verification assessment report for: fred m. van eck · pdf fileverification assessment report...

C-74 CAR Verif Report Tmpl 06Jul11

Verification Assessment Report for:

Fred M. Van Eck Forest Foundation for Purdue

University in

San Francisco, California

Assessed by:

65 Millet St. Suite 201 Richmond, VT 05477 USA

Tel: 802-434-5491 Fax: 802-434-3116

www.rainforest-alliance.org

Carbon Forestry Project Audit Managed by:

United States Regional Office

19 Bridge Square Northfield, MN 55057

Tel: 507-663-1115 Fax: 507-663-7771

Contact Person: Lawson Henderson Email: [email protected]

Report Finalized: January 14, 2014 Audit Dates: December 17 - 18, 2013 Lead Auditor: Lawson Henderson Audit Team Member(s): Robert Turner

Audit Standard: CAR Forest Project Protocol Version 2.1 Reporting Period: January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012 Verification Code(s): RA- VER-CAR-019467 Project Latitude/Longitude:

40.96347 -124.06022

Project Proponent Contact: Jon Remucal

Project Proponent Address:

1001A O'Reilly Avenue San Francisco, CA 94129 USA

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/


Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3

1.1 Objective ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Scope and Criteria ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Level of assurance ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

2 Audit Methodology ................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Audit Team ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Description of the Audit Process .......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Review of Documents ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Interviews .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

3 Verification Opinion .............................................................................................. 8 APPENDIX A: Field Audit Findings for Conservation-Based Forest Management Projects 9 1 Required Verification Elements ............................................................................ 9

1.1 Review and Confirm Entity Eligibility (Entity only)............................................................................................................ 9 1.2 General Verification Elements (Entities and Projects) ......................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Inventory Projections of Entity Baseline (Entity only) ......................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Basic Review of Forest Carbon Inventory Documentation (Entities and Projects) ............................................................ 10 1.5 Forest Project Eligibility and Baseline/Activity Characterizations (Projects only) ............................................................ 12 1.6 Inventory Projections of Project Activity and Project Baseline (Projects only) ................................................................. 13 1.7 Calculating C Stock Change, Emissions and Emissions Reductions (Entities and Projects) ............................................. 14 1.8 Leakage Review and Calculation (Projects only) ............................................................................................................... 15

2 Required Documentation ..................................................................................... 17 2.1 Attestation of title................................................................................................................................................................ 17 2.2 Attestation of Regulatory compliance................................................................................................................................. 17 2.3 Attestation of Voluntary Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Forest Project Annual Monitoring Report .......................................................................................................................... 18 2.5 Forest Non-Biological Emissions Calculation Workbook .................................................................................................. 18 2.6 Entity Level Annual Carbon Stock Report ......................................................................................................................... 18

3 CAR Forest Project Requirements ....................................................................... 18 3.1 Eligible Project Type .......................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................................................................. 19 3.3 Project Ownership ............................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.4 Native Forest and Natural Forest Management .................................................................................................................. 19 3.5 Project Start Date and Reporting Period ............................................................................................................................. 19 3.6 Project Baseline Qualitative Characterization .................................................................................................................... 20 3.7 Additionality ....................................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.8 Permanence ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.9 Required and Optional Carbon Pools.................................................................................................................................. 21 3.10 Leakage Assessment ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 3.11 Annual Monitoring and Reporting of Carbons Stocks ...................................................................................................... 21

4 Review of Project’s Emission Reduction and Removal Quantifications ............ 21 4.1 Inventory Verification ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 4.2 Calculation of Project’s Emission Reductions and Removals ............................................................................................ 22 4.3 Application of the Confidence Deduction .......................................................................................................................... 22 4.4 Reporting of Non-Biological Emissions ............................................................................................................................. 22

APPENDIX B: Organization Details .......................................................................... 23 Contacts ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 23


1 Introduction The Rainforest Alliance’s SmartWood program was founded in 1989 to certify forestry practices conforming to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards and now focuses on providing a variety of forest auditing services. In addition to being an ANSI ISO 14065:2007 accredited validation and verification body, Rainforest Alliance SmartWood program is also a member of the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) standards, and an approved verification body with a number of other forest carbon project standards. For a complete list of the services provided by Rainforest Alliance see http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/climate.cfm?id=international_standards. Dispute resolution: If Rainforest Alliance clients encounter organizations or individuals having concerns or comments about Rainforest Alliance / SmartWood and our services, these parties are strongly encouraged to contact the SmartWood program headquarters directly.

1.1 Objective The purpose of this report is to document the conformance of the Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) with the requirements of the Climate Action Reserve (CAR). The project was developed by the Fred M. Van Eck Forest Foundation for Purdue University, hereafter referred to as “Project Proponent”. The report presents the findings of qualified Rainforest Alliance auditors who have evaluated the Project Proponent’s systems and performance against the applicable standard(s).

1.2 Scope and Criteria Scope: The scope of the audit is to assess the conformance of the Van Eck Forest Conservation Based Forest Management Project in Arcata, California USA against the Climate Action Reserve Forest Project Protocol Version 2.1. The objectives of this audit included an assessment of the project’s conformance with the standard criteria. In addition, the audit assessed the project with respect to the baseline scenarios presented for the Project. The project covers an area of 2,167 acres (877 hectares). The land is privately owned. The project has a lifetime of at least 100 years, and has calculated a GHG reduction and/or removal of 35,260 tCO2e over the course of the monitoring period. Standard criteria: Criteria from the following documents were used to assess this project: Climate Action Reserve Forest Project Protocol v 2.1 (September 6, 2007) Climate Action Reserve Forest Sector Protocol v 2.1 (September 6, 2007) Climate Action Reserve Forest Verification Protocol v 2.0 (May 2007) Climate Action Reserve General Reporting Protocol v 3.1 (January 2009) Climate Action Reserve General Verification Protocol v 3.0 (August 2008) Climate Action Reserve Program Manual (October 26, 2011) Climate Action Reserve Verification Program Manual (December 20, 2010)

Materiality: All GHG sinks, sources and/or reservoirs (SSRs) and GHG emissions equal to or greater than 3% of the total GHG assertion unless otherwise defined by the standard criteria.

1.3 Project Description The Van Eck Forest Project is based on a Foundation-owned property just north of Arcata in Humboldt County, California. The project is defined as a Conservation-Based Forest Management Project according to the Forest Project Protocol Version 2.1. The Project was initiated in on May, 31, 2001, which represents that date in which the property's conservation easement was recorded and has already completed six verifications under the Climate Action Reserve (CAR). The most recent verification was for the 2011 project stocks and was completed in December 2012. The Project covers 2,167 acres (877 hectares) of coastal redwood-Douglas fir forest with minor Monterey pine, Sitka spruce and alder components. The average board foot volume was 39.6 MBF/acre at the start of 2011, with an average carbon stocking of approximately 87 metric tons C/acre for all pools registered with CAR (standing live tree and standing dead tree). The project activity is based on forest management that will increase timber and carbon stocking on the site by harvesting timber at a rate that is less than the timber growth rate, with a goal of increasing overall timber stocking on the project site toward 100 MBF/acre over the project lifetime. In 2012, silvicultural treatments were performed on approximately 110 acres. Sampling for and updating of the carbon inventory for the project took place in April of 2013.

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/forestry/smartwood/index.html

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/climate.cfm?id=international_standards


1.4 Level of assurance

The assessment was conducted to provide a reasonable level of assurance of conformance against the defined audit criteria and materiality thresholds within the audit scope. Based on the audit findings, a positive evaluation statement reasonably assures that the project GHG assertion is materially correct and is a fair representation of the GHG data and information.

