FOREST CARBON ASSESSMENT

Transcription

1 FOREST CARBON ASSESSMENT Conducted on the Lane Property (PID ) According to Option 1, Pathways of the BC Green Communities Committee s (GCC) Avoided Forest Conversion Profile Prepared by BRINKMAN CLIMATE For METRO VANCOUVER April 25 th 2017

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In March 2017, Brinkman Climate was contracted by Metro Vancouver to assess the carbon benefit associated with conserving the Lane Property. The Lane Property consists of 4.69 ha of forested land located in the District of Maple Ridge, adjacent to Kanaka Creek Regional Park. The land includes elements of the Kanaka Creek riparian area, and was purchased by Metro Vancouver in Dec This carbon assessment is a response to Metro Vancouver s Board directive to consider climate change mitigation in all functions, including park land acquisitions, as well as to meet their commitments under the BC Climate Action Charter. The detailed modelling undertaken by Brinkman Climate yielded 1367 tonnes of GHG Emission Reduction Credits, of which 466 tonnes can be claimed by Metro Vancouver in 2016 (year 1 of the project). The remaining credits can be claimed over the subsequent 19 years of the project, as outlined in the schedule. The project team consisted of Joseph Pallant, Manager; Negar Naghshinehpour, Project Analyst; Robert Seaton, Forest Analyst; Frederik Vroom, Modeller; and Christian Walli, RPF. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 CONTENTS 2 ELIGIBILITY 3 METHODOLOGY 4 PATHWAY 1 4 PATHWAY 2 5 FIELD ASSESSMENT 5 BASELINE DETERMINATION 8 MODELLING 9 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS 10 RESULTS 11 DISCUSSION 11 COMPANY PROFILE 13 APPENDIX 1: MAP 14 APPENDIX 2: GCC CALCULATOR PATHWAY 1 15 APPENDIX 3: GCC CALCULATOR PATHWAY 2 18 APPENDIX 4: PROPERTY TITLE 22 APPENDIX 5: PROJECT PLAN TEMPLATE (OPTION 1 PROJECTS) 23 APPENDIX 6: GREEN COMMUNITIES FRAMEWORK SELF-CERTIFICATION FORM FOR OPTION 1 PROJECT 26 Joseph Pallant - Manager joseph_pallant@brinkman.ca Suite Carrall St. Vancouver, BC V6B 6E3 2

3 ELIGIBILITY Carbon Neutral Framework and AFCP Compliance All text in italics is directly quoted from the GCC Carbon Neutral Framework. The project activities as undertaken by Metro Vancouver, and assessed by Brinkman Climate as contracted carbon experts, meet or exceed the following requirements: The list below summarizes the seven Project Eligibility Requirements under the GCC Carbon Neutral Framework as of July, Emissions reductions are from projects undertaken in BC and are outside of the local government corporate boundaries Emission reductions have occurred before they are counted To be claimed annually by MV according to the outputs of the calculator Emission reductions are credibly measured Emission reductions are beyond business as usual Accounting of emission reductions is transparent Emission reductions are only counted once Project proponents have clear ownership of all emission reductions In addition to meeting these seven eligibility requirements, local governments implementing AFCPs must meet four additional AFCP specific eligibility requirements as outlined below. These additional requirements further support eligibility requirements three and four above and have been integrated into the overarching GCC Project Eligibility Requirements): Demonstrate ownership of the conserved forest lands Metro Vancouver has purchased the conserved forest lands, and can provide proof of ownership. Reserve or dedicate the conserved forest lands as park Local governments are required to reserve or dedicate the conserved forest lands as park using the authority of the Community Charter, section 30. This reservation/dedication must occur after the initial signing of the Climate Action Charter in MV acquired the Lane Property with the approval of its Board, as an addition to Kanaka Creek Regional Park. A formal dedication bylaw could be enacted if required. Prepare a Forest Management Plan Local governments must prepare a Forest Management Plan for the project lands and have a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) with carbon expertise sign-off on the plan. The Forest Management Plan must be in place within six months of making public the first completed annual Self-Certification Template. The Joseph Pallant - Manager joseph_pallant@brinkman.ca Suite Carrall St. Vancouver, BC V6B 6E3 3

