net present value exceeding $1,920/acre through enrollment in a USDA program.
Because agricultural prices and operating costs may fluctuate from year to year, a sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of a likely range of possible net revenues (consulting historic data; Table 2.5) on NPV analysis outcomes. This analysis was limited to 2005-2010, as prices are unlikely to drop below the 2005 values given the dramatic rise in corn prices in 2007 and 2008 due to federal incentives for ethanol production49, and the corresponding rise in opportunity cost for other agricultural lands as a result.
Table 2.5. Historic net revenue per crop type ($/acre). Yield (bushels for Price of Total corn and commodity operating Net revenue per Crop Year soybeans; ($/bushel or cost acre ($/acre) pounds for 1 1 $/pound) ($/acre) cotton) Corn 2006 153.7 2.54 205.98 184.42 2007 153.7 3.27 228.99 273.61 2008 153.7 4.36 295.69 374.44 2009 153.7 3.59 295.01 256.77 2010 153.7 4.40 275.58 400.70 Cotton 2006 942.0 0.49 488.52 -26.94 2007 942.0 0.56 504.62 22.90 2008 942.0 0.56 561.27 -33.75 2009 942.0 0.55 550.46 -32.36 2010 942.0 0.76 572.90 143.02 Soybeans 2006 35.7 5.94 120.66 91.40 2007 35.7 7.87 132.96 148.00 2008 35.7 10.40 157.85 213.43
49 Hyberg, B. and P. Riley. 2009. Floodplain ecosystem restoration: commodity markets, environmental services, and the farm bill. Wetlands 29:527-534.
v3.0 38 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
2009 35.7 9.76 154.23 194.20 2010 35.7 10.08 159.44 200.42
1Price data and operating cost data was obtained from: www.ers.usda.gov/data/costsandreturns/testpick.htm, accessed December 2011. Data on corn was for the US overall, while data on soy and cotton was specific to the Mississippi Portal region. Assumes constant yield.
Table 2.6. Net present value analysis using the lowest net revenue per acre for each crop type from 2006-2010. Data/Land Use Corn Cotton Soybeans Net Present $3,248.48 -$594.49 $1,609.97 Values 1 Net present values are based on the lowest net revenue per acre for each crop type over the last five years (2006-2010).
This sensitivity analysis again demonstrates that the NPV (Table 2.6) of reforestation (i.e. CRP or WRP, NPV=$1,920 and $1,900, respectively) is not the most financial attractive land use, even when the most profitable crop drops to its lowest net revenue (i.e. corn, NPV=$3,248), and therefore the project is additional and the project area would not be reforested, without the aid of carbon finance. It should be noted that CRP and WRP rates are linked to agricultural commodity prices, whereby a reduction in commodity prices will lead to a reduction in the CRP rental rate and WRP lump sum payment.
2.5.2 Common Practice Outside of carbon market financing, similar bottomland hardwood afforestation activities in the LMV region have occurred principally through federal incentives provided by the CRP and WRP. For example, as of 2005 the WRP had restored bottomland hardwood forest on 680,979 acres in the LMV region since its inception in 199050. In Louisiana, as of October 2009, 217,147 acres were enrolled in the WRP. However, even at the height of implementation of the WRP in the region (1990 to 2003), rates of conversion of agricultural land to forest were low.
Regardless, the essential distinction between the grouped project instance area LMVGAP01 and other areas reforested through the CRP or WRP is that the property owner faces a financial barrier, demonstrated through the investment analysis above, to enrolling the property in either CRP or WRP without the additional carbon-related payment provided by TNC, i.e. that CRP/WRP payments alone are not competitive with agricultural revenues. Further, property owners have attested to the fact that they would not have signed up for CRP/WRP without the additional carbon-related incentive provided by The Nature Conservancy (Annex 5, located in the project database). 2.6 Methodology Deviations The following deviation to the methodology is applied.
50 King, S. L., Twedt, D. J. and R. R. Wilson. 2006. The role of the Wetland Reserve Program in conservation efforts in the Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:914-920.
v3.0 39 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Standing and lying dead wood are not expected to accumulate significant amounts of forest carbon in young forests, and will be conservatively excluded from measurement in the project monitoring events until the project’s final monitoring event. This deviates from the AR-ACM001 requirement that “All the data and parameters obtained from measurement shall be monitored every five years from the date of the initial verification.
v3.0 40 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
3.0 QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS
3.1 Baseline Emissions As detailed in Sections 2.4 and 2.5, continuation of agriculture, including annual row cropping or pasture, is the most plausible baseline scenario for the initial grouped project instance LMVGAP01. Project boundaries were delineated at the outset to exclude pre-existing forest biomass (e.g. lines of trees along drainages, see Section 1.10). Thus, baseline stocks and removals in aboveground and belowground woody biomass are equal to zero for the life of the project. Baseline removals in aboveground and belowground biomass of non-tree vegetation, dead wood, litter and soil organic carbon are assumed to be equal to zero for the life of the project; relevant applicability conditions are met and substantiated in Table 3.1 below. Table 3.1. Methodology AR-ACM0001 operative assumptions and demonstration that these assumptions are valid for project instance LMVGAP01 area.
Assumptions allowed under AR-ACM0001 Validity of assumptions to project baseline
"Changes in carbon stock of aboveground and Aboveground and belowground non-tree belowground biomass of non-tree vegetation biomass stocks are steady state under may be conservatively assumed to be zero for continuous annual row crop agriculture and all strata in the baseline scenario" pasture and do not increase over time.
"It is expected that the baseline dead wood Dead wood and litter carbon pools are and litter carbon pools will not show a nonexistent or in a steady state under both permanent net increase. It is therefore annual row crop agriculture and pasture. conservative to assume that the sum of the changes in the carbon stocks of dead wood and litter carbon pools is zero for all strata in the baseline scenario"
"Changes in carbon stock in soil organic Soil organic carbon stocks are expected to carbon (SOC) may be conservatively assumed remain at a steady state for pasture or to be zero for all strata in the baseline decrease due to recurring soil disturbance scenario" from annual tillage as practiced in the region for annual row crop agriculture. 3.2 Project Emissions
3.2.1 Ex-ante estimates of aboveground and belowground biomass Ex-ante estimates of carbon sequestered in aboveground and belowground live tree biomass over time are sourced from research findings published in the peer reviewed journal Wetlands51. Shoch et al. based their findings on an extensive analysis of biomass data from a chronosequence of bottomland hardwood stands in the Lower Mississippi Valley. This dataset of carbon stocks in bottomland hardwood stands is
51 Shoch, D.T., Kaster, G., Hohl, A., and R. Souter. 2009. Carbon storage of bottomland hardwood afforestation in the Lower Mississippi Valley, USA. Wetlands, 29: 535-542
v3.0 41 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
the most comprehensive assembled for the project region, drawing on 540 plot measurements. The stands measured and analyzed in the study have similar species composition, soils and topographic position, and management as those planted as part of this project. It should be noted that there was an error in the published model equation (confirmed by D. Shoch). The corrected equation, used in ex-ante estimates for the project, is provided below: Total live tree biomass carbon (Mg/ha) = (186.7^(1-0.8696) – exponent^(-0.0577*age))^(1/(1- 0.8696)) Equation 3.1 This model equation is applicable throughout the project area and is superior to existing look-up tables (e.g., Smith et al., 200652), which less precisely represent the project conditions. 3.2.2 Ex-ante estimates of deadwood Ex-ante estimates of carbon sequestered in dead wood over time are sourced from data from the U.S. Department of Energy’s regional look-up table, Table B49 Afforestation of oak-gum-cypress in the South Central region53.
3.2.3 Ex-ante estimates of soil carbon stocks Ex-ante estimates of soil carbon stocks were generated using the CDM “Tool for estimation of change in soil organic carbon stocks due to the implementation of A/R CDM project activities” Version 01.1.0, as permitted by the CDM Methodology AR-ACM0001, Version 5.2. Applicability conditions for use of this CDM tool are listed in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2. Conditions for using the CDM “Tool for estimation of change in soil organic carbon stocks due to the implementation of A/R CDM project activities.”
Applicability condition Project instance LMVGAP01 condition
The area of land does not contain organic soils The project instance area does not contain any (e.g., peat-land). organic soils.
The land does not fall into wetland54 category. The project instance area is not considered to be a wetland as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The project instance area prior to reforestation was used for agriculture and thus is not considered to be a wetland, as per the IPCC definition.
52 Smith, J.E., Heath, L.S., Skog, K.E., and R.A. Birdsey. 2006. Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. Newtown Square, PA, USA. General Technical Report NE-343. 53 Smith, J.E., Heath, L.S., Skog, K.E., and R.A. Birdsey. 2006. Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. Newtown Square, PA, USA. General Technical Report NE-343. 54 The IPCC describes a wetland as “land that is covered or saturated by water for all or part of the year (e.g., peatland) and that does not fall into the forest land, cropland, grassland or settlements categories.”
v3.0 42 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Litter shall remain on site and not be removed No litter will be removed from the project area. in the A/R VCS project activity.
