Niagara Escarpment Forest Carbon Project (NEFCP) · Niagara Escarpment forest carbon project...

0 GHG Report – EBC Forest Project

GHG Report and GHG assertion - April 2017

Niagara Escarpment Forest Carbon Project (NEFCP)

Preserving forest integrity in

the Niagara Escarpment region

Version 1.0 – April 28th 2017

A

GHG Report – EBC Forest Project

I GHG Report – EBC Forest Project

Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... IV

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. IV

Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. V

1. Introduction and Standard Principles ...................................................................................... 1

1.1. Relevance ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.2. Completeness .................................................................................................................. 3

1.3. Consistency ...................................................................................................................... 3

1.4. Accuracy .......................................................................................................................... 3

1.5. Transparency ................................................................................................................... 3

1.6. Conservativeness ............................................................................................................. 3

2. Project Description .................................................................................................................. 4

2.1. Project title ...................................................................................................................... 4

2.2. Project’s purposes and objectives ................................................................................... 4

2.3. Expected lifetime of the project ...................................................................................... 4

2.4. Type of greenhouse gas emission reduction or removal project .................................... 4

2.5. Legal land description of the project or the unique latitude and longitude ................... 4

2.6. Conditions prior to project initiation ............................................................................... 5

2.7. Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission reductions or removal

enhancements ............................................................................................................................. 6

2.8. Project technologies, products, services and the expected level of activity .................. 6

2.9. Total GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements, stated in tonnes of CO2e,

likely to occur from the GHG project (GHG assertion) ................................................................ 6

2.10. Identification of risks ................................................................................................... 7

2.11. Roles and responsibilities ............................................................................................ 8

2.12. Any information relevant for the eligibility of the GHG project under a GHG program

and quantification of emission reductions .................................................................................. 9

2.13. Summary environmental impact assessment ............................................................. 9

2.14. Relevant outcomes from stakeholder consultation and mechanisms for on-going

communication .......................................................................................................................... 10

2.15. Detailed chronological plan ....................................................................................... 10

3. Selection and Justification of the Baseline Scenario ............................................................. 11

II GHG Report – EBC Forest Project

3.1. Identification of alternative land use scenarios to forest project activity .................... 11

3.2. Barriers assessment ....................................................................................................... 11

3.3. Baseline harvesting level ............................................................................................... 13

3.4. Baseline perturbations plan .......................................................................................... 14

4. Inventory of Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs (SSRs) of GHG for the Project and Baseline ...... 15

4.1. Carbon pools .................................................................................................................. 15

4.2. Other GHG sources ........................................................................................................ 16

5. Quantification and Calculation of GHG Emissions/Removals ............................................... 17

5.1. General approach .......................................................................................................... 17

5.2. Analysis units identification (Polygons) ......................................................................... 18

5.3. Emission reductions calculation .................................................................................... 19

5.4. Baseline carbon balance (from model) ......................................................................... 20

5.5. Wood product C dynamic .............................................................................................. 20

5.6. Project carbon balance (from model) ........................................................................... 21

5.7. Leakage .......................................................................................................................... 22

5.8. Ex-Post Calculations of Carbon Stocks ........................................................................... 24

5.9. Model Calibration .......................................................................................................... 24

5.10. Uncertainty Factor ..................................................................................................... 25

5.11. Model inputs and parameters ................................................................................... 27

6. Monitoring the Data Information Management System and Data Controls ........................ 30

6.1. Sampling plots ............................................................................................................... 30

6.2. Live biomass measurement ........................................................................................... 30

6.3. Monitored data ............................................................................................................. 31

7. Reporting and Verification Details ........................................................................................ 33

Schedules ....................................................................................................................................... 34

Schedule 1 – EBC Properties included in the project .................................................................... 35

Schedule 2 – Sampling plots details .............................................................................................. 38

Schedule 3 – Sample Datasheet .................................................................................................... 39

Schedule 4 – Matrix of Perturbations ........................................................................................... 40

Schedule 5 – Growth tables/curves............................................................................................... 42

Schedule 6 – Model outputs and quantification results ............................................................... 45

III GHG Report – EBC Forest Project

IV GHG Report – EBC Forest Project

List of Tables Table 1: GHG emission reductions and removals ............................................................................ 7

Table 2: Barriers Assessment Table ............................................................................................... 12

Table 3: Planned harvest scenario (commercial thinning) ............................................................ 14

Table 4: Carbon pools (SSRs) ......................................................................................................... 16

Table 5: Other GHG sources (SSRs) ............................................................................................... 16

Table 6: Analysis Unit ID matrix ..................................................................................................... 19

Table 7: Uncertainty Factor Calculation ........................................................................................ 27

List of Figures Figure 1: Niagara Escarpment ......................................................................................................... 1

Figure 2: EBC Properties .................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 3 Typical upland hardwood forest ...................................................................................... 13

Figure 4 Typical lowland hardwood forest .................................................................................... 13

Figure 5 Typical cedar forest ......................................................................................................... 13

Figure 6: CAR Forest Protocol, Leakage Equation ......................................................................... 23

V GHG Report – EBC Forest Project

Abbreviations BS Baseline Scenario (GHG Emission Source)

CBM-CFS3 Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CH4 Methane

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent (usually expressed in metric tons)

CSA Canadian Standards Association

DBH Diameter at breast height

EBC Escarpment Biosphere Conservancy

EF Emission Factor

GHG Greenhouse gases

IFM Improved Forest Management

ISO International Organization for Standardization

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LtPF Logged to Protected Forest

N2O Nitrous oxide

NEFCP Niagara Escarpment Forest Carbon Project

PS Project Scenario (GHG emission source)

SSR Source, Sink and Reservoir

t Tonne (metric)

VCS Verified Carbon Standard

VERR Verified Emission Reduction or Removal


1. Introduction and Standard Principles The Niagara escarpment is a geological formation created from unequal erosion between two

sections of the Great Lakes Basin. It is most famous as the cliff over which the Niagara River

plunges at Niagara Falls. In southern Ontario, it spans the Niagara Peninsula, through the cities

of St. Catharines and Hamilton, and stretches north toward Georgian Bay where it forms the

Bruce Peninsula and Manitoulin Island then extends westwards to Michigan and Wisconsin.

Figure 1: Niagara Escarpment

1

Much of the territory along the escarpment is either heavily populated or highly agriculture

intensive. Forest lands and natural ecosystems are rarely found on the territory and the

remaining forest cover is threatened by urban development and extension of farming activities.

The Escarpment Biosphere Conservancy (EBC) is a charitable non-profit organization with a

mission to protect and enhance the ecological value of sensitive lands, in the Niagara

escarpment region, by protecting private lands through the creation of recognized Nature

Reserves allowing for sustainable, low impact, recreational and educational activities. As of

today, over 160 individual reserves have been created, covering more than 12,500 acres of

forest and wetlands. These reserves were selected for their high ecological value that needed

legal protection to avoid further development, land use transformation or commercial harvest.

The creation of the Nature Reserves officialises

the vulnerable status of the lands and enforces its protection by current and/or subsequent

1 Wikipedia,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Maps_of_the_Niagara_Escarpment#/media/File:Niagara_Escarpment_map.png


landowners for a period of at

least one hundred years. EBC

owns most of the lands and

some are under joint

protection agreement.

The region is contained

within the mixedwood plains

forest ecozone with a wide

range of more than 55

species of coniferous and

hardwood trees. By an

effective legal protection

mechanism and by adopting best management practices, the reserves and their forest cover

become much valuable and protected carbon sinks that could otherwise be cut, damaged or

harvested.

The project, which enhances the carbon

removal potential and contributes to fight

climate change and land deterioration, is

implemented in collaboration with

landowners, government, community

groups and environmental groups who all

support the initiative and perceive great

social and environmental benefits for

current and future generations.

The project is primarily an improved

forest management project with potential reforestation activities. It benefits the overall

atmospheric carbon balance by removing additional carbon emissions from the air. It is

implemented following the ISO 14064-2 standard’s guidelines and principles and is intended to

be registered on the CSA CleanProjects registryTM.

1.1. Relevance All relevant GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSRs) are meticulously assessed and taken into

account in the quantification. A quantification methodology is specifically selected and adapted

to be applicable in the project specific conditions. The VCS methodology VM0012 Improved

Forest Management in Temperate and Boreal Forests, most relevant to this project, is used for a

relevant quantification approach along with parameters relevant to the project such as

applicable yield curves other model inputs.


1.2. Completeness A complete assessment of the different sources of GHGs was carried out. All applicable GHG

types were considered. Complete information on the project conditions, project activities and

examples of data gathered and complete calculations are presented throughout this report.

1.3. Consistency The choice of the baseline scenario, established as the continued low to moderate impact

harvesting, is consistent with the chosen methodology. The project scenario level of activity is

also consistent with the baseline scenario. A crediting period of 50 years along with a

conservation commitment of at least 100 years is consistent with the methodology and with

most requirements of GHG programs to ensure permanence of the carbon stocks.

1.4. Accuracy Accuracy is the biggest challenge in any forest project because no direct complete monitoring of

tree growth can be performed. Accuracy remains a priority though and uncertainties on

estimations are reduced as far as practical through rigorous sampling and measurements. 15

sampling plots were set to estimate carbon stock change which is a high number given the size

of the project and the number of different stands. The sampling method is in line with the

industry best practices. Again this is in order to reduce bias and maximize accuracy.

1.5. Transparency Relevant information related to the project, the proponent, operations managers and other

stakeholders in this project is openly disclosed, documented and communicated in this report so

that the user of this report can identify and have confidence in the data, how they are obtained,

how they are treated, and how the project actually reduces GHG emissions. The calculations are

clearly detailed in order to provide the reader with sufficient information to make decisions with

confidence. Assumptions and conservative choices are also disclosed in a transparent manner.

1.6. Conservativeness The main concern of the project proponent and the quantification team is to avoid

overestimating the GHG emission reductions that this project can generate. When precision

cannot be guaranteed due to assumption, a conservative choice is made. For example, on some

properties various stands of trees are intertwined due to high heterogeneity of the mixedwood

forest. In these cases, conservative assumptions of what the dominant stand is are made.

Conservative choices in establishing the baseline scenario are also made in terms of percent

level of commercial thinning. All inoperable areas are excluded from quantification and young

regenerating stands are also excluded as they are less likely to be harvested.

This report will be made available to the public for consultation. It will serve as a transparent

reference document for anyone wishing to know the details of the project and the GHG

emission reductions and removals it has generated.


2. Project Description

2.1. Project title Niagara Escarpment forest carbon project (NEFCP) - Preserving forest integrity in the Niagara

escarpment region

2.2. Project’s purposes and objectives The Escarpment Biosphere Conservancy (EBC) is a registered charity, which establishes

conservation agreements on land along the Niagara Escarpment in Ontario. EBC’s mission is to

establish, maintain and manage a system of nature reserves within this area. These efforts have

resulted in the continued occurrence of representative forest cover and habitat along the

escarpment, ensuring that the growth of trees and other plants continues to occur and

mitigating a local land use trend where forested area is harvested. The Nature Reserves also

allow for sustainable, low impact, recreational and educational activities as well as the

conservation of habitat to 54 rare and endangered species.