1.5 Findings Throughout the verification, findings were recorded by the audit team as per verification guidance outlined in the CAR Forest Project Protocol and supporting documents. Any nonconformances were identified by the audit team were documented as a Non-conformity Reports (NCRs), and non-material issues identified were recorded as Observations and submitted to the Project Proponent. Prior to verification, all identified NCRs are required to be addressed, and additional evidence is required to be submitted to the audit team as evidence of conformance. All identified NCRs and Observations are recorded in a separate annex to this report titled “List of Findings”. As per the Reserve requirements, this annex is a confidential document, and is not publically available. This annex was shared with the Project Proponent, the Rainforest Alliance audit team, and the Reserve. 2 Audit Methodology

2.1 Audit Team

Overview of roles and responsibilities:

Auditor(s)

Responsibilities

Lead Desk Review

On-site visit

Climate Specialist

Biodiversity Specialist

Social Specialist Report

Senior Internal Review

Lawson Henderson Robert Turner Janice O’Brien (Senior Internal Reviewer)

Auditor qualifications: Auditor(s) Qualifications Lawson Henderson Carbon Coordinator with Rainforest Alliance. Education: B.S.F. in forest

management from University of New Hampshire, 2005. Experience, Forest Management Associate with SmartWood, US Region (2008 to 2012). Chain of Custody Associate with SmartWood, US Region (2007-2008). Forest Land Surveyor for a private forest/civil engineering firm in Western Oregon for two years. Auditor on more than 20 FSC forest management and chain of custody audits and assessments. Lead auditor or auditor on 14 forest carbon projects. Project manager on over 250 forest management and chain-of-custody projects. Completed Rainforest Alliance CoC Auditor Training in April 2008, Rainforest Alliance Carbon Verification and Validation Audit Training in March 2009, and Rainforest Alliance Lead Forest Management Auditor Training in June 2009. Attended the Climate Action Reserve Lead Verifier Training for the Forest Project, and Urban Forest Project Protocol in September 2010. Completed the ISO Quality Management Systems Lead Auditor Training Course (ISO 9001) in December 2010. ARB Lead Verifier credentials obtained in October 2012. Member of the Society of American Foresters.

Robert Turner Robert brings over 20 years of experience in forest management consulting. The bulk of this experience is with larger landowners and spans a broad range of technical and analytical services, often related to forest inventory and management planning, mensuration, growth and yield modeling, financial modeling, information and decision support systems, and spatial analysis. Robert’s work has included participation in numerous FCS assessments and


audits (as a representative of the landowner). Auditor on 8 carbon projects with both the CAR & VCS standards. ARB Lead Verifier credentials obtained in October 2012. He has performed carbon feasibility analyses for clients, evaluated the technical feasibility of changes to RGGI IFM rules, and is currently working on a regional wood supply model for the four Northern Forest states in New England. Robert has a MS in Forest Management from the University of Vermont and a BS in Finance.

Janice O’Brien (Senior Internal Reviewer) Janice has a Master's Degree in Forest Conservation from the University of Toronto and has been with Rainforest Alliance for 5 years. Janice acts as both the Canadian Verification and Chain of Custody Coordinator. She has project managed multiple Carbon methodology assessments, pre-validations, and validation projects in Canada, has completed a training program in GHG Accounting for Forests and participated as an auditor in 3 Carbon Pre-Assessments, and 2 Carbon Validation Projects. Janice is qualified as a CAR & ARB Lead Verifier. She has coordinated approximately 800 Chain of Custody audits and assessments, conducted approximately 25 assessments/audits, and participated in 1 Forest Management Audit. Prior to joining Rainforest Alliance she worked in operational and financial risk management for 13 years.

2.2 Description of the Audit Process

On October 30, 2013 Rainforest Alliance (RA) was selected as the Verification Body for the CAR Verification of the 2012 emission reductions for the Van Eck Forest Project. The Reserve's NOVA/COI was then submitted to CAR for review and approval on November 1, 2013 and approval to proceed with verification activities was given by the Reserve on November 5, 2013. At the onset of the verification process, RA submitted a pre-field document checklist to the Project Proponent that outlined the requested documentation to be reviewed during the audit process. The Project Proponent compiled the requested information and made the materials available to the RA auditors on December 2, 2013. The auditors began to review the project documentation in preparation for an opening meeting "kick off" call that was held with the Project Proponent and supporting staff on December 6, 2013. In the opening meeting call the auditors preliminary questions were discussed, and the logistics of the field visit worked out. The verification field visit was scheduled for December 17-18, 2013, and following the opening meeting call, the auditors submitted to the Project Proponent an audit/sample plan for the verification. An opening meeting for the verification field visit was held in Arcata, CA on the evening of December 16, 2013 in which the specific plans and approach to the site visit were discussed. The field work began on December 17, 2013 during which the auditors visited two out of the four parcels that make up the Project Area. The auditors assessed the boundaries of the Project Area, measured 7 forest inventory plots, and confirmed the Project Proponent's implementation of the forest inventory procedures. Additional time was held in the office (BBW and Associates) where questions were answered, and the auditors were given a demonstration of the Project's modelling and approach to carbon calculations. On December 18, 2013 the auditors toured a third (out of four) parcel of the Project Area and measured another three forest inventory plots. Following the field visit, the auditors analysed the data collected in the field for comparison against the Project's forest inventory data. A closing meeting was also held on December 18, 2013 in which the auditors presented their preliminary findings to the Project Proponent and discussed the next steps. On January 3, 2014 the draft verification report was submitted to the Project Proponent for review and approval. On January 6, 2014, the Project Proponent responded to the draft report with some minor comments that were addressed by the auditors. With all of the Project Proponents comments on the draft report addressed, the report was approved by the Project Proponent and was submitted for Senior Internal Review with Rainforest Alliance. Once the Senior Internal Review was complete and the verification report finalized, it was submitted to the Reserve for final approval.

Location/Facility Date(s) Length of Audit

Auditor(s)

Rainforest Alliance Richmond, VT Office, R.J December 5-16, 1.5 days Lawson Henderson, Robert Turner


Turner Company Bristol, VT Office 2013 Van Eck Forest, Arcata, CA December 17-

18, 2013 2 days Lawson Henderson, Robert Turner

Rainforest Alliance Richmond, VT Office, R.J Turner Company Bristol, VT Office

December 23 – 31, 2013

1.5 days Lawson Henderson, Robert Turner

Remote Location January 14, 2014

1.0 day Janice O’Brien

2.3 Review of Documents

The following documents were viewed as a part of the field audit: Ref Title, Author(s), Version, Date Electronic Filename 1 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) 2012 Carbon Stocks

Summary Worksheet, Pacific Forest Trust, November 2013

2012 C Stocks Summary vECA submit.xslx

2 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) 2012 Notice of Timber Operations, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, August 2012

2012 van Eck NTO #20 complete.pdf

3 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) Forest Management Plan (2007 – 2016, Pacific Forest Trust, October 2007

CA_07_to_16_Plan_complete.pdf

4 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) CAR Project Submittal form, Pacific Forest Trust, September 5, 2007

CAR101-Project Submittal Form.pdf

5 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) 2010 Forest Inventory and Carbon Stock Summary, Pacific Forest Trust, November 27, 2013

Carbon Stocks Summary 2010 vECA_112713.pdf

6 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) Sampling Error Worksheet, Pacific Forest Trust, November 27, 2013

Combined SE van Eck submit_2013_1127.xlsx

7 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) Foundation Trust Instrument, Pacific Forest Trust, May 9, 2001

Forest Foundation Trust Instrument (B0855720).pdf

8 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) FPS Eligibility Memo, CAR

FPS_in_Version_2_1_3_5_102.pdf

9 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) 1996 Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, September 5, 1996

NTMP 1996.pdf

10 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan 1999 Amendment, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, June 17, 1999

NTMP Amend 1999.pdf

11 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan 2000 Amendment, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, April 19, 2000

NTMP Amend 2000.pdf

12 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) Recorded Conservation Easement, Pacific Forest Trust, May 31, 2001