Ploughing/ripping/scarification attributable to the Ripping occurred prior to planting. As ripping is A/R VCS project activity, if any, is: (i) Done in associated with planting, it occurs only once. accordance with appropriate soil conservation The project instance area is uniformly level practices, e.g. follows the land contour; and (ii) terrain and features no strong topographic Limited to the first five years from the year of contours. Further, site preparation and planting initial site preparation; and (iii) Not repeated, if occurs within one year of each other. at all, within a period of 20 years.
The rate of soil organic carbon accumulation (dSOC) has been calculated using Equations 3.2 and 3.3 for both cropland and pasture baseline scenarios. Ex-ante estimates of soil carbon accumulation use the area weighted mean (0.5134 t C ha-1 yr-1) of the values calculated for cropland and pasture, below. As 55 the area subject to ripping is less than 10% of the area , the term SOCloss has been left out of equation 3.3 (equivalent to zero).
SOCinitial = SOCreference * fLU * fMG * fIN Equation 3.2
dSOC = (SOCreference - SOCinitial)/20 years Equation 3.3 The terms in the above equations are defined as follows:
-1 SOCinitial, SOC stock at the beginning of an A/R VCS project activity; t C ha ,
SOCreference, Reference SOC stock corresponding to the reference condition in native lands; t C ha-1,
fLU, Stock change factor for land-use; dimensionless,
fMG, Stock change factor for management; dimensionless,
fIN, Stock change factor for input of organic matter; dimensionless, and
-1 -1 dSOC, The rate of change in SOC stock; t C ha yr . 3.2.3.1 Ex-ante estimates of soil carbon stocks in croplands
-1 - Using equation 3.2, SOCinitial is calculated for croplands as = 34.0 t C ha * 0.69 * 1.0 * 1.0 = 23.46 t C ha 1. As per the CDM, “Tool for estimation of change in soil organic carbon stocks due to the implementation of A/R CDM project activities” the below parameters have been defined.
-1 SOCreference = 34.0 t C ha . This value is the most conservative SOC stock value listed in the default reference table for the warm temperate moist climate region in the above tool.
fLU = 0.69, as planted fields are long time cultivated in a temperate moist climate;
fMG = 1.0, as planted fields are ploughed (with full inversion) at least annually;
fIN, = 1.0, as residues are left in the fields for cereal cropping.
55 Tines on machine planters result in an area of disturbance less than 4 inches wide and ripping is done every 10 ft.
v3.0 43 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
-1 -1 -1 Using equation 3.3, dSOC = (34.0 t C ha – 23.46 t C ha )/20 years = 0.527 t C ha . Using this tool, the soil carbon accumulation rate was calculated to be 0.527 t C ha-1 yr-1. In accordance with the tool, this approach allows for reporting a constant rate of 0.527 tons C per hectare per year for 20 years for croplands in the project boundary. Soil organic carbon stocks are assumed to be at a steady state after 20 years.
3.2.3.2 Ex-ante estimates of soil carbon stocks in pasture
-1 -1 Using equation 3.2, SOCinitial is calculated for grasslands as = 34.0 t C ha * 1.0 * 0.7 * 1.0 = 23.8 t C ha . As per the CDM, “Tool for estimation of change in soil organic carbon stocks due to the implementation of A/R CDM project activities” the below parameters have been defined.
-1 SOCreference = 34.0 t C ha . This value is the most conservative SOC stock value listed in the default reference table for the warm temperate moist climate region in the above tool.
fLU = 1.0, as all grassland is assigned a land-use factor of 1;
fMG = 0.7, as project grasslands are considered degraded as per the CDM “Tool for the identification of degraded or degrading lands for consideration in implementing CDM A/R project activities”, see Section B2.1;
fIN, = 1.0, as these grasslands had no input of fertilizers.
-1 -1 -1 Using equation 3.3, dSOC = (34.0 t C ha – 23.8 t C ha )/20 years = 0.51 t C ha . Using this tool, the soil carbon accumulation rate was calculated to be 0.51 t C ha-1 yr-1. In accordance with the tool, this approach allows for reporting a constant rate of 0.51 tons C per hectare per year for 20 years for pasture in the project boundary. Soil organic carbon stocks are assumed to be at a steady state after 20 years.
3.2.4 Carbon sequestered Both ex-ante and ex-post estimates of carbon sequestered will use the following equations derived from the CDM AR-ACM0001 methodology.
Actual net GHG removals by sinks (ΔCACTUAL) is calculated using Equation 3.4, below.
ΔCACTUAL = ΔCP − GHGE Equation 3.4 where:
ΔCACTUAL Actual net GHG removals by sinks; t CO2-e
ΔCP Sum of the changes the carbon stock in the selected carbon pools within the project boundary; t CO2-e
GHGE Increase in non-CO2 GHG emissions within the project boundary as a result of the implementation of the A/R CDM project activity; t CO2-e Please note that the increase in non-CO2 GHG emissions within the project boundary as a result of the implementation of the A/R CDM project activity (GHGE) equals zero for the live of the project as justified in Section 2.3.
v3.0 44 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
The sum of the changes the carbon stock in the selected carbon pools within the project boundary (ΔCP) is calculated using Equation 3.5, below.
Equation 3.5 where:
ΔCP Sum of the changes the carbon stock in the selected carbon pools within the project boundary; t CO2-e
ΔCt Change in carbon stock in all selected carbon pools, in year t; t CO2-e t 1, 2, 3, … t* years elapsed since the start of the A/R project activity; yr
44/12 Ratio of molecular weights of CO2 and carbon; dimensionless
The Change in carbon stock in all selected carbon pools (ΔCt) is calculated using Equation 3.6, below.
Equation 3.6
where:
ΔCt Change in carbon stock in all selected carbon pools, in year t; t CO2-e
ΔCTREE_PROJ,t Change in carbon stock in tree biomass in project, in year t; t CO -e 2
ΔCSHRUB_PROJ,t Change in carbon stock in shrub biomass in project, in year t, t CO2-e
ΔCDW_PROJ,t Change in carbon stock in dead wood biomass in project, in year t; t CO2-e
ΔCLI_PROJ,t Change in carbon stock in litter biomass in project, in year t; t CO2-e
ΔCSOC_AL,t Change in carbon stock in SOC in project, in year t; t CO2-e
Please note that the change in carbon stock in litter biomass in project (ΔCLI_PROJ,t) equals zero as justified Section 2.3 Ex-ante estimates on a per unit area basis are detailed in Table 3.3 below. Table 3.3. Ex-ante estimates of cumulative carbon sequestered per ha on project lands. Stand Aboveground and Soil Dead wood3 Total carbon density Metric tons of CO2 (t age belowground live tree carbon2 (tC/ha) (tC/ha) CO2e/ha) biomass1 (tC/ha) (tC/ha)
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1.3 0.5 0.2 2.0 7.2 2 1.9 1.0 0.3 3.2 11.9 3 2.7 1.5 0.5 4.7 17.2 4 3.6 2.1 0.6 6.3 23.2
v3.0 45 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
5 4.8 2.6 0.8 8.2 30.1 6 6.3 3.1 1.2 10.6 38.7 7 7.9 3.6 1.6 13.2 48.3 8 9.8 4.1 2.1 16.0 58.7 9 12.0 4.6 2.5 19.1 70.1 10 14.4 5.1 2.9 22.4 82.3 11 17.1 5.6 3.2 25.9 95.1 12 19.9 6.2 3.6 29.7 108.8 13 23.0 6.7 3.9 33.6 123.3 14 26.3 7.2 4.3 37.8 138.5 15 29.8 7.7 4.6 42.1 154.4 16 33.4 8.2 4.8 46.5 170.4 17 37.2 8.7 5.0 51.0 187.0 18 41.2 9.2 5.3 55.7 204.1 19 45.2 9.8 5.5 60.4 221.5 20 49.3 10.3 5.7 65.2 239.2 21 53.4 10.3 5.9 69.6 255.1 22 57.6 10.3 6.0 73.9 271.1 23 61.9 10.3 6.2 78.3 287.2 24 66.1 10.3 6.3 82.7 303.3 25 70.4 10.3 6.5 87.1 319.4 26 74.6 10.3 6.6 91.5 335.3 27 78.7 10.3 6.7 95.7 351.1 28 82.9 10.3 6.9 100.0 366.6 29 86.9 10.3 7.0 104.2 382.0 30 90.9 10.3 7.1 108.3 397.1 31 94.8 10.3 7.2 112.4 412.0 32 98.7 10.3 7.4 116.3 426.5 1Aboveground and belowground tree biomass is from Shoch et al., 2009.