2.3. Expected lifetime of the project The project started in 1998 with the first acquisition of land by EBC. The crediting period started

on January 1st 1999 and will extend to December 31st 2048. The project is committed to increase

carbon stocks beyond the established baseline scenario for at least 100 years and is expected to

contribute to positive carbon balance for an even longer period.

2.4. Type of greenhouse gas emission reduction or removal project The project is an Improved Forest Management – Logged to Protected Forest (IFM-LtPF) project.

EBC’s conservations activities protects unlogged forest (project scenario) that would otherwise

be logged (baseline scenario). By eliminating harvesting for timber or other land use, biomass

carbon stocks are protected and can increase as the forest continues to grow. Greenhouse gas

(GHG) reduction/removal occurs because logging in the baseline scenario is avoided in the

project scenario.

2.5. Legal land description of the project or the unique latitude and

longitude The activities carried out by EBC occur on multiple properties located mainly within Grey &

Bruce Counties (Ontario), extending into the counties of Dufferin, Huron, Peel, Simcoe,

Wellington and into the District of Manitoulin2. The figure below illustrates the region in which

the properties are located.

2 Project sites located on the Manitoulin Island are not included and do not contribute to the reported

GHG emission removals reported in this GHG report. They might be added in a future update to the monitoring and GHG report.


Figure 2: EBC Properties

A complete list of the 111 properties included in the project is available in Schedule 1 of this

document. It includes the following details for each property: name, municipality, county,

latitude/longitude of approximate center point, year acquired by EBC and area. All properties

included in the projects are owned by EBC. Aerial photographs of the properties are available

upon request or downloadable as a Google Earth file (.kml extension) at

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_TuuMIwcDRieUR1S3k4M3JoRWc/view?usp=sharing.

The properties are located in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence forest region. This region is

dominated by hardwood forests, featuring species such as maple, oak, yellow birch, white and

red pine. Coniferous trees such as white pine, red pine, hemlock and white cedar, commonly

mix with deciduous broad-leaved species, such as yellow birch, sugar and red maples, basswood

and red oak. Much of the forest in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence forest is uneven aged, meaning

that young and old trees can be found within the same group of trees.

The eligible projects areas, hereby referred to as “the project areas” or “project sites”, are the

portions of each property that are currently covered by forest. Thus, all areas currently not

covered by forest, such as waterbodies/watercourses, shorelines, fields, alvars, wetlands and

peatlands, have not been accounted for in carbon stocks calculations.

2.6. Conditions prior to project initiation Before the acquisition of the properties by the EBC non-profit organization, and before the

conversion into Nature Reserves, these woodlands were often used for fuel wood or logged on a

regular basis for the most valuable merchantable trees or threatened of intensive harvest. EBC’s

conservation activities allow for forests to remain forests. It has been estimated that the total

forest to be protected holds merchantable wood stock worth $6 Million before it became


protected. The pre-existing conditions are more precisely detailed below for some of the

predominant forest types found on EBC’s properties.

In the upland hardwood forests, forests have been historically harvested on a diameter basis

removing the biggest and best quality trees from the site. Historically these harvests occur

between 7 to 15 year intervals resulting in volumes ranging from 1000 to 2000 board feet per

acre on average.

In the lowland hardwood forests, woods have also been harvested on a diameter limit type

harvest with an average harvest rotation of 10 years. The average harvest will remove

approximately 3000 board feet per acre. This is based on the initial harvest removing 4000

board feet per acre.

In the cedar forests, the cedar stands have been historically harvested to on 8 inch diameter

limit. This effectively is a commercial clear cut as trees smaller have no commercial value. These

types of harvest generate an average 10 full cord per acre.

On mostly conifers lands, each thinning removes approximately 30 percent of the density in

each harvest. This results in an average of 8 full cords per acre. This thinning is usually repeated

every 10 Years.

2.7. Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission

reductions or removal enhancements EBC’s conservations activities protect unlogged forest (project scenario) that would otherwise

be logged (baseline scenario). By eliminating harvesting for timber, biomass carbon stocks are

protected and can increase as the forest continues to grow. Greenhouse gas (GHG)

reduction/removal occurs because logging in the baseline scenario is avoided in the project

scenario.

2.8. Project technologies, products, services and the expected level of

activity The project does not require the use of any technology, nor is expected to provide any level of

products or services. It rather involves the absence of harvesting activity, which rather

insignificantly impacts the overall supply of wood products.

Conservation activities mainly involve on-going surveillance, installation of some informational

signs and, in some instances, the maintenance of tracks.

2.9. Total GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements,

stated in tonnes of CO2e, likely to occur from the GHG project

(GHG assertion) The table below presents the additional GHG removals achieved by the project since the

beginning of the conservation activities. It states the GHG removals as verified and thus shows

only ex-post GHG removals. Ex-ante numbers are not presented to avoid confusion. Note that


carbon dioxide (CO2) is the only greenhouse gas considered here. The project is expected to

contribute to a total removal of 125,000 t CO2eq over the 50 year duration of the crediting

period.

year GHG removals (t CO2)

1999 - 2000 - 2001 - 2002 21 2003 632 2004 762 2005 2,102 2006 2,914 2007 2,602 2008 2,227 2009 1,929 2010 1,677 2011 1,817 2012 1,610 2013 2,789 2014 2,786 2015 3,769 2016 4,943 Table 1: GHG emission reductions and removals

2.10. Identification of risks The main risk in all forest projects is the risk of reversal. Indeed, achieved GHG removals can be

reverted given the sequestered biomass carbon be re-emitted to the atmosphere through

natural or human-driven mechanisms. Wildfire or pests are often referred to as the main natural

risk. EBC project faces a rather low such risk as compared to most forest carbon project as the

properties are non-contiguous and spread-out on a very large territory. That being said,

continuous monitoring for pests and diseases is performed to be able to take action in a timely

manner.

The type of conservation engagement that is set, and accepted by various levels of government,

is strict and makes a change in the use of the lands literally impossible from a legal perspective.

Most of the project sites were received as EcoGifts as per the national program led by

Environment and Climate Change Canada. This sets out an agreement that EBC may not transfer

land received as EcoGifts under the federal program to anyone other than a qualified EcoGifts

recipient. As per the program, “Recipients ensure that the land’s biodiversity and environmental

heritage are conserved in perpetuity”3. There are a few additional properties where former

landowners have required registering covenants that EBC will not sell the properties, but keep

3 Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ecological Gifts Program: https://www.ec.gc.ca/pde-egp/


them as nature reserves. A few more created by severance on the Niagara Escarpment have

similar covenants with the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

However, despite this protection mechanism, some unauthorized and illegal harvests have

occurred on some of the properties that are not owned by EBC. Hence, for conservativeness, all

Nature Reserves constituted through a conservation agreement with a third party land owner

are not included in the project boundaries. This limits the risk of reversal occurring from human

activities.

2.11. Roles and responsibilities

Project proponent representative

Robert (Bob) Barnett (Escarpment Biosphere Conservancy)

503 Davenport Road, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1B8

416-960-8121

[email protected]

Mr. Barnett is executive director of the Escarpment Biosphere Conservancy. He is responsible

for the content of the GHG Report and the GHG Assertion and has signing authority for the EBC

organization.

Authorized project contact

Dan Fraleigh (Carbonzero)

250 Yonge Street, Suite 2201, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 2L7

416-640-8900

[email protected]

Mr. Fraleigh is chief operation officer at Carbonzero. He acts as an advisor to EBC on matters

such as carbon offsets, GHG programs and market approach.

Land evaluators and on-site foresters

James Eccles (Eccles forestry)

[email protected]

Jesse Henrich (lands and forests consulting)

[email protected]

David Taylor (lands and forests consulting)


[email protected].

These are some of the professional foresters involved in the project. They were responsible for

evaluating timber value, wood stock, and providing forest management advices.

Person providing the quantification services

David Beaudoin B.Eng. EP(GHG)

[email protected]

Mr. Beaudoin is responsible for the application of the chosen quantification methodology. He

also writes the project description and the GHG report.

Person responsible for monitoring activities

Guillaume Beaudette, P. Eng.

[email protected]

Mr. Beaudette is responsible for on-site data gathering and preparation of the sampling plots.

He is also responsible for on-going monitoring.

2.12. Any information relevant for the eligibility of the GHG

project under a GHG program and quantification of emission

reductions GHG emission reductions and removals from this project are quantified and reported as per the

ISO 14064-2 standard and the project is eligible to be registered on the CSA CleanProjectsTM

Registry. There is no intention to apply to another GHG program nor to claim any other GHG

offsets or credits or environmental attributes of any sort.

The project has obtained the legal rights to operate, owns official land titles, complies with all

local, provincial and federal regulations and requirements, has great environmental benefits and

has the support of all communities where it operates.

2.13. Summary environmental impact assessment There is no legal requirement to conduct an environmental impact assessment for the

implementation of the EBC project but and ecological sensitivity evaluation has been performed

at each site. In summary, EBC protects 52 species that are recognized as rare or listed as “at-

risk” provincially and/or federally. EBC also protects rare ecosystems that are sensitive to human

impacts among other threats. The ecological sensitivity evaluation can be made available upon

request for consultation.


2.14. Relevant outcomes from stakeholder consultation and

mechanisms for on-going communication Conservation activities create minimal disturbance for local communities. In addition,

conservation occurs on privately owned lands of significant size. Due to the environmental

benefits and long-term social co-benefits, the project has obtained unanimous support from

various stakeholders including, municipalities, governments, landowners, environmental groups

and business sector.

EBC often organises seminars and workshops to discuss their approach to conservancy, the

results of their activities and exchange on potential issues or best practices. Population is also

often invited to educational events and to contribute to biological identification survey.

2.15. Detailed chronological plan 1997 – First Nature Reserve created

January 1st 1999 – Crediting period start date

On-going – Forest evaluations for on-site wood and carbon stocks

On-going – Ecological sensitivity evaluations

2013 – first quantification of carbon removals (not reported)

February to April 2017 – Quantification of GHG removals and Report

April and May 2017 – First Verification

December 31st 2048 – End of the crediting period


3. Selection and Justification of the Baseline Scenario The baseline scenario is selected among alternative scenarios representing what could have

happened in the absence of the proposed greenhouse gas project. The alternative scenario that

is most likely to occur is selected as the baseline scenario. In this case, the project is voluntary. It

aims at avoiding planned timber harvest. The baseline scenario is determined on an individual

project area basis to ensure harvesting has either occurred in the past and/or is susceptible to

occur again if the project were not implemented.

3.1. Identification of alternative land use scenarios to forest project

activity Alternative 1) Conversion to Pasture or Cropland

This alternative involves the conversion of projects sites to pasture, graze or cropland. This

would involve growing the most economical crop, likely corn or soybean. A financial return

would be expected but it also involves extensive site preparation and important investments.

Alternative 2) Intensive commercial harvest / Clear cut harvest

This alternative assumes instant harvest for immediate high level return on investment. It

requires use of invasive logging equipment. Industrial harvesters would require large areas and

high potential to justify the displacement of equipment on multiple sites.

Alternative 3) Continuation of Pre Project Land Use / regular commercial harvest

This alternative assumes the candidate sites remain below their maximum potential biomass

carrying capacity due to regular harvest activity by landowners or by commercial loggers

authorized by landowners. This alternative assumes that no effort in land management is

required and relatively slow pace of deterioration of carbon stocks.

