Afforestation in the Montreal Metropolitan Area

Transcription

1 0 1 Eligibility Name of the Project Afforestation in the Montreal Metropolitan Area Version of the Standard CarbonFix Standard v A description of the historical and the current situation of the project area must be given for the last 50 years. This description must include the development of its socioeconomic situation, its changes in land-uses and changes of property rights. The project is located in the Montreal metropolitan area in the province of Quebec in eastern Canada. With a population of more than 3.8 million, it is a densely populated area, the second largest city in Canada, and the seventh in North America. The strategic location of the island of Montreal on the St- Lawrence river and the St-Lawrence lowlands region fertile soils made it an ideal location for European settlement around the 1600s. At the time of their arrival, settlers found a rich and diversified Maple forest around Montreal due to fertile soils and a warm climate. However, the rising population required more agriculture and forests were gradually replaced by crop and pasture lands. After the second world war, urban sprawl transformed agricultural and additional forested land. Nowadays, forests represent 13 % of the 3800 km² comprised in the Montreal metropolitan community (MMC), whereas crops/pastures and urban development account for 54 and 20 %, respectively. Figure 1: Project area location With the rise of industrial farming in the last century, the average crop/pasture land size has increased considerably. Small forest patches located at the back of cultivated lots were widespread on farmlands, buffering the disappearance of large scale contiguous forests. Nowadays, these patches are rare; a vast majority has been cut to increase cultivable area, thus increasing forest fragmentation. The indigenous plant and wildlife diversity has been seriously threatened by forest destruction and fragmentation. A few wildlife "oasis", like parks and forested lots persists in the landscape, but their ecosystem health is fragile considering their isolation. The extensive road network developed with urban sprawl aggravated landscape fragmentation and reduced furthermore wildlife habitat connectivity. The Montreal area being one of the warmest in Eastern Canada, many species found here are located at the northern end of their distribution range. Due to intense human activity, their habitat may thus be importantly reduced, if not seriously threatened for species with small distribution ranges. 31 May Eligibility Page 1 of 20

2 1. A description of the historical and the current situation of the project area must be given for the last 50 years. This description must include the development of its socioeconomic situation, its changes in land-uses and changes of property rights. Figure 2: Land use classes in the Montreal Metropolitan Area and location of the plantation sites. From top left to bottom right: Mirabel (ADM, MTQ1 and MTQ2), Blainville, Terrebonne, Carignan, and St-Bruno. The project is made of five afforestation plantation sites distributed on the north and south shores of Montreal. They mostly lie in agricultural zones, except for the St-Bruno site (center-right), which is located in a gravel, open pit mine area, and the Blainville site which is mostly urban. Except for St- Bruno and Blainville, all sites were once cultivated land, but have been abandoned or left unused for various reasons. The three Mirabel sites (13.6, 14.6 & 30.7 ha) are located on right-of-way land owned by the Quebec ministry of transportation and the Montreal airport society and became unused when these lands were expropriated in 1969 for the construction of the highway leading to the Mirabel international airport. The Terrebonne site (19.7 ha) is located next to a golf course that was built in 1992, which share the same owners. Now that all of the golf course facilities are built, the remaining unused land has been neglected for many years. The Carignan site (11 ha) is owned by a real-estate 31 May Eligibility Page 2 of 20