2Soil carbon estimates are generated using the approved CDM "Tool for estimation of change in soil organic carbon stocks due to the implementation of A/R CDM project activities"
3Dead wood estimates are from Smith et al, 2006.
3.3 Leakage Leakage due to displacement of agricultural activities on the initial grouped project instance LMVGAP01 has been calculated ex-ante, and will be assessed ex-post, using the approved CDM A/R Methodological Tool, “Estimation of the increase in GHG emissions attributable to displacement of pre-project agricultural activities in A/R CDM project activity”. Any displacement of pre-project productive activities is not expected to result in drainage of wetlands due to firm regulatory restrictions in place in the U.S. and enforced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
3.3.1 Leakage equation
v3.0 46 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
This tool uses the following equation to calculate leakage
Equation 3.7 where,
LKAgric , t* = Leakage due to displacement of agricultural activities in year t*; t CO2-e f = Fraction of land covered by forest (according to the national definition of forest) in the administrative region containing the A/R CDM project activity; dimensionless
Tcred = Number of years contained in the first crediting period; dimensionless
ΔCdt = The total change in carbon stocks (for all selected carbon pools) since the start of the project activity to year t multiplied by the fraction of project area subject to pre-project agricultural activities that are displaced during year t; t C
ΔCdt= ΔCt=tver *Dt* Equation 3.8
ΔCt=tver = Sum of annual changes in carbon stock in all selected carbon pools since the start of the A/R CDM project activity to the year of verification tver; t C
Dt* =Fraction of the total area of A/R CDM project activity subject to displacement of agricultural activities in year t*; dimensionless
t = 1, 2, 3, … t* years elapsed since the start of the A/R CDM project activity
44/12 = Ratio of molecular weight of CO2 to carbon; t CO2-e t C-1
3.3.2 Terms in leakage equation Ex-ante calculation of total leakage due to displacement of agricultural activities over the life of project applies the following parameters:
f = .273; consistent with tool procedure, weighted average fraction of land covered by forest within Franklin Parish, Louisiana As per the tool, “the region shall be the smallest territorial administrative division/s encompassing all areas of land included in the A/R CDM project activity for which data on forest cover are publicly available”. The table below details the distribution of land cover classes present in Franklin Parish in 2007 (data from NASS 2007; 2007 agricultural census and 2001 (latest available) National Land Cover Dataset). Forest land use classes occupy 123,692 acres of the total 406,674 acres of Franklin Parish (Table 3.4). Of the existing forest area in the parish, 12,775 acres are under the permanent protection of state and federal land management agencies or enrolled in the USDA Wetlands Reserve Program (and under permanent conservation servitude)56. As this area is not subject to land use change, and thus does
56 Overlaying geographic dataset of lands under public conservation (shape files of state parks, state wildlife management areas, national parks, national forests and national wildlife refuge boundaries in the state of Louisiana, including forested private lands enrolled in the USDA Wetlands Reserve Program under permanent conservation servitudes) provided by the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture
v3.0 47 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3 not provide an alternate land base for any activities displaced by the project, the remaining forest area in the parish not under permanent protection, 110,918 acres, is the relevant reference for application in the leakage tool. Per this analysis, 27.3% of the total land area in Franklin Parish is unprotected forest potentially subject to conversion. Table 3.4. Land cover (ac) in Franklin Parish in 2007. LANDCOVER Total Parish Area (acres) Forest area in protected Forest area subject to status in Parish (acres) displacement in Parish (acres) Aquaculture 88 Corn 80,258 Cotton 22,979 Fallow/Idle Cropland 8,912 Grass/Pasture/Non-Ag 66,716 NLCD - Barren 239 NLCD - Deciduous Forest 1,310 150 1,160 NLCD - Developed/High 69 Intensity NLCD - Developed/Low 1,796 Intensity NLCD - 301 Developed/Medium Intensity NLCD - Developed/Open 22,248 Space NLCD - Evergreen Forest 9,957 42 9,915 NLCD - Grassland 175 Herbaceous NLCD - Herbaceous 811 Wetlands NLCD - Mixed Forest 7,204 84 7,119 NLCD - Open Water 11,282 NLCD - Pasture/Hay 18,345 NLCD - Shrubland 8,331 NLCD - Woody Wetlands 98,782 11,957 86,825 Oats 2 Other Tree Nuts 262 Rice 465 Sorghum 3,487 Soybeans 13,991 Sugarcane 6 Sweet Potatoes 1,821 Wetlands 1,708 Win. Wht./Soyb. Dbl. 4,942 Cropped Winter Wheat 13,750
v3.0 48 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Woodland 6,440 542 5,897 Total 406,674 12,775 110,918
Tcred = 32;
Term ΔCt is derived for all verification years. Section 3.4 further details carbon stock change ex-ante estimates.
Term Dt is derived for all verification years in which displacement is possible. As the entire project area was agricultural land, either cropland or pasture, prior to project planting, this value has been conservatively set to 100).
3.3.3 Ex-ante leakage calculation Annual ex-ante leakage estimates are detailed in Table 3.5 below. Total leakage due to displacement of agricultural activities is estimated as 4,679 t CO2-e through year 32 of the crediting period.
Table 3.5. Annual leakage estimate (t CO2) for the project instance LMVGAP01. Year of Conversion Forest Crediting Dt (fraction Delta Ct (t Annual verification factor (tC to cover, f) period (yr, of project C) estimate of t CO2) Tcred) area subject leakage (t to CO2) displacement)
2011 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 0 0 2012 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 175 5 2013 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 289 9 2014 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 419 13 2015 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 567 18 2016 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 734 23 2017 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 944 30 2018 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 1,177 37 2019 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 1,431 45 2020 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 1,708 53 2021 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 2,006 63 2022 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 2,319 73 2023 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 2,652 83 2024 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 3,005 94 2025 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 3,376 106 2026 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 3,763 118 2027 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 4,154 130 2028 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 4,559 143 2029 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 4,974 156 2030 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 5,399 169 2031 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 5,831 182 2032 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 6,217 194
v3.0 49 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
2033 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 6,608 207 2034 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 7,000 219 2035 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 7,394 231 2036 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 7,787 244 2037 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 8,174 256 2038 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 8,558 268 2039 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 8,937 280 2040 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 9,311 291 2041 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 9,679 303 2042 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 10,041 314 2043 3.67 0.273 32 1.00 10,396 325
3.3.4 Further discussion on leakage For some perspective, in contrast to the results of the leakage tool, it should be noted that data indicate that comparable reforestation activities that took place historically in the region resulted in minimal or negligible leakage.
The WRP serves as an ideal proxy for forest carbon projects, as it targeted similar agricultural lands and similarly produced new forest cover under long-term servitude restrictions. In the same three state LMV region, Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas, in which the WRP took 680,000 acres out of agricultural production between 1990 and 200457, USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data reveal contemporaneous reduction in agricultural acres far exceeding agricultural acreage lost to reforestation. From 1985 to 2005, loss of agricultural acres (6,550,000) far exceeded acres reforested (680,000) during the same period (Figure 3.1). This indicates that farm acreage “lost” to reforestation was not replaced with new land entering agricultural production from another land class (like forest, via deforestation); stable agricultural acres would indicate 100% leakage58.
57 King, S. L., Twedt, D. J. and R. R. Wilson. 2006. The role of the Wetland Reserve Program in conservation efforts in the Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:914-920. 58 Although this could result with zero leakage where sufficient idle lands are available to recoup agricultural acreage losses.
v3.0 50 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Figure 3.1. Decreasing farm acres during period of significant reforestation (NASS data).
The lack of observed leakage is best explained by increasing agricultural productivity, which permits maintenance of equal (or greater) production levels on fewer acres and is supported by NASS data (Figure 3.2).
v3.0 51 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Figure 3.2. Increasing productivity of corn in the LMV region 1985-2005 (NASS data).
It is possible that activity-shifting leakage resulting from the WRP occurred beyond the boundaries of the three state LMV region. However, given that lines of causality become blurred with increasing geographic distance, attributability (a key criteria in the operative definition of leakage under VCS and CDM) of observed land use changes to activity displacement becomes harder to establish at greater scales. 3.4 Summary of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals Emission reductions are calculated (see Equation 3.9) by subtracting the baseline carbon stocks (in this case zero) and leakage from the with-project emission reductions (for both the ex-ante and ex-post case), and then subtracting out the non-permanence risk buffer (see Appendix A for risk buffer determination).