Alternative 4) Avoidance of harvest activities / No conservation program

This alternative assumes the project sites remain the property of former landowners. No

acquisition by EBC occurs. This alternative assumes that no effort in land management is

required and relatively slow pace of deterioration of carbon stocks. There is however no legal

mechanism to protect the land and the forest cover. High value woodlots would be at risk of

being cut and various factors might become an incentive to harvest such as changing economic

situation, market pressures, growing wood stocks, etc.

3.2. Barriers assessment A barrier test is used to help identify barriers to any of the identified plausible baseline

scenarios. A barrier test is a common technique used to help justify the most realistic baseline

scenario; identified as the option which faces least significant barriers. Additionality of the

project GHG emission reductions is also demonstrated by this barrier test as the project scenario

is also considered as a plausible baseline and barriers are identified. Specifically, the test shows


that the selected baseline scenario (Alternative 3) faces minimal barriers and that substantial

revenues for landowners are not collected as about $6million worth of merchantable wood is

left on site.

Barriers Project Activity

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (selected)

Alternative 4

Financial Economic Barrier Discussions

Lost of recurring income for landowners. Additional expenses for Nature Reserves management

Involves important investments and could generate continuous revenue

Difficult to justify economically due to the relatively small size of sites

No barrier. Allows for recurring income.

Lost of recurring income for landowners.

Technology Operation, Maintenance and Disposal Barrier Discussions

No barrier Heavy machinery required for site preparation and on-going business

Heavy machinery required

No barrier No barrier

Legislative Barrier Discussions

Requires change of legal land status

Authorized on most sites

Often prohibited by county bylaws


Socio-cultural Barrier Discussions

No barrier No barrier Generally not well received


Environment Barrier Discussions

No barrier Largely benefits the environment

Would deteriorate fragile ecosystems

Would deteriorate fragile ecosystems

No barrier It reduces carbon stocks

No legal mechanism for the conservation of fragile ecosystems

Prevailing Practice Discussion

This is a whole new approach to land use.

Farming is the most important activity in the region

Occurring only on few sites

Widely used prevailing practice

Would require drastic change of mentality from landowners who usually freely harvest as the need/want.

Table 2: Barriers Assessment Table


3.3. Baseline harvesting level Typical harvest levels are identified on the three most frequently encountered forest types on

the EBC sites. These forest types refer to typical mix of forest stands. Harvest levels are inputs to

the baseline carbon dynamic model.

In the upland hardwood forests, forests have been

historically harvested on a diameter basis removing the

biggest and best quality trees from the site. Historically

these harvests occur between 7 to 15 year intervals

resulting in volumes ranging from 1000 to 2000 board

feet per acre on average.

In the lowland hardwood forests, woods

have also been harvested on a diameter limit

type harvest with an average harvest

rotation of 10 years. The average harvest will

remove approximately 3000 board feet per

acre. This is based on the initial harvest

removing 4000 board feet per acre.

In forests composed of mostly cedar and other conifers,

stands have been historically harvested to an 8 inch

diameter limit. This effectively is a commercial clear cut

as smaller trees have no commercial value. These types

of harvest generate an average 10 full cords per acre.

Once an area is harvested it will be approximately 60 -

70 years before there is another harvest available.

Based on the above information as well as discussions

with landowners and local foresters, a set of baseline

Figure 3 Typical upland hardwood forest

Figure 4 Typical lowland hardwood forest

Figure 5 Typical cedar forest


harvest perturbations was developed for each analysis unit (see sections 5.1 and 5.2 for

discussion on analysis units). Harvest perturbations are identified as “commercial thinning” of

either 45%, 40% or 15% of available merchantable wood stocks. These levels of commercial

thinning are considered conservative as most likely harvest scenario would in fact consider a

removal of all merchantable size wood. Levels of 15% to 45% are conservative.

These are presented in the below table for the three forest types discussed above. For the

duration of the project, a maximum of two harvests are considered. This is a conservative

approach knowing that landowners would often harvest as soon as merchantable size trees are

available. Probable time interval between subsequent cuts is also provided in the table.

Upland Hardwood Lowland Hardwood Cedar+Conifers

1st cut 2nd cut 1st cut 2nd cut 1st cut 2nd cut

Time interval

15 10 Only one thinning applies

% harvest 40% 15% 40% 15% 45% n/a Table 3: Planned harvest scenario (commercial thinning)

3.4. Baseline perturbations plan Because all properties were not acquired simultaneously, perturbations on each project site

would not all occur at the same time. Therefore, the commercial thinning events in each analysis

unit (see sections 5.1 and 5.2 for discussion on analysis units) must be adapted from the above

table to take into account that, in a given year, the harvest level applicable to the total analysis

unit area must be pro-rated with the proportion of the unit area on which thinning activities

actually occur. For example, if a 40% commercial thinning is planned on a project site

contributing to 10% of the total area of the analysis unit it belongs to, then this event would

contribute to an equivalent 4% (40%*10%) commercial thinning on the entire unit area. A

complete perturbation matrix showing the total level of perturbation applied yearly for all

analysis units is provided in Schedule 4. It is recommended to read on analysis units in the

General approach section and the Analysis units identification section of the Quantification and

Calculations chapter for a better understanding of the perturbation matrix.


4. Inventory of Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs (SSRs) of GHG for the

Project and Baseline The project physical boundaries are as described in the legal land description. Areas included in

the project boundaries are owned by EBC and are covered with forest, and they exclude any

open waters, grasslands and inoperable wetlands or peatlands.

Identification of the SSR’s is important for the consistent, transparent and accurate

representation of the carbon flux. The difference in change of carbon stocks of the identified

relevant SSRs is what allows for the calculation of GHG reductions and removals. To determine

the sources, sinks and reservoirs relevant to the project and baseline scenario, and whether they

must be included or excluded from the quantification, a systematic approach was used to meet

the requirements of ISO 14064-2. The decision tree from the ISO 14064-2 standard provides a

procedure to assist project proponents consider GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs.

In addition, the VCS-VM0012 Improved Forest Management in Temperate and Boreal Forests

(LtPF), v1.24 methodology is used for the basis of the quantification as well as the most relevant

guiding tool for the identification of SSRs. Note that all GHG SSRs to be considered are found

within the project boundaries as physically defined by the legal land description. Consistent with

the chosen methodology, no SSRs occurring upstream or downstream of the project/baseline

activities are considered. Again, consistent with this approach, no SSRs occurring before the

project start date or after the project operating period of 100 years are considered.

4.1. Carbon pools The table below shows the relevant pools of carbon (sinks and reservoirs) for both the baseline

and project scenario. From these SSRs, only CO2 is considered. It is stated whether or not they

are included in the quantification along with a consistent justification.

Carbon pool Included? Justification/Explanation

Above ground tree biomass

Yes Major carbon pool subject to changes from the baseline to the project scenario.

Aboveground Non-tree Biomass

No Minor carbon pool subject to changes from the baseline to the project scenario

Belowground Biomass Pool

Yes Live and dead belowground biomass. Major carbon pool subject to changes from the baseline to the project scenario.

Dead Wood Pool Yes Minor carbon pool subject to changes from the baseline to the project scenario. Dead snags, branches and stems before and after site activities

Litter Pool No Minor carbon pool – generally considered as a transitional

pool only. Litter is short-live and differences between the project and baseline are insignificant over time.

4 VCS-VM0012 Methodology, V1.2, http://database.v-c-s.org/methodologies/improved-forest-

management-temperate-and-boreal-forests-ltpf-v12


Soil Carbon Pool No Excluded for conservative approach, changes to soil carbon from harvesting are assumed to be de minimis.

Wood Products Poo

Yes Included in the baseline harvesting scenario as carbon stored in harvested wood products and emissions from decaying wood products

Table 4: Carbon pools (SSRs)

4.2. Other GHG sources The table below shows other GHG sources to be considered and whether or not they are

included in the quantification along with a consistent justification.

Sources Gas Included? Justification/Explanation

Use of Fertilizers CO2 CH4 N2O

No No No

Use of fertilizer is not anticipated for the project or the baseline scenario. These exclusions do not increase estimated GHG reductions.

Combustion of Fossil Fuels by Vehicles / Equipment

CO2 CH4 N2O

No No No

Considered optional by the methodology. The exclusion from the quantification is conservative. CH4 and N2O emissions from equipment are assumed to be de minimis. These exclusions do not increase estimated GHG reductions.

Burning of Biomass (on site slash burning)

CO2 CH4 N2O

No No No

Emissions from burning of biomass is not included in either scenario. However, carbon stock decreases due to biomass burning are accounted as a carbon stock change. These exclusions do not increase estimated GHG reductions.

Table 5: Other GHG sources (SSRs)


5. Quantification and Calculation of GHG Emissions/Removals The methodological approach to the quantification of GHG emissions and removals is based on

the VCS-VM0012 Improved Forest Management in Temperate and Boreal Forests (LtPF), v1.25

methodology. This methodology is most appropriate for this type of improved forest

management project implemented on separate fee simple private ownership lands located in a

similar region, ecological zone and forest condition. This methodology is deemed the most

suitable as it is applicable to the specific forest type (temperate and/or boreal), it allows for

aggregation of various polygons and/or project sites into analysis units of similar carbon

sequestration dynamic and allows foe conservative assumptions and deals with model and data

treatment errors with the application of an uncertainty factor. Other methodologies were

considered including the CAR Forest Project Protocol6, which was specifically designed for usage

within mainland United States of America, and the VCS VM0010 Methodology for Improved

Forest Management: Conversion from Logged to Protected Forest7 which is deemed less relevant

because it is not designed for the specific forest conditions found within the project boundaries.

The methodology is adapted to the project specific conditions, to suit the project timeline and

the data available for verification. These modifications are in line with the ISO 14064-2 principles

with a focus on not over-estimating the GHG reductions and removal with a conservative

mindset.

5.1. General approach The quantification involves a combination of forest carbon flux modeling tool and actual

measured data gathered from a representative network of sampling plots. The carbon modeling

tool used for this project is the operational-scale Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest

Sector (CBM-CFS3)8 developed for and used by Natural Resources Canada. “It is an aspatial,

stand and landscape-level modeling framework that simulates the dynamics of all forest carbon

stocks required under the Kyoto Protocol. It complies with the carbon estimation methods

outlined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Good Practice Guidance For

Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (2003) report.”

The modeling software (CBM-CFS3) is used to represent the carbon fluxes and stocks of the

various forest carbon pools (see details in the section on SSRs) over time. Modeling is performed

for both the baseline and project scenarios and for each analysis unit considered in the project.

All parameters should be kept identical between the project scenario and the baseline scenario,

with the exception of the disturbances. Disturbances are natural or human-led activities that

have an impact on forest carbon stocks such as wildfire, harvesting or other management


management-temperate-and-boreal-forests-ltpf-v12 6 Climate Action Reserve; Forest Project Protocol, available at:

http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/forest/ 7 VCS VM0010 Methodology, http://database.v-c-

s.org/sites/vcs.benfredaconsulting.com/files/VM0010%2C%20v1.2%2C%2027%20MAR%202013_1.pdf 8 Natural Resources Canada: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/climate-change/carbon-accounting/13107


activities. An analysis unit (often referred to as “polygon” in a forest project) is a homogeneous

unit area from the perspective of carbon storage and sequestration potential. In this project, it

aggregates various project sites characterized by a set of species with rather homogeneous

stand age and, in this case, similar planned harvest activities. This procedure is authorized by the

methodological approach being used as explained here In the case where a project area is large

and spans a diverse range of forest types and ages, the area may need to be stratified into

hundreds or even thousands of polygons. When the number of polygons is ≥ 25, the proponent

has the option of aggregating similar polygons into “analysis units” to facilitate modeling and

monitoring9.