3 1. A description of the historical and the current situation of the project area must be given for the last 50 years. This description must include the development of its socioeconomic situation, its changes in land-uses and changes of property rights. developer since early 2011, who was refused a building permit by the town administration due to its location on a floodplain. Corn was grown on that lot previously. The St-Bruno site (3.7 ha) is located within a gravel, open-pit mine and is essentially made of soil that used to lay over the mine. Mining has been occurring on this territory since the 1940s. The various Blainville sites (16.0 ha) are mostly urban and some of them were not cultivated but forested during the most part of the 20th century. They were deforested in the end of the century, but prior to the 1990s for development purposes, Blainville being one of the most important suburbs around Montreal. In that case, the planted sites were now unused and no development was possible. An increase in conservation efforts appeared in the last decades in the MMC, essentially based on voluntary conservation initiatives. However, available sites in the MMC remain scarce and land owners often prefer the lucrative urban development and agricultural avenues. For the moment, incentives to promote forest conservation are ideological, but the establishment of a carbon market and compensation legislation in the province of Quebec in 2013 could also help convince further land owners either to maintain a forest cover or reforest their abandoned land. This is a flagship afforestation project in Quebec, but also in North America, where few thorough, certified projects of carbon compensation exist. 2. Planting area is ONLY eligible, if the land: has been forest within 10 years prior to the project sta rt and evidence is given that Criterion 2.c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, a. At the date of the project start, the planted area was not forested, as shown with aerial imagery taken in 1997 and satellite photographs taken by the Landsat 5 and Landsat 7 satellites in 2002, 2004 & 2008 which were also used for geo-referencing (Ref; 01-02, page 1). These images confirm what was observed on the field. Unused land in herbaceous state (eligible planting area) Forested land, buffer, riparian area (nature conservation) Non-eligible and wetland (non-eligible) Total 83.4 ha 10.5 ha 15.7 ha ha Table 1: Project area by land type 31 May Eligibility Page 3 of 20

4 has been forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that Cr iterion 2.c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, Figure 3: Pictures of the project sites in a) Mirabel, b-c) Blainville, d) Terrebonne, e) Carignan, d) St-Bruno. 31 May Eligibility Page 4 of 20

5 has been forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that Cr iterion 2.c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, Figure 4; Terrebonne site 31 May Eligibility Page 5 of 20

6 has been forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that Cr iterion 2.c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, Figure 5; Carignan site 31 May Eligibility Page 6 of 20

7 has been forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that Cr iterion 2.c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, Figure 6; St-Bruno site 31 May Eligibility Page 7 of 20

8 b. wi ll result in the creation of a forest AND c. ha s not been forest within 10 years prior to the project start OR ha s been forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that ab solutely no relation between the project participants and the cause of deforestation exists Criteri on 2.c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, Figure 7; Mirabel site 31 May Eligibility Page 8 of 20

9 has been forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that Cr iterion 2.c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, Figure 8; MTQ1 site 31 May Eligibility Page 9 of 20

10 has been forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that Cr iterion 2.c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, Figure 9; MTQ 2 site 31 May Eligibility Page 10 of 20

11 a. is not a f orest at the date of the project start AND b. will resu lt in the creation of a forest AND has be en forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that absolu tely no relation between the project participants and the cause of deforestation exists Criterion 2. c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, Figure 10; Michel Bohec and Roger Boivert sites 31 May Eligibility Page 11 of 20

12 a. is not a f orest at the date of the project start AND b. will resu lt in the creation of a forest AND has be en forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that absolu tely no relation between the project participants and the cause of deforestation exists Criterion 2. c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, Figure 11; Industrial sector site 31 May Eligibility Page 12 of 20

13 b. will resu lt in the creation of a forest AND c. has no t been forest within 10 years prior to the project start OR has be en forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that absolu tely no relation between the project participants and the cause of deforestation exists Criterion 2. c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, Figure 12; Cycle path site (1/2) 31 May Eligibility Page 13 of 20

14 a. is not a f orest at the date of the project start AND b. will resu lt in the creation of a forest AND has be en forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that absolu tely no relation between the project participants and the cause of deforestation exists Criterion 2. c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, Figure 13; Cycle path site (2/2) 31 May Eligibility Page 14 of 20

15 has been forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that Cr iterion 2.c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, Figure 14; Renaissance site 31 May Eligibility Page 15 of 20