ER= ΔCACTUAL - ΔCBSL – LK - BufferVCS Equation 3.9
ER Emission reductions (net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks); t CO -e 2 ΔCACTUAL With-project Actual net GHG removals by sinks; t CO -e 2
ΔCBSL Baseline net GHG removals by sinks; t CO2-e
LK Total GHG emissions due to leakage; t CO2-e
BufferVCS VCS buffer credits; t CO2-e
Over the 32 year crediting period the initial grouped project instance LMVGAP01 is expected to generate 29,629 t CO2-e net emissions reductions (Table 3.6) over the 89.4 ha project area.
v3.0 52 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Table 3.6. Ex-ante estimate of net emission reductions for the initial grouped project instance LMVGAP01 at each verification event. Year Estimates of Estimate of 10% Estimate of Estimates of carbon baseline carbon Nonpermanence leakage at each net emission sequestered at stocks at each Risk deduction verification reductions at each verification (t CO2) event (t CO2) each verification event (t CO2) verification event (t CO2) event (t CO2) 2018 4,314 0 431 135 3,748 2023 5,412 0 541 316 4,554 2028 6,990 0 699 590 5,701 2033 7,513 0 751 908 5,854 2038 7,149 0 715 1,217 5,217 2043 6,742 0 674 1,513 4,555 Total 38,120 0 3,812 4,679 29,629
The number of VCUs at time t (the date of verification) is estimated using Equation 3.10. 2
VCUs = ERt2 - ERt1 Equation 3.10
VCUs Number of Verified Carbon Units ERt2 Emission reductions (net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks) for time t2; t CO - e 2 ERt1 Emission reductions (net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks) for time t1 (the previous verification); t CO - e 2
Note that ERt1 = 0 for the first verification.
v3.0 53 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
4.0 MONITORING
This grouped project will use the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) approved consolidated afforestation and reforestation baseline and monitoring methodology “AR-ACM0001 Afforestation and reforestation of degraded land (Version 5.2)”. See Section 2.1 and 2.2 for explanation of methodological choice. The project monitoring plan conforms with monitoring requirements of methodology AR-ACM0001 and follows general principles of carbon accounting provided in Chapter 4 (AFOLU; Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land-use) of the IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories and IPCC Good Practice Guidance (IPCC GPG 2003), specifically Chapter 4.3 Guidance for Projects. Over the life of the project, carbon stock and stock change estimates will be derived from direct measurements on permanent plots and thus satisfy the IPCC Tier 3 highest level of accuracy criteria. Soil carbon is accounted for using the approved CDM “Tool for estimation of change in soil organic carbon stocks due to the implementation of A/R CDM project activities”, as permitted by CDM Methodology AR- ACM0001, Version 5.2.
In conformance with IPCC guidance, the monitoring plan is designed to quantify and control for uncertainty in estimates by employing sufficient sampling intensity and unbiased allocation of measurement plots to produce estimates with a known level of confidence.
Per IPCC 2006GL guidance, the monitoring plan includes a Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) plan to control for errors in measurement and data analysis. Application of the QA/QC plan will provide documentation and consistency in data archiving to permit efficient third-party auditing and evaluation against measurement and quantification standards over the life of monitoring.
The TNC Louisiana state office is responsible for all monitoring aspects including planning, fieldwork, reporting, and data archiving. 4.1 Data and Parameters Available at Validation The following data and parameters will be available prior to or calculated during the course of preparing verification reports. Table 4.1. Key data /parameters used for monitoring project activity Parameter Data Data unit Measured, Measurement Source of calculated, frequency (if data default, measured) other
A Total area of A/R VCS project Ha Measured Once, at GIS activity beginning of project
Ai (a) Area of tree biomass stratum Ha Measured Once, at GIS i; beginning of (b) Area of SOC stratum i of the project land meeting the applicability conditions of the SOC tool
v3.0 54 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3 api Total area of sample plots in tree Ha Calculated biomass stratum i -1 CFj Carbon fraction of biomass for 0.5 t C t d.m. Default CDM AR- tree species j ACM0001
LKAgric,t Leakage due to the displacement t CO2-e Calculated of agricultural activities in year t
Dt Fraction of the total area of A/R dimensionless Measured Once at USFWS VCS project activity subject to beginning of displacement of agricultural project activities in year t
Adt Area subject to pre-project ha Measured Once at USFWS agricultural activities that are beginning of displaced during year t since the project start of the A/R project activity
–1 ΔCdt Annual change in carbon stock in t C yr Calculated Inventory all selected carbon pools for year results t ΔCt=tver Sum of annual changes in carbon t C Calculated Inventory stock in all selected carbon pools results since the start of the A/R VCS project activity to the year of verification tver ΔCdt* Sum of annual changes in carbon t C Calculated stock in all selected carbon pools since the start of the A/R VCS project activity to the year of verification tver attributable to the area subject to pre-project agricultural activities that are displaced during year t since the start of the A/R project activity f Fraction of land covered by forest dimensionless Measured Once at NLCD (according to the national beginning of 2001 definition of forest) in the region project containing the A/R VCS project activity DDW,ds Basic wood density of dead wood t d.m. m-3 Default Harmon et in the density class ds al 2008
L Length of transect m Default bm total aboveground biomass for kg Calculated Jenkins et trees, bm = Exp(β0 + β1 *ln(dbh)) al. 2003
β0 Parameter dimensionless Default Jenkins et al. 2003
β1 Parameter dimensionless Default Jenkins et al. 2003
v3.0 55 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
-1 R root to shoot ratio, R = EXP[αo + t C t C Calculated Jenkins et (α1/dbh)] al. 2003
αo Parameter dimensionless Default Jenkins et al. 2003
α1 Parameter dimensionless Default Jenkins et al. 2003 CDM Executive Board. 2009. Estimation of the increase in GHG emissions attributable to displacement of pre- project agricultural activities in A/R CDM project activity - Version 1. EB51. UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany. CDM Executive Board. 2011. AR-ACM0001 Afforestation and reforestation of degraded land - Version 5.2. UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany.
Harmon, M.E., C.W. Woodall, B. Fasth, and J. Sexton. 2008. Woody detritus density and density reduction factors for tree species in the United States: a synthesis. General Technical Report NRS-29. USDA-USFS, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.
Jenkins, J. C., Chojnacky, D. C., Heath, L. S. and R. A. Birdsey. 2003. National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. Forest Science 49: 12-35.
4.2 Data and Parameters Monitored The following data and parameters will be monitored prior to each verification that occurs in 2023 or in subsequent years.
Table 4.2 List of data to be monitored. Parameter Data Data unit Measured, Measurement Source of calculated, frequency (if data default, measured) other
n Number of stems in monitoring plot cm Measured Every 5 years Directly after first measured verification
dbh Diameter at breast height of tree cm Measured Every 5 years Directly after first measured verification
Dn,I,t Diameter of piece n of dead wood cm Measured At final Directly along the transect in stratum i, at verification measured time t
N Total number of wood pieces dimensionless Measured At final Directly intersecting the transect verification measured
H Height of tree m Measured Every 5 years Directly after first measured verification
Ai (a) Area of tree biomass stratum i; Ha Measured Once, at GIS (b) Area of SOC stratum i of the land beginning of meeting the applicability conditions of project
v3.0 56 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
the SOC tool
api Total area of sample plots in tree Ha Calculated Every 5 years GIS biomass stratum i after first verification
4.3 Description of the Monitoring Plan
4.3.1 Monitoring approach 4.3.1.1 Precision target The monitoring plan is designed to produce biomass stock estimates with a precision level of +/-20% of the mean with 90% confidence at the first measurement, with precision expected to improve over time as the stands mature and become more homogeneous. In the event that monitoring of biomass yields a precision of the estimates exceeding ± 10% of the mean at a 90% confidence level, as required by the methodology, an appropriate confidence deduction will be applied as suggested by VCS59.
4.3.1.2 Carbon pools
Project monitoring will measure and quantify carbon stocks in terrestrial carbon pools including aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, standing dead wood, and lying dead wood. Standing and lying dead wood are not expected to accumulate significant amounts of forest carbon in young forests, and will be conservatively excluded from measurement in the project monitoring events until the project’s final monitoring event. Soil carbon stocks will not be monitored; change in soil carbon stocks will be determined using the approved CDM “Tool for estimation of change in soil organic carbon stocks due to the implementation of A/R CDM project activities”.
4.3.1.3 Definition and delineation of strata
Stratification reduces overall variability and improves the efficiency in sampling. The project monitoring plan will stratify project lands on the basis of location and/or age cohort.