All calculations in this methodology represent annualized net changes in carbon stocks by

analysis unit. Results from each analysis units must therefore be summed across the project

activity area to determine the annual total net emissions and reductions.

Ex-post calculations can only be performed once actual measurement of increased carbon

stocks are performed that can validate the models. Any significant deviation between actual

measurements and the model results is addressed by modifying the model to match the

measured carbon levels. Modification to the project scenario model must be replicated to the

baseline scenario to ensure consistency. This approach differs from the methodology which

rather suggests calculating an error factor which is a function of the extent of the deviation

between the measured levels and the modeled levels. The methodology requires to modify the

models only when the actual measured (from sampling) carbon stocks deviate so much from the

levels anticipated by the model. This approach is suitable when monitoring and verification

cycles are completed within a relatively short time span (e.g. <5 years). For this project, with the

firs verification occurring after a decade of on-going project activities, it is deemed more

appropriate to recalibrate the model and apply an error factor only for increased

conservativeness.

5.2. Analysis units identification (Polygons) As approved by the methodology, when the number of polygons is ≥ 25, the proponent has the

option of aggregating similar polygons into “analysis units” to facilitate modeling and

monitoring. Although the methodology allows for a different stratification between the baseline

and project scenarios, it is deemed more appropriate for accuracy and ease of implementation

purposes to identify the same analysis units for both scenarios. A total of nine (9) analysis units

have been identified which represent areas of similar forest cover, age class, carbon

sequestration dynamic and baseline harvesting activities. These nine analysis units are identified

primarily as per their predominant forest type and age class. Three forest types and three age

classes are identified as per forest evaluations and inventory information. The identification

process and name of each analysis unit is summarized in the matrix below.


management-temperate-and-boreal-forests-ltpf-v12


Regenerating young forest (age 10-30)

Growth phase adult tree (age 30-60)

Mature forest (age 60 and up)

Forest type Applied age: Applied age:30 Applied age:60 Species

Upland Hardwood

Analysis unit: UH-13



Hard Maple, Black Cherry, White Ash, Basswood, Beech and few conifers.

Lowland Hardwood Analysis unit:

LH-13 Analysis unit:

LH-30 Analysis unit:

LH-60

Soft Maple with Green Ash and Poplar and few conifers.

Cedar, other conifers

Analysis unit: CC-13



Mainly Cedar, Spruce, and other conifers

Table 6: Analysis Unit ID matrix

For this reporting period, all analysis units considered as “regenerating young forest” are

excluded from quantification. The combined total area of these analysis units is rather small and

the actual market value of the wood available on those parcels is insignificant. It is therefore

appropriate to exclude these for now as it is difficult to justify a baseline harvest activity on

these sites. The exclusion is conservative and realistic.

The average age of each analysis unit is an input to the model that has significant impact on the

model results (and hence, estimated GHG removals). Therefore, the applied value is

conservatively determined. The actual age applied to each analysis unit is the result of the

calibration process which uses on-site measurements to validate and/or fine tune the model

combined with conservative decision making. For example, if the actual measured volume

suggests an average age of 85 years as per the applied growth curve, a younger age is input into

the simulation (see section on Model Calibration).

5.3. Emission reductions calculation The annual net carbon emission reductions is the actual net GHG removals by sinks from the

project scenario minus the net GHG removals by sinks from the baseline scenario minus any

estimated leakage, on an annualized basis:

ERy = (ERy,GROSS - LEy) * ERy,ERR

where:

ERy = the net GHG emissions reductions and/or removals in year y (the overall annual carbon

change between the baseline and project scenarios) (t CO2e yr-1).

ERy,ERR = Uncertainty Factor applicable for every year of the reporting period, and calculated as

per the methodology (%). See section on uncertainty factor.


ERy,GROSS = the difference in the overall annual carbon change between the baseline and project

scenarios (t CO2e yr-1)

LEy = Leakage in year y (t CO2e yr-1)

AND

ERy,GROSS = (∆CBSL,t - ∆CPRJ,t) ● 44/12

Where,

∆CBSL,t = total net baseline scenario emissions (t C yr-1)

∆CPRJ,t = total net project scenario emissions (t C yr-1)

44/12 = factor to convert C to CO2e

5.4. Baseline carbon balance (from model) The total annual carbon balance in year “t” for the baseline is calculated as (∆CBSL,t in t C yr-1):

∆CBSL,t = ∆CBSL,P,t

where:

∆CBSL,P,t = annual change in carbon stocks in all pools in the baseline across the project activity

area; (t C yr-1 ).

∆CBSL,P,t = ∆CBSL,LB,t + ∆CBSL,DOM,t + ∆CBSl,HWP,t

where:

∆CBSL,LB,t = annual change in carbon stocks in live tree biomass (above and belowground); (t C yr-1)

∆CBSL,DOM,t = annual change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter; (t C yr-1)

∆CBSl,HWP,t = annual change in carbon stocks associated with harvested wood products, (t C yr-1)

All of the above mentioned are outputs from the modeling tool CBM-CFS3 run for each analysis

unit. Required inputs to the model are presented in the next section.

5.5. Wood product C dynamic The CBM-CFS3 software does compute a value and provides an output of total carbon

transferred to the wood product pool of carbon based on the inputs of harvesting activities and

parametrised with regional default value. But this value needs to be adapted to account for

further carbon fluxes from decaying products. As per the methodology, three types of HWP can

be determined and treated differently:


For short-term wood products and wood waste that would decay within 3 years, all

carbon must be assumed to be lost immediately.

For medium-term wood products that are retired between 3 and 100 years, a very

conservative assumption is made i.e. it is assumed that no carbon is released.

For long-term wood products that are considered permanent (ie, carbon is stored for

100 years or more), to be consistent with medium-term assumption, it is assumed no

carbon is released.

Therefore, to serve in equations of the previous section:

∆CBSl,HWP,t = CBSL,FP,t * ShL_FP

The same ratio of short-lived forest products is applied for every analysis unit as no species-

specific data is available for the project region. The value applied is therefore determined

conservatively.

5.6. Project carbon balance (from model) Net project emissions are calculated by repeating the procedures in Section 5.3 (Baseline

Emissions), using the same analysis units, data, and modeling. All modeling methods,

calculations, assumptions, and data sources are consistent in both the baseline and project

scenarios,( with the exception of ex-post monitoring data as outlined further in this report,

which applies solely to calibrate the model). The difference between the baseline and project

models is at the disturbance (harvest) levels.

The total annual carbon balance in year “t” for the project is calculated as (∆CPRJ,t in t C yr-1)

∆CPRJ,t = ∆CPRJ,P,t

where:

∆CPRJ,P,t is the annual change in carbon stocks in all pools in the project across the project activity

area; (t C yr-1 ).

∆CPRJ,P,t = ∆CPRJ,LB,t + ∆CPRJ,DOM,t + ∆CPRJ,HWP,t

∆CPRJ,LB,t = annual change in carbon stocks in live tree biomass (above - belowground); (t C yr-1)

∆CPRJ,DOM,t = annual change in carbon stocks in dead organic matter; t (C yr-1)

∆CPRJ,HWP,t = annual change in carbon stocks associated with harvested wood products, (t C yr-1).

No harvest perturbation is planned for the forest scenario. Hence ∆CPRJ,HWP,t = 0.

All of the above mentioned are outputs from the modeling tool CBM-CFS3 run for each analysis

unit. Required inputs to the model are presented in the next section.


5.7. Leakage Leakage is defined as any increase in GHG emissions, due to project activities, that occurs

outside the project boundary (but within the same country). It can be demonstrated that there

is no activity shifting leakage that would result from the project proponent or former landowner

moving their harvesting activities to another location. Harvesting/forestry is not a primary

economic activity of neither EBC or the landowners. It is legitimate to assume that none of these

parties would seek further opportunities to harvest wood outside the project boundaries.

Market leakage risk occurs when a project significantly reduces the production of a commodity

causing a change in the supply and market demand equilibrium that results in a shift of

production elsewhere to make up for the lost supply10.Market leakage is determined in

accordance with the methodology by applying the CAR Forest Protocol 3.2 market leakage

equation as in the figure below.

10 Defined as per VCS-VM0012 Methodology, V1.2, http://database.v-c-s.org/methodologies/improved-

forest-management-temperate-and-boreal-forests-ltpf-v12


Figure 6: CAR Forest Protocol, Leakage Equation

11

Leakage for each year (LEy) is determined as the annual net change in harvest volume between

the baseline and project scenario, in t CO2e, multiplied by 20% as per CAR’s Forest Protocol (see

above figure).

Actual amount of harvest is zero in the project activities (no harvest is planned nor occurred for

the reporting period). The baseline amount of carbon harvested in the baseline scenario is an

output from the model (CBSL,FP,t).

Hence;

LEy = CBSL,FP,t * 20%

11 See VCS methodology, Figure 1, page 42. VCS-VM0012 Methodology, V1.2, http://database.v-c-

s.org/methodologies/improved-forest-management-temperate-and-boreal-forests-ltpf-v12


5.8. Ex-Post Calculations of Carbon Stocks Carbon stocks must also be calculated from actual measurements obtained from a

representative network of sampling plots. Results of the calculations below are compared to the

modeled levels to establish the level of precision, modify the model when needed, and

determine the uncertainty factor applicable. For this purpose, only aboveground live biomass is

considered as no past or pre-project data of belowground biomass and dead organic matter

were available. It is therefore impossible to compare past and current actual levels for these

carbon pools. For the purpose of calibrating the model (see section on Model Calibration) and

computing the uncertainty factor (see section on Uncertainty Factor), comparison based on

aboveground live biomass is deemed sufficient.

Actual (ex post) annual net carbon stocks are calculated using the following equations.

CACTUAL,i,t = CLAGB,i,t

Where

CACTUAL,i,t = carbon stocks in all selected carbon pools in analysis unit, i, year, t; (t C)

CLAGB,i,t = carbon stocks in living tree aboveground biomass in analysis unit, i, year, t; (t C)

Actual measurement methods are described in the monitoring section. In summary, carbon

stocks are measured within a defined sampling area by counting trees, measuring height and

diameters at breast height (DBH), convert in tonnes of biomass per unit area (t/m2 or ha) with

volume to biomass equations.

CLAGB,i,t = BAG,i,t ● CF

where:

BAG,i,t = aboveground tree biomass (t d.m. ha-1) measured in analysis unit, i, year, t

CF = carbon fraction of dry matter (IPCC default value = 0.5)

For dead organic matter, composed primarily of standing (i.e. snag) and lying dead wood, it is

assumed, for practical and efficacy reasons, that if the model does well represent the reality and

match the calculated live biomass stocks, the model is likely to provide a fair representation of

the deadwood stocks also. The additional error introduced by this assumption is rather low or

de minimis.