Recorded Van Eck Easement.pdf

13 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) 2007 – 2012 Sampling Methodology Summary, Pacific Forest Trust, 2012

Sampling Methodology Summary 2007-2012.pdf

14 Sampling Techniques for Forest Resource Inventory, Shiver & Boarders, 1996

Shiver&Boarders_1996.pdf

15 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) 2012 Annual Monitoring Report, Pacific Forest Trust, November 14, 2013

vanEck_2012_Annual_Monitoring_Report.pdf

16 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) 2012 Attestation of vanEck_2012_Attestation-Regulatory-


Regulatory Compliance, Van Eck Forest Foundation, November 21, 2013

Compliance.pdf

17 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) 2012 Attestation of Title, Van Eck Forest Foundation, November 21, 2013

vanEck_2012_Attestation-Title.pdf

19 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) 2012 Attestation of Voluntary Implementation, Van Eck Forest Foundation, November 21, 2013

vanEck_2012_Attestation-Voluntary-Implementation.pdf

20 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) Evidence Delivery Document, Pacific Forest Trust, November 2013

vanEck_2012_Delivery_Document_for_Evidence.xlsx

21 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) 2012 Entity Level Annual Carbon Stock Report, Pacific Forest Trust, November 2013

vanEck_2012Entity-Level_Annual-Carbon-Stock_Rpt.pdf

22 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) Project Summary Worksheet (Annex C), Pacific Forest Trust, November 2013

vanEck_AnnexC_2013_1115.pdf

23 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) Recorded Easement Amendment, Pacific Forest Trust, December 4, 2007

vanEck_CA_recorded_ammend_2007.pdf

24 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) Shape Files, Pacific Forest Trust, November 2013

vanEck_CA_shapefiles_2012.zip (28 files)

25 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) 2012 Non-Biological Reporting Workbook, Pacific Forest Trust, November 2012

VanEck_Forestry Non-Biological Reporting Workbook-PAB_2012.pdf

26 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) Initial Leakage Assessment, Pacific Forest Trust, December 2007

vanEck_InitialLeakAssess_12_07.pdf

27 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) 2012 Inventory Data, Pacific Forest Trust, November 2013

vECA_2012_Inventory.zip (2 files)

28 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) Management Structure, Pacific Forest Trust, November 2013

vFFF Mgmt Structure 2012.pdf

29 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) Organizational Chart, Pacific Forest Trust, November 2013

vFFF_OrgChart.pdf

30 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) Per Acre Plot Carbon Worksheet, Pacific Forest Trust, December 2013

Per Acre Plot Carbon vECA2012.xlsx

31 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) 2012 Carbon Stocks Summary with Integers, Pacific Forest Trust, January 6, 2014

2012 C Stocks Summary vECA submit_integers.xls

32 Van Eck Forest Project (CAR101) 2012 Carbon Stocks Summary Document, Pacific Forest Trust, January 6, 2014

Carbon Stocks Summary 2012 vECA_010614.pdf

2.4 Interviews

The following is a list of the people interviewed as part of the audit. The interviewees included those people directly, and in some cases indirectly, involved and/or affected by the project activities. Audit Date Name Title December 6, 2013 Jon Remucal Pacific Forest Trust December 6, 17-18, 2013 Matt Fehrenbacher Trout Mountain Forestry December 6, 17-18, 2013 Bill Wilkinson BBW and Associates, Pacific Forest Trust December 6, 17-18, 2013 Greg Blomstrom BBW and Associates December 17 – 18, 2013 Paul Harper BBW and Associates December 18, 2013 Jared Gerstein BBW and Associates


3 Verification Opinion During the verification process, the Rainforest Alliance audit team has gathered evidence to evaluate the project design, the project implementation, and assess the accuracy of the GHG assertion associated with the reporting period. Prior to the issuance of a positive verification opinion, any identified material errors, omissions or misstatements are required to be corrected by the Project Proponent. Following the assessment of the project documents and supporting materials, the Rainforest Alliance audit team has gathered sufficient evidence to determine with a reasonable level of assurance that:

The project is in conformance with the requirements of the Climate Action Reserve Forest Project Protocol and supporting documents.

The project is not in conformance with the requirements of the Climate Action Reserve Forest Project Protocol and supporting documents.

The Rainforest Alliance has verified the Project Proponent GHG assertion of:

35,260 tCO2e for the reporting period of January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012.

The GHG assertion is divided into the following vintages:

Vintage Year

Total CRTs (tCO2e)

Total CRTs issued (tCO2e)

Conformance with Reserve Software

Conformance with Reserve Program

Documents

2012 35,260 35,260 Yes No Yes No


APPENDIX A: Field Audit Findings for Conservation-Based Forest Management Projects Note: Findings presented in this section are specific to the findings resulting from the field audit as presented in the Draft Audit Report. Any nonconformances or observations identified during the field audit are noted in this section, and specific NCR and OBS tables are included in the “List of Findings”, Annex B of this report for each identified nonconformance and observations. All findings related to audit team review of additional evidence submitted by the Project Proponent following the issuance of the Draft Audit Report by Rainforest Alliance, are included within the “List of Findings”.

1 Required Verification Elements

1.1 Review and Confirm Entity Eligibility (Entity only) Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The auditors confirmed that the Van Eck Forest Foundation is an eligible Entity for the registration of a forest project with CAR. The Entity owns over 100 acres of commercial forestlands, and is the sole owner of the Project Area. Aggregation of the Project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) data by equity share or management control is not applicable since the Van Eck Forest Foundation is the only owner of the Project Area and associated emission reductions generated by the Project. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

1.2 General Verification Elements (Entities and Projects) Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 No non-biological emissions have been identified at the Entity (or project) level. This is appropriate given that the Project and the Entity are the same. The Van Eck Forest is the only forestlands in California owned by the Van Eck Forest Foundation. The property is managed to increase carbon storage, restore biodiversity and old growth qualities, provide habitat for endangered species, and generate a sustainable supply of timber. The Van Eck Forest Foundation only owns forestland, does not lease any equipment, office space, or any other non-biological emission sources, nor does it have any employees. The auditors confirmed that the Projects biological emission reductions for the reporting period being verified (2012) have been entered into the Reserve’s software and are accurate. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

1.3 Inventory Projections of Entity Baseline (Entity only)

Descriptions of future management practices are a part of developing a projection of inventory stocks. Entity projections are optional, but strongly encouraged. If entity projections are reported they must be verified. The description of anticipated future management practices for entities shall be reviewed if an entity projection is provided. Since project baseline projections are not optional and are based, in part on policy prescriptions, a description and separate analysis of project baselines must be reviewed (See Table 2.5). NOTE: Adjusting a forest entity inventory projection or baseline. An entity’s inventory projection and/or baseline should be adjusted if any of the following actions, or combination of actions, occur and change the entity’s annually reported total C stocks by +/- 10%. The actions that will trigger an entity baseline adjustment include (Forest Sector Protocol Section V.C):

• Structural Changes in Your Organization • Shifting of Emissions Sources • Catastrophic Event • Implementation of improved carbon measurement technique • Inaccurate growth assumptions • Changes in management practices

To complete a review of this adjustment you should also review any historical baseline projections as well as new adjustments to fully understand the progression of activities.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The Van Eck Forest is the only forestlands in California owned by the Van Eck Forest Foundation and the Project is the same as the Entity. See associated findings in sections 1.5, 1.6, and 3.6 regarding the Project baseline. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None


1.4 Basic Review of Forest Carbon Inventory Documentation (Entities and Projects)

A: Identifying Potential Emission Sources/Carbon Pools The first step in conducting the verification activities is to identify potential GHG emission sources. This requires you to review a forest entity’s geographic, organizational, and operational boundaries to assess if the California Registry’s required carbon pools have been correctly identified and included in the biological inventory.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 1.4.A.1 Summary and Ownership Maps Within the project documentation provided various maps display

information such as the Project Area boundaries, soils, watercourses, roads, topography, forest vegetation (stratification) etc. A clear description of the Entity and the project activities is included in the project summary document, and other supporting documentation. As confirmed through interviews with project staff, there have been no structural changes within the Entity over the reporting period that have impacted the Project. Upon review of the project boundary data over aerial photography, the verifiers note a small number of discrepancies; for example, where project boundaries appear to extend into adjacent lots. The Summary document details the effort invested in refining boundaries, but it is not clear whether the boundaries are wrong or if the aerial photo is mis-registered. See OBS 01/13. The Project Area is reported as 2,167 acres, and this area checks with GIS data provided. In other documents (doc# 1, doc #6), the acres appear to be adjusted for non-forest area, yet no description or evidence for the approximate 67-acre difference is offered. See OBS 02/13. The Auditors also note that in the Summary document, Table 5 shows the “Ownership Total” acres as 2101.7. Compared to other references, it appears this number was not adjusted for the removal of 2.5 acres from the project area that occurred in 2012. See OBS 03/13.