4.3.1.4 Sampling design The project will employ stratified random sampling using permanent 10-meter radius circular (fixed area) plots for live aboveground biomass and standing dead wood, and 100 meter line intersect transects60 crossing the plot center for lying dead wood. Sample size will be determined prior to the monitoring date on the basis of field data. At young ages when variability is high, cluster sampling will be employed to improve precision. Each cluster sample will be composed of five ten-meter radius plots, arranged in a cross configuration centered on the permanent plot (Figure 4.1), oriented in the cardinal directions. The center plot will be permanently marked and will serve as a Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI) plot to be measured over the life of the
59 VCS. 2012. VCS Standard. Version 3.2, 01 February 2012. Verified Carbon Standard, Washington, D.C. 60Harmon, M. E. and J. Sexton. 1996. Guidelines for Measurements of Woody Detritus in Forest Ecosystems. US LTER Publication No. 20. US LTER Network Office, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
v3.0 57 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
project. The four surrounding “satellite” plots will be un-marked temporary plots expanding the sample unit to a cluster. Sample units will be allocated at random within strata using ArcGIS. Soil carbon will be estimated, as stipulated above in section 4.3.1.2, and verified starting in 2018. Live aboveground biomass, including aboveground and belowground biomass, will first be monitored and verified in 2023. Both live biomass and soil (for 20 years until 2033) will be verified every five years after its initial verification. Dead wood will not be monitored until 2043, the final year of the project. Figure 4.1. Diagram of cluster monitoring plot design with the permanent Continuous Forest Inventory plot in the middle.
N
50m
50m
Permanent plot
It is expected that issues of boundary overlap will be encountered at some clusters/plots in the field. Plots that overlap the project boundary will be corrected using the mirage method61, 62 (Figure 4.2). The solid- lined circle is the actual plot border. The portion of the circle above the horizontal line is outside of the forest strata being sampled. After sampling all the trees within the sampling circle within the forest strata (e.g. below the line), the trees within the grey shaded area will then be registered twice on the data sheet to account for the same area which is above the horizontal line and outside the plot.
61Avery, T.E. and H.E. Burkhart. 1994. Forest Measurements. Fourth Edition. McGraw Hill, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 408 pp. 62Ducey, M.J., J.H. Gove, and H.T. Valentine. 2004. A Walkthrough Solution to the Boundary Overlap Problem. Forest Science, 50: 427-435.
v3.0 58 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Figure 4.2. Diagram of mirage method (Avery and Burkhart, 1994)
Where the 50 meter lines of transit from the permanent plot center cross the project boundary prior to terminating, lines will be deflected from the boundary back into the project area using a “ricochet” method to complete the 50 m, where the line of transit will ricochet back into the project area to the right of the original bearing at a 45 degree angle.
4.3.2 Field measurement protocols Direct field measurements of aboveground biomass, standing dead wood, and lying dead wood will follow standard forest inventory best practices outlined in Avery and Burkhart (1994) and Harmon and Sexton (1996). As allowed under methodology AR-ACM0001, litter and soil organic carbon will not be measured and monitored.
4.3.2.1 Establishment of permanent plots
Once a permanent plot center (i.e. the central plot of a cluster) location is reached, the plot will be marked by hammering a 1 cm diameter metal rebar into the ground. The metal rebar should be approximately five feet in length with about 24” of rebar (or until secure) going into the ground. A 4-foot length of PVC pipe (with internal diameter > 1 cm) should be placed over the rebar and hammered into the ground. An aluminum tag, labeled with a unique monitoring plot identification name, should be placed inside the PVC pipe for all permanent sampling plots. Finally, a PVC end cap should be placed on the top end of the PVC pipe. Coordinates of each permanent sample plot will be recorded, when altered from original (i.e. allocated) location, with GPS to facilitate future relocation.
4.3.2.2 Layout of measurement plots The slope (in %) of each monitoring plot (both permanent and temporary plots) should be taken with a clinometer and recorded. The slope will be recorded so the plot radii in the direction of the slope can later be adjusted to calculate the equivalent horizontal area.
4.3.2.3 Measurement of live trees
v3.0 59 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Within each sampling plot, the diameter of planted trees will be measured. Diameter of trees will be measured at breast height (1.3 m above ground level, see figure below) only for stems > 5 cm dbh. Diameter of trees with buttresses will be measured directly above the point of termination of the buttress. To avoid either missed trees or double recording, the point of initiation of measurement will be noted.
Figure 4.3. Point of measurement of diameter at breast height (from Pancel63, 1993).
4.3.2.4 Measurement of standing dead wood
Standing dead trees (with a diameter > 5 cm.) will be measured using the same plots used for live trees.
The decomposition class (not to be confused with dead wood density class) of the dead tree shall be recorded and the standing dead wood is categorized under two decomposition classes: 1) Tree with branches and twigs that resembles a live tree (except for leaves);
2) Tree with signs of decomposition (other than loss of leaves) including loss of twigs, branches, or crown.
For decomposition class 1, diameter at breast height is measured and recorded as per protocols for live trees. For decomposition class 2, the following measurements/assignations are taken:
• dead wood density class (sound, intermediate or rotten),
63 Pancel, L., ed. 1993. Tropical forestry handbook. Berlin, Germany, Springer-Verlag. Volume 1, 738 pp. v3.0 60 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
• basal diameter, and
• height to the base of the crown.
4.3.2.5 Measurement of lying dead wood
Lying dead wood measurements will be restricted to pieces of dead wood with a diameter > 5 cm. Lying dead wood will be sampled using the line intersect method using the two 100-meter lines forming the axes of the cluster. Where exceeding 15%, the slope (in %) of each line will be recorded with a clinometer. Along the lines, the diameters of all lying dead wood ≥ 5 cm diameter intersecting the lines are measured at the point of intersection. A piece of lying dead wood should only be measured if (a) more than 50% of the log is aboveground and (b) the sampling line crosses through at least 50% of the diameter of the piece (where it intersects the end of a piece). Each piece of dead wood measured is also assigned to one of three dead wood density classes including sound, intermediate or rotten, using the ‘machete test’.
4.3.2.6 Determining the density of dead wood
During the field inventory, a representative sample of dead wood should be collected to determine the average density for each density class. Approximately, thirty samples of dead wood should be collected for each density class, giving you a total of about 90 samples. Cut a full disc of the selected piece of dead wood using a chain saw or a hand saw. Measure the diameter (L1 and L2) and thickness (T1 and T2) in cm (as shown in the figure below) to calculate green volume (cm3). The disc is then be placed in a paper bag, and then dried in oven (80-100 ° C) in the laboratory to constant weight (g). Density is calculated as dry weight (g) per unit green volume (cm3).
Figure 4.4. Diameter and thickness measurements to calculate volume.
4.3.2.7 Measuring distance
If sonic measuring equipment, such as Haglof DMEs, is to be used in the field (to check plot radii and borderline trees) they will be calibrated before each use and allowed 10+ minutes prior to use to equilibrate the unit to ambient conditions.
4.3.3 Data analysis for aboveground and belowground biomass and dead wood Field measurements will be used to estimate biomass stocks in live aboveground and belowground trees, standing dead wood, and lying dead wood. Aboveground and belowground live tree biomass will be
v3.0 61 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
estimated from dbh applying equations for hardwood species groups derived by Jenkins et al.64. Dead wood density will be estimated from Harmon et al.65.
4.3.4 Leakage monitoring Leakage will be calculated ex-post using the approved CDM A/R Methodological Tool, “Estimation of the increase in GHG emissions attributable to displacement of pre-project agricultural activities in A/R CDM project activity.” Leakage calculations and parameters are detailed in Section 3.3.
4.3.5 Quality control and data archiving Implementation of the monitoring plan will apply QA/QC procedures as outlined here to minimize errors in measurement and data analysis, and to provide documentation and consistency in data archiving. The plan will cover procedures for: (1) collecting reliable field measurements, (2) documenting data entry and analysis techniques and (3) data maintenance and archiving. The grouped project maintains an electronic database of GIS coverages detailing parcel boundaries, and will record and archive raw field measurements and analyses to permit independent review of source data over the life of the project.
4.3.5.1 Field measurements
Field crews will be fully trained in all aspects of the field data collection and adhere to field measurement protocols. Field crew leaders will be responsible for ensuring that field protocols are followed to ensure accurate and consistent measurement. Pilot sample plots shall be measured before the initiation of formal measurements to appraise field crews and identify and correct any errors in field measurements. During measurement, a consistency check of an opportunistic sample of plots shall be re-measured to determine measurement error. Re-measurement for this purpose shall be done by different field personnel. These internal check cruises will serve to quantify measurement error and allow for the identification and correction of any field measurement issues arising during implementation of the monitoring plan.
All equipment used in the course of field measurements will be calibrated according to the equipment's specifications or national/international standards.
4.3.5.2 Data entry
Data will be recorded on field sheets and then transcribed to electronic media. To minimize errors in data entry, where they are not the same, personnel involved in data analysis will consult with personnel involved in measurement to clarify any anomalous values or ambiguities in transcription.