16 has been forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that Criterion 2.c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, Site Blainville Secteur Eligible planting area Area per type Noneligible conservation Nature planting area area Sous-total ha % ha % ha % Bohec Camarguais Industriel Renaissance RogerBoisv Piste total Carignan total St-Bruno Total Mirabel ADM Total Mirabel MTQ1 Total Mirabel MTQ2 Total Terrebonne Total Grand total % % % Table 1; Areas per type and per sites * To MTQ1 at Mirabel, 1% of the area is 0.14 ha, or about 47 trees of 30 m crown (3 m radius). * To Terrebonne, 1% represents 0.20 ha, or about 65 trees of 30 m crown (3m radius) This percentage has been removed by notion of prudence and conservatism b. Trees have been planted in the summer of 2011 on all eligible planting area over a total of 95.5 ha. Species planted were both softwood and hardwood species, as found in the surrounding natural forest stands. Table 2 specifies planted species and densities. Hardwood species consist in red maple (Acer rubrum L.), and yellow birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.), whereas softwood species comprise White spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss), black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.), jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.), balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.), Tamarack (Larix laricina (Du Roi) K.Koch)),Boxelder (Acer negundo L.), Silver maple (Acer saccharinum L.), and Eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis L.). 31 May Eligibility Page 16 of 20

17 has been forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that Criterion 2.c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, Site Black spruce Picea mariana White spruce Picea glauca Jack pine Pinus banksiana Tree species (common & scientific names) Tamarack Box- Red Silver Balsam elder Maple maple fir Larix Acer Acer Acer Abies Laricina negundo rubrum saccharinum balsamea 31 May Eligibility Page 17 of 20 Whitecedar Thuja occidentalis Paper birch Betula papyrifera Red Oak Quercus rubrum Mirabel - MTQ Mirabel - MTQ Mirabel - ADM Terrebonne St-Bruno Carignan Blainville (All sites) TOTAL Table 2: Number and species of trees planted According to permanent and temporary sampling program conducted in the area, all the planted species in this project are found in the surrounding natural stands. They are all considered as trees throughout their respective native range, since they are perennial woody plants and because their height at maturity is over 5 m. A territory of at least 1 ha covered with a minimum of 25 % by tree crowns is considered a forest by the Canadian government (Ref; 01-01, page 1). Consequently, all of the planted areas may be found in sufficient density and patch size to form a forest. It is important to specify that some management units are now smaller than one hectare. CO2 Environnement has ensured that these management units were on sites which includes several management units and the total of the site area was larger than a hectare. c. This afforestation plantation project uses ha of abandoned land, most of it having been cultivated previously, with the exception of 4.7 ha within an open-pit mine. The first source proving the last 10 years site occupation is aerial imagery taken between in 1997 (Ref; 01-03, pages 1 to 10). This clearly demonstrates that all sites have remained unforested for at least 14 years. Most sites are considered crops/pastures land and the mine site is considered open, developed land. We know from owners that those sites have not been forested for a longer period. The three Mirabel sites were cultivated before their expropriation in 1969 and were maintained in a herbaceous state since then. The Terrebonne site has been left unused and also in a herbaceous state since at least 1992, date of its acquisition by the golf course owners. The Carignan site is now unused, but was cultivated 2 years ago with corn prior to its acquisition by its current owner in The St-Bruno site has been mined and completely exposed since the 1940s. Lastly, the Blainville sites were deforested in the end of the last century for housing or industrial purposes. A few sites are located beside a former railroad that became a cycle path. Thus these sites used to be right of way sites deforested during the railroad construction that took place in the 1800s during the colonization of the regions north-west of Montreal. These sites were given to the city of Blainville, the path managers. On aerial photographs, some sites in the city of Blainville show that they were forested during the last ten years. CO2 Environnement received a letter from the direction of the City of Blainville saying that no site has been deforested to give place to reforestation project related to our business. (Ref 01-08, Total trees