1.4.A.2 Description of General Forest Conditions The documentation provided to the auditors includes sufficient information on the general forest conditions of the Van Eck Forest. The forest management plan (2007 - 2016) includes an overview of the property, and sections detailing; stand descriptions, forest inventory, harvest scheduling, silvicultural operations, riparian management, roads, and risk management. The documented descriptions of the forest conditions for the Van Eck property are consistent with on-site observations made by the auditors during the site visit.

1.4.A.3 Planning Documents Forest Management of the Van Eck Forest is covered in the Forest Management Plan provided (2007 – 2016). With respect to forest inventory planning, details are outlined in the Van Eck sampling methodology summary (2007-2012) and in the 2012 Project Summary document. The sampling methodology provides adequate guidance for inventory implementation, and implementation of the forest inventory methods by project staff was observed in the field. The Project Proponent has assigned Bill Wilkinson of BBW and Associates as the qualified individual with the responsibility to oversee the project’s direct sampling (RPF #2463), and submission of the annual monitoring report to CAR is to be completed by Jon Ramucal of Pacific forest Trust.

Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS OBS 01/13, OBS 02/13, OBS 03/13


B: Measurement Methodologies and Management Systems After you have confirmed the scope and comprehensiveness of the forest entity or project’s biological inventory you must review the sampling methodologies and techniques, calculation methodologies, growth projection models, and GHG management systems used to report their GHG activity to the California Registry.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 1.4.B.1 Vegetation Typing Methodology The rules and procedures for vegetation typing are described in the

management plan and inventory documents. The Van Eck forest is dominated by California Redwood and Douglas Fir types (roughly 75% of the volume), which simplifies the vegetation typing. Stand size and density rules are also provided and harvested stands receive new types appropriate to their residual stocking. Both aerial review of the site and field evidence confirm the appropriateness and application of the typing assignments. There have been no significant changes to ownership boundaries in 2012. The Summary document (#5) states Vegetation typing was updated for all stands in 2012. In the database provided (document #27), DBHCLS contains the data used to develop carbon stock estimates; however, it appears that all stands sampled in 2012 have been assigned the value of “NONE” as a vegetation type or stratum label. It is not clear whether these stands (and their plots) retained the same vegetative type after harvesting as before, or whether they were changed as a result of harvesting and aggregated into different strata. See OBS 04/13.

1.4.B.2 Sampling Methodology The sampling methodology and sample design employed by project management staff incorporates standard forestry practices, detailed in document 13, Sampling Methodology Summary. Large trees (6”+), live and dead, are sampled using variable radius plots. Small trees (1”-5”), live and dead are sampled on fixed-radius plots (1/100th acre plot, or 11.8 feet radius). The verifiers had the managing foresters for the Project demonstrate and apply these procedures on the first plot of the verification sample. The verification sample showed a high degree of consistency with the project proponent’s data, confirming that the procedures were conscientiously applied. The sampling intensity is high (~3 acres per plot), leading to a small sampling error (2%). A check cruise on the 2012 inventory updates was performed by forest management staff and found no significant bias or errors. The verifiers reviewed the inventory data and found no anomalies. The verifiers also reviewed the calculations for the estimates of sampling error and found no inaccuracies. The combined sampling error is computed and reported in document #6 (Combined SE…xlsx) as 2.04% at 90% confidence, well within the 10% threshold specified by the protocol. The inventory collected and the database contains data for live trees less than 1” in diameter and for snags less than 10 feet in height. It appears these data were filtered out of carbon stock calculations, but the Summary document lacks a statement that clarifies the constraints that may have been applied to the data collected and submitted for verification. See OBS 05/13.

1.4.B.3 Description of Existing Stand Conditions The documentation provided to the auditors includes sufficient information on the general forest conditions of the Van Eck Forest. The forest management plan (207-2016) includes an overview of the property, and


sections detailing; stand descriptions, forest inventory, and harvest scheduling, silvicultural operations, riparian management, roads, and risk management. All relevant information on the updated inventory for the Van Eck Forest was provided for auditor review. On-site observations by the auditors confirmed the reasonableness of the project’s inventory reports and description of the existing stand conditions found on the Project Area.

Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS OBS 04/13, OBS 05/13

1.5 Forest Project Eligibility and Baseline/Activity Characterizations (Projects only)

A forest project baseline characterization is the long-term projection of management practices (or absence thereof) that would have occurred within a project’s physical boundaries in the absence of the project. The California Registry provides specific criteria for characterizing the project baseline for each project type. Reviewing and confirming a forest project baseline characterization is critical to the verification process because it serves as the benchmark for determining carbon stock changes and any resulting GHG reductions from the project activity. The verifier must discuss with the forest entity how the project baseline was selected and characterized, and assess if the chosen project baseline characterization is accurate/appropriate given the specific forest project baseline criteria, relevant land use laws, and public (and historical) knowledge of the forest project area and its activities. The verifier must also confirm that the project activity is additional, that is, the activity practices exceed those outlined in the baseline characterization. While most forest projects will likely initially set forest project baselines in the current reporting year, forest entities are able to report projects that were implemented in past years (back to 1990) as long as they can meet all of the project eligibility criteria and reporting requirements. To report a forest project with a historical baseline initiation date, forest entities will need to report and seek verification for each year of the project from the forest project baseline year up to the present. For example, if a forest entity reported a forest project in 2004 that was initiated with a project baseline in 2002, they need to report and verify the forest project for those 3 years: 2002, 2003, and 2004. NOTE: Impacts of disturbances on project activity reporting Once you confirm a forest project’s baseline characterization, it will remain the baseline for the duration of the project. A forest entity is not required to adjust their project baseline characterization. In the case where the project boundaries change, a new project for that additional area must be initiated. In a case where a significant natural disturbance occurs within the project boundary, and carbon stocks decrease, a forest entity must report the resulting change in carbon stocks (Table 2.3). If this change in carbon stocks is substantial (e.g., a significant natural disturbance destroys 20% of the carbon stocks), then the forest entity may choose to cancel project reporting or update the inventory, both of which are permitted by the California Registry. If a natural significant disturbance or an unplanned harvest/removal occurs in the project area, direct sampling of the affected area by the project developer and verifier is required to occur within 3 years of the date the disturbance or at the next scheduled verification, whichever would occur first.