4.3.5.3 Data archiving
Because of the long-term objective of the monitoring plan, data archiving is essential. Field measurement data will be recorded on field sheets, which shall be duplicated and archived. Field data will be entered in an electronic database; data entry shall work with photocopies, not originals, to avoid loss of data. Copies of all raw data, reports of analysis and supporting spreadsheets will be stored in a dedicated long-term
64 Jenkins, J. C., Chojnacky, D. C., Heath, L. S. and R. A. Birdsey. 2003. National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. Forest Science 49:12-35. 65 Harmon, M.E., C.W. Woodall, B. Fasth, and J. Sexton. 2008. Woody detritus density and density reduction factors for tree species in the United States: a synthesis. General Technical Report NRS-29. USDA-USFS, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.
v3.0 62 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
electronic archive. All documents and records are kept in a secure and retrievable manner for at least two years after the end of the project crediting period. Given the extended timeframe and the pace of production of updated versions of software and new hardware for storing data, electronic files will be updated periodically or converted to a format accessible to future software applications. Adherence to these procedures will also ensure smooth transitions and maintain “institutional memory” in the event of changes in personnel responsible for the monitoring plan.
v3.0 63 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Environmental impact assessments were not undertaken or required by law prior to grouped project implementation as there are no perceived negative environmental effects of implementing the project activity, reforestation of agricultural lands. Nevertheless, the project was subject to internal review by the TNC Louisiana Board of Trustees and approval by the Division/Regional Director, and was approved66 on the basis of the outstanding conservation value of undertaking the project.
The Partners in Flight Mississippi Alluvial Valley Conservation Plan67 classified the lower Boeuf River Basin, which includes the project instance LMVGAP01, among the highest conservation priorities. This basin was identified as one of thirteen large-scale conservation priorities, with the goal of creating a forest block containing at least 100,000 contiguous acres. Tracts of that scale are considered large enough to support virtually all migrant bird species native to the ecoregion. Additionally, the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture ranked the Boeuf River Conservation Area as a high priority for restoration and protection (Twedt et al.68). This conservation area is also considered critical habitat for recovery of Louisiana Black Bear. The Nature Conservancy has identified bottomland forest matrix, forest nesting migratory birds, and Louisiana black bear as the primary conservation targets for this conservation area.
Reforestation of the project area serves to restore land to its original forest cover using native species. In addition to climate benefits, the project will generate significant other environmental benefits including: reduced soil erosion, improved water quality, and restoration and protection of habitat for waterfowl, neotropical migrant songbirds, and woodland wildlife. By planting a diverse mix of native bottomland hardwood tree species, the project will provide habitat for wildlife dependent on bottomland hardwood forest. Bottomland hardwood forest provide critical habitat for a wealth of species, including the federally- threatened Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)69.
Many bird species use bottomland hardwood forest, and are expected to increase in abundance in the project area as a result of the project activity. Species composition and abundance of oaks, which were an important component of the project planting, are determinants of habitat quality of bottomland hardwoods for waterfowl70. As the growing forest in the project area develops in height and structural complexity over time, the quality of the habitat it provides for mature forest-dependent bird species will progressively improve, and overall avian species richness increases with age of bottomland hardwood
66 Non-real Estate Project Abstract and Approval, LMV GAP Reforestation Agreement, Central US Division Director approval 26 Sept 2009. 67 Twedt, D., D. Pashley, C. Hunter, A. Mueller, C. Brown, and B. Ford. 1999. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/MAV_plan.html 68 Twedt, D, W. Uihlein III, and A. Elliot. 2006. A Spatially Explicit Decision Support Model for Restoration of Forest Bird Habitat. Conservation Biology 20: 100-110. 69 Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Forest Resource Conservation Working Group. 2007. Restoration, Management and Monitoring of Forest Resources in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Recommendations for Enhancing Wildlife Habitat. Edited by Wilson, R., Ribbeck, K., King, S. and D. Twedt. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 88 pp. 70 Allen, A.W. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: Mallard (winter habitat, Lower Mississippi Valley). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Biological Report 82(10.132). 37 p.
v3.0 64 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
plantings71. Across a span of bottomland oak plantings in the LMV ranging in age from 2 to 34 years, Twedt72 (consistent with similar findings by Nuttle and Burger73) found increasing avian conservation significance scores (a metric based on Partner in Flight regional concern ratings and abundance/territory density across species present) over time, such that plantings provided habitat for forest (differentiated from early successional) dependent bird species by 25 to 30 years. Of particular significance is the value of bottomland hardwoods in providing habitat for neotropical migrant songbirds, a group of species of increasing conservation concern74 75 76. Many of these species are dependent on mature forest cover, and research has shown that these species can colonize bottomland hardwood plantings in as few as 10- 15 years. Two independent studies found that forest dependent neotropical migrants including Eastern Wood-pewee, Acadian Flycatcher, Red-eyed Vireo, Wood Thrush, Northern Parula, Prothonotary Warbler, American Redstart, Hooded Warbler and Kentucky Warbler had colonized planted bottomland hardwood stands in the LMV within 10-30 years77 78. Given the extent of past deforestation in the region, remaining forest tracts are fragmented. The forested project area should also result in landscape level benefits by providing connectivity among existing forest patches in the region, facilitating dispersal of forest-associated wildlife. The benefits of linking patches of
71 Nuttle, T. and L.W. Burger. 2005. Birds of bottomland hardwood reforestation sites: Patterns of occurrence and response to vegetation structure. Pages 353 - 372 in Ecology and Management of Bottomland Hardwood Systems: The State of Our Understanding. University of Missouri-Columbia. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No. 10, Puxico. Wilson, R. R. and D. J. Twedt. 1999. Bottomland Hardwood Establishment and Avian Colonization of Reforested Sites in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Pages 341-352 in L. H. Fredrickson, S. L. King, and R. M. Kaminski, editors, Ecology and Management of Bottomland Hardwood Systems: The State of Our Understanding. University of Missouri-Columbia. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No. 10, Puxico. 72 Twedt, D. J. 2005. An objective method to determine an area's relative value for avian conservation. Pages 71 - 77 in Ralph, C. J. and T. D. Rich (eds.), Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference, 2002 March 20-24, Asilomar, CA, U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191 73 Nuttle, T. and L.W. Burger. 2005. Birds of bottomland hardwood reforestation sites: Patterns of occurrence and response to vegetation structure. Pages 353 - 372 in Ecology and Management of Bottomland Hardwood Systems: The State of Our Understanding. University of Missouri-Columbia. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No. 10, Puxico. 74 Wakeley J.S. and T.H. Roberts. 1996. Bird distributions and forest zonation in a bottomland hardwood wetland. Wetlands. vol 16, no 3. p. 296-308. 75 Sallabanks R., Walters J.R. and J.A. Collazo. 1999. Breeding bird abundance in bottomland hardwood forests: Habitat, edge, and patch size effects. Condor. vol 102, no 4. p. 748-758. 76 Twedt, D.J., Wilson, R.R., Henne-Kerr, J.L., and Hamilton, R.B. 1999. Impact of forest type and management strategy on avian densities in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 123(2-3): 261-274. 77 Nuttle, T. and L.W. Burger. 2005. Birds of bottomland hardwood reforestation sites: Patterns of occurrence and response to vegetation structure. Pages 353 - 372 in Ecology and Management of Bottomland Hardwood Systems: The State of Our Understanding. University of Missouri-Columbia. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No. 10, Puxico. 78 Wilson, R. R. and D. J. Twedt. 1999. Bottomland Hardwood Establishment and Avian Colonization of Reforested Sites in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Pages 341-352 in L. H. Fredrickson, S. L. King, and R. M. Kaminski, editors, Ecology and Management of Bottomland Hardwood Systems: The State of Our Understanding. University of Missouri-Columbia. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No. 10, Puxico.
v3.0 65 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
existing forest to consolidate dispersal corridors at a landscape scale may be especially significant in the future as species shift their distributions at macro scales in response to the effects of climate change. The project is also expected to provide nutrient and sediment reduction benefits to nearby waterbodies. Especially where the primary source of reduced water quality is nonpoint source sediment and nutrient input from the mostly agricultural landscape. Numerous remediation strategies have been developed over the years, all of which focus on modifying agricultural practices and reforesting agricultural lands which impact major tributaries in the region. Benefits should also extend to aquatic fauna. Mussels are adversely affected by poor water quality, especially increased sedimentation, which results from incompatible land use practices in a largely agricultural landscape. Aquatic species richness within the Tensas Basin, where the projct lands are located, is among the highest in the state and includes three globally rare freshwater mussels: Fat Pocketbook (G1), Pyramid Pigtoe (G2), and Ebony Shell (G3).
v3.0 66 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
6.0 STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
No external stakeholder consultation was undertaken or required by law prior to grouped project implementation. Nevertheless, the project was subject to internal review and approval by the TNC Louisiana Board of Trustees (15 April 2010), as well as the Division/Regional Director, and the project was determined to be consistent with TNC internal policies and procedures. Reforestation of the region is well received due to the recreational benefits derived from improved habitat for game animals like deer, turkey and waterfowl.
v3.0 67 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. NON-PERMANENCE RISK REPORT
The risk analysis has been conducted in accordance with the VCS AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool, dated 8 March 2011. This tool assesses a project’s internal risk, external risk, natural risk and mitigation measures which help to reduce risk. The risk ratings and supporting evidence are detailed in Section 1, 2, and 3, below, and apply specifically to the first LMV GAP project instance, LMVGAP01. Letters in the risk factor column correspond to the risk factor explained in the VCS AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool (dated 8 March 2011).