4 plan must be updated every 10 years or more frequently. The plan must include a section on carbon that considers the likelihood that the forest carbon may be lost due to an unforeseen event (e.g. fires) (see the Forest Management Plan section below). Metro Vancouver has completed a draft Forest Management Plan for the Lane Property. The 2006 Kanaka Creek Regional Park Management Plan sets out the conservation objectives for the regional park as a whole including the need to purchase additional land to enhance and support the park function, but because these properties are only now being added to this park complex, their specific stewardship requirements are addressed in the Forest Management Plan. Confirm the Baseline Land Use Confirm and attest (by completing the Project Plan Template) that local government zoning that would have permitted the conversion of the project lands to a non-forest use was in place just prior to the project start date and before the land was dedicated/reserved as park under the Community Charter, section 30. The subject property is zoned RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), which does not restrict land clearing beyond compliance with applicable statutes and bylaws and riparian and slope stability regulations. Similar lands in the area are typically cleared for timber revenues, agricultural purposes and the construction of residential dwellings, hobby farms, and outbuildings. In addition to meeting the requirements listed above, a Project Plan Template as well as Self-Certification Template for year 1 (2016) have been completed and are submitted with this report. METHODOLOGY In order to assess the carbon benefit associated with Metro Vancouver s purchase of the two subject properties, Brinkman Climate undertook the steps outlined for Pathways 1 and 2 under the Avoided Forest Conversion Profile of the GCC Framework. Data was derived from a timber assessment completed by Bill Lasuta and Assoc. in January 2017 for the project proponent, as well as from additional information supplied by Metro Vancouver and the District of Maple Ridge. Brinkman Climate conducted a field assessment of the property, and generated the necessary carbon model inputs using standard government growth and yield models. PATHWAY 1 The Pathway 1 process requires providing the necessary eligibility and data inputs for the GCC Forest Carbon Calculator. The main variables are region - in this case South Coast - and percentage of lands protected as a result of the project activities. In this case, we determined 60% of the eligible 3.5 ha to be a conservative and defensible proportion based on the best available information at this time. This number excludes 0.89 ha of riparian environmentally sensitive areas identified by Bill Lasuta from the gross 4.69 ha area, and a further 0.3 ha of forest cover type 2 (deciduous/brush) outside of the riparian area which has no timber value, and is unlikely to be cleared. Rationale for modeling 60% clearance under the baseline scenario is discussed below under Baseline Determination. The gross carbon benefit then has the following net-downs applied: Joseph Pallant - Manager joseph_pallant@brinkman.ca Suite Carrall St. Vancouver, BC V6B 6E3 4

5 The stand-alone results from Pathway 1 are appended to this report. The risk reduction net down could be reduced from 20% to 10% by placing a protective covenant on the lands under s.219 of the Land Title Act, or by enacting a park dedication bylaw, increasing the calculated GHG reductions. PATHWAY 2 Pathway 2 requires that the carbon benefit of the conservation action be modeled according to the parameters set out by the BC Government s Forest Carbon Offset Protocol (FCOP). This protocol is applied to all projects generating offsets for BC s legislated carbon neutral public service commitments, meets all requirements of the BC Emissions Offset Regulation, and has recently been further adapted to comply with the internationally recognized Verified Carbon Standard. The model outputs, including an independent Harvested Wood Products determination and deduction, are then added to the GCC Forest Carbon Calculator and have a separate set of default Risk, Leakage and Model Uncertainty net-downs applied by the calculator. In either case, no further net-downs were required for trail or infrastructure development, and Metro Vancouver contends that land dedicated as Regional Park is afforded comparable or superior protection to that provided by a Section 219 Covenant. Lands within the Regional Park system are regularly patrolled, protected under a Fire Management Plan, and stewardship activity is taken to maintain ecosystem health. Any disposition of land from the Regional Parks system requires public notifications, multi-reading bylaws and faces intense scrutiny. These are exceedingly rare and usually involve very minor deletions for public works such as roads. The subject property is highly unlikely to have any demands on it for even minor land removals. The most probable scenario would be the widening of Dewdney Trunk Road at some point will into the future. This could likely be accomplished within the road s existing right-of-way. If minor land removals from the property s frontage were required for road construction, little volume would be lost, as there is a belt of small trees and brush along the road frontage. FIELD ASSESSMENT Brinkman Climate s field team visited the subject properties on Friday, March 31, They found the description to be consistent with that of Metro Vancouver in the RFQ - a rich, moist site with valuable timber, including both second growth as well as scattered remnant first growth trees, surrounded by hobby farms and other large lot dwellings. Surrounding lots with the same zoning have been cleared in variable intensities, varying from 40 95%. Timber value is high throughout and clearing is financially justified, as discussed in the Lasuta & Associates report. The majority of the property consists of mainly unevenaged conifer dominated stands (Forest cover type 1 in the Lasuta report). The age range given in the Lasuta report for this type (65 80 years old) is for the dominant second growth layer, with the residual first growth trees probably in the range. The primary harvest probably occurred in the 1940 s, with natural regeneration occurring gradually over a 10+ year period. The drier upland areas Joseph Pallant - Manager joseph_pallant@brinkman.ca Suite Carrall St. Vancouver, BC V6B 6E3 5

6 are dominated by thrifty year old Western Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) growing in a relatively low density stand. Western Red Cedar (Thuja plicata) is also a significant component, with most cedar stems being somewhat older than the hemlock, probably having been present as poles at time of logging. A significant number of large (1- meter diameter plus) Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) vets are scattered through the upland areas, as are a number of year old Big-leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) trees. One large Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis) was found along Kanaka Creek. The stand is generally not over-dense at this time, and relatively little self-thinning has occurred. Mistletoe is widely present in the hemlock, but is not significantly impeding growth. One instance of root rot was noted in a downed hemlock, but no extensive root rot centres or other pest and disease risks were noted. Figure 1 : Forest Cover Type 1 Forest cover type 2, consisting of very wet areas, regenerated with predominantly open Red Alder (Alnus rubra) over a dense understory of Salmonberry, Skunk Cabbage and Devil s Club. One large black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) and a few Big-leaf Maple were also noted in this area. Mortality in the deciduous (especially the Alder) is significant, as would be expected at this stand age, and volumes are probably static or declining. To be conservative, this layer was accounted as zero volume in the model, especially as deciduous deadwood has an extremely short lifespan on sites such as these. Joseph Pallant - Manager joseph_pallant@brinkman.ca Suite Carrall St. Vancouver, BC V6B 6E3 6