18 has been forest within 10 years prior to the project start and evidence is given that Criterion 2.c. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, page 1) 3. Planting area is NOT eligible, if the land a. was deforested to generate CO2-certificates OR b. is wetland OR c. is situated on ground that is permafrost OR d. is agriculture farming land and threatens through the conversion to forest the food security of the local population. a. The planted area has not been forested for at least 14 years. This land was originally deforested for agricultural purposes, which is no longer needed. Numerous sources prove that planted areas were not deforested in the last decades and no other plantation attempts have been made since then. Some areas in Blainville were deforested late in the 1990s, and were not taken by aerial photographs, but satellite imagery from 2002 (Ref pages 14-15) by proves that there was no forest on the plantation sites 10 years from now. b. The planted area is not a wetland, as proven by soil maps. This is also true for the Carignan site, which lies on a floodplain, like many farmlands in that area. The Blainville sites mostly lie on dryland with the exception of the three northern most sites that are located in swamps according to the 1988 soil map. However, the 1991 map indicate that these sites lie on dryland (Ref; figure 2 of chapter 4, Environmental Aspects). We kept the 1991 map indications, as the sites were clearly situated on dryland. This confusion might be due to different surveying methods and map resolution (the 1991 having a more precise original resolution, 1: vs 1: ). 31 May Eligibility Page 18 of 20

19 3. Planting area is NOT eligible, if the land a. was deforested to generate CO2-certificates OR b. is wetland OR c. is situated on ground that is permafrost OR d. is agriculture farming land and threatens through the conversion to forest the food security of the local po pulation. Figure 4: Map of wetlands around project sites (note that three of the Blainville sites are located in swamps according to the 1988 soil map, but not with the 1991 map (Ref; figure 2 of chapter, 04, Environmental Aspects). c. Permafrost occurs when the ground remains at or below a temperature of 0 C for a minimum period of two years. Due to its location in southern Canada, the project area is not permafrost soils, which are found at much higher latitudes, as proven by the permafrost map (Ref; 01-02, page 1). d. The different sites, with the exception of the St-Bruno site were all once cultivated. In the context of an urban area in a well-developed country like Canada, who has taken the turn of industrial agriculture, small scale agriculture is not as important as it was 50 years ago and local population food security is not dependent upon cropland availability. Nowadays many smaller land owners can t compete with large scale agriculture and much land is abandoned and left for financial 31 May Eligibility Page 19 of 20

20 3. Planting area is NOT eligible, if the land a. was deforested to generate CO2-certificates OR b. is wetland OR c. is situated on ground that is permafrost OR d. is agriculture farming land and threatens through the conversion to forest the food security of the local population. speculation or other purposes. 4. Evidence must be given, that in case any agricultural or silvopasture activities are taking place on the project area, they contribute to the aim of creating a forest. No agricultural or silvopasture activities will occur on the sites, which will all be maintained forested. 5. Evidence must be given that no project activities will lead to a long-term increase of greenhouse-gas emissions of the carbon pool soil on the project area. Irrigation Drainage Ploughing Forest operations No irrigation network is needed in this region to sustain a forested cover. The agricultural sites used are not close to being wetlands and will not need drainage. Because drainage ditches are commonly dug alongside farmlands, all three abandoned croplands sites (Mirabel, Terrebonne, Carignan) already possessed ditches, as seen in aerial photographs of 1997 (Ref; pages 01 to 10). An important portion of the Blainville sites are located on sandy deposits, as was observed during planting operations. This is why drainage will neither be a problem at that location and no digging is necessary. It is possible that sand was brought there for the railway or the highway construction. The project will not generate further carbon emission through soil drainage. The open grasslands used for afforestation did not need any site preparation other than mowing prior to tree planting. Trees are already tall enough to get through the weed layer so that no maintenance work will be needed, other than replacement of dead saplings. No forest operations are planned in the project area. 6. Evidence must be given that litter (leaves and small branches) is not extracted from the eligible planting area. No biomass whatsoever will be extracted from the plantation sites. The plantations are to be left intact by land owners, as stated in the signed agreements. 31 May Eligibility Page 20 of 20