Summary - Breakout Session B

Summary - Breakout Session B

“Carbon Sequestration Partnerships on Public Lands”

Question 1. What are the top three to five issues, challenges, or actions that you believe need to be addressed to more effectively promote carbon sequestration projects on public lands?

·  Education. Work is needed to educate the public about what carbon sequestration is and how projects are carried out. The “what” and “why” behind biological carbons sequestration on public lands. Clarify that the goals of biodiversity and habitat restoration are consistent with the agency’s mission and not “privatization of public goods.” Work is also needed to educate staff of agencies involved in carbon sequestration projects at all levels, particularly at the field level.

·  Transparency. More transparency to the public and staff as mentioned above when putting carbon sequestration projects together. Make information more readily available to interested parties. Compile central database on all carbon sequestration projects regionally and nationally with project specific information and maps.

·  Accountability. Provide assurances that biodiversity and habitat restoration are primary goals with additional ecosystem services, such as endangered species, erosion control, air and water quality, etc, also resulting from carbon sequestration projects. Provide a means to measure success at achieving these goals. Additional assurances to carbon investor that carbon sequestration is also a goal.

·  Policy. Clarify whether or not public agencies have policy guidance for biological carbon sequestration projects, and consider how to improve existing policy.

·  Additionality. Define additionality as it may or may not relate to restoration of public lands, i.e., would acquisition and/or restoration of carbon lands have occurred if the project was not completed?

·  Validation. Some carbon registries require an easement for validation of carbon credits. Need to be sure a project without an easement, for example using a Memorandum of Agreement, will allow carbon investors to validate their claimed carbon credits. Seeking validation also increases the cost of biological carbon sequestration projects.

Question 2. What are the top 3 to 5 reasons to participate in carbon sequestration projects on public land vs. private land?

·  Permanence. Long term management of restored lands is considered to be assured on lands that are owned and managed by a public agency with wildlife and/or natural resource protection as mission goals. This provides a high level of comfort to the carbon investor that the project lands will be protected and managed in a way that will promote carbon sequestration.

·  Resource goals. Agencies or bureaus with primary mission goals that focus on habitat restoration and management provide this permanence. Even those agencies or bureaus that do not focus primarily on habitat restoration (for example Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, or others); may have “conservation” or “wilderness” areas that would provide this assurance.

·  Expertise. Those agencies or bureaus which own and manage lands for the purposes of habitat restoration and/or management are staffed with land managers, biologist and research scientists that provide professional oversight on a day to day basis. This expertise is well established in most cases at the field level and is part of a larger community of land managers and scientists charged with land management. This institutional knowledge and experience becomes part of any carbon sequestration project on public lands.

·  Common goals. Habitat restoration and management promotes biological carbon sequestration. Other ecological services such as biodiversity, air and water quality, and others are also realized. These goals are common to all partners.

·  Continuity of management. Carbon sequestration lands that are brought into a network of existing managed lands will, in many cases, be managed under a clearly defined management plan that guides restoration and management efforts.

·  Public relations. All of the above provide a background for promoting biological carbon sequestration projects on public lands as a way of combating global warming with the additional benefit of restoring and protecting vital fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. In areas where endangered species occur, this aspect can also be promoted. In addition, carbon sequestration project lands that are open to the public for compatible uses provide added benefits such as hunting, fishing, bird-watching, and environmental education.

Question 3. What, if any, local, state, or federal requirements/restrictions make it difficult to interest your organization in carbon sequestration projects on public lands?

·  Appraisal Services Directorate (ASD). If acquired land is donated, no appraisal is required. However, if the acquired land is purchased by a Department of the Interior bureau, then an ASD approved appraisal is required. The excessive length of time needed to receive an approved appraisal from ASD makes it difficult to complete a project in a timely manner.

·  Solicitor’s opinion. There has been regional variation in Solicitor’s opinions related to carbon sequestration projects. There should be a national cohesiveness to Solicitor guidance related to any aspect of carbon sequestration projects requiring legal overview (memoranda of agreement, easements, title, closing, etc.).

·  Plant species availability. Capacities of sources for desired species (type, number, and time of delivery) may be limited in some areas. In cases where native species are not available, optimum restoration goals may not be achieved. Source and type of plant species needs to be considered as well as whether or not to use “fast-growing” species, i.e., genetically altered species (“super-trees”) or fast-growing natives species (for example cottonwoods vs. oaks in bottomland hardwood forest).

·  No easement. Validation of carbon credits without an easement may be difficult. A mechanism is needed to allow validation when a memorandum of agreement is used.

Question 4. What are some specific actions public agencies can take to increase interest in carbon sequestration projects on public lands (List your top 3 to 5)?

·  Institutionalize. Carbon sequestration projects are well established in bottomland hardwood forest habitats in the southeastern United States. Projects are less well developed or non-existent in other parts of the country and in other habitat types. By institutionalizing the knowledge and experience within and between Federal agencies and bureaus, these projects can more easily be developed in other parts of the county and in other habitat types. At a state level, sharing knowledge and experience between states and between states and Federal agencies will also facilitate this process.

·  New Partners. Seeking new and varied partners from industry, business, and non-governmental organizations could increase the number and distribution of carbon projects nationally as well as helping to expand these projects into multiple habitat types.

·  Scientific methodology. Research has been conducted by the U.S. Geological Service and other agencies and organizations. Sharing this knowledge within and between research groups should be promoted in order to provide consistency in scientific methodology.

·  Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS). Specific to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an effort to include “biological carbon sequestration potential” or “habitat restoration potential” in the LAPS evaluations would give these projects added value.

Question 5. Rank the following in order of importance (the list shows the ranking by the breakout group):

1 - Assuring high quality habitat restoration on public land.

2 - Assuring long term management of carbon lands by a third party.

3 - Maximizing carbon sequestered (carbon credits) per dollar invested.

3 - Regular monitoring and measuring of carbon sequestered, biodiversity and other ecological services.

3 - Certification of carbon projects.

Question 6. Describe the “ideal” carbon sequestration project on public lands, i.e., size, location, current land use, target habitat restoration, partners and roles of partners (including which local, State, or Federal agency), instrument for retaining carbon rights, etc. (not necessarily in order of importance).

·  Restoration is needed and desired by the public agency (high biological value).

·  Connecting fragmented habitats or otherwise located in a strategic location.

·  Marginal lands not important for agriculture.

·  Low land cost.

·  Multiple partners.

·  High Tons of CO2 sequestered per dollar invested.

·  Highly resilient habitat with low risk of drought, wildfire (unless part of system) or other catastrophic setback to habitat development.

·  Use of a variety of native species.

·  Endangered species benefits.

·  Multiple ecosystem services realized (in addition to habitat restoration and carbon).

·  Minimal legal and bureaucratic process.

·  Registry “permanence” satisfied (easement or acceptable Memorandum of Agreement).

·  Available funding for project.