5.9. Model Calibration The models used for the estimation of annual carbon stocks and stocks fluctuation by pool of

carbon are largely dependent on three main factors: applied growth curves, stand age and

perturbations. Perturbations are inputs affecting only the baseline scenario. Growth curves and

stand age are inputs that must remain the same for the baseline and the project scenario.


Although we do have good descriptions and data regarding stand species and composition of

each analysis units, the choice of which growth curve to use is not easy as many growth curves

for specific species or groups of species have empirically been developed for Southern Ontario

and often, various curves for a given species depending on “site class” (classification of sites

based on growth conditions/patterns). Hence, for all analysis units, the results in terms of

aboveground live biomass from a first simulation of the project scenario is compared with actual

on-site measurements of carbon stocks. For the chosen species, the actual variation of carbon

stocks from project start to 2017 is compared to the predicted level from the growth curve.

Wherever applicable, the use of a different growth curve from a less productive or a more

productive site class can be used to better represent the actual carbon dynamic. For example, if

over a 15 year period the observed/measured variation of carbon is 55 m3/ha but the chosen

growth curve predicts a 45m3/ha, a growth curve from a more productive site class might be

more appropriate.

Similarly, stand age can be adapted to better reflect the observed change in carbon stocks. It is

indeed difficult to precisely model the carbon dynamic of such uneven aged wood stands.

Hence, for a model where the age input was initially 75 years, it may be relevant, based on

measured level of carbon stocks, to run the model again with an older or younger stand age. For

example, if over a 15 year period the observed/measured variation of carbon is 55 m3/ha and it

is found that, on the chosen growth curve, this is the variation between age 60-75 but the

variation between age 75-90 is only 40m3, stand age can be reduced from 75 to 60 at project

initiation.

In all cases, conservative choices of growth curves and stand age are made. Even with

calibration, the model may results that deviate from reality. To deal with this uncertainty of the

model, an uncertainty factor is statistically determined and applied for conservatism.

5.10. Uncertainty Factor Both field data and modeling involve uncertainties: forest inventory/evaluation data, measured

carbon stocks, biomass growth rates, expansion factors, equations are all examples of where

error can be introduced. While attempting to be as accurate as possible and remaining

conservative wherever assumptions and/or judgment must be made, it has been decided to

account for uncertainty in the calculations, based on statistical deviation between measured

and predicted value of carbon stocks, and deduct a percentage of the estimated emissions

reductions/removals.

The uncertainty factor is determined as a function of the estimated project error (EP) which

corresponds to the sum of the error from the model (EM) in % and the error from the gathering

and treatment of field data or the inventory error (EI) in % too. EM and EI are respectively

determined as per the VCS methodology as follow.

EM = 100 • (∑ yd,h,i / ∑(APRJ,h • ym,h,i))

where:


The summation across all plot observations, i, and across all analysis units , h;

yd,h,i = APRJ,h • (ym,h,i - yp,h,i)

yd,h,i = the area-weighted difference between measured and predicted carbon storage in analysis

unit, h, plot observation, i (t C)

ym,h,i = carbon storage measured in analysis unit, h, plot observation, i (t C ha-1)

yp,h,i = carbon storage predicted by model for analysis unit , h, plot observation, i (t C ha-1)

APRJ,h = area of project analysis unit, h (ha)

EI = 100 • [SE * 1.654 / ((1/N) • ∑(APRJ,h • ym,h,i))]

Where,

EI = Inventory error for the project (%)

SE = the project level standard error of the area weighted differences between measured plot

observation and predicted values of carbon storage.

N = total number of plot observations in all analysis units.

1.654 = the 90% confidence interval t-value

SE = S/ √ N

Where,

N = total number of plot observations in all analysis units

S = the standard deviation of the area weighted differences between measured and predicted

values of carbon storage across all analysis unit or polygons.

S = √ [(1/ N– 1) • ∑(yd,h,i - ẏbar,d)2]

Where,

ẏbar,d = the project-level mean of the area weighted differences between measured plot

observation and predicted values of carbon storage.

EP = EM + EI

For determining the uncertainty factor to be applied for the reporting period:


Table 7: Uncertainty Factor Calculation

The uncertainty factor is calculated at each verification and applied annually until the next

verification.

5.11. Model inputs and parameters Most parameters used by the CMC-CFS3 software for simulation are default values for forests in

the Mixedwood plains region in the province of Ontario and applicable to the age classes

represented in the project boundaries. These values, developed by Natural Resources Canada,

are deemed appropriate for the project conditions and are the most reliable that could be

obtained at this time. More specific values would have required intensive and costly site

research which could put the viability of the project at risk.

Below are the inputs specific to the project or baseline scenario of this project.

Parameter Age class (mean tree age)

Unit years

Description Average tree age of the dominant trees in a analysis unit, i

Procedure Determined for each analysis unit from expert opinion of the most representative age class for the identified analysis unit (often broadly uneven aged). Conservative assumptions apply.

Value Variable for each analysis unit. See applied value in table 6.

Source Professional foresters opinion

Comment See additional information in the section on Model Calibration

Parameter Growth curves

Unit m3

Description Data sets. Pairs of data m3 of wood | year

Procedure Determined for each analysis unit for a specific dominant species or known group of species; based on Plonski’s tables (most widely used growth tables for Ontario forests/species). Conservative assumptions apply.

Value Variable for each analysis unit. See Schedule 5 for actual growth tables.

Source Plonski’s tables:


http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~fluckai/nytweb.html.

Comment See additional information in the section on Model Calibration

Parameter Perturbations

Unit n/a

Description Perturbations are harvesting events that are to be planned in the baseline scenario. They are input in terms of percentage of available volumes.

Procedure Determined for each analysis unit based on local common practices. Likely scenario is discussed and debated with local foresters. 1 or 2 commercial thinning are planned per site.

Value Variable for each analysis unit

Source Professional foresters opinion

Comment See Matrix of Perturbations in Schedule 4

Parameter Ri

Unit unitless

Description root:shoot ratio, means the ratio of biomass contained by the underground root network to the aboveground biomass. Specific to each analysis unit.

Procedure Obtained from litterature

Value Upland and lowland hardwood: 0.28 Cedar: 0.24

Source Michael A. Cairns á Sandra Brown.Eileen H. Helmer á Greg A. Baumgardner; Oecologia (1997) 111:1-11; Root biomass allocation in the world's upland forests

Comment

Parameter CF

Unit t C t-1 d.m.

Description Carbon fraction of dry matter

Procedure IPCC default value. Largely recognized and most widely used value worldwide for all woody material.

Value 0.5

Source IPCC 2006

Comment Prescribed by the methodology


Parameter ShL_FP

Unit %

Description Percentage or ratio of harvested wood transferred to the Forest Product pool that is “short-lived” (i.e. short-term wood products and wood waste that would decay within 3 years, all carbon must be assumed to be lost immediately)

Procedure Conservative assumption obtained from values of similar project in Canada and checked against the level of emissions from commercial pulp and paper product as compared with other harvested wood products.

Value 16%

Source Canada’s National Inventory Report 1990-201412 Darkwood Forest Project13

Comment Would include paper products, energy products and fast decaying product

12 National Inventory Report 1990-2014: Sources and sinks of greenhouse gas in Canada: Table 6-7,

available at: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/10116.php 13

http://vcsprojectdatabase.org/#/project_details/607


6. Monitoring the Data Information Management System and Data

Controls Monitoring is conducted on every project site to ensure that no perturbation, natural or from

human, occurs and affects the carbon pools in an unexpected way. If such perturbation would

come to happen a decision would be made to either account for this disturbance in the project

scenario or to retrieve the site from the project area. This situation has happened on one of the

land that is under agreement between EBC and a private landowner where unauthorized cutting

occurred. The decision then was to exclude the property from the project quantification

boundaries. Later, the decision was made to exclude all non fee simple owned properties to

minimize the risk for this kind of situation to happen.

Monitoring is also conducted in order to assess actual levels of carbon stocks on the protected

lands. These calculated carbon stocks are used in model calibration and to compute the

uncertainty factor.

6.1. Sampling plots Assessing the carbon levels is a task that of course cannot be performed on 100% of the project

area. A sampling network is established and allows to reasonably estimate the “per hectare”

biomass content in each analysis unit. A total of 14 sampling plots are established across the

project sites which, given the project total area, is a large numbers compared to similar projects

(i.e.: ratio of number of sampling plots / total area). Each plot is either 5 or 10 meters radius

depending on tree density. Each of the six analysis units considered in this reporting period is

covered with at least one sampling plot. Details of the sampling plots network and a detailed list

of the plots location is given in Schedule 2.

6.2. Live biomass measurement As noted in the Ex-post Calculation of carbon stocks section, only aboveground live biomass is

calculated from data obtained from field plot monitoring. Biomass carbon is measured from site

data. An example of sample datasheet is given in Schedule 3. All trees of more than 10cm in

diameter within the sampling plot are measured. Measurement of diameter at breast height

(DBH) is obtained from actual measurement of the circumference of the tree (at about 1.3m

high). Tree height is estimated using a clinometer to determine the angle from an observer’s

position to the tree top. Knowing the distance between the observer and the tree, one can

calculate tree height using trigonometric equations. [height from observer’s eyes to tree top =

the distance between tree and observer multiplied (*) by the tangent of measured angle: “H =

D* tan A”. Observer’s height at eyes level must be added].

Values of DBH and height can be converted to biomass with allometric equations. These

equations are specific to each species, developed empirically, and can use either only DBG as

input parameter or both DBH and height. In the case of this project, because height is only an

approximation which involves measurement error (mainly from the clinometer), it is deemed

appropriate to use the equations based only on DBH. Any error introduced by this procedure

would be accounted for in the calculation of the uncertainty factor (see section on Uncertainty


Factor). The allometric equations are from the Canadian national tree aboveground biomass

equations14 published by the Canadian journal of forest research. Equations used are the generic

equations for hardwood and softwood genus regardless of the species. This of course introduces

an error at the tree level, but is considered representative enough of the entire sampling plot,

and of the analysis unit by extension. Again, any error introduced by this procedure would be

accounted for in the calculation of the uncertainty factor (see section on Uncertainty Factor).

6.3. Monitored data Data DBH

Unit cm

Description Diameter of the tree at breast height. Value measured for each tree in all sampling plots.

Procedure Obtained from measurement of tree circumference at 1.3m high from ground.(DBH = Circ./π).

Monitoring frequency Once at the end of the monitoring/verification cycle

Data acquisition / Data handling Data is first recorded manually in the field on a sample data sheet by the person responsible for monitoring activities. It is rapidly transferred by the monitoring into a field electronic log (Excel File).

QA/QC Data transfer is double checked by a field monitoring assistant and/or the person responsible for quantification

Comment

Data height

Unit m

Description Height of the tree. Value measured for each tree in all sampling plots

Procedure Obtained from measurement of tree the angle at which the tree top is found from the observer’s standing point. Angle is obtained from a clinometer.

Monitoring frequency Once at the end of the monitoring/verification cycle

Data acquisition / Data handling Data is first recorded manually in the field on a sample data sheet by the person responsible for monitoring activities. It is rapidly transferred by the monitoring into a field electronic log (Excel File).

14 Canadian Journal of Forest Research, made available by Canadian Science Publishing;

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/x05-112#.WREFatIrLIV


QA/QC Clinometer is calibrated (zeroed) at sampling plot (once for all measurements in the plot)

Comment


7. Reporting and Verification Details This GHG Report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 and GHG CleanProjectsTM

requirements. It is the first reporting of GHG emission reductions and removals for this project.