7 Figure 2 : Forest Cover Type 2 The stand typology used in the Lasuta report accurately represents the current stand structure, and was used for stand modeling. Joseph Pallant - Manager joseph_pallant@brinkman.ca Suite Carrall St. Vancouver, BC V6B 6E3 7

8 Figure 3 : False colour image. Green = conifer, Pink = deciduous/brush, Blue = grass BASELINE DETERMINATION The most likely scenario in absence of the purchase by Metro Vancouver would be subdivision into two lots, and sale of the lots to private owners who would clear substantial portions of the merchantable timber, and develop to either hobby farm or residential with small scale agricultural/recreational purpose. The requirement to self-service with respect to water supply and septic would also require clearing. As noted in the Lasuta report, 0.89 hectares of the property falls within riparian setbacks. Although under some conditions some of these trees could be removed, under guidance from a qualified environmental professional, these areas are conservatively assumed to be untouched under the baseline scenario. The property is also subject to the City of Maple Ridge Tree Protection and Management Bylaw (Bylaw no ). The bylaw sets out a relatively complex series of requirements and options for tree retention on properties within the City of Maple Ridge. The key requirements under the bylaw which would be relevant to the Lane Property under the baseline scenario are: Joseph Pallant - Manager joseph_pallant@brinkman.ca Suite Carrall St. Vancouver, BC V6B 6E3 8

9 Retention of significant trees (trees greater than 70 cm diameter breast height (DBH)), except under specific circumstances. Retention of 40 trees/hectare over 20 cm DBH. A 100% sample of trees significantly over 70 cm DBH was undertaken, to assess the impact of the requirement to retain these trees. A total of about 350 m3 of timber was found in these trees, equivalent to about 0.5 hectares of area at the gross volume per hectare calculated in the Lasuta report. Although under some circumstances some of these trees could be removed, for the purposes of conservatively estimating the baseline scenario, we have assumed that they would be retained. A number of trees in the cm DBH range were also found, some of which might meet the requirements for a significant tree. These trees were assumed to be eligible for removal, in light of the significant retention of very large trees. No areas were found where the large trees would have formed a significant tree stand under the bylaw. Calculation of the required 40 trees retained per hectare includes multiple tree credits for larger trees. Based on this formula, retention of the trees significantly larger than 70 cm would have satisfied about 70% of the retention requirement, with the remainder easily filled by retention within the riparian environmentally sensitive areas, so the required retention density is unlikely to further impact conversion activities. Properties surrounding the project have been cleared 40% to 95%. Based on our observations in the area, and assessment of satellite imagery and GIS data, we feel that a historically 70% permanent conversion would likely have occurred, with the remainder retained for screening, or due to lower quality timber or poor harvest access. Retention of the significant trees results in a further 10% reduction in conversion (recognizing that some of the significant trees fall into riparian environmentally sensitive areas or areas which would not be harvested for other reasons). In total conversion of 60% of the area outside of the riparian reserves reflects the most likely without project scenario. For the purposes of this assessment, we assumed that all merchantable timber would have been cleared from 60% of the 3.5 hectares of forest cover type 1 area within the property under the baseline scenario. MODELLING In order to estimate and project the current and future carbon stock, a two-step modelling exercise was executed. Using industry standard growth and yield models the future growth potential of the project area was determined. In British Colombia two different models are available, TIPSY 1 and VDYP 2. Both models require industry standard inventory data as inputs to estimate the growth and yield. The information provided did not include a complete inventory data set, instead an appraisal of the commercial volume was provided per the instructions of the GCC framework. Both VDYP as well as TIPSY models were tested in order to determine which model would make the best estimation using the available data. The VDYP model has been developed to estimate the volume and growth in non- harvested 1 TIPSY (Table Interpolation for Stand Yields) is a publically distributed PC-based growth and yield program that provides user friendly access to managed stand yield tables. 2 The Variable Density Yield Projection (VDYP) program provides yield predictions for unmanaged (natural) stands in inventory and timber supply applications in BC, complementing managed stand yield predictions from TASS and TIPSY. Joseph Pallant - Manager joseph_pallant@brinkman.ca Suite Carrall St. Vancouver, BC V6B 6E3 9