A1.0 INTERNAL RISKS Project Management
Risk Risk Factor and/or Mitigation Description Risk Factor Rating a) All species planted are native to the region where the project is located. 0 b) There is no expected encroachment from outside actors on the project area. 0 c) This project utilizes proven technologies and has ready access to relevant expertise 0 to manage the project. Bottomland hardwood restoration technologies and planting materials have been employed and progressively refined in the region since 1990. Tree species compositions will be arranged across the project area to match species-specific environmental tolerances to micro-site conditions (topographic position, hydrology, soil type). The Nature Conservancy deploys experienced staff (i.e. foresters, biologists, or ecologists) in the field to plan and supervise tree plantings and oversee survivorship. The Nature Conservancy is responsible for long-term management and has strong technical capabilities in forestry and with proven land management capacity. d) All project parcels are readily accessible (< 1 day travel) from the local LA TNC office 0 which is responsible for the ongoing management of the project lands. e) Project lands are all under the long-term protection and oversight of the local TNC -2 Louisiana Field Office, assisted by the TNC Forest Carbon Development Team with significant forest carbon project experience. Since 1995, TNC has piloted some of the first successful forest carbon projects and helped define the highest levels of project accounting integrity. To date, TNC has implemented over a dozen forest carbon projects around the world. Further, TNC has proven legal and management capacity as one of the largest conservation servitude holders in the LMV region with decades of experience. f) Not applicable. 0 Total Project Management (PM) [as applicable, (a + b + c + d + e + f)] -2 Total may be less than zero.
Financial Viability
v3.0 68 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Risk Risk Factor and/or Mitigation Description Risk Factor Rating
a, b, c, Necessary project funding was received upfront from a financial contributor in 0 d) exchange for transfer of future carbon credits. Therefore, the project cash flow was positive from the start and the breakeven point is less than 4 years from the current risk assessment. e, f, g, Necessary project funding was received upfront from a financial contributor in 0 h,) exchange for transfer of future carbon credits. Therefore, the project has secured more than 80% of funding needed to cover the total cash out before the project reaches breakeven. i) Not applicable. 0 Total Financial Viability (FV) [as applicable, ((a, b, c or d) + (e, f, g or h) + i)] 0 Total may not be less than zero.
Opportunity Cost
Risk Risk Factor and/or Mitigation Description Risk Rating Factor
a, b, c, The results of a NPV analysis (Table A1 below) show that the most profitable 8 d, e, f) alternative land, corn, is up to 305% more profitable than that associated with the project implementation. Details on data used to derive the annual net revenue per acre are provided in section 2.5.1. Similarly, this net present value analysis is for a 99 year period and applies a 6% discount rate.
g) The project proponent is a District of Columbia non-profit 501(c) corporation with -2 authority to do business in Louisiana under Louisiana Revised Statutes 12:301. h, i) Project lands are under permanent conservation servitude and will not be -8 subject to future change in land-use. The Nature Conservancy, in its mission statement79, is committed to “to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends.” Total Opportunity Cost (OC) [as applicable, (a, b, c, d, e or f) + (g or h)] 0 Total may not be less than 0.
Table A1. Net present value of the most profitable alternative land use as compared to the carbon project. See section 2.5.1 for details and assumptions.
79 The Nature Conservancy 2011. “The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends.” Http://www.nature.org/aboutus/visionmission/index.htm, accessed February 16, 2012.
v3.0 69 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Most profitable land VCS Carbon Project2 Data/Land Use 1 use (Corn) and enrollment in CRP Net Present Values $7,058 $2,314 1The net present value of the most profitable land use, corn, is based on the net revenue per acre ($400.70/acre) for the most profitable year 2010, in the last five years. 2A one time payment from TNC for purchase of the servitude of $393.60 (or $108,300 paid for a servitude on 293 acres) was added to the NPV of the CRP rental rates ($109/acre).
Project Longevity
a) Not applicable. 0
b) No harvesting is expected to occur within the project crediting period (this -10 applies to all future instances under the grouped project). The project plantings were implemented for the purpose of forest restoration and long- term conservation, and will not be subject to any harvest that threatens the accumulation and retention of forest carbon stocks (as outlined in the permanent conservation servitude agreement and ensured through requirement for TNC review and approval of any forest management plan). As stipulated in the conservation servitude80, property owners are contractually obligated to keep project lands in a condition which “support a minimum of 260 metric tons of CO2 at age 80”. Further, “After age 80, forest stands will be managed to approximate mature forest conditions”. Stands are not expected to reach 260 metric tons of CO2 until age 72. Total Project Longevity (PL) 0 May not be less than zero
Internal Risk
Total Internal Risk (PM + FV + OC + PL) 0 Total may not be less than zero.
A2.0 EXTERNAL RISKS
Land Ownership and Resource Access/Use Rights
Risk Risk Factor and/or Mitigation Description Risk Rating Factor
80 Copies of the “Grant of Conservation Servitude and Rights of Use” for each project property can be found in the project database.
v3.0 70 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
a) Not applicable. 0 b) The project area is under clear private title and subject to a legally-binding 2 permanent conservation servitude agreement administered by TNC. TNC is assigned the carbon rights and has resource access/use rights as mentioned in Section 1.12 of the PD. The agreement places permanent land use restrictions on the property, which convey with the property in the event of sale or transfer. Restrictions were designed specifically to ensure safeguarding forest carbon stocks on the property and maintaining forest growth potential as projected in the ex-ante estimates elaborated in this document. c) No dispute over land ownership or land tenure exists for any part of the project 0 area. d) No dispute over access/use rights exist for any part of the project area. 0 e) Project lands are under conservation servitude and will continue to be managed -2 as forest for the long term. For more information, see Section 1.8 of the PD. f) Not applicable. 0 Total Land Tenure (LT) [as applicable, ((a or b) + c + d + e+ f)] 0 Total may not be less than zero.
Community Engagement
Risk Risk Factor and/or Mitigation Description Risk Rating Factor a, b, As the local population is not reliant on the project area, the risk is not relevant to 0 c) the project and the risk rating for community engagement is zero, as per VCS guidance81. Total Community Engagement (CE) [where applicable, (a+b+c)] 0 Total may be less than zero.
Political Risk
Risk Risk Factor and/or Mitigation Description Risk Rating Factor
a, b, The project area is located in a politically stable country, and should not be 0 c, d, subject to risks associated with social instability, however unlikely to occur. The e) average World Bank Institute’s Worldwide Governance score for the United States from the most recent five years (2005-2009) of available data is 1.232. f) Not applicable. 0 Total Political (PC) [as applicable ((a, b, c, d or e) + f)] 0 Total may not be less than zero.
81 VCS AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool, dated 8 March 2011. v3.0 71 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
External Risk
Total External Risk (LT + CE + PC) 0 Total may not be less than zero.
A3.0 NATURAL RISKS
Fire Risk
Evidence Project sites are located in southern bottomlands which naturally have a low incidence of fire82 83. Fires that do occur are unlikely to result in the loss of substantial biomass due to incomplete combustion of live aboveground biomass. An extensive literature search and consultation with leading bottomland hardwood researchers (Brian Lockhart and Emil Gardner of the USFS Bottomland Hardwood Research Center in Stoneville, Mississippi) confirm that no studies exist to quantify fire return intervals in this ecosystem. In fact, the most recent peer-reviewed article on fire in LMV forests, by Gagnon84, provides no quantitative information on fire occurrence. An excerpt from Gagnon (2009) is below.
“Suppressing fires is not difficult now because modern second-growth forests are virtually fireproof – their dense canopies reduce air movement and shade the understory, minimizing plant growth and fuel build-up (Wilson et al. 2007). Fires no longer travel across the landscape as when pyrogenic pine-filled uplands lay adjacent to the floodplains (Platt 1999). And canebrakes that were conduits to fire-spread in BLH have been eradicated in these fragmented forests (Kaufert 1933, Platt and Brantley 1997).”