A complete verification is provided by a competent, independent third party, in accordance with

ISO 14064-3.

Verification body is:

Pascal Geneviève

Lead verifier

General Manager

Carbon Consult Group Inc.

Of the 111 project sites eligible for this project, 81 are included in this report because

insufficient monitored data were available for the sites on Manitoulin Island. The lands included

totalize an area of 1989 hectares which excludes, as explained in this report, all wetland,

grassland, alvars, peat swamp and young regenerating forests.

Inputs to the model are presented in schedules to this report. Schedule 4 presents the

perturbation matrix applied to the baseline scenario model for each analysis unit. Schedule 5

presents the growth curves used in the model (choices of species, site class and stand age are

made conservatively as explained earlier in this report in relevant sections).

Outputs of the CBM-CFS3 model for each analysis unit and the quantification results are

presented in Schedule 6.

The calculation of the uncertainty factor as detailed in section 5.10 gives 11%. This uncertainty

factor is applied to compute GHG removals to obtain the number of VERRs. Calculation of the

uncertainty factor and the results are presented in Schedule 6 as well.


Schedules


Schedule 1 – EBC Properties included in the project

Name Municipality County/ District

Center latitude (°)

Center longitude (°)

Year Acquired

Area (ha)

10 Mile Point North East Manitoulin and the Islands

Manitoulin 45,88168 -81,85540 2007 6,07

Adams Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,20589 -81,57151 2009 15,78

Alvar Bay - Albrecht Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce

45,21970 -81,71079

2005 35,71

Alvar Bay - Hock Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 2003 25,09

Alvar Bay - Hock 2 Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 2005 40,47

Alvar Bay - Landsmann Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 2015 20,23

Alvar Bay - Ryckman Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 2005 20,23

Andrews White's Point North East Manitoulin and the Islands

Manitoulin 45,95314 -81,89398 2007 2,63

Bailey North East Manitoulin and the Islands

Manitoulin 45,92934 -82,06375 2007 2,21

Bailey Alvar Burpee Mills Manitoulin 45,82480 -82,66882 2003 20,23

Barney Lake Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce

45,21028 -81,67563

2002 121,41

Barney Lake - Hackney/Welsh

Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 2012 18,21

Begg Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,06913 -81,48791 2011 8,50

Berliner Misery Burpee Mills Manitoulin 45,79694 -82,70608 2013 10,12

Bidwell Bog North East Manitoulin and the Islands

Manitoulin 45,87836 -82,09617 2006 133,11

Bidwell Bog (2) North East Manitoulin and the Islands

Manitoulin 45,87580 -82,08557 2007 21,85

Bingaman North East Manitoulin and the Islands

Manitoulin 45,93492 -82,06501 2014 11,02

Book Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,20439 -81,57557 2015 3,55

Budd Tehkummah Manitoulin 45,58854 -82,00837 2015 35,61

Campbell Bros. Chatsworth Grey 44,42591 -80,88163 2004 4,05

Campbell et al Saugeen Shores Bruce 44,42105 -81,42876 2002 13,71

Capin Collingwood Simcoe 44,51745 -80,28924 2007 0,32

Carroll North East Manitoulin and the Islands

Manitoulin 45,92147 -82,08722 2004 10,12

Carter's Robertson Central Manitoulin Manitoulin 45,61397 -82,18077 2010 0,20

CAW Port Elgin Bruce 44,41746 -81,43913 2013 42,90

Cup (Corbiere) NEMI Manitoulin 45,84485 -82,10910

1999 121,41

Cup (Piet) NEMI Manitoulin 2000 19,02

Davis Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,21325 -81,70861 2001 1,87

Davison Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 44,99789 -81,36251 2012 17,40

Dewar (6) Central Manitoulin Manitoulin 45,64491 -82,24299 2009 32,78

Dewar 8 Central Manitoulin Manitoulin 45,64401 -82,23275 2013 42,90

Dewar shore 7 Central Manitoulin Manitoulin 45,64443 -82,23778 2005 38,04

Eagle's Nest Assiginac Manitoulin 45,70686 -81,87077 2006 40,47

Edwards Chatsworth Chatsworth Grey 44,45519 -80,90574 2015 14,16

Edwards Kemble Georgian Bluffs Grey 44,75652 -80,94140 2015 40,47

Farquharson Mulmur Dufferin 44,27364 -80,12017 2007 42,01


Schedule 1 – EBC properties included in the project (continued)




Year Acquired

Area (ha)

Fedy Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,08538 -81,48294 2004 39,66

Fossil Hill Assiginac Manitoulin 45,68007 -81,90082 2007 36,42

Foster Meaford Grey 44,57021 -80,82097 2016 20,23

Freer North East Manitoulin and the Islands

Manitoulin 45,95650 -82,05207 2005 87,82

Gallagher Burpee Mills Manitoulin 45,74736 -82,51408 2011 12,14

Ganz/Jones North East Manitoulin and the Islands

Manitoulin 45,92834 -82,07020 2012 40,47

Gosling Marsh Lake Burpee Mills Manitoulin 45,72747 -82,44905 2009 23,47

Green Point Robinson Manitoulin 45,79968 -82,91278 2005 27,92

Harkins Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,06047 -81,49021 2015 3,05

Harvey Clearview Simcoe 44,28532 -80,09468 2002 16,19

Heathcote Grey Highlands Grey 44,49469 -80,49137 2008 3,64

Hobson Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,20168 -81,69275 2015 38,04

Honora - Anderberg North East Manitoulin and the Islands

Manitoulin 45,92148 -82,08203 2008 10,12

Hoy Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 44,88440 -81,31729 2006 10,12

Ice Lake Allan, Gordon Manitoulin 45,86810 -82,40675 2008 10,12

Isaac Lake - Matura South Bruce Peninsula Bruce 44,77527 -81,24054 2006 1,42

Jackson Cove Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 44,94183 -81,12636 2002 12,99

Kimbercote Grey Highlands Grey 44,47704 -80,53395 2017 29,54

Kirk - Litz Georgian Bluffs Grey 44,58679 -81,01261 2003 70,58

Kirk - McNabb Georgian Bluffs Grey 44,58392 -81,01793 2002 11,13

Kritsch Grey Highlands Grey 44,49457 -80,49405 2015 2,43

Macdonald Minto Wellington 43,99641 -80,86150 2010 45,73

Mantec/Bates Clearview Simcoe 44,39166 -80,23640 2002 13,59

Martin Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,10424 -81,29997 2002 40,47

McKichan Hockley Dufferin 43,96803 -80,06885 2011 2,50

McLaughlin Alvar Central Manitoulin Manitoulin 45,77654 -82,39930 2007 9,31

McSporran Brockton Bruce 44,26131 -81,20729 2007 23,47

Meyer Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,20272 -81,69590 2006 20,23

Miller Georgian Bluffs Grey 44,69221 -81,05347 2016 102,79

Mills Georgian Bluffs Grey 44,55196 -81,03492 2013 30,35

Misery 25 Burpee Mills Manitoulin 45,80620 -82,70099 2009 10,12

Misery 2nd 25 Burpee Mills Manitoulin 45,79696 -82,70869 2011 10,12

Misery 50 Burpee Mills Manitoulin 45,78789 -82,70532 2009 20,23

Nicol's Gully Owen Sound Grey 44,56700 -80,96611 2001 7,08

Nordin Grey Highlands Grey 44,21805 -80,59593 2008 13,05

Ottewell Amabel South Bruce Peninsula Bruce 44,69997 -81,21647 2016 80,94

Ottewell Ashfield Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh

Huron 43,86654 -81,65104 2016 40,47


Schedule 1 – EBC properties included in the project (continued)




Year Acquired

Area (ha)

Peabody Kemble Georgian Bluffs Grey 44,71946 -80,90899 2014 34,30

Pentengore Kelly Kincardine Bruce 44,16282 -81,63456 2009 0,53

Pfleugl Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 44,84852 -81,32457 2017 16,75

Plue Southgate Grey 44,07070 -80,51938 2004 40,06

Plue 2 Southgate Grey 44,07259 -80,51490 2006 29,46

Ralph Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,18897 -81,62013 2014 8,09

Red Deer Village Wallace Mine Manitoulin 46,10995 -81,78128 2008 17,47

Rumbold Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,01685 -81,34211 2010 7,69

Sadler Creek Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,07255 -81,45450 2004 441,92

Sauble River Chatsworth Grey 44,41018 -81,09301 2007 13,68

Saugeen Hanover - Ward

Hanover/Brockton Grey/Bruce 44,14883 -81,04079 2008 14,33

Schulz Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,11981 -81,30522 2005 1,82

Silver Grey Highlands Grey 44,43903 -80,59306 2017 48,56

Simmons Caledon Peel 43,87263 -79,87693 2006 20,66

Sinkhole West Grey Grey 44,33892 -80,68635 2007 9,31

Skeoch Grey Highlands Grey 44,46530 -80,39620 2015 27,67

Springer Georgian Bluffs Grey 44,48720 -80,95297 2005 20,23

Stephens Clearview Simcoe 44,30412 -80,01508 2016 41,48

Stokes Bay - Kucharczyk Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,02025 -81,42356 2005 20,23

Stokes Bay - Libby Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,00991 -81,36980

2005 10,95

Stokes Bay - Libby2 Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 2009 10,32

Stokes Bay - Potts Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,01059 -81,39928 2003 40,47

Stoot West Grey Grey 44,22533 -81,01143 2016 17,00

Sucker Creek - Infante Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 44,85056 -81,31559 2005 39,66

Sucker Creek - Peabody Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 44,83106 -81,31631 2008 20,03

Thomson, John South Bruce Peninsula Bruce 44,81425 -81,07259 2014 0,24

Thornton West Grey Grey 44,19736 -80,80137 2014 29,95

Tobermory/Stead Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,24185 -81,67147 2005 21,04

Tomboulian Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 44,94330 -81,17878 2004 20,23

Turner Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,04569 -81,46152 2012 52,61

Uffen South Bruce Peninsula Bruce 44,70299 -81,27384 2012 0,30

Van der Ploeg Georgian Bluffs Grey 44,69055 -80,98501 2006 29,54

Vansickle Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,18582 -81,33545 1998 5,06

Waisberg Meaford Grey 44,56778 -80,74264 2014 46,65

Watts Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh

Huron 43,76869 -81,71852 2017 12,95

Westenberg South Bruce Bruce 44,45446 -81,26867 2016 78,10

White Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,13914 -81,50843 2004 40,47

Williams Northern Bruce Peninsula Bruce 45,22440 -81,69240 2006 93,08


Schedule 2 – Sampling plots details Plot ID Property Analysis unit Latitude (°) Longitude(°)

P01 Simmons CC-30 43,87446 -79,87618

P02 Simmons UH-30 43,87350 -79,87824

P03 Simmons CC-30 43,87460 -79,87711

P04 Plue 2 LH-60 44,07314 -80,51360

P05 Nordin CC-30 44,21916 -80,59743

P06 Williams CC-60 45,22208 -81,69906

P07 Barney Lake CC-30 45,21369 -81,67480

P08 Adams UH-60 45,20841 -81,56947

P09 Adams CC-60 45,20320 -81,57491

P10 White CC-30 45,13069 -81,51726

P11 Sadler Creek CC-30 45,08298 -81,42984

P12 Kirk - Litz LH-30 44,58486 -81,01843

P13 Campbell Bros. UH-60 44,42662 -80,88163

P14 Farquharson UH-60 44,27345 -80,12157


Schedule 3 – Sample Datasheet


Schedule 4 – Matrix of Perturbations See the below two tables for perturbations applied to every analysis unit.