10 natural stands, while the TIPSY model is aimed at second growth stands. Although this area is a second growth stand, it is the result of natural regeneration between residual vets, more similar to the dynamic in a first growth stand. The TIPSY model appeared to over-estimate long term growth potential for this stand, and VDYP was therefore chosen for stand modelling. The VDYP model was populated with the provided appraisal data and growth curves were fitted through the current estimated volumes to project the future growth and volumes. The growth and yield of the entire project was generated by developing projections for the multi-species stand found in forest cover type 1. Forest cover type 2 was not modelled, as it was assumed to contain relatively static volumes, fell largely within the riparian environmentally sensitive area, received the same treatment in the baseline and project scenarios, and contained little merchantable timber. The appraisal did not include data on the deciduous stocking as these are not deemed commercial. Due to the lack of data and following the field visit our team decided to exclude the deciduous component from the modelling exercise. The age and expected future development of these trees would have a relatively minor influence on the long term carbon stock. Alder and other deciduous species tend to grow quickly, filling gaps in the canopy but maximize in stand volume after years (current estimated age). It was estimated that over the next several decades growth and decay of the current stock would be in a relative equilibrium. Therefore only the coniferous component of the stands were modelled. The VDYP model outputs were then run through the Carbon Budget Model (CBM-CFS3) 3 to give total ecosystem carbon, which includes: soil carbon, above and below-ground biomass and above and below-ground dead organic matter. BC and ecoregion (Pacific Maritime) default variables were used. The Gross carbon stocks for the subject properties was derived by applying the process described above to the entire 3.8 Ha of the subject properties, net of the riparian environmentally sensitive areas. The results of the modelling only includes the volume and carbon stock of the remaining 3.8ha. These model assertions were further verified by a mapping exercise confirming the conifer-dominated area eligible for harvest outside of the riparian setbacks. From the mapping exercise, aerial photo interpretation and field visit it was determined that the most likely baseline scenario would see 60% of the unprotected type 1 stands (2.1 hectares) cleared by commercial timber harvest and subsequent conversion to grass/pasture as part of low density residential development, as discussed above. A 27% default GCC net-down for Harvested Wood Products and the default deductions for Leakage, Risk and model uncertainty were then applied per the Pathway 2 process. LIMITATIONS and ASSUMPTIONS The modelling exercise presented in this report is based on the appraisal data provided by Metro Vancouver. We believe that the current modelling using the appraisal data gives a reasonable and conservative estimation of the GHG benefit, especially since a goal of this project is to better understand the differences between the default values of GCC Pathway 1 and the modelled approach of Pathway 2 and to inform strategy for similar projects in the future. It is important to mention that uncertainty in modelling derived from data collection, growth and yield modelling, baseline estimation and carbon modelling is usually reduced due to the application at a landscape level, as opposed to a small parcel as in this case. Modelling and data collection are developed to provide a reasonable estimation when applied to a large set of stands. Applying the models to a very small project area does not even out possible 3 The operational-scale Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3) is an aspatial, stand- and landscape-level modelling framework that simulates the dynamics of all forest carbon stocks required under the Kyoto Protocol (aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, litter, dead wood and soil organic carbon). It complies with the carbon estimation methods outlined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (2003) report. Joseph Pallant - Manager joseph_pallant@brinkman.ca Suite Carrall St. Vancouver, BC V6B 6E3 10

11 over- or under-estimations. However, Brinkman Climate is confident that the model parameters developed for this exercise, together with the risk and uncertainty net-downs, give a reasonable picture of the carbon content of the project area now and in the future, within the scope of work. In several cases, conservative choices were taken in developing the project case. These include: - Retaining all of the significant trees under the baseline scenario; - Utilizing VDYP for stand growth and yield modelling, which projected lower long term growth rates than TIPSY for this stand. RESULTS Detailed assumptions and results for Pathways 1 and 2 are shown in Appendices 2 and 3. Units are expressed in tco2e; however, given the limitations of the Pathway 2 process and the level of rigour applied within the scope of this exercise, the resulting benefits are considered GCC GHG Emission Reduction Credits for use by the initiating entity, and not saleable carbon offsets. This is consistent with the eligibility limitations stated in the GCC framework. GCC Credits can be claimed on an annual basis by Metro Vancouver according to the annual benefits outlined in the carbon calculator spreadsheets for either Pathway 1 or 2 by submitting a Self-Certification Template. The template for year 1 (2016) has been completed and appended to this report for signing by Metro Vancouver. Results are cumulative over the 20-year project timeframe dictated by the framework. Pathway 1 GCC defaults Pathway 2 Model + GCC defaults Gross Carbon Benefit*: 1330 tco2e Gross Carbon Benefit*: 2486 tco2e Less: 20% Leakage 20% General Risk 10% model uncertainty Less: 20% Leakage 20% General Risk 5% model uncertainty Net Carbon Benefit: 665 tco2e Net Carbon Benefit 1367 tco2e * Net of 27% Harvested Wood Products deduction DISCUSSION As expected, the more detailed modelling exercise yielded a higher net carbon benefit than that of the GCC calculator defaults. This is based largely on the reduction of the default net-downs that are built into the model in the absence of more site-specific data inputs. The subject property is a prime, rich, low-elevation growth site with riparian influence and therefore represents the higher end of carbon stocks present in the South Coast region for which the calculator averages. Brinkman Climate recommends that Metro Vancouver use the results of the Pathway 2 process for their reporting under CARIP. The modelling is based on the specific site characteristics, as opposed to the broader data applied Joseph Pallant - Manager joseph_pallant@brinkman.ca Suite Carrall St. Vancouver, BC V6B 6E3 11