A: Confirm Project Eligibility The first step in the verification activities for forest projects is to confirm the reported project’s eligibility. This is necessary because the California Registry has only developed standardized reporting and verification guidance for a few select GHG reduction projects. Only those projects identified by the California Registry may be registered as “GHG reduction projects.” The California Registry does not restrict forest entities from conducting other GHG reduction activities outside of the three California Registry-approved forest projects. However, the California Registry does not verify GHG reductions from other forest project activities at this time. Forest entities should thus report other GHG reduction activities in the optional text boxes provided in the CARROT forms.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The auditors confirmed that the Van Eck Forest Foundation is an eligible Entity for the registration of a forest project with CAR. The Entity owns over 100 acres of commercial forestlands, and is the sole owner of the Project Area. The Project is defined as a Conservation-based Forest Management Project, one of the three approved forest project types with CAR under Version 2.1 of the Protocol. The Van Eck Forest consists of 4 separate tracts that are each located in Humboldt County, California USA. The Project Area is largely made up of native species, and natural forest management practices are employed as part of the project activities. The project has an eligible start date (May 31, 2001), which coincides with the date in which a perpetual conservation easement was recorded on the Van Eck Forest (See also associated findings under section 3.5 of this report). Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

B: Verification Activities Related to Specific Forest Projects


Conservation-based Forest Management (2.5.B.1): Conservation-based forest management projects are projects that intend to create additional C stocks in a forest area through modifications of harvest and regeneration practices. Conservation-based forest management projects only track changes in biological C stocks, CO2 emissions and emission reductions.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The Van Eck forest Project is defined as a Conservation Based Forest Management Project according to the CAR FPP V2.1. Auditor review of project documentation and interviews with project management staff confirmed that the project activities are eligible and will lead to reductions/removals of GHG emissions that are considered “additional” to the project’s baseline. In accordance with the CAR FPP V2.1, the project has defined it’s baseline as the harvest that could occur from operating at the California Forest Practice Rules “Option C” silvicultural harvest standards in addition to any other applicable law that would affect the ability to harvest timber. The project activities lead to additional GHG emission reductions by managing the Van Eck Forest under the terms of the perpetual conservation easement. In accordance with the restrictions of the easement, the property is managed to increase carbon storage, restore biodiversity and old growth qualities, provide habitat for endangered species, and generate a sustainable supply of timber. The Project activities involve managing the Van Eck forest with more restrictive limits when operating near watercourses (SMZs), and employing selection, or small group uneven aged harvesting techniques as compared to the baseline scenario permitted by law. In the baseline scenario, forest stands would be initially clear-cut harvested with a retention of 15 square feet of basal area per acre , followed 30 years later (and repeated every 15 years afterwards) with selection harvest that would retain 90 square feet of conifer basal area per acre. As documented in the Van Eck Forest Management Plan, the silvicultural regime applied in the project activities involves a thinning from below with retention targets of 155 square feet of basal area per acre with 90 square feet retained in trees >32” DBH. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

1.6 Inventory Projections of Project Activity and Project Baseline (Projects only) A forest project baseline characterization is the long-term projection of management practices (or absence thereof) that would have occurred within a project’s physical boundaries in the absence of the project. The California Registry provides specific criteria for characterizing the project baseline for each project type. Reviewing and confirming a forest project baseline characterization is critical to the verification process because it serves as the benchmark for determining carbon stock changes and any resulting GHG reductions from the project activity. Since project baseline and activity projections are not optional, a description of project baselines and activities shall be reviewed for projects.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 Appendix G of the Summary details how the Option C rules are applied in the development of the baseline scenario. Constraints apply primarily to adjacency considerations in clearcuts and buffers along riparian protection zones. The appendix documents the effect of these constraints and the strategy used to model them. Minor additional constraints are included for Northern Spotted Owl activity centers. Furthermore, where judgments were required they are conservative. In discussions with the project proponent’s management team, the verifiers confirmed that all legal constraints were considered and no local regulations further impact timber harvesting. Baseline stocks are reported in the Summary document (table 5). Declining stocks reflect the predominance of clearcut harvesting--occurring on 43% of the project area in the initial 10 years of the scenario. The 2012 baseline stocking (CO2e) is roughly 50% of the current project stocking and declines by roughly 7% per year over the next four years. The characterization of the baseline is consistent with the requirements of the FPP 2.1 and seems reasonable and appropriate. Volumes per acre are consistent with FIA published volumes for Douglas Fir and Redwood types. Standing dead is held constant at 2007 inventory levels over time. The project activities are outlined in the Van Eck Forest Management Plan (doc #3). Harvest volumes are prescribed in the conservation easement: Timber harvests may not remove more than 15% per decade of net merchantable forest inventory as measured in Scribner short log board foot volume or similar system per decade, or 50% of growth, whichever is greater. Growth was modeled and net change is estimated at roughly 2.5%/year for the period 2007-2017. This rate of change is consistent with the average rate of change for Douglas Fir and Redwood types (2.7%) published in USFS FIA technical reports for the 2001-2005 period. These growth rates were also confirmed as reasonable during interviews with forest managers. The proposed


silviculture is clearly described with retention targets and a variety of other metrics consistent with the prescriptive goals of the conservation easement. Riparian and terrestrial habitat management is also thoroughly articulated. Field evidence noted by the verifiers confirmed the application of the management regime to existing stands and riparian areas. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

1.7 Calculating C Stock Change, Emissions and Emissions Reductions (Entities and Projects)

A: Projections and Comparisons of Future Carbon Stocks and Carbon Calculations to Determine Change (T2 – T1) and Emissions Reductions Change in carbon over time is reviewed for entities if an entity projection is provided. Change in carbon over time will be reviewed for all projects.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The methodologies used for the calculation of carbon stocks is described in the Summary document (#5) and conforms to the methods prescribed in the FPP 2.1. Verifier data checks have confirmed the appropriate application of these calculations against its own calculation of carbon stocks from the project inventory. The Project Proponent used the Forest Projection and Planning System (FPS) as a modeling platform both for the storage and management of inventory data and as a growth model. FPS has been approved by CAR (see document #8). Model calibration is largely built into the model by the choice of a region-specific library of parameters. In this case the library for Northern California was used. These parameters are refined by additional site- and inventory-specific information including elevation, slope aspect, site class, species composition and stand density. Site index is also developed for each unit on the basis of soils and site index collected on plots. Plots are grown by FPS as aggregations (stands). Model routines accommodate “clumping” and spatial irregularity, which is appropriate for the kind of silviculture being implemented. In terms of the project level stocks, new inventory is conducted annually on harvested stands. The FPS model grows older inventory ahead to the current period and incorporates current inventory. Since harvested stands are re-cruised, there is no need to simulate harvesting. Regeneration is primarily from stump sprouts, consistent with the natural regeneration tendencies of the dominant species. Standing dead is not modeled; however, since new inventories are conducted on portions of the project area each year, standing dead gets updated for re-inventoried stands. The Summary describes the ongoing integration of 3” to 5” snags into the inventory and carbon stocking since 2010. Cruise data is expanded to non-inventoried stands at the tract level. The approach is considered reasonable by the verifiers. Variability with this component is high, but the total volume contributed to the project is small (0.1 C tons/ac). Overall, standing dead stocks are roughly 1.3% of live carbon. The auditors noted, that the project proponents use a volumetric approach to calculating carbon for standing dead wood (snags). While the general approach is consistent with the protocol, the volume equation is designed to use a diameter at root collar (DRC), whereas DBH is collected on standing dead trees. The verifiers were told that an arbitrary 1” was added to DBH to adjust this for DRC. This approach is likely to underestimate the volume for large trees and overestimate it for smaller trees. While the impact is considered immaterial, a more defensible approach should be employed. See OBS 06/13. The Project documentation provided for auditor review does not include a reference for the Jenkins equations or their coefficients. A table listing all species in the inventory, with an associated with an FIA code, would help to remove ambiguity for non-standard species codes. See OBS 07/13. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS OBS 06/13, OBS 07/13

B: Confirm Project Emission & Reduction Calculations (All Forest Projects) Once you have confirmed a project’s eligibility, forest project baseline, and forest project activities, you must conduct an (ex-post) sub-sampling exercise within the project area to confirm the project developer’s estimated and sampled C stocks and resulting GHG emissions or reductions.

