1

John Gunn, Ph.D.Senior Program Leader

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences

Brunswick, Maine

26 February 200804/10/23 1

Minnesota North Woods Carbon Partnership: Cass and Aitkin County Land Departments Case Study

2

Project IntentUnderstand the implications of Forest Carbon

Offset Markets for managed forests in MinnesotaCreate a structure to evaluate forest carbon

stocks under existing Forest Carbon Offset Standards

Evaluate Potential of Payments for other Ecosystem Services in the North Woods

Today – present results for Aitkin and Cass County Land Department Forest Carbon Analysis under the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS)

3

Carbon offset market landscapeMarkets & Registries (Regulatory and

Voluntary)Standards, Protocols, & RulesPrimary Pathways Relevant to North

American forest owners:Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS)

04/10/23 3

4

Basic Elements of the Major Forest Carbon Offset Standards

Standard Baseline Additionality Permanence

CCX Base Year =Growth – Harvest 15 years

VCS 5-10 Years Prior

Practices Permanent

CCAR Regulatory Practices Perm. Easement

04/10/23 4

5

6

CCX (a) vs. VCS (b) Additionality

=“improved” forest management category

7

Process1. VCS

a) Derive VCS Baseline (BAU) from ACLD/CCLD Tactical Plans, and harvest and inventory data

b) Work with LDs to determine where opportunities exist for “improved forest management (IFM)” practices

c) Model impacts of management changes on carbon stocks

d) Calculate eligible carbon: Alternate IFM minus BAU residual carbon stocks

7

8

Process2. CCX

a) Evaluate growth models and inventory protocols (against CCX requirements) used to generate Baseline data and net growth calculations for CCX scenario

b) Determine eligible CO2e volume (above ground and live below ground net change converted to CO2 equivalent) in forest stands over time

8

9

“Improved” Forest Management Options Extended rotation lengths (10-15 years)

Increase average stand age on landscapeEnhances structural complexity (larger and more

debris associated with harvesting)Reduces frequency of harvesting emissions

through disturbanceFuels reduction to minimize risk of catastrophic fireReduced Impact Logging

Minimize soil disturbance through shifting more harvests to frozen conditions

Minimize damage to residual stand (reduce mortality, maintain vigor)

9

10

Management Options (cont.)

Create Late-Successional/Old-Growth reservesOr reserves with other objectives

Increase stand-level retention practices (residual BA)Patches or dispersed live trees (Legacies)Dead standing, CWDIncreased riparian buffer widths

Reduce acreage of higher intensity silvicultural practices 10

1111

12

BAU and Alternate Harvest Intensity Summary CCLD Harvest Intensity Summary (% of total annual harvest) 2008-2018

Harvest Intensity BAU Alternate High 59% 51%

Medium 29% 29%

Low 12% 20% ACLD Harvest Intensity Summary (% of total annual harvest)

Historical 2008-2018

Harvest Intensity 1999-2007 BAU Alternate High 44% 56% 43%

Medium 17% 7% 10%

Low 38% 37% 47%

13

BAU and Alternate Residual Basal Area (RBA) Following Treatment (ft.2 per acre) Treatment Intensity Class Treatment Type Mean BAU RBA Alternate RBA

High Clearcut (RBA 0-19) 8 10

Med Partial Harvest (RBA 20-49) 34 34

Low Select/Thin (RBA 50+) 79 79

14

FVS Carbon ModuleCarbon Submodel of the Fire

and Fuels ExtensionLake States Variant (individual

tree model) – approved by CCXCSA GIS Inventory Data from

CCLD and ACLD (used subset of 30% of total acreage in models)

Uses accepted forest carbon assumptions (Smith et al. 2006, Jenkins et al. 2003)

15

FVS Fuels and Fire Extension – Carbon SubmodelStand Carbon Stocks are calculated and reported

for:Total aboveground live CBelowground live CStanding Dead CDown Dead CForest Floor CHerbs and Shrubs CTotal Removed C

Disposition of Carbon in Harvested Wood Products

16

Eligible PoolsCategory Carbon PoolAbove Ground: Living

Tree biomass

Shrubs and Herbaceous Understory

Above Ground:Dead

Standing Dead Coarse and Fine Woody MaterialLitter

Below Ground Soil organic

Live RootsOff-site Wood

Products04/10/23 16

17

Total Metric Tons of Carbon (aboveground and belowground live) for Aitkin and Cass County Land Departments

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

MT

C ACLD (Total MTC)CCLD (Total MTC)

Mean Net Annual Change:

ACLD = -63,717 MTC

CCLD = -97,052 MTC

18

Summary of Annual Residual Live Carbon (aboveground and belowground) in BAU vs. Alternate (ALT) Harvest Scenarios

County

BAU Residual Live Carbon Biomass (MTC)

ALT Residual Live Carbon Biomass (MTC)

VCS Eligible Carbon ALT – BAU (MTC)

ACLD 43,846

50,016 6,169 (~1.6 MTC/ac./year)

CCLD 45,262

51,947 6,685(~1.5 MTC/ac./year)

19

Eligible Carbon SummaryCounty CCX Eligible

MTCO2e (annual)

CCX Potential Revenue (annual)$2.00/MTCO2e

ACLD Eligible MTCO2e (annual)

ACLD Potential Revenue (annual)$4.00 - $6.00/MTCO2e

CCLD -97,052 MTC or -355,889 MTCO2e

NA 6,685 MTC – or 24,516 MTCO2e

$98,064 – $147,096

ACLD -63,717 MTC or -233,650 MTCO2e

NA 6,169 MTC – or 22,624 MTCO2e

$90,496 - $135,744

NOTE: 1 MT Carbon =3.667 MTCO2 equivalent (MTCO2e)Source: US EPA

20

Notes on Results - CCXArea Regulation (harvest target acres instead

of target volume) for Desired Future Condition perhaps not suited for Base Year approach

Once age classes become more regulated, might be more opportunities for credit

21

Notes on Results - VCSImpact of modifying Residual Basal Area was

minimalThe harvest intensity shift was conservative – but

we now have a spreadsheet calculator tool to evaluate other scenarios

Carbon stocks within expected range (e.g., Smith et al. 2006)

ACLD and CCLD already practicing FSC-certified management – not much room to alter current practices

VCS is considering standards-based methodologies for IFM

22

Next StepsEvaluate Product Fate and Economic Impacts

of Forgone HarvestRefine Harvest Intensity Carbon

Calculator for broader useFinal Report to discuss:

LeakagePermanence ImplicationsPeatland Conservation Carbon ImplicationsEcosystem Services Scoping (e.g., water,

recreation)

23

AcknowledgementsBlandin FoundationMark Jacobs, Norm Moody, Beth Jacqmain,

Josh StevensonDovetail Partners – Katie FernholzDavid Saah, Ph.D., Univ. of San Francisco