12 under Pathway 1, and is thus more accurate. The outputs are reasonable and conservative while at the same time yielding a higher net quantity of GCC credits for use by Metro Vancouver. In order to provide further comparison for Metro Vancouver between the FCOP process and the GCC Framework, we believe that the net carbon benefit from a standard forest project process under FCOP could be higher than that projected in this case, as we would argue for a much lower leakage net-down (currently 20%) owing to the fact that land-use and harvest-shifting leakage are both highly unlikely in this case. The prospective private landowners in the baseline scenario are not logging contractors needing to meet a certain fibre supply in order to remain viable, and with only two dwellings permitted under current zoning, the available density is not being appreciably affected. Given the limited supply of forested land regionally, a likely alternative scenario would be the purchase of marginal, degraded or already cleared lands which therefore has no displacement or leakage emissions impact. Joseph Pallant - Manager joseph_pallant@brinkman.ca Suite Carrall St. Vancouver, BC V6B 6E3 12

13 COMPANY PROFILE Brinkman Climate develops carbon offset projects in British Columbia, and supports the development of carbon markets around the world. We use economic tools that value keeping greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere to develop real, on the ground projects that benefit society and the broader environment. Our team has long and varied experience in carbon, climate and the environmental markets, having Written first-of offset protocols for BC Emission Offsets Regulation, ISO-14064, Verified Carbon Standard, Community Climate and Biodiversity Standard, and the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism Developed first-of projects in reforestation, Improved Forest Management, Avoided Deforestation, agriculture renewable energy and energy efficiency Structured large-volume sale of offsets to buyers in voluntary and compliance markets Crafted innovative project structures, carbon rights agreements, policy tools and industry networks. Brinkman Climate is a division of The Brinkman Group, established in Canada s biggest and oldest reforestation company, active in full-service forest management for BC First Nations, environmental restoration and international forestry. Joseph Pallant - Manager joseph_pallant@brinkman.ca Suite Carrall St. Vancouver, BC V6B 6E3 13

14 APPENDIX 1: MAP Figure 4 : Property map showing probable subdivision under the baseline scenario, and the locations of riparian environmentally sensitive areas. (Note that the road shown as Garibaldi Street on this map is actually a driveway, and Garibaldi Street is farther east.)

15 APPENDIX 2: GCC CALCULATOR PATHWAY 1 GCC Carbon Calculator Forest Carbon Benefit Assessment INSTRUCTIONS: Start at Step 1, provide your answer in the grey shaded areas below, address each question/requirement and work sequentially downwards. A carbon estimator is embedded to quantify the carbon benefit under the GCC Option 1 Avoided Forest Conversion Project (AFCP). Local Government Metro Vancouver Project Location District of Maple Ridge Project Name Lane Property Item Input Instructions Critical Supporting Documents Required to Support Claim 1 Are the project lands within the jurisdiction of your local government Yes Please proceed to the next question. Proof of jurisdiction, e.g. a zoning bylaw and in British Columbia? 2 Did the project start after September 26, 2007? Yes Please proceed to the next question. Completed signed Project Plan Template and/or reservation/dedication bylaw 3 Does the project prevent development on and protect forest land that could otherwise have been developed (i.e. does the project result in the avoided conversion of forest to non-forest use (e.g. urban development)? Note: Avoided logging is excluded under an AFCP 4 Does a zoning bylaw exist for the project lands and does it permit the deforestation and development of the project lands to a more intensive use? 5 Are the projects lands already protected by a provincial or federal regulation, or by a local government regulation in place prior to the initial signing of the Climate Action Charter in 2007? 6 Do the project lands meet BCs Forest Land definition: lands that are greater than or equal to 1 hectare (ha) in size and a minimum 20 m wide measured tree-base to tree-base? Note: manicured parks and street trees are not eligible. 7 Does the local government own the project lands and have exclusive rights to legal and commercial benefits of reductions associated with the avoided GHG emissions resulting from the project? Note: Local governments will need to provide documentation and attestation of undisputed title to all environmental benefits. Yes Please proceed to the next question. Completed Project Plan Template and Self-Certification Template signed by the Project Designate. Yes Please proceed to the next question. Zoning bylaw No Please proceed to the next question. Registered Professional Planner (RPP) confirmation Yes Please proceed to the next question. Forest Management Plan (FMP) with a section on carbon signed off by a Registered Professional Forester (RPF). Note the FMP must be in place within six months of making public a completed self-certification template. Yes Please proceed to the next question. Agreement of purchase and sale or transfer of project lands from developer/land owner to the local government. If the lands are jointly owned, a separate agreement indicating local government s carbon ownership.