• Check the math on the reduction calculation.


• Does the reduction seem reasonable given the forest activity and growth environment? Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The verifiers conducted a verification inventory on 10 randomly selected plots in two different tracts. Comparisons between total carbon as calculated from the project-supplied inventory and the verification sample confirms that the inventory process meets the required minimum quality standard of 15%. The verifier’s calculations differed by 0.1 ton compared to the project proponent’s calculations for the same plots for all measured carbon pools. Similarly, a calculation check was made against the entire 2012 inventory and was found to be within 2.5% of the project proponent’s estimate of current carbon stocks. As mentioned above, the net change over the annual period appears consistent with published data from similar forest types in the region. Evidence submitted as document #1 (2012 C stocks summary) shows the actual carbon stocks (live only) for 2012 are within 10% of the entity baseline. The protocol requires that “actual C measurements must be within 10% of projected estimates.” Since the inventory is partial and only on harvested stands, there is no way to fully compare “actual” against “projected.” Current stocks are partially projected and the currently sampled inventory has no associated projection. Data was provided that allowed verifiers to check 2007 inventory, grown to 2012. Rates of growth on these un-harvested stands are consistent with the overall change of the project stocks over time, approximately 2.2% per year. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

1.8 Leakage Review and Calculation (Projects only)

In order to determine the cause for a deviation in a forest entity’s reporting or projections, i.e. projected carbon stocks, the verifier must review the following three elements: Inaccurate Growth Assumptions, Inventory Updates, and Natural Disturbances. If the verifier determines that a deviation in the forest entity’s reporting or projections are due to one of the three elements, then the reporter must adjust their model and regenerate their baseline (Table 2.3). If the deviation of current stocks from projected stocks is not due to one of these three elements, you should assume that there is activity-shifting leakage, estimate the amount, and subtract it from the verified project reductions. Assessment and quantification of on-site activity-shifting leakage shall be made annually. However, the verification of any occurrences of this activity-shifting leakage will correspond with the verification intervals, which occur at a minimum of interval of every six years. Examples of activity-shifting leakage include:

• Unusual entity and business practices, i.e. harvests exceed activities in timber management plan. • Omission of information on harvesting from other parts of the ownership. • Failure to recognize significant stock disturbances such as fire, insect, or disease.

Activity-shifting leakage can only occur if the project is a sub-set of the entity. A: Leakage Assessment Leakage assessment is required for all projects

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 1.8.A.1 Assess Accuracy of Projected Entity Activities

The Van Eck Forest is the only forestland in California owned by the Van Eck Forest Foundation and the Project is the same as the Entity. Consistent with the requirements of the FPP V2.1, the Project direct sampling results (actual project stocks) are within 10% of the Entity projections.

1.8.A.2 Determination of Leakage The auditors were presented with the initial leakage assessment for the Project from 2007. With respect to the required assessment of activity-shifting leakage, the Project Proponent asserts that the Project boundaries and the Entity boundaries are coincident. As a result, activity cannot shift to other lands of the owner. It is not anticipated that the Project will cause activities to shift from the Project Area to outside the Project boundaries resulting in an increase of GHG emissions (market leakage). Through document review and interviews with project management staff, the auditors were assured that the Project Area and associated timber are not leased to another entity. There have been no changes in the management or ownership structure of the Van Eck Forest, and the initial Leakage Assessment completed by the Project


Proponent is still considered valid. 2.8.A.3 Element Review

• Element 1: Inaccurate Growth Assumptions

• Element 2: Inventory Updates • Element 3: Natural Disturbances

Element 1: The Project Proponent used FPS as a modeling platform both for the storage and management of inventory data and as a growth model. FPS has been approved by CAR (see document #8). Model calibration is largely built into the model by the choice of a region-specific library of parameters. In this case the library for Northern California was used. These parameters are refined by additional site - and inventory-specific information including elevation, slope aspect, site class, species composition and density. Site index is also developed for each unit on the basis of soils and site index collected on plots. The assumptions and calibrations used in FPS for the growth modelling used in the project are considered to be appropriate for the Project. Element 2: As documented in the 2012 Project Summary Document and in the Van Eck Forest Management Plan, in most cases, stands are sampled within a year of being harvested and again 11 years following harvest. As of the end of 2012, all stands have been sampled for live and standing dead carbon stocks. In terms of the current project level stocks, new inventory is conducted annually on harvested stands and incorporated into “grown-ahead” inventory from previous periods. Since harvested stands are re-cruised, there is no need to simulate harvesting. Four stands were harvested in 2012 and each was cruised post-harvest. All relevant information on the updated inventory for the Van Eck Forest was provided for auditor review. Element 3: As documented in the 2012 Project Summary Document, during 2012, there were no significant natural disturbances (windthrow, fire, or other mortality events) that occurred during 2012 that impacted carbon stocks. This was also confirmed by the auditors through interviews with project management staff, and through on-site observations of the Project Area. Therefore, impacts of natural disturbance in reducing actual carbon stocks below predicted carbon stocks during the 2012 reporting period is not applicable.

Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

B: Market Leakage: Optional Reporting Information (Should not be Verified) Note: More consideration/guidance needs to be given to this topic, it is widely recognized that market leakage is difficult to assess. Without guidance, no verification activities are required.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 Assessment of market leakage is optional and the Van Eck Forest Project has not elected to assess market leakage. As stated in the initial leakage assessment document provided, the project activity produces approximately 6% less timber volume than the baseline activity. This small percentage, as well as the relatively small size of the Van Eck forest in the surrounding landscape is not expected to have any impact to the local timber market. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

C: Statement of Quality After completing these elements of the review, you should asses the quality of the reported inventory. To meet the Reserve’s minimum quality standard under the Forest Project Protocol Version2.1, the forest entity’s calculations on a randomly chosen subset of plots must be within 15% of the verifier’s calculation. In addition, actual C measurements must be within 10% of projected estimates, and the overall inventory and management systems must meet the Reserve criteria as well as the Verifier’s professional judgment to be verifiable.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The verifiers conducted a verification inventory on 10 randomly selected plots in three different tracts. Comparisons between


total carbon as calculated from the project-supplied inventory and the verification sample confirms that the inventory process meets the required minimum quality standard of 15%. Verifier calculations differed by 0.1 ton compared to the project proponent’s calculations for the same plots for all pools. Similarly, a calculation check was made against the entire 2012 inventory and was found to be within 2.5% of the project proponent’s estimate of current carbon stocks. As mentioned above, the net change over the annual period appears consistent with published data from similar forest types in the region. Evidence submitted as document #1 (2012 C stocks summary) shows the actual carbon stocks (live only) for 2012 are within 10% of the entity baseline. The protocol requires that “actual C measurements must be within 10% of projected estimates.” Since the inventory is partial and only on harvested stands, there is no way to fully compare “actual” against “projected.” Current stocks are partially projected and currently sampled inventory has no associated projection. Data was provided that allowed verifiers to check 2007 inventory, grown to 2012. Rates of growth on these un-harvested stands are consistent with the overall change of the project stocks over time, approximately 2.2% per year. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None 2 Required Documentation

2.1 Attestation of title

Proof that a signed standard Attestation of Title is on file at the Reserve. In addition to reviewing this form, the VB must conduct a review to confirm ownership and the claim to reductions/removals that occur.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The auditors were provided with a copy of the Attestation of Title for the Van Eck Forest Project covering the reporting period of January 1, 2012 – December 31, 2012 that was signed by Laurie Wayburn, Trustee of the Van Eck Forest Foundation on November 21, 2013. The auditors also confirmed that the Attestation of Title for the 2012 reporting period being verified has been uploaded in the Reserve software. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

2.2 Attestation of Regulatory compliance Proof that a signed Attestation of Regulatory Compliance form is on file with the Reserve for the reporting period. In addition to reviewing this form, the verification body must perform a risk-based assessment to confirm the statements made by the Forest Owner in the Attestation of Regulatory Compliance form.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The auditors were provided with a copy of the Attestation of Regulatory Compliance for the Van Eck Forest Project covering the reporting period of January 1, 2012 – December 31, 2012 that was signed by Laurie Wayburn, Trustee of the Van Eck Forest Foundation on November 21, 2013. The auditors also confirmed that the Attestation of Regulatory Compliance for the 2012 reporting period being verified has been uploaded in the Reserve software. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

2.3 Attestation of Voluntary Implementation Proof that a signed Attestation of Voluntary Implementation form is on files with the Reserve for the reporting period. In addition to reviewing this form, the verification body must assess that implementation of the project was not required by any relevant law or regulation.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The auditors were provided with a copy of the Attestation of Voluntary Implementation for the Van Eck Forest Project covering the reporting period of January 1, 2012 – December 31, 2012 that was signed by Laurie Wayburn, Trustee of the Van Eck Forest Foundation on November 21, 2013. The auditors also confirmed that the Attestation of Voluntary Implementation for the 2012 reporting period being verified has been uploaded in the Reserve software.