Prevention measures for mitigating fire risk include placing fire breaks85 throughout the property and survivorship monitoring in conjunction with the option to replant, as needed. Significance Major Likelihood Every 50 to less than 100 years Score (LS) 1 Mitigation 0.5
82 Douglas J. Marshall, D.J., M. Wimberly, P. Bettinger, and J. Stanturf. 2008. Synthesis of knowledge of hazardous fuels management in loblolly pine forests. General Technical Report SRS–110. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 43 p. 83Zhai, Y.S., I.A. Munn, and D.L. Evans. 2003. Modeling forest fire probabilities in the South Central United States using FIA data. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 27:11-17. 84 Gagnon, P.R. 2009. Fire in floodplain forest in the Southeastern USA: Insights from disturbance ecology of native bamboo. Wetlands, 29: 520–526. 85 Ulmer, R. 2011. Conservation servitude documentation report. Boeuf River Basin (Catlands). Franklin Parish, Louisiana. The Nature Conservancy.
v3.0 72 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Pest and Disease Risk
Evidence The mixed species composition of the project plantings, as well as the disaggregated distribution of component project parcels, should reduce the risk of catastrophic loss due to forest pest or disease outbreaks. Unlike some other forest ecosystems in the southern U.S., like southern yellow pine (Pinus spp), there is no history of catastrophic disturbance due to forest pests or diseases in bottomland hardwood ecosystems. Prevention measures for mitigating pest and disease include planting a diverse selection of species and survivorship monitoring in conjunction with the option to replant, as needed. Significance Major Likelihood Every 50 to less than 100 years Score (LS) 1 Mitigation 0.5 Extreme Weather Risk
Evidence Project plantings will be monitored for survivorship through year 3, covering the period when seedlings are most at risk to floods and droughts, and re-planted as necessary to ensure establishment. The frequency of stand-replacing catastrophic disturbance, by extreme weather events, is typically very low. For context, Lorimer and White86 report a recurrence interval for pooled (wind and fire) stand-replacing disturbances of 500 to 1,500 years for the northeastern U.S., with the lower end of the return interval being more typical of coastal areas due in part to higher susceptibility to hurricanes. In the north central U.S., stand-replacing windstorms have recurred every 1,210 years on average87. For some additional perspective, tornados, for example, have a mean recurrence at a given point of 10-20,000 years88. Well south of the project area on the Gulf Coast of Louisiana, there is an estimated annual probabilities of direct strikes by catastrophic hurricanes are between 0.1% and 0.17%89. This represents a recurrence interval of stand- replacing disturbance at a given location of ~600 years. As project sites are much further from the coast, these sites have lower risk of hurricane damage. Prevention measures for mitigating extreme weather include species selection which can tolerate wet conditions and survivorship monitoring in conjunction with the option to replant, as needed.
86Lorimer, C.G. and A.S. White. 2003. Scale and frequency of natural disturbances in the northeastern United States: implications for early successional forest habitat and regional age distributions. Forest Ecology and Management 185: 41-64. 87Canham, C.D. and O.L. Loucks. 1984. Catastrophic wind throw in the pre-settlement forests of Wisconsin. Ecology 65: 803-809 88Whitney, G.G. 1994: From coastal wilderness to fruited plain: a history of environmental change in temperate North America from 1500 to the present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 89Liu, K.-B., H. Lu, and C. Shen. 2008. A 1,200-year proxy record of hurricanes and fires from the Gulf of Mexico coast: Testing the hypothesis of hurricane–fire interactions, Quaternary Research, v. 69, p. 29–41.
v3.0 73 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Significance Major Likelihood Every 25 to less than 50 years Score (LS) 2 Mitigation 0.5 Geologic Risk
Evidence Neither volcanoes nor active tectonic fault lines are present in or near the project area. Landslides are not likely to occur within the project area because project sites are uniformly level (less than 5% slope) in these flat floodplain areas. Significance Minor Likelihood Every 50 to less than 100 years Score (LS) 1 Mitigation 1
Natural risk is quantified by assessing both the significance (i.e. the damage that the project would sustain if the event occurred, expressed as an estimated percentage of average carbon stocks in the project area that would be lost in a single event) and likelihood (i.e., the historical average number of times the event has occurred in the project area over the last 100 years) of the four primary types of natural risk, including the risk of fire, pest and disease, extreme weather, and geologic hazards. The significance of the risk of fire, pest and disease, and weather has been assessed as “Major” as none of these risks should they occur result in greater than a 50% loss of carbon stocks in the project area. The significance of geologic risk has been assessed as “Minor” as neither volcanic activity, earthquakes, or landslides if they occur would lead to a loss of greater than 25% of the carbon stocks in the project area. The significance of the above natural risks has been assessed as such due the dispersed nature of the planted fields. The occurrence of any natural risk is unlikely to affect 50% of the planted areas. Where a natural risk does occur it is unlikely to remove >50% or the carbon stocks in the project area. While it is possible for trees to be killed due to natural risks such as fire or flooding, the majority of biomass within the live biomass carbon pool would simply be transferred to the dead biomass carbon pool, also accounted for in this project and therefore not a loss of carbon. It is at times difficult to quantify the likelihood of natural risks when these risks occur infrequently. By definition likelihood is the historical average number of times an event has occurred over the last 100 years. Another term often used when referring to the likelihood of natural risk is the return interval. The return interval is common in literature pertaining to fire and flooding (e.g., the 100 year flood). While the likelihood or return interval would also be useful for assessing pest and disease as well as geologic risk, a key feature when calculating the likelihood or return interval is that an event has occurred enough times in enough places such that there is sufficient data to calculate the return interval. A review of the literature revealed little data to support a return interval for bottomland hardwood forests of the Lower Mississippi Valley for either pest and disease or geologic risk. For this reason, we have assigned each risk a return interval of “Every 50 to less than 100 years”.
Environmental risks affecting bottomland hardwood plantings are most acute in the early stages of development when the young trees are most susceptible to drought and flooding. This risk is mitigated in
v3.0 74 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
part through the species selection used in the project, composed of native species adapted to the soil types and hydrologic regimes of the project area. During planting, placement of species was matched with appropriate micro-topography (e.g., baldcypress and water tupelo in drainages/lowest micro-sites). Importantly, the diverse species mix planted, representing a range of tolerances, serves to reduce risk of catastrophic loss due to environmental fluctuations or forest pest or disease outbreaks.
Score for each natural risk applicable to the project (Determined by (LS × M) Fire (F) 0.5 Pest and Disease Outbreaks (PD) 0.5 Extreme Weather (W) 1 Geological Risk (G) 1 Other natural risk (ON) 0 Total Natural Risk (as applicable, F + PD + W + G + ON) 3
A4.0 OVERALL NON-PERMANENCE RISK RATING AND BUFFER DETERMINATION
A4.1 Overall Risk Rating
The overall risk rating calculated using the VCS AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool is 3%, as calculated below.
Risk Category Rating
a) Internal Risk 0 b) External Risk 0 c) Natural Risk 3 Overall Risk Rating (a + b + c) 3
As the calculated buffer (3%) is less than the default withholding percentage (10%), The Lower Mississippi Valley Grouped Afforestation Project will utilize the default nonpermanence risk deduction of 10%.
A4.2 Calculation of Total VCUs Over the 32 year life of the project, the project area is expected to sequester 38,120 tons t CO2-e leading to a buffer pool contribution of 3,812 t CO2-e and a total expected emission reduction of 29,629 t CO2-e after account for leakage (4,679 t CO2-e). Annual ex-ante estimates, including deductions to be deposited in the AFOLU pooled buffer account, are detailed in Section 3.4 of the project document.
Table A2. Emissions reductions (t CO2-e) expected to be generated by the The Lower Mississippi Valley Grouped Afforestation Project over the 32 year crediting period. Aspect of emission reductions estimate t CO2-e
v3.0 75 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Net forest carbon sequestration (t CO2) (With project 38,120 scenario- baseline)
10% Buffer pool contribution 3,812 1Implementation of Project Activity 0 2Leakage 4,679 Total Emission Reductions 29,629 1As per the CDM Executive Board decision in September 2008 (CDM EB 42, Paragraph 35), which applies to AR- ACM0001. "The Board clarified the guidance on accounting GHG emissions in A/R CDM project activities from the following sources: (i) fertilizer application, (ii) removal of herbaceous vegetation, and (iii) transportation; and agreed that emissions from these sources may be considered as insignificant and hence can be neglected in A/R baseline and monitoring methodologies and tools.”
2Leakage was calculated as per the CDM tool "Estimation of the increase in GHG emissions attributable to displacement of pre-project agricultural activities in A/R CDM project activity" (CDM Executive Board 2009).
v3.0 76