16 8 Is it true that the project lands are not currently, and never were, in an offset project in a voluntary or mandatory carbon offset program? 9 Has a Registered Professional Planner (RPP) determined the percentage of lands that could have been deforested due to development in the baseline scenario and would be developed under the project scenario? 10 Have the lands been protected with a Land Title Act s. 219 covenant to reduce the likelihood that the lands will be converted to a non-forest use in the future? Note, if a covenant is placed on the project lands, there will be a 10% addition to the carbon benefit. 11 Are you aware of the requirement to prepare and have a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) sign off on a Forest Management Plan within six months of making public the completed Self Certification Template? 12 Has the Project Designate (e.g. CAO, CFO) signed a completed Project Plan Template and Self-Certification Template for the Option 1 AFCP? Yes Please proceed to the next question. Agreement of purchase and sale or transfer of project lands containing no encumbrances related to carbon. No While this is not an eligibility requirement you are encouraged to have an RPP determine the percentage of lands that would be preserved under the AFCP No Please proceed to the next question. Note a project net down of 20% will be assigned due to the risk associated with a natural or man-made reversal. 13 Enter the number of hectares of eligible forest. 3.5 Please proceed to the next item. Report, memo etc. documenting estimate of lands that could have been developed under the baseline scenario and would be developed under the project scenario signed off by RPP. Land title to the property containing the terms of the covenant. Yes Please proceed to the next question. Completed Project Plan Template and Self-Certification Template signed by the Project Designate. Yes Completed Project Plan Template and Self-Certification Template signed by the Project Designate. 14 For projects under 650 hectares choose either pathway 1 or pathway 2 by clicking yes in the adjacent input box. Enter Annual Carbon Benefit (net of HWP) in Adjacent Table (tco2e) 15 Select your project location from the drop down list to determine your conservative annual average CO2e sequestered per hectare. Pathway 1 South Coast Please proceed to the next item. Please proceed to the next item. For lands under 650 ha pathway 2 is an optional item, which will require hiring a consulting with appropriate expertise in forest carbon modelling and offsets, and could entail significant costs. 16 Percentage of land protected from development and preserved. For example, if the baseline would have deforested 70% of the eligible lands, and the project would only deforest 30% of the lands, then 40% of the lands would be preserved. Project Summary Information South Coast Project Location 20 Project Life (Years) 3.5 Hectares of Eligible Forest 60% Please review the summary tables below. Report, memo etc. documenting estimate of lands that could have been developed under the baseline scenario and would be developed under the project scenario with recommended signoff by a RPP.

17 No Project Lands Protected by a Covenant 60% Percentage of eligible lands that was not deforested as a result of the project. Project Carbon Benefit Summary Project Gross Carbon Benefit: 1330 Total Project Gross Carbon Benefit (tco2e) Project Net down Variables: 27% Deduction for Harvested Carbon Assumed Stored (i.e. not emitted as a result of Harvested Wood Products (HWP)) in the Baseline and Project Scenario 20% Risk Deduction Value to Account for Political, Environment and Natural Risks That May Occur And Cause a Release of the Carbon Benefit 20% Leakage Deduction Value to Account for the Displaced Activity Occurring Elsewhere 10% Model Uncertainty Value to Account for the Errors or Omissions in the Calculation of the Gross Carbon Benefit Total Project Net Carbon Benefit (Net of HWP, Leakage, Permanence, Uncertainty) 665 Total Project Net Carbon Benefit (tco2e) Annual Net Project Carbon Benefit: Year Annual Project Carbon Benefit (tco2e) Pathway 1 annual emission reductions Year tco2e

18 APPENDIX 3: GCC CALCULATOR PATHWAY 2 GCC Carbon Calculator Forest Carbon Benefit Assessment INSTRUCTIONS: Start at Step 1, provide your answer in the grey shaded areas below, address each question/requirement and work sequentially downwards. A carbon estimator is embedded to quantify the carbon benefit under the GCC Option 1 Avoided Forest Conversion Project (AFCP). Local Metro Vancouver Government Project District of Maple Ridge Location Project Name Lane Property Item Input Instructions Critical Supporting Documents Required to Support Claim 1 Are the project lands within the jurisdiction of your local government and in British Columbia? Yes Please proceed to the next question. 2 Did the project start after September 26, 2007? Yes Please proceed to the next question. 3 Does the project prevent development on and protect forest land that could otherwise have been developed (i.e. does the project result in the avoided conversion of forest to non-forest use (e.g. urban development)? Note: Avoided logging is excluded under an AFCP 4 Does a zoning bylaw exist for the project lands and does it permit the deforestation and development of the project lands to a more intensive use? 5 Are the projects lands already protected by a provincial or federal regulation, or by a local government regulation in place prior to the initial signing of the Climate Action Charter in 2007? Yes Yes No Please proceed to the next question. Please proceed to the next question. Please proceed to the next question. Proof of jurisdiction, e.g. a zoning bylaw 1 Completed signed Project Plan Template and/or reservation/dedication bylaw Completed Project Plan Template and Self-Certification Template signed by the Project Designate. Zoning bylaw 4 Registered Professional Planner (RPP) confirmation Year Annual Benefit Net of HWP (tco2e)