2.4 Forest Project Annual Monitoring Report Review of the Reserve’s Forest Project Annual Monitoring Report completed for the reporting period.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The Auditors were provided with a completed copy of the Reserve’s Forest Project Annual Report covering the year of 2012 for the Van Eck Forest Project. Completed on November 14, 2013, and signed off on by Jon Remucal of Pacific Forest Trust and Laurie Wayburn, Trustee of the Van Eck Forest Foundation, the annual monitoring report identifies the projected changes in carbon stocks for 2012. Additional documentation provided, interviews with project management staff, and on-site observations of the Project Area supported the Project’s 2012 changes in carbon stocks identified by the Project Proponent. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

2.5 Forest Non-Biological Emissions Calculation Workbook Review of the Reserve’s Forest Non-Biological Emissions Calculation Workbook completed for the reporting period.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The auditors were provided with a completed copy of the Reserve’s Non-biological Emissions Calculation Workbook for the 2012 emission reductions of the Van Eck Forest Project. No non-biological emissions have been identified at the Entity level. The Project and the Entity are the same. The Van Eck Forest is the only forestlands in California owned by the Van Eck Forest Foundation. The property is managed to increase carbon storage, restore biodiversity and old growth qualities, provide habitat for endangered species, and generate a sustainable supply of timber. The Van Eck Forest Foundation only owns forestland, does not lease any equipment, office space, or any other non-biological emission sources, nor does it have any employees. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

2.6 Entity Level Annual Carbon Stock Report Review of the Reserve’s Entity Level Annual Carbon Stock Report completed for the reporting period.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The auditors were provided with a completed copy of the CAR Biological Emissions/Carbon Stock Annual Report. The Project and the Entity are the same. The Van Eck Forest is the only forestlands in California owned by the Van Eck Forest Foundation. The property is managed to increase carbon storage, restore biodiversity and old growth qualities, provide habitat for endangered species, and generate a sustainable supply of timber. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None 3 CAR Forest Project Requirements

3.1 Eligible Project Type Confirm that the project is an eligible project type. Under the Forest Project Protocol Version 2.1 the Reserve will only accept the following types of forest project activities to be reported and verified as forest project GHG reductions with the Reserve:

• Conservation-based Forest Management • Reforestation • Conservation

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The auditors confirmed that the Van Eck Forest Project is an eligible project type with the Reserve. The Project is defined as a Conservation-based Forest Management Project, one of the three approved forest project types with CAR under Version 2.1 of the Protocol. This was verified through review of Project documents, the Project information in the Reserve software, and interviews with the Project Management staff.



3.2 Project Location

Confirm the eligibility of the Project’s location. Under the Forest Project Protocol Version 2.1, the Reserve currently only accepts projects that are undertaken in California.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The four parcels of forestland that make up the Project Area (Squaw Creek, Fieldbrook, Lindsay Creek, Moonstone) are all located in Humboldt County, California USA as confirmed in the Project maps provided and during the on-site visit to the Project Area. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

3.3 Project Ownership

Review of the evidence provided on the Project’s Ownership. Findings from Review on INSE December 2 – 31, 2013 The Van Eck Forest Project is solely owned by the Van Eck Forest Foundation. This was confirmed through a review of the ownership documents provided (Declaration of Trust of the Van Eck Forest to the Van Eck Forest Foundation), and through interviews with Project management staff. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

3.4 Native Forest and Natural Forest Management

All Project are required to promote and maintain forest types that are native to the Project Area. In Order for forest management projects to be eligible for the Reserve, they must be based on natural forest management practices within the Project Area.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The Van Eck Forest Project aims to enhance, restore, and maintain the redwood forests on the property with a mix of native species, uneven-age distribution, complex structure, and diverse habitats. Auditor review of the forest management plan, interviews with Project management staff, and on-site observations confirmed that the Project activities involve the use and promotion of native species, and natural forest management practices. Monterey pine, a non-native tree species, is found on the Project Area but management aims to promote the presence of native species, namely redwood. While working with market constraints, Monterey pine is selectively harvested from the Project Area in an attempt to remove it from the site. The selective silvicultural management practices used as part of the Project Activities promotes the proliferation of native species across the project area. Natural forest management practices are used on the Van Eck Forest, and the property is Certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) (SW-FM/CoC-000072) for responsible forest management. The selective silviculture involved in the Project Activities promotes growth of native species and utilizes natural regeneration. Conformance to the native and natural forest management requirements of the FPP V2.1 were confirmed by the auditors through document review, on-site observations and during interviews with Project management staff. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

3.5 Project Start Date and Reporting Period Confirm that the project has selected an eligible start date for the project.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The Project Start Date, May 31, 2001 represents the date in which the perpetual conservation easement was recorded for the Van Eck Forest. As discussed with Project management staff and as previously verified, the Project start date was changed from January 1, 2004 to May 31, 2001. The previously verified change in the project start date was made in order to enable the project to have an eligible project start date with ARB (California Air Resources Board) given the likely transfer of the project into the ARB Compliance Program sometime in the future. The eligibility, and appropriateness of the change made to the project start date was confirmed with the Reserve.



3.6 Project Baseline Qualitative Characterization

The project baseline qualitative characterization is a long-term projection of the forest management practices or activities that would have occurred (or absence thereof) within a project’s physical boundaries in the absence of the project. The qualitative characterization will serve as the basis to quantify and forecast the project’s baseline as carbon stocks

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 Appendix G of the Van Eck Carbon Stock Summary for 2012, serves as the Project’s baseline qualitative characterization for the long term projections of the baseline forest management activities. In accordance with the CAR FPP V2.1 for Conservation Based Management Project Types, the baseline is defined as the harvest that could occur from operating at the California Forest Practice Rules “Option C” silvicultural harvest standards in addition to any other applicable law that would affect the ability to harvest timber. The project activities lead to additional GHG emission reductions by managing the Van Eck Forest under the terms of a perpetual conservation easement. In accordance with the restrictions of the easement, the property is managed to increase carbon storage, restore biodiversity and old growth qualities, provide habitat for endangered species, and generate a sustainable supply of timber. During the site-visit conducted by the auditors, the Project Proponent demonstrated the modelling of the Project’s baseline and Project activities using the Forest Projection and Planning system (FPS) program. Consistent with the qualitative characterization of the baseline and the defined project activities the being implemented, the Project Proponent has accurately quantified the project’s carbon stocks for the year of 2012. On-site observations, document review and interviews with project management staff assured the auditors that the 2012 emission reductions/removals reported by the project were additional to the baseline scenario and accurately calculated. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