The below figure shows the “real” perturbations as planned for the baseline scenario vs. the “for

model” perturbations, which are the perturbations actually used when running the model. The

difference comes from the impossibility to generate perturbation events of less than 10%

thinning within the software. Therefore, real perturbations are summed, year after year, until an

equivalent minimum 10% thinning is obtained and applied to that year. This is conservative as it

postpones in time an actual thinning event and reduces calculated increase of carbon stocks

from forest regeneration.

Year Project

year real for model real for model real for model

1998 0 0% 0% 0%

1999 1 0% 0% 0%

2000 2 0% 0% 0%

2001 3 0% 0% 0%

2002 4 8% 10% 4% 8%

2003 5 0% 16% 20% 3% 10%

2004 6 11% 10% 9% 23%

2005 7 10% 10% 1% 10% 3% 25%

2006 8 4% 2% 5%

2007 9 2% 0% 1%

2008 10 1% 1% 1%

2009 11 0% 0% 0%

2010 12 0% 0% 0%

2011 13 0% 0% 0%

2012 14 2% 2% 1%

2013 15 1% 10% 10% 1% 10%

2014 16 0% 4% 20% 0%

2015 17 1% 2% 0%

2016 18 0% 1% 0%

TOTAL 40% 40% 52% 50% 45% 45%

AU: UH-30 AU: LH-30 AU: CC-30

Sum of PERTURBATIONS


Year Project

year real for model real for model real for model

1998 0 0% 0% 0%

1999 1 0% 0% 0%

2000 2 0% 0% 0%

2001 3 1% 0% 0%

2002 4 0% 0% 0%

2003 5 0% 0% 1%

2004 6 0% 0% 0%

2005 7 2% 3% 5%

2006 8 4% 0% 5% 10%

2007 9 0% 3% 0%

2008 10 0% 1% 1%

2009 11 1% 0% 1%

2010 12 3% 10% 0% 2%

2011 13 0% 0% 0%

2012 14 3% 0% 3%

2013 15 0% 2% 2% 10%

2014 16 3% 3% 10% 4%

2015 17 8% 15% 1% 7% 10%

2016 18 14% 15% 28% 30% 12% 15%

TOTAL 40% 40% 41% 40% 45% 45%

AU: UH-60 AU: LH-60 AU: CC-60

Sum of PERTURBATIONS


Schedule 5 – Growth tables/curves Growth curves used are simple Plonski’s tables. Tolerant hardwoods table is used for both

Upland and Lowland hardwood analysis units. Growth curve of Site class 2 was used for both

groups of analysis units.

For the cedar and conifers analysis units, table for spruce is used. This is an appropriate

substitution as suggested by Natural Resources Canada15. Growth curve of Site class 1A was first

used and then, at calibration, site class 1 was shown to better represent the observed carbon

dynamic.

15 Canada’s Forest Biomass Resources: Deriving Estimates from Canada’s Forest Inventory; Table 3.

Available at, http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/4775.pdf


Gross

Merch.

Volume

Age

(m3)

(yrs)

0 05 0

10 015 020 0

25 3

30 14

35 28

40 42

45 56

50 70

55 84

60 97

65 109

70 121

75 132

80 142

85 152

90 162

95 170

100 178

105 185

110 191

115 197

120 202

125 206

130 210

135 214

140 217

145 220

150 223

155 226

160 228

165 230

170 232

175 234

180 236

185 237

190 238

TOLERANT HARDWOODS


Age Gross

(yrs) Merc.

0 0

5 0

10 0

15 0

20 0

25 0

30 0

35 23

40 40

45 58

50 75

55 93

60 111

65 128

70 146

75 163

80 179

85 195

90 210

95 225

100 238

105 250

110 261

115 271

120 279

125 285

130 289

135 292

140 294

145 295

150 296

SPRUCE Volume (m3/ha)

Main Stand


Schedule 6 – Model outputs and quantification results

UH-30 UH-30 total area (ha) 205

total Bsl

(t C/ha)

total Prj

(t C/ha) (t CO2)

Leakage

(t CO2)

Net

(t CO2)

year HWP Biomasse DOM HWP ∆CBSL,P,t Biomasse DOM HWP ∆CPRJ,P,t ERy,GROSS LEy ERy

1998 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -

1999 1 0.000 1.356 -0.778 0.000 0.579 1.356 -0.778 0.000 0.579 0.000 0.000 -

2000 2 0.000 1.383 -0.727 0.000 0.656 1.383 -0.727 0.000 0.656 0.000 0.000 -

2001 3 0.000 1.406 -0.679 0.000 0.727 1.406 -0.679 0.000 0.727 0.000 0.000 -

2002 4 0.843 -0.818 0.702 0.708 0.592 1.427 -0.634 0.000 0.793 -151.108 126.669 (24)

2003 5 0.000 1.454 -0.846 0.000 0.609 1.444 -0.590 0.000 0.854 -184.174 0.000 (184)

2004 6 0.900 -0.835 0.576 0.756 0.496 1.459 -0.549 0.000 0.910 -310.969 135.232 (176)

2005 7 0.884 -0.736 0.334 0.743 0.340 1.470 -0.510 0.000 0.961 -466.511 132.885 (334)

2006 8 0.000 1.508 -1.097 0.000 0.410 1.479 -0.472 0.000 1.007 -448.225 0.000 (448)

2007 9 0.000 1.511 -0.974 0.000 0.538 1.485 -0.437 0.000 1.048 -383.583 0.000 (384)

2008 10 0.000 1.512 -0.869 0.000 0.643 1.487 -0.403 0.000 1.084 -332.137 0.000 (332)

2009 11 0.000 1.510 -0.780 0.000 0.730 1.487 -0.370 0.000 1.116 -290.561 0.000 (291)

2010 12 0.000 1.505 -0.703 0.000 0.802 1.483 -0.340 0.000 1.143 -256.487 0.000 (256)

2011 13 0.000 1.501 -0.643 0.000 0.858 1.481 -0.319 0.000 1.162 -228.184 0.000 (228)

2012 14 0.000 1.312 -0.594 0.000 0.718 1.295 -0.303 0.000 0.992 -206.256 0.000 (206)

2013 15 1.505 -1.821 1.014 1.264 0.457 1.287 -0.281 0.000 1.006 -412.409 226.270 (186)

2014 16 0.000 1.303 -0.799 0.000 0.504 1.279 -0.260 0.000 1.020 -387.498 0.000 (387)

2015 17 0.000 1.294 -0.713 0.000 0.581 1.272 -0.238 0.000 1.033 -339.987 0.000 (340)

2016 18 0.000 1.286 -0.640 0.000 0.647 1.265 -0.217 0.000 1.047 -301.284 0.000 (301)

INCREMENT on a per Hectar basis

Δ Carbone Baseline

(tonne C / ha)

Δ Carbone Projet

(tonne C / ha)


LH-30 LH-30 total area (ha) 154

total Bsl

(t C/ha)

total Prj

(t C/ha) (t CO2)

Leakage

(t CO2)

Net

(t CO2)


1998 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -

1999 1 0.000 1.259 -0.994 0.000 0.265 1.259 -0.994 0.000 0.265 0.000 0.000 -

2000 2 0.000 1.310 -0.936 0.000 0.373 1.310 -0.936 0.000 0.373 0.000 0.000 -

2001 3 0.000 1.357 -0.880 0.000 0.477 1.357 -0.880 0.000 0.477 0.000 0.000 -

2002 4 0.000 1.402 -0.825 0.000 0.576 1.402 -0.825 0.000 0.576 0.000 0.000 -

2003 5 2.020 -1.889 0.862 1.697 0.669 1.800 -0.768 0.000 1.032 -204.671 228.093 23

2004 6 0.000 1.785 -1.075 0.000 0.710 1.758 -0.706 0.000 1.052 -193.313 0.000 (193)

2005 7 1.004 -0.076 -0.137 0.844 0.631 1.728 -0.645 0.000 1.084 -255.495 113.419 (142)

2006 8 0.000 1.735 -1.029 0.000 0.705 1.701 -0.590 0.000 1.111 -229.111 0.000 (229)

2007 9 0.000 1.707 -0.912 0.000 0.795 1.677 -0.541 0.000 1.136 -192.878 0.000 (193)

2008 10 0.000 1.682 -0.814 0.000 0.867 1.655 -0.496 0.000 1.159 -164.908 0.000 (165)

2009 11 0.000 1.659 -0.731 0.000 0.927 1.634 -0.454 0.000 1.181 -142.942 0.000 (143)

2010 12 0.000 1.638 -0.659 0.000 0.979 1.616 -0.415 0.000 1.201 -125.421 0.000 (125)

2011 13 0.000 1.618 -0.595 0.000 1.023 1.598 -0.378 0.000 1.220 -111.228 0.000 (111)

2012 14 0.000 1.601 -0.538 0.000 1.062 1.582 -0.343 0.000 1.239 -99.583 0.000 (100)

2013 15 0.000 1.584 -0.487 0.000 1.097 1.567 -0.310 0.000 1.257 -89.918 0.000 (90)

2014 16 3.485 -4.557 2.105 2.928 0.475 1.553 -0.278 0.000 1.274 -451.084 393.622 (57)

2015 17 0.000 1.576 -0.947 0.000 0.630 1.539 -0.248 0.000 1.291 -373.406 0.000 (373)

2016 18 0.000 1.561 -0.820 0.000 0.741 1.526 -0.219 0.000 1.307 -320.041 0.000 (320)


Δ Carbone Baseline

(tonne C / ha)

Δ Carbone Projet

(tonne C / ha)


CC-30 CC-30 total area (ha) 664

total Bsl

(t C/ha)

total Prj

(t C/ha) (t CO2)

Leakage

(t CO2)

Net

(t CO2)


1998 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -

1999 1 0.000 1.169 -0.836 0.000 0.333 1.169 -0.836 0.000 0.333 0.000 0.000 -

2000 2 0.000 1.204 -0.792 0.000 0.413 1.204 -0.792 0.000 0.413 0.000 0.000 -

2001 3 0.000 1.237 -0.749 0.000 0.489 1.237 -0.749 0.000 0.489 0.000 0.000 -

2002 4 0.000 1.268 -0.708 0.000 0.561 1.268 -0.708 0.000 0.561 0.000 0.000 -

2003 5 0.713 -0.129 0.389 0.599 0.859 1.873 -0.645 0.000 1.228 -897.297 347.032 (550)

2004 6 0.000 1.563 -0.787 0.000 0.776 1.563 -0.586 0.000 0.976 -488.232 0.000 (488)

2005 7 1.886 -3.859 2.072 1.585 -0.203 1.504 -0.554 0.000 0.949 -2804.905 918.564 (1,886)

2006 8 0.000 1.454 -1.209 0.000 0.245 1.454 -0.526 0.000 0.929 -1664.220 0.000 (1,664)

2007 9 0.000 1.412 -1.075 0.000 0.337 1.412 -0.500 0.000 0.913 -1400.960 0.000 (1,401)