19 6 Do the project lands meet BCs Forest Land definition: lands that are greater than or equal to 1 hectare (ha) in size and a minimum 20 m wide measured tree-base to tree-base? Note: manicured parks and street trees are not eligible. 7 Does the local government own the project lands and have exclusive rights to legal and commercial benefits of reductions associated with the avoided GHG emissions resulting from the project? Note: Local governments will need to provide documentation and attestation of undisputed title to all environmental benefits. 8 Is it true that the project lands are not currently, and never were, in an offset project in a voluntary or mandatory carbon offset program? 9 Has a Registered Professional Planner (RPP) determined the percentage of lands that could have been deforested due to development in the baseline scenario and would be developed under the project scenario? 10 Have the lands been protected with a Land Title Act s. 219 covenant to reduce the likelihood that the lands will be converted to a non-forest use in the future? Note, if a covenant is placed on the project lands, there will be a 10% addition to the carbon benefit. 11 Are you aware of the requirement to prepare and have a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) sign off on a Forest Management Plan within six months of making public the completed Self Certification Template? 12 Has the Project Designate (e.g. CAO, CFO) signed a completed Project Plan Template and Self- Certification Template for the Option 1 AFCP? Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Please proceed to the next question. Please proceed to the next question. Please proceed to the next question. Please proceed to the next question. Please proceed to the next question. Please proceed to the next question. 13 Enter the number of hectares of eligible forest. 3.5 Please proceed to the next item. 14 For projects under 650 hectares choose either Pathway 2 pathway 1 or pathway 2 by clicking yes in the adjacent input box. Yes Forest Management Plan (FMP) with a section on carbon signed off by a Registered Professional Forester (RPF). Note the FMP must be in place within six months of making public a completed self-certification template. Agreement of purchase and sale or transfer of project lands from developer/land owner to the local government. If the lands are jointly owned, a separate agreement indicating local government s carbon ownership. Agreement of purchase and sale or transfer of project lands containing no encumbrances related to carbon. Report, memo etc. documenting estimate of lands that could have been developed under the baseline scenario and would be developed under the project scenario signed off by RPP. Land title to the property containing the terms of the covenant. * Note a project net down of 10% will be assigned due to the risk associated with a natural or man-made reversal. Completed Project Plan Template and Self-Certification Template signed by the Project Designate. 75 Completed Project Plan Template and Self-Certification Template signed by the Project Designate For lands under 650 ha pathway 2 is an optional item, which will require hiring a consulting with appropriate expertise in

20 Enter Annual Carbon Benefit (net of HWP) in Adjacent Table (tco2e) forest carbon modelling and offsets, and could entail significant costs. 16 * Please enter the annual gross carbon benefit (in tco2e) from the forest carbon model (note this value should already include Harvested Wood Products (HWP), but not have any of the discount factors applied) Please proceed to the estimator Please proceed to the estimator Project Summary Information Maple Ridge Project Location 20 Project Life (Years) 3.5 Hectares of Eligible Forest yes Project Lands Protected by a Covenant N/A Percentage of eligible lands that was not deforested as a result of the project. Project Carbon Benefit Summary Project Gross Carbon Benefit: 2486 Total Project Gross Carbon Benefit (tco2e) Project Net down Variables: 27% Deduction for Harvested Carbon Assumed Stored (i.e. not emitted as a result of Harvested Wood Products (HWP)) in the Baseline and Project Scenario 20% Risk Deduction Value to Account for Political, Environment and Natural Risks That May Occur And Cause a Release of the Carbon Benefit 20% Leakage Deduction Value to Account for the Displaced Activity Occurring Elsewhere

21 5% Model Uncertainty Value to Account for the Errors or Omissions in the Calculation of the Gross Carbon Benefit Total Project Net Carbon Benefit (Net of HWP, Leakage, Permanence, Uncertainty) Total Project Net Carbon Benefit (tco2e) Annual Net Project Carbon Benefit: Year Annual Project Carbon Benefit (tco2e) tco2e Pathway 2 annual emission reductions Year

22 APPENDIX 4: PROPERTY TITLE TITLE SEARCH PRINT , 11:39:50 File Reference: Requestor: Sean MacDonald Declared Value $ **CURRENT INFORMATION ONLY - NO CANCELLED INFORMATION SHOWN** Land Title District Land Title Office Title Number From Title Number NEW WESTMINSTER NEW WESTMINSTER CA CA Application Received Application Entered Registered Owner in Fee Simple Registered Owner/Mailing Address: Taxation Authority GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT 4330 KINGSWAY BURNABY, BC V5H 4G8 MUNICIPALITY OF MAPLE RIDGE Description of Land Parcel Identifier: Legal Description: LOT 3 SECTION 17 TOWNSHIP 15 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN Legal Notations Charges, Liens and Interests Duplicate Indefeasible Title Transfers Pending Applications NONE NONE NONE OUTSTANDING NONE NONE

23 APPENDIX 5: PROJECT PLAN TEMPLATE (OPTION 1 PROJECTS) Project Proponent Information Name of Local Government Project Proponent(s) Project Designate appointed to sign off on Project Plan Project Contact Provide the name of the local government(s) involved in the project and that will be claiming GHG reductions from the project under Option 1. Metro Vancouver Provide the name, phone and of the Project Designate duly authorized and having the legal capacity to sign off on this Template Name: Roger Quan Title: Director, Air Quality and Climate Change Phone: roger.quan@metrovancouver.org Provide a Project Contact name if different from above Name: Conor Reynolds Title: Senior Project Engineer, Planning, Policy & Environment Department Phone: conor.reynolds@metrovancouver.org Project Information Project title Option 1 Project Profile Project description and objectives Provide project title Lane Property: Avoided Forest Conversion Project Confirm which Option 1 project and project profile you are implementing. Check only one per Project Plan Template submitted: Project 1A: Low Emission Vehicles Project 1B: Energy Efficient Building Retrofits and Fuel Switching Project 1C: Solar Thermal Project 1D: Household Organic Waste Composting Project 1E: Avoided Forest Conversion Project (AFCP) Briefly summarize the project in terms of what, where, how when and why (max 4-5 sentences or bullets). This AFCP carbon project was initiated to confirm and quantify the GHG benefit of Metro Vancouver s acquisition of the Lane Property in the District of Maple Ridge. The property comprises 4.69 ha of forested land that would otherwise have been subdivided and purchased and cleared by a private landowners. The land will be added to the Kanaka Creek Regional Park, with the GHG benefits being claimed by Metro Vancouver. Both Pathway 1 and Pathway 2 options were explored and are detailed in the project report. Project co-benefits (Optional) Beyond the reducing GHG emissions, describe any anticipated community and/or sustainability co-benefits that this project will provide (e.g., energy cost savings, stimulation of the local economy through green job growth, foster technological innovation, raise public awareness of climate change/energy conservation)