3.7 Additionality

All forest projects must demonstrate that the project activity is additional to, or exceeds the project baseline characterization. The purpose of this requirement is to facilitate project activities that create benefits for the climate that are quantifiable.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 During the site-visit conducted by the auditors, the Project Proponent demonstrated the modelling of the Project’s baseline and Project activities using the Forest Projection and Planning system (FPS) program. Consistent with the qualitative characterization of the baseline and the defined project activities the being implemented, the Project Proponent has accurately quantified the project’s carbon stocks for the year of 2012. On-site observations, document review and interviews with project management staff assured the auditors that the 2012 emission reductions/removals reported by the project were additional to the baseline scenario and accurately calculated. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

3.8 Permanence

Describe how the project will ensure the permanence of the carbon stocks on the Project Area. Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 Permanence of the carbon stocks on the Van Eck Forest are ensured through the establishment of a perpetual conservation easement in place on the property. Among the purposes of the conservation easement recorded on May 31, 2001, include the need to maintain the capacity of the property for productive, commercial forest management, including the long term sustainable harvest of high quality forest products, contributing to the economic vitality of the state and region, while preserving its conservation values and maintaining high quality wildlife habitat. It also has the purpose of protecting open space, and relatively natural redwood ecosystems as well as enhancing the forest’s ability to store atmospheric carbon. As recognized by the easement, the conservation values of the property include the capacity of its forest to store atmospheric carbon as a means to mitigate climate change, which is recognized as being of public benefit by the 1993 UNFCCC. The provisions of the conservation easement on the Van Eck Forest will ensure the permanence of the carbon stocks on the Project Area. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None


3.9 Required and Optional Carbon Pools Assess if the project has quantified the carbon pool categories required under the Forest Project Protocol and if they have included any optional pools.

Findings from Review on IDecember 2 – 31, 2013 As confirmed through interviews with Project management staff, and review of the Project documents, the Project has elected to only report and quantify the required carbon pools including standing live and standing dead biomass. While lying dead biomass is a required pool in V2.1 of the Protocol, this pool was removed from the Project per guidance from the Reserve received during the 2011 Verification of the Project. No additionality is claimed from the lying dead wood pool and lying dead wood was removed from the baseline, the project activity, and the actual reported carbon stocks in 2011. Appendix E in the 2012 Carbon Stock Summary document provides detailed correspondence between project staff, the verifier and the Reserve regarding the removal of this pool, and is considered adequate evidence as to why this required pool is no longer considered in the Van Eck Forest Project. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

3.10 Leakage Assessment Assessment of activity-shifting leakage at project initiation and throughout a project’s lifetime (quantification of on-site activity-shifting leakage) is required. Market leakage assessment is an optional requirement.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 See also associated findings in Section 1.8.A & B of this report. The auditors were presented with the initial leakage assessment for the Project from 2007. With respect to the required assessment of activity-shifting leakage, the Project Proponent asserts that the Project boundaries and the Entity boundaries are coincident. As a result, activity-shifting leackage cannot occur. It is not anticipated that the Project will cause activities to shift from the Project Area to outside the Project boundaries resulting in an increase of GHG emissions. Through document review and interviews with project management staff, the auditors were assured that the Project Area and associated timber are not leased to another entity. Assessment of market leakage is optional and the Van Eck Forest Project has not elected to assess market leakage. As stated in the initial leakage assessment document provided, the project activity produces approximately 6% less timber volume than the baseline activity. This small percentage, as well as the relatively small size of the Van Eck forest in the surrounding landscape is not expected to have any impact to the local timber market. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

3.11 Annual Monitoring and Reporting of Carbons Stocks

Review of the Reserve’s Forest Project Annual Monitoring Report completed for the reporting period and summarize the monitoring activities carried out during the reporting period.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The Annual Monitoring report is submitted as document #15. A review of this report shows it is complete and consistent with supporting evidence from other provided documents. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

4 Review of Project’s Emission Reduction and Removal Quantifications

4.1 Inventory Verification Asses the quality of the reported inventory. To meet the Reserve’s minimum quality standard under the Forest Project Protocol Version2.1, the forest entity’s calculations on a randomly chosen subset of plots must be within 15% of the verifier’s calculation. In addition, actual C measurements must be within 10% of projected estimates, and the overall inventory and management systems must meet the Reserve criteria as well as the Verifier’s professional judgment to be verifiable.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The verifiers conducted a verification inventory on 10 randomly selected plots in two different tracts. Comparisons between total carbon as calculated from the project-supplied inventory and the verification sample confirms that the inventory process meets


the required minimum quality standard of 15%. Verifier calculations differed by 0.1 ton (< 0.05% difference in the means) compared to the project proponent’s calculations for the same plots for all measured pools. Inventory methods and data were reviewed and found to meet both the protocol standards and professional standards. The protocol requires that “actual C measurements must be within 10% of projected estimates.” Since the inventory is partial and only on harvested stands, there is no way to fully compare “actual” against “projected.” Current stocks are partially projected currently sampled inventory has no associated projection. Data was provided that allowed verifiers to check 2007 inventory, grown to 2012. Rates of growth on these un-harvested stands are consistent with the overall change of the project stocks over time, approximately 2.2% per year. Furthermore, the entity baseline is within 10% of estimates of current stocking, despite the fact that actual harvests have been considerably lower than projected harvests. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

4.2 Calculation of Project’s Emission Reductions and Removals Review the Project’s emission reductions and removal calculations that have been quantified for the reporting period.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The Project’s estimates of CO2e removals have been reviewed and found to be complete and accurate. A calculation check was made against the entire 2012 inventory and was found to be within 2.5% of the project proponent’s estimate of current carbon stocks The auditors note that the project proponents use a volumetric approach to calculating carbon for standing dead wood (snags). While the general approach is acceptable, the volume equation is designed to use a diameter at root collar (DRC), whereas DBH is collected on standing dead trees. The verifiers were told that an arbitrary 1” was added to DBH to adjust this for DRC. This approach is likely to underestimate the volume for large trees and overestimate it for smaller trees. While the impact is considered immaterial, a more defensible approach should be considered. See OBS 06/13. The Project documentation provided for Auditor review does not include a reference for the Jenkins equations or their coefficients. A table listing all species in the inventory, with an associated with an FIA code, would help to remove ambiguity for non-standard species codes. See OBS 07/13. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS OBS 06/13, OBS 07/13

4.3 Application of the Confidence Deduction Confirm that the Project has applied the appropriate confidence deduction for the combined required carbon pools derived from field sample estimates.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The calculation of the sampling error for all carbon stock pools was reviewed and found to be appropriate and accurate. The overall sampling error for the project is estimated at 2.0% at a 90% confidence level. Since the sampling error is less than 5% no deduction from the reported pools is required by the protocol. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None

4.4 Reporting of Non-Biological Emissions Confirm that the Project has reported on Non-Biological Emissions as required by the Forest Project Protocol Version 2.1.

Findings from Review on December 2 – 31, 2013 The auditors were provided with a completed copy of the Reserve’s Non-biological Emissions Calculation Workbook for the 2012 emission reductions of the Van Eck Forest Project. No non-biological emissions have been identified at the Entity level. The Project and the Entity are the same. The Van Eck Forest is the only forestlands in California owned by the Van Eck Forest Foundation. The property is managed to increase carbon storage, restore biodiversity and old growth qualities, provide habitat for endangered species, and generate a sustainable supply of timber. The Van Eck Forest Foundation only owns forestland, does not lease any equipment, office space, or any other non-biological emission sources, nor does it have any employees. Conformance Yes No N/A NCR/OBS None


APPENDIX B: Organization Details Contacts

Primary Contact for Coordination with Rainforest Alliance

Primary Contact, Position: Jon Remucal Address: 1001A O'Reilly Ave San Francisco, CA 94129 Tel/Fax/Email: 608-514-5864

Billing Contact

Contact, Position: Jon Remucal Address: 1001A O'Reilly Ave San Francisco, CA 94129 Tel/Fax/Email: 608-514-5864