2008 10 0.000 1.376 -0.967 0.000 0.409 1.376 -0.476 0.000 0.900 -1196.101 0.000 (1,196)

2009 11 0.000 1.422 -0.877 0.000 0.545 1.422 -0.452 0.000 0.970 -1033.361 0.000 (1,033)

2010 12 0.000 1.390 -0.799 0.000 0.591 1.390 -0.429 0.000 0.962 -901.946 0.000 (902)

2011 13 0.000 1.362 -0.733 0.000 0.629 1.362 -0.406 0.000 0.955 -794.588 0.000 (795)

2012 14 0.000 1.336 -0.675 0.000 0.661 1.336 -0.385 0.000 0.951 -705.661 0.000 (706)

2013 15 1.226 -1.422 0.584 1.030 0.192 1.313 -0.365 0.000 0.948 -1839.048 597.183 (1,242)

2014 16 0.000 1.221 -0.814 0.000 0.406 1.221 -0.347 0.000 0.874 -1137.779 0.000 (1,138)

2015 17 0.000 1.203 -0.738 0.000 0.465 1.203 -0.330 0.000 0.873 -993.052 0.000 (993)

2016 18 0.000 1.187 -0.673 0.000 0.514 1.187 -0.313 0.000 0.874 -876.192 0.000 (876)


Δ Carbone Baseline

(tonne C / ha)

Δ Carbone Projet

(tonne C / ha)


UH-60 UH-60 total area (ha) 191

total Bsl

(t C/ha)

total Prj

(t C/ha) (t CO2)

Leakage

(t CO2)

Net

(t CO2)


1998 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -

1999 1 0.000 1.023 0.011 0.000 1.034 1.023 0.011 0.000 1.034 0.000 0.000 -

2000 2 0.000 1.020 0.023 0.000 1.043 1.020 0.023 0.000 1.043 0.000 0.000 -

2001 3 0.000 1.017 0.035 0.000 1.052 1.017 0.035 0.000 1.052 0.000 0.000 -

2002 4 0.000 1.013 0.048 0.000 1.061 1.013 0.048 0.000 1.061 0.000 0.000 -

2003 5 0.000 1.010 0.060 0.000 1.071 1.010 0.060 0.000 1.071 0.000 0.000 -

2004 6 0.000 1.007 0.073 0.000 1.080 1.007 0.073 0.000 1.080 0.000 0.000 -

2005 7 0.000 1.004 0.085 0.000 1.089 1.004 0.085 0.000 1.089 0.000 0.000 -

2006 8 0.000 1.001 0.097 0.000 1.098 1.001 0.097 0.000 1.098 0.000 0.000 -

2007 9 0.000 0.998 0.109 0.000 1.107 0.998 0.109 0.000 1.107 0.000 0.000 -

2008 10 0.000 0.995 0.121 0.000 1.116 0.995 0.121 0.000 1.116 0.000 0.000 -

2009 11 0.000 0.910 0.131 0.000 1.041 0.910 0.131 0.000 1.041 0.000 0.000 -

2010 12 3.704 -5.707 2.919 3.111 0.324 0.908 0.140 0.000 1.048 -507.030 518.795 12

2011 13 0.000 0.910 -0.380 0.000 0.530 0.906 0.149 0.000 1.055 -367.322 0.000 (367)

2012 14 0.000 0.908 -0.299 0.000 0.609 0.903 0.159 0.000 1.062 -317.240 0.000 (317)

2013 15 0.000 0.906 -0.232 0.000 0.674 0.901 0.168 0.000 1.069 -276.743 0.000 (277)

2014 16 0.000 0.822 -0.177 0.000 0.645 0.817 0.176 0.000 0.993 -243.916 0.000 (244)

2015 17 5.425 -8.809 3.884 4.557 -0.368 0.816 0.183 0.000 0.998 -957.129 759.831 (197)

2016 18 4.689 -7.550 2.685 3.939 -0.925 0.814 0.190 0.000 1.004 -1351.092 656.793 (694)


Δ Carbone Baseline

(tonne C / ha)

Δ Carbone Projet

(tonne C / ha)


LH-60 LH-60 total area (ha) 162

total Bsl

(t C/ha)

total Prj

(t C/ha) (t CO2)

Leakage

(t CO2)

Net

(t CO2)


1998 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -

1999 1 0.000 1.207 0.067 0.000 1.274 1.207 0.067 0.000 1.274 0.000 0.000 -

2000 2 0.000 1.202 0.081 0.000 1.283 1.202 0.081 0.000 1.283 0.000 0.000 -

2001 3 0.000 1.197 0.095 0.000 1.292 1.197 0.095 0.000 1.292 0.000 0.000 -

2002 4 0.000 1.192 0.110 0.000 1.302 1.192 0.110 0.000 1.302 0.000 0.000 -

2003 5 0.000 1.187 0.124 0.000 1.311 1.187 0.124 0.000 1.311 0.000 0.000 -

2004 6 0.000 1.183 0.138 0.000 1.321 1.183 0.138 0.000 1.321 0.000 0.000 -

2005 7 0.000 1.178 0.152 0.000 1.330 1.178 0.152 0.000 1.330 0.000 0.000 -

2006 8 0.000 1.174 0.166 0.000 1.340 1.174 0.166 0.000 1.340 0.000 0.000 -

2007 9 0.000 1.170 0.180 0.000 1.349 1.170 0.180 0.000 1.349 0.000 0.000 -

2008 10 0.000 1.165 0.193 0.000 1.359 1.165 0.193 0.000 1.359 0.000 0.000 -

2009 11 0.000 1.065 0.205 0.000 1.269 1.065 0.205 0.000 1.269 0.000 0.000 -

2010 12 0.000 1.061 0.215 0.000 1.276 1.061 0.215 0.000 1.276 0.000 0.000 -

2011 13 0.000 1.058 0.225 0.000 1.283 1.058 0.225 0.000 1.283 0.000 0.000 -

2012 14 0.000 1.055 0.235 0.000 1.290 1.055 0.235 0.000 1.290 0.000 0.000 -

2013 15 0.000 1.052 0.245 0.000 1.297 1.052 0.245 0.000 1.297 0.000 0.000 -

2014 16 4.344 -6.264 2.985 3.649 0.370 0.953 0.254 0.000 1.207 -497.439 516.027 19

2015 17 0.000 0.956 -0.301 0.000 0.655 0.951 0.261 0.000 1.212 -331.099 0.000 (331)

2016 18 12.072 -19.310 7.476 10.141 -1.694 0.948 0.269 0.000 1.217 -1729.103 1434.213 (295)


Δ Carbone Baseline

(tonne C / ha)

Δ Carbone Projet

(tonne C / ha)


CC-60 CC-60 total area (ha) 609

total Bsl

(t C/ha)

total Prj

(t C/ha) (t CO2)

Leakage

(t CO2)

Net

(t CO2)


1998 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -

1999 1 0.000 1.040 -0.112 0.000 0.928 1.040 -0.112 0.000 0.928 0.000 0.000 -

2000 2 0.000 1.032 -0.099 0.000 0.933 1.032 -0.099 0.000 0.933 0.000 0.000 -

2001 3 0.000 1.025 -0.087 0.000 0.938 1.025 -0.087 0.000 0.938 0.000 0.000 -

2002 4 0.000 1.018 -0.076 0.000 0.943 1.018 -0.076 0.000 0.943 0.000 0.000 -

2003 5 0.000 1.011 -0.064 0.000 0.948 1.011 -0.064 0.000 0.948 0.000 0.000 -

2004 6 0.000 1.064 -0.051 0.000 1.012 1.064 -0.051 0.000 1.012 0.000 0.000 -

2005 7 0.000 1.057 -0.039 0.000 1.018 1.057 -0.039 0.000 1.018 0.000 0.000 -

2006 8 3.116 -5.028 2.392 2.618 -0.018 1.050 -0.026 0.000 1.024 -2324.997 1391.823 (933)

2007 9 0.000 1.044 -0.438 0.000 0.605 1.044 -0.014 0.000 1.029 -946.247 0.000 (946)

2008 10 0.000 1.037 -0.365 0.000 0.672 1.037 -0.003 0.000 1.034 -809.860 0.000 (810)

2009 11 0.000 0.974 -0.306 0.000 0.668 0.974 0.008 0.000 0.982 -701.002 0.000 (701)

2010 12 0.000 0.969 -0.256 0.000 0.712 0.969 0.018 0.000 0.987 -612.811 0.000 (613)

2011 13 0.000 0.964 -0.214 0.000 0.749 0.964 0.028 0.000 0.991 -540.454 0.000 (540)

2012 14 0.000 0.959 -0.177 0.000 0.781 0.959 0.038 0.000 0.996 -480.290 0.000 (480)

2013 15 3.256 -5.216 2.231 2.735 -0.250 0.954 0.047 0.000 1.001 -2793.456 1453.911 (1,340)

2014 16 0.000 0.893 -0.536 0.000 0.357 0.893 0.056 0.000 0.950 -1322.799 0.000 (1,323)

2015 17 3.050 -4.848 1.734 2.562 -0.552 0.889 0.065 0.000 0.954 -3362.923 1361.960 (2,001)

2016 18 4.204 -6.994 2.206 3.531 -1.257 0.885 0.073 0.000 0.958 -4945.398 1877.301 (3,068)


Δ Carbone Baseline

(tonne C / ha)

Δ Carbone Projet

(tonne C / ha)


Calculation of Uncertainty Factor


Quantification summary

The value of the uncertainty factor is multiplied by the yearly calculated Emission Reductions to get VERRs.

UH-30 LH-30 CC-30 UH-60 LH-60 CC-60 TOTAL VERRs

year t CO2 t CO2 t CO2 t CO2 t CO2 t CO2 t CO2

1998 0 - - - - - - - -

1999 1 - - - - - - - -

2000 2 - - - - - - - -

2001 3 - - - - - - - -

2002 4 (24) - - - - - (24) 21

2003 5 (184) 23 (550) - - - (711) 632

2004 6 (176) (193) (488) - - - (857) 762

2005 7 (334) (142) (1,886) - - - (2,362) 2,102

2006 8 (448) (229) (1,664) - - (933) (3,275) 2,914

2007 9 (384) (193) (1,401) - - (946) (2,924) 2,602

2008 10 (332) (165) (1,196) - - (810) (2,503) 2,227

2009 11 (291) (143) (1,033) - - (701) (2,168) 1,929

2010 12 (256) (125) (902) 12 - (613) (1,885) 1,677

2011 13 (228) (111) (795) (367) - (540) (2,042) 1,817

2012 14 (206) (100) (706) (317) - (480) (1,809) 1,610

2013 15 (186) (90) (1,242) (277) - (1,340) (3,134) 2,789

2014 16 (387) (57) (1,138) (244) 19 (1,323) (3,131) 2,786

2015 17 (340) (373) (993) (197) (331) (2,001) (4,236) 3,769

2016 18 (301) (320) (876) (694) (295) (3,068) (5,555) 4,943

(36,615) 32,580

Niagara Escarpment Forest Carbon Project (NEFCP) · Niagara Escarpment forest carbon project...

Documents

Transcript of Niagara Escarpment Forest Carbon Project (NEFCP) · Niagara Escarpment forest carbon project...