24 Project start date Indicate the project start date: December Project Transparency: Accountability and Reporting Scope Counted Once Measurement (For Project 1E: AFCPs only) The Project Designate certifies that the project outlined in this Project Plan is outside the LG (local government) corporate emissions boundary (as defined in the Carbon Neutral Workbook), within the local government s jurisdiction and BC, as per the Project Eligibility Requirements outlined in Appendix 1 of the Becoming Carbon Neutral guidebook. The GHG reductions claimed from this project under the Carbon Neutral Framework have not been, and will not be, committed or sold as an emission reduction under any other alternate emission-offset scheme, as per the Project Eligibility Requirements outlined in Appendix 1 of the Becoming Carbon Neutral guidebook. The Project Designate certifies that in the case of a Project 1E: Avoided Forest Conversion Project (AFCP) the eligible projects lands are owned by the local government and have been reserved or dedicated as park under section 30 of the Community Charter after the initial signing of the Climate Action Charter in 2007, and that a Forest Management Plan, to be updated every 10 years or more frequently, must be in place within six months of making public the first completed annual Self-Certification Template. Ownership The local government proponent(s) claiming emission reductions from the Option 1 project outlined in this Project Plan have exclusive right to the legal and commercial benefits that arise from the GHG reductions from the Option 1 project, as per the Project Eligibility Requirements outlined in Appendix 1 of the Becoming Carbon Neutral guidebook. Verification BAU Reports The Project Designate understands that he/she will be required to sign off the annual Verification Template Report for this project to verify that the estimated GHG reductions from this project actually occurred during the year in which they will be claimed, as per the Project Eligibility Requirements outlined in Appendix 1 of the Becoming Carbon Neutral guidebook. The Project Designate certifies that the Project meets Beyond Business as Usual (BAU) requirements a, b and c as per the GCC Project Eligibility Requirements outlined in Appendix 1 of the Becoming Carbon Neutral guidebook. If the Project referred to in this Project Plan is an Option 1, Avoided Forest Conversion Project, the Project Designates certifies that in addition, the AFCP meets criteria d of the BAU requirements. The Project Designate, is aware of the public reporting requirements under the Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP) and that after January 1, 2012, the CARIP reports will be revised to include information on total annual corporate emissions, the reductions being claimed from GHG projects undertaken under the Carbon Neutral Framework (Option 1 and 2), and purchased offsets (Option 3) in order demonstrate carbon neutrality for any given year, as the Project Eligibility Requirements outlined in Appendix 1 of the Becoming Carbon Neutral guidebook.

25 Project Plan: Authorization and Sign Off Project Designate The information provided in this Project Plan, including the accountability and reporting requirements, is to the best of my knowledge correct and complete. May 31, 2017 Designate Signature Date Roger Quan, Director, Air Quality and Climate Change

26 APPENDIX 6: GREEN COMMUNITIES FRAMEWORK SELF- CERTIFICATION FORM FOR OPTION 1 PROJECT LANE PROPERTY AVOIDED FOREST CONVERSION PROJECT Project Proponent Information Project Proponent(s) Project Designate appointed to sign off on the Self- Certification Template Project Contact Provide the name of the local government(s) involved in the project and claiming GHG reductions from the project described in this Template: Metro Vancouver Provide the name, phone and of the Project Designate duly authorized and having the legal capacity to sign off on this Template Name: Roger Quan Title: Director, Air Quality and Climate Change Phone: roger.quan@metrovancouver.org Provide a Project Contact name if different from above Name: Conor Reynolds Title: Senior Project Engineer, Planning, Policy & Environment Department Phone: conor.reynolds@metrovancouver.org Project Information Project title Timing and Amount of reductions being claimed Certification that the required work occurred Provide project title and attach a copy of the original Project Plan previously made public. Lane Property: Avoided Forest Conversion Project Copy of Project Plan attached Indicate the amount of GHG reductions, expressed in tonnes, being claimed from the project and the timeframe during which the emission reductions being claimed occurred. Amount of GHG reductions: 466 tonnes Timeframe: From December 2, 2016 to December 31, 2016 I declare that the project work required to achieve the GHG reductions from this project as estimated by the project profile used, actually occurred during the year in which they are being claimed, as per the Project Eligibility Requirements outlined in Appendix 1 of the Becoming Carbon Neutral guidebook. Self-Certification Template: Authorization and Sign off Project Designate The information provided in this Self Certification Template is to the best of my knowledge correct and complete. May 31, 2017 Designate Signature Date Roger Quan, Director, Air Quality and Climate Change